Saichania is such a novel pick for a main dinosaur, as you said. The other five were pretty much household names at the time.

@dudotolivier6363

4 ай бұрын

It's still to this day one of Dinosaurs King biggest and weirdest fact that they use a less iconic and know taxa as one of the main recurrents dinosaurs. It's still unknown and unclear to this day, as fat I'm aware, why people behind the scenes of the anime have chosed this animal instead of Ankylosaurus. Not that was bad to display a more obscure taxa put forward on the scene to light, in itself it's very appreciable. But that made at the end just the animal itself a bit off and feeling out of place in some extents. Given all the others 5 dinosaurs are top apex stars species, while it being mostly a foreign at this point (back then and still today btw), when you look at the whole group, it is already spot on at the first second and your eyes and focus go first at it. You directly spot it and remain focus on it so justly it is apart of the others for this reason. And the fact that the only real notable thing about it or at all on it over the whole anime and franchise is that justly it's the sole member to not being a icone specie is kind of sad too. Because existing and remembered only for being that in definitive. And that really made in final the entire team just bit off, weird, feel incomplete, out of place and just... wrong. I like too a lot Tank and Sachainia as a species, but fairly, I would have prefered that they chosed a typical Ankylosaurus instead. Seem more suited and logic for me. And match more with the rest of the team.

@franky.378

4 ай бұрын

Never heard of this one before but it is indeed beautiful

@Spiny_21

2 ай бұрын

Dinosaur King is the only reason I knew Saichania was a dinosaur at a young age and I find it really interesting that in season one they chose many obscure dinosaurs like Fukuisaurus, Megaraptor, Rajasaurus, Pawpawsaurus, etc

@evodolka

2 ай бұрын

I think at the time Carnotaurus was still a bit obscure, like its last big break was the Disney film, which went a more kaiju like right, so at the time a slender Carnotaurus was rather new to most folks

If there’s 1 thing Dinosaur King does well are the color schemes

@marcopohl4875

4 ай бұрын

T-Rex is, and will always be, red in my mind!

@superxavxii421

3 ай бұрын

True. I like when people make dinosaurs that have exotic colors. One of my favorite examples that aren't from DK are the Corythasaurus in Dinodan or Allosaurus in Dinosaur train.

@Arl0r1Tabadonware

2 ай бұрын

​@@marcopohl4875well he wasnt lol

@ratau8239

2 ай бұрын

It and Dinosaur Train had colour schemes so unreal that worked well. An example for both being Hot-Pink Pawpawsauruses and Tie-Dye Dreadnoughtuses

@Spiny_21

2 ай бұрын

@@Arl0r1Tabadonware well yes and no since Paleontologists haven’t found any Melanosomes of the tyrannosaurus but red seems to be fairly common in modern avians so it might have but it most likely wasnt

Glad an underrated dinosaur like Saichania was able to be one of the main 6 dinosaurs instead of Ankylosaurus. I never heard of Saichania until I watched Dinosaur King.

With my current project I have a newfound appreciation for Pinacosaurus. Cool to see how DK highlighted so many obscure species.

We really don’t have enough dinosaur king discussion keep it up king

16:04 worth mentioning the current consensus is that the "half-ring" neck osteoderms common in ankylosaurs would not have been fully visible externally, instead the protrusions would be erupted and covered in keratin, whilst the rest of the osteoderm ring was subdermal and would have been covered by skin integument. The way the neck rings of Panoplosaurus are reconstructed here is actually the correct way to restore them!

the fact all the Tyreophorans were earth type was really cool, loved their use of crystals too, felt like they were the ADVANCED earth attacks i do wish they had more sand attacks though, show more variation

One thing i was hoping youd discuss is the prescence of cheeks in both the lightning dinosaurs from last video and the earth dinosaurs here. The main function of cheeks in an animal is to ensure food remains in the mouth while chewing. Since herbivorous lizards like iguanas are able to cope just fine with their immobile lips, its unlikely any herbivorous dinosaurs would need cheeks. If they did have cheeks, theyd likely extend much firther back in the jaw, not at all how theyre portdayed in Dinosaur King. Here, the cheeks of all the herbivorous dinosaurs extend all the way to their beaks, in an arrangement that looks very mammal-like. The only reason we mammals have cheeks that extend so far forward on our jaws is that we need to be able to suckle milk, something dinosaurs didnt need to do. Its therefore much more likely that the ornithischians (lightning, earth and grass dinosaurs) either didnt have cheeks, or had some cheek-adjacent structure much further back in the mouth than is portrayed in Dinosaur King Just a little something i wanted to add :) Greag video btw, its great to see people talking about Dinosaur King again!

