Leyster's Collection

Nice to see you back. It is always intringuing when an older model is better than the newer renditions, especially regarding extinct animals.

A nice one, it reminds me of my beginnings as a collector, this Kaiyodo had just appeared and you could buy them for cheap on eBay... It's hard to grow old 

Roger wrote:

Nice to see you back. It is always intringuing when an older model is better than the newer renditions, especially regarding extinct animals.

Thank you. It's a bit sad, if you ask me. Nowadays everybody did an Acrocanthosaurus, but mostly got it wrong for one reason or the other (often falling in too much stilization).

Kikimalou wrote:

A nice one, it reminds me of my beginnings as a collector, this Kaiyodo had just appeared and you could buy them for cheap on eBay... It's hard to grow old 

I think this one is still pretty cheap? I paid it like 10 euros, including the skeleton. But it's true that some Kaiyodos go for very high prices.


Binomial name: Helicoprion sp. Karpinsky, 1899. Traits to distinguish the various species are in the tooth whorl, and in the PNSO model it's too small to expect them to be represented properly.
Classification: Holocephali->Paraselachimorpha->Eugeneodontida->Edestoidea->Helicoprionidae
Time: Artinskian-Roadian (early Permian)
Formation: basically cosmopolitan, mostly Phosphoria Formation (present day USA) for H.davisii and Divya Formation (Russia) for H.bessonowi
Manifacturer and date of release: PNSO, 2021
Sculptor: somebody in the atelier of Zhao Chuang
Scale: up to 1:56 for the IMNH 49382 specimen (largest specimen, with a 56 cm whorl). Helicoprion is one of the rare prehistoric taxa which are often underestimated. Understandable, since it was scarily huge.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I have some issues with this model's anatomy and proportions, but it looks really great and it's good to finally have this taxon in my collection.

At the time I was talking about such a Dinotales was sold for about 2€ on eBay. I remember seeing complete Yujin Insects sets sold for 12€, now you can’t even buy one figure for that price. I wasn’t collecting insects then, a big regret for me.
I like very much this shark, I will add it to my shelves. It’s not the first time I read someone talking issues, what’s your point ?

Kikimalou wrote:

At the time I was talking about such a Dinotales was sold for about 2€ on eBay. I remember seeing complete Yujin Insects sets sold for 12€, now you can’t even buy one figure for that price. I wasn’t collecting insects then, a big regret for me.

2 euros? Damn.

Kikimalou wrote:

I like very much this shark, I will add it to my shelves. It’s not the first time I read someone talking issues, what’s your point ?

Well, we have some very well preserved eugeneodontids and this Helicoprion's proportions do not match them. Even considering that these other eugeneodontids were way smaller, this clade quite resembled lamnids in proportions (even if they were totally unrelated), so this model appears to have (see below) a too big of an head and too small of a tail. I'm not sure how it's supposed to generate the propulsions. You can see the probable Helicoprion shape in this restoration:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Also you can see how the PNSO model's skull, other than being too big, doesn't exactly match the shape of the skull of the diagram (redraw from a study CTscanning an Helicoprion skull) and it looks like it lacks the labial cartilage. while I'm unsure of the reason why the palateal one is showing (I don't think it should be visible externally?). Also I can mention that the ratfish eyes are a nice touch to remember they're closer to ratfishes than to sharks, but I don't know how likely they are since eugeneodontids non only were related to ratfishes, but very distantly so, and more important they had totally different ecologies.

Of course, all this considering we do not have a complete Helicoprion fossil, so it might have looked different from that diagram, but doing something like that is still the most parsimonious (and thus preferrable) outcome. Still, hard to find a better Helicoprion model around, with some being quite terrible.

Fashionably late for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Binomial name: Velociraptor mongoliensis Osborn 1924
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Coelurosauria->Tyrannoraptora->Maniraptoromorpha->Neocoelurosauria->Maniraptoriformes->Maniraptora->Pennaraptora->Paraves->Eumaniraptora->Deinonychosauria->Dromaeosauridae->Eudromaeosauria->Velociraptorinae
Time: Santonian?-Campanian (late Cretaceous)
Formation: Djadochta Formation (present day China)
Manifacturer and date of release: Safari LTD, 2017
Sculptor: Doug Watson
Scale: 1:9 based on IGM 100/25 ("Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Binomial name: Scolosaurus cutleri Nopcsa 1928
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Thyreophora->Ankylosauria->Ankylosauridae->Ankylosaurinae
Time: Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Dinosaur Provincial Park Formation? Oldman Formation? Two Medicine Formation (present-day Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 1998
Sculptor: Dan LoRusso
Scale: 1:25 based on USNM 11892
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Like many "Euoplocephalus" models, the Battat one is a chimera. Since the skull (as far as I can tell, because the sculpt isn't easy to examine) looks closer to Scolosaurus cutleri than Euoplocephalus tutus and since the armour is almost certainly based on NHMUK R5161, I decided to consider it a Scolosaurus, even if the tail is closer to Anodontosaurus lambei in morphology.

