Safari Ltd: New for 2023

[Dusty Wren]

Even with the new research on dire wolves, would they be visually distinct enough from existing canids for Safari to make a figure of them? Safari's primary audience is kids and their parents/grandparents/family members, so would they see a dire wolf figure on a shelf and go, "Wow, a super cool extinct mammal!"? Or would they glance at it and say "It's a wolf/dingo/wild dog/dhole, and we already have one of those, so I'll pass."

I've always wondered if that's why we don't see more extinct mammal toys. I'm not sure most people would recognize that they were seeing an extinct mammal at a glance, unless it was something like a woolly mammoth or a saber-toothed cat.

[Shane]

I've always wondered if that's why we don't see more extinct mammal toys. I'm not sure most people would recognize that they were seeing an extinct mammal at a glance, unless it was something like a woolly mammoth or a saber-toothed cat.

This certainly factors into it.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

Recognizability 100% plays a role in sales. MOST people buy the things they are familiar with. Skeletally, the dire wolf looks like a big gray wolf, maybe a bit more robust. We really don't know what they looked like phenotypically (just like lion and tiger skeletons look nearly 100% alike, but their phenotypes draw them apart at a glance). This is also why dinosaurs end up with so many common species, especially tyrranosaurs cuz they are the 100% ID everyone can make while shopping.

Honestly I am happy with whatever Safari has in store. I am mostly just thrilled that they survived their economic hardship and have appeared to hit the ground running again.

[Gwangi]

I personally don't care about figures of things like dire wolves. Because their skeletons look like gray wolves and we don't have the slightest idea of what they looked like on the outside. It would be too speculative and ultimately look like an inaccurate wolf or other canid. I realize that's a hot take and a lot of people want a dire wolf but I don't really understand why, or what they would want it to look like. It has to have a distinct external feature, like Smilodon does, to make it desirable to me. I feel similarly about a lot of Cenozoic animals that internally look like extant ones. And not just mammals. Like, why would I need a Titanoboa? It's the same reason I don't have a megalodon.

[Faelrin]

Here's my reasoning of why I want one. It was a very important part of the Pleistocene North American fauna (and found elsewhere), preying upon the megafauna around at the time, and despite the convergent evolution, is now known to be different from a wolf, and other extant canids. It's also one of the better understood prehistoric mammals with loads of material thanks to the La Brea tar pits, if not elsewhere.

There are also subtle differences in the average proportions (including musculature), teeth, and other factors between Aenocyon dirus, and extant grey wolves, including subspecies, due to their different ecological niches despite co-existing.

We don't know the integument of many other animals, but we still get models of them. I don't see the harm in making do with the best guess that's out there, at the time, lest we get nothing at all. In any case it may be possible to do guess work based on the existing environment, it's typical prey, and using extant canines as a baseline to reference from when looking at those factors. A lot of modern reconstructions have been giving it a reddish coat, similar to the South American dhole, and that would be an easy way to help differentiate it between models of extant canines, when combined with its wolf like, yet unique and more robust anatomy.

The name "dire wolf" is also familiar to many, rather from pop culture or from the previous understanding of thinking it was related to extant wolves and other members of the genus Canis. I don't think Safari Ltd could have any trouble selling a figure of among their other prehistoric models when using such a name. They do the same for the "Woolly mammoth", etc.

[Gwangi]

Here's my reasoning of why I want one. It was a very important part of the Pleistocene North American fauna (and found elsewhere), preying upon the megafauna around at the time, and despite the convergent evolution, is now known to be different from a wolf, and other extant canids. It's also one of the better understood prehistoric mammals with loads of material thanks to the La Brea tar pits, if not elsewhere.

Those are all good reasons to want one, but you could also use a figure of an extant canid as a stand in. Same for something like Titanoboa. Rebor made a Titanoboa and it just looks like a wrong anaconda. You could get a figure of any extant boa and repaint it. Boom...you got yourself a Titanoboa. A dire wolf figure would probably look like a wrong wolf, like how megalodon figures look like wrong white sharks.

There are also subtle differences in the average proportions (including musculature), teeth, and other factors between Aenocyon dirus, and extant grey wolves, including subspecies, due to their different ecological niches despite co-existing.

