Eofauna general discussion

[Leyster]

I higly doubt the book will cover only ceratopsians. It will probably dedicated to ornithischians as whole. Considering there are so many more theropods and sauropodomorphs than ceratopsians, it will result a very small book.

[Loon]

Is EoFauna's Theropod book out of print? It's very expensive on amazon now.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I higly doubt the book will cover only ceratopsians. It will probably dedicated to ornithischians as whole. Considering there are so many more theropods and sauropodomorphs than ceratopsians, it will result a very small book.

I think i'll be Marginocephalians (Pachys and Ceratopsians)

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Exactly what I would do if I had a pair of these. 

[Halichoeres]

On the cheeks: they match up pretty plausibly with Nabavizadeh's reconstruction of the musculature (https://www.gotscience.org/2019/02/did-plant-eating-dinosaurs-have-cheeks/), although he's careful to say that this only means they don't have muscles like a mammalian buccinator, and that the possibility of simple flaps of skin can't be excluded. Their jaws were suspended a little bit differently from, say, an ungulate, with more fore-aft motion and less side-to-side motion. Given that, maybe you don't drop so much out the side of your mouth chewing ornithischian-style.

Anyway, I have to admit I wasn't exactly hankering for a new Triceratops, but it's a beautiful figure and I'm tempted. Maximum one color variant for me, though.

Btw buccinator is one of my favorite muscle names b/c it comes from a Latin word meaning to blow a trumpet. They're the trumpeter muscles.

I higly doubt the book will cover only ceratopsians. It will probably dedicated to ornithischians as whole. Considering there are so many more theropods and sauropodomorphs than ceratopsians, it will result a very small book.

I agree, I think the next one is pretty likely to be ornithischians generally.

[SidB]

It's a great sculpt,but I would rather have seen Eofauna commit to either Triceratops horridus or T. prorsus instead of something intermediate between the two.

I probably would have said the same before the reveal , I'm sure, but I'm okay with this release because it's not hypothetical, but based on actual material.

[stargatedalek]

The more I see the mouth, the less I like it. Even if the cheek-less look is the more reasonable reconstruction, I still think the jaw being so open makes it look a little goofy.

The examples I've seen meant to demonstrate the chewing process (IIRC they were from a source arguing against cheek tissue) look eerily similar to how macaws chew, and they have very extensive cheek tissues.

Muscular cheeks they would not have been, but openings like this just don't feel natural. And given macaws and herbivorous lizards all have cheek tissues, that would make herbivorous dinosaurs the outliers for not having them.

Open jaws seem just as extreme a variation from these trends as muscular, mammal-like cheeks, so I find it it odd that's what people default to after rebuking muscular cheeks.

It's like people are trying to find a way to "show" that they didn't have muscular cheeks, by depicting them with no cheek tissues at all, in order to run that home. Reminds me of how shrink-wrapping started as a way to "show" dinosaurs as active predators, even though it was visually inaccurate. Perhaps a needlessly loaded comparison, but there is a distinct impression of deja vu.

It's a great sculpt,but I would rather have seen Eofauna commit to either Triceratops horridus or T. prorsus instead of something intermediate between the two.

If this was based on a composite of the two species I would agree, but it's based on a specific specimen*. It's only hypothesized as an intermediate form, it could actually be a contemporary species splitting from T. prorsus alongside T. horridus, or a species that split earlier, with less specimens known.

*Namely Yoshi's Trike (MOR 3027)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops#Classification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Rockies#Paleontology

[Loon]

@stargatedalek yeah, that does sound like a fairly similar case. I'm not committed to any hypothesis, I'm just not well researched on the subject, but the cheek-less look just seems a bit off.

[John]

It's a great sculpt,but I would rather have seen Eofauna commit to either Triceratops horridus or T. prorsus instead of something intermediate between the two.

If this was based on a composite of the two species I would agree, but it's based on a specific specimen*. It's only hypothesized as an intermediate form, it could actually be a contemporary species splitting from T. prorsus alongside T. horridus, or a species that split earlier, with less specimens known.