Is it the genetically engineered theme park monsters you talk about?

Roger wrote:

Is it the genetically engineered theme park monsters you talk about?

I can't say I'm a big fan of this "scolosaurus", probably the less interresting Battat for me.

Roger wrote:

Is it the genetically engineered theme park monsters you talk about?

Oh, no, at the time it was made everyone kitbashed the Euoplocephalus speciex complem, splitting didn't happen until 2013 (Arbour & Currie, link if you're interested). For the time, it was a remarkable effort.

Kikimalou wrote:

I can't say I'm a big fan of this "scolosaurus", probably the less interresting Battat for me.

Well, I admit it's somewhat lackluster in appearance, but it's still the best "Euoplocephalus complex" around, along with the Favorite v1 Ankylosaurus (which is not an Ankylosaurus except for the head...). I think there are worst Battats tho, ie the first version on Dilophosaurus.


Binomial name: Anchiornis huxleyi Xu et al., 2009
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Coelurosauria->Tyrannoraptora->Maniraptoromorpha->Neocoelurosauria->Maniraptoriformes->Maniraptora->Pennaraptora->Paraves->Eumaniraptora->Anchiornitidae
Time: Oxfordian (late Jurassic)
Formation: Tiaojishan Formation (present-day China)
Manifacturer and date of release: PNSO, 2017
Sculptor: somebody in the atelier of Zhao Chuang
Scale: 1:4 for 41HIII0404 (referred specimen)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have some doubts with the proportions of this, nevertheless is nice to own a reproduction of such an important animal.

Thanks for that link. This Anchiornis is from PNSO minis collection and those models are somewhat toyish so it is normal proportions may be off. Aren't they supposed to be babies?

Roger wrote:

Thanks for that link. This Anchiornis is from PNSO minis collection and those models are somewhat toyish so it is normal proportions may be off. Aren't they supposed to be babies?

I think not, only a few of the PNSO minis are claimed to be juveniles: Tyrannosaurus, Mamenchisaurus, Amargasaurus, Ankylosaurus, Spinosaurus and Triceratops, which are basically recicled from a "six little dinosaurs" set.

Leyster wrote:

Roger wrote:

Thanks for that link. This Anchiornis is from PNSO minis collection and those models are somewhat toyish so it is normal proportions may be off. Aren't they supposed to be babies?

I think not, only a few of the PNSO minis are claimed to be juveniles: Tyrannosaurus, Mamenchisaurus, Amargasaurus, Ankylosaurus, Spinosaurus and Triceratops, which are basically recicled from a "six little dinosaurs" set.

Thanks, I was really convinced those were babies but I never studied the subject carefully.

Binomial name: Leptoceratops gracilis Brown 1914
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Neornithischia->Marginocephalia->Ceratopsia->Neoceratopsia->Coronosauria->Leptoceratopsidae
Time: Maastrichtian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Lance Formation, Hell Creek Formation (present day USA)
Manifacturer and date of release: Safari, 2004
Sculptor: ?
Scale: 1:18 for CMN 8889
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

One of my favorite dinos

SUSANNE wrote:

One of my favorite dinos

Yes, it's a cute little thing

Binomial name: Carnotaurus sastrei Bonaparte, 1985
Classification: Dinosauria>Theropoda>Neotheropoda>Averostra>Ceratosauria>Neoceratosauria>Abelisauroidea>Abelisauridae>Brachyrostra>Carnotaurini
Time: Maastrichtian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: La Colonia Formation (present day Argentina)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 1998 (reissued as part of the Terra line in 2014)
Sculptor: Dan LoRusso
Scale: 1:31 for MACN-CH 894.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Way nicer than I expected and than it looks in photos, it reminds me of Czerkas' model. I can live with the asymmetric horns, expecially because I display it on profile.

A good example of Dan LoRusso's legacy. One of the big names of this hobby.

Roger wrote:

A good example of Dan LoRusso's legacy. One of the big names of this hobby.

I agree.

Binomial name: Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai Currie, Langston and Tanke, 2008
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Neornithischia->Marginocephalia->Ceratopsia->Neoceratopsia->Coronosauria->Ceratopsoidea->Ceratopsidae->Centrosaurinae->Pachyrhinosaurini->Pachyrostra
Time: Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Wapiti Formation (present day Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: PNSO, 2020
Sculptor: somebody in the atelier of Zhao Chuang
Scale: 1:25 based on TMP 86.55.258, which the model cleary represents.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here you can read my review of this model.

Binomial name: Amargasaurus cazaui Salgado & Bonaparte 1991
Classification: Dinosauria->Sauropodomorpha->Bagualosauria->Massopoda->Sauropodiformes->Sauropoda->Eusauropoda->Neosauropoda->Diplodocoidea->Diplodocimorpha->Flagellicaudata->Dicraeosauridae
Time: Barremian (Early Cretaceous)
Formation: La Amarga Formation (present day Argentina)
Manifacturer and date of release: Carnegie Collection of the Safari LTD, 2007
Sculptor: Forest Rogers
Scale: 1:42 for MACN-N 15
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]