Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Stegotyranno420]

Not related to toys but since it is a controversial opinion, I think that all archosaurs closer related to the house sparrow than the saltwater crocodile should be called a dinosaur. That includes all pterosaurs, silesaurids etc...

I don't want to sound rude or anything but that just kind of seems strange, but I can relate. I used to kind of wish all archosaurs can be considered dinosaurs, mainly because crocodiles are so much like dinosaurs, people wont get so confused(although if we actually started to do it, it will cause even more confusion) and the idea of a gigantic reptilian "dinosaur"still living amongst us will be awesome. However it was a young and unscientific opinion I used to have. So I believe we should just keep the classifications as it is. Let dinosaurs be dinosaurs, let crocodiles be crocodiles, let silesaurids be silesaurids, etc. And besides if you think about it, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and even birds are just very derived crocodiles(if we can refer to early archosaurs as crocs, we can do so for Ornithodires).

[Nimravus]

Inspired by recent events, better to say posts,.... I am not amongst the ones seeking that legendary WWD Ornithocheirus. Sure thing is, if I`d find it by chance for a decent price
(no chance being located in Germany) I`d go for it. But rather than having it in my collection, I`d use it as a good base for a trade, as personally I do not find it too accurate
("thin upper arms, body too thin, chest too flat).

That being said... good luck for all those who are looking for one - keep in mmind though, if everyone of those wanting one, had one, it most likely wouldn`t be a holy grail anymore

Einverstanden!!! Fully agree with you

[Gwangi]

Not related to toys but since it is a controversial opinion, I think that all archosaurs closer related to the house sparrow than the saltwater crocodile should be called a dinosaur. That includes all pterosaurs, silesaurids etc...

There's already a clade for that, Avemetatarsalia. If you pushed back the definition of a dinosaur to include those animals then how would you differentiate dinosaurs from the rest of them? You would have to come up with another new clade. 

[stargatedalek]

Not related to toys but since it is a controversial opinion, I think that all archosaurs closer related to the house sparrow than the saltwater crocodile should be called a dinosaur. That includes all pterosaurs, silesaurids etc...

I don't want to sound rude or anything but that just kind of seems strange, but I can relate. I used to kind of wish all archosaurs can be considered dinosaurs, mainly because crocodiles are so much like dinosaurs, people wont get so confused(although if we actually started to do it, it will cause even more confusion) and the idea of a gigantic reptilian "dinosaur"still living amongst us will be awesome. However it was a young and unscientific opinion I used to have. So I believe we should just keep the classifications as it is. Let dinosaurs be dinosaurs, let crocodiles be crocodiles, let silesaurids be silesaurids, etc. And besides if you think about it, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and even birds are just very derived crocodiles(if we can refer to early archosaurs as crocs, we can do so for Ornithodires).

Crocodiles and dinosaurs don't seem all that similar to me...

And no, ornithodirans are NOT derived crocodiles. They share a common ancestor, but crocodiles are also very derived from that origin.

As for Silesaurs, they in particular may ultimately still end up being dinosaurs proper.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Not related to toys but since it is a controversial opinion, I think that all archosaurs closer related to the house sparrow than the saltwater crocodile should be called a dinosaur. That includes all pterosaurs, silesaurids etc...

There's already a clade for that, Avemetatarsalia. If you pushed back the definition of a dinosaur to include those animals then how would you differentiate dinosaurs from the rest of them? You would have to come up with another new clade.

I would swap names. Avemetatarsalia would be the name for what is now called dinosaurs.

[EmperorDinobot]

Inspired by recent events, better to say posts,.... I am not amongst the ones seeking that legendary WWD Ornithocheirus. Sure thing is, if I`d find it by chance for a decent price
(no chance being located in Germany) I`d go for it. But rather than having it in my collection, I`d use it as a good base for a trade, as personally I do not find it too accurate
("thin upper arms, body too thin, chest too flat).

That being said... good luck for all those who are looking for one - keep in mmind though, if everyone of those wanting one, had one, it most likely wouldn`t be a holy grail anymore

Jajajjaja it is not the best figure, but I would own one to *blushes* f...flex it.

[Stegotyranno420]

@stargatedalek i dont wish to get in an argument again, so I will just say first of all, the first statement is a subjective idea of crocodile and dinosaur similarity, secondly, I was saying that it depends what you mean by crocodile. Some people(like me) refer to crocodiles as TRUE crocodiles only, and then you have people who refer to crocodiles as crocodilia, but they also add in pholidosauria and other basal clades) then you have people who consider Erythosuchus and Proterosuchus as crocodiles. The point is, if a clade(clade C) more basal than clade A and B, but is often said to be part of Clade A, then the most recent common ancestor of all clades is the new clade A.

[stargatedalek]

@stargatedalek i dont wish to get in an argument again, so I will just say first of all, the first statement is a subjective idea of crocodile and dinosaur similarity, secondly, I was saying that it depends what you mean by crocodile. Some people(like me) refer to crocodiles as TRUE crocodiles only, and then you have people who refer to crocodiles as crocodilia, but they also add in pholidosauria and other basal clades) then you have people who consider Erythosuchus and Proterosuchus as crocodiles. The point is, if a clade(clade C) more basal than clade A and B, but is often said to be part of Clade A, then the most recent common ancestor of all clades is the new clade A.

