What 5 non-reptiles would we like Safari to make?

[Sim]

I don't like the barnacles on the CollectA Basilosaurus and I'm not entirely sure that Basilosaurus would have had barnacles anyway. I mostly don't like them because they appear randomly distributed, whereas if you look at extant whales they seem to colonize particular areas on the body. Also, a brief glance at Wikipedia shows that whale barnacles evolved in the Late Pliocene, so that makes me wonder if ancient whales would have even had them. I don't know much about this but I think I'll research it further.

I don't like the barnacles either.  It feels like the CollectA and PNSO Basilosaurus only have them for the sake of detail, consistent with other unnecessary detail on their skin.  The Kaiyodo Elasmosaurus also has barnacles, but as far as I know the only other type of barnacle that attaches to animals is the turtle barnacle which also evolved in the Cenozoic.

[Primeval12]

I quite like the Basilosaurus by CollectA but the lack of lips is a crazy oversight in my opinion. It gives it the appearance of an angry chihuahua.

Also I agree that the lumps are unpainted barnacles.

[Sim]

I mentioned that the CollectA Basilosaurus might be pulling its lips back to bare its teeth, but that isn't something I'd associate with a whale.  The lumps look quite clearly different to the barnacles and are something CollectA has been adding to "bare" skin on their figures with regularity for some reason, e.g. on their Estemmenosuchus, Kronosaurus, Dunkleosteus, Caiuajara...

The Papo Kronosaurus has barnacles too, which seems to be inaccurate based on the apparent lack of them in the Mesozoic.

[Gwangi]

I mentioned that the CollectA Basilosaurus might be pulling its lips back to bare its teeth, but that isn't something I'd associate with a whale.  The lumps look quite clearly different to the barnacles and are something CollectA has been adding to "bare" skin on their figures with regularity for some reason, e.g. on their Estemmenosuchus, Kronosaurus, Dunkleosteus, Caiuajara...

The Papo Kronosaurus has barnacles too, which seems to be inaccurate based on the apparent lack of them in the Mesozoic.

Barnacles have been around since the Carboniferous, its specifically the whale barnacles that have only been around since the Late Pliocene.

[Sim]

I thought the only other barnacle that attaches to animals is the turtle barnacle, which is also a Cenoxoic-only species.  If there are more ancient barnacles that attached to animals too, could it be possible the ones on the Basilosaurus figures are those rather than "whale barnacles"?  Turtle barnacles attach themselves to animals other than turtles too.

[Gwangi]

I thought the only other barnacle that attaches to animals is the turtle barnacle, which is also a Cenoxoic-only species.  If there are more ancient barnacles that attached to animals too, could it be possible the ones on the Basilosaurus figures are those rather than "whale barnacles"?  Turtle barnacles attach themselves to animals other than turtles too.

From what I can tell the only barnacles that attach to whales are members of a family that evolved much more recently than Basilosaurus. I have to assume that before the existence of whale barnacles there were no barnacles living on whales. I would think that if there were another species of barnacle that attached to whales before whale barnacles evolved then they would likely still be around. I have to do more reading about barnacles.  Also, barnacles attach themselves to all manner of non-living objects. It could be that barnacles attaching to animals is a recent adaptation.

[Halichoeres]

Barnacles are kind of weird among hard-shelled marine invertebrates in that their fossil record is quite poor. Most of them live in 'high-energy' environments, meaning lots of wave action that would smash dead ones to pieces or erode them. I think the ones that live attached to whales or turtles would probably also have a hard time preserving, either because they come loose as decay sets in, or because the preservation environment favors calcium phosphate fossilization, but not calcium carbonate. So while the extant barnacle lineages that live on other animals appear to be recent divergences, I actually think it's pretty reasonable to think there might have been other barnacles that pulled it off that we just don't know about yet. Considering that barnacle larvae are usually planktonic, there have been plenty of chances in their 500-million-year history for them to luck into a free ride on a giant animal.

CollectA's Pliosaurus has lampreys on it. At the time it was released there were literally no lampreys known from the Jurassic period, although one has since been described. Did that particular lamprey (Yanliaomyzon) live on Pliosaurus? Nah. But I don't think it's a totally crazy speculation.