Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

Roger wrote:

Jill wrote:

It's very weird because the black and white cat which isn't pictured with the set anywhere was included in both my versions of this set (which came together) instead of the rex, which I had to seek out separately. So I included the black and white here, but maybe it shouldn't be since it's not listed on the Nayab site. I'm not sure what the answer to this little riddle is.

OK, so in my opinion they both should be listed there. Some different things could have happened. A wrong assortment was pictured. The picture is right but they updated the assortment with a different cat figure. One of the cats belong to another Nayab set and there are a good number of sets from other brands, which mix figures from different Nayab sets. Those assortments on Nayab webpage are just indicative, the customer company is the one who decides how to sort them. So, if we ever find that one of these cats belongs to another official Nayabe set, we move it to the right place.

Makes sense, thanks!

Roger wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

Rogério, Papo is a French brand. Here we don't know what this "obscure breed (for us) from Baden-Württemberg" known as Swabian-Hall Swine is.
Here, a white and black pig is either a "Pie noir du Pays basque" or a "Cul noir limousin". The Basque is a famous breed known for its Kintoa ham, and the Papo resembles this species.
It also resembles the Swabian-Hall Swine because the two species are so similar.
We don't know if Papo wanted to imitate Schleich, but we do know that Papo has produced quite a few French breeds and probably never heard about Swabian-Hall Swine.

I understand, it makes sense to me as I commented and maybe this time I'm being myself a little Schleichcentric. Though, the fact Papo extended the rear dark patch up to the middle of the body, with dark back legs with a relatively narrow white area on the front legs and adjacent body area, is very typical for the German breed while the French breed seems to have a shorter and more undefined rear patch often with all legs white. I see there are different color layouts among specimens but I was trying to find a sort of pattern.
Since these pigs are not identified and there's no consensus about the breed, maybe the best is to move them to the regular pig page.

I agree

Maybe we need a pig breed discussion topic. Contrarily to dogs, I think it is almost impossible to determine most of the pig breeds. For example, it is not so hard to identify a Landrace but how to tell different Landrace breeds? For example, the French and English? So, maybe some we can group by groups of breeds as we do with the pot-bellied pigs. They're not all the same breed but they're all grouped in a single page.

The pic of the Ueno zoo red pandas is the one of the Australasian red pandas...

This is actually a loggerhead sea turtle: https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Koro_Koro_Green_Sea_Turtle

It was sold to be as a green sea turtle, but checking the paperwork for another figure in the set, it was marketed as a loggerhead!

Indeed, it is even obvious on the pic ! The job is done

Schleich specifically calls this a laced moray (Gymnothorax favagineus)

https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Schleich_42326_Moray_eel_den

bmathison1972 wrote:

Schleich specifically calls this a laced moray (Gymnothorax favagineus)

https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Schleich_42326_Moray_eel_den

Done, thanks! :)

https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Chap_Mei_Stingray

could it be a Atlantoraja castelnaui?

widukind wrote:

https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Chap_Mei_Stingray

could it be a Atlantoraja castelnaui?

Don't know if we can be specific to species, but it's definitely a skate (Rajidae) not a stingray (Dasyatidae & relatives) based on the paired dorsal fins on the end of the tail.

That's actually true for a lot of the unknowns in the batoids, they should be labeled as skates.

sbell wrote:

widukind wrote:

https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Chap_Mei_Stingray

could it be a Atlantoraja castelnaui?

Don't know if we can be specific to species, but it's definitely a skate (Rajidae) not a stingray (Dasyatidae & relatives) based on the paired dorsal fins on the end of the tail.

That's actually true for a lot of the unknowns in the batoids, they should be labeled as skates.

I compare with my book of rays It is the only skate with this kind of spots

sbell wrote:

widukind wrote:

https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Chap_Mei_Stingray

could it be a Atlantoraja castelnaui?

Don't know if we can be specific to species, but it's definitely a skate (Rajidae) not a stingray (Dasyatidae & relatives) based on the paired dorsal fins on the end of the tail.

That's actually true for a lot of the unknowns in the batoids, they should be labeled as skates.

