Last Thing on Toroceratops

Okay, look, it's clear that I'm not the BEST guy to go to when it comes to this subject. I don't have the same access to primary literature that many of you do, I certainly haven't seen many actual specimens of Triceratops OR Torosaurus, my knowledge of stratigraphy is poor, and bone histeology is still very new to me.

I'm not trying to overturn anybody or make a serious case against Scannella and/or Horner. I'm not trying to bogart anybody's future or current research. I'm sorry if I've hit any nerves or didn't read the right papers...well enough.

That said, on morphological grounds alone, I think that known specimens of Torosaurus differ significantly from known specimens of Triceratops, either T. prorsus or T. horridus (although T. horridus looks a bit more like Torosaurus). Several things lack decent explaination. Among them:

Why don't any specimens of Torosaurs have "adult" nasal horn morphology of Triceratops? What other ceratopsid goes through such a radical late-stage morphological change?
How do we know that a solid frill is a juvenile trait, and not a derived trait?
Why aren't there any (AFAIK) Triceratops skulls with small fenestrae besides Nedoceratops, which itself is a contentious specimen?

I liked Haikaru's example in the comments for the 2nd Toroceratops post: if you found a humpback whale and a blue whale as fossils, you might assume that the latter is the adult of the former. Again, I'm not saying that Scannella and/or Horner are WRONG, I'm saying that their conclusion is not completely solid based on that paper alone. And you know what? Few papers are. Further research into post-cranial anatomy, histeology, stratigraphy, and morphology will doubtlessly illuminate this topic further, and I welcome that research.

I didn't mean to step on any toes or insult anybody. My posts were meant to suggest that further research was needed, and that alternatives to Toroceratops are possible.

And that's the last I'll say on the subject...at least until more data is published.

Leviathan = Livyatan

I'm very late to the party here, but in case you weren't aware, that big raptorial whale that was discovered two months ago, originally named Leviathan, has been renamed Livyatan because the original name was found to be a junior synonym of Mammut, which sucks. To be fair, the name Livyatan conjured up much the same image: it's the Hebrew name applied to large marine monsters. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, but hey.

Brilliant!

As seen on www.toplessrobot.com.

Torosaurus latus is not Triceratops sp.

Earlier this year, Scannella & Horner hypothesized that skulls attributed to the large chamosaurine Torosaurus latus represented a “fully adult” ontogenetic stage of Triceratops, thus invalidating Marsh’s pierced lizard as a distinct taxon. This theory was based in part on a growth series for Triceratops published by Horner & Goodwin in 2006. In neither paper do the authors consider Triceratops at the species level. Prior to 1996, as many as sixteen separate species of Triceratops had been considered valid, but in that year Catherine Forster published a revision of the genus which greatly reduced that number to just two: Triceratops horridus and Triceratops prorsus. Actually, in 1986, Ostrom & Wellnhofer went as far as suggesting that only Triceratops horridus is the only valid species. Neither Scannella & Horner nor Horner & Goodwin address the issue of species-level ontogenetic change in Triceratops. Is the Horner & Goodwin growth series for T. horridus or T. prorsus? Is Torosaurus latus the “fully adult” form of T. horridus, T. prorsus, or both? While not stated outright, the Horner & Goodwin growth series implies that features used by Forster to distinguish T. prorsus from T. horridus may simply be ontogenetic markers, including size and shape of epioccipitals, size and shape of the nasal horn, and curvature of the postorbital horns. Certain abstracts that I’ve read but don’t know if I can actually divulge have suggested stratigraphic or anagenetic reasons for the changes between Triceratops species.

In Scannella & Horner’s “Toroceratops” hypothesis, the authors suggest that, very late in life, Triceratops goes through radical morphological change: the length and shape of the frill increases, and the parietal becomes rapidly fenestrated as bone is reabsorbed on either side of the parietal bar. The authors point to a number of Triceratops skulls with extremely thin areas of the parietal where fenestrae would be expected to appear. However, none of the specimens investigated by the authors have even incipient parietal perforations (except Nedoceratops, but we’ll get into that in a minute). All investigated Triceratops skulls retain a solid frill. That is, the authors cannot point to any Triceratops skulls that would form a transition between the "no fenestrae" condition and the "big fenestrae" condition of Torosaurus. With the often-stated abundance of Triceratops material, I believe this is an important consideration.

