Nearly a decade ago now, 2017 was a very exciting year for ankylosaur paleontology, bringing with it two incredible newly named fossils. The first of these to be named was the ankylosaurid Zuul crurivastator, and the review’s subject matter, described by Victoria Arbour and David Evans. The second of these was the nodosaurid Borealopelta markmitchelli, named by Brown et al. Both were well preserved fossil mummies with near complete skeletons and extensive skin material, largely in situ, a rarity among fossils. The excitement over both of these finds perhaps meant that it was inevitable that they would get their due on the toy market, and that has indeed been the case. Of particular relevance here, PNSO released figures of both, with Borealopelta releasing in 2020, and Zuul joining the line a few years later in 2023.
Moving focus to Zuul crurivastator, as it is the review’s subject after all, I imagine most readers are (hopefully) familiar with the 1984 Ghostbusters film, where the animal gets its genus namesake from, as the skull of the fossil does bare some resemblance to the terror dogs from the film. Of course one of those beasts was also named Zuul. Dan Aykroyd, who both starred in the film and co-wrote it, gave his blessing for the name. He even helped introduce it. The species name on the other hand means “Destroyer of Shins” in Latin, in reference to the tail club, typically depicted and thought to be a defensive weapon against predators. In a twist of irony here, as a 2022 paper from Victoria Arbour, Lindsay Zanno, and David Evans, revealed Zuul was also the first ankylosaur to preserve evidence of intraspecific combat, revealing another use of this weapon, if not the primary one. Though the idea had floated around prior, this was the first time there was physical evidence supporting this usage of the tail club. When Zuul was named in 2017, only the head and tail were prepared. After years of work from Amelia Madill and her team at the Research Casting International, the body was then described in the 2022 paper, detailing just how extensively preserved the body was beyond the head and tail, including the injuries this individual had sustained.
Amazon ad:
Zuul crurivastator was discovered in the Coal Ridge Member of the Judith River Formation, approximately 76.2 to 75.2 million years ago, in what is now Montana, US. The Coal Ridge Member is the later upper half of the Judith River Formation. Other fauna Zuul may have lived alongside includes the hadrosaurid Corythosaurus, ceratopsians Furcatoceratops, and Mercuriceratops, and tyrannosaurids Daspletosaurus, and Gorgosaurus. Meanwhile other fauna of this formation comes from the earlier lower McClelland Ferry Member, including ceratopsians Lokiceratops, Medusaceratops, and Spiclypeus, and hadrosaurids Brachylophosaurus, and Probrachylophosaurus. In addition to those, Zuul was directly discovered near a tyrannosaurid skeleton (perhaps Gorgosaurus), while work was being done on the latter, and other fauna (including material from turtles, other dinosaurs like hadrosaurids, a ceratopsian, an ornithomimid, crocodilyforms, and invertebrates) and plants were found within the same quarry.
PNSO has made a wonderful little figure of this animal, named Cayden this time around, although I do think there are a few minor faults, some anatomical, and some from the paint application. As is typical for a figure in the Prehistoric Animal Models series, the figure comes with a little poster (though instead of artwork, this time it is of the figure in front of a backdrop), and a booklet with a little story and info on the animal. Before doing a deep dive on the figure’s details, anatomy, and paint, I will first get some of the basics out of the way. It is posed on the move, and mouth agape. The general body proportions do seem to be a little off. Most notably the body does not appear to be wide enough, particularly at the hips and near the base of the tail. The rest of the proportions seem to be fine however. I must also mention that the figure is rather small in size, especially when compared to their prior ankylosaurs, but this may in fact be a positive. This figure measures roughly around 16.51 cm (6.5 inches) to 17.15 (6.75 inches) long, and about 17.78 cm (7 inches) long with the tail straightened out. Zuul is estimated to be 6 meters long, which would put this figure at about 1/34 scale roughly based on the latter measurement (although it does not account for the curvature of the neck on the figure), close to the desirable 1/35 scale.
Starting from the head, something about the shape might initially look off when comparing it directly to the fossil material, which is distinctively much flatter. However it is worth noting there was some taphonomic deformation to the fossil material, so perhaps PNSO’s restoration here with a sloping skull may be within reason. Or perhaps it should be flatter instead. The shape and placement of the horns from the top and side view do appear to be correct, after accounting for the deformation of the fossil material. The first pair is at the back of the skull, otherwise known as the squamosal horns. The second pair is below these, which are the quadratojugal horns. In front of the squamosal horns is a pair of bony “eyebrows” (formed by the anterior supraorbital caputegulum, and the posterior supraorbital caputegulum). The rest of the texture on the top of the head (the various bits of caputegulae) is a largely decent recreation of the general shape and arrangement seen in the fossil material, although it is unfortunately not depicted as overlapping (imbricated), which is one of the autapomorphies, or key diagnostic features of this animal. Perhaps due to the small size of the figure, particularly on the head, it may not have been feasible to implement properly (unless it was sculpted digitally). The shape of the head from a top down view also seems to generally match the broad shape of the fossil material, though with some aspects altered to correct for the taphonomic deformation. The lower jaw has two pairs of smaller horns or osteoderms on them, one near the back of the jaw, with a smaller one nearest to the beak, which appears to be correct. The first cervical half ring, or the neck osteoderms, is also accounted for, with three pairs. The second cervical half ring appears to be restored off of the ROM’s skeletal mount, if not the fossil material itself as well. There are three pairs of osteoderms present here as well, and the middle pair is blade-like in shape. Though I cannot tell if it is present on the sculpt, it is worth noting that the holotype of Zuul did preserve with ossicles along the throat like seen in Stegosaurus and Panoplosaurus.
