Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

Christophe, I've just working on Wildlife Artists pages and that frog was recently added, it is not even in its corresponding species page. I received the picture as a strawberry but I believe it is just a guess from @Froggie. My color blindness is not good to identify colorful species, so I assume those legs are not blue but grey, turquoise or green instead. It is a big trouble for me so it is good to have you revisiting these pages. Sira seems a very good identification to me, even the dorsal area seems slightly granutlated what works nicely to the identified species. It is also interesting that the Bullyland frog listed as a strawberry was also moved to sira page.
About the pangolin I am much more skeptical. Schleich really marketed it as a giant pangolin with its scientific name on official page. It does not turn the identification indisputable but I think we should keep the marketed species when it is not absolutely evident it is wrong. Slightly wrong proportions or the sculptor using wrong species images to use to sculpt a model is not completely unusual and you're giving one good reason why it happens.
Curiously Safari never marketed it as a giant but I think the identification is consensual among collectors. It is important also to mention that giant pangolins are also ground pangolins, I think they were for some time considered two different subspecies of the same species.

Edit: I forgot the Eikoh. This one has a really short snout, typical design for the brand, it is even short for a ground pangolin. Though, it was also marketed as a giant pangolin even if the name we have is not the scientific name but the Japanese name you can see below.

Ok I will call my Schleich a Ground pangolin because I can't think it could be anything else and I will let TAW quiet

About Safari Ltd, there is no need of a concensus among collectors, the model is heavily inspired by the London Natural History Museum and Göteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum taxidermied giant pangolins

Kikimalou wrote:

Ok I will call my Schleich a Ground pangolin because I can't think it could be anything else and I will let TAW quiet

About Safari Ltd, there is no need of a concensus among collectors, the model is heavily inspired by the London Natural History Museum and Göteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum taxidermied giant pangolins

I will rename the frog then and mention the Schleich and Eikoh pangolins as figures marketed as giant pangolins. Short-snouted giant pangolins. Oh, that observation about the taxidermied pangolins is very interesting.

Roger wrote:

Oh, that observation about the taxidermied  pangolins is very interesting.

Indeed, on these ones we can see what means having a loooong snout for a pangolin of course My anteaters are laughing on my shelves

Kikimalou wrote:

Roger wrote:

Oh, that observation about the taxidermied  pangolins is very interesting.

Indeed, on these ones we can see what means having a loooong snout for a pangolin of course  My anteaters are laughing on my shelves

Anteaters can't laugh but pangolins can.

 Incredible pic, it reminds me a a conversation about ceratopsians, do they have cheeks or not ? It seems that the debate is on for pangolins.  
About the anteaters, of course they can laugh, they don't hihihi or hahaha but huhuhu

About pangolin, I think Schleich sculptor used Ground pangolin pics because the pose is well known and Google is a bit messy about the two species. One fact to know is the two species don't live in the same environment.
Giant pangolin is found mainly in the savanna, rainforest, and forest in countries known as green and rainy countries.
Ground pangolins lived in savannah woodland with moderate amounts of scrub, in eastern and southern African countries, in much drier climates.
When I see the number of photos presented as photos of giant pangolins in a very dry and bushy environment where they do not live, it saddens me. Most of these photos actually represent ground pangolins in their natural environment.
The photos that most closely resemble the Schleich are no exception.
Just open the Smutsia Wiki page, it is obvious. It is oviuos I guess HERE too

Hu hu hu! Somewhat like a flute, no?
I do really understand and if the Schleich model was sold as a ground pangolin I'd accept it as I accept it as being sold as a giant pangolin. Though, it is not a model I feel confident to tell it is not a giant pangolin. I'm convinced you are right but, as I mentioned, I think when a figure is ambiguous, we should use the official identification. Maybe it is not ambiguous for you.
Not long ago, all pangolin figures were listed on TAW simply as pangolins. Maybe, since both Smutsia species are hard to tell apart and traditionally messed, maybe we can open a page for the genus instead? Both are African ground pangolins anyway.
We also have the old Elastolin, I remember seeing it as a long-tailed pangolin. I have it myself and it is very beautiful but not accurate to any particular species. Do you know why it was traditionally identified as a long-tailed pangolin? If it is from an illustration or based on a Zoo animal, maybe we can open a page for this species too.