According to the Horner & Goodwin growth series for Triceratops, specimen MOR 004 is regarded as an “adult” form. It has thick, forwardly-curved postorbital horns; elongate, highly reabsorbed epiparietals; a large, thick, forwardly-directed nasal horn; and a relatively short, deep rostrum below and anterior to the nasal horn. If MOR 004 is the model adult form of Triceratops, then no currently recognized specimen of Torosaurus latus conforms to the Horner & Goodwin growth series. All currently recognized specimens of Torosaurus latus (ANSP 15192, MOR 1122, YPM 1830, and YPM 1831) have short, upwardly-directed nasal horns with an elongate, shallow rostrum anterior to the nasal horn. Additionally, the snout has a distinctive “stepped-up” morphology wherein the dorsal margin of the rostrum anterior to the nasal horn is lower than the dorsal margin of the rostrum behind the nasal horn. This feature is similar to the “large juvenile” and “subadult” examples of Triceratops in Horner & Goodwin’s growth series. However, even those Triceratops specimens lack the elongate, shallow rostrum anterior to the nasal horn.

Diagonally from top to bottom, the proposed Horner & Goodwin growth series for Triceratops showing overall trends in morphology. To the lower left, Torosaurus latus.

The overall shape of the frill is quite distinct in both taxa. In MOR 004, the frill more or less frames the rest of the skull in anterior view: the parietal bar forms the apex of the frill, and the left and right halves of the frill slope down and out from there. This is especially obvious in two other specimens of Triceratops: YPM 1822 (Forster 1996) and YUM 1822 (Hatcher 1903). In lateral view, the frill attains a distinctive upward curve. Additionally, the squamosals of Triceratops are D-shaped, or perhaps axeblade-shaped. In many individuals, the squamosal-parietal suture is not visible for most of its posterior length. In contrast, Torosaurus’ frill is broad and largely flat, and does not frame the face in anterior view. Rather, it grows away from the rest of the skull and does not retain a distinct upward curve. Additionally, the squamosals in all recognized specimens of Torosaurus have a distinct shape reminiscent of a chef’s onion or paring knife, and the suture between the parietal and the squamosals is surprisingly clear along its entire length.



The largely complete frill of Torosaurus latus, after Hatcher 1903.

According to Scannella & Horner, the underlying geometry of the frill of MOR 004 would have been significantly altered—and quickly—to produce a frill attributable to Torosaurus latus. This sort of morphological change is wholly unknown in other ceratopsians where juveniles are known. In centrosaurines, for instance, the adult frill is, by and large, simply a larger version of the juvenile skull with the addition of unique spikes on the parietal margin or parietal bar (Pachyrhinosaurus lakusai and Centrosaurus apertus is particularly illustrative of this). In addition, the morphology of the snout and nasal horn would essentially reverse from the adult condition to a subadult form. These sorts of radical morphological changes have no basis in close relatives of “Toroceratops.”

Because all of the known specimens of Torosaurus latus share certain morphological features regardless of size or, presumably, age, we are forced to conclude that they are taxonomically valid characters that differentiate it from its closest relatives. For reference, its closest relatives have been consistently shown to be Triceratops and Nedoceratops. Whereas skulls attributed to Triceratops are far more numerous and individualized, those recognized as Torosaurus are much more uniform (ANSP 15192 does differ significantly in the length of the frill and size of the postorbital horns, but this may be an age-related character). While there is obviously a sampling bias at work here, it is instructive to list characters shared by the best-known specimens of Torosaurus latus—ANSP 15192, MOR 1122, YPM 1830, and YPM 1831:

1) Relatively small, upwardly-directed nasal horn that is triangular and develops about halfway up the snout. The horn never grows into the impressive forward-pointing thick horn you see in many Triceratops skulls.

2) An elongate, shallow rostrum anterior to the nasal horn. There is a clear height differentiation between this region and the dorsal margin of the skull behind the nasal horn in the adult stage. This may be termed a “stepped-up” condition.

