EoFauna - New for 2021

[SidB]

Eofauna have posted on Facebook a video of the creation process behind the upcoming Diplodocus model! Looks amazing. And it seems it won't have a completely neutral and stiff pose after all (though I would surely still have been interested in it if it had been that way, to be honest    )

No words on scale (though I bet it will be at 1:40) , colour scheme, or size yet. It seems it's still in the works.

The question of the pose was on my mind - for my part, though I'm "flexible", I prefer a relatively dynamic  sculpt.

[Dusty Wren]

Yeah, I agree that the hump over the hips looks kind of awkward. It also seems undermuscled, especially in the hind legs and at the base of the tail.

I haven't been keeping up with sauropod research much, though, so maybe I'm behind the times. 

[Concavenator]

I asked them about the neck position and they told me that it doesn't matter that much, since the neck posture would vary from time to time (when drinking it would have to be lowered, or it would me more upright when eating leaves from a tree...). Another aspect that I also saw people criticize about the Atlasaurus was the thinness of the neck. Back in the day I also asked about this and they told me that it is a trend between paleoartists to depict sauropods with extremely thick necks and, apparently, there aren't many reasons behind this. They told me the more mass the necks had, the more weight their necks had to carry.

I wouldn't call that a "hump". If the skeleton has such raised vertebrae, then so be it. Take a look at a camel's or dromedary's skeleton 

To be honest, a lot of prehistoric animal model makers pay attention to scientific accuracy nowadays, but if I had to highlight one company that pays special attention is Eofauna. I'm possitive they have a reasoning behind every single aspect of their models.

[Eofauna]

I'm not entirely sure on the posture. The data from Vidal et al suggest a more upright posture.


(art by Matt Dempsey)

Dear Collectors,

   We would like to clarify some of your doubts. First, the above Diplodocus skeleton image is anatomically incorrect. A position that the animal probably would achieve only during egg laying, otherwise the walking or standing animal would have much straighter hindlimbs. It is surprising how nowadays there are still some mounts showing dinosaurs in a lizard posture, when we already know for so many years ago that suropods were columnar animals. According to Larramendi and Paul, Vidal et al. (2020) paper is problematic. As for their Spinophorosaurus reconstruction, first, it should be noted that forelimb of this animal is not found, but the most problematic is that they restore it with the scapula too low in the chest and in a mammalian position, which makes the skeleton too high shouldered and with the vertebral column too straight, and leaving too big space gap between the chest ribs and sternals. The 16º proposed for Diplodocus sacrum actually does not fit with the animal proportions (in our current version the hips are at 10º), in order to show at that angle, the forelimbs of Diplodocus should have been much longer than they were (probably around 25–30% more). An interesting post concerning sacrum orientation, distortions, etc here (https://svpow.com/2020/04/22/what-can-sauropod-sacra-tell-us-about-neck-posture/).

As for the hump, this is a response to the very long neural spines of the vertebral column. Remember that this reconstruction is actually made on the scanned skeleton.

Concerning the neck posture, while it is true that during the walking phase Diplodocus may have carried the neck high, this is actually irrelevant with our current pose that is showing the animal looking down, and of course anatomically correct since the vertebrae are perfectly articulated each other. We also decided to create this posture in order to show the neck below the hips height so that the figure would be safer during transportation. On the other hand, nowadays there is a tendency to make the necks too thick, which do not correspond from an evolutionary perspective, nor based on comparative anatomy. Sauropods necks have an important development of pneumatic diverticula, which increases the support and strength of sauropods necks and it constitutes an important factor in increasing the length of the necks while lightening them. So the lighten the necks has been a crucial evolutionary trend in sauropods which allowed them to reach those incredible neck sizes, adding mass to them would have been counterproductive to their physiology, which in any case is difficult because of the limited room for muscles in part because of the extensive diverticula. Also, if one observes large long-necked animals with small heads, birds included, will realize how thin their necks are. In giant giraffes, for example, the cervical overall shapes are surprisingly similar to those of many sauropods, and if you see the anterior neck of a giraffe you will see how thin it is and you even notice the vertebral edges, indicating that those are just under the skin, which also might be true in sauropods too. In fact, our Atalsaurus neck is probably too thick, especially in the anterior view.