In fact for me there is no ambiguity, the Schleich is a Temninck's pangolin, everything reminds me of it, overall shape and of course the shape of the muzzle, shorter and more pointed.
It is infinitely easier to take pictures of Temninck's pangolin because it lives in airy places. With good binoculars you can see it from afar and with a good telephoto lens it's easy.
Tracking down and photographing an animal in a forest environment is a completely different lemonade, impossible to spot it from afar, you need an experienced guide to follow the tracks, the animal spots you first. It's like looking for a needle in a bale of straw as the needle moves and tries to escape you as you approach.
This explains why most photos on the web are not photos of giant pangolins. the most common are those of stuffed animals where the characteristic muzzle shows how it cannot be confused with that of its cousin.

Kikimalou wrote:

In fact for me there is no ambiguity, the Schleich is a Temninck's pangolin, everything reminds me of it, overall shape and of course the shape of the muzzle, shorter and more pointed.
It is infinitely easier to take pictures of Temninck's pangolin because it lives in airy places. With good binoculars you can see it from afar and with a good telephoto lens it's easy.
Tracking down and photographing an animal in a forest environment is a completely different lemonade, impossible to spot it from afar, you need an experienced guide to follow the tracks, the animal spots you first. It's like looking for a needle in a bale of straw as the needle moves and tries to escape you as you approach.
This explains why most photos on the web are not photos of giant pangolins. the most common are those of stuffed animals where the characteristic muzzle shows how it cannot be confused with that of its cousin.

Actually it is almost indisputable and I tend to agree but it is not something I would change for my own initiative.
I'd love also to know which is your opinion about the raccoon dog page considering two different species are identified and most of those listed on TAW are Japanese raccoon dogs? Should we open two different pages?

Roger wrote:

Actually it is almost indisputable and I tend to agree but it is not something I would change for my own initiative.
I'd love also to know which is your opinion about the raccoon dog page considering two different species are identified and most of those listed on TAW are Japanese raccoon dogs? Should we open two different pages?

I won't change Giiiiiiiiiaaaaannnnnt pangolin on TAW even if it is hitching me each time I look at that page  

About Raccoon dogs, it means we assume PEC and PV are Common raccoon dogs. Why not ? Maybe the Eikoh too ?


Another thing that hitching me each time I look at it, this Marx Disneyland is listed as a Nilgai. First it doesn't look at all like a Nilgai (except it has four legs too). When I bought one a long time ago, it was sold as a Thar and indeed it looks like an Himalayan Thar in summer coat. So if there is no real evidence like a paper from Marx itself, I will move it to the Himalayan thar page.

I've found a scientific paper confirming nilgai has four legs.
Just kidding, apparently this figure was sold as Matterhorn goat. If Matterhorn is the Alpine peak, we can find ibex and chamois there. Though, that chest looks like the one from a tahr. Check this blog - the pic is missing but I am convinced it is supposed to be that model.
However, I'll ask Tim, he was the only editor who worked on it and picture belongs to him.
About the raccoon dogs, I will open both pages and put PV and PEC as you suggested and the others as Japanese. I will try to find the Eikoh paper although likely it was marketed just as raccoon dog.

Not sure it was sold as a Matterhorn goat, the blog isn't an official Marx blog and the blog owner seems a Disney specialist but not exactly an animal specialist. For example, he named the Marx croc ( a brother of the Auburn croc)an Alligator... It is a Crocodile, no doubt about that.
This playset may be old, the sculptures are very precise
My second point, it doesn't look like a Matterhorn goat.  It could be an ibex but a female.
The horns doesn't look like Chamois horns, even the body shape is different.
I searched on the web, I searched, scrutinized the Bovids of the world book and the only animal that corresponds is the Himalayan Thar in summer coat.

