Eofauna: New for 2022

[CARN0TAURUS]

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.

I have the upmost confidence in Eofauna, but you know how it is, someone will unfortunately always be disappointed

Me, I've been fantasizing that Eofauna would make a tyrannosaur since they came out with their mammoth some years ago.  I'm so excited for this release!  I might get banned here for repeatedly over posting about it, LOL.  This might become the first instance where I buy more than one copy of the same exact figure.  One original and one for repainting purposes.  The paint and the hands are my big knocks on the Giga.  Hopefully this one will be more like the Altasaurus which has a gorgeous finish with that subtle fading and striping on the body.  And even though I would've never chosen the blue head and yellow stripe, it just works wonderfully and is a prized piece in my collection.

[CARN0TAURUS]

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may be a safer option to just call it Tyrannosaurus rex, otherwise it may be an accurate model of Sue but will have an outdated / invalid species name.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.

Would they get in trouble for calling it "Sue the Tyrannosaurus"?  Seems like that would be a good way to avoid controversy unless there are trademark issues involved.

[John]

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.

Would they get in trouble for calling it "Sue the Tyrannosaurus"?  Seems like that would be a good way to avoid controversy unless there are trademark issues involved.

You can expect Eofauna to have the name Tyrannosaurus imperator stamped on the model despite the controversy over the splitting up of Tyrannosaurus from one species to three.

[Psittacoraptor]

You can expect Eofauna to have the name Tyrannosaurus imperator stamped on the model despite the controversy over the splitting up of Tyrannosaurus from one species to three.

Could also be good for business. Controversy brings attention to the product and can have a positive effect on sales.

"Meet Sue, the first Tyrannosaurus imperator^TM in a market flooded with T-rexes. Pre-order yours today!"

[SRF]

Just had to check my Triceratops sp. but indeed, Eofauna stamps the species name on their figures.

However they have already uses the name Sue in all their communication surrounding this figure, so I don't expect them to get in trouble for using the name.

[Shane]

Just had to check my Triceratops sp. but indeed, Eofauna stamps the species name on their figures.

However they have already uses the name Sue in all their communication surrounding this figure, so I don't expect them to get in trouble for using the name.

I'm not sure about the name "Sue the T. rex" (a trademark search doesn't turn anything up, and the logo used by the Field Museum is noticeably devoid of "TM" or "R"), but there is legal precedent for the actual fossil preparation itself to be copyrighted.

About a dozen years ago, Black Hills Institute (who prepared the reconstructions of Sue and Stan) successfully sued someone who they alleged "knocked off" their fossil designs for Sue and Stan.

Meaning that these interpretations of T. rex skeletons are technically protected by copyright and belong to Black Hills Institute.

In addition to "correcting" the skeletal for what they argue are anatomical reasons, Eofauna may have incentive to change the skeletal so that it no longer matches the Black Hills reconstruction exactly for fear of lawsuit.

It probably doesn't extend to full flesh figure reconstructions, only skeletals, but going through the entire process and repeatedly referring to the skeletal as "Sue" probably is not the most wise decision, unless you can point to distinctions in the process (such as changing the skeletal) that clearly separate it from the design "owned" by Black Hills.

Granted, the Black Hills lawsuit was for a full-size copy of their reconstruction, not a toy or figurine, but the precedent could potentially extend beyond full-size reproductions and into smaller scale replicas.

[SRF]

Just had to check my Triceratops sp. but indeed, Eofauna stamps the species name on their figures.

However they have already uses the name Sue in all their communication surrounding this figure, so I don't expect them to get in trouble for using the name.

I'm not sure about the name "Sue the T. rex" but there is legal precedent for the actual fossil preparation itself to be copyrighted.

About a dozen years ago, Black Hills Institute (who prepared the reconstructions of Sue and Stan) successfully sued someone who they alleged "knocked off" their fossil designs for Sue and Stan.

Meaning that these interpretations of T. rex skeletons are technically protected by copyright and belong to Black Hills Institute.

In addition to "correcting" the skeletal for what they argue are anatomical reasons, Eofauna may have incentive to change the skeletal so that it no longer matches the Black Hills reconstruction exactly for fear of lawsuit.

It probably doesn't extend to full flesh figure reconstructions, only skeletals, but going through the entire process and repeatedly referring to the skeletal as "Sue" probably is not the most wise decision, unless you can point to distinctions in the process (such as changing the skeletal) that clearly separate it from the design "owned" by Black Hills.

Granted, the Black Hills lawsuit was for a full-size copy of their reconstruction, not a toy or figurine, but the precedent could potentially extend beyond full-size reproductions and into smaller scale replicas.