To finish, the scale of the model is 1:40

[ITdactyl]

'Really appreciate Eofauna providing these informative responses. I will admit to still having a bias for the more muscular neck - and no, I'm not challenging the scientific rigor used by Eofauna; merely stating a preference (however erroneous it turns out to be). I guess it comes with age; I was able to observe all the phases of Diplodocus reconstruction - from swan necked, to 90's stiff horizontal neck, to early 2000's raised muscular neck - and now being told that they were likely slim necked after all. Science being equally fascinating and frustrating.

L @Leyster , I'm adding D.Vidal's text that accompanied that image, for additional context.

Finally, #Diplodocus. Its sacrum is wedged 16º. Gilmore noticed it on the @NMNH specimen, whose back actually curved down as in #Dicraeosaurus. However, the Senckenberg museum mount has a straight back and very steep neck. So, the condition for Dippy remains a doubt for now 24/n

As is obvious with my previous posts, I also thought that Vidal favored an upward sloping body plan for diplodocus, but apparently he never said anything definitive about the matter.

Back on topic, can't wait to add this model to my shelf. I for one am glad that Diplodocus is turning out to be very interesting, and not a vanilla sauropod after all.

[Dusty Wren]

I'm aware that Diplodocus had tall neural spines over the hip. Other reconstructions have smoothed the curve of the back with a slightly different posture and more muscle around the base of the neck (e.g., Scott Hartman's 2013 reconstruction), so the incline is far less dramatic than it is in Eofauna's version. It's kind of a shock to see a version of this dinosaur that looks so different from what I'm used to seeing in paleoart.

I have no idea what the current scientific consensus is about Diplodocus' posture and musculature; Eofauna is known for their rigorously researched models, so I trust that they've made informed decisions on this figure. From an aesthetic perspective, though, I'm with ITdactyl in that I'm more biased toward the more muscular look. If that view of Diplodocus is changing, guess I'll just have to adjust.

[Faelrin]

@Eofauna Thank you for explaining things about the decisions behind the anatomy of this model, such as the posture and neck musculature.

I am happy to see it will be in 1:40 scale as well. I guess that means it will scale with the previous Atlasaurus but also the recent Safari Ltd Camarasaurus that shared the habitat with it.

Now I'm only curious about what the color scheme will be. I hope it is based on that Sauropod book as the Atlasaurus was. Such a lovely coloration was used there.

[Concavenator]

@Eofauna Very nice of you to explain your decisions concerning your designs! I also like that you have straight announced what your next model is going to be, that's neat!

Space wise, I thought my Eofauna shelf (I tend to organize my figures by brands) was complete, since it's a small shelf and I already have their 3 dinosaurs, but after learning the upcoming Diplodocus, while big at 1:40, won't be insanely huge at 1:35 (anyone is free to desire what they want, but I personally don't understand the wish for disproportionally massive sauropod figures), I think I will end up getting it, as it will be able to fit in the shelf. Furthermore, it was to be expected that it was going to be made at 1:40. Since the beginning, they said they would be making large animals at 1:40 scale. If it had been made at 1:35, that wouldn't have been true. With the decision of making it in 1:40 scale instead of the now ever popular 1:35 scale, they've kept it true to what they originally said they were going to do.

[Lanthanotus]

The Trike was my first Eofauna model to skip because of its horrid paint job (in my opinion to be sure), so I hope for a less "eyesore" paint on the Dippy, but as I have the Eofauna book about sauropods I am in good faith and nevertheless the sculpt looks outright perfect. I have the Safari Dippy, but especially its head was not really in my taste (so I customized it) and again I am in good faith to wait for Eofauna`s head sculpt. The Atlasaurus was real fine in this regard (and overall a top notch figure), and I am happy about the considerable size for the Diplodocus.

1:40 or 1:35 does not matter to me at all in an animal that size, because there are too many factors to determine the size even with the most precise scientific approach. Cartiladge thickness, exact number of vertebrae (neck, body and tail), individual or population variations and other factors have a great influence on maximum size, especially when extrapolated from fragmentary or combined remains.

[Dinoguy2]

I'm not entirely sure on the posture. The data from Vidal et al suggest a more upright posture.