@HodgePodge7

4 ай бұрын

That genuinely completely slipped my mind! I should bring it up when I get around to the other Ornithischian Dinosaurs

@dudotolivier6363

4 ай бұрын

​@@HodgePodge7A thing in this video that you should maybe take more care, and that apply for all others ones to come, is to put reservations on the scientifics papers claiming such drastic taxonomy and instead and really put forward and use conditional time by saying that what the paper share or give is a possibility, a suggestion. NOT by any means a definitive awnser or proof that what it say/bring to us is de facto and without question about such nature and state of such group of extinct animals. Nodosauridae are actually always valid as a family (for quite a plenty of good reasons) and the scientific paper from 2023 being dubious on several aspects and want to impose/claim what is actually rather impossible to claim definitively. I made a comment about why in the comments section of this video, that you likely don't take knowledge of it due to being quite long. You should read it. It's not because a single paper can appearing through time and even if it is the most recent that what it bring and said about its subject is the reality of it. Because plenty of papers can be made and released about the same topic and yet having all VERY opposite and contradicted views. So, advice, use conditional and steps back in your videos instead of just repeating like a parrot (just an expression here) what papers said about such clades. Because if another paper fall and debunk the previous one, this video will ultimatly become outdated already and giving missinformations. Aside, enjoyable vid as always.

@thewingedporpoise

4 ай бұрын

​@@dudotolivier63631. Don't put random replies on other people's comments just to get attention. I will now shoot myself in the foot by continuing. 2. I went and actually read the paper, it has every right to be confident about a paraphyletic nodosauridae. Of the two trees that have a nodosauridae, one is unweighted parsimony, the other is the one where nodosauridae was specifically preserved. I trust the well charactered and thorough analysis by respected researchers. Though the fact they couldn't include Stegorous does make the refutation of parankylosauria less strong. 3. I'm pretty sure there's been no stir in response to it because nodosauridae seemed honestly ripe for paraphyly. 4. In response to the actual comment this is a chain on, Panoplosaurus might imply fairly significant cheeks. The amount of cheek is also debated, and especially with the complex chewing in derived ornithopods, they would likely have more cheeks.

