The official blog of the Animal Toy Forum is now LIVE! Check it out at Animal Toy Blog!
Started by Newt, April 17, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
Quote from: sbell on April 17, 2014, 03:37:26 AMI help where I can, especially when I am selfishly invested!I think that the price might be affected by the size of the range--36 figures at $30 each could be problematic. For some. For some of us, I just hope my wife is understanding...Personally, I think that sizing them all more or less the same may be a better choice. It keeps a consistency, and there is a precedent of making fish figures this way--Replica Toy fish makes all of the fish in the same sizes (in two lines, a 3" and a 6"). Yuijn of Japan also made some wide ranging fish sets, all of which were 3" or so as well. So maybe something in the middle, 4" to 5", a little larger for better detail, with maybe a few big ones to represent the big species?The only other Prehistoric Fish set that is really comparable would be the Colorata [ur=http://www.colorata.com/fs/colorata/figurebox/figurebox_es1l]Fossil Fishes Box. In that one, they are more or less the same size, with some variation that reflects the ones that are substantially larger (the group picture on the site reflects their comparative sizes). They kind of fall in between same-scale figures and same-size figures, kind of skirting both!And I guess there is also the question of bases/stands? Personally, I would say leave them with a small hole in the belly for people to mount them if they want to; or have them able to balance on their bellies.As for the species list, If you really had to cut some species, I'd make the following suggestions:1. (shudder) Sacrifice a couple Polypterus species at the outset, maybe start with an ornatipinnis or senegalus; as I said, the only one that has ever been made is P. endlicheri, so skip that morphology for now. Although they are my favourite of all fish, but in terms of figures, it's probably better for a little broader variety. For now...Currently, I only have two live ones--an albino senegal and a delhezi, plus I have a teugelsi coming (polypterids have been a favourite since I was 12)! 2. Maybe just one of the Atractosteus for now?3. Maybe skip the Neoceratodus for now, there are lots of figures of them, and none of the other lungfish at all.4. Maybe just one of the big notopterids? I'd say Chitala has a nicer patternIt's hard to thin out past that (yeah, what did I suggest? 5 fewer? not so much help)--so many that need to be done! But some of the families/groups could be represented by just one if need be.But that's what I think. Really, anything is good if they look good!
Quote from: sauroid on April 17, 2014, 11:41:16 AMroyal Chitala and clown Chitala, same sculpt different patterns.
Quote from: Newt on April 30, 2014, 03:40:27 PMAlso...lampreys! They may not fit taxonomically, but you can't look into their beautiful little eyes and not want to sculpt them. They're going on the list!
Quote from: stemturtle on April 30, 2014, 06:48:50 PMQuote from: Newt on April 30, 2014, 03:40:27 PMAlso...lampreys! They may not fit taxonomically, but you can't look into their beautiful little eyes and not want to sculpt them. They're going on the list!Newt, allow me to express an interest in buying a lamprey figure. I've been looking for one for a long time. Please let us know when available.
Quote from: sbell on May 01, 2014, 01:46:15 PMI have to second that--it just never occurred to me (maybe because I'm all pedantic and it's not really a fish?! ) But it's unbelievable that nobody has ever made one.
Quote from: Newt on May 01, 2014, 11:22:36 PMDepends what you mean by "fish", I suppose. The fisheries profession still maintains "finfish" and "shellfish" as the primary categories; you could make a case for mussels and crabs being as much "fish" as skates and salmon, not to mention jellyfish and starfish. You should see what some Catholics and Muslims have managed to convince themselves are "fish" in order to get around dietary restrictions - turtles, capybaras, and so on.It's funny how vernacular and taxonomic terminology tangle up. A lot of my biology friends tend to think the taxonomic use of a term is more correct than the vernacular ("Only Hemiptera are really bugs!"), but the vernacular use has priority on its side.
Quote from: Newt on May 03, 2014, 06:10:08 PMThank you, brontodocus and Jetoar!SBell - you exclude Chondrichthyes from "fish"? I don't know that I've come across that distinction before. My preferred definition of fish: those animals commonly studied by ichthyologists. Nice, clean, arbitrary, cuts out all the fuzzy boundaries!