Leyster's Collection (updated 13/09/24)

[Halichoeres]

I was also surprised when I worked out the scale of the Chungkingosaurus. Their original vinyl model was a whopping 1:7!

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

And that is why mine doesn't go anywhere near the Yangchaunosaurus. They could have picked Huayangosaurus or Tuojiangosaurus to go with it which could have been to scale, but they went for the very small one instead.

Please keep these coming, I'm enjoying them.

[Leyster]

I was also surprised when I worked out the scale of the Chungkingosaurus. Their original vinyl model was a whopping 1:7!

Maybe the smallest stegosaur, methinks

And that is why mine doesn't go anywhere near the Yangchaunosaurus. They could have picked Huayangosaurus or Tuojiangosaurus to go with it which could have been to scale, but they went for the very small one instead.

Tuojiangosaurus would have worked, but not Huayangosaurus, being from the lower Shaximiao/Xiashaximiao, that is Bathonian/Callovian, while Yangchuanosaurus shangyensis is Oxfordian

Binomial name: Dimetrodon grandis Romer & Price 1940
Classification: Eupelycosauria->Sphenacodontia->Sphenacodontoidea->Spenacodontidae->Sphenacodontinae
Time: Kungurian (Early Permian)
Formation: Clear Fork Group of the Arroyo Formation, Garber Formation (present day USA)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 2001
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:20 for UCRC 1002


Also here you can read my review of the Carnegie Concavenator and here my review of the PNSO Pachyrhinosaurus. Both are in italian, but an online translator will do the work.

[Halichoeres]

This figure makes we wish there had been more Paleozoic animals in the Carnegie Collection.

[SidB]

I was also surprised when I worked out the scale of the Chungkingosaurus. Their original vinyl model was a whopping 1:7!

Maybe the smallest stegosaur, methinks

And that is why mine doesn't go anywhere near the Yangchaunosaurus. They could have picked Huayangosaurus or Tuojiangosaurus to go with it which could have been to scale, but they went for the very small one instead.

Tuojiangosaurus would have worked, but not Huayangosaurus, being from the lower Shaximiao/Xiashaximiao, that is Bathonian/Callovian, while Yangchuanosaurus shangyensis is Oxfordian

Binomial name: Dimetrodon grandis Romer & Price 1940
Classification: Eupelycosauria->Sphenacodontia->Sphenacodontoidea->Spenacodontidae->Sphenacodontinae
Time: Kungurian (Early Permian)
Formation: Clear Fork Group of the Arroyo Formation (present day USA)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 2001
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:20 for UCRC 1002


Also here you can read my review of the Carnegie Concavenator and here my review of the PNSO Pachyrhinosaurus. Both are in italian, but an online translator will do the work.

I really enjoyed, once again, reading your very precise and informed reviews (in translation). The Pachyrhinosaurus review really provides a positive appreciation of the decisions made by the paleo-artist in arriving at the final outcome actualised in the figure itself. I'd wondered if some of the skull characteristics were merely idiosyncracies of these decisions, but your review strongly establishes the rational basis of the production. Bravo! The Carnegie Concavenator addresses two of the short-comings that had been commented upon at the time of its release - the flatness of the bottoms of the feet and the lack of quills on the arms. Wonderful work.

[Leyster]

This figure makes we wish there had been more Paleozoic animals in the Carnegie Collection.

That's true, sadly (apart for the famous Dimetrodon) they doesn't look really succesful, the exquisite Scutosaurus was retired after a very short time.

I really enjoyed, once again, reading your very precise and informed reviews (in translation). The Pachyrhinosaurus review really provides a positive appreciation of the decisions made by the paleo-artist in arriving at the final outcome actualised in the figure itself. I'd wondered if some of the skull characteristics were merely idiosyncracies of these decisions, but your review strongly establishes the rational basis of the production. Bravo! The Carnegie Concavenator addresses two of the short-comings that had been commented upon at the time of its release - the flatness of the bottoms of the feet and the lack of quills on the arms. Wonderful work.

Thank you! I too was surprised, reading the Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai monograph, by the amount of details they put on their model. I had some doubt before getting the model, already owning the very good Battat, but after doing my work for the review it became one of my favourite ceratopsian figures.