I'm not trying to start arguments. You said something factually incorrect and I attempted to provide an explanation, as I would do for anyone else and as I hope others would do for me. If you don't want me to engage you personally that's more than fine, I already make an effort not to, but when topics of discussion happen to also involve you I'm not going to refrain, nor am I going to leave incorrect assertions unrefuted.

I'm saying that even using vernacular meaning of the term "crocodile" as interchangeable with Crocodylomorpha, they are not the ancestors of dinosaurs.

[Stegotyranno420]

I am not saying crocodiles are the ansectors of dinosaurs.I am talking about my earlier inncauracies and why I was wrong. At the end, i just said that if we go by one alternative definition it is kind of funny how that could change classification. It was a taxonomical joke and i didn't mean Crocodilia, crocodylomorpha, i referred to the early and basal/ancestral archosaurs sometimes(and inaccurately) referred to crocodiles.

Let's just change the topic.

I think (accurate and real) stegosaurus deserves more attention in figure form. Im tired of my favorite dinosaur being that small and weak and lumpy jp2 knockoff in figure form. There is only one figure i know that is a good example but the colors are bland and if I'm not mistaken, its a female stegosaurus(I'm looking for a male that is 1:35/1:40)

[ceratopsian]

I think (accurate and real) stegosaurus deserves more attention in figure form. Im tired of my favorite dinosaur being that small and weak and lumpy jp2 knockoff in figure form. There is only one figure i know that is a good example but the colors are bland and if I'm not mistaken, its a female stegosaurus(I'm looking for a male that is 1:35/1:40)

I'm curious - what criteria are you using to sex a Stegosaurus?

[Dinoguy2]

I think (accurate and real) stegosaurus deserves more attention in figure form. Im tired of my favorite dinosaur being that small and weak and lumpy jp2 knockoff in figure form. There is only one figure i know that is a good example but the colors are bland and if I'm not mistaken, its a female stegosaurus(I'm looking for a male that is 1:35/1:40)

I'm curious - what criteria are you using to sex a Stegosaurus?

There's no evidence of dimorphism in Stegosaurus. They may be thinking of Hesperosaurus, but even that is somewhat controversial. Or maybe they're thinking of Sophie, which is a subadult, not female.

The PNSO Steg is a perfectly good 1:35 Stegosaurus stenops.

[ceratopsian]

Precisely, there is no evidence that I know of. And the only reason "Sophie" was given a girl's name was to honour the man who put the fundraising consortium together by calling the fossil after his daughter. It does not reflect the gender of the dinosaur who was fossilised.

[Bread]

Since the top 10 favorite figures released in 2020 thread is live and ready to be voted on, I have considered another controversial opinion of mine:
Sometimes color applications help a figure's proportional issues. For example, the Corythosaurus. I know some people have mixed feelings about this figure due to the over sized head and crest. I just feel like the colors and applications really do help this figure a lot.

[Stegotyranno420]

Oh i see now, so kind of like the same case of Sue the tyrannosaurus?
Also I should have been a tad more specific, I was looking for S.unglatus

[Faelrin]

@Bread Yeah I get what you mean. I probably wouldn't have liked it as much without that gorgeous color scheme (though it has been many years since a new Corythosaurus figure has been made by any company, so that helps it for me as well).

[ceratopsian]

Yes, exactly so. Same for Trix and Tristan the Tyrannosauruses. That is I think the huge problem with giving fossils "friendly" gender-specific nicknames. It's easy to make erroneous assumptions about the gender of the actual animal.

Oh i see now, so kind of like the same case of Sue the tyrannosaurus?
......

[Stegotyranno420]

Yes, exactly so. Same for Trix and Tristan the Tyrannosauruses. That is I think the huge problem with giving fossils "friendly" gender-specific nicknames. It's easy to make erroneous assumptions about the gender of the actual animal.

Oh i see now, so kind of like the same case of Sue the tyrannosaurus?
......

SO for example Sam(which is gender neutral to my knowledge) would work but not , say Kevin(which to my knowledge is masculine)

[ceratopsian]

Yes, I think that would be much better.  But I can also see that when a museum needs to honour the person who provided funding for a purchase, it's not so easy for the museum!

Yes, exactly so. Same for Trix and Tristan the Tyrannosauruses. That is I think the huge problem with giving fossils "friendly" gender-specific nicknames. It's easy to make erroneous assumptions about the gender of the actual animal.

Oh i see now, so kind of like the same case of Sue the tyrannosaurus?
......

SO for example Sam(which is gender neutral to my knowledge) would work but not , say Kevin(which to my knowledge is masculine)

[Dinoguy2]

Oh i see now, so kind of like the same case of Sue the tyrannosaurus?
Also I should have been a tad more specific, I was looking for S.unglatus

I would love for somebody to make a good, modern S. ungulatus figure. Maybe after the Yale Peabody Museum finishes their updated mount of the holotype somebody will base a figure on it.

[Stegotyranno420]

I am the only one who cant find anything good about the 2 most beloved figures of the year, safari deinonychus and lisowicia. I mean everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I'm baffled at myself that I cannnot fit in by loving these figures, it boggles my mind that I'm like the only guy here who dislikes them haha And I'm not even trying to be mad or disgusted, its genuinely funny according to me.