Well they did only use images of their own reconstruction of the skull, so this could well be the reason for that. They have used the names Sue and FMNH PR2081 quite often though.

[Shane]

Well they did only use images of their own reconstruction of the skull, so this could well be the reason for that. They have used the names Sue and FMNH PR2081 quite often though.

They are likely fine using the colloquial name "Sue" and almost certainly fine using FMNH PR2081 since that's the actual catalogue name for the fossils.

The potential for trouble is replicating the design of the skeletal reconstruction in a way that is exact enough to ring alarm bells.

Again, since they're piling muscle, flesh, scales and feathers(?) on top of it, there's less of an issue, but since they are deliberately showing the process of building the figure up through skeletal reconstruction, it could hypothetically leave them exposed if someone was feeling overly litigious.

[Concavenator]

Would they get in trouble for calling it "Sue the Tyrannosaurus"?  Seems like that would be a good way to avoid controversy unless there are trademark issues involved.

Theoretically, that would be a good option as a common name, as it would be unaffected by any potential changes in species' designation and would be an accurate naming as the figure will be based on Sue, that is unequivocally a Tyrannosaurus, regardless of the species. But Eofauna always indicates the species' name on their figures. It's pretty much confirmed by now they will be naming it T.imperator, that's why I was saying that T.rex may be a safer option since the paper doesn't appear to be too convincing. Even Tyrannosaurus sp. could work better.

Could also be good for business. Controversy brings attention to the product and can have a positive effect on sales.

"Meet Sue, the first Tyrannosaurus imperator^TM in a market flooded with T-rexes. Pre-order yours today!"

That's a good point. Eofauna have always been innovative. This case is interesting. Tyrannosaurus rex is by far the most represented dinosaur species in figure form, so a T.rex figure is always going to sell. But T.imperator is also Tyrannosaurus, which is a genus known by everyone. In this video:

https://youtu.be/bgZUE8tiLGs

minute 26:48 approx., Hone explains how some Tarbosaurus fossils in Mongolia have been sold as Tyrannosaurus bataar, in spite of this being scientifically inaccurate, but because there's a financial reason behind. But still, the name T.rex would probably sell more than the name T.imperator.

[CARN0TAURUS]

You can expect Eofauna to have the name Tyrannosaurus imperator stamped on the model despite the controversy over the splitting up of Tyrannosaurus from one species to three.

Could also be good for business. Controversy brings attention to the product and can have a positive effect on sales.

"Meet Sue, the first Tyrannosaurus imperator^TM in a market flooded with T-rexes. Pre-order yours today!"

I don't disagree with your theory but something tells me that Eofauna won't resort to such tactics.  They have already established a fantastic reputation and their figures are universally sought after.  I can't tell you how many times I've read posts were people say things like "I usually only collect dinosaurs but I had to buy this prehistoric elephant" LOL.  That's when you know you are doing it right when people will buy things they normally wouldn't only because they recognize the excellence and want that quality in their collections.  As someone who's always felt that prehistoric mammals have gotten the short end of the stick in this hobby, I truly truly appreciate that Eofauna has dragged folks kicking and screaming into collecting prehistoric mammals.  They've done this by setting the bar so high that folks felt compelled to purchase these little works of art.  I am supremely confident that this new Eofauna Tyrannosaur is going to instantly be one of my favorite figures regardless of whether it's called imperator, rex, sue or Sp. 

To those on here that are on and follow facebook please please post any updates from this figure as it comes out, thanks in advance

[Sim]

I read over the Dawson and Maloney paper (you can download the full pdf at the link), and it looks like they are exclusively talking about emu feathers being better than fur at blocking radiative heating from direct sunlight, they don't consider other issues like ambient air temperature and heating from conduction/convection, or the way insulation slows down the shedding of body heat in hot weather. So the paper shouldn't be taken as saying that emu feathers make them even better at staying cool in hot weather than a hypothetical featherless emu would be in the same weather.

At the end of the paper it says, with regards to less covered body parts, that when heat becomes extreme, kangaroos tuck their lightly furred tails between their legs while emus have their nearly bare legs shaded by their body.  So it does suggest that the feathers of an emu help it to stay cool by blocking solar heat and shading their bare parts.  I think it does imply that lacking fur or feathers would cause an animal to overheat in such strong direct sunlight.  Even that integument might not be enough as the paper also says that in the hottest part of such days, emu may resort to sitting in the shade.

[stargatedalek]

I'm glad to see new species names being embraced.

Yes there are methodology issue with the paper, but it's hard to deny the presence of distinct "population morphs" that have been accepted for many years already. Whether you think they are warranting of species designation or not, this is the only way you're going to see recognition of that distinction in the general public, so I'm all for it. Subspecies designations are extraordinarily rare among extinct animals, but that would probably work too.

