Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

I was visiting TAW and found casually this page: http://toyanimal.info//index.php?title=Kaiyodo_cQM_Okinawa_Red_Milkweed_Beetle that shows an image a very well done red blister beetle of the genus Synhoria, however is depicted as a milkweed longhorn beetle (Tetraopes tetrophthalmus) that is an absolutely different insect. Please can somebody correct this error on TAW?

Good catch, Isidro!

Just to clarify, the beetle illustrated on that page is the Kaiyodo Cissites cephalotes (some authors use the genus name Synhoria, but the figure was marketed as Cissites). It is a blister beetle in the family Meloidae.

In English the name 'red milkweed beetle' is generally reserved for members of the family Cerambycidae in the genus Tetraopes.

So, all that needs to be done, is change 'Okinawa Red Milkweed Beetle' to 'Cissites cephalotes'. Or, if you want to use common names, you can say 'Okinawa Red Blister Beetle' (in Entomology, common names are usually useless anyway and many of us don't use them at all).

@Roger can tend to this!

Oh, Cissites cephalotes is the name that I was searching into my brain, but I couldn't find it! So I searched a bit in Google and found Synhoria, tough is not a name that I remember, I tought this the insect in question. Thanks for refresh my memory with the correct name! :)

Really surprising that these two genus are different, being so similar. But hey, maybe is a case of convergent evolution, such as happens in Meloe and Berberomeloe (very similar appareance but belonging to different tribes) :-)

Yes, Okinawa red blister beetle would be an appropiate substitution title for the TAW page :) The scientific name that I wrote is because is just the one that TAW says for this figure (click on the common name for go to the species page and here it appears). By other hand, Tetraopes tetrophthalmus is an American species and no not occurs naturally at Okinawa island :-)

Thanks a lot for pointing it, Isidro and also Blaine for your imput. Actually, corrections are very important for TAI once we are just a little number of editors working with loads of pages and pictures. We often cannot check if species are correct and we assume things as we find it.
There are several more errors, so I may recycle this topic to motivate people using the forum to help editors fixing what is not correct. :)

I have another doubt, Roger: the Toy Animal Wiki is acronymized TAI? I tought it should be TAW, but I've seen writen as TAI in a number of occasions...

Pardofelis, if you study Toy Animal Wiki carefully, you can find much more errors. It is very good resource (esp. after closing CollectorQuest) but you can not trust everything you read here

Pardofelis wrote:

I have another doubt, Roger: the Toy Animal Wiki is acronymized TAI? I tought it should be TAW, but I've seen writen as TAI in a number of occasions...

TAW stands for Toy Animal Wiki while TAI stands for toyanimal.info, the address of the website. We used to use TAI for a long time but maybe TAW is more correct. As it is a website without any marketologic intension, , we never gave much atention to it.
Please let us know other mistakes you find, it is good to have some people checking the work that a few editors spend lots of hours and hours working without any finantial compensation, only to give a good source of information to other collectors of toy animal figures.

jarda wrote:

Pardofelis, if you study Toy Animal Wiki carefully, you can find much more errors. It is very good resource (esp. after closing CollectorQuest) but you can not trust everything you read here

Jarda, I know there isn't any kind of depreciation in your comment. Afterall, it is a fact. We can't trust everything we find at the wiki, there are a few good reasons. One of them is that we use many other online sources that we cannot trust either.
The other important point, is that the project is too ambitious considering the little number of people working for free on it. However, there are much more correct informations than mistakes and it is, in any way, comparable to CollectorsQuest. Toy Animal Wiki provides much more and more complete information about this subject than CQ. CQ was a good site at its time because we didn't have anything decent to compare. You provided, for instance, some precious informations about Play Visions, what you provided was far more than what we could find on CQ and now what you find on TAI, is far more than what you provided. If you are not a editor/contributor, it is a pity to our community of collectors once I am sure you could improve it a lot with your knowledge. Though, you can use this topic to share with us what you find wrong, I am sure one of the editors will give its precious time to fix it.