Meh, I'm not sure how much of those differences would be visible from the outside, especially under a coat of fur. There is a reason why dire wolves were thought to belong to the Canis genus for so long and paleoartists just made them look like big gray wolves. But I will concede that some artists, like Mauricio Antón, have made them look distinct enough from gray wolves that if a figure were made to look like his art I would be tempted by it.

We don't know the integument of many other animals, but we still get models of them. I don't see the harm in making do with the best guess that's out there, at the time, lest we get nothing at all. In any case it may be possible to do guess work based on the existing environment, it's typical prey, and using extant canines as a baseline to reference from when looking at those factors. A lot of modern reconstructions have been giving it a reddish coat, similar to the South American dhole, and that would be an easy way to help differentiate it between models of extant canines, when combined with its wolf like, yet unique and more robust anatomy.

Papo makes a gray wolf with a reddish coat.  I don't see why it can't be a dire wolf if one wanted it to be.

[Faelrin]

Yeah a coat of fur could change things up, and possibly make it look more like an extant wolf, etc, but I still think there were key differences that might be reflective within the musculature, even with fur added on, such as the proportionally larger head, and taller sagittal crests on their skulls. It also depends on which subspecies was went with, though I do believe the more robust, and larger A. dirus dirus subspecies is more popular to the smaller, more gracile A. dirus guildayi, and likely to be preferred. It's just also one of those staple Pleistocene animals that hasn't gotten any updated figures (short of Rebor's upcoming one), and the few that were previously out there (all long retired) just don't do this interesting extinct canid proper justice.

I was also unaware of that figure to be honest. It might be the best next thing to stand in for one for the meantime, though I'd be curious to see how it compares with Safari Ltd's Smilodon, etc in size. Rebor does have a figure coming out (which I'd like to get), but it certainly won't be in scale with many of Safari Ltd's mammals, etc that I have in my collection, since it is intended to be about around 1/11+-, like their Smilodon.

[Gwangi]

Yeah a coat of fur could change things up, and possibly make it look more like an extant wolf, etc, but I still think there were key differences that might be reflective within the musculature, even with fur added on, such as the proportionally larger head, and taller sagittal crests on their skulls. It also depends on which subspecies was went with, though I do believe the more robust, and larger A. dirus dirus subspecies is more popular to the smaller, more gracile A. dirus guildayi, and likely to be preferred. It's just also one of those staple Pleistocene animals that hasn't gotten any updated figures (short of Rebor's upcoming one), and the few that were previously out there (all long retired) just don't do this interesting extinct canid proper justice.

I was also unaware of that figure to be honest. It might be the best next thing to stand in for one for the meantime, though I'd be curious to see how it compares with Safari Ltd's Smilodon, etc in size. Rebor does have a figure coming out (which I'd like to get), but it certainly won't be in scale with many of Safari Ltd's mammals, etc that I have in my collection, since it is intended to be about around 1/11+-, like their Smilodon.

Yeah, although I'm not personally clamoring for one I don't think a figure of a dire wolf shouldn't exist. Again, like megalodon, it should be there for the people that want one. Depending on how they approached the reconstruction I could also be swayed.

Something like this would be preferred.

[Sim]

I think Anzu and Citipati make up for Oviraptor and Caudipteryx but those can be still made in the future. Maiasaura and Plateosaurus are still missing and I don't remember more but I could be wrong.

Anyway is exciting and encouraging that there are still some prehistoric reveals in the near future.

I feel the same regarding the bolded part!  I think Citipati is a replacement for Oviraptor since it's impossible to know what Oviraptor actually looked like, while Citipati is a close relative with a known appearance.  However Caudipteryx is quite different to Anzu and Citipati so I don't think it has been replaced.  Caudipteryx would be a nice choice for a figure I think, it even has feathers preserved and known colouration.

-Beipiaosaurus (original is still good. Might be just the coloration that is outdated?)

The feathering of Beipiaosaurus should be thicker too I think, and it didn't have a tail fan.

Out of the Carnegie species that haven't been made for Wild Safari, the ones I'd most like Safari makes are Caudipteryx, Plateosaurus, Saltasaurus, Sinraptor (dongi), Scolosaurus (replacement for Euoplocephalus as nearly all of Euoplocephalus remains have been reclassified as Scolosaurus.  The Carnegie Euoplocephalus was based on Scolosaurus remains too.).

