Review: Mojo Dunkleosteus
By Matt Bille
As founder of the coolest site on FaceBook and a fanatical Dunkleosteus terrelli fan, I am pleased to report the newest Dunk on the market is a beautiful model. At under 8 inches long, it’s about the same size as the
Safari dunk but smaller (and less expensive) than the CollectA Dunk I consider
the gold standard for mass-produced models.
It has no articulated parts but is done in a swimming pose that, added to
careful detailing, gives it a lifelike appearance. As with the CollectA fish, this is clearly an
organic living creature, unlike some Dunk illustrations we’ve all seen that
look like an armored head with the boring parts sort of stuck on.
I need to start with the usual disclaimer: I’m not an
ichthyologist, paleontologist, or (God knows) an artist. So my comments are
thoughts and suggestions, not a hard-science critique. I have messaged the
maker twice to ask questions and never heard back, so let’s go.
The handsome green and yellow body with some countershading,
a little reminiscent of a speckled trout, is plausible and looks great. It
resembles Charles R. Knight’s classic painting of the critter. As in most Dunk models, the artist set the rounded
dorsal fin well back on the body. The
mouth is open, as is the law for all Dunk models (why make them if you don’t
show off God’s own staple remover)? The
biting plates and head look great, although the sclerotic rings might have been
set half-a-millimeter deeper.
There comes a point in any Dunk modeler’s life where he or
she must make judgement calls, and some of the ones on display here are
especially interesting. The striations
or folds on the body, indicating the allowance for movement by the skin, are
carried considerably further back (all the way to the region of the anal fin),
than in most Dunks. Indeed, most models either show these only at the cephalic joint
(as with the with CollectA) or not at all. No one has enough information to say “this
is what Dunk skin looks like," so let's accept it as a maybe. The striations are sculpted,
as every bit of this model (such as the fin rays) is, with precision. This Dunk has none of the pebbly-osteoderm-laden appearance of the CollectA or Schleich types, and
no hint of the very large scutes on the Schleich model (the online information for a seller of that Dunk says, "authenticated model by the paleontologists of the Museum of Natural History," but I really would
like to ask that artist about the scutes).
The paired fins show the “wrists” reaching out further from
the body than in all the other models I have.
There are illustrations of D. terrelli showing it this way, but they are
definitely in the minority. However, we don’t have a Dunk fin, nor the cartiliginous skeleton of one, nor the outline of one, and some
articles describe the pectoral fins as stenobasal (narrow based), so again the choice is reasonable.
The pectoral fins are set a bit further back than the CollectA artist chose to place
them.
On the tail, I do have strong opinions. I’ve never liked the
symmetrical or almost-symmetrical eel-like tail idea: it just doesn’t seem to
have enough surface area for the speed and maneuverability this heavily armored
predator needed to catch prey like sharks. The most recent paper on this
plumped for a more heteroceral tail, which I think more likely to be
correct. But we don’t KNOW this for
sure, and some specialists still think this type of model is accurate. You
could say the tail here is eel-like with just enough asymmetry to hint Dunk evolution might have
started on the path to a more prominent upper lobe when the Frasnian-Famennian
extinction event punched the arthrodires in their armored noses and the
Hangenberg event left them on the bone heap of history. I am also not a hydrodynamicist, but I know
something of aerodynamics, so I’m big on control surfaces, given that the fins
and tail had to propel/maneuver a head and forebody that by itself could weigh
a ton.
The bottom line is that I don’t think anything, except perhaps
the tail, is wrong with this Dunk, and again it’s just gorgeous. Artists and scientists have many different
interpretations of the species’ body plan and appearance, and unless we find
impression fossils of something closer to the Dunk than its ubiquitously-cited
little cousin Coccosteus, it’s going to stay that way. You might say it's now my favorite small model: the Safari Dunk is lovely, too, but this has more texture, and I think the dorsal armor on the Safari goes a little too far back, to where it might impede vertical movement.) This is a great toy and
display model, and, selling at only $11.95 on Amazon, a major addition to
anyone’s lineup.
Photos by Matt Bille, Mojo and CollectA Dunkleosteus
(use of Steve Brusatte's superb book on dinosaurs is meant as a homage and is not an endorsement)
(use of Steve Brusatte's superb book on dinosaurs is meant as a homage and is not an endorsement)
References:
Lauren Cole Sallana and Michael I. Coatesa,”End-Devonian
extinction and a bottleneck in the early evolution of modern jawed vertebrates,”
PNAS,
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/22/10131
Neil Shubin, et. al., “The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae
and the origin of the tetrapod limb,” 2006, Nature
volume 440, pages 764–771
Zerina Johanson, “Vascularization of the osteostracan and
antiarch (Placodermi) pectoral fin: similarities, and implications for
placoderm relationships,” Lethaia, 02
January 2007, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.2002.tb00077
No comments:
Post a Comment