Help identifying my Animals :)

Birdsage wrote:

The Himalayan Monal is the one on the right, not the left. The one on the left (not the right) is a fireback, but it doesn’t have a crest. Conveniently enough, there is a species called the Crestless Fireback. The one in the center is clearly a Golden Pheasant. I would really like these figures. I wonder which shopping site you found them on?

As I said, the one on the right is 10000000000000000% sure a Crested fireback pheasant (Lophura ignita) and is NOT an Himalayan monal absolutely in the least possible way. The one on the left is as I said an Himalayan monal (without the crest that it should have, but it is very clearly an Himalayan monal), and not a crestless fireback (nor a congo peafowl as suggested before). The golden pheasant I already said months ago like the other two, is the less realistic of the three but equally unmistakable.

I said it’s a crestLESS fireback, not crested.

But is a CRESTED fireback (the one on the right) and an himalayan monal (the one on the left). What you said is absolutely irrelevant since it's totally wrong. There are NO crestless fireback models in this thread, and that's 2000000000000000000000000% sure.

I see. The fireback was the one on the right. I thought that it was the Himalayan Monal, because of the shape of the figure. Apparently, that’s the one on the left, and monals have crests too, even though that figure doesn’t have a crest. Perhaps the model on the left is a grouse of some description?

I'm glad that finally you understood, at least partially. Better late than never The shape of the figure in the right is precisely that of a crested fireback and is not the shape of a monal (that is the one on the left, with the correct shape of a monal).
So the only remaining thing is make you understand that the left figure is an himalayan monal as I said several times. Is not a grouse. It may have broken the crest or the company decided to do it without a crest for better casting of the mould, but it's undoubtely a monal.

Ullalala, have I missed something?
Thank you for your suggestions and I think Pardo is right.

As information: the "crest" on the monal is broken

Why an Himalayan monal and not a Sclater’s monal ?
I think Azur made a lot of approximative birds. The one on the left looks a bit like a monal but at least an unknown species

I have the Go-away Bird. I thought it was a Gray Go-away Bird, as those don’t have the tail stripes. I knew about the White-bellied species, and that one has some extra markings (the aforementioned tail stripes) that don’t match the figure. I think the off-white base color is close enough for the Gray species. I also have the Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. I couldn’t ID it as anything besides a generic, unrealistic bird-of-paradise or paradise flycatcher.

Where to find the Belted Kingfisher, Lark, and the Hong Kong birds?

I know that Whitelightningwolf sold a Kingfisher and Skylark. I just didn’t get around to buying these listings.

Kikimalou wrote:

Why an Himalayan monal and not a Sclater’s monal ?
I think Azur made a lot of approximative birds. The one on the left looks a bit like a monal but at least  an unknown species

Because no brand knows what an Sclater's monal is, and never a figure can be made of it except homemade customs. It's a too obscure and unknown species for any brand, only freaks like me know this species. More or less is the same that asking why a generic "chinamal" elephant is not a forest elephant, with the only difference that everybody knows what a forest elephant is it.

Besides that, the figures's colours match roughly that of the Himalayan monal but not the ones of Sclater's monal.

No brands know what is a Himalyan monal, no brands ever produced one and named it, those birds are too obscure and unknown for any brand.
How can you think there is well known monals and obscure monals ? They are all obscure.
Azur birds were produced in Macao or HK, we don't know which species people of Macao and HK knew in the 1960' and 70's.
So for me this figure may look more like a monal than anything else and thats' all.And the color doesn't match with a Himalyan monal, even not a female.

About Forest elephants, this "new species" was unknown for brands because, since 1900, it was believed as  a subspecies until recently.
Brands then never made African bush of forest elephants but African elephants. It is still true nowadays.
When one wants to decide the species level, for TAW by example, the first question is not necessarily "is it or not an African forest elephant ?", you have to ask also another question "Is it or not an African bush elephant ?". Most people avoid the second question. The third question is "How to determine the species with pics only ?" so the debate turn usually around ears and tusks shape. Tusks and shape are made by sculptors with more or less talent so it complicate the task.
If you have the model in hands you need also to count the number of toenails. The African forest and Asian elephants have 5 toenails on the front feet and 4 on the back feet. The African bush elephant has 4 or sometimes 5 on the front feet and only 3 on the back.
If you do so you will soon discover that the real question is "is this model is really an African bush ?"  

