Papo - new for 2019

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right..we should ignore the closest examples we have of related ( albeit distantly ) animals in favor of anything that might share a similar environment?

Anatomy, not environment. Think of it this way:
-Birds are out because their tails are so small relative to Spinosaurus, they are clearly not physically capable of serving the same function.
-Crocodilian scutes are out because we know the common ancestor of Spinosaurus and crocodiles did not have them.

Therefore, the "norm" for aquatic animals with long tails should take precedence over birds and crocodiles, genetic relations in this case be damned.

As for how aquatic Spinosaurus was, isotopes show it spent the majority of its time in water, muscle atrophy shows the legs were not used for supporting the animals weight often or for extended periods, only confirmed prey are all large fish, and its remains come from a coastal mangrove forest with near identical remains existing on the opposite shore of the Atlantic ("Oxalaia"). It spent a great deal of time in salt water, and hunted large fish, possibly even entering open ocean deliberately. Whether Spinosaurus was more akin to a puffin, spending months at sea and returning to reproduce, or more like seals returning to land frequently, we may never know, but we do know it wasn't behaving like a crocodile.

Again, I'm just talking accuracy here, not aesthetics.

I'm looking and I'm not seeing those yellow highlighted fin rays in the pictures. It just looks like resolution distorting the colours to me.

I would rather deal in genetic relations I guess than convergent evolution as that seems to often be wrong as right.  Again as with many things of this nature you can just say " we don't know" I just tend to think it unlikely.

I found the same articles mentioning the isotope research, however what I couldn't find was anything about just how accurate it was. I found several articles talking about how strong the leg muscles were meaning it could have been  a strong swimmer.  Many still think the legs are too small in the reconstruction, I wouldn't call them atrophied, that's like saying Tyrannosaurs had atrophied arms, they are small but very strong.  I wouldn't use Oxalaia, it's fragmentary at best so we have extremely little information about it.   How do we know for certain it didn't behave like a crocodile when they occupy a similar niche and have similar characteristics? Saltwater crocodiles enter saltwater , brackish and freshwater to hunt. 

There are lines and sharp dips in the outline I drew over.  If it's just a resolution distortion, it would be odd as it's the only one in that exact area.  If we get better images and indeed it's different I may change my opinion and will have no issue being wrong.

[ITdactyl]

I don't mind the tail so much. It's not even a fish tail - It's a giant newt! All things considered, Spinosaurus doesn't seem to have an impressively deep tail skeletal structure (from more recent reconstructions).  If we're attributing aquatic habits to it, I won't fault people taking artistic license to deepen the tail with a fin - though I'd be the first to admit that an axolotl-ish fin might be too much.

Still, it looks good IMO.

Also, no one mentioned there was a nice Hippogriff.

[Concavenator]

Scientifically, the spinosaurus versions of Collecta, Schleich and Safari are superior. But honestly the one that I like the most for its details is undoubtedly Papo's (which may be in the background with the versions of Rebor and PNSO).

I sincerely know that it is not a scientific figure but I really like the spinosaurus of Papo version of 2019. I understand that many members of the forum do not like Papo for his modern paleoartistic style but honestly I am very happy with the spinosaurus of Papo and honestly it is one of the best made by a toy company and rivals with resin versions, although I also have to admit that they are more precise and superfluous also those of the three companies mentioned in my first paragraph, that does not mean that for me one of the best spinosaurus made by a toy brand and we must thank Papo for his titanic effort in the realization of this figure.

It is true that many figures of Papo follow a philosophy of modern or avant-garde art as it happens with his baryonyx but sincerely this spinosaurus of Papo 2019 with the inaccuracies (tail of eel) observed by the members of the forum is a real dinosaur that has nothing to do with other figures of the same brand.

