Beasts of the Mesozoic Accuracy Check

[Dobber]

I disagree with everyone in this thread, I love when extinct animals use modern animals for inspiration. Many modern birds have such interesting colors and patterns that are leagues ahead of anything the human mind can think up, and the modern analogies help me imagine them as regular animals instead of "special" monsters or beasts.

"Everyone" I never said I didn't like it?

Chris

[tyrantqueen]

I actually agree that copying modern animals is lazy (imo). What are the chances that that particular pattern/colouration would have appeared in the exact same form on an entirely different species? I don't mind some influence, but copy pasting the exact same colouration from an extant species (like Silva seems to be doing here) is just boring to me.

[Silvanusaurus]

I don't really get what the issue is with the modern bird colouring. Given that the colours of the real animals are completely unknown, and possibly even unimaginable, the colours of these figures could only ever be chosen for their aesthetic value. It isn't as though David has tried to guess what the real colours would have been, and has been lazy about it because he used pre-existing schemes. Extant birds have beautiful colouration and patterning, which as Appalachiosaurus said, are often much more appealing and interesting than what one of us could come up with in our heads. If you accept that we have no idea what colour these animals were, then these colours are no more or less likely than any scheme David could have invented himself, in fact I find the fact that they exist within nature already, makes them look significantly more 'natural' than something drawn purely from the imagination. I can't see any way in which this takes anything away from the aesthetic quality of the figures, all that really matters is whether it's cohesive and ultimately, whether it looks good or not to you, and to me, the colours on most of these look fantastic, which is the most I could really ask for.
It seems like picking a problem out where there doesn't need to be one, and if it's such a problem that it invalidates the figures for you, it feels suggestive that your opinion of the figures wasn't very high in the first place, which is perfectly fine.
Personally I really don't like the colour scheme on the Zhenyuanlong, the reason being that I just don't like the colour scheme on the Zhenyuanlong, it doesn't sit well on the figure to my eyes. But there are many other options with colours that I love, and I'd honestly say these have some of the best colouring of any Dinosaur figures I've ever seen, and I'd gladly encourage these kinds of colour schemes in future. 

[Halichoeres]

That's a fair point that these schemes are no less likely than anything else he could have chosen. And for the most part these paint jobs are undeniably attractive.

[Nanuqsaurus]

I love it when artists take inspiration from modern animals when reconstructing dinosaurs. It makes them look like actual animals, not JP style monsters. Of course it's not very likely that dinosaurs had the exact same colors as modern birds, but it sure does look beautiful on these raptors!

[The Atroxious]

I don't really get what the issue is with the modern bird colouring. Given that the colours of the real animals are completely unknown, and possibly even unimaginable, the colours of these figures could only ever be chosen for their aesthetic value. It isn't as though David has tried to guess what the real colours would have been, and has been lazy about it because he used pre-existing schemes. Extant birds have beautiful colouration and patterning, which as Appalachiosaurus said, are often much more appealing and interesting than what one of us could come up with in our heads. If you accept that we have no idea what colour these animals were, then these colours are no more or less likely than any scheme David could have invented himself, in fact I find the fact that they exist within nature already, makes them look significantly more 'natural' than something drawn purely from the imagination. I can't see any way in which this takes anything away from the aesthetic quality of the figures, all that really matters is whether it's cohesive and ultimately, whether it looks good or not to you, and to me, the colours on most of these look fantastic, which is the most I could really ask for.
It seems like picking a problem out where there doesn't need to be one, and if it's such a problem that it invalidates the figures for you, it feels suggestive that your opinion of the figures wasn't very high in the first place, which is perfectly fine.
Personally I really don't like the colour scheme on the Zhenyuanlong, the reason being that I just don't like the colour scheme on the Zhenyuanlong, it doesn't sit well on the figure to my eyes. But there are many other options with colours that I love, and I'd honestly say these have some of the best colouring of any Dinosaur figures I've ever seen, and I'd gladly encourage these kinds of colour schemes in future.