[CARN0TAURUS]

I'm glad to see new species names being embraced.

Yes there are methodology issue with the paper, but it's hard to deny the presence of distinct "population morphs" that have been accepted for many years already. Whether you think they are warranting of species designation or not, this is the only way you're going to see recognition of that distinction in the general public, so I'm all for it. Subspecies designations are extraordinarily rare among extinct animals, but that would probably work too.

I think it's good for the hobby too because it could translate to even more sales of large tyrannosaurs.  T-rex was already doing the heavy lifting all by itself and now it'll have help from imperator and regina etc...which means more money coming in for manufacturers and that in turn means more money for new molds for other non tyrannosaur dinosaurs too.  Folks that would otherwise not be buying anymore T-rex labeled models will once again spend money on new labeled tyrannosaurs if for no other reason than to complete their collections.  This could definitely be a good thing even for those that were sick and tired of seeing more tyrannosaur models.  Nature itself has always exploited variety as a means to generate more and newer forms of life.  A little variety here could stand to benefit even the museums as instead of them all having T-rex they'll now have their own flavors and thus create new interest.  Anything that generates more buzz and sales will benefit the hobby.  And watch out for PNSO even tho they've recently released so many Tyrannosaurs they won't want to be left behind.  And at the rate that they release figures it wouldn't surprise me if they released another full range of North American Tyrannosaurs within the next year just to cash in/keep up with these new developments

Regardless of what any other company does, Eofauna is in position to make some big sales off of this new figure.  For the first time ever I might buy two of the same thing.  Hopefully like with the triceratops they'll consider releasing two color variants?

[Sim]

I hope PNSO doesn't make any more Tyrannosaurus soon.  I'd like to see Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus and Gorgosaurus from them first.  And other dinosaur groups they've not represented adeqautely yet e.g. dromaeosaurids.

[dinofelid]

I read over the Dawson and Maloney paper (you can download the full pdf at the link), and it looks like they are exclusively talking about emu feathers being better than fur at blocking radiative heating from direct sunlight, they don't consider other issues like ambient air temperature and heating from conduction/convection, or the way insulation slows down the shedding of body heat in hot weather. So the paper shouldn't be taken as saying that emu feathers make them even better at staying cool in hot weather than a hypothetical featherless emu would be in the same weather.

At the end of the paper it says, with regards to less covered body parts, that when heat becomes extreme, kangaroos tuck their lightly furred tails between their legs while emus have their nearly bare legs shaded by their body.  So it does suggest that the feathers of an emu help it to stay cool by blocking solar heat and shading their bare parts.  I think it does imply that lacking fur or feathers would cause an animal to overheat in such strong direct sunlight.  Even that integument might not be enough as the paper also says that in the hottest part of such days, emu may resort to sitting in the shade.

I'm pretty sure a large animal's body would have very close to zero transparency at the solar wavelengths that carry the vast majority of energy, so I doubt a featherless emu body would block any less direct sunlight from the region directly below it. (I guess if a naked emu's body wasn't as dark, its belly might reflect a little more of the diffuse light that had already been reflected by other surfaces, and some of that reflected diffuse light could hit the legs below; but I would think diffuse light is a small fraction of radiative heating compared to direct sunlight, since sitting in the shade on a sunny day makes a big difference even though diffuse light is still hitting you there. In any case, we could always imagine naked emu with much darker skin than an actual emu's skin.) It's only when we're talking about areas of skin where the feathers are the only thing between the skin and direct sunlight that the shading properties of feathers would likely be relevant (and that's what the paper was looking at in regards to feathers), this wouldn't be the case for skin on legs when they are held under the body.

And again, the paper simply doesn't consider the effects of feathers on slowing the rate at which heat generated inside the body is dissipated to the external air (which also depends on external air temperature, wind, humidity etc.). Mark Witton, describing what he learned by considering various papers on thermoregulation, suggests that getting rid of internal heat becomes increasingly the dominant thermoregulation problem for larger animals (in large part this is because the ratio of surface area to internal volume becomes smaller--think of a cube, if you triple the length of each side the surface area increases by a factor of 3^2 = 9 but the volume increases by a factor 3^3 = 27). I don't see anything in Dawson and Maloney that calls that idea into question, they weren't trying to address the issue of dissipating internally generated heat one way or another, certainly not saying that for animals of all sizes it's less in magnitude than heating from external solar radiation (note that heating from radiation should increase as a function of exposed surface area, not body volume), nor arguing against the general assumption that all forms of body insulation including feathers should slow the rate at which internally generated heat is dissipated into the air.

