Eofauna: New for 2022

[CARN0TAURUS]

Your base looks fantastic!  Did you use CA or some kind of pegs to secure him to the base?

The figure can still be removed from the base. It's super simple to make. Sculpey is oven-cured, so I shaped the base on a ceramic tile with a sheet of kitchen parchment between the tile and the clay, textured it by using a garden stone as a stamp to press the texture into the surface, and then I pressed the feet of the figure lightly into the surface, leaving decent footprints. They don't have to be deep, just enough to cradle the foot. The base is then baked, and cooled. To make the detail pop, I dry brushed it with some ground up light brown art pastel.

I have also experimented with adding thin, air-cured Apoxie clay pads under individual toes, to stabilize non-standing theropods, to some success. On this Carnotaurus, all six toes now touch, and the figure stands very stable.

@Over9K

I make bases out of polished wood with air dry clay and grout on top for texture.  The grout is really durable and gets rock hard in a couple hours.  Also by adding scratches to the wood on top where the grout sits it attaches itself like crazy.  Then I use the clay to fill in areas and add texture.  The grout acts like a primer to attach the clay to the wood.  The biggest issue is that it's very messy and not the easiest thing to work with.  On the plus side home depot sells very small containers that folks use to touch up their kitchen counters etc. and they come in a variety of colors some that look really good when dry and only require dry brushing. 

Sounds like we're both using a couple of different materials.  You use Sculpey and a piece of tile.  I use grout, clay, and lumber.  The one advantage the wood might have is that it won't break easily unless dropped from very high or purposefully slammed on the ground.. .some grout might chip off tho. 

BTW, how do you cut the tiles to the desired shape?  Do you find preshaped tiles that fit your application or do you custom make them?  Cutting tile requires a diamond edged water saw, I know because I rented on once at Home Depot when I re-did the tile work in my shower about 8 years ago.  I love what you're doing with the dino feet, it's a fine way to add stability without a base or a rod.

[CARN0TAURUS]

Back to the Eofauna tyrannosaur release.  I'm not on facebook so I was wondering if this type of announcement is typical for them?  I've only followed their impending releases here when you guys post those teasers.  But a teaser implies that the figure prototype is already finished and that the figure is either in production or already in the process of shipping out. 

This seems different, there is no figure yet and no teasing involved.  Maybe they've done this before and I just didn't catch it?

[Over9K]

BTW, how do you cut the tiles to the desired shape?  Do you find preshaped tiles that fit your application or do you custom make them?  Cutting tile requires a diamond edged water saw, I know because I rented on once at Home Depot when I re-did the tile work in my shower about 8 years ago.  I love what you're doing with the dino feet, it's a fine way to add stability without a base or a rod.

The tile isn't actually part of the finished base, it's what I use to sculpt on, and then bake the oven-cured Sculpey. I lay a piece of kitchen parchment paper onto the tile, to prevent the clay from curing to the tile, and I can then move the project around from my work area to the kitchen, etc.

I have been thinking of using wood as a decorative base as well. I like the idea of a router edged base under the naturalistic base. I wonder if the adhesive qualities of the air-cured Apoxie clay would allow me to skip the grout? Apoxie warns that it will adhere to almost anything it cures on.

I think I'll start a thread on bases later this evening, in the dioramas sub-forum, so we can let this thread get back on topic.

Thanks for your patience folks! 

[Fembrogon]

Back to the Eofauna tyrannosaur release.  I'm not on facebook so I was wondering if this type of announcement is typical for them?  I've only followed their impending releases here when you guys post those teasers.  But a teaser implies that the figure prototype is already finished and that the figure is either in production or already in the process of shipping out. 

This seems different, there is no figure yet and no teasing involved.  Maybe they've done this before and I just didn't catch it?

Eofauna often collaborates on scientific studies and publications and uses those collabs as springboards for their models. The Diplodocus was based off of a rigorous 3D rendering of the animal and its probable body mass, and the Atlasaurus first appeared as a detailed "cross-section"-styled illustration before being announced as a model.

[Sim]

Thanks Leyster for the link to the paper, but it's behind a paywall so I can't read it.  I get the feeling the identification of ornithomimosaur feathers as being pennaceous is based on the possibly incorrect original conclusion that marks on the forelimb of Dromiceiomimus (not Ornithomimus as often called) indicated the presence of pennaceous feathers there.