My thoughts exactly , if you were to ask someone who doesn't know much about dinosaurs except From seeing them on  films or ask someone who doesn't give a heck about dinosaurs , and you show them Papo , schleich , safari , collectA and rebor , 99% of them would say rebor and Papo stomps the other 3 . In terms of detail and realism , it's not even a contest

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

Having a specific sculpting style is one thing and what you do with your sculpting style is another.

For example, in this case, Papo's sculptor has the skill to do very lifelike sculpts.That's fine. But then, for example, making the teeth longer so the animal looks more frightening is another case.

Instead of making the teeth exaggerately large, the sculptor could have chosen to make them smaller ( which is more accurate).But making the teeth larger lends to a scarier creature.
And what's a monster's mission after all? To scare. And what's for example , a great white shark's and or a grizzly bear's mission? Just none.They're just animals that exist.

And as @stargatedalek says, I would be willing to forgive some inaccuracies in a representation of an animal that at least tried to show a natural animal rather than a representation showing a monster dinosaur, even if the accuracy  issue is the same.

Hence my argument of Papo's dinosaurs being  "monster dinosaurs" remains unbeatable. And hey, that's not even something bad.Just because they're that way doesn't mean you must like them less.If you like those kind of representations, it's perfectly fine. However, I personally don't like this kind of representations.Not every one of us looks the same thing in a dinosaur figure . I personally want an accurate ( or largely accurate) ,beautiful and reasonably priced figure. If others like cool looking creatures, it's fine.

[paintingdinos]

Just because something is overused doesn't make it wrong though. I think a lot of people get hyped about something new just for the sake of it being new, lord knows I do at times. Todd also did all his theropods with spines, not just Spinosaurus.

On that same note, just because something has been overused doesn't make it right.

People should be excited about new and unique interpretations. Even if they end up being incorrect, its better than stagnating on one idea ad nauseam. For me, collecting is all about what personally excites me... as a curious person, seeing something new especially peaks my interest and this is the first Papo I've really want to pick up in a long time.

Also I'm aware of Todd's art style, yes. I specifically like his Spino for the reasons I expressed. The thought if it being an ambush predator that lies in wait at the bottom of a lake/sea bed, covered in wispy, frayed pits of its spine/etc to mimic debris in the water. Its as interesting of an image to conjure as any of the more traditional Spino imagery. I know that's not what Todd was trying to represent in his image, but that's what came to mind when I first saw the artwork. 

[stargatedalek]

I would rather deal in genetic relations I guess than convergent evolution as that seems to often be wrong as right.  Again as with many things of this nature you can just say " we don't know" I just tend to think it unlikely.

I found the same articles mentioning the isotope research, however what I couldn't find was anything about just how accurate it was. I found several articles talking about how strong the leg muscles were meaning it could have been  a strong swimmer.  Many still think the legs are too small in the reconstruction, I wouldn't call them atrophied, that's like saying Tyrannosaurs had atrophied arms, they are small but very strong.  I wouldn't use Oxalaia, it's fragmentary at best so we have extremely little information about it.   How do we know for certain it didn't behave like a crocodile when they occupy a similar niche and have similar characteristics? Saltwater crocodiles enter saltwater , brackish and freshwater to hunt. 

There are lines and sharp dips in the outline I drew over.  If it's just a resolution distortion, it would be odd as it's the only one in that exact area.  If we get better images and indeed it's different I may change my opinion and will have no issue being wrong.

You misunderstand, I'm saying crocodiles are so far removed from Spinosaurus that giving it crocodile scutes IS relying on them being convergent. And the odds of Spinosaurus having an exactly identical feature as one that only one group of aquatic animals developed as opposed to a more generalized feature that almost every other group developed are astronomically low.

Can't speak for the isotope studies accuracy, but it's worth mentioning those studies even lead to same unusual results on their own, such as Spinosaurus teeth showing significantly less submersion than its body. Perhaps it was more of a pelican than a diver. Actually now that I really think about, there is a great deal of evidence to support this.