[stargatedalek]

All of that ignores the greater point that animals don't just disperse heat by having their skin touch the air. (Some) mammals can sort of do that through sweating, but most animals can only cool themselves without external or behavioural means to any meaningful degree by dispersing heat from muscles that are near the surface of the skin.

This is why ostriches have bald undersides. They live in deserts in some parts of their range, and yet the only bald areas are on the underside where they're already shielded from the sun. Ostriches are bald where they have large muscles near the skin. Elephant birds were even larger and had no bald regions, since they weren't active long distance runners like ostriches are.

This is why we expect to see bald regions on the tail, legs, and underside of large Tyrannosaurs. Because these are the areas where being bald gives them a functional benefit. Tyrannosaurus, let alone Deinocheirus, gains nothing from having a bald back. The muscles there are covered by other tissues.

[dinofelid]

All of that ignores the greater point that animals don't just disperse heat by having their skin touch the air. (Some) mammals can sort of do that through sweating, but most animals can only cool themselves without external or behavioural means to any meaningful degree by dispersing heat from muscles that are near the surface of the skin.

This is why ostriches have bald undersides. They live in deserts in some parts of their range, and yet the only bald areas are on the underside where they're already shielded from the sun. Ostriches are bald where they have large muscles near the skin. Elephant birds were even larger and had no bald regions, since they weren't active long distance runners like ostriches are.

This is why we expect to see bald regions on the tail, legs, and underside of large Tyrannosaurs. Because these are the areas where being bald gives them a functional benefit. Tyrannosaurus, let alone Deinocheirus, gains nothing from having a bald back. The muscles there are covered by other tissues.

In the muscular diagram below (from this page on the Saurian site, where they say it was done in consultation with paleontologist Scott Hartman), I assume the whitish parts on the back are tendons connecting the larger back muscles to the spine and hips, with other muscles underlying those tendons--is that what you mean when you say the muscles are covered by other tissues, or were you talking about a different type of tissue besides tendons? It still looks like the back of the neck is mostly muscle, and the non-muscular portions of the back are fairly small, if one imagined feathers only covering the whitish parts in this diagram it would be far from the "cape" of feathers that are usually depicted in reconstructions of partially feathered Tyrannosaurs.



Also, do you know of any sources that quantitatively compare the rate internally generated heat is dissipated from muscles near the skin vs. areas of skin where the muscles are more covered by other types of tissue (whichever kind you were referring to)?

[Psittacoraptor]

@CARN0TAURUS @Concavenator I wouldn't see it as a scummy tactic or anything. We are not talking about "hard science" here, there's no definite conclusion to the taxonomy. This is not something you can determine objectively with a lab method. There will always be interpretation, inference, guessing and bias in these questions, and "controversy" really just means discussing or re-testing existing ideas and taxonomies. Not to be too reductive, but, at the end of the day, they're basing the model on a specific fossil, and as long as the model does that well, the name on the box is secondary (to me).

[Concavenator]

@Psittacoraptor I wasn't saying it is scummy from them naming their Sue figure T.imperator, there's a reason behind it that might be valid. As you say, that isn't very relevant in this case as they will be modelling it after a concrete specimen, and I'm sure it will be a great representation of it. I was implying there's a risk of the T.imperator name becoming invalid / outdated, that's it.

But still, the name T.rex would probably sell more than the name T.imperator.

Perhaps I was misunderstood here, but I meant this oriented to the general public. In this case, naming it one way or the other won't probably make much of a difference, as Eofauna have done an excellent job and have built a strong fanbase that actively look forward to their new models (me included), regardless of the species.

[stargatedalek]

That diagram is only depicting muscles, there is no fat or other tissues on the body. It's also not as simple as muscles near the skin, they have to be muscles that generate meaningful amounts of heat consistently during normal movement. Yes there are muscles in the neck or along the back (though there would be at least more tissue than that covering much of them), but an animal isn't craning its neck or arching its back constantly as it moves.

Also, do you know of any sources that quantitatively compare the rate internally generated heat is dissipated from muscles near the skin vs. areas of skin where the muscles are more covered by other types of tissue (whichever kind you were referring to)?

Sadly no, but it's a pretty easily referenced trait present in modern ostriches. Again, other ratites were larger, including elephant birds which were significantly larger and lived in similarly arid (though more vegetated) environments of Madagascan scrub. The bald areas on ostriches have large active muscles tied to their running directly below the bald areas of skin. Rather definitive these are for releasing internally generated heat.

The large muscles in theropod tails would generate heat as they work to support movement in the legs. The muscles along the back and neck wouldn't be.