Looking for scientifically accurate models.

[Sim]

Both of the "supreme" CollectA pterosaurs are must haves, Dimorphodon and Guidraco. I wouldn't call them perfect, the outlines of the skulls internal openings are faintly visible which I'm generally against, but they're virtually flawless as far as models in their price range go. They'll only set you back about $30 each before shipping.

And if you're already planning on ordering from a store stocking CollectA, either of the recent Deinocheirus, the deluxe Therizinosaurus, the Tyrannosaurus (and/or it's corpse), the marine miniature set, and the ivory billed woodpecker are all also stand out figures.

Since the thread starter said they are looking for figures that are "accurate to the most recent scientific evidence about the anatomy. For instance, no shrink wrapping (at least not noticeably)"...

There is substantial evidence that suggests Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered like the CollectA figures.  For example, skin patches from Tyrannosaurus, some of which are from areas that are feathered on the CollectA figures, and study of the biology of Tyrannosaurus.  At least, this provides strong evidence against Tyrannosaurus being heavily feathered.  At most, it indicates Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered.

As for shrink-wrapping, the skin over internal skull openings on the CollectA Tyrannosaurus is very sunken, and its texture is different from the surrounding skin.

[OpalornisHuali]

I'd like to know if there is any accurate Dimetrodon figures out there too, like similar to Scott Hartman's recent skeletal. I doubt there is though. Hopefully Safari or CollectA will do one eventually. Personally I've been holding off getting any of the ones below, because I'm still waiting to see if they'll do one. If not I'll probably just go with the Papo.

Of the figures I'm aware of, the Papo Dimetrodon is pretty accurate, but it is missing the fifth toes on the feet. The "hands" have the right number of digits though. I think the Carnegie Dimetrodon is another decent option. The Recur Dimetrodon is in a more "mammalian" pose, but the head is wrong. The Bullyland Dimetrodon is also in a more upright pose (though with the sprawling legs), and the head is also off.

Also since this is relevant to this discussion, I might as well ask. I went to a Micheal's the other day, and they carried the Safari Apatosaurus. It looked pretty accurate to me, but I'm wondering if it (still) is?

Out of the Dimetrodons you mentioned, the Recur one appeals to me the most. Even if the head isn't exactly right, to me it looks more mammalian than the Papo one. Perhaps the black outline on the "lips" helps with that.

I'm also rather interested in that blue Diplodocus from Safari LTD, however I am wondering if the tail could even curve like that..

[OpalornisHuali]

Both of the "supreme" CollectA pterosaurs are must haves, Dimorphodon and Guidraco. I wouldn't call them perfect, the outlines of the skulls internal openings are faintly visible which I'm generally against, but they're virtually flawless as far as models in their price range go. They'll only set you back about $30 each before shipping.

And if you're already planning on ordering from a store stocking CollectA, either of the recent Deinocheirus, the deluxe Therizinosaurus, the Tyrannosaurus (and/or it's corpse), the marine miniature set, and the ivory billed woodpecker are all also stand out figures.

Since the thread starter said they are looking for figures that are "accurate to the most recent scientific evidence about the anatomy. For instance, no shrink wrapping (at least not noticeably)"...

There is substantial evidence that suggests Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered like the CollectA figures.  For example, skin patches from Tyrannosaurus, some of which are from areas that are feathered on the CollectA figures, and study of the biology of Tyrannosaurus.  At least, this provides strong evidence against Tyrannosaurus being heavily feathered.  At most, it indicates Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered.

As for shrink-wrapping, the skin over internal skull openings on the CollectA Tyrannosaurus is very sunken, and its texture is different from the surrounding skin.

Even if T-rex was not feathered heavily, I would prefer a slightly inaccurate feathered one to a completely scaly one. Feathering around the neck and shoulders would be ideal, but again, fully feathered wins over scaly for my in the case of T-Rex.