First, the above Diplodocus skeleton image is anatomically incorrect. A position that the animal probably would achieve only during egg laying, otherwise the walking or standing animal would have much straighter hindlimbs. It is surprising how nowadays there are still some mounts showing dinosaurs in a lizard posture, when we already know for so many years ago that suropods were columnar animals.

Thanks for the clarification! I was about to reply to this post that it's very odd to use that German museum mount as an example for posture. It was mounted in an underwater swimming /snorkeling posture(!). It was never really remounted, they just dropped the front end so the forelimbs would be on the ground, but it has that weird crouch. This results in a totally odd and anatomically incorrect posture that's not based on science, just on repeated jurry-rigging of a hundred year old mount.

[stargatedalek]

I'm not entirely sure on the posture. The data from Vidal et al suggest a more upright posture.

First, the above Diplodocus skeleton image is anatomically incorrect. A position that the animal probably would achieve only during egg laying, otherwise the walking or standing animal would have much straighter hindlimbs. It is surprising how nowadays there are still some mounts showing dinosaurs in a lizard posture, when we already know for so many years ago that suropods were columnar animals.

Thanks for the clarification! I was about to reply to this post that it's very odd to use that German museum mount as an example for posture. It was mounted in an underwater swimming /snorkeling posture(!). It was never really remounted, they just dropped the front end so the forelimbs would be on the ground, but it has that weird crouch. This results in a totally odd and anatomically incorrect posture that's not based on science, just on repeated jurry-rigging of a hundred year old mount.

That is particularly ironic given it would turn out they were particularly good at rearing up, albeit no water required.

[Halichoeres]

So is this specifically D. hallorum? I think the Carnegie was D. carnegii, for anyone who cares about that sort of thing.

[Concavenator]

So is this specifically D. hallorum?

It seems to be D.carnegii, as EoFauna stated in the first teaser that it is based on CM 84 and USNM 1065. Can't find much information on USNM 1065, but I guess it's also from the same species, otherwise it wouldn't make much sense.

[Bokisaurus]

Excited about this new diplo! Looks amazing and very interesting- these days something new and unique to offer is a big factor for specs that already are well represented, so this is definitely on my list.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I currently own both Eofauna's books 'The Theropods' and 'The Sauropods'. I can't help but notice they were released near the same times as their Giganotosaurus figure and Atlasaurus. With their next figure being a Triceratops, has there been any mention of an upcoming Ceratopsian book similar to the others?

It wouldn't be a book on just Ceratopsians, that would be like the book of Allosaururoids for Giganotosaurus. It would be an Ornithiscian book. (Even if you exclude birds, there are more theropods than all Ornithiscians and Sauropodomorphs together!)

And while I do expect Eofauna to release another of that overhyped Tyrannosaurus at some point. (If if it mostly scaly with a tiny bit of feathers I'd get it though - but please announce it before Everything Dinosaur gets Wilson).

Since Eofauna released (or will release) a well known Theropod and Ornithiscian and an obscure Sauropod, it would make sense for their second Theropod and Ornithiscian to be obscure and their second Sauropod to be well known. I'd suggest Apatosaurus for the sauropod. Maybe Chenanisaurus and Magnapaulia for the Theropod and Ornithiscian?

Oh you got really close to what they actually did

[GojiraGuy1954]

https://youtu.be/1AGK4-qlpcw

Oh hey look its me

[suspsy]

Yeah, I've spoken to Ruben Molina-Perez and he confirmed that the third book will be titled "The Ornithiscians" and cover the marginocephalians, the ornithopods, and the thyreophorans. A nice trilogy of books.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I hope EoFauna does a book and some figures of marine reptiles like Mosasaurus or Shonisaurus

[ITdactyl]

Either there's a massive leak on facebook, or another company is also producing dippy figures.

[Halichoeres]

So is this specifically D. hallorum?

It seems to be D.carnegii, as EoFauna stated in the first teaser that it is based on CM 84 and USNM 1065. Can't find much information on USNM 1065, but I guess it's also from the same species, otherwise it wouldn't make much sense.

Right you are, I think I assumed it was to be D. hallorum because that's the species portrayed in the book.

Either there's a massive leak on facebook, or another company is also producing dippy figures.

You're talking about the Musee Diplodocus? I think it's a polystone statue.