What's the right Dunkleosteus for you?

[Halichoeres]

Thank you! You're right about the gills, I don't know how I missed that. I guess I just have my eyes out to make sure they're not shown at the back of the head like an actinopterygian, but they should be behind the inferognathal, rather than the suborbital. I'm not sure I've ever seen a figure try to incorporate the Meckel's cartilage, but it would be nice! Funny how much of vertebrate evolution is things keeping the basic idea of the jaw, but completely changing up what elements constitute it.

[Reuben03]

we all know my insane heretic belief is that the chap mei one is the best (TO ME TO ME)
but you see the thing is,
I'm not looking for detailed stationary models in cool poses to put on the shelf.

I play with my toys. 
I'll admit it.
I don't care how old I am, or how insane that makes me look, I love action figures to take them off of their display shelf and play with them sometimes.
when people criticize me for my 1/18 action figure obsession I simply say "give me a movie set with actors, a budget and giant animatronic/CGI animals, then I might play with my toys a little less.

but it's ok anyway because Im looking for work, I stay relatively in shape and i don't have a neckbeard. i don't live in a basement and i eat healthyish. lol

but yeah i like the shark tail and boxy head, just wish the teeth weren't painted! (They aren't teeth obvs)
its fun for pretending its from a BBC sea monsters action figure playset series that we never got, along with Chap Mei's new megalodon, and their Liopleurodon.

[Stegotyranno420]

I play with my toys.
I'll admit it.
I don't care how old I am, or how insane that makes me look, I love action figures to take them off of their display shelf and play with them sometimes.
when people criticize me for my 1/18 action figure obsession I simply say "give me a movie set with actors, a budget and giant animatronic/CGI animals, then I might play with my toys a little less.

Excellent Words of Wisdom.

[Thialfi]

Beautiful post, thank you @Halichoeres! Now here is the issue: based on your comprehensive analysis there is actually not a single figure that is truly good enough (a relative cheap one at least..)

[Reuben03]

Excellent Words of Wisdom.

haha thank you LOL

[Halichoeres]

we all know my insane heretic belief is that the chap mei one is the best (TO ME TO ME)
but you see the thing is,
I'm not looking for detailed stationary models in cool poses to put on the shelf.

I play with my toys. 
I'll admit it.
I don't care how old I am, or how insane that makes me look, I love action figures to take them off of their display shelf and play with them sometimes.
when people criticize me for my 1/18 action figure obsession I simply say "give me a movie set with actors, a budget and giant animatronic/CGI animals, then I might play with my toys a little less.

but it's ok anyway because Im looking for work, I stay relatively in shape and i don't have a neckbeard. i don't live in a basement and i eat healthyish. lol

but yeah i like the shark tail and boxy head, just wish the teeth weren't painted! (They aren't teeth obvs)
its fun for pretending its from a BBC sea monsters action figure playset series that we never got, along with Chap Mei's new megalodon, and their Liopleurodon.

Yo, nothing wrong with playing with your toys. I play with Lego, but my dinosaur collection is more curated than played with per se. But I get the appeal.

Beautiful post, thank you Halichoeres! Now here is the issue: based on your comprehensive analysis there is actually not a single figure that is truly good enough (a relative cheap one at least..)

Thanks, @Thialfi ! I guess it depends on what good enough means to you. The spark for this thread was a conversation I was having in an EoFauna thread, where one participant said that Dunkleosteus is boring and overdone, and another said there was not a passable Dunkleosteus figure. These are both subjective opinions, of course, and while both are understandable, I disagree with both--though not equally! If Dunkleosteus is boring to someone, then of course they're going to think the dozen-odd easily obtainable versions are overkill. If someone has a really high bar for what they'll let into their collection, then the current offerings wouldn't be very satisfying. I have the Mojo, Favorite, and Safari versions on my shelf, but I think there's lot's of room for improvement on all of them. Then again, there are literally thousands of fossil fish genera that might also deserve a turn. I will say that I think the Dunk figures are consistently less accurate than dinosaurs from the same companies, but those inaccuracies get noticed less, which is probably just a product of the fact that it's almost impossible to spend any time in a community like this one without getting a thorough primer in theropod forelimb orientation or the right number of claws on a sauropod foot.