Personally, my problem with it is that whenever I look at the figures, the colors are very distracting. I have a hard time seeing them as believable dromaeosaurs and kin, because I associate the colors with modern birds. It gives a sort of uncanny valley effect, I suppose. Moreover, since I collect bird figures, pictures, and decorations, it becomes exceptionally obvious that the color schemes are copied. I'm used to seeing those colors paired with the anatomy of the modern bird they belong to, and seeing those colors on dromaeosaur kin feels jarring. Imagine if you collected both dog toys and cat toys, and someone came out with the most anatomically accurate, detailed, and well-articulated line of dog toys ever made, only the creator gave these dogs tiger stripes and lion manes and leopard spots. Sure, you could argue that they're closely related, both being members of the order carnivora, and those colors are technically possible on dogs, but it just looks weird to you. Moreover, since you collect cat toys as well, you'd have dogs that look almost exactly like your cats in fur color and style, which makes your cats look less distinct.

Hopefully that explains my ambivalence toward this line a bit better.

[Silvanusaurus]

Personally, my problem with it is that whenever I look at the figures, the colors are very distracting. I have a hard time seeing them as believable dromaeosaurs and kin, because I associate the colors with modern birds. It gives a sort of uncanny valley effect, I suppose. Moreover, since I collect bird figures, pictures, and decorations, it becomes exceptionally obvious that the color schemes are copied. I'm used to seeing those colors paired with the anatomy of the modern bird they belong to, and seeing those colors on dromaeosaur kin feels jarring. Imagine if you collected both dog toys and cat toys, and someone came out with the most anatomically accurate, detailed, and well-articulated line of dog toys ever made, only the creator gave these dogs tiger stripes and lion manes and leopard spots. Sure, you could argue that they're closely related, both being members of the order carnivora, and those colors are technically possible on dogs, but it just looks weird to you. Moreover, since you collect cat toys as well, you'd have dogs that look almost exactly like your cats in fur color and style, which makes your cats look less distinct.

Hopefully that explains my ambivalence toward this line a bit better.

To be fair, the cat/dog analogy is quite different, in that the integument patterns of both of those are well known, whereas nobody knows what they were on these dromaeosaurs (yet), so it's not as though there is a measure of accuracy that can be used to evaluate these colour schemes.
However, I see that it's a subject you have much more personal investment and experience in than me, and I may well feel the same way, were I in your shoes. I have had lots of experience myself with having an extensive knowledge and appreciation for a specific subject, and finding it incredibly frustrating and irritating to see that subject used in a way, that from the perspective granted by that knowledge, is anachronistic or superficial. It can sometimes feel like knowing a lot about something makes it much more difficult to enjoy any kind of pop culture that attempts to explore it. For me, more than dinosaurs, that subject is ancient british history and mythology, so I can barely stand watching many of the films, tv shows, etc. that get produced around those themes, due to the commonly flippant and shallow way in which they usually manifest. Which I imagine must be vaguely similar to how you may feel about this situation. 
I hope there are at least one or two of these figures that you don't find grating, as I reckon they will be worth enjoying if theres a way around the colouration issue.

[The Atroxious]

To be fair, the cat/dog analogy is quite different, in that the integument patterns of both of those are well known, whereas nobody knows what they were on these dromaeosaurs (yet), so it's not as though there is a measure of accuracy that can be used to evaluate these colour schemes.
However, I see that it's a subject you have much more personal investment and experience in than me, and I may well feel the same way, were I in your shoes. I have had lots of experience myself with having an extensive knowledge and appreciation for a specific subject, and finding it incredibly frustrating and irritating to see that subject used in a way, that from the perspective granted by that knowledge, is anachronistic or superficial. It can sometimes feel like knowing a lot about something makes it much more difficult to enjoy any kind of pop culture that attempts to explore it. For me, more than dinosaurs, that subject is ancient british history and mythology, so I can barely stand watching many of the films, tv shows, etc. that get produced around those themes, due to the commonly flippant and shallow way in which they usually manifest. Which I imagine must be vaguely similar to how you may feel about this situation. 
I hope there are at least one or two of these figures that you don't find grating, as I reckon they will be worth enjoying if theres a way around the colouration issue.

