What would we like Safari to make?

[GojiraGuy1954]

The two options for Dinosaurs being Theropods and Ornithischians is strange. Where are the Sauropods?

[GojiraGuy1954]

Saurischians
Maip macrthorax
Austroraptor cabazai
Dryptosaurus aquilunguis
Brachytrachelopan mesai
Plateosaurus trossingensis

Ornithischians
Dryosaurus altus
Tlatolophus galorum
Gigantspinosaurus sichuanensis
Udanoceratops tschizhovi
Achelousaurus horneri

Other Reptiles
Hatzegopteryx thembema
Nyctosaurus gracilis
Barinasuchus arveloi
Simosuchus clarki
Khinjaria acuta


Non-Reptiles
Megatherium americanum
Paraentelodon intermedium
Cotylorhynchus romeri
Leedsicthys problematicus
Mastodonsaurus jaegeri

[Sim]

The two options for Dinosaurs being Theropods and Ornithischians is strange. Where are the Sauropods?

Sauropods go in the "other reptiles" category.  There's MUCH less sauropodomorphs than theropods or ornithischians, so I decided it would be best to group them with non-dinosaur reptiles.

[Sim]

The two options for Dinosaurs being Theropods and Ornithischians is strange. Where are the Sauropods?

Sauropods go in the "other reptiles" category.  There's MUCH less sauropodomorphs than theropods or ornithischians, so I decided it would be best to group them with non-dinosaur reptiles.

Thats dumb

No, it isn't.  What you've just said is abusive.  This will be the last time I reply to a post by you.  I suggest you don't reply to a post by me again.

[suspsy]

Numbers are irrelevant. Sauropodomorphs are dinosaurs and absolutely should be included with the rest of them, not "other reptiles." Any paleontologist will say the same thing.

[Gwangi]

The two options for Dinosaurs being Theropods and Ornithischians is strange. Where are the Sauropods?

Sauropods go in the "other reptiles" category.  There's MUCH less sauropodomorphs than theropods or ornithischians, so I decided it would be best to group them with non-dinosaur reptiles.

Then they should be lumped in with theropods and it should be renamed saurischians.

[Sim]

Numbers are irrelevant. Sauropodomorphs are dinosaurs and absolutely should be included with the rest of them, not "other reptiles." Any paleontologist will say the same thing.

Sauropodomorphs are included with the other dinosaurs in being represented in a poll.  I saw no need to give them a separate poll when the number of them is so much less than ornithischians or theropods.  Your claim about what palaeontologists would say is you saying something you're not in the position to say.  You can't speak for palaeontologists.  My guess is they would probably not be bothered by the arrangement I chose, and just see it as fun.  Everything is represented, sauropodomorphs being with other reptiles isn't doing any harm, so I don't know why you're being antagonistic.

Sauropods go in the "other reptiles" category.  There's MUCH less sauropodomorphs than theropods or ornithischians, so I decided it would be best to group them with non-dinosaur reptiles.

Then they should be lumped in with theropods and it should be renamed saurischians.

I don't agree with that, because:
1. The diversity of Mesozoic theropods is equal to that of ornithischians.  Note that Cenozoic theropods have been included in the poll too, so the theropod poll is already including more diversity than the ornithischian poll.
2. Saurischia is not a very relevant classification now that it's unclear which dinosaur groups are most closely related, if any.  In contrast I think there's agreement that there are three main dinosaur groups: Theropods, ornithischians and sauropodomorphs.

[Gwangi]

Numbers are irrelevant. Sauropodomorphs are dinosaurs and absolutely should be included with the rest of them, not "other reptiles." Any paleontologist will say the same thing.

Sauropodomorphs are included with the other dinosaurs in being represented in a poll.  I saw no need to give them a separate poll when the number of them is so much less than ornithischians or theropods.  Your claim about what palaeontologists would say is you saying something you're not in the position to say.  You can't speak for palaeontologists.  My guess is they would probably not be bothered by the arrangement I chose, and just see it as fun.  Everything is represented, sauropodomorphs being with other reptiles isn't doing any harm, so I don't know why you're being antagonistic.