I did not say the legs were atrophied, I said the muscles were atrophied. The muscles used to support weight are atrophied, and despite this the backwards pushing muscles are extremely large. Coupled with the strange leg proportions it's definitive to say that regardless of the legs size relative to the body they were not adapted to support weight for extended periods of time, or for rapid movement on land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoeA6xaVdZo

I only mentioned Oxalaia because it's bones are identical to Spinosaurus and found on the opposing shore, we know so little about it but we do know that at some point at least one Spinosaurus crossed the Atlantic.

Spinosaurus absolutely does not occupy the same niche as crocodiles. That's like saying turtles occupy the same niche as crocodiles because they are carnivorous aquatic reptiles. Regardless of whether it spent its time in salt or brackish water Spinosaurus was simply not equipped as an ambush predator. It was extremely large and had a tall structure which would prevent it from hiding in shallow water, and it's legs were not adapted for bursts of quick speed but rather for prolonged periods of paddling. Additionally, if there is one thing we do have good fossil record for its Spinosaurus prey, a large variety of fish, and from what we know only fish.

I think I see them now, still, they must be very subtle. Hopefully they are just wrinkles and not fin rays.

[paintingdinos]

It doesn't have to operate like a crocodile to be an ambush preditor. If it truly did spend a portion of its life in the ocean, where it could easily be fully submerged, well...



I support outrageous speculative wobbegong Spino for a paleo meme in 2019.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I see there have already been many pages discussing this Spinosaurus but I would like to say how this Spinosaurus is possibly the best figure done by Papo, though that is partially because it is based on a real animal and not a Jurassic Park monster like most of their others, but also I like the tail, the crocodile scutes on the tail are far too common for Spinosaurus (and some other Spinosaurs like CollectA's upcoming Baryonyx) for something that has no basis in reality.

[tanystropheus]

Scientifically, the spinosaurus versions of Collecta, Schleich and Safari are superior. But honestly the one that I like the most for its details is undoubtedly Papo's (which may be in the background with the versions of Rebor and PNSO).

I sincerely know that it is not a scientific figure but I really like the spinosaurus of Papo version of 2019. I understand that many members of the forum do not like Papo for his modern paleoartistic style but honestly I am very happy with the spinosaurus of Papo and honestly it is one of the best made by a toy company and rivals with resin versions, although I also have to admit that they are more precise and superfluous also those of the three companies mentioned in my first paragraph, that does not mean that for me one of the best spinosaurus made by a toy brand and we must thank Papo for his titanic effort in the realization of this figure.

It is true that many figures of Papo follow a philosophy of modern or avant-garde art as it happens with his baryonyx but sincerely this spinosaurus of Papo 2019 with the inaccuracies (tail of eel) observed by the members of the forum is a real dinosaur that has nothing to do with other figures of the same brand.

My thoughts exactly , if you were to ask someone who doesn't know much about dinosaurs except From seeing them on  films or ask someone who doesn't give a heck about dinosaurs , and you show them Papo , schleich , safari , collectA and rebor , 99% of them would say rebor and Papo stomps the other 3 . In terms of detail and realism , it's not even a contest

Also,it's not that I hate Papo.I have some Papo figures in my collection,and I think their sculptor has a lot of talent,but I'm not interested in their monster dinosaurs and their high price.

You seem quite vocal for someone that doesn't dislike Papo and calling their creations "monster" is a bit disrespectful. Papo models are more scientific than monster with a few inaccurate embellishments here and there (what company doesn't have inaccuracies, case-in-point WS's Styracosaurus horns or Eofauna opting for older skull reconstruction for the Giga). It's been this way for a few years already minus some obvious movie cash-ins like the Dimorphodon. I'm sure the Pentaceratops is a movie monster too using what passes as logic these days. The real reason is the high price under the guise of "just look at these monstrosities, oh my!".