People that does titanic encyclopedic work for free demonstrates true love and passion for the subject of this work. A thing that must be applauded

(Since I do a similar thing, I can understand very much your proud about your useful website) :)

P. S. I decided to check which figures I have that are not illustrated on TAI. So I can take photos of them if you want for use on your website:

CollectA's Leopard seal
Papo's Whale shark
CollectA's Sperm whale (my model is different to the one shown in TAI)
Kaiyodo's Wild Rush serval
Kitan Club nature techni colour Deep Sea set Comores coelacanth
Kitan Club nature techni colour Deep Sea set Giant oarfish
Kitan Club nature techni colour Deep Sea set Opah
Natural History Naturally Adorkable Tibetan sand fox
CBIOV takin
CBIOV finless porpoise

I guess that this "Cape buffalo"



is a domestic water buffalo bull like this one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Water_buffalo_bull%2C_near_Mehsana%2C_Gujarat%2C_India%2C_4.jpg

Wienerwald wrote:

I guess that this "Cape buffalo"



is a domestic water buffalo bull like this one:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bubalus_bubalis?uselang=de#/media/File:Water_buffalo_bull,_near_Mehsana,_Gujarat,_India,_4.jpg

Of course it could be a  domestic water buffalo. When I bought this model years ago I thought I was buying a Hausser water buffalo. I discovered lately that The Pfeiffer company ( and later Hausser ) named it Cape buffalo on their catalogues, that's the reason why I entered it as an African buffalo like this one


Photograph 2015 by Brian Cohen.

... so they made wrong horns on their Cape buffalo:

"The adult buffalo's horns are its characteristic feature: they have fused bases, forming a continuous bone shield across the top of the head (...)" (Wkipedia)

I was just playing around looking for some paleozoic critters, and stumbled upon the Fantasy Creatures page. I went ahead and looked at European dragons, since I have several of them. The Schleich dragon listed as Antylar is actually a limited edition version of the dragon Faraun; the regular release was white. Antylar is a different sculpt, and also had a limited colorform as well as a regular release to the best of my knowledge. I have both, not in box although I did purchase the Antylar NIB. I can take pictures of both along with some of the other dragons if wanted this weekend. Unless, Roger, you don't want me saturation bombing you with more photos?


Here's an old photo that shows the regular release Faraun (white) and regular release Antylar (blackish), along with a juvenile dragon named Nugur- hatchling on the right, teenager (?) on the left. The teenager originally came with a rider, which I do not have (I want to surgically remove the tack molded on the figure!). I can take individual photos of the complete figures I have.

Wienerwald wrote:

... so they made wrong horns on their Cape buffalo:

"The adult buffalo's horns are its characteristic feature: they have fused bases, forming a continuous bone shield across the top of the head (...)" (Wkipedia)

You are right and that's the problem with vintage brands (and not only with vintage brands). For example Starlux made a brown and white Malayan tapir with a South american tapir shape... What to do? Since now we let it in the Malayan tapir page.

So... Ladies and gentlemen, what to do exactly with this buffalo?

Dear Roger, Well, I've noticed that some of the AAA Animal entries are incorrect. Good examples include AAA Otter Pup looking Left, and Right, and the various other AAA otters we already have listed. So my question is: Could it be possible to clarify whether the AAA otters listed are river otters or sea otters? I mean they are gray, but what if someone gets a river otter that is gray, or looks some what like the AAA otters we already have? What then? I'm just asking, from the point of view of an editor. Whatever this is, none of it is anyone's fault. I'm just pointing out things which would make TAI better in the long run. Anyway, if you want pictures of the AAA Otter pups looking left and right, then let me know. Also, I just ordered a AAA Devilfish large, and a AAA walrus, so now I have 111 AAA figures. In other words, my collection is growing. Aschuck P.S. Do you want Pictures of the Devilfish and Walrus too?

aschuck wrote:

Dear Roger, Well, I've noticed that some of the AAA Animal entries are incorrect. Good examples include AAA Otter Pup looking Left, and Right, and the various other AAA otters we already have listed. So my question is: Could it be possible to clarify whether the AAA otters listed are river otters or sea otters? I mean they are gray, but what if someone gets a river otter that is gray, or looks some what like the AAA otters we already have? What then? I'm just asking, from the point of view of an editor. Whatever this is, none of it is anyone's fault. I'm just pointing out things which would make TAI better in the long run. Anyway, if you want pictures of the AAA Otter pups looking left and right, then let me know. Also, I just ordered a AAA Devilfish large, and a AAA walrus, so now I have 111 AAA figures. In other words, my collection is growing. Aschuck P.S. Do you want Pictures of the Devilfish and Walrus too?