[DINOSAUR TY]

I'm an artist who does, on demand, museum quality,  CUSTOM POSABLE DINOSAURS SCULPTURES,   COLLECTIBLES.   (They're similar to the props and maquettes used by Hollywood in older movies,) with GLASS EYES, DECOUPAGE SCALES, SCULPTED HEADS AND BODIES,  LATEX skin for pliability and that popular rubber dinosaur "real reptile skin feel"...only with these I STRIVE TO SATISFY THE COLLECTOR by making them look hyper-realistic...as though they are reptiles that you cornered and caught on safari in some vast forested region or swamp!!! Like what you see in really good museum maquettes...LET'S WORK TOGETHER ...WHAT I DO IS work with writers, artists, gamers, and others with a vivid imagination who want to see their dream character, action figure, or creature or DINOSAUR COME TO LIFE.    The way it works is:  You have an idea of a DINOSAUR/PREHISTORIC CREATURE/ANIMAL/ACTION FIGURE    you've always wanted, And you want it  to be Uber real and super articulated/posable, you and I work together on the details, I produce it,  you adopt it!  Right now I AM INVOLVED IN a CAMPAIGN as an artist TO CREATE REALISTIC DINOSAURS  that are as CLOSE TO BEING SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE,  while also looking at SCIENCE, estimates, best educated guesstimates, and the imagination of my collectors. I have (started - in the process of setting up)  a Patreon.com/dinosaurty    campaign to assist me in getting the funding for a studio and art/animation -stop motion - supplies.   (For an artist and sculptor or concept designer, it's a delicate balance  between fact and fantasy, as the majority of dinosaurs that have existed we still know nothing, or very little, of.)  I WANT TO MAKE WHAT YOU ALL WANT, that is, excellent, detailed, POSABLE/and nearly SEAMLESS, life-like, scientifically accurate, as much as possible at this moment in time...(remembering factors such as the dinosaurs' diet, age, life cycle, health, variety, sex and public imagination all are factors in how creatures are depicted up til now and future)  DINOSAURS and other fascinating rare prehistoric life,  endangered species, creatures, action figures (who can resist heroes/heroines?!??!!)   Thanks in advance!  Come see an example of my work clearly at my online gallery at     https://www.artpal.com/dinosaurty  I depict ONE VERSION
of a BABY/ NEONATE TYRRANOSAURIDAE...I want to work with people who have definite ideas on how they should look;...if I adopt your idea, and it sells, I will also give you cash prizes from the profits!  He's  got GLASS EYES, LATEX SKIN, POSABLE HEAD, MOUTH, BODY, ARMS, "HANDS", LEGS, TAIL, FEET!  (about 27 inches long, 10 inches high, 7 inches wide, depends on pose) I'll try to post a photo...let's make some ultimate dinosaurs!!!  Thanks everyone for your hospitality and time!

[Neosodon]

Both of the "supreme" CollectA pterosaurs are must haves, Dimorphodon and Guidraco. I wouldn't call them perfect, the outlines of the skulls internal openings are faintly visible which I'm generally against, but they're virtually flawless as far as models in their price range go. They'll only set you back about $30 each before shipping.

And if you're already planning on ordering from a store stocking CollectA, either of the recent Deinocheirus, the deluxe Therizinosaurus, the Tyrannosaurus (and/or it's corpse), the marine miniature set, and the ivory billed woodpecker are all also stand out figures.

Since the thread starter said they are looking for figures that are "accurate to the most recent scientific evidence about the anatomy. For instance, no shrink wrapping (at least not noticeably)"...

There is substantial evidence that suggests Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered like the CollectA figures.  For example, skin patches from Tyrannosaurus, some of which are from areas that are feathered on the CollectA figures, and study of the biology of Tyrannosaurus.  At least, this provides strong evidence against Tyrannosaurus being heavily feathered.  At most, it indicates Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered.

As for shrink-wrapping, the skin over internal skull openings on the CollectA Tyrannosaurus is very sunken, and its texture is different from the surrounding skin.

Even if T-rex was not feathered heavily, I would prefer a slightly inaccurate feathered one to a completely scaly one. Feathering around the neck and shoulders would be ideal, but again, fully feathered wins over scaly for my in the case of T-Rex.

So your not looking for just scientific accuracy. You actually prefer feathers even if they are incorrect. If so, you should think about changing the title.

[OpalornisHuali]

Both of the "supreme" CollectA pterosaurs are must haves, Dimorphodon and Guidraco. I wouldn't call them perfect, the outlines of the skulls internal openings are faintly visible which I'm generally against, but they're virtually flawless as far as models in their price range go. They'll only set you back about $30 each before shipping.

And if you're already planning on ordering from a store stocking CollectA, either of the recent Deinocheirus, the deluxe Therizinosaurus, the Tyrannosaurus (and/or it's corpse), the marine miniature set, and the ivory billed woodpecker are all also stand out figures.

Since the thread starter said they are looking for figures that are "accurate to the most recent scientific evidence about the anatomy. For instance, no shrink wrapping (at least not noticeably)"...

