CollectA - new for 2019

[Halichoeres]

While next year's lineup isn't particularly diverse (3 theropods and 1 ornithscian, pelycosaur, pterosaur and mammal), it certainly makes up for this by being one of the most consistently high-quality lineups CollectA has ever revealed. They also seem to have reduced their usage of the ugly green colour that was common last year to the already-weak Fukuiraptor (the Edaphosaurus' shade of green is a lot more pleasant to the eyes). Apart from the aforomentioned figure, this seems like it's going to be the first year since 2016 where Safari Ltd might have some serious competition with them in terms of best figure of the year.

Of the lineup, the Borealopelta, Edaphosaurus and Baryonyx are the figures I'm definitely getting, and I might get the Carnotaurus.

Yeah, CollectA has never really been a leader on diversity (sure, lots of obscure genera, but really heavy on theropods and more than half from the Cretaceous, as though it were the only period of prehistory), but this was probably a better year on that score than most. I've actually developed a metric to quantify this that I'm planning to show off soon. The big exception is 2017, when the marine tube genuinely sampled a lot of phylogenetic branches, and maybe 2012, when they put out all those plants.

No matter what percentage of your collection is CollectA I'm sure it will remain one of the most impressive collections I have ever seen.

Why, thank you, that's very kind of you to say.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

According to Everything Dinosaur that's all now for this release so here they all are in one image, to give an overview of the range.

Thank you CollectA for all these beautiful figures. You will make 2019 one of the best year for collecting!!!

Nice compilation! They somehow look even more aesthetically pleasing all together like that!

[Sim]

Excellant analysis, Sim. Your conclusions correspond precisely to the actual facts of the matter. I like your observations  on the issue of shrink-wrapping. It is important to note that some evidence of this phenomenon is observed in nature, that is to say - one does not have to absolutely reject any possibility of this when evaluating the accuracy of a sculpt. Of course, extreme instances or over-applications are to be avoided. The exception "proves" the rule, so to speak, but must not become the rule.

Thanks S @SidB!  I agree with your assessment on shrink-wrapping.

I would like to thank @Sim for the very informative posts, in fact I always enjoy reading your long posts.
However, I would like to ask something - hasn't Ornithomimus itself been found to have "primitive" wings, or where you just talking saying that some Ornithomimosaurs might not have wings?

Regarding the first part of your post: Thanks @Gothmog the Baryonyx!  I'm glad to hear that!

As for your question... hehe, I'm going to split it into two parts:


Part 1
The specimen that has been suggested to show the presence of wing feathers is not necessarily Ornithomimus.  The type species of Ornithomimus is Ornithomimus velox which is only known from very fragmentary remains.  A lot of the good North American ornithomimid specimens have been referred to as the species "Ornithomimus edmontonicus", this includes the specimen that had been thought to show wings.  This classification of specimens as belonging to "O. edmontonicus" has typically involved considering the species "brevitertius" and "samueli" as representing the same animal as "edmontonicus".  The big problem?  "brevitertius" and "samueli" were both named EARLIER than "edmontonicus" and so have priority over it.  Additionally, as Mickey Mortimer of The Theropod Database has described, the relationships of Ornithomimus velox have not been properly tested in a published analysis, and when they have been tested (it's unpublished), "brevitertius" and "samueli" (and consequently the junior synonym "edmontonicus") appear as less closely related to O. velox than other ornithomimids.  Going by this, the correct name for the specimen that was suggested to show wings would be either Dromiceiomimus brevitertius (if all three species are considered the same, as brevitertius is the oldest of the three names), or Dromiceiomimus samueli (if brevitertius and samueli are considered separate).  In either case "edmontonicus" is a junior synonym.

A more detailed explanation can be read on The Theropod Database, Ornithomimidae is near halfway down this page: http://theropoddatabase.com/Phylogeny%20of%20Taxa.html  Once there, clicking on "Dromiceiomimus brevitertius" brings a page where if you scroll up you can view a detailed explanation of the synonym situation near the end of the "Comments" for Dromiceiomimus.  There are also "Comment" sections for Dromiceiomimus brevitertius and Dromiceiomimus samueli on that page, in which near the end there are similar explanations that are more focused on classification details relating to the respective species.

The Theropod Database hasn't been updated since 1 January 2017, but there's only one paper I'm aware of that has been published since that's relevant to the North American ornithomimid classification mess.  It's the one currently summarised at the end of the Dromiceiomimus Wikipedia page, as describing differences between the leg bones of Dromiceiomimus and O. edmontonicus and saying that if the two were considered the same species anyway, the species name brevitertius would have priority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromiceiomimus  I can't read that paper beyond its abstract as it's behind a paywall, so I don't know if it deals with the lack of testing the relationships of O. velox, or if the samueli species is included in any way.


Part 2
With that out of the way, what about wing feathers in ornithomimids?  My understanding is, basically, the only fossil that has been suggested to show wings in an ornithomimosaur is the aforementioned ornithomimid, based on lots of small black marks on its ulna and radius.  However, it has been pointed out that if the black marks are indeed the attachment points for feathers they don't necessarily mean pennaceous feathers were attached to these marks, as filamentous feathers could leave them as well, including single filament feathers.  Additionally, those black marks don't show the length of any of the forelimb feathers.  Ornithomimosaur feathering remains poorly understood.

[Sauropelta]

Illuminati confirmed

[suspsy]

may buy all the major models for once.....am fond of the Boreopelta especially. Quite glad to see no ceratopsian with a rear Mohawk.