That one is mine and the species came from a listing by another collector. It is from the Marx Disneyland playset and in general I agree with Christophe about the species change. We have a case with no specific naming from the maker other than maybe it's a mountain goat. The sculptors Marx used were very good and if it looks like a tahr it probably is, even if that isn't what they should have been representing. It was probably supposed to be based on the mountain goat weather vane on the building at the Matterhorn bobsled ride at Disneyland. I think that is an Ibex, but this toy doesn't look so much like it. Anyway I have no objection to the proposed change, though incertae sedis Ibex would also be a possibility since thats what it is more likely intended by the producer to represent even if the sculptor had another idea.

Looking a bit back in this thread I see the comments regarding my hyena ascribed to Chialu. In shape it is very much a slightly crude slightly bigger knock off of the Elastolin Austria marked hyena I also have in my collection. It came in a mixed batch of other Chialu figures and the paint matches up with those. May well be another brand though

Except Alpine ibex, wild goats and Ibexes wear a beard so it doesn't match because the Marx miss Alpine ibex horns. The Matterhorn bobsled ride goat has a beard too.

Thanks Tim for checking the topic!
It seems the nilgai is based upon a goat character which looks like a regular goat or at least as a wild goat (Capra aegragus). Though, it defintely matches better a tahr which is a caprinae anyway so it is fine for me.

On another subject, TAW now have distinct pages to each of the two species of raccoon dogs. Trying to find how the Eikoh was marketed, I failed but I've found some interesting informations about other Eikoh models. Everything seems plausible and if there's no conjecture, I will use these identifications on TAW. I need help with marlin and otter, all the other figures have not much to discuss, even the warthog because we can't tell it is not a desert one, right?.

Gorilla is lowland gorilla
otter is small-clawed otter and not Eurasian otter
White marlin is black marlin instead
warthog is desert warthog
Sea turtle is Green sea turtle
Chicken figures are White leghorn breed
Pig is Yorkshire breed
Horse is Thoroughbred horse
Cow is Holstein breed
Grouse?
Dachshund is a Miniature dachshhund
Chihuahua is long haired chihuahua
Poodle is Toy Poodle
Manta ray iss a Reef manta ray
Sea Lion is California sea lion

Roger wrote:

Thanks Tim for checking the topic!
It seems the nilgai is based upon a goat character which looks like a regular goat or at least as a wild goat (Capra aegragus). Though, it defintely matches better a tahr which is a caprinae anyway so it is fine for me.

On another subject, TAW now have distinct pages to each of the two species of raccoon dogs. Trying to find how the Eikoh was marketed, I failed but I've found some interesting informations about other Eikoh models. Everything seems plausible and if there's no conjecture, I will use these identifications on TAW. I need help with marlin and otter, all the other figures have not much to discuss, even the warthog because we can't tell it is not a desert one, right?.

Eikoh raccoon dog was probably marketed generically (most are) but probably safe to assume it's the Japanese variety

Thanks Blaine, Eikoh is Japanese and maybe that's the most efficient method to identify raccoon dogs for now.
I've been updating these identifications of Eikoh figures I've found through translations of the official merchandising, though, I want to confirm directly and I can't find the official paper for the otter or the marlin. Also, the desert warthog I will not consider because the less common species adopted the scientific name of the warthog before the split while the common warthog adopted P. africanus and I believe it is the reason why some warthog figures are being identified incorrectly as desert warthogs.
Could someone share the official papers with Japanese names or tell me if:
- small clawed otter
- Black marlin

are better identifications than Eurasian otter and white marlin?

Well I believe White marlins have dark blue dorsal side and Black marlins have a black one... I'm not helping too much

For the otter, IMHO it is an Eurasian one.
Small-clawed Otters have grey-white lower face, throat and upper chest, the four legs have only vestiges of claws.
Eurasian Otters have cream or white lower face, throat and upper chest,  the four legs have claws.

I fixed the new Chordate ,Accipitriformes, Gypaetinae, Aegypiinae, Coelacanth, West Indian Ocean coelacanth pages  

I have a question: Even if it is scientifically true, is it useful for collectors to have the Reptile, Synapside, Amphibian pages on the new Sarcopterygii page ? For me it more confusing than anything else. What's your point about this ?

