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

[SidB]

L @Leyster , thanks for this feedback. Well, as I had two Dacentrurus', I carefully removed the shoulder spikes on one, so that one's up-to-date then. Clearly PNSO got their Miragaia right in that respect. As for the other 1990's aspects of the Dacentrurus , I'll live with that as of historical interest, keeping the shoulder spikes on one of them will keep that context alive too.

[Halichoeres]

@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

Perhaps you used this interactive? https://umorf.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/wp/specimen-data/?Model_ID=1336
I got something more like 1:25 based on the longest axis of the infraorbital. I have a note in my spreadsheet that says there's a fragmentary skull estimated to have been 1.5 m wide, but I didn't list a reference and I don't recall where I got that from. Based on fairly complete specimens like CMNH5768, I think it's fair to say that most estimates of the size of Dunkleosteus are exaggerated, or at least at the upper edge of plausibility. In peer-reviewed literature, I've seen total length estimates ranging from 4.5 to 10 meters, but I don't think the upper end of that range is really believable.

[Leyster]

@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

Perhaps you used this interactive? https://umorf.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/wp/specimen-data/?Model_ID=1336
I got something more like 1:25 based on the longest axis of the infraorbital. I have a note in my spreadsheet that says there's a fragmentary skull estimated to have been 1.5 m wide, but I didn't list a reference and I don't recall where I got that from. Based on fairly complete specimens like CMNH5768, I think it's fair to say that most estimates of the size of Dunkleosteus are exaggerated, or at least at the upper edge of plausibility. In peer-reviewed literature, I've seen total length estimates ranging from 4.5 to 10 meters, but I don't think the upper end of that range is really believable.

I think I used measurements from Ferròn et al. 2017 (https://peerj.com/articles/4081/). Yeah so probably another case of a prehistoric animal popularly oversized.

Binomial name: Carnotaurus sastrei Bonaparte, 1985
Classification: Dinosauria>Theropoda>Neotheropoda>Averostra>Ceratosauria>Neoceratosauria>Abelisauroidea>Abelisauridae>Brachyrostra>Carnotaurini
Time: Maastrichtian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: La Colonia Formation (present day Argentina)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 1998 (reissued as part of the Terra line in 2014)
Sculptor: Dan LoRusso
Scale: 1:31 for MACN-CH 894.

Way nicer than I expected and than it looks in photos, it reminds me of Czerkas' model. I can live with the asymmetric horns, expecially because I display it on profile.

[Ezikot]

I'm really enjoying this thread, full of useful informations... thank you very much!
May I suggest to add an index on page 1?

[Halichoeres]

There are lots of good figures of Carnotaurus, personally I would like to see some other abelisaurids get a turn!

[Stegotyranno420]

Aucasaurus, Skorpiovenator, Pycenomonosaurus, Exrinatosaurus, and definetly Rajasaurus

[Leyster]

I'm really enjoying this thread, full of useful informations... thank you very much!
May I suggest to add an index on page 1?

Yeah, I'll do it sooner of later

There are lots of good figures of Carnotaurus, personally I would like to see some other abelisaurids get a turn!

The main problem is that sadly most are still based on older restorations. The only updated ones I can think of are the Safari and to a lesser extent the Collecta.

Aucasaurus, Skorpiovenator, Pycenomonosaurus, Exrinatosaurus, and definetly Rajasaurus

Rajasaurus and Pycnonemosaurus are way too scrappy to be realized with a degree of accuracy and to a lesser extent that's true for Ekrixinatosaurus too. Aucasaurus is complete but very poorly described (its osteology has just been realized as thesis by some researcher). The only doable one would be Skorpiovenator. Personally I'm surprised we don't see more Majungasaurus figures, it's quite complete and well figured.

[Leyster]

Binomial name: Corythosaurus casuarius Brown 1914
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Neornithischia->Cerapoda->Ornithopoda->Iguanodontia->Dryomorpha->Ankylopollexia->Styracosterna->Hadrosauroidea->Hadrosauridae->Saurolophidae->Lambeosaurinae->Lambeosaurini
Time: Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Dinosaur Park Formation (Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 1993
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:40 based on AMNH 5240


One of the best Carnegies and, after almost 30 years, still the best Corythosaurus (yes, even considering the PNSO model).

[Jose S.M.]

This Corythosaurus is beautiful and was kind of ahead of it's time by its release. Most hadrosaurs from its time were made bipedal, even Carnegie's Parasaurolophus and Iguanodon were bipedal tripods.

[SidB]

The test of time. High praise.

[Halichoeres]

I've embraced the new PNSO Corythosaurus despite its outsize head, but this is definitely still a beautiful sculpt.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Still a beautiful figure  thanks to @Halichoeres for selling me that before.