True, we do not know the plumage of any members of the main line (I'm not counting Microraptor as part of the main line) so technically speaking, we have no proof that, for instance, Saurornitholestes didn't look like a secretarybird, but I believe my analogy still holds up considering that even so, the animals depicted in this toy line are even more distantly related to the birds they are modeled after than cats and dogs are from one another. No other mammal has patterning like a tiger's. Zebras come the closest, but the color and fur texture is notably different. Even the stripes on Felis cats don't look like the stripes on a tiger. Some animals have very distinctive, unique coloration due to a number of factors, some of which we cannot fully explain. Perhaps a more level analogy would be if there was a gorgeously sculpted Pakicetus figure given the same fur as a tiger, including the ruff around the jaw and the spots behind the ears. Sure, you could argue that we have no way of knowing that Pakicetus did not have tiger fur, and since they're both mammals it's better than giving it birdlike patterns, but it just seems off to give a whale/hippo relative tiger fur. Keep in mind that, aside from Balaur, none of these animals were even birds; they're all sister taxa. All the birds the plumage was taken from are designed for a decidedly different lifestyle than the dinosaurs in the line, which were large, and semi-arboreal at best, compared to the significantly smaller, flight capable, and in some cases, insectivorous birds they were based on. I sincerely doubt Velociraptor soared high in the sky to drop bones on the rocks below, the way a bearded vulture does. I doubt that Linheraptor's diet consisted primarily of stinging insects, caught while flying past the dinosaur's perch like a bee eater. I doubt that Acheroraptor flew above the sea, looking for fish, diving steeply into the water to catch them like a blue footed booby.

That said, I do like the Balaur figure, as I have said, and find it to be completely unobjectionable (incidentally, it's also my personal favorite type of dinosaur in this selection). I also find the Dromaeosaurus and Pyroraptor to be quite nice. I was excited about Adasaurus, but at the same time, it could look a bit too falcony for my tastes. It's just a shame about Velociraptor. I want it for its sculpting, and overall trademark Velociraptor charm, but I'm very reluctant to shell out for it.

[Silvanusaurus]

True, we do not know the plumage of any members of the main line (I'm not counting Microraptor as part of the main line) so technically speaking, we have no proof that, for instance, Saurornitholestes didn't look like a secretarybird, but I believe my analogy still holds up considering that even so, the animals depicted in this toy line are even more distantly related to the birds they are modeled after than cats and dogs are from one another. No other mammal has patterning like a tiger's. Zebras come the closest, but the color and fur texture is notably different. Even the stripes on Felis cats don't look like the stripes on a tiger. Some animals have very distinctive, unique coloration due to a number of factors, some of which we cannot fully explain. Perhaps a more level analogy would be if there was a gorgeously sculpted Pakicetus figure given the same fur as a tiger, including the ruff around the jaw and the spots behind the ears. Sure, you could argue that we have no way of knowing that Pakicetus did not have tiger fur, and since they're both mammals it's better than giving it birdlike patterns, but it just seems off to give a whale/hippo relative tiger fur. Keep in mind that, aside from Balaur, none of these animals were even birds; they're all sister taxa. All the birds the plumage was taken from are designed for a decidedly different lifestyle than the dinosaurs in the line, which were large, and semi-arboreal at best, compared to the significantly smaller, flight capable, and in some cases, insectivorous birds they were based on. I sincerely doubt Velociraptor soared high in the sky to drop bones on the rocks below, the way a bearded vulture does. I doubt that Linheraptor's diet consisted primarily of stinging insects, caught while flying past the dinosaur's perch like a bee eater. I doubt that Acheroraptor flew above the sea, looking for fish, diving steeply into the water to catch them like a blue footed booby.

I feel like I understand better now why it's a problematic design choice, and not ideal when thorough authenticity is the goal.
I am wondering, would it be enough for the colour schemes to simply be totally original, with no direct emulation of anything in extant nature, but with no boundaries other than the artist's imagination?
Or would it be more important to base the colours very specifically on what is known of the environment and lifestyle of the animal, imagining what colours and patterns it would most likely develop to suit what is known of that context, but only basing it on what can be palaeontologically deduced, and so ruling out anything too 'experimental', for which there is no direct evidence?