@dudotolivier6363

4 ай бұрын

@@thewingedporpoise What are you talking about ?! 1) I didn't put a random comment, and to get the attention at all. Where and why did you think about that, this way ?! It was just a comment directed toward HodgePodge, because replying directly to a comment made by the owner of the channel itself increase the chances to it taking knowledge of the reply (which sadly don't happen, but it's things which happen). Was to just advice him to have more steps back about papers and infos, especially the lastiest, which come and putting forward more often nuances. I order to made its video to be less affected by time and outdated informations. Because I'm actually extremely right regarding the point to not just repeat words by words results of the lastiest papaer about a extinct animal or family as it's that was the definitive nature of it. And that several papers contradicting each others can fall often. See Euchambersia with its potential venom ability or Spinosaurus numerous aspects of life and anatomy, as primes examples. Also, why shooting you in the foot ? There no reasons to do that. 2 and 3) I also myself read the paper, and I never said I was against that Nodosaurs are now 3 families instead of a single one and now an order regrouping both of them (Nodosauria seem a pretty decent thing I have anything against it). I was about one of these 3 families precisely, the type one, the family Nodosauridae and its (irrelevant) renaming that I concentrate my reservations and said that there was doubious elements. What happen was JUST removing several genera out of Nodosauridae to made up the 2 new families, which were both subfamilies until recently, and the remaining genera that weren't touch or revoved still inside it and among them the type genus and namesake of the family, Nodosaurus. (I will not question the choice to rise 2 subfamilies into apart families, because that have happened for example to the Amebelotontidae which were previousely in Gomphoteriidae, and the latter group wasn't renamed. And also, the aspect that Nodosauridae is containing only 3 genera too isn't a problem either). Why renaming the family/group if, one, the namesake genus is still inside it (we aren't in a case like the Hadrosaurinae subfamily of the Hadrosauridae which must have been renamed because the namesake, Hadrosaurus, was found to be outside the subfamily, being a basal hadrosaur not belonging to either of the two subfamily of the family, giving as a result the name Saurolophinae in replacement), and, two, is still by current scientific standards a valid taxa (we aren't in a Brontotheriidae, Troodontidae or Ceratopsidae case were the namesake genus was find to be another taxa and a junior synonym or either a potentially dubious genus, leading to the relevance to rename the family in question). There just no reasons to rename Nodosauridae into Panoplosauridae, especially since Nodosaurus was named earlier than Panoplosaurus, in 1889 against 1919 for the former, so Nodosaurus take priority. Aside, I didn't mention Stegouros (not Stegorous) and the Parankylosaurs and didn't put arguments against their existence as a group of Ankylosaurs. Why did you mention them ? Because there no reasons. 4. I didn't mention or take part in any way about the cheeks comment of thephilosoraptor8565's comment and its very relevant comment which I find neat btw didn't focus on Panoplosaurus either but ornithopods dinosaurs as a whole.

@thewingedporpoise

4 ай бұрын

@@dudotolivier6363 1. As far as I am aware it doesn't particularly make the comment more likely to be seen, and it is still probably rude to take over the original poster's replies with your point just because the channel replied. I am shooting MYSELF in the foot by replying and undercutting my point about how you shouldn't do it. You are right about understanding science as more consensus and new ideas being put forward, but in this case it's not fair to this paper. Since a new paper can be basically accepted and reasonable. 2/3. Okay I did consider this as an option, but it doesn't mean the paper is defunct. The reason it was renamed is because what could now be called nodosauridae is fundamentally different. And there's uncertainty about the relationships between the families in ankylosauria, which would make the original definition unclear. Also Nodosaurus is not a great fossil. One might argue it's an aesthetic choice, but I think it is more confusing to have a name means either one of four families of ankylosaurians or one half of a split in ankylosaurians. The name nodosauridae wasn't reused because it's already established as meaning something different. I just wanted to say a thing about parankylosauria as it was mentioned in the video. Also yay for you I misspelled Stegouros. 4. I didn't want to write a second comment response to the original post.

Are you planning on giving the "Move Card Dinosaurs" their own separate video? It just seems like a good idea because not all of them have a specific element. 🦕

DK's Stegosaurus is still my favorite rendition of the species. These colors are just too beautiful.

Dinosaur King was my favourite show when I was a kid, and I love that it stand accurate for most of the dinosaurs it portraits

I remember how Sauropelta was my first card I ever got back in the day with the arcade and a few years later Euplocephalus became my strongest/most used card to this day Both are now in my top 10 favourite dinosaurs because of this franchise, safe to say I’m very nostalgic for these guys. Definitely an Earth main

The Dinosaur King Stegosaurus is probably one of my favourite designs. It's my favourite dinosaur with my favourite colours.

@evodolka

2 ай бұрын

Which one? There are 2 colour options to pick

Loving this new resurgence of Dinosaur King popularity on the internet, that show was my favorite growing up. Are you going to cover the move card dinosaurs as well? There's a lot from very different dinosaur families, and they aren't restricted to elements per se

Now all I see about Tank in the show is oversized Saichania, also the dinosaur king Stegosaurus seems to be more in the size of Stegosaurus Ungulatus

Ooo I like how instead of doing it in order you decided to do the Earth dinosaurs next I hope you do the Water dinosaurs cause there one of my favorite groups

I've just become totally addicted to this channel! Your analysis is super calming, you're not overly/unnecessarily harsh about inaccuracies and I've been binging all your Walking With videos.