3) An elongate nasal passage retained into the adult stage. In Torosaurus, the extent of the nasal system resembles the juvenile condition in Triceratops. In that taxon, however, the nasal passage compresses and rounds out as the subadult and adult stages are reached. Torosaurus, by contrast, retains an elongate nasal passage.

4) Blade-like squamosals which remain distinct from the parietal even in the adult stage.

5) An elongate frill that is “swept back” rather than “swept up,” is relatively flat and broad, and contains large parietal fenestrae. In adults, the margins of the frill may be almost completely smooth due to the absorption of the epioccipitals.

Before we go too much farther into Torosaurus, let’s turn our attention to Triceratops. In fact, let’s go back to Forster’s paper regarding species diversity in that genus. She references two individual specimens as models for the two species of Triceratops: YPM 1822 for T. prorsus and SDSM 2760 for T. horridus. I note that the latter displays several features in common with Torosaurus, including the structure of the snout and nasal horn (though not to the same extent), and possibly the structure of the squamosals. It also seems to lack distinct epioccipitals, and the frill is broader than its sister species, T. prorsus. That species, represented by YPM 1822, shows very different features: the nasal horn is large and directed forward, the rostrum in front of the nasal horn is short and deep, and the nasal area is rounded. The epoccipitals are fairly large and triangular.

Neither skull displays a singular suite of ontologic characters consistent with any one growth stage according to Horner & Goodwin. In SDSM 2760, the morphology of the snout and nasal horn are juvenile characters according to the suggested growth series, whereas the thickness and orientation of the brow horns, as well as the loss of epioccipitals, are indicative of adult status. By contrast, YPM 1822 shows a clearly adult snout and nasal horn, but the ends of the brow horns point a bit upwards (a subadult trait) and the frill retains distinct, fairly large epioccipitals (a juvenile or subadult trait). Are these isolated incidents? I’m afraid not. Just ask John Hatcher. In 1903, he included several beautiful illustrations of skulls attributed to Triceratops in his wonderful monograph on the horned dinosaurs. Exactly none of them conform to the Horner & Goodwin growth series to a "T." Going forward, where I reference "juvenile," "subadult," and "adult" features, I'm talking about those ontogenetic stages as defined in Horner & Goodwin 2006.




This is USNM 2100, identified by Hatcher as Triceratops prorsus(?). Although the anterior portion of the snout is missing, one may notice the underdeveloped nasal horn (juvenile-subadult), low-angled brow horns (adult) with sloped tips (subadult), and small but distinctive epioccipitals (subadult). The parietal bar is interesting in that it’s quite bumpy. Where would USNM 2100 fit on Horner & Goodwin’s growth series?




This is Triceratops brevicornus, ”YPM” 1834. It also shows a curious mix of characters: the nasal horn is distinct and forwardly-directed (adult), but the anterior portion of the snout is quite long (subadult). The brow horns are directed forward (adult) and are unusually short. The parietal-squamosal suture appears to be lost (adult), but the epoccipitals are reasonably distinct and not entirely rounded (subadult). Where would YPM 1834 fit on Horner & Goodwin’s growth series?




This is Triceratops elatus, USNM 1201. It also displays some curious features. The nasal horn’s growth seems to have stalled: the underlying nasal is indeed reaching forward (subadult), but the epinasal is still apparent (juvenile). The brow horns are large and directed forward (adult). The frill’s margins are bumpy—the epoccipitals have largely been absorbed (adult). Notice the distinct upward bend to the squamosals. While it gives the bones a superficially onion-knife appearance, the parietal curves distinctly upward rather than being directed back. Where would USNM 1201 fit on Horner & Goodwin’s growth curve?




Then there’s this famously odd duck: USNM 2412, Nedoceratops hatcheri. The nasal horn isn’t really a horn so much as a bump in the road, giving the snout a very pronounced “stepped-up” profile. The brow horns are quite large and directed almost straight upward. The frill is riddled with accessory fenestrae, some of which are probably the result of pathologic or natural re-absorption. The skull retains distinct epioccipitals, and the squamosal has a bizarre shape. Nedoceratops may be too much of a wildcard to include in this analysis, but Scannella & Horner consider it to be a transitional form that would exist between MOR 004 and Torosaurus latus. But what happened to the nasal and brow horns? Where did all these accessory fenestrae come from? Surely, Nedoceratops is either an incredibly abarrant individual or a distinct taxon, and will not be considered further here.