[stargatedalek]

All of this being said Microraptor and Archaeopteryx are both eerily similar to modern birds, so some of the more "generic" palettes among these (like Acheroraptor and Dromaeosaurus) are definitely plausible. Some of the more distinctive ones however like Linheraptor or Saurornitholestes aren't very plausible in comparison.

[The Atroxious]

I feel like I understand better now why it's a problematic design choice, and not ideal when thorough authenticity is the goal.
I am wondering, would it be enough for the colour schemes to simply be totally original, with no direct emulation of anything in extant nature, but with no boundaries other than the artist's imagination?
Or would it be more important to base the colours very specifically on what is known of the environment and lifestyle of the animal, imagining what colours and patterns it would most likely develop to suit what is known of that context, but only basing it on what can be palaeontologically deduced, and so ruling out anything too 'experimental', for which there is no direct evidence?

Not being an ecologist, I probably wouldn't be able to critique design choices that didn't strictly adhere to what is likely in any given environment, but if I knew a particular dinosaur lived in scrubland, for example, I'd probably wonder at its being given colors that are usually only found on tropical animals. I don't think it would bother me quite as much as plumage from one animal seemingly being stuck on the body of another, very distantly-related animal with completely different anatomy, though.

Saying "no boundaries other than the artist's imagination" though is perhaps taking it a bit too far. Ideally, when designing a feathered animal, the artist should have at least some idea how feathers affect patterns. Birds, for instance, cannot have the same "ticked" look mammals can, which is caused by each hair having bands of different colors. Mammals, on the other hand, do not exhibit scalloped patterns the way birds do, because of the way pigment can be distributed over the wide surface area of a feather. Beyond that, I'm pretty open to most ideas concerning the dinosaurs for which we have little to no evidence of specifics in plumage.

[Silvanusaurus]

Not being an ecologist, I probably wouldn't be able to critique design choices that didn't strictly adhere to what is likely in any given environment, but if I knew a particular dinosaur lived in scrubland, for example, I'd probably wonder at its being given colors that are usually only found on tropical animals. I don't think it would bother me quite as much as plumage from one animal seemingly being stuck on the body of another, very distantly-related animal with completely different anatomy, though.

Saying "no boundaries other than the artist's imagination" though is perhaps taking it a bit too far. Ideally, when designing a feathered animal, the artist should have at least some idea how feathers affect patterns. Birds, for instance, cannot have the same "ticked" look mammals can, which is caused by each hair having bands of different colors. Mammals, on the other hand, do not exhibit scalloped patterns the way birds do, because of the way pigment can be distributed over the wide surface area of a feather. Beyond that, I'm pretty open to most ideas concerning the dinosaurs for which we have little to no evidence of specifics in plumage.

The points you've raised are actually very helpful, for my consideration of painting my own figures in future.  Thank you.

[btb300]

I feel like I understand better now why it's a problematic design choice, and not ideal when thorough authenticity is the goal.
I am wondering, would it be enough for the colour schemes to simply be totally original, with no direct emulation of anything in extant nature, but with no boundaries other than the artist's imagination?
Or would it be more important to base the colours very specifically on what is known of the environment and lifestyle of the animal, imagining what colours and patterns it would most likely develop to suit what is known of that context, but only basing it on what can be palaeontologically deduced, and so ruling out anything too 'experimental', for which there is no direct evidence?

Not being an ecologist, I probably wouldn't be able to critique design choices that didn't strictly adhere to what is likely in any given environment, but if I knew a particular dinosaur lived in scrubland, for example, I'd probably wonder at its being given colors that are usually only found on tropical animals. I don't think it would bother me quite as much as plumage from one animal seemingly being stuck on the body of another, very distantly-related animal with completely different anatomy, though.

Saying "no boundaries other than the artist's imagination" though is perhaps taking it a bit too far. Ideally, when designing a feathered animal, the artist should have at least some idea how feathers affect patterns. Birds, for instance, cannot have the same "ticked" look mammals can, which is caused by each hair having bands of different colors. Mammals, on the other hand, do not exhibit scalloped patterns the way birds do, because of the way pigment can be distributed over the wide surface area of a feather. Beyond that, I'm pretty open to most ideas concerning the dinosaurs for which we have little to no evidence of specifics in plumage.