*Namely Yoshi's Trike (MOR 3027)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops#Classification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Rockies#Paleontology

Yes,Eofauna did mention "Yoshi's Trike" as one of the two specimens the model was based on,the other being UCMP 128561.Both of which are found in sediments below T. prorsus and above the layers associated with T. horridus.When I really think about it,I don't see any harm in something being different.The more variety in dinosaurs,the better.

[Leyster]

Is EoFauna's Theropod book out of print? It's very expensive on amazon now.

I don't think so? Here it is on Amazon Italy, it's 30 euros, more or less what I paid for it
https://www.amazon.com/Dinosaur-Facts-Figures-Theropods-Dinosauriformes/dp/0691180318/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?dchild=1&keywords=record+theropods&qid=1604215203&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0

[Duna]

Muscular cheeks they would not have been, but openings like this just don't feel natural. And given macaws and herbivorous lizards all have cheek tissues, that would make herbivorous dinosaurs the outliers for not having them.

Sorry but herbivorous lizards don't have cheek tissues. They have a little flap of mouth tissue in the corner of the jaws, so they look just like the Triceratops that Eofauna has done. Take iguanas for example:






For me it looks perfectly fine. Those depictions of very closed cheeks covered with skin and scales remember me of Disney Dinosaur movie.

[stargatedalek]

Iguanas have more tissue than you're giving them credit for, only the front half of the jaw is exposed like that. The jaw itself goes quite a ways back behind that opening point, and there are soft tissues inside the mouth that "slack" downwards to contain food when the mouth isn't stretched fully open, which is why they don't open their mouths to the full extent as they eat.

Notice the upward jutting shape on the lower jaw, it rather conveniently marks where the opening ends. Half of the lower jaw is covered by soft tissues, versus it looks like 80-90% exposed on the Triceratops.

Spoiler

https://www.worldwidewildlifeproducts.com/store/pc/Iguana-Skulls-c180.htm

[close]

Compare to the live green iguana in profile, the opening ends just behind the eye but the jaws continue much further.

Spoiler

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-green-iguana-mouth-open-panama-416752354

[close]

Black spiny tailed iguana with the mouth stretched fully open, notice the soft tissues of the mouth that form "internal cheeks" when the mouth is in a comfortable position. And they have far reduced tissues relative to green iguanas, owing to their omnivorous diet that comprises more of small animals and fruit than of leaves.

Spoiler

https://www.alamy.com/black-ctenosaur-with-wide-open-mouth-image277152535.html

[close]

[Duna]

Sorry but I don't see what you say in the pictures. Maybe I'm not making myself explained well.
The end of the jaw of the iguanas (the end of the real cheek covered with scales, that makes the edge in an acute angle) is just at the end of the jaw, farther than the eye. Then it has a little tissue that covers that angle, but does not make a cheek. The end of the jaw it's perfectly visible in all the herbivorous reptiles.
Just like the triceratops of Eofauna, if you look at the skull. I has the same sharp angle that shows the end of the jaw, and I see in the models the same tissue covering the angle, just like the iguanas. And as the triceratops have their mouths opened, the inner tissue is even more retracted but it's still visible. Just like the pictures of the iguanas with the mouths open.

Spoiler

[close]

[Sarapaurolophus]

Anyone got their book on sauropods yet? I put it on top of my Christmas wishlist.

It's good, although not quite what I expected. It's probably worth starting a thread in the books, films etc. section about it and the therapods one, and speculation about what's next.

@Justin_ I'd like to read your thoughts on it (and anybody else's who's got it). I am still undecided whether to get that one or the theropods one first. Both groups interest me and I dig the illustrations.

[stargatedalek]

Sorry but I don't see what you say in the pictures. Maybe I'm not making myself explained well.
The end of the jaw of the iguanas (the end of the real cheek covered with scales, that makes the edge in an acute angle) is just at the end of the jaw, farther than the eye. Then it has a little tissue that covers that angle, but does not make a cheek. The end of the jaw it's perfectly visible in all the herbivorous reptiles.
Just like the triceratops of Eofauna, if you look at the skull. I has the same sharp angle that shows the end of the jaw, and I see in the models the same tissue covering the angle, just like the iguanas. And as the triceratops have their mouths opened, the inner tissue is even more retracted but it's still visible. Just like the pictures of the iguanas with the mouths open.