This is where things start getting interesting. This is Triceratops calicornis, USNM 4928, and it displays a lot of features that I listed for Torosaurus latus, above. In other words, its morphology conforms nicely to known morphologies that are consistent across currently-recognized specimens of Torosaurus. These include: a small, upwardly-directed nasal horn that is roughly halfway down the snout; a stepped-up snout profile with an elongate anterior portion; an elongate nasal passage; and squamosals that are onion-knife shaped. Most of the epoccipitals are completely re-absorbed. There is one distinct epoccipital capping the parietal-squamosal contact, and half of one above it. The parietal was not preserved in USNM 4928—it may have been fenestrated.



AMNH 5116 (top) compared to YPM 1830 (bottom). The overall similarities are striking.

Based on these proposed characters, I could make an argument that the most famous, well-known specimen of Triceratops in the world—AMNH 5116—is actually a Torosaurus. It has a short, upwardly-directed nasal horn, an elongate rostrum anterior to the nasal horn, an elongate nasal passage, onion-knife shaped squamosals, and a lack of epioccipitals. Like USNM 4928, it was also missing portions of its parietal, although major portions were apparently recovered and plastered back on. The beast was restored with a solid frill (maybe it had one), the assumption being that this is Triceratops. However, when you take the parietal out of the equation, AMNH 5116 is strikingly similar to Torosaurus skulls, particularly YPM 1830. Sorry about the lack of fenestrae in the illustration for YPM 1830—I just now noticed that they’re not there. *facepalm*
MNHN 1912.20, housed in Paris, is strikingly similar to USNM 4928, although its “Torosaurus” features are even more obvious: the snout has a more pronounced “step-up,” the nasal horn is small and retains the epinasal. The anterior portion of the snout is elongate, as is the nasal passage. The frill is elongate and broad. Epoccipitals are nearly absent, and the squamosals are onion-knife shaped. Like AMNH 5116, the frill of MNHN 1912.20 has been heavily restored, although exactly how much of the parietal was “touched up” is not specified in this skull’s description (Goussard, 2006). It may very well be that MNHN 1912.20 is a Torosaurus skull.



AMNH 5116 (top) compared to MNHN 1912.20. Again, note the many similarities.

Go back and look at the growth series picture at the top of the post. Diagonally from top to bottom, this is Horner & Goodwin’s proposal for ontogenetic change in Triceratops from small juvenile (MOR 1199) to adult (MOR 004). If Torosaurus latus were to follow MOR 004, the underlying geometry of the frill would have to change radically, the snout would significantly elongate, and the nasal horn would regress to an earlier developmental stage. Additionally, two giant holes would suddenly open up in the parietal! Scannella & Horner expect us to believe that all of these large-scale changes would happen in the dinosaur’s final years, and in stark contrast to the direction of growth that Triceratops had been experiencing up to that point. No other ceratopsian goes through this sort of late-stage transformation, and there is no reason to think that Triceratops is any different. Additionally, as pointed out by many readers, the rarity of “fully adult” individuals of Triceratops (Torosaurus) compared to the incredible abundance of earlier growth stages is a bizarre and unrealistic preservation bias that does not occur in other fossil animals. If anything, the opposite tends to be true: juvenile and subadults are rare while adults and “full adults” are more common. That is certainly the case in other ceratopsids, even among bonebeds. The bottom line is this: assuming the Horner & Goodwin growth series is generally accurate, YPM 1830 and MOR 1122 would NOT follow MOR 004. It really is that simple.

However, Torosaurus material might not be nearly as rare as everyone seems to think. I believe that the genus can be distinguished based on more than just the presence or absence of parietal fenestrae. It’s possible that specimens once referred to as Triceratops are, in fact, Torosaurus. If nothing else, I hope this post has convinced some of you out there in Readerland that the Scannella & Horner paper presents interesting ideas but serious flaws as well, and needs to be given a second look.