Hence my argument of Papo's dinosaurs being  "monster dinosaurs" remains unbeatable. And hey, that's not even something bad.Just because they're that way doesn't mean you must like them less.If you like those kind of representations, it's perfectly fine. However, I personally don't like this kind of representations.Not every one of us looks the same thing in a dinosaur figure . I personally want an accurate ( or largely accurate) ,beautiful and reasonably priced figure. If others like cool looking creatures, it's fine.

Unfortunately, the "monster" definition is nothing more than a subjective assessment. Papo's latest Spinosaurus is based on the scientific perspective of a quadrupedal beast (with a reasonable functional basis for the tail). Slightly larger teeth is not the best standard for calling this reconstruction a 'monster', especially when blunted teeth is not particularly desirable (e.g. Schleich Spino). You say you are looking for a "an accurate ( or largely accurate) ,beautiful and reasonably priced figure." Considering how little we know of the Spinosaurus, I would say it meets all your criteria except price. Sure, we can nitpick a few threads worth...talk about unsightly pimples and moles and what not...but really

[Joey]

I would rather deal in genetic relations I guess than convergent evolution as that seems to often be wrong as right.  Again as with many things of this nature you can just say " we don't know" I just tend to think it unlikely.

I found the same articles mentioning the isotope research, however what I couldn't find was anything about just how accurate it was. I found several articles talking about how strong the leg muscles were meaning it could have been  a strong swimmer.  Many still think the legs are too small in the reconstruction, I wouldn't call them atrophied, that's like saying Tyrannosaurs had atrophied arms, they are small but very strong.  I wouldn't use Oxalaia, it's fragmentary at best so we have extremely little information about it.   How do we know for certain it didn't behave like a crocodile when they occupy a similar niche and have similar characteristics? Saltwater crocodiles enter saltwater , brackish and freshwater to hunt. 

There are lines and sharp dips in the outline I drew over.  If it's just a resolution distortion, it would be odd as it's the only one in that exact area.  If we get better images and indeed it's different I may change my opinion and will have no issue being wrong.

You misunderstand, I'm saying crocodiles are so far removed from Spinosaurus that giving it crocodile scutes IS relying on them being convergent. And the odds of Spinosaurus having an exactly identical feature as one that only one group of aquatic animals developed as opposed to a more generalized feature that almost every other group developed are astronomically low.

Can't speak for the isotope studies accuracy, but it's worth mentioning those studies even lead to same unusual results on their own, such as Spinosaurus teeth showing significantly less submersion than its body. Perhaps it was more of a pelican than a diver. Actually now that I really think about, there is a great deal of evidence to support this.

I did not say the legs were atrophied, I said the muscles were atrophied. The muscles used to support weight are atrophied, and despite this the backwards pushing muscles are extremely large. Coupled with the strange leg proportions it's definitive to say that regardless of the legs size relative to the body they were not adapted to support weight for extended periods of time, or for rapid movement on land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoeA6xaVdZo

I only mentioned Oxalaia because it's bones are identical to Spinosaurus and found on the opposing shore, we know so little about it but we do know that at some point at least one Spinosaurus crossed the Atlantic.

Spinosaurus absolutely does not occupy the same niche as crocodiles. That's like saying turtles occupy the same niche as crocodiles because they are carnivorous aquatic reptiles. Regardless of whether it spent its time in salt or brackish water Spinosaurus was simply not equipped as an ambush predator. It was extremely large and had a tall structure which would prevent it from hiding in shallow water, and it's legs were not adapted for bursts of quick speed but rather for prolonged periods of paddling. Additionally, if there is one thing we do have good fossil record for its Spinosaurus prey, a large variety of fish, and from what we know only fish.

I think I see them now, still, they must be very subtle. Hopefully they are just wrinkles and not fin rays.

That is very interesting to think of it that way to be totally honest. To think of it as a "Pelican hunter", It totally reminds me of this image.