There is substantial evidence that suggests Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered like the CollectA figures.  For example, skin patches from Tyrannosaurus, some of which are from areas that are feathered on the CollectA figures, and study of the biology of Tyrannosaurus.  At least, this provides strong evidence against Tyrannosaurus being heavily feathered.  At most, it indicates Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered.

As for shrink-wrapping, the skin over internal skull openings on the CollectA Tyrannosaurus is very sunken, and its texture is different from the surrounding skin.

Even if T-rex was not feathered heavily, I would prefer a slightly inaccurate feathered one to a completely scaly one. Feathering around the neck and shoulders would be ideal, but again, fully feathered wins over scaly for my in the case of T-Rex.

So your not looking for just scientific accuracy. You actually prefer feathers even if they are incorrect. If so, you should think about changing the title.

We don't know whether T-rex was feathered or not, but there still is a very good chance they were feathered. Just because they weren't feathered all over the body, does not mean they were completely scaly. Both completely feathered and completely scaly are probably inaccurate, so in this case it is up to choice since we simply don't know for sure yet. So I choose the feathered one.

No, you assume a lot I didn't say.. I wouldn't for instance want a feathered carnosaur.. Because that would be completely inaccurate.
Wow, people here are a little bit rude.

[Neosodon]

Both of the "supreme" CollectA pterosaurs are must haves, Dimorphodon and Guidraco. I wouldn't call them perfect, the outlines of the skulls internal openings are faintly visible which I'm generally against, but they're virtually flawless as far as models in their price range go. They'll only set you back about $30 each before shipping.

And if you're already planning on ordering from a store stocking CollectA, either of the recent Deinocheirus, the deluxe Therizinosaurus, the Tyrannosaurus (and/or it's corpse), the marine miniature set, and the ivory billed woodpecker are all also stand out figures.

Since the thread starter said they are looking for figures that are "accurate to the most recent scientific evidence about the anatomy. For instance, no shrink wrapping (at least not noticeably)"...

There is substantial evidence that suggests Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered like the CollectA figures.  For example, skin patches from Tyrannosaurus, some of which are from areas that are feathered on the CollectA figures, and study of the biology of Tyrannosaurus.  At least, this provides strong evidence against Tyrannosaurus being heavily feathered.  At most, it indicates Tyrannosaurus wasn't heavily feathered.

As for shrink-wrapping, the skin over internal skull openings on the CollectA Tyrannosaurus is very sunken, and its texture is different from the surrounding skin.

Even if T-rex was not feathered heavily, I would prefer a slightly inaccurate feathered one to a completely scaly one. Feathering around the neck and shoulders would be ideal, but again, fully feathered wins over scaly for my in the case of T-Rex.

So your not looking for just scientific accuracy. You actually prefer feathers even if they are incorrect. If so, you should think about changing the title.

We don't know whether T-rex was feathered or not, but there still is a very good chance they were feathered. Just because they weren't feathered all over the body, does not mean they were completely scaly. Both completely feathered and completely scaly are probably inaccurate, so in this case it is up to choice since we simply don't know for sure yet. So I choose the feathered one.

No, you assume a lot I didn't say.. I wouldn't for instance want a feathered carnosaur.. Because that would be completely inaccurate.
Wow, people here are a little bit rude.

There is direct fossil evidence to prove that T. rex wasn't fully feathered while there is none to prove that T. rex wasn't fully scaly. I may have been a little blunt but after a long time of using a forum it gets tiresome trying to say everything in the most tactful way possible.

I'm not trying to be rude. It's ok to a have preferences. If you like a fully feathered T. rex that is fine with me. We're just talking about dinosaurs here. You shouldn't take anything too personally.

[stargatedalek]

Just because some people think the impressions are scales doesn't guarantee that they are. If they are scales, and they are preserved in where they were in life, than sure, it means Tyrannosaurus was extensively bare. But they might not be scales, and they might not be preserved in their positions from life, and so you can't just go around asserting that as fact.

It's still open season on what these impressions even are let alone mean, so for now the safe bet is to go with a feathered Tyrannosaurus, regardless of the extent of feathering, because the only concrete evidence we have is genetic which indicates feathers.

Sim is correct about the CollectA Tyrannosaurus head though, I don't own one so I'd forgotten just how noticeable it was. It suits the corpse rather well though.