I think it is the best match. I look page for page in this book.




the colour of the fish can be yellowish.


and together with this figure (maybe ChapMei too) the figures could be from the family Atlantoraja

I have that book too, but not the figures.
They probably are Atlantoraja, although again it's unlikely the toy makers were being specific. The one with eyespots is easier to pin down at least!

sbell wrote:

I have that book too, but not the figures.
They probably are Atlantoraja, although again it's unlikely the toy makers were being specific. The one with eyespots is easier to pin down at least!

Ok but if it is an Atlantoraja, it can only be A. castelnaui

Kikimalou wrote:

sbell wrote:

I have that book too, but not the figures.
They probably are Atlantoraja, although again it's unlikely the toy makers were being specific. The one with eyespots is easier to pin down at least!

Ok but if it is an Atlantoraja, it can only be A. castelnaui

The one with eyespots would more likely be the eyespot skate A. cyclophora

But skates are notoriously tricky to identify, and again, toy models like this are heavily stylized.

If you go here https://www.fishbase.se/identification/SpeciesList.php?class=&order=Rajiformes&areacode=&c_code=&depth=&spines=&fins=&TL=&BD=&resultPage=1&sortby=species there's several spotted and eyespotted rajiformes. And A. castelnaui doesn't stand out as the only option. Plus the wings morphology doesn't match Atlantoraja.


I just tend towards caution when trying to get down to species level id's with toy figures like this. To answer your original question, it could be. But it's hard to be certain

I agree, Chap Mei toys are for me more fantasy figures than anything else most of the time.

This figure here: https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Little_Kern_golden_trout

was intended to be the Kern River golden trout, O. mykiss gilberti, not the Little Kern golden trout (O. m. whitei)

Sorry everyone I made a mistake.

This figure: https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Safari_Toob_684504_Menelaus_blue_morpho

...is NOT the Menelaus blue morpho from the Butterflies TOOB. It is the Morpho peleides from the Insects TOOB.

I don't have a pic of just the butterfly handy, but there is a pic from my Museum post that can be used in the interim:

Thanks Blaine! I think I fixed it correctly.

Should we change the name of the brand Aquameridian Ltd? Blaine said that FOR Corporation bought the rights for the Aquameridian models. I think all the models we have on TAW were sold by FOR Corporation.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Should we change the name of the brand Aquameridian Ltd? Blaine said that FOR Corporation bought the rights for the Aquameridian models. I think all the models we have on TAW were sold by FOR Corporation.

That's really something I can't help, I really don't know and why I am replying then?
First, you will be sure I read your question, then, I just want to add it. Renaming pages and the corresponding links is quite boring, I did it in the past a few times and if you want to avoid loads of redirect pages, you have to edit every single page. So, if the decision is to rename them, earlier the better because it is still a very small section.

I agree, better to change it sooner than later. I am happy to do it. I don't know much about Aquameridian and FOR Corporation, but I found this leaflet, which shows that the figures from the first "Light up" series were sold under the name FOR Corporation in 2015. The figures for this first series may initially have been sold by Aquameridian (I don't know), but the leaflet indicates that figures in or after 2015 were by FOR Corporation. So my feeling is it that it would be better to list all figures under FOR Corporation.

It looks fine to me. Actually, I can't find anywhere the information provided on TAW about Aquameridian. What I find is more like the SeaWorld concept. I don't know if you have ever visited this page.

It's interesting that Aquameridian still has a website. Blaine gave us useful information about Aquameridian here. At the time, he thought Aquameridian might have folded completely because their website was down. But given that they still have a website, it seems like they didn't fold and probably only sold the rights for the "Light-up" figures to FOR Corporation. I don't know why the "Light-up" figures are still on the Aquameridian website, because I don't think they are sold any longer. Perhaps it's just a historical record.

How about the following? I rename the Aquameridian page on TAW to FOR Corporation and list all the "Light-up" figures as FOR Corporation, with a note that they were originally designed by Aquameridian. Then I make a new Aquameridian page and either this is a simple redirect to FOR Corporation or a page that says that Aquameridian is a Hong Kong company that designed the "Light-up" figures (with a link to the figures on the FOR page) and currently still makes a few plush toys. Which option is preferred?

Note that FOR Corporation has more recently released a shark series, so they are still producing animal figures.

Sorry for a another post. There is a lazy option too. We keep the Aquameridian pages as they are (after all, they did design the Light up figures) and make a new company page for FOR Corporation. The FOR Corporation page can then have a link to the Aquameridian Light up figures.