[BRONSON]

I would rather deal in genetic relations I guess than convergent evolution as that seems to often be wrong as right.  Again as with many things of this nature you can just say " we don't know" I just tend to think it unlikely.

I found the same articles mentioning the isotope research, however what I couldn't find was anything about just how accurate it was. I found several articles talking about how strong the leg muscles were meaning it could have been  a strong swimmer.  Many still think the legs are too small in the reconstruction, I wouldn't call them atrophied, that's like saying Tyrannosaurs had atrophied arms, they are small but very strong.  I wouldn't use Oxalaia, it's fragmentary at best so we have extremely little information about it.   How do we know for certain it didn't behave like a crocodile when they occupy a similar niche and have similar characteristics? Saltwater crocodiles enter saltwater , brackish and freshwater to hunt. 

There are lines and sharp dips in the outline I drew over.  If it's just a resolution distortion, it would be odd as it's the only one in that exact area.  If we get better images and indeed it's different I may change my opinion and will have no issue being wrong.

You misunderstand, I'm saying crocodiles are so far removed from Spinosaurus that giving it crocodile scutes IS relying on them being convergent. And the odds of Spinosaurus having an exactly identical feature as one that only one group of aquatic animals developed as opposed to a more generalized feature that almost every other group developed are astronomically low.

Can't speak for the isotope studies accuracy, but it's worth mentioning those studies even lead to same unusual results on their own, such as Spinosaurus teeth showing significantly less submersion than its body. Perhaps it was more of a pelican than a diver. Actually now that I really think about, there is a great deal of evidence to support this.

I did not say the legs were atrophied, I said the muscles were atrophied. The muscles used to support weight are atrophied, and despite this the backwards pushing muscles are extremely large. Coupled with the strange leg proportions it's definitive to say that regardless of the legs size relative to the body they were not adapted to support weight for extended periods of time, or for rapid movement on land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoeA6xaVdZo

I only mentioned Oxalaia because it's bones are identical to Spinosaurus and found on the opposing shore, we know so little about it but we do know that at some point at least one Spinosaurus crossed the Atlantic.

Spinosaurus absolutely does not occupy the same niche as crocodiles. That's like saying turtles occupy the same niche as crocodiles because they are carnivorous aquatic reptiles. Regardless of whether it spent its time in salt or brackish water Spinosaurus was simply not equipped as an ambush predator. It was extremely large and had a tall structure which would prevent it from hiding in shallow water, and it's legs were not adapted for bursts of quick speed but rather for prolonged periods of paddling. Additionally, if there is one thing we do have good fossil record for its Spinosaurus prey, a large variety of fish, and from what we know only fish.

I think I see them now, still, they must be very subtle. Hopefully they are just wrinkles and not fin rays.

That is very interesting to think of it that way to be totally honest. To think of it as a "Pelican hunter", It totally reminds me of this image.

Thats a pretty good debate in one picture, they need to add my yellow with pink spots and dreadlocks variant though just to be on the safe side 

[Brocc21]

Man remember when spinosaurus was how it looked in jp3 and planet dinosaur. Man how the times have changed (still love ya though, what ever you are).

[Jose S.M.]

Man remember when spinosaurus was how it looked in jp3 and planet dinosaur. Man how the times have changed (still love ya though, what ever you are).

I sometimes catch myself looking at the distance and wondering when are we going to be blessed with more remains that helps us know you more, dear Spinosaurus.

In all seriousness, I hope more remains of it that help to understand Spinosaurus habits (specially its movement and stance) better are found sooner than later.

[terrorchicken]

well I like it much better than their older spino model but I would need to see more pics. The finned tail is weird but it just wouldn't be Papo if they didn't add a couple of embellishments like these. Reminds me of the "antlers" on their pachyrhino and the overtly decorous mane of their recent smilodon.