I was thinking about that today and I'm wondering if perhaps the lack of new ceratopsians for two years in a row is to in order to have a fresh start in 2020 with ceratopsians lacking butt fuzz. We shall see.

The fuki is alright but the lack of remains makes it rather almost a crypto type

It appears to have been based on this reconstruction from a museum in Japan. I imagine the figure will be very popular over there.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

@Sim thanks again, very helpful.

[Concavenator]

I was thinking that I should at last get a pterosaur figure.The most "accurate" one I have is the Safari Tapejara which is now clearly dated.

I surely won't get the Caiuajara even though it's a nice sculpt just because of the blue pycnfibers.

Come on CollectA,that's a research problem 

[suspsy]

I feel the same way about the Caiuajara as I do about the Safari Stegosaurus in that I couldn't care less about the colours when the toy is so clearly awesome.

I'm thankful I don't get hung up on such things. Never have.

[Concavenator]

I feel the same way about the Caiuajara as I do about the Safari Stegosaurus in that I couldn't care less about the colours when the toy is so clearly awesome.

I'm thankful I don't get hung up on such things. Never have.

The thing is that you may or  may not like the Stegosaurus' colors,but that doesn't stop it from being as accurate as it can be.

However,we do know that pterosaurs couldn't have blue pycnofibers, yet CollectA has put blue pycnofibers on the Caiuajara,so that makes it no completely accurate.

And now you might be thinking :"Well anyways, we don't know how dinosaurs looked like". And that's partially true. The Safari Stegosaurus,you may like it or dislike it,but it's accurate.It looks like how we currently think Stegosaurus was.

But the Caiuajara ,not really.It's an accurate sculpt,sure, but that blue paint ruined the deal for me.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[stargatedalek]

We don't know that they couldn't be blue, just that it's incredibly unlikely. A mammal managed to pull off making itself appear mostly blue just by layering colours, so it's not like animals that otherwise wouldn't be capable of creating blue are prevented from making the attempt.

We have no preserved pycnofibres from any Tapejarids (or their immediate relatives), so who's to say they couldn't have evolved slightly more complex structures capable of displaying more colours? These were clearly very display oriented animals after all.

There is also the possibility that they dyed themselves like hornbills do.

It's more likely that they simply weren't blue, but it's impossible to rule out completely. And frankly there is barely any blue, it wouldn't be hard to paint over it.

[Shonisaurus]

I honestly do not understand paleontology but the caiuajara became extinct in the Upper Cretaceous in Brazil millions of years ago. I understand that it is speculative what the colors of the picnofibers should look like. They are prehistoric animals that logically very little is conserved even if they were mummified we would never know what their real appearance would be.

I think it's an artistic license that Matthias Geiger took as any paleoartist would have taken it. I understand that we are sincerely making a world of something that I believe we will never know and will never be known by the best scientists sincerely speaking.

[alexeratops]

How exactly do we know that pycnofibers couldn't be blue?

[Minmiminime]

I actually don't mind the blue, and it looks like the colour gradient on the face and crest is beautifully done! The sculpt is stunning, but what I don't like is the stark yellow/black/grey of the limbs, to me it's unnatural looking the way it's done, and reminiscent of colours that may be found in something like a power plant. I also find the design on the crest very jarring! I totally appreciate the thinking behind it, but again, it's very unnatural looking. I have no doubt this was a flashy animal, but the way this design is implemented is very unconvincing to me. Nonetheless, I'm very happy with all the figures they've unveiled this year, and I don't mind having another go at repainting figures if necessary, so it's still on my list

[Concavenator]

You could just repaint the pycnofibers in a more accurate colour.

That's true,I was thinking of that,but I'm not sure.

I tried to partially repaint my Papo Triceratops and it didn't turn specially well 

[tanystropheus]

What are the permissible colors for pycnofibres?

[Dimitar_E]

What are the permissible colors for pycnofibres?

There is an informative post by Brontozaurus on page 3 (reply #48) on this topic. Generally black, white, red, brown.

[stargatedalek]

Any colour fur can be applies to pycnofibres.

[suspsy]

We don't know that they couldn't be blue, just that it's incredibly unlikely. A mammal managed to pull off making itself appear mostly blue just by layering colours, so it's not like animals that otherwise wouldn't be capable of creating blue are prevented from making the attempt.

We have no preserved pycnofibres from any Tapejarids (or their immediate relatives), so who's to say they couldn't have evolved slightly more complex structures capable of displaying more colours? These were clearly very display oriented animals after all.

There is also the possibility that they dyed themselves like hornbills do.

It's more likely that they simply weren't blue, but it's impossible to rule out completely. And frankly there is barely any blue, it wouldn't be hard to paint over it.

Yeah, these are my sentiments as well. Thomas Holtz once noted that 100% of paleoart is scientifically inaccurate anyway; it's just a matter of by what degree. Frankly, if a dash of blue is the biggest complaint we have about a new figure, then we're damned lucky.

[Shonisaurus]

Honestly if the only paleoartistic inaccuracy is the blue paint of the picnofibras, sincerely as suspsy we are very lucky with the caiuajara. It must be a scientifically precise figure in relation to the rest of the body.

Honestly it's going to be one of my many favorite dinosaur figures of the Collecta brand this year, along with the elasmotherium, boroalopelta, carnotaurus (although I prefer other brands), baryonyx and fukuiraptor (maybe better than Favorite's) and the tube with the mini prehistoric mammals and to be honest I am glad that it is according to ED of the first figures that are going to be commercialized this year, together with the carnotaurus is one of the most awaited figures of the first part of Collecta.