New reply from Eofauna in Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/482134425160798/posts/7856324624408371/

"Despite splitting Tyrannosaurus into three different species appears to be controversial, it should be noted that this is entirely expected for any terrestrial species that lived for more than 2 million years. We do perfectly know this from recently extinct species during the Pleistocene where fossil amount is vast. Also, note that all depend on what kind of species concept is applied, but following the phylogenetic one –probably the most objective one for extinct forms–, defined as groups of populations, which possess diagnosable (usually derived) characters, that proceed from a common ancestor, where these diagnosable differences (repeatedly present) may be very few in numbers (probably even one), the new paper results can be perfectly valid, especially in the case of the oldest species, T. imperator. Of course, future research studies will shed more light on this new study's proposal.

I'm afraid that if Smilodon, mammoths among many other animals had lived during the Cretaceous and its fossils were treated as those of dinosaurs, we would only have a fraction of the species we currently know there were. In the case of mammoths for example there have been nearly 10 different species during the last 2 million years, and several of them cohabited in the same time and place. If they were dinosaurs we would currently have probably 2 or 3 different species, and what is worse, probably divided into 2 or 3 different genera. Also, the ancient DNA is indicating that there could have been considerably more species than suggested by cladistic analysis. We have too many dinosaur genus and too few species. Life is and was much more diverse than we may think."

Asier Larramendi Eofauna researcher.

New Tyrannosaurus paper study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-022-09561-5

I agree with the bolded part!  It makes me a little angry when I see different genera being used for near-identical species as has happened with Coelophysis and ceratopsids for example.  But, I find that better than over-lumping species under one genus like the notorious Varanus.


Also from Eofauna on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/Eofauna/posts/7855604971147003

For all those who thought that we were working at another threshed and boring T. rex, the answer is a big NO.
We are actually working on the just erected new species Tyrannosaurus imperator (Paul et al., 2022)💥💥💥. And, we have chosen Sue (FMNH PR2081), the holotype specimen of the tyrannosaur emperors!!!

I'm not sure T. rex would have been a more boring choice than T. imperator or T. regina...

[CARN0TAURUS]

Back to the Eofauna tyrannosaur release.  I'm not on facebook so I was wondering if this type of announcement is typical for them?  I've only followed their impending releases here when you guys post those teasers.  But a teaser implies that the figure prototype is already finished and that the figure is either in production or already in the process of shipping out. 

This seems different, there is no figure yet and no teasing involved.  Maybe they've done this before and I just didn't catch it?

Eofauna often collaborates on scientific studies and publications and uses those collabs as springboards for their models. The Diplodocus was based off of a rigorous 3D rendering of the animal and its probable body mass, and the Atlasaurus first appeared as a detailed "cross-section"-styled illustration before being announced as a model.

Does the facebook page have any other images like CAD images?  I'm eager to see what they are planning to do with the pose. 

[CARN0TAURUS]

Thanks Leyster for the link to the paper, but it's behind a paywall so I can't read it.  I get the feeling the identification of ornithomimosaur feathers as being pennaceous is based on the possibly incorrect original conclusion that marks on the forelimb of Dromiceiomimus (not Ornithomimus as often called) indicated the presence of pennaceous feathers there.

New reply from Eofauna in Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/482134425160798/posts/7856324624408371/

"Despite splitting Tyrannosaurus into three different species appears to be controversial, it should be noted that this is entirely expected for any terrestrial species that lived for more than 2 million years. We do perfectly know this from recently extinct species during the Pleistocene where fossil amount is vast. Also, note that all depend on what kind of species concept is applied, but following the phylogenetic one –probably the most objective one for extinct forms–, defined as groups of populations, which possess diagnosable (usually derived) characters, that proceed from a common ancestor, where these diagnosable differences (repeatedly present) may be very few in numbers (probably even one), the new paper results can be perfectly valid, especially in the case of the oldest species, T. imperator. Of course, future research studies will shed more light on this new study's proposal.

I'm afraid that if Smilodon, mammoths among many other animals had lived during the Cretaceous and its fossils were treated as those of dinosaurs, we would only have a fraction of the species we currently know there were. In the case of mammoths for example there have been nearly 10 different species during the last 2 million years, and several of them cohabited in the same time and place. If they were dinosaurs we would currently have probably 2 or 3 different species, and what is worse, probably divided into 2 or 3 different genera. Also, the ancient DNA is indicating that there could have been considerably more species than suggested by cladistic analysis. We have too many dinosaur genus and too few species. Life is and was much more diverse than we may think."

Asier Larramendi Eofauna researcher.

New Tyrannosaurus paper study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-022-09561-5

I agree with the bolded part!  It makes me a little angry when I see different genera being used for near-identical species as has happened with Coelophysis and ceratopsids for example.  But, I find that better than over-lumping species under one genus like the notorious Varanus.