Sauropods go in the "other reptiles" category.  There's MUCH less sauropodomorphs than theropods or ornithischians, so I decided it would be best to group them with non-dinosaur reptiles.

Then they should be lumped in with theropods and it should be renamed saurischians.

I don't agree with that, because:
1. The diversity of Mesozoic theropods is equal to that of ornithischians.  Note that Cenozoic theropods have been included in the poll too, so the theropod poll is already including more diversity than the ornithischian poll.
2. Saurischia is not a very relevant classification now that it's unclear which dinosaur groups are most closely related, if any.  In contrast I think there's agreement that there are three main dinosaur groups: Theropods, ornithischians and sauropodomorphs.

Ok, but I only see 4 sauropodomorphs in the "other reptile" poll and there are certainly enough other sauropodomorphs to populate their own poll. You have 25 theropods in that poll, you can't conjure up 25 sauropods? The excuse is that the theropod poll is too long but then you have a non-reptile poll with 38 choices. You can't combine 4 sauropods with the 25 theropods? That would be 29 choices. Not to mention that you have everything that's not a reptile crammed into a single poll. I'm sure there are enough fish and mammals to warrant their own polls.

As for your second point, are you talking about ornithoscelida? That was proposed in 2017 and from what I can tell it hasn't taken off. I think sauropods as saurischians is still a safe bet, especially in a fantasy toy poll.

[suspsy]

Numbers are irrelevant. Sauropodomorphs are dinosaurs and absolutely should be included with the rest of them, not "other reptiles." Any paleontologist will say the same thing.

Sauropodomorphs are included with the other dinosaurs in being represented in a poll.  I saw no need to give them a separate poll when the number of them is so much less than ornithischians or theropods.  Your claim about what palaeontologists would say is you saying something you're not in the position to say.  You can't speak for palaeontologists.

On the contrary, I certainly can state with full confidence that any palaeontologist on this planet would classify sauropods with the rest of Dinosauria as opposed to other reptiles. I'd love for you to present an instance of one doing otherwise.


 

My guess is they would probably not be bothered by the arrangement I chose, and just see it as fun.

So you claim I can't speak for the paleontology community, but you can?

 

Everything is represented, sauropodomorphs being with other reptiles isn't doing any harm, so I don't know why you're being antagonistic.

Pointing out a glaring classification error, one made knowingly at that, is not being antagonistic. If anyone is adopting an unnecessarily hostile tone here, it is yourself.

[Sim]

Ok, but I only see 4 sauropodomorphs in the "other reptile" poll and there are certainly enough other sauropodomorphs to populate their own poll.

That shows that what non-theropod, non-ornithischian reptiles people want most is mostly not sauropodomorphs.

You have 25 theropods in that poll, you can't conjure up 25 sauropods?

Err, it's not my position to "conjure up 25 sauropods".  The options in the poll are based on what people said they would like in it with up to 5 being the reccomended number.

The excuse is that the theropod poll is too long but then you have a non-reptile poll with 38 choices.

No, the excuse you're presenting is not something I thought.  My reasoning is that theropods should get their own poll because of their high level of diversity and the frequency which Safari makes them at.

You can't combine 4 sauropods with the 25 theropods? That would be 29 choices.

If I put sauropodomorphs in the same poll as theropods, there might have been less theropod choices and that seems to go against the idea of the poll which is to 1. try to represent things in proportion to the frequency at which Safari makes them, and 2. at a lesser priority trying to group things by shared character.  Theropods are a priority for Safari, as their releases have generally showed, so I think it makes sense to have a poll that reflects that.

Not to mention that you have everything that's not a reptile crammed into a single poll. I'm sure there are enough fish and mammals to warrant their own polls.

