Schleich: New for 2018

[The Atroxious]

So did synapsids evolve directly from amphibians?

Nope, amphibians aren't amniotes. They're an offshoot of basal tetrapods, but not even close to being the ancestors of modern amniotes.

Think of it this way: amniotes are, as a general rule, the vertebrates that require internal fertilization in order to produce offspring. Basically, they're the vertebrates that mate. Non-amniote vertebrates spawn instead, shooting out eggs, and then sperm to fertilize the eggs. That is a dramatic oversimplification of the actual differences, and there are animals to which these generalizations don't apply (sharks being a notable exception to the external fertilization of non-amniotes, and certain species of whiptail lizards, despite being amniotes, do not need fertilzation at all in order to reproduce, basically cloning themselves in the process) but the rough categorization is whether the animal in question reproduces internally or externally.

To elaborate on the answer to your original question, both amphibians and amniotes evolved from tetrapods, but they're on separate branches. Amniotes evolved from the reptiliomorph branch of amniota, while amphibians evolved from batrachomorph branch. Basically, synapsids have a common ancestor with amphibians back in tetrapoda, but they followed different evolutionary lineages, and this common ancestor is long extinct.

I know what I am talking about. We're all synapsids, so why would I use such a broad term?

Anyway, I think "mammal-like reptile" has its uses. Not everyone here is as familiar with technical terms, so I think that is easier for some to understand than "synapsid". This was a group of animals that, like I said, shared characteristics of both mammals and reptiles. The term doesn't necessarily have to imply that one group is directly descended from the other.

Well, saying a goronopsid is a "mammal-like reptile" does indeed imply that it is a reptile, which it is not. Personally, I think it's more confusing to label an animal as something it is not instead of labeling it properly and letting people do a quick two second google of the word if they don't understand it.

[stargatedalek]

I know what I am talking about. We're all synapsids, so why would I use such a broad term?

Anyway, I think "mammal-like reptile" has its uses. Not everyone here is as familiar with technical terms, so I think that is easier for some to understand than "synapsid". This was a group of animals that, like I said, shared characteristics of both mammals and reptiles. The term doesn't necessarily have to imply that one group is directly descended from the other.

Well, saying a goronopsid is a "mammal-like reptile" does indeed imply that it is a reptile, which it is not. Personally, I think it's more confusing to label an animal as something it is not instead of labeling it properly and letting people do a quick two second google of the word if they don't understand it.

I'd just like to second this, "mammal-like reptile" is a simply enraging misnomer.


As for the Dinogorgon figure, it definitely, definitely isn't accurate. It has some commendable musculature but it's still missing a lot of flesh and the skin is so tight it looks mummified. It's a very nice figure visually, and it doesn't have much for competition, but "the most accurate" doesn't mean "accurate".

[postsaurischian]

Well, saying a goronopsid is a "mammal-like reptile" does indeed imply that it is a reptile, which it is not. Personally, I think it's more confusing to label an animal as something it is not instead of labeling it properly and letting people do a quick two second google of the word if they don't understand it.

I'd just like to second this, "mammal-like reptile" is a simply enraging misnomer.

That's why I hope people would finally stop calling Dromaeosaurids "Raptors", which about 99% of the members here do - also the highly soghisticated ones .

[CMIPalaeo]

I think it's rather charming the see a Psittacosaurus that's clearly meant to be P. sibiricus. I think that's the figure I have the highest hope for. Also, the Dinogorgon doesn't seem too shrinkwrapped to me... the body is muscular but svelte, there's no ribs showing through, the limbs are stocky. Really the head is the only place that looks like really tight-fitted skin to me, and there are some reasons for thinking that gorgons had fairly tight-fitting tissue over the snout, though the back of the head probably could stand to be bulked up a fair bit. 

As for the new T. rex and Carnotaurus, like many Schleich figures, they're weird and wonky but have a very unique charm to them - as opposed to the Velociraptor, which just continues Schleich's series of purely hideous-looking dromaeosaurs...

[CMIPalaeo]

Actually, I retract my previous statement on Schleich's raptors being exclusively bad-looking. I'd forgotten about the Deinonychus from this set https://www.schleich-s.com/en/US/dinosaurs/products/feathered-raptors-42347.html - while it's miles from accurate it does have a rather neat, charismatic look to it. Shame they couldn't make something a bit more like this with the new dromaeosaur for next year. 

[stargatedalek]

Well, saying a goronopsid is a "mammal-like reptile" does indeed imply that it is a reptile, which it is not. Personally, I think it's more confusing to label an animal as something it is not instead of labeling it properly and letting people do a quick two second google of the word if they don't understand it.

I'd just like to second this, "mammal-like reptile" is a simply enraging misnomer.

That's why I hope people would finally stop calling Dromaeosaurids "Raptors", which about 99% of the members here do - also the highly soghisticated ones .

