Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[GojiraGuy1954]

@GojiraGuy1954, where is that Tarbosaurus skin impression from?  I've never seen it before.

The page I got it from says it's a supposed Tarbo skin impression from Young (2011).

[Sim]

@GojiraGuy1954, where is that Tarbosaurus skin impression from?  I've never seen it before.

The page I got it from says it's a supposed Tarbo skin impression from Young (2011).

I think I might have seen it before actually, and it was said it's most likely actually from Saurolophus.  I found somewhere else that says that: https://www.deviantart.com/paleonerd01/art/Tyrannosauridae-skin-chart-grey-literature-883995243

This armoured or cornified skin is what we know from the Gorgosaurus impressions, which are on its lips. The describing paper positioned this as evidence for lip-less crocodile like oral structures, but it could just as easily have been sitting on top of lips and it would serve even better as armour if it was. Not sure how that's relevant to feathering.

The Gorgosaurus scale impressions aren't from the head.  I think you're thinking of Daspletosaurus horneri which had a paper saying how the surface of its skull suggested it had "flat scales" like a crocodilian around its mouth and then news articles said this meant it didn't have lips.  It was later shown that crocodilians don't have scales on their heads, they actually have cracked skin, and that the surface of D. horneri's skull suggests it had scales like a lizard around its mouth and nothing suggested it didn't have lips.

So what do the Tyrannosaurus impressions look like? Well to be frank they look like turkey skin. Turkeys have round "lumps" or bubbles of skin that give them a warty appearance very similar to the impressions identified from Tyrannosaurus. Turkeys use them to change the colour (and theoretically patterns) of their skin at will by flushing them with blood to change their colour from grey, to blue, to red. A large animal like Tyrannosaurus may have made use of similar structures to manage blood flow near the skin for thermoregulation.

The Tyrannosaurus skin impressions don't really look like turkey skin to me.  They remind me of the integument of dodo legs: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:London_Dodo_leg.jpg

And ultimately the impressions in question are tiny. Millimetre segments of an animal tens of meters in length. Regardless of what they are, trying to infer the entire animals appearance from them is going to be speculative. Which just kind of leaves us where we were, which is the genetic evidence in favour of feathers. Plus we now (as in, as of this week) have hard evidence that at least the chicks of crown carcharodontosaurids and megalosaurs were feathered. So having feathers in at least some stage of life was the norm for a probable majority of large theropods.

I don't think the Tyrannosaurus skin impressions kind of leaves us where we were.  They brought attention to how scientifically implausible a 'full' coat of feathers is for Tyrannosaurus, and how portions of its head have osteological correlates for scales.  And, how there is genetic evidence for scales from relatives a number of tyrannosaurids.
There is no evidence carcharodontosaurid babies had feathers since Scipionyx doesn't preserve feathers.

And again, it doesn't even matter what they actually are. Look at these impressions, look at where they're placed on the body, now forget it because that's complete speculation. These are using a millimetre as a scale bar, how exactly are we supposed to know where on the body these are from? These aren't large sections of tissue that show the general shape or curvature of the animal to allow us to place them on a reconstruction, like we have from Triceratops and Edmontosaurus, they're tiny little chunks.

They're found in rough placement relative to bones sure, but fossils aren't exact replicas of an animal, they're replicas of a corpse. Large animals bloat and swell, scavengers tear tissues apart and discard them haphazardly, skin ruptures or peels back and collects towards the animals back and underside.

I think if the position of the Tyrannosaurus skin impressions was uncertain the paper would have said so as they did for one or two other tyrannosaurid skin impressions.

People are really over estimating the scale supporting papers tho

How?

Ur, not for lips. Them having lips seems a no brainer to me. I don't know why anyone (apart from people who see them as bipedal crocodiles) would think otherwise.

I think there is good arguments for lips or no lips. To me at least, my favorite depiction is the mix of the two. Partial lipped if you may call it.

What good arguments have you seen for no lips?  The only thing I saw was @Eofauna saying something about how, if I'm remembering correctly, the force experienced by large theropods meant they wouldn't have lips.

[GojiraGuy1954]

@GojiraGuy1954, where is that Tarbosaurus skin impression from?  I've never seen it before.

The page I got it from says it's a supposed Tarbo skin impression from Young (2011).

I think I might have seen it before actually, and it was said it's most likely actually from Saurolophus.  I found somewhere else that says that: https://www.deviantart.com/paleonerd01/art/Tyrannosauridae-skin-chart-grey-literature-883995243

This armoured or cornified skin is what we know from the Gorgosaurus impressions, which are on its lips. The describing paper positioned this as evidence for lip-less crocodile like oral structures, but it could just as easily have been sitting on top of lips and it would serve even better as armour if it was. Not sure how that's relevant to feathering.

