Carnotaurus Skin Described

[suspsy]

Contrary to previous interpretations, the feature scales are randomly distributed and neither form discrete rows nor show progressive variations in their size along parts of the body. They also show little difference in morphology along the body, although their apices are variously positioned in different body parts. Conversely, the basement scales vary from small and elongated, large and polygonal, and circular-to-lenticular in the thoracic, scapular, and tail regions, respectively.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667121002421

In short, every single Carnotaurus toy on the blog, plus a whole bunch of life-sized statues and animation models just got saddled with major inaccuracies!

[Faelrin]

And of course this one just had to be paywalled.

I am curious to see what others have to say on this, or if there is any opposition on this paper, as well like you said this is major, and renders nearly every reconstruction thus far inaccurate in regards to this information.

But some times science does march on and break through into realities stranger then we once thought, so with that I am open minded. We saw this happen with Stegosaurus with the Sophie specimen with the longer neck, etc, Spinosaurus with the FSAC-KK 11888 specimen, Deinocheirus with the later specimens, etc, or like with the dire wolf/Aenocyon recently. There's no shortage of examples of such major breakthroughs revolutionizing our understanding of these ancient animals.


It will be interesting to see what companies do with this information in the future, even if I am very much satisfied with these previous takes, and still would like to see a relative in the spotlight for once such as Aucasaurus, Skorpiovenator, or even Spectrovenator.

[Bread]

I kind of have doubts that this will spark a flood of new Carnotaurus models from major companies (Safari, PNSO, CollectA, etc..). However, this begs the question if it is really worth having a new updated Carnotaurus then? Or are such figures like Doug Watson's/Safari's just fine the way they are with some slight skin inaccuracies?

[ITdactyl]

It'd be nice to see these findings reflected on a figure in the future... but to have 2022 as another Carnotaurus year for toy makers... 

why am I bothered? I only have one Carno figure, and it's a kaiyodo gashapon at that.

[Flaffy]

I wouldn't mind more Carnotaurus figures. I've got the CollectA one, and am not all that satisfied with it. None of the other (available) Carnotaurs on the market strike my fancy either.

I feel that a new figure of the genus is warranted. Soft tissue preservation is rare as it is, and it's a miracle how much of it we have preserved on Carnotaurus. IMO this is a similar scenario to the likes of Borealopelta and Microraptor, where new findings / revelations about the dinosaur allow us to produce far more accurate reconstructions of these long extinct organisms.

But as @Faelrin stated, other abelisaurs with decent skeletal remains have received far less attention than their bull-horned cousin. I'd definitely prioritise getting new figures of under-represented abelisaurs over another Carnotaurus figure.

[Dinoxels]

Doug Watson's/Safari's just fine the way they are with some slight skin inaccuracies?

That figure is way too bulky, Doug kind of went a little extra dense on that one. Thankfully his more recent theropods don't have this issue. Anyways, sorry for the grainy images but paywalls are paywalls, so here are some of the images from the article:

[Leyster]

That figure is way too bulky, Doug kind of went a little extra dense on that one.

The bulk is debatable, since we do not know how much soft thissue is there. Still Doug's remains the best Carnotaurus ATM, the only one that shows a stiff tail at the base which became more flexible towards the end and an adequately bulky caudofemoralis.
Here
Here you can see a researcher (Damiano Palombi) talking about Carnotaurus and lampshading some inaccuracies in the PNSO model, which the Safari gets right.

[Gwangi]

And to think I just recently promised myself, no more Carnotaurus figures. I suppose there's room for just one more, if need be.

[Sim]

Here you can see a researcher (Damiano Palombi) talking about Carnotaurus and lampshading some inaccuracies in the PNSO model, which the Safari gets right.

L @Leyster, what do you mean by "lampshading"?  Also, the video is nearly two hours long, at what point are the inaccuracies of the PNSO model pointed out?


Regarding a new, accurate Carnotaurus figure, I'd be happy to see one.  I have to admit I'm not really interested in other abelisaurids getting made into figures, but I'd like to have a nice Carnotaurus.  I like Battat's, but the painting wasn't applied carefully enough for me.  I also tried Favorite's, which had inaccurate skin even for its time and really wasn't to my liking, and PNSO's which struck me as being ugly in person.  The others I never liked enough to try: Wild Safari's has an ugly head, CollectA's has dragon scales on its back and is permanently attached to a base, Papo's has a too-wide mouth, and Carnegie's newer one is too skinny and in an awful pose.

While writing this post I realised the Wild Safari Carnotaurus is not completely accurate.  The top of the snout of Carnotaurus had a cornified cover which the PNSO figure has, while the Wild Safari figure has the same scaly integument as on the rest of it.  I've included a guide to the head integument of Carnotaurus below.  I like the first Carnotaurus model in Dinoxels's post and would love to see a figure that looks like it.  Maybe @Eofauna could consider making a Carnotaurus based on this new paper, they have an interesting reconstruction of it on the cover of their theropod book, it even has lips: https://www.deviantart.com/eofauna/art/Records-de-los-DINOSAURIOS-Teropodos-cover-638354182

  (Image source)

[Bread]

Regarding a new, accurate Carnotaurus figure, I'd be happy to see one.  I have to admit I'm not really interested in other abelisaurids getting made into figures, but I'd like to have a nice Carnotaurus.  I like Battat's, but the painting wasn't applied carefully enough for me.  I also tried Favorite's, which had inaccurate skin even for its time and really wasn't to my liking, and PNSO's which struck me as being ugly in person.  The others I never liked enough to try: Wild Safari's has an ugly head, CollectA's has dragon scales on its back and is permanently attached to a base, Papo's has a too-wide mouth, and Carnegie's newer one is too skinny and in an awful pose.