I was never bothered by that because even among modern "raptors" the grouping is arbitrary. If the term "raptor" was used properly as a true representation of a group of related animals it would (of course) exclude Dromaeosaurs but include kingfishers, hornbills and woodpeckers since they lie between vultures and falcons, and for that matter parrots are a very close off-shoot to falcons. I've never heard woodpeckers or parrots referred to as raptors.

"Raptor" is a polyphyletic group so I don't see what's wrong with using it as a generic term for "birds and related predators". Alternatively one can use it in reference to "raptorial" animals, those being animals that attack or capture prey using their limbs during flight which would include some Dromaeosaurs.

[postsaurischian]

I was never bothered by that because even among modern "raptors" the grouping is arbitrary. If the term "raptor" was used properly as a true representation of a group of related animals it would (of course) exclude Dromaeosaurs but include kingfishers, hornbills and woodpeckers since they lie between vultures and falcons, and for that matter parrots are a very close off-shoot to falcons. I've never heard woodpeckers or parrots referred to as raptors.

"Raptor" is a polyphyletic group so I don't see what's wrong with using it as a generic term for "birds and related predators". Alternatively one can use it in reference to "raptorial" animals, those being animals that attack or capture prey using their limbs during flight which would include some Dromaeosaurs.

O.k., English is not my my main language. For my German understanding "raptor" seems totally wrong, because I was tought to use the term
as a synonym for the order Accipitriformes, which do not include falcons,  parrots or woodpeckers.
Is that really wrong? Any other opinions? Another thread maybe?

[The Atroxious]

O.k., English is not my my main language. For my German understanding "raptor" seems totally wrong, because I was tought to use the term
as a synonym for the order Accipitriformes, which do not include falcons,  parrots or woodpeckers.
Is that really wrong? Any other opinions? Another thread maybe?

The way I learned it, in English, the term "raptor" refers to any of the various groups of birds that principally catch and/or kill their prey with their feet, derived from the Latin word "rapere" meaning "to take by force". This usually includes falcons and owls, as well as the accipitriformes.

I've never seen the word "raptor" used in English as a formal term in a scientific regard. It's like how the term "fish" is used commonly, but trying to apply the term in scientific classifications would be a nightmare due to the fact that it refers only to animals with specific superficial traits rather than a whole group of related animals descended from a single common ancestor.

[Shonisaurus]

For me the dinogorgon, tawa and psittacosaurus are from an objective point of view quite good figures within the world of toys of Schleich.

On the other hand the triceratops and oviraptor put them in the background, but they are not bad figures, although of lesser importance. As for therizinosaurus is the same figure of past times of four years ago but with a new type of painting that is horrible for a collector and would have preferred a new one as the triceratops whose figure has improved over previous editions.

The oviraptor although I am a supporter of the conservative colors in the dinosaurs this seems excessive to me is not done badly but the lack of a more colorful color makes him to be a figure somewhat dull, without life and discolored in relation to its painting. Another thing is the figure that seems to me a big and good figure in the toy market, although of smaller entity that the figures alluded in the first paragraph.

But in general terms it is an improvement over the more than twenty years Schleich has made dinosaurs and extinct animals. You should always give a chance to any company collector including Schleich.

Anyway I share the opinion that it will be necessary to see them physically the difference between the real figure and the prototype can cause us (at least to me) a frustration, so I cross my fingers so that these figures are equal or even better to the promotional photos that have been leaked.

[stargatedalek]

O.k., English is not my my main language. For my German understanding "raptor" seems totally wrong, because I was tought to use the term
as a synonym for the order Accipitriformes, which do not include falcons,  parrots or woodpeckers.
Is that really wrong? Any other opinions? Another thread maybe?

The way I learned it, in English, the term "raptor" refers to any of the various groups of birds that principally catch and/or kill their prey with their feet, derived from the Latin word "rapere" meaning "to take by force". This usually includes falcons and owls, as well as the accipitriformes.

I've never seen the word "raptor" used in English as a formal term in a scientific regard. It's like how the term "fish" is used commonly, but trying to apply the term in scientific classifications would be a nightmare due to the fact that it refers only to animals with specific superficial traits rather than a whole group of related animals descended from a single common ancestor.

Wikipedia uses "raptors" as an analogue for "birds of prey", which was formerly considered to be an order (Accipitres). Under modern taxonomy many of these birds are rather distantly related and spread throughout the modern equivalent Telluraves, but both original terms still exist as vernacular forms.

It makes sense this would create translation errors in regards to Accipitriformes, but Accipitres included new world vultures, owls and falcons too, and it's what's referred to in English as "raptors".

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Wow, I'm just now viewing this thread because I don't really care for Schleich, but the Oviraptor, Dinogorgon, and Psittacosaurus are surprisingly not terrible!!! The Oviraptor is a little hellish looking, but it still looks good!

[The Atroxious]

Wikipedia uses "raptors" as an analogue for "birds of prey", which was formerly considered to be an order (Accipitres). Under modern taxonomy many of these birds are rather distantly related and spread throughout the modern equivalent Telluraves, but both original terms still exist as vernacular forms.

It makes sense this would create translation errors in regards to Accipitriformes, but Accipitres included new world vultures, owls and falcons too, and it's what's referred to in English as "raptors".