[Stegotyranno420]

Infact if you think deeply, "childish" playing maybe a sign of high intelligence. You are creating situations, stories, characters. Its like writing a novel, just more fun(in my opinion)

[Reuben03]

Yo, nothing wrong with playing with your toys. I play with Lego, but my dinosaur collection is more curated than played with per se. But I get the appeal.

haha ty!

[Reuben03]

Infact if you think deeply, "childish" playing maybe a sign of high intelligence. You are creating situations, stories, characters. Its like writing a novel, just more fun(in my opinion)

lolll true true! ty very much haha

[andrewsaurus rex]

An excellent post, Halichoeres.  Very informative.

Despite all the excellent arguments in favour of a streamlined body and shark like tail for Dunk, i'm still not a believer.  Over the years, i've noticed that paleontologists have had the tendency to make extinct creatures more spectacular than the really were.  This makes them of even greater interest to the general public, with a host of benefits as a result.  The sizes are often exaggerated, their abilities are often glorified. When real scientific research is done, many of the claims have been dispelled.  This is not a criticism, just an observation.  I don't see the need for Dunk to have been a fast, streamlined predator.  It could have gotten along just fine without being an armoured shark.  Groupers get along just fine and they are not built for speed or endurance.  This includes Goliath Groupers which can be 8 feet or more.

It's sexy to make Dunkleosteus into a fast swimming super predator, and it's a fresh spin on a well known animal.   But the way I see it, why would natural selection have given Dunk a streamlined body, powerful efficient tail, but retained a big, heavy clunky head?   If there were selective pressures to become fast, then the head would have streamlined and lightened, to compliment the body changes.  Some Dunk figures look, to me, like a shark with a Dunkleosteus head stuck on the front.

But i'm probably wrong.  I do wonder if the same types of changes that are theorized for Dunk, ie the shark like tail etc, also happened to Dunk's smaller relatives.  Did Eastmanosteus, a smaller close relative of Dunkleosteus, also have a shark like tail, do you suppose, or maybe the smaller fish retained a more eel like anatomy?

[Reuben03]

Despite all the excellent arguments in favour of a streamlined body and shark like tail for Dunk, i'm still not a believer.  Over the years, i've noticed that paleontologists have had the tendency to make extinct creatures more spectacular than the really were.  This makes them of even greater interest to the general public, with a host of benefits as a result.  The sizes are often exaggerated, their abilities are often glorified. When real scientific research is done, many of the claims have been dispelled.  This is not a criticism, just an observation.  I don't see the need for Dunk to have been a fast, streamlined predator.  It could have gotten along just fine without being an armoured shark.  Groupers get along just fine and they are not built for speed or endurance.  This includes Goliath Groupers which can be 8 feet or more.

yeah but groupers dont need to be sharks because we have sharks. sharks in the devonian weren't really doing the 'shark thing'. that was dunkleosteus' job,
it filled the niche of a shark and therefore had a similar body plan.

also paleontologists do the complete opposite lol we r living in the age of "nope literally just a normal animal"
everyone but 12 year olds who listen to skrillex and the mainstream media,
are 'six foot turkey enjoyers' and rightly so. the age of glorifying extinct animals as kaiju like murder monsters is over. can u show me an example of paleontologists hyping up an animal instead of just being like "yeahh this is a normal animal" ? i haven't seen that at all.

[Stegotyranno420]

Sometimes it can be negative when people try to relate something extinct to modern animals as much as possible.
It just takes the uniqueness out of it. I don't know about study's or evidence, but I rather have an armoured leviathan fish than a wierd looking super shark.
Think of all of those copycats(like babourofelids, nimravids, etc) and doppelgänger-dogs(creodonts, mesonychids, arctocynonids). People(such as paleo-newcomers)will often describe these animals as doglike as possible. Not only it confuses them with the associated animal, it also confuses other similar animals, sometime those that are related to the associated animals(in the case of dogs, some know that the mentioned groups aren't dogs but also group dog relatives and true dogs into the mix, such as amphicyonids, Borophagines, and even foxes, I'm not joking on the last one.) but most of all, it takes away the uniqueness. For example, Dinosaurs weren't crocodiles, nor were they birds, they were dinosaurs. Diprotodonts weren't just giant wombats, they were diprotodonts. Sure they may seem slightly different or just a different size, but ,another example, Flying Fox Bats are very different from other bats, even though the seemingly slight physical difference. That's how one should think.

