Leyster's Collection

Roger wrote:

Leyster wrote:

Roger wrote:

I don't take so seriously the 3 Tyrannosaurus species, my knowledge is not even enough to take my own opinion about the subject. Though, seeing how hot is the dino toy market these last years, I suspect it will be a party for some companies.  

Exactly what we needed, an excuse for them to make another version of the most often made dinosaur

... and now you show a tarvosaurus. They don't need too many excuses, there are always creatures like this one.  

But it's not Tyrannosaurus. I have nothing against Tarbosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Albertosaurus etc, it's just Tyrannosaurus that's overrepresented

Binomial name: Sauropelta edwardsorum Ostrom 1970
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Thyreophora->Ankylosauria->Nodosauridae
Time: Albian (Early Cretaceous)
Formation: Little Sheep Mudstone Section of the Cloverly Formation (present day USA)
Manifacturer and date of release: Safari LTD, 2015
Sculptor: Doug Watson
Scale: 1:27 for AMNH 3032, bases on femur lenght
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

great model!

It is a lovely model . I have it also, and like it very much

A great photo, which shows the charm of the model well

Leyster wrote:

Roger wrote:

Leyster wrote:

Roger wrote:

I don't take so seriously the 3 Tyrannosaurus species, my knowledge is not even enough to take my own opinion about the subject. Though, seeing how hot is the dino toy market these last years, I suspect it will be a party for some companies.  

Exactly what we needed, an excuse for them to make another version of the most often made dinosaur

... and now you show a tarvosaurus. They don't need too many excuses, there are always creatures like this one.  

But it's not Tyrannosaurus. I have nothing against Tarbosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Albertosaurus etc, it's just Tyrannosaurus that's overrepresented

I know it is not Tyrannosaurus, most of us collectors know it and some kids are very good with dinos but the majority of the custommers of a regular shop probably will call T-rex to it. What I mean is that some other dinosaurs take the same market placement of a standard Tyrannosaurus.
By the way, that Sauropelta is one of my favorite Safari models, surely one of the favorites among those I don't have.

To reply to you all. yes, the Sauropelta is for sure a great model. I don't know why it took me years to acquire it.

Binomial name: Liaoceratops yanzigouensis Xu et al. 2002
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Neornithischia->Marginocephalia->Ceratopsia->Neoceratopsia
Time: Aptian (Early Cretaceous)
Formation: Lujiatun Bed of the Yixian Formation (present day China)
Manifacturer and date of release: PNSO, 2019
Sculptor: somebody in the atelier of Zhao Chuang
Scale: 1:9 based on IVPPV 12738
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

never seen before.. what was its real size?

Very nice collection Leyster and very well shown, there's a lot of models I like very much myself 

I'm a bit surprised about your Atopodentatus scale, I have the biggger one which is for me 1/10 scale. For a three meter specimen, it means the model is 30cm. Yours is far smaller, it can't reach that scale. 

That Liaoceratops is ever so lovely !!
So it is related to for instance the triceratops ? I never heard of this species before

Caracal wrote:

never seen before.. what was its real size?

SUSANNE wrote:

That Liaoceratops is ever so lovely !!
So it is related to for instance the triceratops ? I never heard of this species before

Liaoceratops is a ceratopsian like Triceratops, yes, but a very, very, very basal member of that family. Think of it as ie. Ambulocetus compared with a bottlenose dolphin.
About it's size, it's small: there is not complete skeleton, but the skull is like 15 cm, so I think the lenght whole animal is maybe around 60 cm.

Kikimalou wrote:

Very nice collection Leyster and very well shown, there's a lot of models I like very much myself 

I'm a bit surprised about your Atopodentatus scale, I have the biggger one which is for me 1/10 scale. For a three meter specimen, it means the model is 30cm. Yours is far smaller, it can't reach that scale. 

The Atopodentatus scale is based on IVPP V20291 (which you can read here, if you're curious), with its size calculated from Fraser, 2016. In the figures the skull is ca. 11,5 cm in lenght and the model skull is ca. 1 cm. But it appears that Atopodentatus has different proportions from the PNSO model, as seen in this skeletal by Jaime Headden:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Binomial name: Pteranodon longiceps Marsh 1876
Classification: Pterosauria->Macronychoptera->Novialoidea->Breviquartossa->Pterodactylomorpha->Caelidracones->Pterodactyloidea->Lophocratia->Eupterodactyloidea->Ornithocheiroidea-> Pteranodontoidea->Pteranodontia->Pteranodontidae
Time: Santonian/Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Smoky Hill Chalk Member of the Niobrara Formation, Sharon Springs Deposits of the Pierre Shale Formation (present day USA)
Manifacturer and date of release: Collecta, 2021
Sculptor: Matt Geiger
Scale: 1:6,5 for USNM 50130
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And my review.