If we were less obsessed species hunters, we probably changed TAW African bush and African forest elephant in one African elephant entry. It would be safer.

Whaaaat? All obscure? Himalayan monal is infinite million times much best known than the other two monal species!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the fact that no brand did one don't implies that the staff of the brand don't know the species - for sure most if not all animal lovers know the extremely well known Himalayan monal. But only the very very very freak ones know the other two species, that is obvious. No, they're not all obscure definitely. There is "THE" monal, that is the Himalayan monal, and for most animal lovers that's all.
And the color MATCHES an himalayan monal (and it's a male one very clearly) much more than any other of the two monal species. Please check again the figure.

Abou the elephant, what you say is not completely true. The true part is that it was considered a subespecies until relatively recently (not as recently as the Taxonomic Revolution and it's a reasonable change that I accepted since it happened), but that never mind for make it into figurine or not. CollectA did African leopards and Amur leopards and they're just mere subespecies of a single species.

And yes, you're totally right in the last part. It's difficult to assignate many times a real animal to a species, so imagine a figure that can be more or less realistic! And the case of the monal is not really very realistic, at least in paintjob, but still totally recognizable as species. But there are countless models of animals that we cannot assignate to a species or even a genus or family, overall within inverts and herptiles.

Birdsage wrote:

I have the Go-away Bird. I thought it was a Gray Go-away Bird, as those don’t have the tail stripes. I knew about the White-bellied species,  and that one has some extra markings (the aforementioned tail stripes) that don’t match the figure. I think the off-white base color is close enough for the Gray species. I also have the Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. I couldn’t ID it as anything besides a generic, unrealistic bird-of-paradise or paradise flycatcher.

Pics please :)

84AA2BF1-4C0F-4828-92B2-694225D1D94A.jpeg

Kikimalou wrote:

Why an Himalayan monal and not a Sclater’s monal ?
I think Azur made a lot of approximative birds. The one on the left looks a bit like a monal but at least an unknown species

I’d say that it looks a bit like both species.
I looked up photos of the Sclater’s Monal. The males are dark blue with typically gold back feathers (the male Himalayan has a white back often covered with blue and green wing feathers) On the other hand, the gold tail belongs to Himalayan. Sclater’s has a white one. Also, if this one had a crest like Himalayan (Sclater’s has a short, triangular one) that got broken off, perhaps it was made to be a different species than Sclater’s. I guess the now-lost crest would’ve been the best field mark, I previously thought this was the Fireback because it has yellowish back feathers and the other didn’t. As for the fame of the bird species, obviously Himalayan is vastly more well-known (national bird of Nepal, in lists of the most beautiful birds) and any birder worth their salt (including me) ought to know it, but the average person, of course, wouldn’t recognize a photo of it from photos of a fireback and a Koklass Pheasant. As for Sclater’s, I have never heard of it before. It’s obviously not famous. So I guess (assuming the figures weren’t marked as any particular species) it’s up to your personal interpretation which species the bird to the left is.

My point is that while Himalayan is by a long shot more famous than Sclater’s ever was (most images of “Monal bird” are Himalayan, it’s the national bird of Nepal, it’s much more well known to bird and wildlife fans in general) and would be more likely made by toy and collectible companies than Sclater’s, it’s true that the usual toy company most likely wouldn’t make a figure of any monal at all, and it’s open to interpretation which species you call the figure. Himalayan, Sclater’s, a hybrid of the two, or some entirely different pheasant: any of these IDs work well enough to me.

Birdsage wrote:

84AA2BF1-4C0F-4828-92B2-694225D1D94A.jpeg

please upload here

Pardofelis wrote:

Whaaaat? All obscure? Himalayan monal is infinite million times much best known than the other two monal species!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the fact that no brand did one don't implies that the staff of the brand don't know the species - for sure most if not all animal lovers know the extremely well known Himalayan monal. But only the very very very freak ones know the other two species, that is obvious. No, they're not all obscure definitely. There is "THE" monal, that is the Himalayan monal, and for most animal lovers that's all.
And the color MATCHES an himalayan monal (and it's a male one very clearly) much more than any other of the two monal species. Please check again the figure.

Abou the elephant, what you say is not completely true. The true part is that it was considered a subespecies until relatively recently (not as recently as the Taxonomic Revolution and it's a reasonable change that I accepted since it happened), but that never mind for make it into figurine or not. CollectA did African leopards and Amur leopards and they're just mere subespecies of a single species.