By the way, would you say that the 2017 Safari Ltd Parasaurolophus is roughly 1:40 scale?

[Leyster]

This Corythosaurus is beautiful and was kind of ahead of it's time by its release. Most hadrosaurs from its time were made bipedal, even Carnegie's Parasaurolophus and Iguanodon were bipedal tripods.

Yes indeed, it was quite modern. Considering that the Iguanodon is just one year older, too.

The test of time. High praise.

Indeed!

I've embraced the new PNSO Corythosaurus despite its outsize head, but this is definitely still a beautiful sculpt.

I would have acquired it for sure, if it weren't for its proportions. Still aesthetically pleasing.

Still a beautiful figure  thanks to @Halichoeres for selling me that before.

By the way, would you say that the 2017 Safari Ltd Parasaurolophus is roughly 1:40 scale?

I do not own it, so I haven't measured it, but it looks quite small compared to others Safari hadrosaurs. ROM 768's skull should be more or less 1.60 m, so you can check the scale measuring the skull and then dividing 160 for that measurement

Binomial name: Acrocanthosaurus atokensis Stovall & Langston 1950
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Carnosauria->Allosauroidea->Allosauria->Carcharodontosauria->Carcharodontosauridae
Time: Aptian-Albian (Early Cretaceous)
Formation: Twin Mountains Formation, Antlers Formation, Cloverly Formation (present day USA)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 1998 (reissued in 2014 as part of the Terra line)
Sculptor: Greg Wenzel
Scale: 1:38 for NCSM 14345

Another model that, despite 20 and more years and the pronated hands, is (the the date) the most accurate PVC Acrocanthosaurus along with the Kaiyodo.

[Loon]

I've never been the biggest fan of the figure myself (the legs just give out too easily), but I'm starting to see your point. All of the more recent versions have been inadequate in some shape or form, whereas this one at least gets the basic anatomy right.

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, definitely the most accurate. The original stood better than the reissue; I occasionally regret selling it off.

[Stegotyranno420]

When i saw the figure in target(and made the absolutely stupid decision not to buy it), it seemed different from the ones i see around here.
Great and interesting figure

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Sorry to interrupt your beautiful thread but if I have measured correctly, the Safari Ltd Parasaurolophus is 1:38 scale for that specimen, which makes sense as its not that much smaller than the Battat you've measured as 1:34

Slightly more on topic, that Acrocanthosaurus has caused me similar feelings to Loon i think, except it wasn't until Sim pointed it out to me that I decided to keep the Battat and not the Carnegie. Honestly there isn't an Acrocanthosaurus that I think is that good. The Battat would be if it wasn't kissing the floor all the time.

[Halichoeres]

Interesting, I always figured it for closer to 1:50.

[Loon]

Interesting, I always figured it for closer to 1:50.

Same here, I had it at around 1:44 in my google spreadsheet.

[Leyster]

I've never been the biggest fan of the figure myself (the legs just give out too easily), but I'm starting to see your point. All of the more recent versions have been inadequate in some shape or form, whereas this one at least gets the basic anatomy right.

Yeah, definitely the most accurate. The original stood better than the reissue; I occasionally regret selling it off.

Slightly more on topic, that Acrocanthosaurus has caused me similar feelings to Loon i think, except it wasn't until Sim pointed it out to me that I decided to keep the Battat and not the Carnegie. Honestly there isn't an Acrocanthosaurus that I think is that good. The Battat would be if it wasn't kissing the floor all the time.

Yes, I agree with all of them in regard of its pitful inability to stand. At least I managed to display it with the tip of the tail under Carnegie Corythosaurus' hand, so it is not so much of a problem until examined upt to close.

Sorry to interrupt your beautiful thread but if I have measured correctly, the Safari Ltd Parasaurolophus is 1:38 scale for that specimen, which makes sense as its not that much smaller than the Battat you've measured as 1:34

Interesting, since I don't own the Safari Parasaurolophus and having never saw it in person (here in italy shops carry mostly Schleichs, Mattels and chinasaurs) I can't check if it's right or not.

Binomial name: Albertosaurus sarcophagus Osborn 1905
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Coelurosauria->Tyrannoraptora->Tyrannosauroidea->Tyrannosauridae->Albertosaurinae
Time: Maastrichtian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Horseshoe Canyon Formation (present day Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 2004
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:40 based on RTMP 81.10.1

One of the rare horizontal Carnegies. It could be better, but it could be a lot worse too. Note that the colour of the model is not natural, it had some bad accident involving dark pigments and wax and anyway I what resulted didn't bother me enough to try scraping it off and maybe ruining the underlying paint.