CollectA New for 2017

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Psittacosaurus had quills, as we can verify from a single specimen, which might suggest a species or possibly sexual indicator or it may have been common to the entire genus.Enter triceratops Lane found with skin impressions which demonstrated large raised centers which might have served well for attachment points for large raised centers. Bob Bakker was attributed with suggesting given the psittacosaurus with quills and Lane...who knows right? The science in the argument is rather basic and suggests while it is possible future more derived ceratopsians may have possessed "modified scales" they almost certainly did not likely have quills. It is practiallly impossible to prove something did not exist...but you can establish just how likely it is.....
       A few problems with more derived ceratopsians having actual quills because psittacosaurus also did. We can look at the hands and feet...psittacosaurus had evolved away that troublesome extra digit leaving only four and yet animals like Triceratops and Styracosaurus retain the primitive condition with all five present. Another obvious flag....psittacosaurus has no extra fenestrae between the nose and eye, however all of the more derived ceratopsians retain this feature.These are primitive traits, and it is unlikely psittacosaurus evolved away from them only to  make a grand U turn and re-evolve them .......this suggest psittacosaurus and its quills were an evolutionary dead-end or at least were not in any form ancestral for more derived ceratopsians. Given this argument, you cannot use psittacosaurus as a valid argument for horse mane type intequment in more modern ceratopsians.Is it possible they evolved this trait uniquely somehow and had it? possible.....unlikely though. Might as well add them to sauropods, and stegosaurus as well. After all it is possible....

PS I will be getting the dimorphodon to display with my Guidraco...I like these models myself

[suspsy]

No No No...
Why? Why? Why?
Dimorphodon SUPREME version?
Are there any poorer choices?

What's wrong?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

No No No...
Why? Why? Why?
Dimorphodon SUPREME version?
Are there any poorer choices?

What's wrong?

Maybe a smaller 1:40 one was his preference?

[Dobber]

Man I love that Dimophodon so much I'm buying 5 of them!

Yeah, I really like it too.

Maybe a good half or full scale Microraptor next year? 

Chris

[Shonisaurus]

Man I love that Dimophodon so much I'm buying 5 of them!

Yeah, I really like it too.

Maybe a good half or full scale Microraptor next year? 

Chris

I do not dislike the microraptor but I prefer a more avant-garde figure in the style of Collecta un yi qi such as Supreme Deluxe.

On the other hand the dimorphodon of Collecta is a great figure that will be a good pair of my guidraco Supreme Deluxe.

This year has also been a great year for Collecta without a doubt.

[Sim]

Psittacosaurus had quills, as we can verify from a single specimen, which might suggest a species or possibly sexual indicator or it may have been common to the entire genus.Enter triceratops Lane found with skin impressions which demonstrated large raised centers which might have served well for attachment points for large raised centers. Bob Bakker was attributed with suggesting given the psittacosaurus with quills and Lane...who knows right? The science in the argument is rather basic and suggests while it is possible future more derived ceratopsians may have possessed "modified scales" they almost certainly did not likely have quills. It is practiallly impossible to prove something did not exist...but you can establish just how likely it is.....
       A few problems with more derived ceratopsians having actual quills because psittacosaurus also did. We can look at the hands and feet...psittacosaurus had evolved away that troublesome extra digit leaving only four and yet animals like Triceratops and Styracosaurus retain the primitive condition with all five present. Another obvious flag....psittacosaurus has no extra fenestrae between the nose and eye, however all of the more derived ceratopsians retain this feature.These are primitive traits, and it is unlikely psittacosaurus evolved away from them only to  make a grand U turn and re-evolve them .......this suggest psittacosaurus and its quills were an evolutionary dead-end or at least were not in any form ancestral for more derived ceratopsians. Given this argument, you cannot use psittacosaurus as a valid argument for horse mane type intequment in more modern ceratopsians.Is it possible they evolved this trait uniquely somehow and had it? possible.....unlikely though. Might as well add them to sauropods, and stegosaurus as well. After all it is possible....

