Safari Ltd - New for 2022

[Sim]

And yes, the term "fantasy" is absolutely hyperbolic considering that Patagotitan is one of the most complete titanosaurs in the world, second only to Dreadnoughtus.

"Hyperbolic" means intentionally exaggerated.  I responded to Halichoeres expressing that that wasn't what I was doing.  Why do you then feel the need to imply I'm a liar?  I'm a very honest person and I have little tolerance for assumptions that cross a line.  Being one of the most completely known species doesn't stop a reconstruction of it being fantasy, for a different example we can see that in megaraptorans, no-one knows what an adult one looks like, even for the most complete species.  I don't think that Patagotitan and Dreadnoughtus are the second and most complete titanosaurs, I think those are Malawisaurus and Rapetosaurus.

But, Patagotitan is known from good remains... we know its general proportions and its posture. Just about the only thing we don't have is a skull.

If the posture of Patagotitan is known, why does the Wild Safari version, and the skeletal in the paper that names Patagotitan, have a different posture to other skeletal reconstructions of Patagotitan that have been posted in this thread?  The mounted skeleton of Patagotitan that had photos of it posted in this thread also has a different posture to those other skeletal reconstructions.  I noticed the limbs and pelvic region of Patagotitan are incomplete, could those have an effect on the reconstructed posture?  Also, do we know for sure how long Patagotitan's neck was?

[stargatedalek]

Because the AMNH skeletal was posed with the neck lowered, as if in action, and the skeletal drawings show it in the animals comfortable neutral pose.

[Flaffy]

But, Patagotitan is known from good remains... we know its general proportions and its posture. Just about the only thing we don't have is a skull.

If the posture of Patagotitan is known, why does the Wild Safari version, and the skeletal in the paper that names Patagotitan, have a different posture to other skeletal reconstructions of Patagotitan that have been posted in this thread?  The mounted skeleton of Patagotitan that had photos of it posted in this thread also has a different posture to those other skeletal reconstructions.

Description skeletal:
1) Seems to be based on Kenneth Lacovara's Dreadnoughtus, which itself is based on dated proposals for sauropod posture:
- unnaturally curved back
- slouching hips & tail
- digitigrade stance of hindlimbs, sauropods had plantigrade feet
- scapula position, should be more vertical according to Gregory S. Paul (2017), and situated more caudally than older reconstructions according to Scott Hartman. Increase shoulder height relative to hip height.
2) Scaling issues. The dimensions of the skeletal elements in Carballido et al. (2017) is not reflective of the actual individual bone measurements presented in the description. Drawn reconstructions in papers often have issues with scaling, as the authors themselves may not be professional artists; hence why it's more reliable to refer directly to the data/measurements rather than the skeletals, a method that many professional and amateur paleoartists adopt when creating their own reconstructions.


Mount:
1) The display hall isn't tall / large enough to accommodate an erect posture.
2) It's a problematic mount, to which I wouldn't be surprised would fundamentally affect the posture. Quoting Spinoinwonderland:
"From the looks of it, the mount has an extreme amount of caudals (something like 80+?) and 15 cervicals. I reconstructed the critter with a standard count of 50 caudals (most sauropods usually get within the range of ~40-65, diplodocoids are the exception) and 14 cervicals based on the complete cervical series of Futalognkosaurus. The sacrum is also restored much smaller than in the mount, based on Futalognkosaurus. So a little bit of neck, quite a bit of hip, and a lot of tail."
3) Near horizontal scapula position on the mount. Latest consensus angle the scapula at a more vertical position, lifting the chest, thus a more inclined torso.


Safari ltd figure: Remains to be seen. Awaiting better in-hand pictures and video reviews.

I noticed the limbs and pelvic region of Patagotitan are incomplete, could those have an effect on the reconstructed posture?  Also, do we know for sure how long Patagotitan's neck was?

Fore sure? No. But the complete cervical series of Futalognkosaurus, along with it's complete sacral region gives us a very good idea of how these body regions related to each other in life in these fascinating animals.


Attached below is the drawn reconstruction published in Calvo et al. (2007). This is a good example of why drawn reconstructions in published papers may not be the best of references. These skeletals' primary purpose is to display the number, the location, and the type of bones recovered. Creating a convincing, rigorous scientific reconstruction is certainly beyond the scope of a description paper, and the authors themselves may not have the time, energy, budget, or know how to do so (again, at no fault to the authors of course). Hence why professional paleoartists like Scott Hartman, Gregory S. Paul, GetAwayTrike, Eofauna...; along with countless other up-and-rising amateurs exist.