Spoiler

[close]

If we were actually looking all the way to the back of the jaw, we would see that spine of bone sticking upwards somewhere along the length of the lower jaw. We don't because that is where the angle you describe is formed, not at the back of the jaw. Just because it appears to form at an angle doesn't mean that's where the jaw itself moves, rather what you're seeing is the slope of the upper jaw intersecting the tissues of the lower.

It's also important to note that almost all herbivorous dinosaurs have beaks, extending the effective length of their jaws even further than in lizards. Iguanas use the exposed section of their jaws to pluck at plants, but herbivorous dinosaurs had beaks to do that with.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

Despite all Arguments, i just think i like everything about this Trike. Also the way, the softtissue works on this one, when the mough is fully opened. Makes sense to me, looks good to me. Has a Birdlike appearance to me this way. I'll get the first Paintvariant, and then, maybe another one, because of the Displayoptions. But i really do not like the 2nd variant. These Green Legs could MAYBE look a bit like it was greenish swampy Plants/Mud, but it just looks off to me.

A Great case of "The Paintjob does the difference". I often like Scuplts, but the coloration and quality of the paintapp e.g. just hides everything. Repaint a maybe not that great looking Figure and you get a "Oh okay, looks quite nice now!"
Sometime i really do not like that. Mostly with Safari and ColllectAs. I would have said that it is a Pricing thing. But i recently looked at all the Mammals and other Animals from Schleich, Safari, CollectA... The are often painted in a beautiful way. In Terms of Quality and, yeah, Colourscheme. Yes, they are still extant but why do the prehistorix Animals get such unrealistig (to me) Paintapps? Also, Schleich does know how to sculpt, but they seem to hate prehistoric life.

Oh. I am Sorry. That got a bit out of Hand. Love the Trike. Love the Mouth. Love the chosen species.

[Kaustav Bhattacharyya]

Eofauna, a Triceratops slasher next year. Fingers crossed.  I do believe that it will be the most accurate and final version of the creature in terms of scientific accuracy along with every minute details.

[Justin_]

@Justin_ I'd like to read your thoughts on it (and anybody else's who's got it). I am still undecided whether to get that one or the theropods one first. Both groups interest me and I dig the illustrations.

There's a bit of a Guinness Book Of Records feel to the sauropods book which is what I wasn't expecting, so they want to show the largest, smallest, heaviest, fastest etc. of different groups. Often these seem to be unnamed species with just one or two bone fragments known, or a single footprint. To be honest, I mainly bought it purely for the illustrations which don't disappoint, although I would have liked more panoramic scenes. There's a good section on the plants in their environments, although from a design point-of-view I was surprised at a rather amateur bit of typography in this chapter, considering how good everything else looks. The only other problem I've got is sometimes the index gives the page number where a sub-chapter starts rather than the actual page where the specific animal is mentioned.

[Remko]

Both the Eofauna books have beautiful art, and many species are being discussed that are unknown.

But as you said, sometimes species are being shown while they are only known from very fragmentary remains. That's too bad, and a more well documented species should have been used instead.

My biggest criticism on both books is the way they talk about size and weight. I truly dislike the "longer than a bus and a car combined" or "as heavy as two elephants and a killer whale". I mean, what? Are these new units of measurement?

You could use that for a childrens book, not for something that aimes to be scientific in nature.

[Duna]

My biggest criticism on both books is the way they talk about size and weight. I truly dislike the "longer than a bus and a car combined" or "as heavy as two elephants and a killer whale". I mean, what? Are these new units of measurement?

Many (or better said, all) representations of prehistoric animals are displayed sooner or later with the figure of a human, so for me is perfectly ok to substitute or add an animal to that human. By the way, in the books the size and weight of those "animals" are standarised and explained in the first pages what exactly they represent. As well as the "human". For example, the bus is 12m and the human is a 1,8m tall man. And the killer whale is 8m and 7tons.