[Faelrin]

Right now I prefer the Safari Feathered Tyrannosaurus rex, as I'm pretty sure the previously known impressions (the ones known about prior to being published recently), were taken into account when it was sculpted, if they are in fact scales of some sort. It also looks like the gastralia were taken into account as well since it's so "full" looking. The CollectA one would be my second choice, or even the Terra Battat one, even though it is a scaly T. rex, it still holds up pretty well.

[Neosodon]

Just because some people think the impressions are scales doesn't guarantee that they are. If they are scales, and they are preserved in where they were in life, than sure, it means Tyrannosaurus was extensively bare. But they might not be scales, and they might not be preserved in their positions from life, and so you can't just go around asserting that as fact.

It's still open season on what these impressions even are let alone mean, so for now the safe bet is to go with a feathered Tyrannosaurus, regardless of the extent of feathering, because the only concrete evidence we have is genetic which indicates feathers.

Sim is correct about the CollectA Tyrannosaurus head though, I don't own one so I'd forgotten just how noticeable it was. It suits the corpse rather well though.

You can what if till the cows come home (and genetic theories do not count as concrete evidence). But general scientific consensus is that they are scales. Even the people that prefer feathers are still admitting that they are scales. If you like the fully feathered T. rex models that is fine. Buy them as a souvenir to what scientists once thought. Even I'm planning on picking up collecta's feathery lythronax because it's a good figure. But to deny the evidence just because you don't want to let your pre conceived fantasy monsters be de-legitimatized makes you no different from the awesomebro JP fanboy club.

There are not any good scientifically accurate T. rex models you can get at the moment except for maybe an expensive sideshow one. But I'm hoping we will get a smooth or wrinkled skinned T. rex with maybe some light dorsal feathering by safari next year. This is a pretty goood hint to what generic T. rex depictions will look like in the future.

[stargatedalek]

Please just stop. Very few experts are actually agreeing with that assessment.

"Genetic theories" don't exist. A theory is one of two things; "a concept that we can see evidence of but can't completely observe" (IE gravity), or (in vernacular) "an unproved or unprovable idea". You can't have a "genetic theory". Genetic evidence is exactly that, evidence, not theories.

The only solid evidence we have is in favour of feathers, the ancestral state of Tyrannosaurus was feathered. The impressions we have are so small that we can't actually say for certain that they were preserved on the fossils relative to where they were in life, it could be all of them are from the same relative area on the animal, no one actually knows. Additionally, if the impressions aren't scales, then there's no reason feathers couldn't have grown there.

There's no reason for a "smooth or wrinkled skinned T. rex with maybe some light dorsal feathering" because if the impressions aren't scales there's nothing to say feathers couldn't have covered these areas.

Even if these impressions are scales, it's possible for feathers to grow among scales, although in that case, and that case only, extensive feathering is speculative.

[Patrx]

Okay, folks, let's keep the discussion about Tyrannosaurus integument in its own dedicated thread. Additionally, keep it polite, please. 

[Simon]

I think that PNSO's TRex "Wilson" is easily the most anatomically accurate (and well-sculpted) smaller TRex model out there...

[Sim]

I've thought about it, and I think I should post this here, as this post and the post from this thread I'm replying to are focusing on the topic of this thread.

Right now I prefer the Safari Feathered Tyrannosaurus rex, as I'm pretty sure the previously known impressions (the ones known about prior to being published recently), were taken into account when it was sculpted, if they are in fact scales of some sort. It also looks like the gastralia were taken into account as well since it's so "full" looking. The CollectA one would be my second choice, or even the Terra Battat one, even though it is a scaly T. rex, it still holds up pretty well.

As described in this reptilis blog post, before the Wyrex skin patches were published recently, all that was known about Wyrex's integument (and consequently Tyrannosaurus's integument) was that most of the skin patches were from its tail, and only one photo of its integument was included alongside that summary.  However, that one photo of its integument is the skin patch from the neck, which I get the impression misled people into thinking that patch came from the tail.

My understanding is that only after the recent paper describing Wyrex's integument came out, did it become known to us: 1. that well-known photo actually showed skin from Wyrex's neck, 2. skin is known from Wyrex's neck and ilium, 3. what the skin known from Wyrex's tail is like, and 4. what the size of the patches and their texture is.

So the above, and the heavy feathering of that Safari Tyrannosaurus which covers the ilium and goes far past the ilium, makes me think that when that figure was sculpted it didn't take into account what wasn't yet known of Wyrex's skin.