The Gorgosaurus scale impressions aren't from the head.  I think you're thinking of Daspletosaurus horneri which had a paper saying how the surface of its skull suggested it had "flat scales" like a crocodilian around its mouth and then news articles said this meant it didn't have lips.  It was later shown that crocodilians don't have scales on their heads, they actually have cracked skin, and that the surface of D. horneri's skull suggests it had scales like a lizard around its mouth and nothing suggested it didn't have lips.

So what do the Tyrannosaurus impressions look like? Well to be frank they look like turkey skin. Turkeys have round "lumps" or bubbles of skin that give them a warty appearance very similar to the impressions identified from Tyrannosaurus. Turkeys use them to change the colour (and theoretically patterns) of their skin at will by flushing them with blood to change their colour from grey, to blue, to red. A large animal like Tyrannosaurus may have made use of similar structures to manage blood flow near the skin for thermoregulation.

The Tyrannosaurus skin impressions don't really look like turkey skin to me.  They remind me of the integument of dodo legs: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:London_Dodo_leg.jpg

And ultimately the impressions in question are tiny. Millimetre segments of an animal tens of meters in length. Regardless of what they are, trying to infer the entire animals appearance from them is going to be speculative. Which just kind of leaves us where we were, which is the genetic evidence in favour of feathers. Plus we now (as in, as of this week) have hard evidence that at least the chicks of crown carcharodontosaurids and megalosaurs were feathered. So having feathers in at least some stage of life was the norm for a probable majority of large theropods.

I don't think the Tyrannosaurus skin impressions kind of leaves us where we were.  They brought attention to how scientifically implausible a 'full' coat of feathers is for Tyrannosaurus, and how portions of its head have osteological correlates for scales.  And, how there is genetic evidence for scales from relatives a number of tyrannosaurids.
There is no evidence carcharodontosaurid babies had feathers since Scipionyx doesn't preserve feathers.

And again, it doesn't even matter what they actually are. Look at these impressions, look at where they're placed on the body, now forget it because that's complete speculation. These are using a millimetre as a scale bar, how exactly are we supposed to know where on the body these are from? These aren't large sections of tissue that show the general shape or curvature of the animal to allow us to place them on a reconstruction, like we have from Triceratops and Edmontosaurus, they're tiny little chunks.

They're found in rough placement relative to bones sure, but fossils aren't exact replicas of an animal, they're replicas of a corpse. Large animals bloat and swell, scavengers tear tissues apart and discard them haphazardly, skin ruptures or peels back and collects towards the animals back and underside.

I think if the position of the Tyrannosaurus skin impressions was uncertain the paper would have said so as they did for one or two other tyrannosaurid skin impressions.

People are really over estimating the scale supporting papers tho

How?

Ur, not for lips. Them having lips seems a no brainer to me. I don't know why anyone (apart from people who see them as bipedal crocodiles) would think otherwise.

I think there is good arguments for lips or no lips. To me at least, my favorite depiction is the mix of the two. Partial lipped if you may call it.

What good arguments have you seen for no lips?  The only thing I saw was @Eofauna saying something about how, if I'm remembering correctly, the force experienced by large theropods meant they wouldn't have lips.

I love EoFauna but I really dislike that argument against lips. How is that relevant like, at all

[GojiraGuy1954]

It's 4am, I haven't slept, and this isn't necessarily about toys, but definitely related to our community and probably pretty hyperbolic...

Sooooo...I cannot stand this nickname crap... "Giga", "Spino", "Rex". IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO TYPE OUT THE WHOLE NAME!!!

Seriously, some of them don't even sound right: "Tricera", "Veloci", and most recently "Paracera"... Like, go ahead and type "Dimorpho" all you want, more power to you; but, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Yeah because people don't say that???
The shortenings are "Trike", "Velo", and "Para".

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Para is terrible because there are several animals with that prefix

[GojiraGuy1954]

Para is terrible because there are several animals with that prefix

I can only think of Paraceratherium which I usually shorten to Paracera

[GojiraGuy1954]

The Eofauna Giganotosaurus is overrated.
The Safari Ltd. Concavenator sucks. (that's only controversial on this forum)
The Papo Chilesaurus is the worst Papo figure. (again, only controversial here)
The Schleich Baryonyx is overrated.

Did you forget the Elasmosaurus, Tylosaurus, and Amargasaurus were Papo? Can't blame you, honestly. They look more like Schleich figures from the early 2010s.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Para is terrible because there are several animals with that prefix

I can only think of Paraceratherium which I usually shorten to Paracera

Pararhabdodon, Paratypothorax, Paralatitan, Paraxensis,

[Bread]

@Sim
https://theropoda-blogspot-com.translate.goog/2021/04/possiamo-predire-matematicamente-la.html?showComment=1618286810720&m=1&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=ajax,nv,elem,se#c1124261213608192221

Or refer to page 8 of "Dinosaur lips?" thread under paleontology.