Now I am pretty curious aout what you think of the work of Emily Willoughby, Matt Martyniuk, Jason Brougham. Can you spot similar copying (I don't reaaly habe enough knowledge of birds to spot them)? I think that direct copying can and should be avoided. While it is good to have inspiration from today's birds, it should be mostly by learning about how feather types and structures, pigmentation, diet, lifestyle etc. affect the colors and patterns, and use that information to create unique, but credible appearance for extinct species.

[The Atroxious]

Now I am pretty curious aout what you think of the work of Emily Willoughby, Matt Martyniuk, Jason Brougham. Can you spot similar copying (I don't reaaly habe enough knowledge of birds to spot them)? I think that direct copying can and should be avoided. While it is good to have inspiration from today's birds, it should be mostly by learning about how feather types and structures, pigmentation, diet, lifestyle etc. affect the colors and patterns, and use that information to create unique, but credible appearance for extinct species.

Actually, I think those artists are very good at depicting believable, attractive plumage on their theropods. There is some referencing from extant species that I can spot, particularly in Willoughby's work, but it's not too blatant since she doesn't reference the plumage of only a single bird. It's more like she references a certain pattern or patch of color for one part of the body, but also uses different types of birds to reference the other parts. Moreover, the feathering on her dromaeosaurs seems to be very plausible for animals that are primarily large, terrestrial hunters.

[Sim]

For the Beasts of the Mesozoic series, the colourations are strongly inspired by those of extant birds, rather than being copied exactly.  I think this is an important distinction that is being overlooked.

Only two dromaeosaurids have known colouration.  Microraptor has been found to be covered in iridescent black feathers much like some extant birds.  This shows that dromaeosaurids could have very similar plumage to extant birds, at least with more 'generic' colouration.  The colours of Sinornithosaurus have been found to be reddish-brown, yellow, black and grey, which were spread around its body.  Sinornithosaurus's colouration sounds similar to that of the Beasts of the Mesozoic Velociraptor mongoliensis!

Comparing the Velociraptor to the bearded vulture shows the figure's colouration isn't an exact copy of the bird's. 
  (image source)
  (image source)

There are many differences.  Excluding the wings, the Velociraptor appears to lack the white found on the bearded vulture, being more yellow or red instead.  The light colouration on the wing is arranged differently.  The dark and light colouration pattern on the wings stops at the body on the Velociraptor, while on the bearded vulture it continues on the body.  The black band across the eyes is differently shaped.  The Velociraptor doesn't have the protruding beard feathers.  The scaly feet also look quite a bit darker on the Velociraptor.

If one finds the colouration/plumage of this or any of the other figures still too similar to that of the extant bird that inspired it, that's understandable.  I find some of the figures look better or more plausible than others.  I don't find the plumage colouration of the figures being inspired by that of extant birds a problem since they aren't being copied exactly.  I actually find the Velociraptor figure's colouration one of the best and most plausible in this series.  It's quite a bit different to that of its bird inspiration, and it looks like a good fit for its lifestyle.

I have also learnt that convergent evolution can achieve more than one might expect for colouration!  There's an extant animal which has very similar colouration to a bearded vulture, and of all things it's a mammal!  Grey fox:
  (image source)

[The Atroxious]

For the Beasts of the Mesozoic series, the colourations are strongly inspired by those of extant birds, rather than being copied exactly.  I think this is an important distinction that is being overlooked.

Only two dromaeosaurids have known colouration.  Microraptor has been found to be covered in iridescent black feathers much like some extant birds.  This shows that dromaeosaurids could have very similar plumage to extant birds, at least with more 'generic' colouration.  The colours of Sinornithosaurus have been found to be reddish-brown, yellow, black and grey, which were spread around its body.  Sinornithosaurus's colouration sounds similar to that of the Beasts of the Mesozoic Velociraptor mongoliensis!

Comparing the Velociraptor to the bearded vulture shows the figure's colouration isn't an exact copy of the bird's. 
  (image source)
  (image source)

There are many differences.  Excluding the wings, the Velociraptor appears to lack the white found on the bearded vulture, being more yellow or red instead.  The light colouration on the wing is arranged differently.  The dark and light colouration pattern on the wings stops at the body on the Velociraptor, while on the bearded vulture it continues on the body.  The black band across the eyes is differently shaped.  The Velociraptor doesn't have the protruding beard feathers.  The scaly feet also look quite a bit darker on the Velociraptor.