[SpartanSquat]

What I really want is an hadrosaur like corythosaurus, lambeosaurus, maiasaurs or a big chungus like shantungosaurus. In ceratopsians I want large frill ones like torosaurus, pentaceratops or chasmosaurus.

[Sim]

I would like a Chasmosaurus very much, but it seems Safari has decided to stop making new ceratopsids...  It would be so good if Safari, Haolonggood and PNSO made a different species of Chasmosaurus each!

[Gwangi]

Chasmosaurus is pretty much the only ceratopsian I want that hasn't been made yet. Not that I wouldn't take others, it's just as far as my most wanted list goes. I would take any ceratopsian sculpted by Doug Watson. Even though I have Pentaceratops and Centrosaurus now I wouldn't mind seeing those from Safari too. But yeah, I've pretty much given up on Safari making ceratopsians anymore.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

img]https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2021_02/3441770/210113-direwolf-3-al-1001.JPG[/img]

This image specifically is what I meant by a "modern interpretation". As far as pelage, of course that's anyone's guess.  The only way we know what an extinct animal may have looked like is if something fossilized (feathers, even feather pigments!) or in this case of more modern mammals is if there are cave drawings of it. In my opinion, even then, there may be some artistic license there. But at any rate, we only have guesses what extinct animals looked like based on skeletons; that goes for dinosaurs too. You don't know what you don't know until there is a discovery of it.

I am not a big fan of megalodon figures either, nor titanoboa. By "wrong" I assume you mean they look vaguely like a white shark or an anaconda but... exaggerated. We can guess that megalodon is a white shark looking animal because of the similarity in teeth but for all we know it could have had a thresher shark like tail fin. For me, the IC Safari anaconda could easily stand in as a titanoboa comfortably. Being a canine connoisseur, I personally wouldn't use a model of a modern wolf to represent Aenocyon. But everyone has their own idea and can do what they like for their collection and I wouldn't think twice on it.

Anywho, I think a dire wolf would be a great addition to any education based child's toys or collectors curation. Its an iconic species in modern media, is somewhat recognizable by the populace, and deserves to presented accurately (according to current understanding) now that we have more info that they are NOT closely related to gray wolves. I would like new "bear-dog" models anyway, but I realize the slim chance of that happening.

Again, I digress. I can't wait for the reveal tomorrow!

[Gwangi]

This image specifically is what I meant by a "modern interpretation". As far as pelage, of course that's anyone's guess.  The only way we know what an extinct animal may have looked like is if something fossilized (feathers, even feather pigments!) or in this case of more modern mammals is if there are cave drawings of it. In my opinion, even then, there may be some artistic license there. But at any rate, we only have guesses what extinct animals looked like based on skeletons; that goes for dinosaurs too. You don't know what you don't know until there is a discovery of it.

I understand that, but as you also said, everyone can identify a Tyrannosaurus at a glance, even without knowing what it looked like externally. Honestly, if the skeleton of two different dinosaurs is so similar that I can't tell them apart then that does influence my desire to want one on my shelf. Which is why PNSO's recent trend of back-to-back nearly identical theropods bores me.  It's the same thing with other dinosaur groups too. I don't need a bunch of same-looking sauropods on my shelf, I prefer visual diversity.

I am not a big fan of megalodon figures either, nor titanoboa. By "wrong" I assume you mean they look vaguely like a white shark or an anaconda but... exaggerated. We can guess that megalodon is a white shark looking animal because of the similarity in teeth but for all we know it could have had a thresher shark like tail fin. For me, the IC Safari anaconda could easily stand in as a titanoboa comfortably. Being a canine connoisseur, I personally wouldn't use a model of a modern wolf to represent Aenocyon. But everyone has their own idea and can do what they like for their collection and I wouldn't think twice on it.

Correct. In the case of megalodon (like the dire wolf) it doesn't even belong to the same genus as the white shark anymore. There's no reason to think it looked identical to a white shark but larger. And there are in fact reconstructions of it that differ enough from a white shark that if a figure of it came out it might pique my interest. But no one has made one yet and I don't particularly care if they do.