[indy1936]

Im Glad they made THE largest Titanosaur known from decent remains, but what frustrates me is the  image of it being compared with there Amargasaurus.   A model of a 10 meter long Sauropod that Was one of Safari ltds new for 2018 releases, but It was the one thing that made me quit buying there Dinosaurs.   Because in the Same Year, A Smaller model of a 16 meter long Malawisaurus was released at the same time.   

Doug, if you see this, and that Patago is your model, i think it looks good. 

Well said.  Frustrated with the lack of relative scaling with the Safari sauropods.  Many of the popular medium-large sized dinosaurs (trex, triceratops, spino, allo, stego, etc) released by safari have been 1:35.  Having at least some relative scale among the sauropod models would have been nice.  I've started substituting other brands with 1:35 scaling for the larger models.  Eg. w-dragon, nanmu, pnso.

[suspsy]

And yes, the term "fantasy" is absolutely hyperbolic considering that Patagotitan is one of the most complete titanosaurs in the world, second only to Dreadnoughtus.

"Hyperbolic" means intentionally exaggerated.  I responded to Halichoeres expressing that that wasn't what I was doing.  Why do you then feel the need to imply I'm a liar?  I'm a very honest person and I have little tolerance for assumptions that cross a line.

I beg your pardon? Pointing out that your use of "fantasy" is hyperbolic is hardly an implication that you're a liar. If I desired to accuse you of being one, I'd state it outright.

Being one of the most completely known species doesn't stop a reconstruction of it being fantasy, for a different example we can see that in megaraptorans, no-one knows what an adult one looks like, even for the most complete species.

That . . . is rather insulting to paleontologists, paleoartists, and the people who make a living constructing skeletal mounts for museums. And to Safari and other toy companies. It is not fantasy no matter how you try to slice it. It is a perfectly reasonable reconstruction based on relatively complete fossil material, images of which have been shown in this thread repeatedly. Fantasy would be making a Patagotitan toy with wings on its back or a second head at the end of its tail or colouring it hot pink with #metoo hashtags instead of stripes or spots. If you complained to the paleontology department at AMNH that they're guilty of exhibiting a "fantasy" dinosaur, they'd either laugh at you or tell you not to waste their time.

I don't think that Patagotitan and Dreadnoughtus are the second and most complete titanosaurs, I think those are Malawisaurus and Rapetosaurus.

I was talking about giant titanosaurs. I really didn't think I had to specify that, but I guess one should never underestimate pedantry.

[SpartanSquat]

The Dino Dana stuff is all repaints

Hi again, just stopping by to clear something up (seriously, last time) -

New dinos will be revealed this year. Dino Dana and otherwise.

Just because Dino Dana has thus far been repaints, does not mean that this is the way it will continue indefinitely.

Carry on.

So Patagotitan is not the only 2022 release?

[KrazyKaprosuchus]

The Dino Dana stuff is all repaints

Hi again, just stopping by to clear something up (seriously, last time) -

New dinos will be revealed this year. Dino Dana and otherwise.

Just because Dino Dana has thus far been repaints, does not mean that this is the way it will continue indefinitely.

Carry on.

So Patagotitan is not the only 2022 release?

It isn't the only one. Shane's a pretty reputable source.

[TaranUlas]

Also for anyone complaining about the size of the Patagotitan compared to the Amargasaurus...

Can't speak for others, but I certainly wasn't expecting it to scale with the humongous Amargasaurus. That figure is an outlier, even among sauropod figures.
I just wanted it to match the size of the 2019 Camarasaurus (not length, but body size). I feel like the 2019 Camarasaurus strikes the goldilocks zone for sauropod figures. Not too large where it'll hog what little remains of my shelf space; but not too small so that it'll have some nice bulk and shelf presence, along with affording the sculptor more physical space to work-in finer details.

For comparison: Safari Camarasaurus with Eofauna Atlasaurus, the latter is around the same size as the Carnegie Brachiosaurus, so the 2019 Camarasaurus is essentially a "step down" in the size department.