Psittacosaurus is a ceratopsian, which means an ancestor it shares with other ceratopsians could have had filaments too.  This seems reasonably possible, if my understanding is correct that early ceratopsians were small and bipedal like Psittacosaurus, and there aren't skin impressions that contradict it.  If this was the case, other ceratopsians would have had filaments too, unless they lost them through evolution which is a possibility.

Stegosaurus isn't a ceratopsian, it isn't anywhere near as closely related to Psittacosaurus as other ceratopsians are.  Stegosaurus also has plates in the area where Psittacosaurus has filaments, so if Stegosaurus had filaments like those of Psittacosaurus it seems the plates and filaments would get in each other's way and hinder each other's functions.  Diplodocus is even more distantly related to Psittacosaurus, being a saurischian and not an ornithischian.  Diplodocus is more closely related to theropods than to Psittacosaurus or any other ornithischian.  If Stegosaurus or Diplodocus had dorsal tail filaments like Psittacosaurus, it also seems to me the filaments could interfere with functions achieved through the specialised flexibility in their tails.  In contrast, Psittacosaurus and other ceratopsians are much more closely related to each other, all being ceratopsians.  Ceratopsian tails also don't seem to be specialised like those of stegosaurians or diplodocids.

Due to what I've explained in this post, I think dorsal tail filaments on other ceratopsians is valid speculation.  I would be surprised if Psittacosaurus was the only ceratopsian genus with tail filaments and even the ceratopsians most similar to Psittacosaurus didn't have tail filaments.

I don't think I have a preference for whether non-Psittacosaurus ceratopsians are represented with or without tail filaments, since I think it could go either way.  My preference is for presence or absence of filaments on ceratopsians to be based on available evidence and consideration for what seems more likely.  I dislike it when the Psittacosaurus filaments are used to create arrangements/structures that are baseless speculation that don't seem to make sense.  Some examples below.  I think the artists of these images have done some great work.  I'm just expressing my thoughts about the integument of these ceratopsian reconstructions.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hell_Creek_dinosaurs_and_pterosaurs_by_durbed.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protoceratops_reconstruction.png
The filaments of Psittacosaurus are a clearly noticeable part of it, they are something that clearly had a purpose.  I find filaments like on the ceratopsians in these two images look terrible.  They remind me of the theropod reconstructions which are all scaly except for filaments on the arms and sometimes head.  To me this way of reconstructing theropods looks bad and doesn't make sense, and as far as I know there isn't any evidence to support it.  Same for these 'minimally' filamented ceratopsian reconstructions.  Why even give them filaments if they're going to look like this?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spiclypeus_NT_small.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops_new_BW.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops-000242.jpg
On these ceratopsian reconstructions which are all by one artist, their integument seems to be the result of combining two different things, the filaments of Psittacosaurus and the scales of Triceratops.  The resulting integument isn't known to exist and looks very different to known ceratopsian integument.  In the description of the first Triceratops image it says, "Triceratops new look according to recent discoveries of extensive fossilized skin impression".  I wonder if the artist even looked at those fossils, or just based the integument in their reconstruction on a misleading account of Triceratops's skin, since the integument of Triceratops looks like this: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html
In their more recent reconstruction of Triceratops (the third image out of the three above), the integument looks different but again doesn't look like the integument of Triceratops...

[suspsy]

Yeah, I'd rather like it if CollectA began experimenting with the arrangement of the butt fuzz, just like in those images Sim shared.

[Gwangi]

Regardless of how you feel about "butt fuzz" you have to admit that a derived ceratopsian probably wouldn't have quills in the exact spot as it's distant cousin Psittacosaurus. But that doesn't rule out some sort of integument for ceratopsians entirely. I too don't like the quills on the CollectA models but they aren't deal breakers for me. Some experimentation would be nice. I've always loved Mark Witton's Pachyrhinosaurus.

[tanystropheus]

Why didn't prehistoric hominids evolve to have 'butt fuzz'/quills? If the conditions (and contextual markers) were ripe...?

[Jose S.M.]

Those Pachyrhinosaurus look gorgeous!

[Halichoeres]

I also would have preferred a Dimorphodon in a smaller size, but it is nevertheless a really nice Dimorphodon.

