The Unique Species Specimen Discussion Thread

[SBell]

I looked up a couple of papers on Australian sarcopterygians and I am now pretty confident that the "Ducabrook Rhizodont" from Yowie Lost Kingdoms Series B is meant to represent the genus Strepsodus. I'm not sure if you have it on the list under a different name, but I think this is the closest to a "correct" name. I also think that the "Queensland Pterosaur" represents what is now called Aussiedraco (although the material was originally referred to Ornithocheirus).

I would have to check, meaning I'd have to find the paper, but I think the rhizodont was named as Barameda on its paper. Doesn't mean it's absolutely correct, of course.

I didn't notice that one in the reference thread! They are both Australian rhizodonts, but Barameda was described (Long 1989 J. Vert. Palaeontol. 9: 1) from a formation in Victoria. The Ducabrook formation is in Queensland, which is why I think it refers to Strepsodus.

Whoops, sorry, I completely misread your post. You meant the paper insert from the candy egg. I just looked at mine and it only says "rhizodontid family," which is pretty unhelpful given how diverse the rhizodontids were during the late Paleozoic.

I seem to recall finding a reference, somehow, to it. But that said, it would have been over 10 years ago, so I have no idea where the reference came from--as with many LK Yowies, putting true names to their models can be a challenge. But the locality info makes more sense.

[Roselaar]

Re-identifying already obscure species years after their figures were made is perhaps too challenging a task to include in this list. I prefer to stick with the names the company gave them, erroneous as they may turn out in hindsight. In some cases it's not much more than a guessing game as to the intended species, as with Ornithocheirus.

But don'tlet that stop you from debating them in this thread of course. That's what it's for.

[Halichoeres]

Re-identifying already obscure species years after their figures were made is perhaps too challenging a task to include in this list. I prefer to stick with the names the company gave them, erroneous as they may turn out in hindsight. In some cases it's not much more than a guessing game as to the intended species, as with Ornithocheirus.

But don'tlet that stop you from debating them in this thread of course. That's what it's for.

That's fair, I happily concede on the Ornithocheirus, which is the name they used in the insert. It doesn't sound like fun to decide who was making a Giraffatitan vs. a Brachiosaurus, or Citipati vs. Oviraptor, which is the logical conclusion of reexamining things like Ornithocheirus/Tropeognathus/Aussiedraco and the like. And yes, these were released some time ago, and I got excited as a new collector going down paleontological rabbit holes to figure out what I had in my hands. The rhizodont I think still has a case, if only because Yowie did not specify a genus and I was pretty confident I had found the closest match.

[SBell]

Re-identifying already obscure species years after their figures were made is perhaps too challenging a task to include in this list. I prefer to stick with the names the company gave them, erroneous as they may turn out in hindsight. In some cases it's not much more than a guessing game as to the intended species, as with Ornithocheirus.

But don'tlet that stop you from debating them in this thread of course. That's what it's for.

That's fair, I happily concede on the Ornithocheirus, which is the name they used in the insert. It doesn't sound like fun to decide who was making a Giraffatitan vs. a Brachiosaurus, or Citipati vs. Oviraptor, which is the logical conclusion of reexamining things like Ornithocheirus/Tropeognathus/Aussiedraco and the like. And yes, these were released some time ago, and I got excited as a new collector going down paleontological rabbit holes to figure out what I had in my hands. The rhizodont I think still has a case, if only because Yowie did not specify a genus and I was pretty confident I had found the closest match.

I'm just happy to have a name for the pterosaur--I don't think it actually says Ornithocheirus on the paper, does it?

[Halichoeres]

Re-identifying already obscure species years after their figures were made is perhaps too challenging a task to include in this list. I prefer to stick with the names the company gave them, erroneous as they may turn out in hindsight. In some cases it's not much more than a guessing game as to the intended species, as with Ornithocheirus.

But don'tlet that stop you from debating them in this thread of course. That's what it's for.

That's fair, I happily concede on the Ornithocheirus, which is the name they used in the insert. It doesn't sound like fun to decide who was making a Giraffatitan vs. a Brachiosaurus, or Citipati vs. Oviraptor, which is the logical conclusion of reexamining things like Ornithocheirus/Tropeognathus/Aussiedraco and the like. And yes, these were released some time ago, and I got excited as a new collector going down paleontological rabbit holes to figure out what I had in my hands. The rhizodont I think still has a case, if only because Yowie did not specify a genus and I was pretty confident I had found the closest match.

