New Utahraptor Skeletal Drawing by Scott Hartman!

[Sim]

All things considered, I think out of the options currently available, the toy that looks most like Utahraptor is the CollectA Utahraptor, despite its flaws.

Not exactly. It's got similarities of both. More like having a lion to be a liger.

The anatomy of that Papo Velociraptor is MUCH more different to that of Utahraptor than the anatomy of a lion to a liger's.  The house cat and lion comparison is definitely better.

[CrypticPrism]

Okay, thanks. I'll star the collectA as a juvenile.

[Simon]

I still think Battat made the best looking, muscular, Utahraptor.  Now that the new skeletal is out, hopefully one of the current active companies (Collecta perhaps) will take the bull by the horns and give us an updated version...

[Sim]

I still think Battat made the best looking, muscular, Utahraptor.

I agree!  The Battat Utahraptor is an excellent figure, even more so when considering when it was released (1996).  It's my favourite Utahraptor figure.  The Battat Utahraptor is featherless though, which is why I don't feel it's the closest available toy to Utahraptor.  If it had feathers it would be a different story!

[CrypticPrism]

I only like feathered raptors. Nothing else will suffice. I hate it when people say inaccurate figures are great and amazing representatives of the genus. I may sound hypocritical because I love the papo allosaurus, but mine's hands are fixed with hot water. I may edit it with putty in the future.

[Sim]

I think inaccurate figures can be great and amazing representations of a genus if the inaccuracy is very minor and/or if the figure was very accurate for its time.  The Battat Utahraptor was very accurate for its time.  The sculpting is excellent and notice how it even has long keratin extensions on its claws, something I've not seen on any other available dromaeosaurid toy.  Its colour scheme is also one of my favourites on any figure.  Its inaccuracies are due to later fossil discoveries, that doesn't change the figure's great craftsmanship and that it is an amazing representation of the genus.  It isn't an accurate representation of Utahraptor anymore though.  But, none of the other Utahraptor toys are accurate either, and they all have aspects of feathering and soft tissue that are probably incorrect as shown by fossils of other species and extant birds.

I have no interest in getting dromaeosaurid figures that are featherless or inaccurately feathered.  I also dislike seeing dromaeosaurids represented as featherless or badly feathered after it's known they didn't look like that.  I don't see the appeal of those reconstructions as I find the appeal of dinosaurs is being real animals.  Additionally, even though I grew up liking featherless dromaeosaurids (since that was in the '90s, it wasn't generally thought dromaeosaurids had feathers back then), now I can only find featherless dromaeosaurids to be incomplete and much less interesting than plausibly feathered ones, with some features of their skeleton particularly in their forelimbs being incongruous without feathers.  However, I will always appreciate the reconstructions of dromaeosaurids that are lacking in feathers that were made at a time when they were plausible, for what these reconstructions are: great reconstructions for their time.

One of the things I'd most like now is great figures of dromaeosaurids that represent them as they are understood to have looked.  The dromaeosaurid body plan appears to have been very successful and adaptable, resulting in the very high diversity in this family.  It would be great to be able to have a good representation of dromaeosaurid diversity in figure form!

[Simon]

I still think Battat made the best looking, muscular, Utahraptor.

I agree!  The Battat Utahraptor is an excellent figure, even more so when considering when it was released (1996).  It's my favourite Utahraptor figure.  The Battat Utahraptor is featherless though, which is why I don't feel it's the closest available toy to Utahraptor.  If it had feathers it would be a different story!

Agreed.  But at the time it was sculpted the evidence for feathers in Utahraptor had not been discovered as yet.  Before Dan LoRusso passed away there was some talk about him doing a modification on that figure to feather it. It didn't go anywhere because sadly Dan's health was failing fast by the time the first re-releases hit the stores ... it was an awesome idea, though ...

[CrypticPrism]

I would've liked that.

[Simon]

Here is my modified Battat Utahraptor vs WWD Iguanodon diorama. 

I modified the Iguanodon into the rearing pose and built on the open mouth with putty, remoulded the feet and spikes as well.