Also from Eofauna on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/Eofauna/posts/7855604971147003

For all those who thought that we were working at another threshed and boring T. rex, the answer is a big NO.
We are actually working on the just erected new species Tyrannosaurus imperator (Paul et al., 2022)💥💥💥. And, we have chosen Sue (FMNH PR2081), the holotype specimen of the tyrannosaur emperors!!!

I'm not sure T. rex would have been a more boring choice than T. imperator or T. regina...

Sounds like the name T-rex has been overexposed a bit?  If these guys are more excited to work on Sue as imperator rather than rex I couldn't care any less, it's still going to be an Eofauna Tyrannosaur based on Sue, so bring it on!!!

[SRF]

According to Eofauna, the skull shape recreated by the Field Museum is too flat, so they use Stans head to recreate Sues skull shape more accurately.

I think it's a bit ironic that on one hand Eofauna openly supports the three Tyrannosaurus species hypothesis, but on the other hand they use the skull of a specimen that is classified as a different species to recreate their T. Imperator head.

I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I wonder if I'm alone in this?

[edu]

According to Eofauna, the skull shape recreated by the Field Museum is too flat, so they use Stans head to recreate Sues skull shape more accurately.

I think it's a bit ironic that on one hand Eofauna openly supports the three Tyrannosaurus species hypothesis, but on the other hand they use the skull of a specimen that is classified as a different species to recreate their T. Imperator head.

I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I wonder if I'm alone in this?

I completely agree, it doesn't make sense. Whatever, we are getting a tyrannosaurus form them, they can call it regina, imperator or rex, I really don't care.
Ps. I still have to read the paper.

[Mattyonyx]

According to Eofauna, the skull shape recreated by the Field Museum is too flat, so they use Stans head to recreate Sues skull shape more accurately.

I think it's a bit ironic that on one hand Eofauna openly supports the three Tyrannosaurus species hypothesis, but on the other hand they use the skull of a specimen that is classified as a different species to recreate their T. Imperator head.

I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I wonder if I'm alone in this?

Using Stan's head as a reference for the general head shape doesn't mean Eofauna is swapping species. After all, if each dentary will feature two small incisors, it will be a Tyrannosaurus imperator head. That said, I'm not so convinced about the arguments on the paper, and even though I don't have enough knowledge to argue with them, I'm pretty sure other scientists will publish a counter-proposal very soon. So, my question to the forum is: do you think this split into three separate species will last long enough to validate any future T. imperator of T. regina model?

[SRF]

According to Eofauna, the skull shape recreated by the Field Museum is too flat, so they use Stans head to recreate Sues skull shape more accurately.

I think it's a bit ironic that on one hand Eofauna openly supports the three Tyrannosaurus species hypothesis, but on the other hand they use the skull of a specimen that is classified as a different species to recreate their T. Imperator head.

I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I wonder if I'm alone in this?

Using Stan's head as a reference for the general head shape doesn't mean Eofauna is swapping species. After all, if each dentary will feature two small incisors, it will be a Tyrannosaurus imperator head. That said, I'm not so convinced about the arguments on the paper, and even though I don't have enough knowledge to argue with them, I'm pretty sure other scientists will publish a counter-proposal very soon. So, my question to the forum is: do you think this split into three separate species will last long enough to validate any future T. imperator of T. regina model?

I was under the impression that Stan was classified as T. Regina in the paper. I wouldn't expect Stan to be T. Imperator because it's not very robust by Tyrannosaurus standards.

My expectation would be that we'll see the release of more than one T. Imperator figure this year at least...

[suspsy]

I wouldn't be surprised if CollectA jumps on the Triple-T band wagon for 2023.

[Mattyonyx]

According to Eofauna, the skull shape recreated by the Field Museum is too flat, so they use Stans head to recreate Sues skull shape more accurately.

I think it's a bit ironic that on one hand Eofauna openly supports the three Tyrannosaurus species hypothesis, but on the other hand they use the skull of a specimen that is classified as a different species to recreate their T. Imperator head.

I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I wonder if I'm alone in this?

Using Stan's head as a reference for the general head shape doesn't mean Eofauna is swapping species. After all, if each dentary will feature two small incisors, it will be a Tyrannosaurus imperator head. That said, I'm not so convinced about the arguments on the paper, and even though I don't have enough knowledge to argue with them, I'm pretty sure other scientists will publish a counter-proposal very soon. So, my question to the forum is: do you think this split into three separate species will last long enough to validate any future T. imperator of T. regina model?

I was under the impression that Stan was classified as T. Regina in the paper. I wouldn't expect Stan to be T. Imperator because it's not very robust by Tyrannosaurus standards.

My expectation would be that we'll see the release of more than one T. Imperator figure this year at least...

