Species identification topic

Kikimalou wrote:

I would say Cheetah but a leopard could fit too

looks like a cheetah but has the same mold as the K&M leopard

Roger wrote:

Slim waist, well-defined forehead, and spots instead of rosettes makes me think that it is a cheetah.

if it will be

Leoo Past wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

I would say Cheetah but a leopard could fit too

looks like a cheetah but has the same mold as the K&M leopard

looks like an emaciated leopard or jaguar to me; shape of head doesn't look like a cheetah.

Interpreting spots vs. rosettes in a figure like this is a futile effort; who would go through the trouble of concerning themselves with painting rosettes on a figure like this.

Leoo Past wrote:

Roger wrote:

Slim waist, well-defined forehead, and spots instead of rosettes makes me think that it is a cheetah.

if it will be

I haven't noticed it is the same as the leopard of the Wild Republic African Nature tube.  Actually I think TAW is wrong and I will fix it since the company is marketing it as a cheetah.

Edit: the TAW tube page mentions the figure is marked "leopard" so I don't know what to do really.

Roger wrote:

Leoo Past wrote:

Roger wrote:

Slim waist, well-defined forehead, and spots instead of rosettes makes me think that it is a cheetah.

if it will be

I haven't noticed it is the same as the leopard of the Wild Republic African Nature tube.  Actually I think TAW is wrong and I will fix it since the company is marketing it as a cheetah.

Edit: the TAW tube page mentions the figure is marked "leopard" so I don't know what to do really.

and it is that he is smaller than the leopard from the wild republic tube but his face is different

I think those are figures of the Nayab universe and they are often used to represent different species as long as they are relatively similar. Cheetahs and leopards are very different when we are talking about accurate animal figures but those small bulk sized ones or those Nayab hybrides are often quite inaccurate.

Roger wrote:

I think those are figures of the Nayab universe and they are often used to represent different species as long as they are relatively similar. Cheetahs and leopards are very different when we are talking about accurate animal figures but those small bulk sized ones or those Nayab hybrides are often quite inaccurate.

No wonder that confusion as I saw in TAW as a cheetah had that doubt if it was a leopard or a cheetah

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I have a question is Andrewsarchus or hyenodon It's very different from safari too Toob on the muzzle and complexion

This is one of those very debated and fascinating subjects of this hobby. Paige gave the right link. The PEC model as well as the whole series, is derived from the corresponding Play Visions one. Although the Play Visions is not exactly a miniature of their larger model, it is something that generated an interesting debate since the larger figure is identified as a prehistoric hyena. This inaccurate name suites probably better a Pachycrocuta which is not what the figure intends to represent. The best approaches are andrewsarchus and hyaenodon. Thus, the name supports the latter.
Today's knowledge also describes the Andrewsarchus as an ungulate and not a carnivoran which puts again the PV model closer to what a Hyaenodon should look like. Though, at the time, Andrewsarchus was described as a carnivoran thus their feline like paws, wolf appearance and feline colors.According to TAW, the smaller PV is marked "Andrewsarchus hyena" what supports it is a Andrewsarchus indeed. This DTB entry is very interesting and shows the illustrations which served as inspiration to the figure.
In my personal opinion, considering the way those two animals were represented in paleoart, the large PV figure is closer to an Andrewsarchus but it is really hard to tell. The collecting community also adopted it as an Andrewsarchus but an identification as a Hyaenodon is quite plausible and with today's knowleddge, using it as a Hyaenodon is less inaccurate.

Roger wrote:

This is one of those very debated and fascinating subjects of this hobby. Paige gave the right link. The PEC model as well as the whole series, is derived from the corresponding Play Visions one. Although the Play Visions is not exactly a miniature of their larger model, it is something that generated an interesting debate since the larger figure is identified as a prehistoric hyena. This inaccurate name suites probably better a Pachycrocuta which is not what the figure intends to represent. The best approaches are andrewsarchus and hyaenodon. Thus, the name supports the latter.
Today's knowledge also describes the Andrewsarchus as an ungulate and not a carnivoran which puts again the PV model closer to what a Hyaenodon should look like. Though, at the time, Andrewsarchus was described as a carnivoran thus their feline like paws, wolf appearance and feline colors.According to TAW, the smaller PV is marked "Andrewsarchus hyena" what supports it is a Andrewsarchus indeed. This DTB entry is very interesting and shows the illustrations which served as inspiration to the figure.
In my personal opinion, considering the way those two animals were represented in paleoart, the large PV figure is closer to an Andrewsarchus but it is really hard to tell. The collecting community also adopted it as an Andrewsarchus but an identification as a Hyaenodon is quite plausible and with today's knowleddge, using it as a Hyaenodon is less inaccurate.

If that's what I noticed that the big one is more like Andrewsarchus and the small one looks the same as a hyenodon, I think they put it as hyenodon and they made a mistake when putting Andrewsarchus but I wanted to get out of Doubts with the experts on this topic

Could any one tell me which species are these fish?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The middle figure is a mudskipper, but that's about all that I can help with.

love these fish! so beautiful!

yes, definitely a mudskipper but I'm not sure about the other 2. the bottom one looks familiar though

Any ideas on this guy? (terrible photo I know)

Scoured TAW and cannot find it anywhere. Species AND brand?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The brand is Kenner, the species I believe is the blue-girdled angelfish

Oh thank you! I should have just come to you. No wonder I couldnt find it. It isnt on the wiki.

No problem the line is called Wonder World by the way

Balaenoptera wrote:

The brand is Kenner, the species I believe is the blue-girdled angelfish

Absolutly right. Beautieful figure by a unknown brand. There is also a nice triggerfish

looking more into the series, there are a few fun figures. But many of the sets are expensive for the collectors of this niche brand...

Saarlooswolfhound wrote:

looking more into the series, there are a few fun figures. But many of the sets are expensive for the collectors of this niche brand...

For me are only 3 figures interesting. There are also a octopus, sharks, a dolphin and a manta ray. And you can find a set of fishes too on ebay.

Can anyone tell me what these might be? I've seen them listed under a name "Dillon Toys", with the snail-like creature being called a whelk, but no specific species names. The Toy Animal Wiki also lists the sea cucumber as unidentified, but could it be customized to look like a known species?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

widukind wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The shape is reminiscent of a greenling (Hexagrammidae sp.). The pattern does not match any particular species.

widukind wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Clearly a croaker of some species (Sciaenidae sp.). The stripe pattern vaguely resembles Menticirrhus saxatilis, but the green color and deep body are all wrong for that species.

Thank you

What is the red angelfish-like fish by Bullyland. Seen here, third from the left on the bottom.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's not actually linked on that Bullyland page