Then I sent the two models to Martin Garratt who built the base and painted the models.  He also straightened the Utahraptor's tail a little and inserted a metal rod through its leg/foot that goes into the Iguanodon's side.

Its an amazing diorama by Martin.  The Utahraptor really looks like its suspended in mid-air ... if this model had been feathered, well, it would put me "over the moon"!....

[danmalcolm]

That diorama is fantastic. The battat utahraptor looks like the raptors I loved 15 years ago.

The papo's skull is very much a velociraptor skull. But it's tail is on the short side.

[Sim]

That's an amazing diorama!  It's got a nice Walking with Dinosaurs look to it.  I had both the Battat Utahraptor and WWD Iguanodon when I was a kid.  The Iguanodon makes me laugh because of how bizarre its hands and feet are.  Especially its "alien feet" as pointed out by Dr Admin here: http://dinotoyblog.com/2009/04/25/iguanodon-walking-with-dinosaurs-collection-by-toyway/

[HD-man]

2. Achillobator appears to be similar to Utahraptor, being robust, short-legged and close in size.  I get the impression that like Utahraptor, Achillobator was very strong and not a very fast runner.  However, Achillobator has bony tail rods.  I wonder if Achillobator hunted similar to Utahraptor, but the different ecosystems they lived in relates to Achillobator possibly being less robust than Utahraptor and having bony tail rods?  I hope more of Achillobator will be found in the future!

That reminds me of Witton's "On Jurassic World and real 'raptors': Velociraptor, Deinonychus and Achillobator" ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-jurassic-world-and-real-raptors.html ).

[ZoPteryx]

Huzzah!  Finally the king of raptors is revealed, in all his pudgy glory! 

Really peculiar animal, I think the shortness of the ankles and the frail looking humerus is what I find most striking.  I envision this as a wrecking ball of a dromaeosaur, throwing all its weight onto its prey and riding and jabbing it until they collapse.

[CrypticPrism]

I can imagine it being The Rock of its ecosystem, just plowing through everything. Also, in the Mesozoic timeline, warrior face was actually featured in the movie about his culture(just search Moana warrior face, the sad thing is you either get a short version that sounds good, or a long, crap version. Never mind, link below.)



Here. Skip to 1:00

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NDOEI-278Z4

[stargatedalek]

The proportions aren't right, but the skull and especially the teeth are a better fit for Utahraptor.

*edit*
Man did these topic get merged at an awkward time. I was referring to the Papo.

[CrypticPrism]

Yeah, that was a bit confusing at first

[Sim]

The proportions aren't right, but the skull and especially the teeth are a better fit for Utahraptor.

*edit*
Man did these topic get merged at an awkward time. I was referring to the Papo.

The only part of that Papo Velociraptor's skull/teeth that to me doesn't seem accurate for Velociraptor is some of the tallest teeth in the lower jaw look a bit too tall for Velociraptor.  So it's just a small difference.

Comparing that Papo Velociraptor's head to Utahraptor's skull, the figure's head doesn't look like Utahraptor's head.  The figure's skull is much too shallow for Utahraptor, with the figure's gums occurring over an area that would be lateral to skull bone on Utahraptor rather than around the teeth, and the head STILL being too shallow for Utahraptor at the top, even more so when taking into account that the Papo Velociraptor's snout crests only make its snout look taller at the lateral edges and not the middle.  The top of the figure's snout is also concave like in Velociraptor rather than flat like in Utahraptor.  In the front of the lower jaw, the figure doesn't have the distinctive forward-pointing teeth of Utharaptor.

[The Atroxious]

I only like feathered raptors. Nothing else will suffice. I hate it when people say inaccurate figures are great and amazing representatives of the genus. I may sound hypocritical because I love the papo allosaurus, but mine's hands are fixed with hot water. I may edit it with putty in the future.

