Imperial creatures

Roger wrote:

Interesting that Imperial made a Trachodon and an Anatosaurus when both are Edmontosaurus.
This is not only confuse for Palaeonthology but also for TAW. It is important to keep the pages with historical importance even when the names are not valid anymore but it results somewhat confuse.
Interesting also the fact the number starts with 79, since the year is 1979.

Well, I called it "Trachodon" because I wanted to avoid confusion with the "Imperial Anatosaurus" page, and I knew both names Trachodon and Anatosaurus are used for the same Edmontosaurus species.

I also looked at the numbers on the other 1979 Imperial dinosaurs that I have and they all show the number 7957. It means that the number was for the set, not the figures themselves. Anyway, they now are written in TAW. I intend to take a group picture when I get the fourth one of the set, to show that these four were part of the same set.

That's a good idea about the set picture. I seriously don't know which is the best option whhen there are different names for the same creature, especially when they were accepted in the past as different genera. The name of the page should certainly retain the name it was marketed at the time. Though, if it is the same animal how to do it when listing into the animal page?

The pterodactyl is really incredible, I love it

Kikimalou wrote:

The pterodactyl is really incredible, I love it

And I had the chance to get it at a very low price.

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

My set of 1979 Imperial Dinosaurs is COMPLETE!!! I received my last one yesterday.

Yet there is something I found out looking at it: IT CANNOT BE A MEGALOSAURUS AS I PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT. Why? Look at its feet: this animal has delicate feet with five digits on each. The other animals of this set all have three large toes, with a tiny fourth one for the T-Rex. You see, the 1977 Megalosaurus also has three large toes with a a tiny fourth one, which, to me, shows that Imperial sculptors were perfectly aware carnivorous dinosaurs had feet like that. And when we look at the feet of the two duck-billed dinos of the 1979 set, we see they also have typical dinosaurs feet. What does that mean?

That means the fourth animal of that series WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A DINOSAUR. I am sure it was meant to represent some other Archosaur species. So, I did make some research. What large prehistoric animal (I think it is meant to represent a rather large animal, since the figure is the same size as the three other animals of the set)  was a bipedal carnivorous five-toed reptile? The answer that appeared to me was this one: an ORNITHOSUCHUS. As a matter of fact, not only the Ornithosuchus was already discovered in the 1970's, but it was also crocodile-like and it was popular enough to be represented often in books... and by a figure by Starlux. And, it was 4 meters long, big enough to be part of a toy set of dinosaurs. Plus, it HAS to represent a precise species, since all other Imperial prehistoric animals of all generations represent precise species. What would it be different for this one?

It is not on TAW yet, because I wanted to know your opinion about my conclusion first.

I think you can go safely for an Ornithosuchus. I can't find a faithful source but this genus was relatively popular during that period. Also, it is not easy to identify these models, I admire how you did it so efficiently.

Does it have a double row of plates along it's back ?

Anyway, it is a clever choice considering the style of Imperial, the production period, the five fingers. Even without the plates I tend to agree with you.

Kikimalou wrote:

Does it have a double row of plates along it's back ?

Anyway, it is a clever choice considering the style of Imperial, the production period, the five fingers. Even without the plates I tend to agree with you.

It seems the identification of this figure is not "collectively" known. I see two sales offering it as a T-rex.
Though, many generic looking dino figures are sold as T-rexes.
There's also the 1979 dragon like T-rex in this line.
DTB also does not have a review of this model.

Roger wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

Does it have a double row of plates along it's back ?

Anyway, it is a clever choice considering the style of Imperial, the production period, the five fingers. Even without the plates I tend to agree with you.

It seems the identification of this figure is not "collectively" known. I see two sales offering it as a T-rex.
Though, many generic looking dino figures are sold as T-rexes.
There's also the 1979 dragon like T-rex in this line.
DTB also does not have a review of this model.

It cannot be a T-Rex because there is already a T-Rex in that series: the two-fingered, dinosaur-footed, yellow dinosaur. OK, it does have stegosaur plates (Imperial tends to mix species, sometimes). Plus, the Imperial sculptor of that epoch was perfectly aware of the type of feet T-Rex actually had! Look at the 1977 T-Rex he made!
You see, we have to know the four existing 1979 pieces of that series to see that it is not a T-Rex. The two reasons why it is not collectively known are:
1- Those dinosaurs did not come with tags telling their species name with them.
2- Not so many people actively "collect" and "study" Imperial pieces.
This is why we have to have a wide collection of Imperial toys to be able to conclude what the sculptor had in mind. Luckily, I have a bachelor's degree in Fine Arts. In my courses, we were trained to notice the characteristics of famous/historic artitsts so we would be able to recognize a piece of art. Not only that, but we also had to practice comparing the characteristics of styles of us students as well.

This is what I do with Imperial. The sculptor who made the dragons and the dinosaurs is the same one: the eyes are way back on the head, the cheeks (when present) are round, highly wrinkled and "hanging" underneath the eyes; the nostrils are widely open, and the neck often creates an angle with the head instead of continuing the same "line"; the tail is attached between the legs instead of behind them, like if it was continuing the belly line instead of the back line, etc. And, by looking at them, I can also conclude what he3she knows about an animal and what he/she does not know. Then, I conclude the best I can what he/she had in mind. This is what I do.

There. Now, the whole 1979 set is on TAW, group picture included.