[Concavenator]

Perhaps this is a very stupid question, but I wanted to ask nevertheless.If in a specific environment there lived a certain amount of different dinosaurs-why is it so hard to find the fossils? For example, we know Spinosaurus fossils are found in the Kem Kem formation,so there should be Spinosaurus fossils right? I mean,it's not like only a few individuals lived,there must have been a considerable amount of them around by them.

Yeah,I understand that finding a complete fossil is extremely difficult because once the animal dies, carnivores and scavengers go and alterate the pose, and also wind affects as well as other factors.But why is it so hard to find just isolated fossils? I imagine that mostly because there aren't enough expeditions to these geological formations,but could it be for anything else?

(Again sorry for my potentially stupid question  )

[dragon53]

This video shows the new Spinosaurus from the right side at 3:06 elapsed time.


Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWnfo72FnP8

[BRONSON]

Perhaps this is a very stupid question, but I wanted to ask nevertheless.If in a specific environment there lived a certain amount of different dinosaurs-why is it so hard to find the fossils? For example, we know Spinosaurus fossils are found in the Kem Kem formation,so there should be Spinosaurus fossils right? I mean,it's not like only a few individuals lived,there must have been a considerable amount of them around by them.

Yeah,I understand that finding a complete fossil is extremely difficult because once the animal dies, carnivores and scavengers go and alterate the pose, and also wind affects as well as other factors.But why is it so hard to find just isolated fossils? I imagine that mostly because there aren't enough expeditions to these geological formations,but could it be for anything else?

(Again sorry for my potentially stupid question  )

All the fossils I have from where the Spinosaurus lived are preserved in a sandstone and are very fragile (kem kem basin in Morocco), smaller teeth survive intact IE 2" long, but anything bigger usually has to be restored or glued back together in several pieces, and thats just the teeth, I suppose bigger things like bones etc just crumble when they try and remove them, also the ground is extremely hard to dig, and the way the locals do it is crued and with crued tools, damaging a lot of bigger fossils.

[Shonisaurus]

Thanks for the video @ dragon53 honestly in this video I see the tail of the normal spinosaurus and very far from the monstrous tail that some members of the forum described. I respect the criticism that members of the forum have thrown against Papo's spinosaurus but I honestly do not share them sincerely, I am wondering if this figure of spinosaurus is better among all toy brands, but the truth is that I like its paleointerpretation and I am very happy that Papo has made a scientific figure of spinosaurus very far from his spinosaurus counterparts of JP (by the way a very sweet and beautiful figure from my point of view) and baryonyx (well sculpted and based on the philosophy of the brand but obviously it is not scientific).

For me spinosaurus is the first scientific spinosauroid made by Papo or at least the most scientific, taking into account the escased of fossil remains of this emblematic theropod even if we include the remains disappeared in the Second World War by Ernst Stromer and illustrated by him , in a detailed way.

[Shaffersaurus]

Hey everybody! I'm kind of new here! I say "kind of" because I have been following this forum for a couple years, but never registered. But Ifinally JUST took the step and registered. Just wanted to weigh in on this amazing new revelation from papo! I'm so excited and I hope it's not TOO limited!   

[tanystropheus]

For me spinosaurus is the first scientific spinosauroid made by Papo or at least the most scientific, taking into account the escased of fossil remains of this emblematic theropod even if we include the remains disappeared in the Second World War by Ernst Stromer and illustrated by him , in a detailed way.

This is definitely a scientific interpretation. Those that seem to state otherwise are really grasping at straws. Arguably, the new Spino may also be Papo's best theropod to date. It better not be too limited.

[Faelrin]

Hey everybody! I'm kind of new here! I say "kind of" because I have been following this forum for a couple years, but never registered. But Ifinally JUST took the step and registered. Just wanted to weigh in on this amazing new revelation from papo! I'm so excited and I hope it's not TOO limited!   

Congrats with making the step with finally joining and posting. Hopefully there's enough around for all of us interested in getting it, to get one.