Considering how rarely Safari makes non-reptile prehistoric animals, I don't think so.

As for your second point, are you talking about ornithoscelida? That was proposed in 2017 and from what I can tell it hasn't taken off. I think sauropods as saurischians is still a safe bet, especially in a fantasy toy poll.

From what I've seen there are people who support Ornithoscelida and even Phytodinosauria.  That's what I was referring to.

On the contrary, I certainly can state with full confidence that any palaeontologist on this planet would classify sauropods with the rest of Dinosauria as opposed to other reptiles. I'd love for you to present an instance of one doing otherwise.

Hmm, but we weren't talking about classifying, we were talking about where to put them in a poll.  Me putting sauropodomorphs with other reptiles doesn't indicate a classification, just like putting non-reptiles together doesn't indicate that they are most closely related to each other.

So you claim I can't speak for the paleontology community, but you can?

No, that's why I specified it was a guess from me.

Pointing out a glaring classification error, one made knowingly at that, is not being antagonistic. If anyone is adopting an unnecessarily hostile tone here, it is yourself.

Well, I think by now it should be clear no classification was being done.  I find it strange that you take such a hostile tone over something which I clearly stated was done because the number of sauropodomorphs is much lower than theropods or ornithischians.  I don't know where you got the idea I was classifying something.  I'm not being hostile, I'm just defending myself from unwarranted comments.

[Gwangi]

Ok, well I did not know that the polls were populated with choices made by participating members in this thread. I don't follow this thread so that's on me. I just saw a bunch of polls show up and wondered why sauropods were getting the short stick. But I still maintain that sauropods and theropods can be lumped together because 1) four sauropods doesn't make the list THAT much longer and 2) you just admitted yourself that these polls don't reflect classification. So if you take issue with saurischians as a clade it could just be worded "theropods and sauropods". They still fit better together than sauropods do with other reptiles. Lastly, I don't think it matters what Safari makes the most of in a pure fantasy wish list or poll. In fact, what I wish for more than anything from Safari is that they would make more non-theropods or non-dinosaurs in general. But this is clearly your passion project and I'm just coming in dark, you keep doing your thing.

[Sim]

They still fit better together than sauropods do with other reptiles.

I respectfully disagree.

Lastly, I don't think it matters what Safari makes the most of in a pure fantasy wish list or poll. In fact, what I wish for more than anything from Safari is that they would make more non-theropods or non-dinosaurs in general.

Well, if I do this again in the future I would be open to making more polls for different groups.

But this is clearly your passion project and I'm just coming in dark, you keep doing your thing.

Thanks!

[thebermuda303]

I'd love to see a take on Tarchia or Saichania by the same sculptor who did zuul. Also baby dinosaur toob would slap hard, with accurate representations of course. Perhaps they can be baby versions of the most popular safari dinos, like t rex, trike, anky, stegosaurus, allosaurus and so on.

[Libraraptor]

Ladies and gents, how long are we planning to play the persnicketiness game here? 

[Torvosaurus]

What I would really like to see is for Safari to make more mammals. (Okay, I'm a mammal buff). I know this is the Dinosaur Toy Blog, but in that sense it doesn't matter. Oligocene through the Pliocene mammals are easily as interesting as dinosaurs. Synthetoceras, Syndyoceras, Cranioceras, desmostylians, other "creodonts" besides Hyeanadon, nimravids, sparassodonts, liptoderms, etc. Look at Jay Matternes's art for inspiration. We keep getting proboscideans, Daeodon, Smilodon, Hyeanodon, Basilosaurus, Indricotherium and the occasional glyptodont or a Chalicotherium for models, but there are far more creatures to choose from that show how wild prehistoric mammals could be. I'm not saying dinosaurs are bad by any means, but a far wider range of mammals would be great.

Torvo

[Gwangi]

Ladies and gents, how long are we planning to play the persnicketiness game here? 

Looks like you're tardy to the party, it ended yesterday.