Binomial name: Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn 1905
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Coelurosauria->Tyrannoraptora->Tyrannosauroidea->Tyrannosauridae->Tyrannosaurinae
Time: Maastrichtian (late Cretaceous)
Formation: Hell Creek Formation, Lance Formation, Frenchman Formation (present day USA and Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 1998 (reissued in 2014 as part of the Terra line)
Sculptor: Dan LoRusso
Scale: 1:38 based on FMNH PR 2081 (Sue), the base for the skull

[Leyster]

Binomial name: Amargasaurus cazaui Salgado & Bonaparte 1991
Classification: Dinosauria->Sauropodomorpha->Bagualosauria->Massopoda->Sauropodiformes->Sauropoda->Eusauropoda->Neosauropoda->Diplodocoidea->Diplodocimorpha->Flagellicaudata->Dicraeosauridae
Time: Barremian (Early Cretaceous)
Formation: La Amarga Formation (present day Argentina)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 2007
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:42 for MACN-N 15

[Leyster]

Binomial name: Parasaurolophus walkeri Parks 1922
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Neornithischia->Cerapoda->Ornithopoda->Iguanodontia->Dryomorpha->Ankylopollexia->Styracosterna->Hadrosauroidea->Hadrosauridae->Saurolophidae->Lambeosaurinae->Parasaurolophini
Time: Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Dinosaur Park Formation (Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 1998 (reissued in 2014)
Sculptor: Greg Wenzel
Scale: 1:34 based on ROM 768

[SidB]

Still one of the very best. It was way ahead of the curve in 1996 or so.

[Leyster]

Still one of the very best. It was way ahead of the curve in 1996 or so.

Yes, even if Bertozzo et al. 2020 more or less kills that restoration it remains really graceful. It reminds me of Larry Felder's Parasaurolophus.

Binomial name: Styracosaurus albertensis Lambe 1913
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Neornithischia->Marginocephalia->Ceratopsia->Neoceratopsia->Coronosauria->Ceratopsoidea->Ceratopsidae->Centrosaurinae
Time: Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Upper Dinosaur Park Formation (present day Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 2002
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:31 based on CMNH 3034. Damn, Styracosaurus was small!

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I knew Styracosaurus was small but I thought that the Carnegie (and Battat) were 1:35ish not 1:31 so even smaller than I thought and that's saying something. I have seen a life-size Styracosaurus too, though it was years ago and I do not remember it that well. I do remember it being smaller than I thought it would be.

[Leyster]

I knew Styracosaurus was small but I thought that the Carnegie (and Battat) were 1:35ish not 1:31 so even smaller than I thought and that's saying something. I have seen a life-size Styracosaurus too, though it was years ago and I do not remember it that well. I do remember it being smaller than I thought it would be.

I scaled it based on CMNH 334, a 5 m individual

Binomial name: Dacentrurus armatus (Owen 1875)
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Thyreophora->Stegosauria->Stegosaurinae?
Time: Kimmeridgian (Late Jurassic)
Formation: Kimmeridge Clay (present-day UK)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 2014
Sculptor: Dan LoRusso
Scale: 1:60-167? (see below)


Dacentrurus is definitely the weakest of the new Battats. It's closeness with Miragaia was known in 2014 (Maidment 2010) and in 2011 Safari produced for the Carnegie Line a Miragaia quite faithful to what was known. Among the other errors there are the hands, spred and with five claws when is known that stegosaurs have columnar hands not too different from sauropods (Senter, 2010) and only two claws (on the two innermost digits). The scaling is quite absurd but I measured it from two points, femur lenght (calculated from a skeletal) and pelvis width, and both result in the 1:60 range. Probably there are serious issues with the sculpt as well to give these results, Dacentrurus was a big beast and probably one of the biggest stegosaurs (if not the biggest), but is not THAT big.

[Stegotyranno420]

I really hope we can find more about dacentrurus. It's slowly kicking out theropods and coming up to my top 5 of dinosaurs.
Very underrated.

[Leyster]

Binomial name: Giganotosaurus carolinii Coria & Salgado 1995
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Carnosauria->Allosauroidea->Allosauria->Carcharodontosauria->Carcharodontosauridae->Carcharodontosaurinae->Giganotosaurini
Time: Cenomanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Candeleros Formation (present day Argentina)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 2008
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:36, but using the outdated 180 cm skull, which is shown in the model. Femur lenght gives more or less 1:30


Also here you can read my review of the PNSO Borealopelta, probably my most difficult review to write. I counted the osteoderms on that damn thing!

[Halichoeres]

Wow, didn't realize that Dacentrurus was so wonky. I guess the proportions must be based on something more like Huayangosaurus.

[Leyster]

Wow, didn't realize that Dacentrurus was so wonky. I guess the proportions must be based on something more like Huayangosaurus.

Well, there is still the possibility that I got some calculations wrong, but I don't think so much. It looks a bit like Huayangosaurus, with that big head.