Leyster wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

Very nice collection Leyster and very well shown, there's a lot of models I like very much myself 

I'm a bit surprised about your Atopodentatus scale, I have the biggger one which is for me 1/10 scale. For a three meter specimen, it means the model is 30cm. Yours is far smaller, it can't reach that scale. 

The Atopodentatus scale is based on IVPP V20291 (which you can read here, if you're curious), with its size calculated from Fraser, 2016. In the figures the skull is ca. 11,5 cm in lenght and the model skull is ca. 1 cm. But it appears that Atopodentatus has different proportions from the PNSO model, as seen in this skeletal by Jaime Headden:

Indeed, very interesting read and also very disturbing ! 
So my model is 1/10 for the body and 1/4.5 for the head... So I don't know on which shelf to expose it... 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] , thankyou for explaining about the Liaoceratops´ and its relationship to the triceratops

Beautyful Pteranodon also .

I don't remember seeing a Liaoceratops before, It is quite surprising for me the bipedal posture. Is it a kind of approach like a Psittacosaurus? Quite unnatural, I would say.

Kikimalou wrote:

Leyster wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

Very nice collection Leyster and very well shown, there's a lot of models I like very much myself 

I'm a bit surprised about your Atopodentatus scale, I have the biggger one which is for me 1/10 scale. For a three meter specimen, it means the model is 30cm. Yours is far smaller, it can't reach that scale. 

The Atopodentatus scale is based on IVPP V20291 (which you can read here, if you're curious), with its size calculated from Fraser, 2016. In the figures the skull is ca. 11,5 cm in lenght and the model skull is ca. 1 cm. But it appears that Atopodentatus has different proportions from the PNSO model, as seen in this skeletal by Jaime Headden:

Indeed, very interesting read and also very disturbing ! 
So my model is 1/10 for the body and 1/4.5 for the head... So I don't know on which shelf to expose it... 

Yes, you're right about its proportions. Truly a weird animal.

SUSANNE wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] , thankyou for explaining about the Liaoceratops´ and its relationship to the triceratops

My pleasure.

Roger wrote:

I don't remember seeing a Liaoceratops before, It is quite surprising for me the bipedal posture. Is it a kind of approach like a Psittacosaurus? Quite unnatural, I would say.

Well, keep in mind that Liaoceratops is a really small dinosaur and quite a primitive ceratopsian too, that was the look ceratopsians had for most of their history, the developed greater size and quadrupedal stance more or less in their latest 20 milion years on Earth.
Just to give an idea of how small Liaoceratops is:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Pictures from Witmer Lab and donglutsdinosaurs

Binomial name: Irritator challengeri Martill et al. 1996 + Equinoxioudus alxantarensis Toledo et al. 2011
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Carnosauria->Spinosauridae->Spinosaurinae + Dipnoi->Ceratodontiformes->Ceratodontoidei->Neoceratodontidae
Time: Albian (Early Cretaceous)
Formation: Romualdo Formation (present day Brazil)
Manifacturer and date of release: Dino Hazard, 2020
Sculptor: Hugo Cafasso
Scale: 1:13 for SMNS 58022
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Beautiful model! .. What did he catch?..

Thanks for your explanation, that's defintely an attractive way to show the small size of a Liaoceratops.
Hugo Cafasso is Brazilian, isn't he?

How long is your Irritator please ?

Caracal wrote:

Beautiful model! .. What did he catch?..

Equinoxioudus, it's a cretaceous lungfish.

Roger wrote:

Thanks for your explanation, that's defintely an attractive way to show the small size of a Liaoceratops.
Hugo Cafasso is Brazilian, isn't he?

Yes, he is!

Kikimalou wrote:

How long is your Irritator please ?

More or less 37 cm.

As an Animal (extinct or extant) toys collector, outdated models are not a problem for me, it's fun to see how our knowledge is evolving, our behaviours... The important thing is Joy, of course this model can give a lot of joy to a collector. 

Now looking at your topic is hitching me a bit about scale, my main collection is displayed by scale and  I have to think where I put an animal each time, it is sometimes a bit uneasy, even for extant animals, but it can give a headache when we talk about "only known by fossils" animals.

I hope it don't disturb you if I discuss this in this topic, if so please tell me.

You say your Irritator is 1/13 based on the skull and of course I believe you. nevertheless, if you use global size between 5m (Machado) and 8m (Holtz), the scale would be between 1/13,5 and 1/21. It could work for the smallest hypothesis.