Also not a fan of the CollectA sacral mohawks on the ceratopsians, and in most cases where there's another figure of the genus I'll choose that over the CollectA. But apart from that they really seem to have gotten good at ceratopsians.

[FlawedCoil82]

I don't know but that is why I am not a fan of the CollectA figures. I don't like the quills and they seem very impractical. I feel the same way about feathered TRex. I see no reason why a creature that large would need feathers. It seems like every new discovery/theory makes dinosaurs less and less cool. I recently saw an article where they claim dinosaurs chirped like birds instead of roaring. Ugh!

Science really doesn't care whether or not you approve of its findings.

Oh, I never said that they had to or even would care. I was just stating that if dinosaurs didnt look like the creatures I have been led to believe they were, then I will lose interest in them. I do not like birds at all (except owls) and they do not interest me. The primary reason I like Ceratopsians is because of the way they (supposedly) looked. Change their appearance to where they were feathered, quilled, furry, etc. and the visually pleasing aesthetic of them being large horned reptiles is ruined to my eyes. I wouldn't blame science if they found it to be fact; I would blame evolution for making them much less cool looking than they could have been. Evolution already failed miserably as far as I am concerned if it truly did trade a great, powerful looking beast like Tyrannosaurus for a pathetic modern day chicken. If anything, I see that as the ultimate opposite of evolution.

CollectA may very well be correct in making quilled Ceratopsians, but they alienate those of us who still hope to God that they really didnt have quills or feathers or hair (which is a shame since CollectA seem to concentrate on Ceratopsians more than other companies). I think until it is confirmed factual, they should make alternate versions without them as they are highly unattractive to me with the quills (just as the real animal would be). I wanted to get their big Triceratops they have but I didn't know of any way I could safely remove the fin of quills without damaging it (plus the snout looks a bit too long to me....for that price I would need the figure to be closer to my liking). If Ceratopsians really did have quills and all sculptors have to start making their figures to match that unfortunate finding, then the figures would no longer be able to represent creatures that I would find nearly as attractive to look at and admire as I do now.

[Rain]

I don't know but that is why I am not a fan of the CollectA figures. I don't like the quills and they seem very impractical. I feel the same way about feathered TRex. I see no reason why a creature that large would need feathers. It seems like every new discovery/theory makes dinosaurs less and less cool. I recently saw an article where they claim dinosaurs chirped like birds instead of roaring. Ugh!

Science really doesn't care whether or not you approve of its findings.

Oh, I never said that they had to or even would care. I was just stating that if dinosaurs didnt look like the creatures I have been led to believe they were, then I will lose interest in them. I do not like birds at all (except owls) and they do not interest me. The primary reason I like Ceratopsians is because of the way they (supposedly) looked. Change their appearance to where they were feathered, quilled, furry, etc. and the visually pleasing aesthetic of them being large horned reptiles is ruined to my eyes. I wouldn't blame science if they found it to be fact; I would blame evolution for making them much less cool looking than they could have been. Evolution already failed miserably as far as I am concerned if it truly did trade a great, powerful looking beast like Tyrannosaurus for a pathetic modern day chicken. If anything, I see that as the ultimate opposite of evolution.

Evolution doesn't necessarily make life "better" , it simply makes life better suited for survival within it's environment. So evolution didn't fail, it succeeded.

[suspsy]

I was just stating that if dinosaurs didnt look like the creatures I have been led to believe they were, then I will lose interest in them.

Led to believe by what? The Jurassic Park series? Our perception of dinosaurs has been constantly changing from the very beginning. They are living, breathing animals, not rampaging Hollywood monsters. If you don't accept them for what they really were, then you can't really call yourself a dinosaur fan any more than you can call yourself a shark fan or a gorilla fan if you think the Jaws and King Kong franchises are accurate depictions. 

I do not like birds at all (except owls) and they do not interest me.

What a shame then that birds are dinosaurs. 

I wouldn't blame science if they found it to be fact; I would blame evolution for making them much less cool looking than they could have been. Evolution already failed miserably as far as I am concerned if it truly did trade a great, powerful looking beast like Tyrannosaurus for a pathetic modern day chicken. If anything, I see that as the ultimate opposite of evolution.