Was just about to comment something similar to this. I agree with Sim pretty much about all these figures. Although I will say PNSO's is better in person, however there are other PNSO releases that really outshine it.

I just hope this does not mean a flood of this genus in the market, again I doubt it, but I still want other abelisaurs over another Carnotaurus, especially if it lacks a lot of updated features.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Every company can release 10 new Carnotaurus figures next year, but I still won't buy any of them.

[suspsy]

I too would much rather see Rajasaurus, Rugops, Majungasaurus, Indosuchus, and Abelisaurus receive more toys as opposed to Carnotaurus.

[Stegotyranno420]

I too would much rather see Rajasaurus, Rugops, Majungasaurus, Indosuchus, and Abelisaurus receive more toys as opposed to Carnotaurus.

Who wouldnt?

[Sim]

I too would much rather see Rajasaurus, Rugops, Majungasaurus, Indosuchus, and Abelisaurus receive more toys as opposed to Carnotaurus.

Who wouldnt?

Well, since you asked, me.  As I said in my previous post.  Rajasaurus's head is only known from a fragmentary skull.  Rugops and Abelisaurus are only known from incomplete skulls and their proportions are unknown.  For one example of how this can affect appearance, see these skeletals: https://www.deviantart.com/getawaytrike/art/Southern-tyrant-722018353  As far as I'm concerned these three shouldn't be made into figures, too much of them would be fantasy.  In any case, CollectA released a nice figure of Rajasaurus, and the Wild Past Majungasaurus can be used as a stand-in for Rajasaurus.

Majungasaurus will be receiving a new toy, the absolutely excellent Wild Past figure, and to me it seems to not need another figure after that.  This leaves Indosuchus and here my opinion changes a little.  I would be interested in a new figure of Indosuchus if it is known from what is shown here: https://twitter.com/blog_supplement/status/634580422765223936  The skeletal I just linked to shows an interesting head shape and surprisingly well-developed arms which make me wonder if it really is an abelisaurid.

Coming back to Carnotaurus, none of the figures of Carnotaurus get the skin right.  And the few that have the cornified snout cover don't capture the essence of the dinosaur, e.g. Papo's has a wide, instead of narrow, snout; PNSO's has weird, exaggerated scalation; and the Schleich mini is a tail dragger.  Add to this Carnotaurus's very unique appearance, and as @Flaffy mentioned the exceptional preservation of the Carnotaurus specimen, and we have a dinosaur that I'd very much like to get an accurate figure of.

[Dinoxels]

Majungasaurus will be receiving a new toy, the absolutely excellent Wild Past figure, and to me it seems to not need another figure after that. 

I've actually seen a full prototype of this figure thanks to a friend, there is one big issue I have with it. I won't talk about it however because I think it's supposed to stay under wraps for the moment.

[Bread]

Majungasaurus will be receiving a new toy, the absolutely excellent Wild Past figure, and to me it seems to not need another figure after that. 

I've actually seen a full prototype of this figure thanks to a friend, there is one big issue I have with it. I won't talk about it however because I think it's supposed to stay under wraps for the moment.

I kind of feel like the genus still deserves more figures made. I like seeing other artists interpretations. Also, if I am mistaken, does Wild Past only focus on small scaled figures? Sorry to go off topic.

Regardless of this new skin texturing analysis, I still hope for a Majungasaurus over a Carnotaurus.

[Flaffy]

Majungasaurus will be receiving a new toy, the absolutely excellent Wild Past figure, and to me it seems to not need another figure after that. 

I've actually seen a full prototype of this figure thanks to a friend, there is one big issue I have with it. I won't talk about it however because I think it's supposed to stay under wraps for the moment.

Hopefully it's not an issue related to accuracy. Though considering Wild Past's fantastic track record so far, I don't doubt that they do research on every species they decide to make.

[Leyster]

Here you can see a researcher (Damiano Palombi) talking about Carnotaurus and lampshading some inaccuracies in the PNSO model, which the Safari gets right.

L @Leyster, what do you mean by "lampshading"?  Also, the video is nearly two hours long, at what point are the inaccuracies of the PNSO model pointed out?

Ah, sorry, my bad English shows again. I meant highlight. Anyway, they're more or less spread in the whole video.

[Gwangi]

I would like to see figures made of more genera, even if they are fragmentary. I might not be interested in them myself, but clearly other people are. That said, if there is new evidence that changes how we thought an animal looked then it definitely needs new figures, even if there are already a lot of them.

[Shane]

Pardon my lack of understanding, but is this paper discussing specifically the larger, osteoderm-like scales on Carnotaurus when it describes the lack of patterning and random shapes? Or just the regular scales? Sorry, it didn't seem clear from the excerpts posted. But I assume since this is Carnotaurus we're talking about, they mean the larger scales.