Now I hope there aren't any spelling errors in the text that could ruin the meaning. Sorry if there are errors, English is my second language.

A @andrewsaurus and @Reuben03 you both make great points

[Loon]

That is all.

[Reuben03]

Sometimes it can be negative when people try to relate something extinct to modern animals as much as possible.
It just takes the uniqueness out of it. I don't know about study's or evidence, but I rather have an armoured leviathan fish than a wierd looking super shark.
Think of all of those copycats(like babourofelids, nimravids, etc) and doppelgänger-dogs(creodonts, mesonychids, arctocynonids). People(such as paleo-newcomers)will often describe these animals as doglike as possible. Not only it confuses them with the associated animal, it also confuses other similar animals, sometime those that are related to the associated animals(in the case of dogs, some know that the mentioned groups aren't dogs but also group dog relatives and true dogs into the mix, such as amphicyonids, Borophagines, and even foxes, I'm not joking on the last one.) but most of all, it takes away the uniqueness. For example, Dinosaurs weren't crocodiles, nor were they birds, they were dinosaurs. Diprotodonts weren't just giant wombats, they were diprotodonts. Sure they may seem slightly different or just a different size, but ,another example, Flying Fox Bats are very different from other bats, even though the seemingly slight physical difference. That's how one should think.

Now I hope there aren't any spelling errors in the text that could ruin the meaning. Sorry if there are errors, English is my second language.

A @andrewsaurus and @Reuben03 you both make great points

at the end of the day what we'd rather and what is true are often very different. if you learn to disregard your own preference and just embrace reality 100 percent you'll never be let down by an animal being less scary.

dunkleosteus likely possessed a tail fluke like a shark. that's just how it is i guess.
lips however?

oh boy. who knows.

[Newt]

An excellent post, Halichoeres.  Very informative.

Despite all the excellent arguments in favour of a streamlined body and shark like tail for Dunk, i'm still not a believer.  Over the years, i've noticed that paleontologists have had the tendency to make extinct creatures more spectacular than the really were.  This makes them of even greater interest to the general public, with a host of benefits as a result.  The sizes are often exaggerated, their abilities are often glorified. When real scientific research is done, many of the claims have been dispelled.  This is not a criticism, just an observation.  I don't see the need for Dunk to have been a fast, streamlined predator.  It could have gotten along just fine without being an armoured shark.  Groupers get along just fine and they are not built for speed or endurance.  This includes Goliath Groupers which can be 8 feet or more.

It's sexy to make Dunkleosteus into a fast swimming super predator, and it's a fresh spin on a well known animal.   But the way I see it, why would natural selection have given Dunk a streamlined body, powerful efficient tail, but retained a big, heavy clunky head?   If there were selective pressures to become fast, then the head would have streamlined and lightened, to compliment the body changes.  Some Dunk figures look, to me, like a shark with a Dunkleosteus head stuck on the front.

But i'm probably wrong.  I do wonder if the same types of changes that are theorized for Dunk, ie the shark like tail etc, also happened to Dunk's smaller relatives.  Did Eastmanosteus, a smaller close relative of Dunkleosteus, also have a shark like tail, do you suppose, or maybe the smaller fish retained a more eel like anatomy?

The biggest argument in favor of Dunkleosteus having a more shark-like tail is its provenance. The Cleveland Shale, where most Dunkleosteus fossils hail from, is composed of green shales that formed on an anoxic bottom, as evidenced by both the chemistry and structure of the shales and the lack of benthic invertebrate fossils. This implies that Dunkleosteus (and Eastmanichthys and Cladoselache and Titanichthys and all the other Cleveland Shale fauna) were pelagic animals that lived in the open waters above, as the bottom would have been deadly and barren.


This is not how groupers live; groupers (and similarly shaped fish such as tripletails, some cichlids and centrarchids, and so on) are built for maneuverability and short bursts of speed, ideal for ambush predators that hang out amidst complex structure such as reefs, boulders, logjams, and vegetation. Nothing shaped like a grouper lives in open water.


Of course this is all inference until better fossils are found. But I'm convinced by the arguments that Dunkleosteus was, if not necessarily a true thunniform swimmer, at least not shaped like Coccosteus.

