Riley Black gives prehistoric fish their due

[Halichoeres]

A basal neopterygian (Platysiagum) gets the star treatment on Laelaps blog:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/paleo-profile-the-fish-from-china/

It is a beautiful set of fossils. Funny that so many dinosaurs known from garbage fossils get lots of toys made of them, but something like this, whose appearance is almost completely known, has basically no shot!

[SBell]

A basal neopterygian gets the star treatment on Laelaps blog:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/paleo-profile-the-fish-from-china/

It is a beautiful set of fossils. Funny that so many dinosaurs known from garbage fossils get lots of toys made of them, but something like this, whose appearance is almost completely known, has basically no shot!

Cool. But, no, it won't be a figure any time soon.

It's hard enough to get modern fish represented as more than just generic fish. Prehistoric ones only show up if they're secondary (like the Favorite dueling pterosaurs) or distinct and cool (the Damtoys Onchopristis being a recent example).

So, just like other prehistoric figures.

[Faelrin]

Yeah it is a shame fish are not made into figures much, especially prehistoric ones (except for sharks and Dunkleosteus I guess). Anyways that is a beautifully preserved fossil fish. I really like the round scales it has too. Would have been gorgeous in life I think.

[Neosodon]

Well we do have the safari ceolocanth so I wouldn't say it never happens. But I wouldn't count on getting a new one anytime soon.

[Halichoeres]

The Onchopristis and coelacanth are strange examples, because the former is portrayed as just a bigger version of a living fish, and the latter is literally a living fish not known from fossils. Yes, there are fossil coelacanths, but they are distinct from Latimeria. It's a nice figure, of course, but it rightfully belongs in their Sea Life line, not their prehistoric line. The weirdest, most distinctive prehistoric fish generally don't get figures, probably because most people have never heard of them.

[Digibasherx]

I liked to see a model of the forked tailed coelacanth (rebellatrix divaricerca) myself.  I'm actually surprised we don't see more models of eusthenopteron and other lobed finned fishes, since we've all seen these in our biology and science text books.

[CityRaptor]

Well, there is the problem. If you look into a toy catalogue, modern animals are most presented by mammals. You got like 90% mammals ( especially humans and horses ), a few Sauropsids and a few sharks, with maybe some extra fish. The much much smaller prehistoric section is mostly dinosaurs, few pterosaurs and marine reptiles, then (mostly mammalian ) synapsids. 

Also look at this chart I found on Deviantart ( It's one of several based on a template that is now gone )

Look how freaking mammal-centric it is, even wasting two spots on Canis and two spots on Panthera.

Fish are just not that interesting to people.

[Halichoeres]

I can't see your chart!

[CityRaptor]

Okay, just fixed it. Look how messed up it is.

[Digibasherx]

I think it's more that fishes tend to be unrelatable because they live in a different medium.  It's not like you can pet a fish or a fish will bring you your slippers.  Probably why household mammal pets are the most popular. 

[SBell]

Well, there is the problem. If you look into a toy catalogue, modern animals are most presented by mammals. You got like 90% mammals ( especially humans and horses ), a few Sauropsids and a few sharks, with maybe some extra fish. The much much smaller prehistoric section is mostly dinosaurs, few pterosaurs and marine reptiles, then (mostly mammalian ) synapsids. 

Also look at this chart I found on Deviantart ( It's one of several based on a template that is now gone )

Look how freaking mammal-centric it is, even wasting two spots on Canis and two spots on Panthera.

Fish are just not that interesting to people.

And yet...Finding Nemo is not represented in your chart (except by a very ancillary character).

I would question the source of the 'data' for the infographic. Some of those characters are incredibly old Hanna-Barbara cartoons that no one under 50 could name; there is not a single horse (seriously, despite wings and horns, that's what MLP are); and there is only one Pixar movie represented (and not even that many disney).

That said, yeah, fish aren't generally big as cuddly animals. But they can still be popular figures if someone makes them.

[tyrantqueen]

It came from DeviantART...nuff said, lol.

[Ravonium]

I would question the source of the 'data' for the infographic.

Who's to say that they even used any data? The first impression I got from the infographic was that it was a compilation of the creator's favourite fictional animals.

It came from DeviantART...nuff said, lol.

I guess that's why they had the audacity to call an MLP character a 'unique species' 

[SBell]

I would question the source of the 'data' for the infographic.

Who's to say that they even used any data? The first impression I got from the infographic was that it was a compilation of the creator's favourite fictional animals.

It came from DeviantART...nuff said, lol.

I guess that's why they had the audacity to call an MLP character a 'unique species' 

I honestly had no idea where the data, etc came from. As is kind of indicated here...whatever. People buy fish models if people make them.