Eh, I kind of agree. I'm really picky when it comes to maniraptoriform feathers especially, since I'm a bird nerd. For what it's worth, I really don't think there's anything glaringly wrong with the Papo Allo outside the unlikely osteoderms. Even the hands are angled inward, which keeps them from looking horrendous. Granted, they're not angled as much as the should be, but they're not fully palms-down either.

That diorama is fantastic. The battat utahraptor looks like the raptors I loved 15 years ago.

The papo's skull is very much a velociraptor skull. But it's tail is on the short side.

To be honest, it's not really a Velociraptor skull either. It's almost more crocodilian than it is dromaeosaur-like. It doesn't have the characteristic shovel-shaped snout that velociraptorines are known for. More glaringly, the animal's supraorbital ridge was repurposed into horns above its eyes, which, to be honest, is just stupid if you know anything about bird skull anatomy. The Papo Velociraptor is in fact less a Velociraptor, or indeed a proper dromaeosaur than it is a fantasy creature that has been slapped with the name of a popular genus.

[Sim]

I only like feathered raptors. Nothing else will suffice. I hate it when people say inaccurate figures are great and amazing representatives of the genus. I may sound hypocritical because I love the papo allosaurus, but mine's hands are fixed with hot water. I may edit it with putty in the future.

Eh, I kind of agree. I'm really picky when it comes to maniraptoriform feathers especially, since I'm a bird nerd. For what it's worth, I really don't think there's anything glaringly wrong with the Papo Allo outside the unlikely osteoderms. Even the hands are angled inward, which keeps them from looking horrendous. Granted, they're not angled as much as the should be, but they're not fully palms-down either.

I've always found the position the Papo Allosaurus's hands are in looks conspicuously weird.  I think it might be due to a combination of Allosaurus having large hands and their position being incorrect, as seen here: http://dinogoss.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/know-when-to-fold-em.html

That diorama is fantastic. The battat utahraptor looks like the raptors I loved 15 years ago.

The papo's skull is very much a velociraptor skull. But it's tail is on the short side.

To be honest, it's not really a Velociraptor skull either. It's almost more crocodilian than it is dromaeosaur-like. It doesn't have the characteristic shovel-shaped snout that velociraptorines are known for. More glaringly, the animal's supraorbital ridge was repurposed into horns above its eyes, which, to be honest, is just stupid if you know anything about bird skull anatomy. The Papo Velociraptor is in fact less a Velociraptor, or indeed a proper dromaeosaur than it is a fantasy creature that has been slapped with the name of a popular genus.

I think that Papo Velociraptor's skull is accurate for Velociraptor (apart from some too long teeth in the lower jaw), but I agree with you that the soft tissue on its head looks incorrect for a dromaeosaurid.  I've seen skulls of some extant birds, like the bald eagle, have the same supraorbital ridge structure as on the skull of Velociraptor and other dromaeosaurids, and soft tissue forms a fleshy brow over that area.  The projection in front of each eye in the birds and in dromaeosaurids is positioned at the side of the skull rather than on the top of it, I imagine that's because it supports a fleshy brow over the eyes.  So I think it's incorrect to repurpose that area to support crests/horns.  I think the figure's snout shape is correct for Velociraptor, and it's just that the repurposing of the supraorbital ridge into crests/horns extends along the snout making it look a little different from the bones.  But this difference is only extra soft tissue at the lateral edges of the top of the snout, and they are demarcated from the skull itself through how they are sculpted.

I've seen the supraorbital ridge structure on a dromaeosaurid repurposed into crests/horns many times, including by very good palaeoartists...  I'm surprised by how widespread this has been, and I can't avoid wondering if the artists looked at bird skulls before making their dromaeosaurid reconstructions...  I tend to feel it doesn't look awful though if that area is repurposed to support elegant-looking crests, like on the Papo feathered Velociraptor.  I find it looks unpleasant though if that area is repurposed to give a dromaeosaurid a crest/horn in front of each eye in a sort of shrink-wrapped way, like on the CollectA Utahraptor.

Given a choice though, I would always prefer a dromaeosaurid's supraorbital ridge to be reconstructed as having a fleshy brow.