The same for the new Animal page: The "Mammals and Relatives", "Reptiles, Birds, and Relatives", "Sharks", "Amphibians", and a few other sections are missing, they are now all under the new "Chordate" which replkaced "Fishes". It is scientifically correct but it is not useful for collectors. It is disturbing. Now if you want to look at a mammal, a reptile  or an amphibian you need to go thru "Chordate" then thru "Lobe-finned fishes and tetrapods" before finding the biggest sections of TAW.
The Taxonomy page, as allthe TAWproject,  is made for collectors who need the most suitable and intuitive shortcuts.
The way the "Animal" page is built today is not adequate. It's a bit like building the search by brand in these terms: First open the "Germany" page, then the "Plastic" page and you can finally find the "Schleich", "Hausser" or "Bullyland" page.

I think every big structural change on TAW needs to be discussed before it's implemented.
We have a logic from the beginning, we have to keep it or decide together to change it.
This is all the more true as TAW now has a long history and many pages. Making big changes takes a lot of effort. I think the most important thing for TAW is not to touch the skeleton but to fill in the missing pages, whether it's new species, figures or brands.
I think any new editor should be made aware of this.
I ask that we find the "Animal" page as it was before.

Thanks for your observations about the Eikoh models, Christophe. I won't change these two and I also don't have the official information, just a coerent list of translations.
About the taxonomy section on TAW, it was important to read from traditional users of the Wiki.
The taxonomy section is a bonus which requires a huge effort. A good wiki about toy animal figures didn't need such a sophisticated system to be useful to collectors but it is a very precious extra in my opinion.
Though, it was never supposed to be an absolutely accurate scientific reference, just an intuitive way of finding figures representing certain taxa.
Naturally, as long as more species were added, the system turned more and more complex but curiously, we simplified a lot the terminology to avoid an excessively scientific approach. So, despite a few little incoerences, it was much better as it is after this last change.
I admit it is scientifically more accurate but far less intuitive and there are so many structural mistakes that it will take ages to be fixed. Reverting is the best option in my opinion.Later, we can improve a few sections but in a consistent way as we've been doing all these years.
I believe most people does not browse through the whole taxonomy section. Likely, someone has a fish figure and writes the word fish in the search box and browses after being pointed to the fish page. If we remove the traditional lexic, it will become very confuse for a collector and a scientific person will never use TAW as a reference site for his studies. If that person identifies his fish figure as a shark, which most of us can do, that person will write the word shark and currently it is another word which desapeared from the Wiki.

That's the whole problem, making accessible and easy to use a site dedicated to collectors of animal toys.
The Taxonomy section is not necessarily a search engine, it is true, on the other hand it is an essential skeleton to be able to open Animal pages in a coherent way. As long as it is done as simply and efficiently as possible.
I'm trying to repair the damage of the last two days.

During repairs I came across this "Spinosaurus" from Dor Mei. I don't know if the company specified it was one but for me it's a Dimetrodon. What's your point?

About the Spinosaurus,, look at this topic
https://sts-forum.forumieren.de/t16815-dor-mei-animals

I read and I can't see something serious to proove it is a Spinosaurus, even if someone on Etsy also think it is an edaphosaurus, someone in the past tried to sell me 2CV saying it was a Porsche
Did I miss something ?

Kikimalou wrote:

I read and I can't see something serious to proove it is a Spinosaurus, even if someone on Etsy also think it is an edaphosaurus, someone in the past tried to sell me 2CV saying it was a Porsche
Did I miss something ?

Yes, you missed a 2CV, with that car you can cross the railway with a basket of eggs without breaking a single one. With a Porsche you cannot do it.
I remember reading something about the red version representing a spinosaurus while the other version was supposed to be a Edaphosaurus but I don't remember where and maybe it is just a collector cultural thing. I tried to read a few different colored ones and it seems they are all marked Edaphosaurus. You can watch a video here.
As I posted in the topic I linked, I thought it was a Dimetrodon but Valérie seems confortable with the Spino identification.

Edit: I've found it
https://dinotoycollector.com/Items/product.php?product_id=4075

The red version is supposed to be an Edaphosaurus in the video, it is even written on the belly.

So I think this Spinosaurus is an Edaphosaurus disguised in Dimetrodon.