I offer an enormous, Pentaceratops-skull-sized thanks to Andrew Farke for taking the time to double-check my claims and correct others. Readers, notice that I don’t really talk about histeology or stratigraphy. This is largely because I am ill-informed to do so intelligently. I do think that Torosaurus is morphologically distinct from Triceratops based on skull anatomy alone, however, so those factors may not necessarily play a part. On the point of stratigraphy, however, I do wonder whether T. prorsus or T. horridus is older, and whether the similarities between the latter and Torosaurus may represent a close relationship. That is, perhaps T. horridus is closer to the common ancestor of Triceratops and Torosaurus, and that Triceratops prorsus is derived, anagenetically or otherwise, from T. horridus?

Toroceratops Part 2 Teaser

I'll be revisiting the Toroceratops theory again soon, because I'm a glutton for punishment. I believe I've found a good way to distinguish Triceratops from Torosaurus without relying on parietal fenestrae, although frill morphology does come into play. I'm just making the text sound good, and make sure my argument is sound before I post the whole thing (it's a whopper). Anyway, here's an illustration of AMNH 1201, simplified from Hatcher (1903). It displays a unique combination of juvenile and adult traits, as do many specimens of Triceratops.

Stay tuned...

ID the Spider!

I have a task for all you invertebrate fans out there: identify this spider. It's been a very good summer for mites, harvestmen, and whatever spider this is, because all three arachnids are everything this year. Something about overcast, rainy skies I guess. Let's go down the list of this spider's features.

It comes in a surprising range of sizes, but the abdomens of the biggest ones I saw were a tiny bit smaller than my thumbnail. It is an orb-weaver, and builds a wheel-shaped web with lots of support strands. The color of the abdomen varies between light green and brown, but all of the individuals I saw had white speckles across the abdomen. The thorax is mostly pale yellow to orange, but has three brown bands moving down the thorax and head. The third pair of legs are the smallest. The legs are mostly the same pale yellow, but the joints are browish. The legs have large hairs.

There is one individual living on my grill, and it has built a surprisingly large web. The orb itself isn't all that impressive, but there number of support strands seems like overkill. The spider does not live on the web, but has constructed a little web-house beneath the grill. Surprisingly, there's a been a much smaller male living in the same web the whole season. His abdomen is a fraction the size of her's, although his leg span is probably similar. His has swollen palps. I watched him try to coax the female into mating one time, but she wasn't having it. Two of her legs were up, and he wasn't budging.

Anyway, it'd be cool if somebody knew what species this spider is. It's everywhere this year. We generally call them "pillow spiders" because of their fat abdomens.

Breaking: Mosasaurs Are Awesome

This is Platecarpus tympaniticus, and yes, it has a caudal fluke. Confused? I recommend clicking this link for the answers to all your questions.

Ignore this post. It's just to catalogue pics for future reference.

Zach's Figure Reviews: Kasumi (Venus on the Beach)

This is my most recently-purchased and one of my favorite figures. It’s one I thought I’d have to buy on eBay or Amazon at some point because I didn’t know when she was coming out (different websites said different things), and there sure as hell wasn’t any chance any of the local comic shops would be importing her. Well, sometimes I love being wrong. On a completely random day last month, I stopped at A-1 Comics on my way to Eagle River. After wandering around the DC area, hoping to find a discounted “Women of the DC Universe” figure (no such luck), I wandered through the anime figures only to find, sitting on a high shelf, Kasumi. My jaw dropped. It was too good to be true! Now I can save on shipping costs (this is a real concern in Alaska)! I plucked her up immediately, of course, paid the shopkeeper, and took my new girl home.


Kasumi is actually my second “Venus on the Beach” figure after Kokoro (stay tuned). There are several other figures in this line, including Hitomi, Lei Feng, Tina, and Ayane. I don’t remember whether or not Christie and Lisa have gotten figures yet. All are based on, predictably, the Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball series rather than the fighting series proper. They’re all also cast-off figures. What’s a cast-off figure? You’ll find out in a minute.


I'm not entirely sure what to call Kasumi's pose. She's down on three limbs, poking her toe in the water to test the temperature, I guess. It's a really wonderful sculpture--every part of this girl is rounded. No hard edges here, and that's something I appreciate. Here's something strange to ponder: Kasumi's paint job. It's fantastic--no point outside the lines, and her skin tone is great. The color scheme for her main swimsuit here is, obviously, taken straight from DoAX, though I'm completely unaware of its name. Her hair is long, and falls wonderfully behind her, hiding her left shoulder in the process.


