Need help identifying the species of some figures

[Loon]

Hi all,

After some talk in my collection thread, I figured I'd have my brother make a Google Sheets file, since I don't know howmake a spreadsheet for all my figures, including certain bits of relevant information. So far, I've only completed one page (AKA one shelf), and I'm pretty happy with how it looks. Though, I'm a little unsure about some things.

"Paleozoic"


I primarily wanted to share this just to see if you guys think the format works, or if there's anything I need to add. I was thinking of a adding a category for family or some other taxonomic classification. I'd also like to know if I've messed up any of the information. I'm using a mix of Wikipedia and Fossilworks, so I'm not sure how accurate everything is.

Anyway, I'll be updating this thread everytime I finish another page. Thanks for reading!

[bmathison1972]

Keeping in mind my collection is mostly extant...

I database my collection in Excel.

I have separate tabs for major groups: 1) Plankton and Protozoans, 2) Misc. Invertebrates, 3) Pan-arthropods (incl prehistorics), 4) Arachnids, 5) Crustaceans, 6) Myriapods, 7) Insects, 8 ) Fish, 9) Amphibians, 10) Reptiles, 11) Dinosaurs (incl. extinct reptiles with no modern relatives), 12) Birds, 13) Mammals.

Each tab has with the following columns:

1. Latin Name
2. common name
3. Clade 1 (e.g. order)
4. Clade 2 (e.g. family)
5. Manufacturer
6. Series/Line
7. Year of release

Each tab is sorted first by Clade 1, then Clade 2, and then Latin name. So species are alphabetical within a family within an order :-)

For yours, it is good to have info specific to extinct taxa, such time and place, which is great for a collector of prehistorics

[ceratopsian]

I use Excel and keep the list alphabetic. 

The information I include is much the same as yours - I too use Wikipedia and online resources, so probably not fully accurate.  But if I worried too deeply about that with my collection, I'd never get anything down.

I also make a column each for whom I purchased it from and the price.  The latter could be useful if you plan on selling things on.

I have a column for date of purchase.

I try and include the age within the period where possible, e.g. Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous.

I also have a column for the animal's taxonomic position - though it won't be fully scientific.  But for instance, I would try to define a theropod as a tyrannosaurid, or a define a ceratopsian as centrosaurine or chasmosaurine.

[Halichoeres]

I use Google Sheets because I use multiple computers (you can use Excel online, too, but I find Sheets easier). Once in a while I export it to a csv to decide the scale cutoffs for my displays. Here's my basic setup:



I can click any of those arrows to sort the whole data frame by that column (in this screenshot they're sorted by scale. The columns of 1s and 0s are presence/absence indicators for each of the 9 periods of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic so that I can pull up everything in the Silurian, for example, without excluding something that lived in both the Silurian and Devonian. I don't keep track of locality information, although now I kind of want to.

[Loon]

I'm still working on this, but I've run into a few roadblocks. Namely, which species some figures belong to (I've always been terrible at identifying specific species). So, I took all of the prehistoric figures I need the species names for and compiled them into a list:

If you know anyone of the species these figures represent, please, let me know.

[Mononykus]

Redondasaurus gregorii

Safari Pterosaur = Anhanguera sp. (it was meant to represent an undescribed species; it most closely (but not exactly) resembles A. piscator)

Uintatherium anceps

Macrauchenia patachonica

Liopleurodon ferox (only well-known species)

Kaiyodo Rutiodon is mostly likely not based on the only remaining species of Rutiodon but rather another phytosaur that was previously lumped in that genus. Based on general appearance of the head, Smilosuchus sp. is a good guess.

Some of those on your list (the inverts, Bothriolepis) are known from many species and it may not be possible to narrow them down, or you could just go with the most common species or best represented by quality fossils.

[Loon]

Thank you both for the help!

@Mononykus yeah, the Kaiyodo invertebrates and Bothriolepis are gonna be hard to pinpoint. It always causes me dread to try to find a genus with so many species.

? @Stolpergeist it's apparently the Prince Creek Formation since the film takes place in Alaska. Though, I don't really buy it. As Gorgosaurus isn't even present in that formation. I think it's more of a grab bag of late Cretaceous North America; so, that makes figuring out which species the Alphadon represents, if it's even based on a specific one, harder.

[Newt]

Bothriolepis canadensis is the best-known species of the genus, with numerous well-preserved fossils from the Miguasha lagerstatte. As far as I know, the remaining species of the genus are pretty scrappy. I suspect this is the animal Kaiyodo's figure is based on.

[Martwad]

For the ones that the manufacturer doesn't identify a species, I, for the most part, use the type species for my catalog.  I have cheated a few, though, to select a species that allows for the scale range I am allowing in my collection.

[Nimravus]

I do have a spreadsheet with all my Figures in, prehistoric or extant, and I include the following information:
- Period where it occurred, this column is replaced by the CITES status for the extant figures,
- Location where it was found or it currently occurs
- Classification, unfortunately I am not an expert, and as other colleagues from the Forum, I normally use Wikipedia or http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/index.html
- Scientific and vulgar names
- Approximate scale
- Supplier
- If I do have it in my collection, or not,
- Year when I bought it,
- Source of the purchase,
- Amount it cost,
- Image

Please see below a screenshot of the spreadsheets:




If I do not have it, I would not know what I have in my collection...

[Libraraptor]

Honestly, I never wasted a thought on making such lists of my collection. I am well aware of what I have, it´s all in my head. But if someone likes lists like those, why not?

[Halichoeres]

Honestly, I never wasted a thought on making such lists of my collection. I am well aware of what I have, it´s all in my head. But if someone likes lists like those, why not?

Yes, I agree it wouldn't make sense for the way you collect. I don't have any trouble remembering what's in my collection, but because I am pretty strict about how I display my collection--like small museum displays--it's very helpful for me to be able to organize them quickly by scale/time/etc.

[Loon]

Honestly, I never wasted a thought on making such lists of my collection. I am well aware of what I have, it´s all in my head. But if someone likes lists like those, why not?

Yes, I agree it wouldn't make sense for the way you collect. I don't have any trouble remembering what's in my collection, but because I am pretty strict about how I display my collection--like small museum displays--it's very helpful for me to be able to organize them quickly by scale/time/etc.

I'm somewhat more like Halichoeres in this respect. I organize by period, mostly. Though, things like the Paleozoic, Cenozoic, and Aquatic animals are their own shelves.

Also, I posted this in the CollectA thread, but does anyone know what species their 2020 Pleuroceras and Belemnite represent?

[Halichoeres]

Also, I posted this in the CollectA thread, but does anyone know what species their 2020 Pleuroceras and Belemnite represent?

I don't know anything about the Pleuroceras, but suspsy said in the CollectA 2021 thread that he'd inquired about the belemnite. I don't think he's heard back but I expect that when/if he does that's where the answer will turn up.