Hollow models in two sizes ... and more

Some Nayab hollow models with the smaller companions.The armadillos are different species.Also colour variations of the beaver.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Interesting, thanks. I just need to find the smaller otter civet :)

Advicot wrote:

Interesting, thanks. I just need to find the smaller otter civet :)

Is that what it is? I have one, thought it was a marten or something.

The page [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] clearly shows the “extralarge” version of a figure identified as an otter civet. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The page would better refer to a larger version of the common dwarf mongoose. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The red links for large and extralarge “panthers” are probably referring to the larger versions of the dwarf mongoose. I can prove this because I obtained what should be a lot of the entire series of Nayab large Forest animals, and there was nothing in there that would be considered a panther, but larger versions of both the dwarf mongoose and otter civet. The dwarf mongoose is the only one that doesn’t match any other IDs on the Nayab Large animals. There is only one real mongoose for each series: the dwarf mongoose, linked as a panther, The other is the otter civet, the one labeled by the Wiki as the mongoose.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Also, I have obtained photos of both “large” (not “extralarge”) figures.
“Mongoose”->Otter Civet
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

“Panther”->Dwarf Mongoose
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You are using the most efficient way to identify these figures once I believe they tend to have a corresponding on each set.
Though, it mus be my fault because despite all your effort I am having troubles to get things correctly.
Let's use extralarge, large, small and minis to identify the 4 sizes.
1. You are suggesting that the extralarge mongoose is a civet otter instead?
2. The links of the large + panthers should be replaced for links to dwarf mongooses?
3. Are the small dwarf mongoose and civet otter correctly identified?
4. Are these pictures yours?

Yes, to all of these questions.

Is the second figure a large figure?

Both figures that I showed pictures of are large. Not extralarge.

Birdsage wrote:

Both figures that I showed pictures of are large. Not extralarge.

Can ypu please share a compare pic?

Roger wrote:

You are using the most efficient way to identify these figures once I believe they tend to have a corresponding on each set.
Though, it mus be my fault because despite all your effort I am having troubles to get things correctly.
Let's use extralarge, large, small and minis to identify the 4 sizes.
1. You are suggesting that the extralarge mongoose is a civet otter instead?
2. The links of the large + panthers should be replaced for links to dwarf mongooses?
3. Are the small dwarf mongoose and civet otter correctly identified?
4. Are these pictures yours?

Nothing against Birdsage, but we should perhaps wait for some more experts to give their thoughts. I can remember, that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] already gave his thoughts on them. And I think he suggested for the otter civet on TAW for example a marten species.

The IDs for those Nayab animals are controversial discussed since I´m a member on this forum. I think that everything was already discussed and it isn´t as easy as Birdsage tries to explain. As we are not in the "What is this thread?", we should gave some other members the chance for their suggestions, too. Blaine, Isidrio or Megaptera were for example very active in identification of some species.

Birdsage wrote:

Yes, to all of these questions.

OK thanks! As I agree, I will change it according with your suggestions. If anyone has any objection or a better alternative, we can discuss it here.

Duck-Anch-Amun wrote:

Roger wrote:

You are using the most efficient way to identify these figures once I believe they tend to have a corresponding on each set.
Though, it mus be my fault because despite all your effort I am having troubles to get things correctly.
Let's use extralarge, large, small and minis to identify the 4 sizes.
1. You are suggesting that the extralarge mongoose is a civet otter instead?
2. The links of the large + panthers should be replaced for links to dwarf mongooses?
3. Are the small dwarf mongoose and civet otter correctly identified?
4. Are these pictures yours?

Nothing against Birdsage, but we should perhaps wait for some more experts to give their thoughts. I can remember, that  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] already gave his thoughts on them. And I think he suggested for the otter civet on TAW for example a marten species.