As for whether the skin patches show scales or bare/hardened skin, I think it's important to consider what Mark Witton said in his blog post about this topic:

Moreover, the Wyrex skin impressions, though small, are pretty high-resolution. The scales, and their intervening areas, have sub-millimetre proportions and sharply defined edges. There's no tatty scale margins, no obvious spaces for filament attachment, or linear structures crossing the scales to imply a rogue filament impression.

How well-preserved the skin texture is makes me think it shows scales rather than bare/hardened skin.  However, I think that both in the case of the patches showing scales and in the case of the patches showing bare/hardened skin, it's important to consider that the skin texture is very well-preserved to the point it shows tiny details and it still doesn't show any signs of feathers being present.

[Neosodon]

Okay, folks, let's keep the discussion about Tyrannosaurus integument in its own dedicated thread. Additionally, keep it polite, please. 

Yeah your right. We should discuss this in the other thread. But I'd like to clarify one related thing here if you don't mind. When I referred  to models having smooth or wrinkled skin I meant that it it would be to difficult to sculpt such small scales so we would have models that look like smooth or wrinkled skin. So any T. rex models that display that trait in areas would at least have one thing going for them. But unfortunately this could mean less detail. Or you could just make a xl model and maybe get those tiny scales to fit.

But when it comes to T. rex models scientifically accurate has a pretty loose interpretation at this point. So we should move onto another species or model to critique. Making a thread on which models are scientifically accurate is bound to lead to some disagreement.

[OpalornisHuali]

Okay, folks, let's keep the discussion about Tyrannosaurus integument in its own dedicated thread. Additionally, keep it polite, please. 

Yeah your right. We should discuss this in the other thread. But I'd like to clarify one related thing here if you don't mind. When I referred  to models having smooth or wrinkled skin I meant that it it would be to difficult to sculpt such small scales so we would have models that look like smooth or wrinkled skin. So any T. rex models that display that trait in areas would at least have one thing going for them. But unfortunately this could mean less detail. Or you could just make a xl model and maybe get those tiny scales to fit.

But when it comes to T. rex models scientifically accurate has a pretty loose interpretation at this point. So we should move onto another species or model to critique. Making a thread on which models are scientifically accurate is bound to lead to some disagreement.

The best T-Rex model at the moment would probably be one that has a scaly tail and face, with a feathered back, chest and head appearing somewhat like a mane. But I'm not sure such a figure exists.


Okay, what about the Safari Diplodocus also featured at the top of the page? How accurate is that one, and would the tail really curve like that?

Also, I would like some suggestions for accurate plesiosaurs as well.

[Sim]

The best T-Rex model at the moment would probably be one that has a scaly tail and face, with a feathered back, chest and head appearing somewhat like a mane. But I'm not sure such a figure exists.

I agree with this that Mark Witton said in his blog post:

Could Tyrannosaurus have had extremely fine, widely-distributed filaments - perhaps similar to something like elephant hair? This isn't entirely falsified by the new data, although the skin impressions we have show no evidence of such a covering despite preserving tiny integument details. Granted, animal filaments can be extremely fine, and they might be beyond the preservation potential and mechanics of even these high-res impressions. However, if we're arguing for filaments of this size and patchiness then - certainly for artistic purposes - we should concede that the animal would be essentially scaly, in the same way that most rhinos, elephants and hippos are essentially naked (below). From a thermoregulatory perspective, short, sparse filaments could make sense as these have the surprising ability to draw heat from the body in modern elephants, helping them stay cool (Myhrvold et al. 2012). Given the potential for overheating under dense filament coats in giant animals (Bell et al. 2017), I see this as more plausible than a 'cloak' of fibres between our scaly waypoints.

[Jose S.M.]

About the Diplodocus, I think it's pretty accurate, it's widely accepted that their tail ends were flexible and can curve. I have it and like it very much.

For plesiosaurs I don't know how accurate most of the ones I know are, CollectA has various but like I said I don't really know how accurate they are. The one that I've read it's very accurate is the wild safari Elasmosaurus.

[vmi]

Every single DTF Member here has his/her personal idea about what "accurate" means.
We're talking about long gone creatures.
So it's a complex, hard discussion....
Probably the most scientifically accurate models aren't in the toy range (PVC) but in the kit and resin range.
That's my personal idea.

can't agree with you more

[BlueKrono]

The most recent Safari is one of the better plesiosaurs. The Invicta is also pretty good despite being about 40 years old, though less detailed.