It's a MOTHERFUCKING KENTROSAURUSSSSSSSSS

i clicked on the video because that kentro was there and that line is very underrated

That sure is a possibility. Although even old-style iguanodon looked much better than that monstrosity.

@@etanguy yeah, old iguanodon at least played the part of a reptile. That kind of looked like some sort of anthropomorphic fever dream creation

Ye me too

The only thing i see in the third one is a yellow Godzilla.

the teeth look more flat than sharp

Haha, I guess that is the only thing going for it since everything else is pretty bad.

Yeah, kentrosaurus seems to be the consensus here, although with some missing or altered details.

That would make me very sad :(

I remember them being very fun when I was younger. Honestly, still are.

Good thing you don't have me as an English teacher ;)

i have some dilophosaurus toys that dont have frills but they have that upright stance of the 60s dinosaurs

Yeah I don’t really like how they did the Kentrosaurus but imaginext definitely makes good toys

I’ve had that exact same conversation with one of my friends lol.

And also that humanoid dinosaur looking thing looks traumatized it looks like it’s been through the war

Possibly, but I think abomination is a better term to use for that “dinosaur”

@@etanguy true

The first one does resemble a Kentrosaurus, and was marketed as one, but there are some details that make me question why it was marketed in that way other than the fact that Kentrosaurus was more popular than other related dinosaurs. The toy lacks shoulder spikes and it only has spikes along its back instead of a combination of spikes and plates that fossilized specimens of Kentrosaurus have. Because the array of spikes along the back does not really resemble Kentrosaurus spikes, I chose Chungkingosaurus and Huayangosaurus as possibilities for that toy because I thought their dorsal spikes looked closer to the toy's spikes.

I thought it was a tojiangosaurus

@@DinoLord984 Me too because Tuojiangosaurus had a more pointed back plates.

Whether it is supposed to be a rex or an Iguanadon, it does an awful job resembling either. It's kind of like a combination of the two, in my opinion.

@@etanguy you’re right ! I grew up with dinosaur toys like this and they used to “Rex-ify” all these dinosaur toys. Even their herbivores had Rex teeth 🤦🏻‍♂️

True

The thagomizers on the toy do look very similar to Miragaia's thagomizers. Also, Miragaia is quite an interesting dinosaur. What is most notable about it is that it had 17 vertebrae just in the neck, which is more than most sauropods.

An animal with the spike and plate arrangement seen on the toy does not exist. I was quite nitpicky with it while researching and comparing the toy to other Stegosauria fossils. The toy is supposed to be a Kentrosaurus but personally, I disagree with the labeling.

It definitely does resemble Kentrosaurus. I avoided mentioning it because Kentrosaurus has a combination of spikes and plates along the spine while the toy only has spikes (granted, it does have two plates on the neck). It also lacks the large shoulder spike found on Kentrosaurus. Nevertheless, I think identifying it as Kentrosaurus makes total sense.

And the one you thought was a t.rex I think is actually an iguanodon

I've definitely heard that the dilos in Jurassic Park are juvenile, so I'm hoping dominion will scale them up a bit.

@@etanguy me to

Not sure where you found the toy labeled as Guanlong, that is incorrect. If you look up Schleich Dilophosaurus you will find the toy I have. Guanlong was a proceratosaurid with a single crest and no subnarial gap. The two species may look similar but the number of crests in the big giveaway that my toy is a Dilophosaurus (although Dilophosaurus was not the only dinosaur with two crests as a few viewers have informed me. It is the most popular dinosaur with two crests though, so when you see a dinosaur with two crests in pop culture, it will most likely be Dilophosaurus).

Thank you. Believe it or not, I had about 28 subscribers when this video was posted.

@@etanguy just by that thumbnail you gotta have 69,420 subscribers

@@SKIBIDISIGMARIZZ112 Haha, maybe someday.

Haha, about that... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/os6GhNpo1qu7dHU.html

No, it is an Imaginext toy.

haha, might as well be.

Yes, you are right with respect to pronation and supination occurring in the forearm, specifically the distal radioulnar joint (closest to the wrist) and the proximal radioulnar joining (farthest from the wrist, near the elbow), allowing the rotational movements to be possible. However, the wrist itself is much more complex than a hinge joint. Your knee is an excellent example of a hinge joint, which only moves in one plane. Your wrist cannot only move up and down (extension and flexion) but also side to side (radial and ulnar deviation). In some definitions of the wrist (apparently there are multiple), the distal radioulnar joint is included to reflect the full range of motion of the wrist. Keep in mind that this is for human anatomy. Dinosaur anatomy is different, so their range of motion differs as well. They lacked specific articulated bone structures to allow for the ulna and radius to cross (I'm not sure about the specifics of the articulations, which may differ from species to species). If you would like to look into the mobility of the forelimbs of Dilophosaurus (it just happened to be the paper that I found, I didn't specifically look for Dilophosaurus), then check out this paper. It has a lot in it but sheds some light on how the wrists of Dilophosaurus moved. pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5b31/50c50bac23dae2a3fd785a734a63bebbc371.pdf Stay curious! :)

@@etanguy I wasn’t thinking about wrists moving side to side, I just mean that the hand rotation involves much more then the wrist. You couldn’t look at just that joint and know for sure. (Like how the knee is a hinge but you lower leg has much more range of motion)

@@HunterPhenomMakoy I see what you mean. The wrist as a whole isn't a singular joint but a combination of many different joints and bones. There are also a lot of muscles involved in rotating the wrist that are not anywhere near it such as the bicep. So yes, if for example all we had were the carpal bones then the full range of motion of the hand and wrist could not be determined without more evidence.

I think I had around 30 when I made this video. Sometimes it takes a bit for the algorithm to do its magic.

Thank you!!!