Anywho, I think a dire wolf would be a great addition to any education based child's toys or collectors curation. Its an iconic species in modern media, is somewhat recognizable by the populace, and deserves to presented accurately now that we have more info that they are NOT closely related to gray wolves. I would like new "bear-dogs" models anyway, but I realize the slim chance of that happening.

I can respect that, especially from a canine connoisseur.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

I agree with all your points Gwangi.
As you are aware, I am not a synoptic collector and I enjoy the comparison of models for my collection. I agree though, collecting gets bogged down with models that look all the same, so its a great treat when something exciting and different comes along. That's why certain species in my curation are rather stagnant these days, I don't need 100 elephants or trexes, just ones I like (exception for me would be gray wolves, I have beautiful and ugly ones alike... and lots of them ).

I did Google the newer reconstruction of megalodon, and agree that this needs a new model too and it may tempt me. I have not bought any megolodon figure as honestly they would just be a white shark in hand... maybe a bit bigger than my others but nothing outstanding or that couldn't pass as a large shark like Deep Blue in comparison. I was sent a large hyper detailed (and rather ugly) model of a megalodon or white shark by mistake when I bought a completely different item. They let me keep it, and it stands in as a megolodon for the time being. I think its a bootleg figure, or is the original of what is now a common bootleg model.

And yes, my opinion is biased as I am an avid canid fan and I realize that. I would love for modern wild dogs to get represented at least as well as wild cats are, and prehistoric dog species to be present too. But I acknowledge the chances for that...reality is, a dire wolf figure likely would not be able to perform and compete with a saber toothed cat, let alone a t rex.

[Gwangi]

I agree with all your points Gwangi.
As you are aware, I am not a synoptic collector and I enjoy the comparison of models for my collection. I agree though, collecting gets bogged down with models that look all the same, so its a great treat when something exciting and different comes along. That's why certain species in my curation are rather stagnant these days, I don't need 100 elephants or trexes, just ones I like (exception for me would be gray wolves, I have beautiful and ugly ones alike... and lots of them ).

I'm only a synoptic collector when it comes to extant animals, which I only just started collecting recently. It's harder with prehistoric animals due to the amount of artistic license that can be applied, you can end up with two very different figures of the same animal. I do try to limit myself these days though, as space dwindles.

I was curious if anyone had ever made a Game of Thrones dire wolf and indeed they have. Of course, it's really just a gray wolf.

[Flaffy]

"#SafariLtd | Rumores 2023
El rumor es sobre un "Stegouros" para su linea prehistórica.
Además se rumorean: Cascabel Diamantina del Oeste (Western Diamondback Rattlesnake), Orca, Boa Esmeralda (Emerald tree Boa), Ajolote (Axolotl), Oso Malayo (Sun Bear)..."

Translation:
#SafariLtd | Rumors 2023
The rumor is about a "Stegouros" for its prehistoric line.
Also rumored: Western Diamondback Rattlesnake, Orca, Emerald Tree Boa, Axolotl, Sun Bear...

Source: Paleofiguras


Wouldn't be the first time CollectA and Safari released the same dinosaur in the same year.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

Interesting... the orca (a type D) and arctic fox have been revealed. The rattlesnake, axolotl and bear intrigue me.

Hadn't heard of a stegouros before... what a cute little ankylosaurid guy!

[Faelrin]

I hope if the rumors are true about Safari Ltd making a Stegouros, that it would be in a smaller scale then CollectA's 1/6 one. I think it would good to have this genus in multiple scale options. There were also the tiny 1/35 ones from Dinozoo (I have to wonder if those are still made. I never got the chance to get around to ordering one of those), but of course those also weren't mass produced toys. There was also the leaked Mattel one, which would be yet another option for this animal, which may or may not release this year, or next.

Edit: Come to think of it, this might be the fastest a newly described genus got this many toys of it released, so soon after being described (back in 2021).

[Halichoeres]

That is a lot of Stegouros for so shortly after its description. I think you're right, Faelrin, if there is one, it will be a lot smaller than the CollectA version. I would guess somewhere between 1:10 - 1:15, similar to the Psittacosaurus in size and scale.