Moving down to the body, the osteoderms and skin texture representative of the large scales preserved on the back, generally seems reflective of the fossil material for the most part. However it does seem there is a bit of deviation and speculation involved, which considering the nature of some parts of the fossil, was perhaps a necessity. This is most apparent with the rows of osteoderms on the sides, which have had some reconstruction work done in restoring their shape, due to the nature of the fossil material. Without getting into the specifics of it though, I think the sculpt is a largely rigorous reconstruction particularly when it comes to the shape, placement, and perhaps also the total count of osteoderms, at least those directly on the backside. I dare say that PNSO’s might be the most informed option on the market currently when it comes to this aspect. However there is at least one drawback for, which is the lack of the distinctive pathologies on the hip osteoderms indicative of intraspecific combat. Considering how that was the main focal point of the 2022 paper, I’m surprised PNSO opted to do otherwise, when their 2021 Parasaurolophus includes the unique pathology (the V shaped notch) of the P. walkeri holotype specimen. Before moving onto the tail, it is worth a brief mention that Zuul largely lacks material from its limbs, and what is present appears to have been restored off of other ankylosaurs. In PNSO’s video explaining the creation of the figure, Zhao Chuang mentioned referencing ankylosaurs like Pinacosaurus and Kunbarrasaurus, and the more basal thyreophorans such as Scelidosaurus. It is also explained in the video that the large scales on the back of the fossil transition to being smaller on the sides, being around 1 cm in size or smaller, hence why it appears to be smoother in this area on the figure, at least at a quick glance. Upon closer inspection there is certainly a surprising amount of fine detail work present, particularly further down along the belly, depicted with grid-like rows of scales.
As far as the tail goes, this area also seems to be largely informed and reconstructed based upon the fossil material, with at least one notable exception. Starting from the base of the tail are four pairs of large spike-like osteoderms. Following those are three more smaller pairs, with an interesting shape, as seen on the fossil material, and another tiny pair prior to the tail. There is also another row of osteoderms on the underside of the tail, but I’m not sure what the basis for their inclusion is, outside of speculation. In the PNSO video it was stated that they were based on Pinacosaurus and other ankylosaurs. At worst they may be egregious when comparing the tail to other reconstructions such as from Danielle Dufault, Henry Sharpe, or even Andrey Atuchin recently. This also includes the ROM’s skeleton mount, and the info within the 2017 paper as well. Now as far as the tail club goes, this is the major exception to this area. Like the lack of battle damaged osteoderms, the asymmetrical tail club (consisting of two major and two minor osteoderms, in which the left major osteoderm is the largest) has been restored as symmetrical. For another example that makes matters inconsistent with their other offerings, their Lokiceratops is sculpted with the asymmetry (in regards to its frill ornamentation), as it has been preserved in the fossil material. To be frank, this was one of my favorite aspects of the lone specimen we have, so I wish it was included on this figure. The asymmetry could even be explained as a potential example of handedness, in which the animal was favoring the left side of the tail club (per the Supplementary Information 1 document from the 2022 paper). That said what is present is still informed by the fossil material. The club when viewed from the side is appropriately flattened, and ignoring the symmetrical pair of large osteoderms, otherwise has the general shape and size of the remaining osteoderms down.
As far as the paint goes, it is rather simple. The eyes are painted with just black specks which is unfortunate as even the smaller Kaiyodo figure has more life to the eyes. The osteoderms are painted a simple rusty orange color with no other detailing, and some of the paint has bled over onto the surrounding scales, creating a somewhat sloppy end result. This is particularly of note on the tail club, giving the illusion of an asymmetrical club. The rest of the body, with the exception of the underside for the most part, appears to have been airbrushed with a dark color. The rest of the underside is a cream color. The scales do at least have some variation with some being darker and some lighter. I do think the color scheme itself is fine, but I do find it unfortunate the paint was not handled better, and I’m glad I got mine on sale, if at least in this regard (this was also an issue with their prior Borealopelta as well, taking a steep hit compared from the images of the prototype, though I don’t think this is as egregious this time around).
Overall I can certainly recommend this little figure. I mean there’s only a handful of options for Zuul out there (from Safari Ltd, and Kaiyodo, as seen in some of the above included images), and this one definitely wins on the sculpt front and overall research put into recreating it here, even if there’s a few issues here and there with the anatomy. It’s also the only option that isn’t mostly green, and based off the artwork Danielle Dufault did (not that I am particularly opposed to that). The sculpt work in particular is truly incredible, down to some of the finest details (such as those belly scales), and I mean just look at that face, it is absolutely adorable looking. The paintwork is a bit of a downer though, no way around that, so if that bothers you I would certainly recommend picking it up on sale if at all possible.
All articles on the Dinosaur Toy Blog are written without the use of ‘AI’
Trending Products