As my friend Erik might say, "Dat ass." Unlike her in-game counterpart, Kasumi is gifted in the tush department. This angle also lets you get a look at the musculature of her legs and popliteal (kneepit). You can also make out her almost nonexistant nose (that does bother me). I'm not sure what's going on with that yellow ribbon around her upper arm, though. Also notice the base: more on it later. Well, now that you've seen her "normal" costume, I can tell you about her secondary costume, and what "cast-off" means.


Kasumi readily falls apart in a rather disturbing manner. As you can see, her hair separates from the head in two places, her right leg pops off at the hip, and her torso frees itself from her lower body right below the breasts. This is all in an effort to get her red and white bikini off so you can see her "painted on" blue bikini. There are just a ton of separate pieces with this figure:


So many pieces. Thirteen, in fact, and that's not counting the base, which is made up of three distinct pieces. To get her red-and-white suit on, you have to wrap the top strap around her head, secure the bottom strap under her breasts, slide the top strap of her bikini bottom around her lower body, snap the two body halves together, then attach the front of her bottom to the back before snapping the leg back on, then swap out the ties (white 'n' yellow, see?), then finally put her hair back on. It's a goddamn hassle, so I only do it once and awhile. Also, as I've learned with Kokoro (stay tuned), it eventually starts messing up the paint job.


So here she is in the blue bikini. My wife thinks it's a little over-the-top. Keep in mind, though, that she thought that the BOME Kasumi's breasts were "spilling out." This is clearly incorrect! By comparison to this figure, her breasts were safely contained. Her blue bikini here is painted on, but it's also sculpted and textured, which is impressive. I actually don't think her breasts are portrayed very realistically here (YOU DON'T SAY). Now now, I say that because they're not really falling down: they're still kind of sticking out, forward. Her red-and-white bikini top was supporting them, but they should be following gravity a bit more here.


See? I'm not gonna complain too much about it. But you can see the lacy sculpting here and the double-ties. It's a good sculpt, it really is. Interestingly, she's showing about as much cleavage here as in her other suit. Although it's not clear from this shot, they even sculpted where the strap on her back kind of digs into her skin.


You can definately see how much more skin is showing with this outfit. Her asscrack is showing, which is...I mean, it's a feature. She's also clearly wearing a thong. That's not my favorite part of this sculpture. Note also the ripple effects in the water, which is sort of cool, honestly. I'll mention here that her hands and feet are really fantastically done: individual fingers with knuckle creases--same with her toes--and her left foot shows clear bone structure.


Here's the whole figure, base 'n' all. You can see the stand for the water, and the hole where Kasumi's foot fits in. To get her on the base, you put her foot in at an angle and rotate her body to where it's currently sitting on the "poolside." My policy--which has worked just fine so far--is to not mess with my cast-off figures once I figure out which outfit I want them in. Like I said, it's a pain to keep changing up their appearance, although it does offer some variety.


I do have a difficult time deciding which of my figures is my favorite, but Kasumi here might be tied with Kokoro and Velvet for that particular medal. She's a really quality sculpture with a good base and very few flaws. She was not cheap ($100), but she was much cheaper than I would've gotten off the internet (add shipping), so I'm happy I found her. The base is 6.5" long, and the top of her head is 7.5" heigh on the base. She's not too big, but consistent with the size of Kokoro (who's from the same series). They look good together--I'll have to post a picture of them both when I review Kokoro.

Dear Spambot Inventors: Please Die. In Fire.

You readers may have noticed an uptick in the number of crafty spambots that have infiltrated my blog's clearly futile attempts at security. I don't know if there's a solution, exactly, but I do intend to take this weekend to thoroughly clear every spam comment from the back catalogue. This may take over an hour, but I am prepared. Besides, I have two disks of Justice League to keep me company. I could readily begin the purge tonight, but I would so like to draw before bed. Even some simple stick figures would be nice. It's been so very long since I achieved quality work.