Please, let me rephrase this: Stan is classified as T. regina (gracile morph with one slender anterior incisiform dentary tooth), while Sue has two slender anterior incisiform dentary teeth, which makes this specimen the holotype for T. imperator. So, even if Eofauna uses Stan's head as a reference for the general head shape, that diagnostic trait is still there, and given their famous attention to detail, it's something they will keep to make their model recognizable as Sue.

[SRF]

Thank you @Mattyonyx for clarifying it.

I understand that the Sue model will get the diagnostic trait to classify it as T. Imperator. But how much sense does it make to use a different species as a blue print to reconstruct a heavily deformed skull? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the skull of another specimen that is classified as T. Imperator if you really believe in its existance as a seperate species?

[Mattyonyx]

Thank you @Mattyonyx for clarifying it.

I understand that the Sue model will get the diagnostic trait to classify it as T. Imperator. But how much sense does it make to use a different species as a blue print to reconstruct a heavily deformed skull? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the skull of another specimen that is classified as T. Imperator if you really believe in its existance as a seperate species?

According to Paul, sue is the new holotype for Tyrannosaurus Imperator, and even before that, it was featured on Eofauna's books and it's still the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil, so it makes sense for them to make a model of this specimen, and I am sure we will get a beautiful one.

However,  on a certain extent I do agree with you about the specimen choice. It's not like we don't have enough Sue-inspired figures. One personal dream would be a figure based on Tristan Otto, and this would be the perfect time (I wouldn't even care about the species name). Same for Scotty, which would still be the biggest T. rex.

[SRF]

Thank you @Mattyonyx for clarifying it.

I understand that the Sue model will get the diagnostic trait to classify it as T. Imperator. But how much sense does it make to use a different species as a blue print to reconstruct a heavily deformed skull? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the skull of another specimen that is classified as T. Imperator if you really believe in its existance as a seperate species?

According to Paul, sue is the new holotype for Tyrannosaurus Imperator, and even before that, it was featured on Eofauna's books and it's still the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil, so it makes sense for them to make a model of this specimen, and I am sure we will get a beautiful one.

However,  on a certain extent I do agree with you about the specimen choice. It's not like we don't have enough Sue-inspired figures. One personal dream would be a figure based on Tristan Otto, and this would be the perfect time (I wouldn't even care about the species name). Same for Scotty, which would still be the biggest T. rex.

Well after the Safari feathered Sue-Tyrannosaurus I don't mind getting a more up to date one. I would like to have a figure based on Trix though, since it resides here in the Netherlands. That would be a T.imperator too but I understand well that Eofauna chooses to recreate Sue instead.

RJ Palmer actually asked Eofauna the same question about using Stan to reconstruct Sue's head on Twitter. They have also responded on using other T.imperator specimens like Trix. Apparantely they didn't have a list of which specimen belongs to what species before the paper was published, so they went with the Tyrannosaurus specimen that has the most complete skull found, that being Stan. They are looking in to using other specimens as well now, saying "We will further look at it, thanks, we are currently working on it, so, it can be improved. It will probably do not change significantly, however."

[CARN0TAURUS]

So why doesn't Eofauna simply use Sue's skull?  I realize her actual skull is misshapen due to some post mortem thing where it got crushed or something, right?  Are they basically saying that they don't agree with how the field museum reconstructed the skull that's mounted on her skeleton?  I think they'd be better off attempting their own reconstruction than using the skull from a different animal that's built differently anyways.  Perhaps it's too much trouble to do that tho.

[stargatedalek]

I saw (a cast of?) the Sue skull when it went on travelling exhibition, and it's incredibly misshapen. You can reference details from it, but the overall proportions are rough.

[SRF]

Sues real skull is heavily crushed. The reconstruction that the Field Museum uses on the skeletal mount is too flat according to Eofauna. That's why they do a new reconstruction by themselves. According to Eofauna on Facebook, they also aim to correct some other errors that exist in the skeletal mount as well as in the Blue Rhino Studio reconstruction of Sue.

All in all, this means that they set the bar very high for this one. I hope they don't disappoint.

[Concavenator]

Regardless of Eofauna's model being called Tyrannosaurus imperator (which looks like it will be the case) or Tyrannosaurus rex, it will be based on Sue, and I'm sure it will be a brilliant representation of it.  So I don't think nomenclature is that relevant in this case, being based on a concrete specimen. But it may be a safer option to just call it Tyrannosaurus rex, otherwise it may be an accurate model of Sue but will have an outdated / invalid species name. They were more conservative in this regard with their Yoshi Triceratops, that one is simply called Triceratops sp.