Pretty much everyone I've seen, minus the Jurassic Park fanboys uses the term "raptor" as analogue for "bird of prey". Falconers, YouTubers, people who work at zoos, the majority of them use the term "raptor" to include falcons and owls. I don't believe it was ever meant to be interpreted as a scientifically precise term in the English language.

If it's cladistic precision you're looking for, it's best to use the terms that include the birds you're referring to, e.g. "Accipitriformes, Falconiformes/Falconidae, and Strigiformes". If cladistic precision doesn't matter, the term "raptor" is fine.

[Reptilia]

I think the Oviraptor doesn't look that good as the first time I've seen the picture. It doesn't have a proper colour scheme, looks more like an unpainted piece. And admittedly the head sculpt is rather zombiesque. Still the feathering is a huge improvement over Schleich's standards. Then I don't get why people say the Dinogorgon isn't accurate, I don't see that much shrink-wrapping on it, or any other blatant flaw overall. At the same time I don't understand the moderate appreciation for the Tawa, if you were horrified by the Acrocanthosaurus I can't see how you can find anything good in this one. They certainly choose a bad paleoart reference, but they managed to produce a figure that is even worse.

[Neosodon]

At the same time I don't understand the moderate appreciation for the Tawa, if you were horrified by the Acrocanthosaurus I can't see how you can find anything good in this one. They certainly choose a bad paleoart reference, but they managed to produce a figure that is even worse.

What is so bad about it? It is in a bipedal pose and looks quite natural for shleich standards. Has the horribly enlarged feet and the feathers look silly but no were near the acro's level.

[X]

I mean, at least they kinda tried?

  Although this is still as bad if not a wee bit less bad as last year. The oviraptor seems to be the only one I may buy, but even then its color scheme and paint job already appear bland and lazy. The triceratops looks okay, but the color combo of red and gray is off-putting for me. Tawa seems like something I may pick up purely for it being a unique genus to dinosaur figures, but I dunno. That t-Rex. Ugh. It looks like it got its head bashed in by a rock. The velocirapator is same old same old, and the cheeks or jowls or whatever they're supposed to be on the carno are really off-putting. The anorexic dinogorgon would've been better if they had been a little less along the lines of "therapsid skeletor". The new therizino looks much better, and it really helps you see the fur protofeathers. The psitacco is the lineup's only saving grace. It's pretty much the kentro of 2018. So, which would I get if I was forced to choose one? psitacco, tawa, or oviraptor. Of these, the ovi is the least appealing to me purely for the color scheme's execution.

[tanystropheus]

And admittedly the head sculpt is rather zombiesque. Still the feathering is a huge improvement over Schleich's standards.

The feathering seems to reach Papo level of awesomeness, surpassing many of WS's feathered dinosaurs. The head looks as zombiesque as a turkey or condor to me. However, the color scheme does look a tad bit unpainted/unfinished with a simple kind of raw elegance.

[Halichoeres]

I'll defend the Tawa, relative to the Acrocanthosaurus. It has a posture plausible for a theropod, instead of recalling an Imperial tail-dragger. It looks like it's covered in skin instead of burlap sack. The hands look like Tawa hands; the Acro's hands don't have the fingers in remotely the right proportions. The Tawa is scrawny and arguably shrink-wrapped, but the animal itself may well have been scrawny. The Acro has that horrible face texturing that also made the Barapasaurus so ugly, where all the fenestrae are inexplicably filled with scales of a different size and shape than the rest of the head. The teeth on the Tawa are probably a little bit inaccurate, but they at least seem to suggest that the sculptor consulted a photo of an actual Tawa skull. The Acro's teeth look like a row of white traffic cones.

The feathers are a goofy touch, I'll grant. And the feet are over-sized, but I personally have always found that a forgivable sin in the service of keeping a figure upright.

[Shonisaurus]

I have never been a supporter of Schleich but I see that the criticisms that are made about the latest products, for example tawa, dinogorgon and oviraptor seem to me exaggerated.

Tawa is a great figure and does not have the clown's feet (at least not seen in the promotional figure) that usually have Schleich's theropods, I understand that until no more photos are revealed at the Nuremberg toy fair we can give an objective opinion. But I honestly do not think it fair that you do not give Schleich's toys a try, at least for once they are trying and that is a point in their favor.

On the other hand the dinogorgon does not seem to me the figure (not as bright as the inostrancevia of Safari) and although it has small eyes, it is an important step in the realization of figures.

Also keep in mind that these figures are intended for children not adults but I understand that they are going in the right way very slow but sure if they continue like this.

As a postdata I plan to buy all the news of Schleich 2018 except for therizinosaurus, this year I am happy with its figures.

[DC]

I am surprised by the range Tawa and Dinogorgon are very innovative for Schleich. It will be a good year

[Brontozaurus]

Oh my god, Schleich figures I actually want. They'll wreck my bank account because of how the Australia Tax affects Schleich toys so much, but they legit look worth it this year.