Also, regarding this post's heading: I wish nothing but agonizing harm to the inventor(s) of said spambots. There are few subgroups of humanity I dislike more: Nazis, Islamic terrorists, teenagers who think they've "figured it out," and the entire cast of Sex & the City. My wife wants to "be" Carrie Bradshaw, somehow failing to realize that Carrie Bradshaw is a terrible human being. At any rate, the investor(s) of spambots fall into a similar camp. Lower than Nazis, but higher than the redhead.

Zach's Figure Reviews: Kasumi (Dead or Alive)

Look, everyone! It's the figure that got me into this goddamn expensive hobby in the first place. This is BOME Kasumi figure, available in white (shown), blue, and black. That last one can only be bought online, I guess. For those who care, Kasumi is from the PS2/Xbox/360 series Dead or Alive, a surprisingly robust fighting franchise that employs lots of counters, cheap end bosses, and beautiful women with (often) giant racks. Kasumi is actually one of the smaller-chested females in the series, but this is not a fact that figure sculptors have ever actually acknowledged. I guess I'm okay with that. The series jumped the shark in the last few years and ditched the male characters and the fighting mechanic altogether for three volleyball titles, in which our girls wear itty bitty teenie weenie bikinis and display some very bizarre breast physics.


Funny story about this figure. First, she was cheap: a mere $20. Second, once my wife saw her, she was kind of appalled, complaining that Kasumi's rack was hanging out. Have you seen my other figure reviews? It's clear that objection doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Hell, even my previous figure reviews have been downright tame compared to my upcoming figures. That's not...that doesn't mean I'm into the freaky stuff or anything. No tentacles, porn, or any combination of those two words. I'd also like to mention, again, that Kasumi here was $20. The most expensive figure (really more of a statue) in my collection was nine times that amount. And she was on sale, for God's sake. And no, it's not that Alphamax Mai Shiranui who I mentioned several weeks ago. She's actually significantly more expensive.


Hey, how'd you like to know abut this particular figure? She's really quite detailed. There's a detachable knife sheath on her back, although the knife itself can't be removed. The knife's hilt has some cotton ball things attached to it, which is nice. I guess. She's got thigh-high leggings and shield things on her feet, and similar...um...things on her arms. What's nice is that the wrist and foot shield things are clearly separate elements. Her kimono (or whatever that is) is open and breezy, and secured 'round her waste by a pink band.


I like her stance. That might seem like a wierd thing to say, but it's confident and statuesque. Shoulders back, leg forward, chest...uh...out. Can't say the same for our girl's expression, which is dull and doll-like. I want a girl ready for a fight, not a girl pretending to be ready for a fight. Although, honestly, in the games, Kasumi is not most aggressive character in the game. She's almost apologetic when she wins a fight.


And here we have her breasts. They're big, but not overdone. This may seem like a minor complaint, but it almost feels like they're too big across for their...depth. Does that makes sense? You'd have to see it, I guess. I should make mention of her hair: it's reddish orange and translucent, like Batgirl's hair. I like the effect--the hair glows in good lighting. What's unfortunate is that her paint job is kind of cheap. After almost five years of sitting on a shelf, the kimono (or whatever it is) has several pin-shaped dark marks, especially up by her shoulders. There are also some marks on her thigh, although my friend Scott showed me how to clean off some of these spots by using a watered-down alcohol solution.


Kasumi is standing on a plastic street corner. There is but a single short peg holding her tall, much heavier figure on the ground. Merely tipping the contraption a hair results in Kasumi basically falling off. I've considered gluing her to the peg, but that seems so...you know...final. This shot also shows off those foot shield things and the straps surrounding them. Good detail work here.


Kasumi is about eight inches tall and not hard to find. There are still several white and blue verions in one of the local comic book stores up here (go figure). I've actually considered picking up the blue version, but then I remember that I could probably use the $20 for other things, like...other figures. Or Dragon Quset IX, which I bought over the weekend and have been absolutely loving. That's neither here nor there, though. The BOME Kasumi is a wonderful figure, well worth the entry fee. Kasumi is the only character I have more than one version of (stay tuned), and there are even more I'd like to have. Also, I apologize for the strange lighting in these photos. I've been taking all my figure pictures on my kitchen table, and the ambient light mixes oddly with the kitchen light. I'm going to try something different for my next figure review.