Hello Anna. Sorry for taking so long to reply and for not understanding completely your observations.
Why are these entries not correct? Do you mean the trio of grey otters already listed are not river otters but sea otters instead? They are listed as river otters and it looks correct to me. The proportionally long tails and their poses are more consistent with a river otter.
About the otter pups looking left and right listed but not yet photographed, I can't remember seeing these before and I can't find them among my notes. If you have them, what makes it wrong based on the way they're listed? Could you please send to me pictures of these two help clarifying about otters AAA released?

Kikimalou wrote:

Wienerwald wrote:

... so they made wrong horns on their Cape buffalo:

"The adult buffalo's horns are its characteristic feature: they have fused bases, forming a continuous bone shield across the top of the head (...)" (Wkipedia)

You are right and that's the problem with vintage brands (and not only with vintage brands). For example Starlux made a brown and white Malayan tapir with a South american tapir shape... What to do? Since now we let it in the Malayan tapir page.

So... Ladies and gentlemen, what to do exactly with this buffalo?

My reply may sound not conclusive but my point of view is like this:
- When a figure is ambiguous as it happens with the Starlux that has the sculpt of an American tapir and the color of a Malayan tapir, I think we should choose according with what the brand presents as a final product. It seems evident that the figure intends to be presented as a Malayan tapir even if it is sculpted like an American tapir. Apparently we will have the same problem with the newly released Papo hyena, even if the sculpt may look like a brown hyena or so, it is obvious Papo wants to release a spotted hyena.
IF the features of an animal figure are consistent with a certain species, not exactly ambiguous, but it is presented as another species, as it happened with the Schleich Emperor penguin chicks , I defend that we should list them according with the correct species identification even if it is not presented like that. Good to remember that Schleich fixed it later.
About this buffalo, if the brand presented it among African animals, I believe they intend to use it as a Cape buffalo. If they use it indistinctively and the features fit correctly with a domestic water buffalo, so it should be listed like that.

some organizational corrections to TAI:

1. The carabao is currently listed as a cattle breed under Bos, but it the domestic form of Bubalus (water buffalo).

2. the Ongole cattle is listed with miscellaneous cattle breeds, but should be linked to the zebu, since like the Brahama, it is a domestic breed of B. taurus indicus.

This pied kingfisher (https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Pied_kingfisher) is actually a crested kingfisher

bmathison1972 wrote:

This pied kingfisher (https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Pied_kingfisher) is actually a crested kingfisher

The job is done

I was just looking around the TAI and caught this:

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Sawfish

The K&M Sawshark is listed as a Japanese sawfish...it is definitely a Japanese Sawshark. It is marked as such.

Thanks!

sbell wrote:

I was just looking around the TAI and caught this:

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Sawfish

The K&M Sawshark is listed as a Japanese sawfish...it is definitely a Japanese Sawshark. It is marked as such.

Thanks!

The job is done, thank you Sean

Kikimalou wrote:

sbell wrote:

I was just looking around the TAI and caught this:

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Sawfish

The K&M Sawshark is listed as a Japanese sawfish...it is definitely a Japanese Sawshark. It is marked as such.

Thanks!

The job is done, thank you Sean

No problem. Just happened to stumble upon it!

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Kaiyodo_Furuta_Chocoegg_Bell_Horned_Frog

this should be C. ornata, not C. cranwelli

Indeed Blaine, the job is done

Roger wrote:

About this buffalo, if the brand presented it among African animals, I believe they intend to use it as a Cape buffalo. If they use it indistinctively and the features fit correctly with a domestic water buffalo, so it should be listed like that.

I'm sorry Rogerio for the late answer. The brand didn't present it with the African animals, It called it "Cape buffalo" on their catalog.

On this page: https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Giant_Pacific_octopus

The M&B/Schleich and Papo models are common octopus, not Giant Pacific.