The IDs for those Nayab animals are controversial discussed since I´m a member on this forum. I think that everything was already discussed and it isn´t as easy as Birdsage tries to explain. As we are not in the "What is this thread?", we should gave some other members the chance for their suggestions, too. Blaine, Isidrio or Megaptera were for example very active in identification of some species.

I missed your post. Yes, you are right. We have discussed these figures for a very long time and we keep moving them from a species to another. It is a pity the extralarge figures are often mislabeled because they are the only "official" identifications we have. I edited TAW according with these suggestions. Even if they are not 100% accurate, they reveal more consistency and I believe we are closer to the reality than before. Particularly evident is the large panther that I remember as suggested through this figure and it is not for sure a panther. For now it is a mongoose. Luckily someone gets the extralarge version and it is correctly labeled.

Taylor, now that I am working again on TAW about these large models, could you please provide a picture of the smaller armadillo to put on TAW?

sbell wrote:

Advicot wrote:

Interesting, thanks. I just need to find the smaller otter civet :)

Is that what it is? I have one, thought it was a marten or something.

Interesting Sean, that figure is marked as "Suncus murinus" ... if it is not an otter civet, is there any exact marten species do you suggest?

Roger wrote:

Taylor, now that I am working again on TAW about these large models, could you please provide a picture of the smaller armadillo to put on TAW?

sbell wrote:

Advicot wrote:

Interesting, thanks. I just need to find the smaller otter civet :)

Is that what it is? I have one, thought it was a marten or something.

Interesting Sean, that figure is marked as "Suncus murinus" ... if it is not an otter civet, is there any exact marten species do you suggest?

Pardofelis proposed Siberian weasel or a steppe polecat, here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Duck-Anch-Amun wrote:

Roger wrote:

Taylor, now that I am working again on TAW about these large models, could you please provide a picture of the smaller armadillo to put on TAW?

sbell wrote:

Advicot wrote:

Interesting, thanks. I just need to find the smaller otter civet :)

Is that what it is? I have one, thought it was a marten or something.

Interesting Sean, that figure is marked as "Suncus murinus" ... if it is not an otter civet, is there any exact marten species do you suggest?

Pardofelis proposed Siberian weasel or a steppe polecat, here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm inclined towards a marten of some kind. The head shape and tail seem closer, and the body seems stockier than on most Mustela

sbell wrote:

Duck-Anch-Amun wrote:

Roger wrote:

Taylor, now that I am working again on TAW about these large models, could you please provide a picture of the smaller armadillo to put on TAW?

sbell wrote:

Advicot wrote:

Interesting, thanks. I just need to find the smaller otter civet :)

Is that what it is? I have one, thought it was a marten or something.

Interesting Sean, that figure is marked as "Suncus murinus" ... if it is not an otter civet, is there any exact marten species do you suggest?

Pardofelis proposed Siberian weasel or a steppe polecat, here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm inclined towards a marten of some kind. The head shape and tail seem closer, and the body seems stockier than on most Mustela

I use to enjoy Isidro's approaches but I also think it does not work for Mustela. Besides what Sean is pointing, I also think the hindlegs are too long when compared with the short legs of Mustela. I can't put a marten species here too, often tails are busier and ears wider. I honestly accept better the otter civet option, is there anything that doesn't match for this species?
In this picture [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] posted, the front paws seem to be webbed or aren't they?

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

I honestly feel these models are too chimaerical, the artist mixed features of a few different species in my opinion...

Saarlooswolfhound wrote:

I honestly feel these models are too chimaerical, the artist mixed features of a few different species in my opinion...

That is the truth of it all. Plus, sometimes the large and small figures are not sculpted with the same features.

Overall, though, it still seems to come across more as a stocky mustelid than as a viverrid. An otter civet has a more squared snout and a longer, tapered tail.
But, really, it's probably a random mix.

So I now dub it Miacis, representing the earliest carnivorans...

I was actually going to re-reply with that thought! It really does represent one of the early mammals from the post KT extinction event! 