I love the fact that Dinosaur King designs largely hold up to the present pretty darn well. Japans love of dinosaurs and staying up to date (something the West seems to be slow on) especially a keen intrest on feathered dinosaurs, along with the stirking colour schemes and a diversity of species both popular and obscure, Dinosaur King is Id argue one of the best pieces of dinosaur media in terms of how well they hold up. Tho I would argue that Stegosaurs holds up even better than you sugested, given that Sophie as mentioned is a sub adult, while reconstructions of adults are more similar to the Dinosaur King one, abit even more boxy looking.

How Accurate are Dinosaur King's "FIRE" Dinosaurs ? next please.

I'm so hyped for this series!! Love your work!

I appreciate your use of the Ratchet & Clank ost I downloaded the whole thing to use in my own video and now I realize a lot of KZreadrs I watch use it. I can now never unhear it and I am now always distracted by it. Loved the video by the way.

I love how, while still having issues, the ceratopsians and thyreophorea dinosaurs feet are more accurate than in a lot of different media, which just give them elephant feet

Finally someone talking about Dinosaur king, subscribed

2:07 actually the shoulder spikes i believe are very rare, and only positively known from Kentrosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus, the former still I believe has questions on if they might be on the hips as previously suggested, but I'm not up to date on that. There are apparently shoulder spines known from the formation of Tuojiangosaurus, but they're not connected to any of the many stegosaurs that come from there an additional note when talking about Saichania, but a lot of ankylosaurines are reconstructed with armor on their forelimbs, including Ankylosaurus

More Dinosaur King also Some Dinosaurs and pterosaurs was seen in documentaries

Amazing video as always!! 🤩

Hot damn, it's been ages since Dinosaur king in my memory

Dinosaur King is awesome! Nice to see the series getting some love

When the game is fully released, would you consider doing accuracy videos on Prehistoric Kingdom's animals?

off topic who else wish that Dinosaur King had a Mosasaurus.

@MagicDomainGodzillaIsNotCanon

4 ай бұрын

That would be sick

@gladiolus5377

3 ай бұрын

Same. Mosasaurs were the only iconic marine reptiles to not be represented in Dinosaur King.

@evodolka

2 ай бұрын

Have it be 1of the water summons

@evodolka

2 ай бұрын

​@@gladiolus5377I only recall a plesiosaur and ichthyosaur, was there a Pliosaur?

@gladiolus5377

2 ай бұрын

@@evodolka Nope. The only marine reptiles in Dinosaur King were Futabasaurus, Ophtalmosaurus and Muraenosaurus (which never appeared in the anime).

As others have pointed out, there are Move Card Dinosaurs that belong only to the Normal Attribute. Will they get their own video, will this video have the Grass and Water Move Card dinosaurs/pterosaurs as well or will they be in their main Attributes' videos, or will Normal and Secret be combined? And as a Dinosaur King expert, I have to ask about Microraptor, which never properly appeared in any elemental capacity though was meant to be part of an unreleased Normal Move, just in case you hadn't added it to your list.

Hey i really liked the video but poposaurus is missing maybe you planned to present it in another video beause it's not really an earrth dinosaur even if he is a tyreophora's dino and neither really a fire's dinosaur since it's not a theropod's dino so are you planning to present move card's introduced dino in a separated video?

Is weird that I almost thought you were the guy from Jurassic collectibles

Great video I love dinosaur king

Love this series.