And yes, you're totally right in the last part. It's difficult to assignate many times a real animal to a species, so imagine a figure that can be more or less realistic! And the case of the monal is not really very realistic, at least in paintjob, but still totally recognizable as species. But there are countless models of animals that we cannot assignate to a species or even a genus or family, overall within inverts and herptiles.

Birdsage wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

Why an Himalayan monal and not a Sclater’s monal ?
I think Azur made a lot of approximative birds. The one on the left looks a bit like a monal but at least  an unknown species

I’d say that it looks a bit like both species.
I looked up photos of the Sclater’s Monal. The males are dark blue with typically gold back feathers (the male Himalayan has a white back often covered with blue and green wing feathers) On the other hand, the gold tail belongs to Himalayan. Sclater’s  has a white one. Also, if this one had a crest like Himalayan (Sclater’s has a short, triangular one) that got broken off, perhaps it was made to be a different species than Sclater’s. I guess the now-lost crest would’ve been the best field mark, I previously thought this was the Fireback because it has yellowish back feathers and the other didn’t. As for the fame of the bird species, obviously Himalayan is vastly more well-known (national bird of Nepal, in lists of the most beautiful birds) and any birder worth their salt (including me) ought to know it, but the average person, of course, wouldn’t recognize a photo of it from photos of a fireback and a Koklass Pheasant. As for Sclater’s, I have never heard of it before. It’s obviously not famous. So I guess (assuming the figures weren’t marked as any particular species) it’s up to your personal interpretation which species the bird to the left is.

Pardofelis, Birdsage, I have no doubt you are animal lovers and I have no doubt you have great knowledge about animals, it is obvious for me.
I used the poor Sclater’s Monal as a trap, I know macaques are bad

You are talking about small figures made before your own birth. At that time Himalayan monal wasn't infinite million times much best known than the other two monal species!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They were absolutely obscure species in Europe and Azur made their small animals as primes for European market. These animals were advertising gift from washpowder or biscuits companies...
Before Playvisions and Safari Ltd there was no brands like the one we know nowadays.
Majors of that time like Britains, Starlux, Hausser, Lineol, Clairet, etc were Toy soldiers manufacturers. Their Wild and farm animals range were a small part of their production.
Britains made zoo animals inspired by the London zoo and Clairet did the same with the zoo de Vincennes. Hausser and Lineol did the same in Germany.
Second only to the younger PV, Starlux made the biggest animals range of the XXth century. Nevertheless, it was very small compared to their soldiers, Western and medieval productions.
Many toy soldiers companies produced animal toys because of Tarzan and Mowgli success among us.
There was no web, only a very few TV channels in Europe and so only very rare wild animals documentaries ( about lions   ) and I won't talk about educational books for kids. Finding a well known book with a monal would be a Herculean task.
We were far from the animal lovers world where everybody know the Himalayan monal, very very far  
I was only speaking about Majors of that time, for the other brands like Azur or Prior who made models as advertising prime, it was even worse.
No brands made a lycaon then because it was an obscure species. Only one brand made a Nilgai or a Koala because they were obscure species for most kids and obscure too to Toy soldiers makers. You can easily imagine that a monal was even more obscure in the Toys soldiers manufacturers world.
The first time a brand produced a lot of Obscure species was in the 90's and the brand was Play Visions and they sometimes mislabelled some of them.
I'm glad you see a monal in this azur black or brown bird, I see a dark bird with a broken beak which could be a Monal even if Himalayan monals are colorful birds, far more colorful than the toy I can see on the pic.

About Afican elephants, I'm sorry but I'm absolutely 111111133344444477899% right. In the toy manufacturers world, subspecies level is most of the time absolutely ignored so companies produced African or Asian elephants, even sometimes odd hybrids in the past.
The problem is when those toys meet the Experts animal lovers world and also the Experts animal toys lovers world, two dangerous place for them ! Most of the time both of us are trying to find the species or even the subspecies level of a toy. I know, I am one of you. Most of the time the discussion turn about African forest elephant: Is this toy could be one ? The problem for me is that I can't remember a discussion where someone ask: is tis toy could be an African bush elephant ? it seems obvious for most of us. I like to ask myself this kind of question. is this lion is really an African lion ?  
I'm not a "only Wild animals toys collector", I also collect Extinct wild animals from Cambrian to Holocene. We are talking about animals we don't know perfectly. To know if a model is accurate or not, at least we need to look if it is true to the fossils. I'm not a big expert but I have the bad habit to count the number of digits or toes.
So I asked myself about Afriacn elephants. If you count the toenails you will think that some are not African bush elephants, some are even not elephants, they are not true to the skeleton.  
The more I age, the more I like to doubt. So what about all these supposed Nile crocodiles toys ?  