Another argument that I have seen is the fact that Crocodiles do not show damage to their teeth when not in water for long periods of time.

Again, I don't mind the argument for or against lips. To me at least, partial lipped covering seems the most plausible.

@GojiraGuy1954 I have to say the Papo Chilesaurus is worse than those other Papo figures you mentioned. Even the Tylosaurus.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Para is terrible because there are several animals with that prefix

I can only think of Paraceratherium which I usually shorten to Paracera

Pararhabdodon, Paratypothorax, Paralatitan, Paraxensis,

The only one ive ever heard of in that list is Paralatitan, which is short enough to just say the whole thing

[GojiraGuy1954]

@Sim
https://theropoda-blogspot-com.translate.goog/2021/04/possiamo-predire-matematicamente-la.html?showComment=1618286810720&m=1&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=ajax,nv,elem,se#c1124261213608192221

Or refer to page 8 of "Dinosaur lips?" thread under paleontology.

Another argument that I have seen is the fact that Crocodiles do not show damage to their teeth when not in water for long periods of time.

Again, I don't mind the argument for or against lips. To me at least, partial lipped covering seems the most plausible.

@GojiraGuy1954 I have to say the Papo Chilesaurus is worse than those other Papo figures you mentioned. Even the Tylosaurus.

The chilesaurus has a weird pose, but at least it has competent sculpting detail.

[Sim]

Para is terrible because there are several animals with that prefix

I can only think of Paraceratherium which I usually shorten to Paracera

Pararhabdodon, Paratypothorax, Paralatitan, Paraxensis,

The only one ive ever heard of in that list is Paralatitan, which is short enough to just say the whole thing

I'm shocked you both forgot about Parasaurolophus.  Spino can refer to Spinophorosaurus as well as Spinosaurus, I know there's a Deviantart user that uses it in their name referring to Spinophorosaurus.

[stargatedalek]

Appears I misremembered a fair few details, so thanks for those corrections! I will however fight you on the uncertain placement of the impressions. Bakker was pushing an agenda with that paper as even several of the co-authors said at the time the final conclusion was phrased far too boldly for their research. I see no evidence supporting the suggested positions of the impressions, and that burden to prove where they're from is on the people claiming their position provides evidence for a particular reconstruction.

[Duck]

Beasts of the Mesozoic is overrated.

There, I said it.

[PumperKrickel]

Beasts of the Mesozoic is overrated.

There, I said it.

In what way?

[ItsTwentyBelow]

Beasts of the Mesozoic is overrated.

Elaborate, please.

You must have decided against backing the Guanlong?

[Duck]

P @PumperKrickel @ItsTwentyBelow A few reasons. One is the quality control, specifically on the raptor series, is poor. I've seen reports of uncured paint, loose joints, and more. Another is the joint seams, which really bug me. Sometimes the paint schemes are really over the top too. However, there are still many good BotM dinosaurs out there, such as the upcoming Guanlong and Yutyrannus. I just prefer static figures more.

I will say, most of the upcoming Tyrannosaur series looks fabulous. Good paint jobs, more hidden seams. Hopefully the wait is worth it.

[Bread]

I can see why someone would say BOTM is overrated. Like @Duck pointed out, seams can be somewhat distracting as it does depend on your taste. Likewise, static figures can be more favored than articulated. Just depends on the person's collecting point of view.

[Gwangi]

I don't know that I would call BotM overrated, they're just not for me. I can see why people like them and I certainly appreciate them. That said, for being action figures they seem too delicate and expensive to actually do much with them. I have a very small collection of NECA and McFarlane toys and those joints seem to break way too easily. I feel like if I ever got BotM figures I would inevitably break one just by doing with it what it is intended to do. Keep in mind that this comes from someone who doesn't actually own any BotM figures.

[stargatedalek]

I only have two (FC/roadrunner Saurornitholestes and Psittacosaurus).

I've fiddled with them both a lot and actively played with the raptor a bit, and fragility doesn't seem to be a concern. Whereas I've had Neca things break from dropping them while still in their boxes. They're just made in a much softer plastic where that isn't very likely to happen, though it is certainly less detailed as a result than Neca let alone McFarlane.

The softer plastic also causes some quality control issues, but nothing we don't see on other lines done in similar materials.

I would equate BOTM more to Star Wars Black Series or even to Figma than to Neca. Neca and McFarlane toys are more "low end statues with articulation features" while BOTM are "high end action figures/toys with sculpting detail, paint, and conceptual work/presentation above what action figures usually entail".