I'm just happy to have a name for the pterosaur--I don't think it actually says Ornithocheirus on the paper, does it?

The Queensland Pterosaur's paper actually does say Ornithocheirus. The Giralia Pterosaur doesn't have a name, but I have had less luck hunting for that one. For all I know it's already in the reference list and I just didn't notice it.

[Roselaar]

On a related note, any guess what species Yowies' Australian Sauropod is supposed to represent?

[Halichoeres]

On a related note, any guess what species Yowies' Australian Sauropod is supposed to represent?

The best information I could find was here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036208. The animal is only known from footprints, and while they have not formally assigned the footprints to any particular species, most sauropod footprints are referred to as "cf. Brontopodus [thunder foot]," partly as some kind of joke. So it doesn't have its own name, unlike, say, Protochirotherium. If you wanted to give it a name in the list, I think Brontopodus is the best we're going to be able to get.

Come to think of it, I think the Giralia pterosaur didn't have a name either; the authors that described the remains considered them too fragmentary to say anything more than "Azhdarchoidea."

[SBell]

On a related note, any guess what species Yowies' Australian Sauropod is supposed to represent?

The best information I could find was here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036208. The animal is only known from footprints, and while they have not formally assigned the footprints to any particular species, most sauropod footprints are referred to as "cf. Brontopodus [thunder foot]," partly as some kind of joke. So it doesn't have its own name, unlike, say, Protochirotherium. If you wanted to give it a name in the list, I think Brontopodus is the best we're going to be able to get.

Come to think of it, I think the Giralia pterosaur didn't have a name either; the authors that described the remains considered them too fragmentary to say anything more than "Azhdarchoidea."

Brontopodus is an ichnogenus. So technically a real taxon. Like the Bullyland Protochirotherium figure that came out--the name refers to the tracks while the figure is speculative.

[Halichoeres]

On a related note, any guess what species Yowies' Australian Sauropod is supposed to represent?

The best information I could find was here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036208. The animal is only known from footprints, and while they have not formally assigned the footprints to any particular species, most sauropod footprints are referred to as "cf. Brontopodus [thunder foot]," partly as some kind of joke. So it doesn't have its own name, unlike, say, Protochirotherium. If you wanted to give it a name in the list, I think Brontopodus is the best we're going to be able to get.

Come to think of it, I think the Giralia pterosaur didn't have a name either; the authors that described the remains considered them too fragmentary to say anything more than "Azhdarchoidea."

Brontopodus is an ichnogenus. So technically a real taxon. Like the Bullyland Protochirotherium figure that came out--the name refers to the tracks while the figure is speculative.

Correct. But they didn't actually refer it to Brontopodus, not least because most of the trackways in that genus are diplodocids, which the Broome specimens probably aren't. They don't formally refer it to any taxon, ichno- or otherwise. They just keep saying "cf. Brontopodus."

[Roselaar]

Thanks for the info. A bit too little on the fossil record to go on then. I'll keep it off the list.

[Roselaar]

Updated the thread with new solo shots of the Alphadon, Anthropornis, Cratochelone, Dicynodon, Harpagornis, Hesperonychus, Nanantius, Ninjemys, Passeriformes and Trilophosuchus figures, gracefully provided by forum member Halichoeres. Many thanks again!

[LophoLeeVT]

arent these footprints of the arizonasaurus??

[SBell]

arent these footprints of the arizonasaurus??

We don't know what they are, other than footprints called Protochirotherium from Germany. Arizonasaurus is from...Arizona. So even with Pangaea at the time, they were pretty far away from each other.

[LophoLeeVT]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........you may be right.

[Roselaar]

Turiasaurus forfeits the list. Thanks to Favorite.

[Halichoeres]

I didn't know there was a previous version of Turiasaurus!

[Roselaar]

I didn't know there was a previous version of Turiasaurus!

It was a Shapeways figure.

[sauroid]

im not sure if these are unique but do you already have Microceratops and Pterodaustro on your list? they are labeled as such on the belly part.

[SBell]

Pterodaustro was also made by COG for the Prehistoric Panorama series.

And Microceratops shoud properly be known as 'Microceratus' (Microceratops is a wasp...). Can't say if it's the only one though.

[Roselaar]

That particular Microceratus figure actually was on the list, but got debunked. I don't remember what other figure of the species caused it though. It's probably buried in this thread somewhere.

Pterodaustro has been done before, just very rarely. Too bad, great species!