Safari Ltd - New for 2024

[Dusty Wren]

I think 2014 is far back enough for Safari to have been able to use the skeletal as a reference for their 2018 release.

So, Scott Hartman generally does not provide top-down or front views when he does his skeletals. And if you're trying to sculpt a dinosaur--like Safari needs to do for their prototypes--a side view doesn't provide enough information. The other skeletal you linked has a top-down view, which probably gave it the edge over Hartman's skeletal when Safari was in the research phase.

It's worth noting that even skeletals require a certain amount of artistic interpretation, and there are other interpretations of Malawisaurus that look more like Safari's version than Hartman's, including the museum mount pictured at the top of this blog post. I have no idea which version is the most accurate, because I'm not a titanosaur expert; I'm guessing that the person Safari hired to sculpt the figure wasn't, either. They did they best the could with the information they had available, which included a couple of competing interpretations of what the animal looked like.

[Flaffy]

I think 2014 is far back enough for Safari to have been able to use the skeletal as a reference for their 2018 release.

So, Scott Hartman generally does not provide top-down or front views when he does his skeletals. And if you're trying to sculpt a dinosaur--like Safari needs to do for their prototypes--a side view doesn't provide enough information. The other skeletal you linked has a top-down view, which probably gave it the edge over Hartman's skeletal when Safari was in the research phase.

You and Safari may feel differently I guess, but personally I take Zachary's ('palaeozoologist' on deviantart) skeletals with a HUGE grain of salt. Given his highly questionable decisions in reconstructing and scaling material. Moreover Scott Hartman is an established paleoartist AND paleontologist in the field. I am not aware if Zachary has any such credentials.


Sure having more angles help. But when your profile view is already a mess (and certainly inconsistent with titanosaur anatomy), I don't think there's much value in having additional equally erronous diagrams.

It's worth noting that even skeletals require a certain amount of artistic interpretation, and there are other interpretations of Malawisaurus that look more like Safari's version than Hartman's, including the museum mount pictured at the top of this blog post. I have no idea which version is the most accurate, because I'm not a titanosaur expert; I'm guessing that the person Safari hired to sculpt the figure wasn't, either.

Mounts are unfortunately a lot of times outdated by the time they are presented to the public. Understandable given the medium's rigidity compared to how flexible digital art can be. A good example would be the Patagotitan mount, which was discussed at length when Safari revealed their Patagotitan figure.

They did they best the could with the information they had available, which included a couple of competing interpretations of what the animal looked like.

I don't doubt the sculptor did the best they could, but it is objectively incorrect to infer that there wasn't better information out there at the time. Your statement that there wasn't any better skeletals at the time is false.

Just as an example, Vidal et al. (2014) extensively documents the morphology of titanosaurian bulb-and-root osteoderms, something which Malawisaurus was recovered with.
"The bulb and root condition appears to be primitive in Titanosauria, as the morphotype is more widespread in time and space (Fig. 9). Also, basalmost forms of Lithostrotia such as Malawisaurus are associated with bulb and roots [31], whereas derived forms (i.e. saltasaurines) are associated with scutes and dermal ossicles, thus possibly representing a derived condition.  - Vidal et al. (2014)

Given Malawisaurus's basal positioning, along with direct fossil evidence, it is unlikely that it would've displayed an armour arrangement depicted on the Safari figure. Note that the same paper also discusses osteoderm arrangement, and acknowledges the general consensus of bulb-and-root osteoderms being restricted to the dorsal, sacral and/or scapular region.

I recognise that all this is not definitive by any means. There is always much debate about titanosaur anatomy. But I must question why anyone would choose to reference an amateur hobbist over a paleontologist/paleoartist. Please do explain this rationale, it is very perplexing.

[bmathison1972]

Yeah, honestly, if I didn't know it was a Safari I would have guessed the Saltasaurus was one of Schleich's better offerings.

Interesting you would say this. Mine arrived yesterday and I was unpacking it I had this sudden, brief sensation 'this is a Safari figure'? I dismissed the feeling, mainly because I don't know enough about the animal to criticize a rendition of it, but yeah I had a similar sudden first impression.

