Fakes or Leaks? Safari 2018 models

[ZoPteryx]

It looks really good! One question though, shouldn't there only be three clawed fingers? Not all five?

Three on the hindfoot, but I think ankylosaurs mostly retained five digits on the manus.

I was referring to the number of claws, not the digits themselves. Sorry if I didn't word it good!

Nah, that's my fault. I don't know about the claws, actually. It seems like most ankylosaurs don't preserve complete hands, but this paper (https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app56/app20100055.pdf) on Pinacosaurus describes unguals from all five manual digits. I might be wrong, but I think unguals almost always underlie a claw, hoof, or nail. But you might have better information than I do, this was just all I could find in a few minutes of searching.

I thought I'd ask about the accuracy of the hands since stegosaurids tend to have claws on only three(or two, I don't remember) of five fingers, so since ankylosaurs are more derived thyreophorans, I figured that they would have only three or even two clawed digits on the hands.

For what it's worth, GSP puts claws on all the manual digits, except the outermost one, on all his thyreophorans.

[Takama]

In case anyones wondering

[postsaurischian]

  I was pretty sure it had to be kind of a fantasy foot.

[Shonisaurus]

I was pretty sure it had to be kind of a fantasy foot.

For me it is the mythological arpy of Greek mythology.

[sauroid]

that's a Boxer's ear in case anyone is wondering or haven't seen it in facebook yet.

[Dinoguy2]

It's nice and I love the color scheme, but those scales are way too big/coarse. A lot of Wild Safari dinosaurs have this issue. Dinosaur scales were tiny and wouldn't register nearly that much. I think the Carnegie anky remains the best available.

[John]

Noticeably,the Chinese auction site YoYCart that the leaked pictures of the Ankylosaurus and Daeodon in this thread had come from have no longer had either the harpy or American Mastodon figures listed since they turned up on Safari's site as part of the first wave of new releases.Now as of today,the Ankylosaurus is missing too,so maybe we get to see some more new items soon?

P.S.
The prices on YoYCart are ridiculously high.High enough to easily give me the patience needed to wait a few months for the new dinosaurs to not only be available everywhere,but at far more reasonable prices.

[Appalachiosaurus]

It looks really good! One question though, shouldn't there only be three clawed fingers? Not all five?

Three on the hindfoot, but I think ankylosaurs mostly retained five digits on the manus.

I was referring to the number of claws, not the digits themselves. Sorry if I didn't word it good!

Nah, that's my fault. I don't know about the claws, actually. It seems like most ankylosaurs don't preserve complete hands, but this paper (https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app56/app20100055.pdf) on Pinacosaurus describes unguals from all five manual digits. I might be wrong, but I think unguals almost always underlie a claw, hoof, or nail. But you might have better information than I do, this was just all I could find in a few minutes of searching.

I thought that no Archosaur had claws on the fourth or fifth finger, not even crocodiles do.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

The new Ankylosaurus perfectly illustrates the reason why the family has often been poorly portrayed in paleoart. In the profile shots, I could swear the body shape will be horribly laterally skinny, but then I see the dorsal and ventral photos, and it looks perfect! Ankylosaurs are sneaky like that.

[Halichoeres]

It looks really good! One question though, shouldn't there only be three clawed fingers? Not all five?

Three on the hindfoot, but I think ankylosaurs mostly retained five digits on the manus.

I was referring to the number of claws, not the digits themselves. Sorry if I didn't word it good!

Nah, that's my fault. I don't know about the claws, actually. It seems like most ankylosaurs don't preserve complete hands, but this paper (https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app56/app20100055.pdf) on Pinacosaurus describes unguals from all five manual digits. I might be wrong, but I think unguals almost always underlie a claw, hoof, or nail. But you might have better information than I do, this was just all I could find in a few minutes of searching.

I thought that no Archosaur had claws on the fourth or fifth finger, not even crocodiles do.

Living crocs don't, but it seems that at least some stem crocodiles had more than three manual claws. (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/254239028_fig5_FIG-7-Manus-and-pes-of-a-crocodylomorph-a-rauisuchian-and-the-aetosaur-Typothorax)

[danmalcolm]

The ankylosaurus is 20cm long... a bit smaller than I'd prefer, to be honest. there really isn't a good, large ankylosaurus figure. It still looks good, though.

I got the length from the Chinese site that leaked it.

[Faelrin]

That should put it at a little longer then the Sauropelta then. Does anyone know how it would scale up at that size, with the Feathered Tyrannosaurus released last year?

[Neosodon]

That should put it at a little longer then the Sauropelta then. Does anyone know how it would scale up at that size, with the Feathered Tyrannosaurus released last year?

It's in a 1:45 scale if it's based off the new maximum size estimate. So it should scale well with your average 30 cm/ foot long T. Rex. So it's a perfect match for safari's 2017 one. 

[Faelrin]

That should put it at a little longer then the Sauropelta then. Does anyone know how it would scale up at that size, with the Feathered Tyrannosaurus released last year?

It's in a 1:45 scale if it's based off the new maximum size estimate. So it should scale well with your average 30 cm/ foot long T. Rex. So it's a perfect match for safari's 2017 one. 

Thanks. I need to pick up both then (well when the Ankylosaurus is available).