If that's how you think evolution works, then I'm afraid you do not understand it at all. Evolution IS science, and it does not give a hoot about arbitrary notions of "cool."

[stargatedalek]

There is nothing wrong with preferring outdated or science fiction reconstructions of dinosaurs, so long as one accepts that they are just that.

[Flaffy]

Time to educate.
You have a very twisted understanding of evolution. Evolution didn't 'trade' tyrannosaurus rex for a chicken, it was simply survival of the fittest. Small avian dinosaurs called birds survived the KT mass extinction due to it not requiring as much food and water, while the massive tyrannosaurus and all non-avian dinosaurs on the other hand was not suited for living in the hellish conditions after the meteor impact. Once again science doesn't care about what you think, it only presents the facts and evidence.

If you truly think that modern accurate reconstructions of dinosaurs will make you loose interest in them, then I am truly sorry for you. But science will not slow down.

[Gwangi]

However dinosaurs end up looking I will still always be in awe that these unique animals reigned supreme on THIS planet for 160 million years. I could care less if they were avian or reptilian or had scales or feathers. If anything I want to know more about them, regardless of my preconceived notions. The more we know the better! If nothing else just looking at their skeletons gives me goosebumps. That said, I think it's really awesome that we have evidence for any of this at all, and I think it is equally awesome that dinosaurs do indeed survive today as the 10,000+ species of birds that live absolutely everywhere. The fact that one small group of flying dinosaurs could survive the mass extinction and diversify like they have, and rule the skies like they once ruled the ground is astonishing. It's like something out of fantasy, but it's not fantasy. Birds are among the most fascinating groups of animals and anyone that doesn't like them, well, just hasn't gotten to know them.

And even a chicken is as competent a predator as any extinct theropod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBFXzyp3sks

[Faelrin]

I pretty much equate feathered non-avian dinosaurs to birds of prey (eagles and hawks). I think they can be quite regal and majestic, and still terrifying. I for one would not want to be attacked by an eagle, or any bird, that's for certain. That chicken in that video definitely surprised me. Just another reminder of how birds just (seem to) love to eat things while they're still alive, and non-avian theropods probably did the same I'd imagine. In any case, the dinosaurs didn't exist to impress or terrify us anyways, or to look cool, as much as we wish them to at times. Same goes for their descendants.

Anyways I'm sort of fine with CollectA's quills on their ceratopsians. As long as they don't look absurd unless there's evidence supporting that. I really do like that woolly Pachyrhinosaurus though. Don't know how plausible something like that would be, but might be nice for a fantasy scenario at least.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Psittacosaurus had quills, as we can verify from a single specimen, which might suggest a species or possibly sexual indicator or it may have been common to the entire genus.Enter triceratops Lane found with skin impressions which demonstrated large raised centers which might have served well for attachment points for large raised centers. Bob Bakker was attributed with suggesting given the psittacosaurus with quills and Lane...who knows right? The science in the argument is rather basic and suggests while it is possible future more derived ceratopsians may have possessed "modified scales" they almost certainly did not likely have quills. It is practiallly impossible to prove something did not exist...but you can establish just how likely it is.....
       A few problems with more derived ceratopsians having actual quills because psittacosaurus also did. We can look at the hands and feet...psittacosaurus had evolved away that troublesome extra digit leaving only four and yet animals like Triceratops and Styracosaurus retain the primitive condition with all five present. Another obvious flag....psittacosaurus has no extra fenestrae between the nose and eye, however all of the more derived ceratopsians retain this feature.These are primitive traits, and it is unlikely psittacosaurus evolved away from them only to  make a grand U turn and re-evolve them .......this suggest psittacosaurus and its quills were an evolutionary dead-end or at least were not in any form ancestral for more derived ceratopsians. Given this argument, you cannot use psittacosaurus as a valid argument for horse mane type intequment in more modern ceratopsians.Is it possible they evolved this trait uniquely somehow and had it? possible.....unlikely though. Might as well add them to sauropods, and stegosaurus as well. After all it is possible....