Don't get me wrong; it's a very fine figure and it will be my representation of its genus/species for the foreseeable future.

[Leyster]

I think the Nanuqsaurus and Saltasaurus aren't great unfortunately.  Very good as kids toys, but not more than that.  I noticed the Saltasaurus has circular rather than horseshoe shaped hands and up close it looks inferior to the Safari Malawisaurus.  The detail on the Nanuqsaurus looks quite simple.  The Megalosaurus and Austroraptor look superb though!

Some titanosaurs (ie. Diamantinasaurus and I think Opisthocoelicaudia, too) actually had circular and nor horseshoe shaped hands.

[Sim]

I think I recall Palaeozoologist having a good reputation, I don't know if that's changed.  I remember them being mentioned on Sauropod vertebra picture of the week as having predicted Maraapunisaurus was a rebbachisaurid prior to the paper which suggested it was one.  I also remember @Takama asking why the Safari Malawisaurus didn't look like Scott Hartman's skeletal and someone on this forum replying that it was due to differing interpretations of the phylogenetic position of titanosaurians...  I think it was @DinoToyForum who said that?

Thanks L @Leyster for that info on titanosaurian hands!  That puts the Safari 2024 Saltasaurus in a better position!  I'm not sure I will get it as I'm not enjoying the detail on it.  Wikipedia seems to suggest the circular hand condition of Diamantinasaurus would have been normal for titanosaurians.  Is that true?

[Leyster]

@Sim if that's true for Opisthocoelicaudia as I seem to recall, then yes, except for the basal ones. Titanosauriformes phylogeny is unstable, but Saltasaurus is consistently found as a derived genus.

[Sim]

Thanks!  Wikipedia shows and says that Opisthocoelicaudia has semicircle-shaped hands.

[Flaffy]

Thanks L @Leyster for that info on titanosaurian hands!  That puts the Safari 2024 Saltasaurus in a better position!  I'm not sure I will get it as I'm not enjoying the detail on it.  Wikipedia seems to suggest the circular hand condition of Diamantinasaurus would have been normal for titanosaurians.  Is that true?

I've had a quick browse through Hocknull et al.'s 2009 and 2015 revision paper on Diamantinasaurus. Relevant quotes posted below:

"The metacarpals articulate closely to one another in a tight proximal semi-circle, leaving only a small proximal internal gap. In distal view the metacarpals form a more open semi-circle with a slightly splayed external margin, which then connect to the small rounded button-like phalanges." - Hocknull et al. 2009

"The metacarpals of Diamantinasaurus, like those of other titanosaurs, were arranged in a ~ 360° columnar horseshoe-shaped arrangement (Fig. 13B) as interpreted by Hocknull et al. (2009)." - Hocknull et al. 2015

Seems like quite the generalisation to extrapolate a fully circular metacarpal arrangement to all titanosaurs given we have trackways that suggest the contrary (i.e. in favour of the horseshoe configuration). Note that Hocknull refers back to their own 2009 paper rather than citing external sources for this statement, which makes me skeptical of its validity.  I also recall there being discussion within sauropod circles that the weridness we see from Australian Titanosaurs, like Diamantinasaurus, compared to the rest of the globe may very well be due to their isolation on the continent? i.e. them being the exception rather than the norm.

I'm also currently reading through Bonnan et al. (2003) "The evolution of manus shape in sauropod dinosaurs". The authors presented a diagram featuring the diversity of manus configuration of various sauropods (and kin). According to this paper at least, Opisthocoelicaudia's manus is not fully circular. Are there newer papers that challenges this reconstruction? L @Leyster


Also if it's worth anything, Prehistoric Planet titanosaurs have horseshoe shaped hands. Including Nemengtosaurus, a saltasaurid and sister taxon to Opisthocoelicaudia. See 00:40, bottom right of the screen.

[DinoToyForum]

I think 2014 is far back enough for Safari to have been able to use the skeletal as a reference for their 2018 release.