Birdsage wrote:

Where to find the Belted Kingfisher, Lark, and the Hong Kong birds?

No idea, I have those figures since....ehmm...ever? I didn´t buy them, I had them already as child. And even my parents got them as children. For the azur birds, I was lucky enough that Andreas once sold a lot.
However there was a collection on this thread, but I can´t find the link anymore. If you look in my search list, you can see some of them...however I don´t find the others anymore.
If you are looking in Andreas topic: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] you can find the monal with his crest. So mine is clearly broken!

I see. Apparently these are old, Starlux/Britains/Elastolin-era figures. So what you’re saying is, these pheasants were obscure anyway at that time, leaving the species open for interpretation. If koalas weren’t well-known yet, then the Himalayan Monal certainly wasn’t.

The Elastolin bird are available on Sanspielfiguren, but I see your in Texas, so shipping may present a problem

Hello :)

As I am starting to catalog my collection, I started with the fishes. There I found models, that are not on TAW and some of them are hard to identify. As I didn´t wanted to show the pictures in different topics, I thought that here is the best place :)

First of all, the models are marked with "Made in China" and are made from nearly the same material. Harder plastic than other modern companies. I have those figures since I´m a child, I don´t even know if those figures belong to the same set. The pictures can be used for the TAW.
As I studies the TAW, some of those seems to be copies of older AAA-models. Maybe someone as an idea of the brand, too.

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

For those models, I need some more help to identifie them. I´m not a fish expert, but maybe someone has good ideas for the species:

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

This shark model is a little bit trickier. It´s nearly the same mould as the AAA Tiger Shark. The AAA model is marked as Tiger Shark, however I´m a little bit sceptic about this identification. Maybe somebody has a better identification?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Last but not least, I found this model from Maia&Borges. I think it presents a Great White Shark? However, the model is not present on TAW, maybe someone has an idea. The stamp says: Maia&Borges, Maia/Portugal.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I can't help with brand identification, but as for species identification, these will be my guesses. Often not easy because the figures are too generic and undetailed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Clearly a sailfish (Istiophorus), there is almost no differences between Atlantic and Indopacific ones but the latter is a bit more well known so go for it, Istiophorus platypterus.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
One of the stingrays in genus Dasyatis. Specific ID is impossible, you can go for Dasyatis pastinaca if the brand is based in Europe, or for Dasyatis americana if is based in USA.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Go for the easy one, giant manta ray, Manta birostris.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Any species of sawfish. Most well known could be maybe Pristis pectinata.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Despite the paintjob, clearly a whale shark (Rhincodon typus). Notice the keels along the body. I tought it could be a badly-proportioned zebra shark until I saw the keels.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Another whale shark (Rhincodon typus), with more accurate colours.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Any hammerhead species, I would go for the one that is probably the most well known, Sphyrna zygaena.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
For this one we can see clearly a more accurate scultpure that allows an ID as a scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Really can't help with this one, it looks like clearly made as a "generic shark" with no aims of represent any real species.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Clearly a great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Any seahorse species, not made after an specific one. You can go for the most well known ones, like Hippocampus kuda or Hippocampus reidi. Notice inaccurate anatomy (mouth under throat instead in the tip of the snout)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Tricky. General shape could remind a bit a nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirrhatum).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Clearly another great white shark, Carchadoron carcharias.

Thank you very much Pardo! For most of them I had the same idea, nice to hear some confirmations :)

Here are my final fishes, I fear that they are to generic, but maybe someone can help. The images can be used for Toy Animal Wiki :) I don´t know the brand, they are marked "Made in China". Some of them I own already very long.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I didn´t find a surgeon fish or tang like that, so the color sheme isn´t the best

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Probably a butterfly fish with a color sheme that doesn´t exist in reality...

Here are two fishes from another set, that I acquired years ago on Sandspielfiguren.de. There were more anthropods in this so called "sea set", they will be identified later (hopefully^^).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
a leafy dragon