Psittacosaurus is a ceratopsian, which means an ancestor it shares with other ceratopsians could have had filaments too.  This seems reasonably possible, if my understanding is correct that early ceratopsians were small and bipedal like Psittacosaurus, and there aren't skin impressions that contradict it.  If this was the case, other ceratopsians would have had filaments too, unless they lost them through evolution which is a possibility.

Stegosaurus isn't a ceratopsian, it isn't anywhere near as closely related to Psittacosaurus as other ceratopsians are.  Stegosaurus also has plates in the area where Psittacosaurus has filaments, so if Stegosaurus had filaments like those of Psittacosaurus it seems the plates and filaments would get in each other's way and hinder each other's functions.  Diplodocus is even more distantly related to Psittacosaurus, being a saurischian and not an ornithischian.  Diplodocus is more closely related to theropods than to Psittacosaurus or any other ornithischian.  If Stegosaurus or Diplodocus had dorsal tail filaments like Psittacosaurus, it also seems to me the filaments could interfere with functions achieved through the specialised flexibility in their tails.  In contrast, Psittacosaurus and other ceratopsians are much more closely related to each other, all being ceratopsians.  Ceratopsian tails also don't seem to be specialised like those of stegosaurians or diplodocids.

Due to what I've explained in this post, I think dorsal tail filaments on other ceratopsians is valid speculation.  I would be surprised if Psittacosaurus was the only ceratopsian genus with tail filaments and even the ceratopsians most similar to Psittacosaurus didn't have tail filaments.

I don't think I have a preference for whether non-Psittacosaurus ceratopsians are represented with or without tail filaments, since I think it could go either way.  My preference is for presence or absence of filaments on ceratopsians to be based on available evidence and consideration for what seems more likely.  I dislike it when the Psittacosaurus filaments are used to create arrangements/structures that are baseless speculation that don't seem to make sense.  Some examples below.  I think the artists of these images have done some great work.  I'm just expressing my thoughts about the integument of these ceratopsian reconstructions.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hell_Creek_dinosaurs_and_pterosaurs_by_durbed.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protoceratops_reconstruction.png
The filaments of Psittacosaurus are a clearly noticeable part of it, they are something that clearly had a purpose.  I find filaments like on the ceratopsians in these two images look terrible.  They remind me of the theropod reconstructions which are all scaly except for filaments on the arms and sometimes head.  To me this way of reconstructing theropods looks bad and doesn't make sense, and as far as I know there isn't any evidence to support it.  Same for these 'minimally' filamented ceratopsian reconstructions.  Why even give them filaments if they're going to look like this?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spiclypeus_NT_small.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops_new_BW.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops-000242.jpg
On these ceratopsian reconstructions which are all by one artist, their integument seems to be the result of combining two different things, the filaments of Psittacosaurus and the scales of Triceratops.  The resulting integument isn't known to exist and looks very different to known ceratopsian integument.  In the description of the first Triceratops image it says, "Triceratops new look according to recent discoveries of extensive fossilized skin impression".  I wonder if the artist even looked at those fossils, or just based the integument in their reconstruction on a misleading account of Triceratops's skin, since the integument of Triceratops looks like this: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html
In their more recent reconstruction of Triceratops (the third image out of the three above), the integument looks different but again doesn't look like the integument of Triceratops...