So, Scott Hartman generally does not provide top-down or front views when he does his skeletals. And if you're trying to sculpt a dinosaur--like Safari needs to do for their prototypes--a side view doesn't provide enough information. The other skeletal you linked has a top-down view, which probably gave it the edge over Hartman's skeletal when Safari was in the research phase.

It's worth noting that even skeletals require a certain amount of artistic interpretation, and there are other interpretations of Malawisaurus that look more like Safari's version than Hartman's, including the museum mount pictured at the top of this blog post. I have no idea which version is the most accurate, because I'm not a titanosaur expert; I'm guessing that the person Safari hired to sculpt the figure wasn't, either. They did they best the could with the information they had available, which included a couple of competing interpretations of what the animal looked like.

Exactly the bolded part. As the scientific consultant for the Malawisaurus, I provided the artist with lots of reference materials, including both of those skeletal reconstructions. I stated my preference for Hartman's... I just checked my correspondence from the time, and I said "Hartman's is more accurate".

But there was only one dorsal view to use as a reference, so they could only use what was available. You can't easily map the dorsal view of one skeleton reconstruction onto a lateral view of a different reconstruction.

The artist and I exchanged dozens of emails about the Malawisaurus model over the course of several months. During which time it went through five major revisions. I prepared many annotated images and feedback for each revision.

[Flaffy]

@DinoToyForum Thank you kindly for the insight! So knowing that the Hartman skeletal was considered, and recognised as the better source (for lateral view at least); Would it not have been possible to use both skeletals for reference instead of primarily using Zachary's?

e.g. Reference Zach's for the dorsal view to establish girth/width in key areas, then primarily refer back to Dr. Hartman's for posture, proportions, anatomy and integument?

[DinoToyForum]

@DinoToyForum Thank you kindly for the insight! So knowing that the Hartman skeletal was considered, and recognised as the better source (for lateral view at least); Would it not have been possible to use both skeletals for reference instead of primarily using Zachary's?

e.g. Reference Zach's for the dorsal view to establish girth/width in key areas, then primarily refer back to Dr. Hartman's for posture, proportions, anatomy and integument?

That's what a paleoartist might do, but it wasn't practical in this case. It sounds easy, but it isn't. Combining two overlapping but partially conflicting references introduces complications and technical decisions that are beyond the remit of a non paleo-artist toy sculptor. It also isn't practical for the consultant to walk the artist through that sort of process through words and 2D pictures alone. Essentially, the artist needs (and asks for) clear, concise visual guidance. Description and discussions have to be in minimal simple non-technical language. In other words, the artist basically needs to be told "make it look like this", so they can get on with the job at hand.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

@DinoToyForum Thank you kindly for the insight! So knowing that the Hartman skeletal was considered, and recognised as the better source (for lateral view at least); Would it not have been possible to use both skeletals for reference instead of primarily using Zachary's?

e.g. Reference Zach's for the dorsal view to establish girth/width in key areas, then primarily refer back to Dr. Hartman's for posture, proportions, anatomy and integument?

That's what a paleoartist might do, but it wasn't practical in this case. It sounds easy, but it isn't. Combining two overlapping but partially conflicting references introduces complications and technical decisions that are beyond the remit of a non paleo-artist toy sculptor. It also isn't practical for the consultant to walk the artist through that sort of process through words and 2D pictures alone. Essentially, the artist needs (and asks for) clear, concise visual guidance. Description and discussions have to be in minimal simple non-technical language. In other words, the artist basically needs to be told "make it look like this", so they can get on with the job at hand.

Exactly. I can imagine how difficult it would be to try and direct an artist with no real background in paleontology.  I've had so many conflicting references on a piece you just have to pick one sometimes and say " this restoration is based on ___. "

[Flaffy]

@DinoToyForum Thank you kindly for the insight! So knowing that the Hartman skeletal was considered, and recognised as the better source (for lateral view at least); Would it not have been possible to use both skeletals for reference instead of primarily using Zachary's?

e.g. Reference Zach's for the dorsal view to establish girth/width in key areas, then primarily refer back to Dr. Hartman's for posture, proportions, anatomy and integument?