Binomial name: Cryolophosaurus ellioti Hammer & Hickerson 1994
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda
Time: Sinemurian or Pliensbachian (Early Jurassic)
Formation: Hanson Formation (present day Antartica)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 2014
Sculptor: Dan LoRusso
Scale: 1:36 for FMNH PR1821


Definitely my favorite figure among the new Battat releases.

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, this is a winner. One of LoRusso's best sculpts.

[Loon]

I love these posts, L @Leyster . They're very informative about the animal, which is not something you get in most reviews of models. Now, I'm a bit puzzled. I can't decide which is the best figure of Cryolophosaurus. It seems both are far from perfect, but I would like to have a figure of it. I think the Carnegie one is probably the best, as the Battat one looks a bit "boxy" to me.

[SidB]

I knew Styracosaurus was small but I thought that the Carnegie (and Battat) were 1:35ish not 1:31 so even smaller than I thought and that's saying something. I have seen a life-size Styracosaurus too, though it was years ago and I do not remember it that well. I do remember it being smaller than I thought it would be.

I scaled it based on CMNH 334, a 5 m individual

Binomial name: Dacentrurus armatus (Owen 1875)
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Thyreophora->Stegosauria->Stegosaurinae?
Time: Kimmeridgian (Late Jurassic)
Formation: Kimmeridge Clay (present-day UK)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 2014
Sculptor: Dan LoRusso
Scale: 1:60-167? (see below)


Dacentrurus is definitely the weakest of the new Battats. It's closeness with Miragaia was known in 2014 (Maidment 2010) and in 2011 Safari produced for the Carnegie Line a Miragaia quite faithful to what was known. Among the other errors there are the hands, spred and with five claws when is known that stegosaurs have columnar hands not too different from sauropods (Senter, 2010) and only two claws (on the two innermost digits). The scaling is quite absurd but I measured it from two points, femur lenght (calculated from a skeletal) and pelvis width, and both result in the 1:60 range. Probably there are serious issues with the sculpt as well to give these results, Dacentrurus was a big beast and probably one of the biggest stegosaurs (if not the biggest), but is not THAT big.

This finding comes as a surprise to me. I find it a bit remarkable that Dan Lorusso woud have been that far off in his scaling. I'm wondering what factors he may have used to reach his conclusions regarding this figure? Perhaps we'll never know. Also, are shoulder spikes still considered a possibility with the Dacentrurus or not?

[Leyster]

I love these posts, L @Leyster . They're very informative about the animal, which is not something you get in most reviews of models. Now, I'm a bit puzzled. I can't decide which is the best figure of Cryolophosaurus. It seems both are far from perfect, but I would like to have a figure of it. I think the Carnegie one is probably the best, as the Battat one looks a bit "boxy" to me.

Thank you. Honestly Cryolophosaurus needs badly a revision, until then it's a bit difficult to pick the best figure. The Battat appears based on Sinosaurus, while the Carnegie looks like a pre-2020 restoration of Dilophosaurus. Since Dilophosaurus was fond having quite different proportions from what was tought, probably Cryolophosaurus will change too, but I advise against simply picking a new Dilophosaurus restoration and stick a Cryolophosaurus skull on it, since the Cryolophosaurus skull seems to match in size UCMP 77270 (ex Dilophosaurus "breedorum" and biggest Dilophosaurus specimen), while the femur is longer. So probably Cryolophosaurus had different proportions. Let's hope it gets revised soon.

This finding comes as a surprise to me. I find it a bit remarkable that Dan Lorusso woud have been that far off in his scaling. I'm wondering what factors he may have used to reach his conclusions regarding this figure? Perhaps we'll never know. Also, are shoulder spikes still considered a possibility with the Dacentrurus or not?

Without offending the memory of mr. LoRusso, many of his recent works have a '90 feel (the featherless Nashiungosaurus, ie.). Given that the Dacentrurus has a wrong hand too, I think that maybe he was using some outdates sources. About the shoulder spike, I don't think so. Miragaia, its closest relative in some phylogenies, was tought to have a shoulder spike, but it ended as a misplaced tail spike. This is the most recent skeletal for Miragaia, realized with the assistance of the autors of the new paper.



Binomial name: Dunkleosteus terrelli Newberry 1873
Classification: Arthrodira>Aspinothoracidi>Brachythoraci>Coccosteina>Dunkleosteoidea>Dunkleosteidae
Time: Famennian (Late Devonian)
Formation: Cleveland Member
Manifacturer and date of release: Safari, 2006
Sculptor: ?
Scale: 1:20 for CMNH 5768?


@Halichoeres check this one, please. I measured both the skull lenght (72 cm) of CMNH5768 and an unspecified mandible of 55 cm used in Snively et al (2010), and bot result 1:20. I admit I expected it to be bigger