Probably getting too far from the topic here, but I will respond once more, to some of the comments here regarding psittacosaurus and its notorious quills. The fossil used to establish those structures first appeared in 2005 in a Tucson mineral show, so we have no ideal method of determining its precise origin. Best guess, somewhere in the Jehol Biota. Due to the posture of the fossil most of the identificational traits to suggest species are hidden...so species is suggested by dating the piece, which is in turn done by establishing a date for the predator that chewed the specimen. We know the fossil surfaced in 2005 at a mineral show and has then had a grand adventure through Italy, to Germany its current home. Point being, we have one (1) fossil that shows quills, from the most prolific and widespread dinosaur perhaps of China. The fossils are so plentiful in some areas of China, that they serve as boundary markers for time periods. I have seen mortality slabs with as many as sixty infants, and as many as forty adults ....these dinosaurs held a massive amount of territory to range and were there for a long time . Yet for all of it we have one...specimen that is quilled. this could be argued as a preservational bias and could well be....or it may have a simpler solution. the quills might well have been a sexual indicator present only in males for instance....or perhaps a species marker unique to that one region or perhaps the quills were a response to something within one particular species environment. My feeling is so far we have one..not enough to argue for all psittacosaurs to have them, and far from a strong indicator that any species that was ancestral to them or other ceratopsians HAD to have them.....possible of course, yes. We simply do not have enough evidence to say they all had quills, or that all areas they appeared had quills, or that both sexes were quilled....etc.
  My comment about stegosaurus was the concept of another animal with known back integument with unknown purpose.....heat regulation? Sexual differences? protection? Much like psittacosaurus we do not know the reason for the plates, or the quills.
  As for quills and sauropods, look closely at the new Safari Diplodocus. We can understand the spines it has are elongated processes, but then the psittacosaurus quills project directly from well within the verts as well .......quite different families, with different types of spines , but if one can confuse quills from a psittacosaurus with modified scales from a triceratops, then speculation should be allowed .
   Quills on various basal ceratopsians is valid speculation and someday we may find an ancestor to little Yinlong there, with a nice swath of filaments as well. I personally hope we do, and are able to resolve the ceratopsian family tree. As it stands we have no record of that ancestor,unless you care to suggest Kulindrdromeus which emerged very close to this family as well.
   I do completely agree, that wether with quills or without , following the evidence we have is best. I do like the concept of what seems most likely...I just disagree that derived ceratopsians would have retained such a primitive feature , while no evidence can be brought to the table for any of them to have it. None in all the more derived species....again that preservational bias perhaps but still. I do agree some forms of fuzzy integument look more appealing than others in ceratopsians, I just find the Mohawk central butt fuzz thing ......a personal dislike for me. just my two cents sorry

[Silvanusaurus]

Oh, I never said that they had to or even would care. I was just stating that if dinosaurs didnt look like the creatures I have been led to believe they were, then I will lose interest in them. I do not like birds at all (except owls) and they do not interest me. The primary reason I like Ceratopsians is because of the way they (supposedly) looked. Change their appearance to where they were feathered, quilled, furry, etc. and the visually pleasing aesthetic of them being large horned reptiles is ruined to my eyes. I wouldn't blame science if they found it to be fact; I would blame evolution for making them much less cool looking than they could have been. Evolution already failed miserably as far as I am concerned if it truly did trade a great, powerful looking beast like Tyrannosaurus for a pathetic modern day chicken. If anything, I see that as the ultimate opposite of evolution.

CollectA may very well be correct in making quilled Ceratopsians, but they alienate those of us who still hope to God that they really didnt have quills or feathers or hair (which is a shame since CollectA seem to concentrate on Ceratopsians more than other companies). I think until it is confirmed factual, they should make alternate versions without them as they are highly unattractive to me with the quills (just as the real animal would be). I wanted to get their big Triceratops they have but I didn't know of any way I could safely remove the fin of quills without damaging it (plus the snout looks a bit too long to me....for that price I would need the figure to be closer to my liking). If Ceratopsians really did have quills and all sculptors have to start making their figures to match that unfortunate finding, then the figures would no longer be able to represent creatures that I would find nearly as attractive to look at and admire as I do now.

Your conception of science, evolution and nature seems to be incredibly obscured by a fog of naive, narrow minded, and shallow attitudes towards reality, which i can only summise will cause you endless and perpetual dissapointment and dissatisfaction with the very content of existence within that reality. I feel incredibly sorry for you, to think that reality is somehow at fault for not meeting your personal standards of 'cool', and to think that it ever should have to meet those standards in the first place. I assume you are either very young, or severely ignorant, but if you want to sit at ease within a community dedicated to appreciating and respecting evolution, nature and the incredible animals they produced in the very distant, but very real past, then i would advise that you try to overcome these shallow and impertinent attitudes towards those topics.