That's what a paleoartist might do, but it wasn't practical in this case. It sounds easy, but it isn't. Combining two overlapping but partially conflicting references introduces complications and technical decisions that are beyond the remit of a non paleo-artist toy sculptor. It also isn't practical for the consultant to walk the artist through that sort of process through words and 2D pictures alone. Essentially, the artist needs (and asks for) clear, concise visual guidance. Description and discussions have to be in minimal simple non-technical language. In other words, the artist basically needs to be told "make it look like this", so they can get on with the job at hand.

Exactly. I can imagine how difficult it would be to try and direct an artist with no real background in paleontology.  I've had so many conflicting references on a piece you just have to pick one sometimes and say " this restoration is based on ___. "

Which clearly shows the overwhelming benefits of hiring a sculptor with a background in paleontology, paleoart and/or natural history. That way the artist can make their own interpretations of the available information with greater independance and flexibility, rather than having to be directed in a rigid manner.

There's a good reason why David regularly employs such artists for his lines e.g. Jacob Baarse, Max Bellomio, Raul Ramos; and the results speak for themselves. BotM / Cyberzoic sculpts are consistently the best and most scientifically accurate reconstructions of their respective species in figure format.

Bringing Kieran onto the Safari ltd team was a phenomenal decision given how well the Megalosaurus turned out. I hope to see more of his work in the prehistoric line. His Megalosaurus is also direct proof that consultants working closely with sculptors is not an impossible task, as paleoartist RJ Palmer was named to have helped immensely in compiling references, along with Dr. Hartman's skeletal being heavily referenced too.

[Sim]

I don't agree that the Creative Beast figures are always the most accurate figures of their species.

[Flaffy]

I don't agree that the Creative Beast figures are always the most accurate figures of their species.

Sorry, should've specified that I was referring the sculpts done by the aforementioned paleoartists, hence their namedrops. I too found many errors when the line was still in it's infancy. Unless if you have opinions about their new sculpts too? I'm interested to hear about them! (in the Creative Beast thread I reckon)

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, honestly, if I didn't know it was a Safari I would have guessed the Saltasaurus was one of Schleich's better offerings.

Interesting you would say this. Mine arrived yesterday and I was unpacking it I had this sudden, brief sensation 'this is a Safari figure'? I dismissed the feeling, mainly because I don't know enough about the animal to criticize a rendition of it, but yeah I had a similar sudden first impression.

Don't get me wrong; it's a very fine figure and it will be my representation of its genus/species for the foreseeable future.

Agreed, it's not bad by any means, just not at the same level as other recent Safari releases.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

Received everything but the Nanuqsaurus and Megalosaurus today. They look a lot better in-person. One thing I noticed is that the paintwork on the feathered dinosaurs isn't a hard edge between feathers and scales. The dark wash on the underside of the therizinosaurus helps with this, too. The gray looks a lot less blue than I expected from the photos, though it still feels reminiscent of a blue-footed booby. Easily the best therizinosaurus toy in my opinion.

The only thing I wasn't happy with is that my stegouros arrived with the end of its tail broken off. It was the only one of the new figures I got that didn't have the plastic support.

[Halichoeres]

The tail was broken off? I think that warrants a replacement. I assume this was a direct order from Safari? Their in-house fulfillment is pretty careless in my experience.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

The tail was broken off? I think that warrants a replacement. I assume this was a direct order from Safari? Their in-house fulfillment is pretty careless in my experience.

Yes, I put in for a return on their site and they're sending a replacement. I don't even have to send the original back so it'll probably repaint or customize it at some point. The plastic it's made from is a little more rigid than most other Safari figures.

It seems the stiffer plastic they're using doesn't hold up as well. I saw the new zebra in a zoo shop earlier this year and they all had legs or ears broken off. In that case I'm sure it was kids playing with them or dropping them, but I never really saw Safari figures broken like that before recently.

[Halichoeres]

I'm glad they made you whole! I think I remember Shane saying something about finding new formulations of PVC without phthalates, which might explain why some more recent releases, like the Baryonyx, are a little bit brittle by comparison.