[andrewsaurus rex]

Reuben03 I understand where you're coming from.  The arguments for Dunk having a shark like tail are very persuasive.  But that's all they are; arguments.  And it may well be more  likely than not it had that type of tail.  But it is still only a theory.  Like much of paleontology is: theory and conjecture.  Now it's done by smart people, who put a lot of thought into it (and testing) but until proven by some type of evidence it is still just unproven theory and not necessarily correct.  I am a big believer in science, but that doesn't mean I always go along with what i'm told by scientists, if it doesn't sit right with me.

As far as paleontologists exaggerating extinct animal traits, off the top of my head: t-rex being able to run 35+ mph (current thinking is now more like 12 mph), Quetzalcoatlus having a 50 foot wingspan (now seen as more like 30-35), Anomalocaris being a Cambrian super predator crushing poor trilobites to death (now seen as unable to crush much of anything and feeding on algae and microorganisms), mosasaurs being 50 feet plus in length (that was based on a head to body ratio of 10:1, which was a theory (ratio now known to be 7:1 meaning the largest mosasaurs were more like 35 feet plus in length), dromaeosaurs having toe claws that savagely slash their victims to death (now known these claws were more for toe holds and had little ability to slash open prey).

Given a few minutes I could probably come up with dozens more examples of exaggerated sizes and abilities of extinct animals.  And it seems every few years many extinct animals get a 'make over' and a fresh new look.   New ideas, fresh approaches and reanalysis is great and necessary.  But sometimes, it seems like it's just change for the sake of change.

And just because we have sharks now, doesn't mean there always needed to be shark like predators.  There didn't.  There just needed to be predators.

[andrewsaurus rex]

Newt, that's yet another compelling argument in favour of Dunk having a shark like tail.  As I said in my original post, i'm probably wrong.  However, I remain stubbornly skeptical.  (I still don't see why Dunk wouldn't have evolved a more streamlined and lighter head if the need for speed was priority).

So I guess this argument would apply to Dunk's smaller cousins, like Eastmanosteus as well?  They all had shark like tails, by the same reasoning?

[Reuben03]

Newt, that's yet another compelling argument in favour of Dunk having a shark like tail.  As I said in my original post, i'm probably wrong.  However, I remain stubbornly skeptical.  (I still don't see why Dunk wouldn't have evolved a more streamlined and lighter head if the need for speed was priority).

So I guess this argument would apply to Dunk's smaller cousins, like Eastmanosteus as well?  They all had shark like tails, by the same reasoning?

some smaller placoderms probably had more eel like tails based off of coccosteus i do believe, which was fossilized with evidence of an eel like tail. again, given that this animals niche may have been different from other small placoderms which may have had a completely different lifestyle, we cannot say for sure what others had unless they are very similar to coccosteus, in which case it would be unfounded to assume they were completely different.

[Reuben03]

As far as paleontologists exaggerating extinct animal traits, off the top of my head: t-rex being able to run 35+ mph (current thinking is now more like 12 mph), Quetzalcoatlus having a 50 foot wingspan (now seen as more like 30-35), Anomalocaris being a Cambrian super predator crushing poor trilobites to death (now seen as unable to crush much of anything and feeding on algae and microorganisms), mosasaurs being 50 feet plus in length (that was based on a head to body ratio of 10:1, which was a theory (ratio now known to be 7:1 meaning the largest mosasaurs were more like 35 feet plus in length), dromaeosaurs having toe claws that savagely slash their victims to death (now known these claws were more for toe holds and had little ability to slash open prey).

all of these are old though. i mean nowadays. nowadays we don't assume these animals were insane heavy metal monsters like we used to. dinosaurs went from slow and dull, to extreme and unstoppable in the 90's and now finally that's burning off as we realize that they were just animals, nothing more, nothing less.

[Reuben03]

Reuben03 I understand where you're coming from.  The arguments for Dunk having a shark like tail are very persuasive.  But that's all they are; arguments.  And it may well be more  likely than not it had that type of tail.  But it is still only a theory.  Like much of paleontology is: theory and conjecture.  Now it's done by smart people, who put a lot of thought into it (and testing) but until proven by some type of evidence it is still just unproven theory and not necessarily correct.  I am a big believer in science, but that doesn't mean I always go along with what i'm told by scientists, if it doesn't sit right with me.

i must commend you for questioning all this by the way.
a refreshing change. im sick of hearing "trust the science"