|
|
Post by crankydinosaur on Feb 8, 2009 8:08:33 GMT
Does anyone know what is in each series?  Richie |
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Feb 8, 2009 11:06:08 GMT
Yep.  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 8, 2009 16:14:04 GMT
I am going to try and do this from memory--I am really not sure of the names of the sets:
Set 1--early animals
Opabinia
Trilobite (Ollenellus?)
Hallucigenia
Pikaia
Aysheia
Ottoia
Set 2--Marine animals
Groendlandaspis (very flat though--almost Bothriolepis-like)
Dunkleosteus
Stethacanthus
Ammonite
Liopleurodon
Ichthyosaur (Temnodontosaurus?)
Set 3--early Reptiles
Diplocaulus
Dimetrodon
Scutosaurus
Desmatosuchus
Dicynodon
Acanthostega
Set 4--Pterosaurs
Pteranodon
Quetalcoatlus
Tropeognathus (Ornithocheirus)
Dimorphodon
Pterodaustro
Dsungaripterus
Set 5--Dinosaurs
Styracosaurus
Brachiosaurus
Stegosaurus
Ankylosaurus
Giganotosaurus
Tyannosaurus
(side note--the latter two appear to be labelled backwards--the figure labelled 'Giganotosaurus' is very well done, has two fingers and appears to be a T rex; the figure labelled 'Tyrannosaurus' has three fingers and appears to be an awkward carcharodontid of some kind)
Set 6--Mammal
Indricotherium
Emobolotherium
Woolly Rhino
Woolly Mammoth (but it doesn't really look like M. primigenius)
Smilodon (but with a long tail and buck teeth, is more like a heavy-set nimravid)
Arsinoitherium
So there you go. And given the prices, these are some really good, small scale figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by deanm on Feb 8, 2009 19:22:53 GMT
My biggest complaint about the COG pterosaur series is the rubbery plastic. The wings are curled up from the packing process so the figures sort of look funny. I have tried all sorts of things to get the wings to straighten out without success.
Aside from the wing curl beef, I was very happy to see a strictly pterosaur set. The figures are reasonably accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by crankydinosaur on Feb 8, 2009 23:58:40 GMT
does anyone know if the ammonite is an earlier form or later - ie found in the paleozoic or mesozoic? also could the Dunkleosteus be used as a proxy for any of the other placoderms Richie |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 9, 2009 1:49:51 GMT
does anyone know if the ammonite is an earlier form or later - ie found in the paleozoic or mesozoic? also could the Dunkleosteus be used as a proxy for any of the other placoderms Richie I personally think it looks more like Coccosteus--a different large arthrodire. |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Feb 9, 2009 8:32:31 GMT
The Burgess Shale trilobite is the Ollenoides. The onychophoran is called Aysheaia. The Groenlandaspis doesn't even look like an arthrodire, it's an antiarch, so it could work either as a Sinolepis or as a Bothriolepis  To me the ammonite looks definitely Mesozoic, the shape of the Paleozoic cephalopods was rather funky. |
|
|
|
Post by crankydinosaur on Feb 9, 2009 8:44:09 GMT
Bothriolepis: awesome i'm always down for more fish species Ammonite: Drat! Are there any paleozoic cephalopods out there! Richie |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 9, 2009 13:11:03 GMT
The Burgess Shale trilobite is the Ollenoides. The onychophoran is called Aysheaia. The Groenlandaspis doesn't even look like an arthrodire, it's an antiarch, so it could work either as a Sinolepis or as a Bothriolepis To me the ammonite looks definitely Mesozoic, the shape of the Paleozoic cephalopods was rather funky. But not really the Palaeozoic ammonites (ceratites)--it was not until the Cretaceous that heteromorphic ammonites showed up. In the Palaeozoic they were fairly uniform (except for triangular Soliclymenia), but not that robust--the COG may work as a goniatite, but more likely as a an ammonite like Pavlovia. |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Feb 10, 2009 4:20:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 10, 2009 5:41:40 GMT
I'm pretty sure that's a nautiloid, not an ammonoid. They had their variable shapes in the Palaeozoic. By the Mesozoic, they were pretty much settled down to the coiled creatures we know today. |
|