[Sim]

From a quick read of the new paper ( http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2017-0063 ) my understanding is the new different length estimates for Ankylosaurus are dependant on different unknown proportions, such as the length of the body or tail.  So if one really wants to know the scale of the figure they would need to compare KNOWN parts of it to the fossils, e.g. the skull.  Not the total length of the figure, as the total length of Ankylosaurus isn't known and the estimates depend on different possibilities for the length of the body and tail for example.  Otherwise one thing that could happen is the scale of the figure is calculated based on an estimate for Ankylosaurus with a proportionally longer body/tail than the figure, which would result in the figure appearing to be at a smaller scale than it actually is.

Additionally, the paper says the maximum length estimates are unlikely:

Given that the vertebrae in AMNH 5895 do not differ substantially in size from other large ankylosaurin skeletons, a body length of nearly 10 m for a large Ankylosaurus is probably too long, but a length of up to 8 m is probably within reason.

[Halichoeres]

From a quick read of the new paper ( http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2017-0063 ) my understanding is the new different length estimates for Ankylosaurus are dependant on different unknown proportions, such as the length of the body or tail.  So if one really wants to know the scale of the figure they would need to compare KNOWN parts of it to the fossils, e.g. the skull.  Not the total length of the figure, as the total length of Ankylosaurus isn't known and the estimates depend on different possibilities for the length of the body and tail for example.  Otherwise one thing that could happen is the scale of the figure is calculated based on an estimate for Ankylosaurus with a proportionally longer body/tail than the figure, which would result in the figure appearing to be at a smaller scale than it actually is.

Additionally, the paper says the maximum length estimates are unlikely:

Given that the vertebrae in AMNH 5895 do not differ substantially in size from other large ankylosaurin skeletons, a body length of nearly 10 m for a large Ankylosaurus is probably too long, but a length of up to 8 m is probably within reason.

Yeah, I think basing it on the skull in particular is a good way to go. That's how I'll estimate it when I get it. Speaking of the skull, this part of the paper made me laugh:

"CMN 8880 was briefly described and figured by Carpenter (2004), who suggested that the skull roof was poorly preserved. However, the skull was stored upside down at the time so that the dorsal surface may have been unavailable for examination. The skull was flipped in 2014 for conservation and study of the dorsal surface. The skull roof is, in fact, in a fine state of preservation."

[Neosodon]

The problem with using only certain parts of the body to get the scale is that the model companies don't always or hardly ever get the proportions correct. So let's say the head is in a 1: 40 scale but the rest of the body is way to small.  So you get another figure in that same scale to go with it but they end up looking completely wrong together but at least their heads will be to scale.

Going by the length isn't perfect either because it does not take into account how fat or tall it is and if the tail and neck are curved that could really mess up your calculations too.  But length is the simplest and easiest way to get a general idea of how your figures scale up with each other. But if your concerned about getting the exact scale I would look at both.

[Sim]

The problem with using only certain parts of the body to get the scale is that the model companies don't always or hardly ever get the proportions correct.

If one is interested in working out a model's scale, it's worthwhile checking how the figure's proportions compare to those of the real animal.  For this new Ankylosaurus toy, the relative size of the head, body and tail look like they will correspond well to the reconstruction in the new paper.  The toy also appears to have very similar proportions to this Ankylosaurus skeletal: https://getawaytrike.deviantart.com/art/Heavy-armored-special-615655175

That Ankylosaurus skeletal's size is for the largest Ankylosaurus specimen, and by my calculations that skeletal shows it as being 7.04m long.  Although I measured it in a straight line from the front of the snout to the end of the tail, and I think dinosaur length estimates tend to end up being somewhat longer due to being measured as if the bones were laid out in a row on a flat surface meaning curves in the body shape aren't taken into account.  The toy seems to have a slightly longer tail than the skeletal, so that could maybe extend the length to around 7.5m.  Based on the proportions of the toy and the reconstruction in the new paper, I don't see Ankylosaurus being more than 8m long.  This is suggested by the paper too: "a body length of nearly 10 m for a large Ankylosaurus is probably too long, but a length of up to 8 m is probably within reason."  Do you see how those longer estimates, especially 9 - 10 m would require parts of the animal such as the body or tail to be considerably longer than they are in certain reconstructions such as that skeletal?

So let's say the head is in a 1: 40 scale but the rest of the body is way to small.  So you get another figure in that same scale to go with it but they end up looking completely wrong together but at least their heads will be to scale.

I think this is what's more likely to happen: A length estimate will be used to calculate a model's scale, but the length estimate is dependent on unknown lengths of body parts e.g. the tail.  The result is the model will look overall too big/small compared to other models in that scale due to having different proportions to those used for the length estimate.

As an example of this, you calculated the scale of the new Ankylosaurus toy as being 1:45 scale if based on the new maximum size estimate.  However, I've calculated it's around 1:36 scale for a 7.5m Ankylosaurus, or 1:38 scale for an 8m Ankylosaurus.  If the toy's proportions are indeed similar to the new reconstruction in the paper as well as the skeletal, as I mentioned previously, I'd say longer length estimates for Ankylosaurus would not be correct for this toy and using them to calculate scale would just result in the toy appearing to be a smaller representation than it actually is.

Going by the length isn't perfect either because it does not take into account how fat or tall it is and if the tail and neck are curved that could really mess up your calculations too.  But length is the simplest and easiest way to get a general idea of how your figures scale up with each other. But if your concerned about getting the exact scale I would look at both.

I think calculating scale based on overall length can work well for species where the overall length is well understood.  For species where the overall length is ambiguous, I think comparison to known parts of the animal is important, but it can be of interest to also compare the model to an overall length estimate, and then see how the scale based on length compares to the scale based on known parts.

[tanystropheus]

Taking a page from CollectA's book (?), the Daeodon appears to be visibly male.