Don't know if you will ever read this comment, but I will say it noneless what I want to share : 1) About the Ankylosaurs order taxonomy, actually, the 2023 paper must still be accepted by the scientific community and just don't yet take effect as a result (as far I'm aware). It's was published and suggested such (very dubious) classication, but still isn't yet proved and accepted in a general consensus that what it suggest is actually the case. So actually, Nodosauridae still as I writte these lines at 1st March 2024 still valid as a family and term, and the proposes families (one of which being not even recevable as a name by CINZ naming golden rule) are just still subfamilies only. As also you can't really claim or said that they each are apart to each others, when all Nodosaurid as a whole are quite very, very generic and similar in shapes in everything. Barely differents from ones each others. 2) Nodosaurus still the namesake of its family and isn't a former at something, for one the uppermentioned reason I just explain, and also because it's still a valid genus even how poor in remains and knowledge about it it is. Even if the 2023 paper was right and that there indeed 3 families of these Ankylosaurs, basically, it just removing taxa from Nodosauridae to the others two and leaving only the few remaining taxa which don't belong to the two extra families and are indeed members of the initial one. Nothing more. So there no reasons to rename Nodosauridae into Panoplosauridae. Especially if Nodisaurus, the base and namesake of the family and the first Nodisaurs species ever named before all others, is still member of it. Only if it was removed as well, and not put in the 2 others family the initial one can be renamed. As you can't name a group from a given animal if the latter isn't part of it. (For example, one of the subfamily or tribe of Hadrosaurs was named from Hadrosaurus, but the latter was found to be more basal and so outside the lineage, and this latter had to be renamed as an effect. But here, we speak about Subfamilies and tribes, pretty facultative and low relevant ranks, don't think this stuff apply to an as important rank that is the family one). Panoplosauridae as a name is in addition not recevable, as it don't respect the nomenclature rules. The golden rule is that, when you give a name to a animal or family, it the oldest who take priority and all others are junior synonyms. For example, for some reasons Brontotherium was renamed Megacerops because we found that this name was used before the former one, and yet, the family hosting the animal is still call Brontotheridae instead of Megaceropsidae (or something like that). So, not only the family Nodosauridae have still (enough) members genera to even still exist, and still possess inside it its own namesake, but also was named/coined before all others names that people can have gived to it since its creation, making it priority before these others ones. Also, an entire group or clade can be based and called from a poorly known taxa. Such Troodontid or Ceratopsian, to which their respective namesake are only know from one to very scarce remains. Even scarcer than Nodosaurus. On top of that, even if the 2023 paper was valid, not only Nodosauridae would remain valid, but the three families being part of a (sub)class/group that would be called "Nodosaurian". As the three families still clearly fit into a same basket anyway.

please do the water dinosaurs next, i think they had the most variety of creatures

Can you do water type next

@HodgePodge7 Can you do the Water Dinosaurs?

Did not expect Earth Dinos to be next. Was expecting to go in the order of Lightning-Wind-Grass-Fire-Water-Earth-Secret. Also: 1:55 might’ve been unintentional, but that is clearly a Lexovisaurus to the left. You can tell because the patterns match more than with Toujiangosaurus.

This is pretty neat, might check out anime

5:27 It’s funny to me that the DK Dacentrurus looks more like Miragaia.

this recommended in 1AM,like'd.

nice

I loved dinasour king I had some cards and a mystery card and I believe some series

Are you excited for dinosaurs empire

Tank looks like anguirus from kaijuverse

I disagree about Ankylosaurus--how someone make judgement of the interpretation when the real animal lacks all but one appendage (the tail club) from post-cranial remains? Dinosaur King's Ankylosaurus subjectively might not represent the best looking depiction for some but it's still a great depiction for the time.

Earth was always the coolest type behind water !

It's a show for kids, they only need to have the name and skeletal builds of the dinosaurs right. Most small dinosaurs like raptors had feathers but they seem cooler all reptilian-like instead of bird-like so that's how their often portraited. Raptors had feathers, deal with it 😎

I'm sorry, but I will always disrespect Gigantspinosaurus. Such a cool dinosaur with a terrible name Giant Spined Lizard? That's basically Spinosaurus, who was discovered first?

Nostalgia

Where are Pawpawsaurus and Minmi?

Dinosaur king did have good models not gonna lie

It's a vare old film so it makes sense that it doesn't look exact.

Overall, they are very grounded in reality.

Acktually all reconstructions in ancient ruler:kyoryu king are better than disney's fantasia.

0p 15:19

absolute nostalgia blast hitting me in the face like a shotgun shot