As a modern animal these nayab mongooses/civets/whateveryoucallits are just mixed and matched features. Nothing for me settles it as one or another, even if you repainted it. Now that I have someone else who agrees it passes better as an earlier form mammal I think my models will be assigned to a researched prehistoric species instead of an extant one.

Saarlooswolfhound wrote:

I was actually to re-reply with that thought! It reaply does represent of the early mammals from the post KT extinction event! 

As a modern animal these nayab mongooses/civets/whateveryoucallits are just mixed and matched features. Nothing for me settles it as one or another, even if you repainted it. Now that I have someone else who agrees it passes better as an earlier form mammal I think my models will be assigned to a researched prehistoric species instead of an extant one.

Agreed. There's a number of small mammal models by companies like Nayab and Aussini that can just as easily work for prehistoric fauna as modern. Especially among the carnivora, rodents and 'insectivores'. Maybe some primates too.

I am not that negative. I am sure larger models are made after real species although wrongly labeled sometimes. It is hard to believe that in a series where it is an aye-aye, they would make generic or random looking models. Time is telling us that while grouping these series, we end finding what they are. The fact is that a few animal groups are very hard to identify. The mini and small figures are simpler versions of these larger models and naturally they are less accurate and can be used intechangeably but there's a link between them. Today, the dwarf mongoose question [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] brought, was another step forward even if we are not yet sure of it.

Roger wrote:

I am not that negative. I am sure larger models are made after real species although wrongly labeled sometimes. It is hard to believe that in a series where it is an aye-aye, they would make generic or random looking models. Time is telling us that while grouping these series, we end finding what they are. The fact is that a few animal groups are very hard to identify. The mini and small figures are simpler versions of these larger models and naturally they are less accurate and can be used intechangeably but there's a link between them. Today, the dwarf mongoose question [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] brought, was another step forward even if we are not yet sure of it.

Part of the problem may be that these groups especially can be very conservative in their morphology, and capturing the nuances of the species or even genera may not be easy or even feasible. In particular with companies that may be considered "lower end' although it can be true of every company for unspecified animal figures.

I was actually thinking that the “dwarf mongooses” looked like something prehistoric. After all, this combination of features doesn’t match any modern mammals.

Roger wrote:

sbell wrote:

Duck-Anch-Amun wrote:

Roger wrote:

Taylor, now that I am working again on TAW about these large models, could you please provide a picture of the smaller armadillo to put on TAW?

sbell wrote:

Advicot wrote:

Interesting, thanks. I just need to find the smaller otter civet :)

Is that what it is? I have one, thought it was a marten or something.

Interesting Sean, that figure is marked as "Suncus murinus" ... if it is not an otter civet, is there any exact marten species do you suggest?

Pardofelis proposed Siberian weasel or a steppe polecat, here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm inclined towards a marten of some kind. The head shape and tail seem closer, and the body seems stockier than on most Mustela

I use to enjoy Isidro's approaches but I also think it does not work for Mustela. Besides what Sean is pointing, I also think the hindlegs are too long when compared with the short legs of Mustela. I can't put a marten species here too, often tails are busier and ears wider. I honestly accept better the otter civet option, is there anything that doesn't match for this species?
In this picture [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] posted,  the front paws seem to be webbed or aren't they?

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

I would at this point tentatively say that this most closely matches a marten. The color scheme most closely matches an American pine marten.
As for the webbed feet, I think that’s just a molding artifact. Most of the “large” figures, including the “dwarf mongoose”, the aye-aye, the ring-tailed lemur, and the genet, have to some degree what looks like webbing between their toes. It’s just the way the molds of the figures are.

We should probably do a poll to see if more people think that the figure is a marten, an otter civet, a true weasel (Mustela sp.) some prehistoric species, or a nonexistent chimera mammal. The winner will be the species that the “otter civet” will be considered on the wiki.

I'm still inclined toward marten, but given the morphologies of viverravids and miacids, it could probably work as those in a pinch as well