If one finds the colouration/plumage of this or any of the other figures still too similar to that of the extant bird that inspired it, that's understandable.  I find some of the figures look better or more plausible than others.  I don't find the plumage colouration of the figures being inspired by that of extant birds a problem since they aren't being copied exactly.  I actually find the Velociraptor figure's colouration one of the best and most plausible in this series.  It's quite a bit different to that of its bird inspiration, and it looks like a good fit for its lifestyle.

The thing is, bearded vultures are naturally black and white, but they gain their orangey coloration from the dust in their environment staining their feathers, which leads to a wide range of colors for the birds, from very pale, to orange like the Velociraptor figure, to a greyish red.



That individual in particular is very close to the Velociraptor's colors. Beard or not, and regardless of the color of the feet, it's immediately obvious what bird the Velociraptor is supposed to be, which is off-putting.

Perhaps I wouldn't have minded so much if Silva had made Velociraptor orange, without the black wings and mask. Alternatively, just get rid of the mask and change the eye color (which I'll point out now is exactly the same as the eye color of bearded vultures) and I think the figure would be vastly improved even though the changes would be very minor.

Anyway, since you brought it up, why do you think the coloration is a good match for Velociraptor? As far as I'm aware, there's evidence that Velociraptor was nocturnal, which would make bright colors and visual display features disadvantageous.

I have also learnt that convergent evolution can achieve more than one might expect for colouration!  There's an extant animal which has very similar colouration to a bearded vulture, and of all things it's a mammal!  Grey fox:
  (image source)

The fox also has a grey face, vertical stripe on its muzzle, black stripe down its back, white underside, and brown eyes. The colors are the same, but the patterning is different, as is the ratio between the colors. The patterns and color ratios on the Velociraptor are far more similar to that of the bearded vulture than to that of the grey fox.

[Silvanusaurus]

The thing is, bearded vultures are naturally black and white, but they gain their orangey coloration from the dust in their environment staining their feathers, which leads to a wide range of colors for the birds, from very pale, to orange like the Velociraptor figure, to a greyish red.

I just want to pick up on that point as it's very interesting. Do other animals living in that same environment also become stained with colour? I like the idea of an animal taking on an aspect of it's own landscape. Is it purely accidental or is it some kind of camouflage technique?

[Mamasaurus]

Honestly, I don't mind too much if the color schemes copy extant birds. Would it be nice (and more creative in a sense) if he had taken inspiration instead of copy pasting the pattern? Yes. I won't deny that.

But even though I would personally prefer an original pattern inspired by nature, it's definitely not a deal breaker for me. In fact, it's pretty refreshing to see such vibrant patterns on dinosaurs instead of the usual unimaginative brown or green + generic stripes or spots.

The obvious (and easily recognizable) bird patterns can also be used to teach.  There are many people who don't know the relationship between birds and dinosaurs, and many people who don't know the sheer diversity of birds.  Part of the importance of dinosaurs is that they are real animals, and they can lead people to discover the wonder of the world around us.

With the bird patterns as obvious as they are, we can point people to that bird. It can inspire interest for the earth as it is today, while a completely invented pattern would not. 

[Appalachiosaurus]

The thing is, bearded vultures are naturally black and white, but they gain their orangey coloration from the dust in their environment staining their feathers, which leads to a wide range of colors for the birds, from very pale, to orange like the Velociraptor figure, to a greyish red.

I just want to pick up on that point as it's very interesting. Do other animals living in that same environment also become stained with colour? I like the idea of an animal taking on an aspect of it's own landscape. Is it purely accidental or is it some kind of camouflage technique?

From what I read, they purposely spread the clay on themselves to seem attractive to the opposite sex.

[Tyto_Theropod]

I've somehow managed to completely miss this whole thing! As I'm late to the party, is there any chance that I might get a figure which is NOT a resin kit but a nice, robust plastic model? As many have said, these are by light years the best Dromaeosaurid figures on the market and I would love to be able to own one.