For the Atopodentatus it is different because The body scale and head are so different. I think about this since I read you. Where to put it ? On my 1/10 shelf or on the 1/5 (sorry no 1/4,5 shelf yet ). Even if the "scientific" skull measure is the safer way to determine scale I still have to choose between presenting an Atopodentatus with a normal head and an atrophied body or with a normal body and a big head. I think for displaying choosing the 1/10 shelf is safer.

Now I must look at my CollectA  Kelenken I put on a 1/12 shelf because I used to measure the skull (which is the only safe measure) and it results in a Kelenken smaller tahn a human beings ).

I hope I don't pollute too much your collection and thank you so much to help me thinking in a different way my collection.

Kikimalou wrote:

You say your Irritator is 1/13 based on the skull and of course I believe you. nevertheless, if you use global size between 5m (Machado) and 8m (Holtz), the scale would be between 1/13,5 and 1/21. It could work for the smallest hypothesis.

The problemi is, a partial skull is the only specimen safely classified as Irritator. There are other Spinosaurid remains in the Romualdo, but - as Ceratosuchops and Riparovenator shows - different spinosaurids can be found in the same formation. In fact, one is named, Angaturama, although it migh be just another Irritator. Or maybe not. And we aren't sure of Irritator postcranial morphology. This considered, I find safer scaling this figure from the skull.

But in general I find scaling fron skull/femur more reliable than total lengh, expecially considering that more often than not fossils are incomplete and even when complete there are often issues with their total lenght: it's often measured from vertebra centra, except when it is not, and there is disagreement over the quantity of cartilage there should be between one bone and another.

Quote :

For the Atopodentatus it is different because The body scale and head are so different. I think about this since I read you. Where to put it ? On my 1/10 shelf or on the 1/5 (sorry no 1/4,5 shelf yet ). Even if the "scientific" skull measure is the safer way to determine scale I still have to choose between presenting an Atopodentatus with a normal head and an atrophied body or with a normal body and a big head. I think for displaying choosing the 1/10 shelf is safer.

I think you should go with the 1:10, considering the proportions of the skeletal I posted.

Quote :

Now I must look at my CollectA  Kelenken I put on a 1/12 shelf because I used to measure the skull (which is the only safe measure) and it results in a Kelenken smaller tahn a human beings ).

Yeah, terror birds are smaller than most think of.

Leyster wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

You say your Irritator is 1/13 based on the skull and of course I believe you. nevertheless, if you use global size between 5m (Machado) and 8m (Holtz), the scale would be between 1/13,5 and 1/21. It could work for the smallest hypothesis.

The problemi is, a partial skull is the only specimen safely classified as Irritator. There are other Spinosaurid remains in the Romualdo, but - as Ceratosuchops and Riparovenator shows - different spinosaurids can be found in the same formation. In fact, one is named, Angaturama, although it migh be just another Irritator. Or maybe not. And we aren't sure of Irritator postcranial morphology. This considered, I find safer scaling this figure from the skull.

But in general I find scaling fron skull/femur more reliable than total lengh, expecially considering that more often than not fossils are incomplete and even when complete there are often issues with their total lenght: it's often measured from vertebra centra, except when it is not, and there is disagreement over the quantity of cartilage there should be between one bone and another.

I agree about your way of calculating in the more safely way a model of course, the problem is when we want to show them on scale with other animals, the Atopodantatus is a good example because we choose the same solution, it is better to use the body size then because following the only accurate measure (the skull) would lead to a weird displaying.

[quote="Kikimalou"][quote="Leyster"]

Kikimalou wrote:

I agree about your way of calculating in the more safely way a model of course, the problem is when we want to show them on scale with other animals, the Atopodantatus is a good example because we choose the same solution, it is better to use the body size then because following the only accurate measure (the skull) would lead to a weird displaying.

Well, yes, in this particular case I think you should go with that.


Binomial name: Beipiaosaurus inexpectus Xu et al. 1999
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Coelurosauria->Tyrannoraptora->Maniraptoromorpha->Neocoelurosauria->Maniraptoriformes->Maniraptora->Therizinosauria->Therizinosauroidea
Time: Aptian (early Cretaceous)
Formation: Jianshangou Beds of the Yixian Formation (present day China)
Manifacturer and date of release: Safari LTD, 2009
Sculptor: Doug Watson
Scale: 1:26 based on IVPP 11559
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The Safari Feathered Dinosaurs Toob is a reminder, if any needed, to buy figures as soon as they're available, 'cause quality is going to downgrade.

This is the kind of dinosaur that I think it good to be released for a TOOB. It is almost human sized, quite small when compared with the majority of the other dinosaurs.

So you chose the Toob one instead of the Carnegie, could you explain ?