I think the only reason this Patagotitan is not matching the Camarasaurus in size is precisely because they have the neck so far down. After all, this is a 15 inch long figure. The Camarasaurus itself is roughly 13.75 inches in length in its pose. It's been a while since I sat down and measured the figure from head to tail exactly, but I do remember it being not too far off from that length. Basically I'm trying to say that it's mainly the pose that makes the Patagotitan look smaller since lengthwise it's only a couple of inches smaller than the Diplodocus figure they put out... and that figure is a figure that stands out due to its length. Also, the Atlasaurus is only about 8.5 inches in length. This is a figure that is nearly double that length. It just absolutely isn't winning on height.

Would I have preferred them to go with our current understanding of Sauropod posture? Yes, but I at least can understand why they wanted to reference the AMNH Patagotitan display. We should also note that it's not physically impossible for the animal to have that pose (After all, drinking would be deeply awkward if they couldn't reach down even that far), just that it was definitely not it's natural pose.

[Flaffy]

Also for anyone complaining about the size of the Patagotitan compared to the Amargasaurus...

Can't speak for others, but I certainly wasn't expecting it to scale with the humongous Amargasaurus. That figure is an outlier, even among sauropod figures.
I just wanted it to match the size of the 2019 Camarasaurus (not length, but body size). I feel like the 2019 Camarasaurus strikes the goldilocks zone for sauropod figures. Not too large where it'll hog what little remains of my shelf space; but not too small so that it'll have some nice bulk and shelf presence, along with affording the sculptor more physical space to work-in finer details.

For comparison: Safari Camarasaurus with Eofauna Atlasaurus, the latter is around the same size as the Carnegie Brachiosaurus, so the 2019 Camarasaurus is essentially a "step down" in the size department.

I think the only reason this Patagotitan is not matching the Camarasaurus in size is precisely because they have the neck so far down. After all, this is a 15 inch long figure. The Camarasaurus itself is roughly 13.75 inches in length in its pose. It's been a while since I sat down and measured the figure from head to tail exactly, but I do remember it being not too far off from that length. Basically I'm trying to say that it's mainly the pose that makes the Patagotitan look smaller since lengthwise it's only a couple of inches smaller than the Diplodocus figure they put out... and that figure is a figure that stands out due to its length. Also, the Atlasaurus is only about 8.5 inches in length. This is a figure that is nearly double that length. It just absolutely isn't winning on height.

Would I have preferred them to go with our current understanding of Sauropod posture? Yes, but I at least can understand why they wanted to reference the AMNH Patagotitan display. We should also note that it's not physically impossible for the animal to have that pose (After all, drinking would be deeply awkward if they couldn't reach down even that far), just that it was definitely not it's natural pose.

And that is precisely why I prefer erect postures for sauropod figures. Scientific plausibility/accuracy discussions aside, they simply take up less physical space on the shelf. Erect figures require more vertical space sure, but are far more reasonable in the horizontal department. A similar scenario to pterosaur poses(?), where flying poses hog up a lot more shelf space than standing ones.

If the Patagotitan was sculpted in a more erect posture, it could've freed up space to increase the body size of the figure without needing to worry over excessive horizontal length.

I've expressed similar sentiments in the Eofauna thread on their Diplodocus, such a large horizontal figure would be a pain to find space for. The image below perfectly illustrates this, but just switch up the players from Eofauna Atlasaurus & Dipldodcus, to Safari Camarasaurus & Patagotitan (note: size difference would not be as dramatic as the Eofauna sauropods, as the Patagotitan is a much smaller figure).

8.5 inch vs 24.4 inch horizontal length

[suspsy]

Yeah, I had to put my Carnegie Diplodocus up on the bookcase by its lonesome (well, it's got some MOTU toys for company) because it was occupying too much space in the display case.

And yes, one can easily pretend that the Patagotitan is lowering its head to take a drink. Shoot, I'd like a theropod or two in a drinking pose.

[Flaffy]

Stumbled across DinosDragon's fantastic review of the PNSO Mammenchisaurus. He goes into great detail on sauropod posture from 06:20 onwards (timestamped below).
Definitely worth a watch if you're interested in the paleontological aspects of this whole discussion.

Time stamped 06:20 ~ https://youtu.be/R-Hs4aeGxLE?t=379
Full review~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Hs4aeGxLE&ab_channel=DinosDragons

[Dinoguy2]

Because the AMNH skeletal was posed with the neck lowered, as if in action, and the skeletal drawings show it in the animals comfortable neutral pose.

The myth of "comfortable neutral pose" started with all the horizontal neck stuff in the 90s and needs to die.

Sauropods probably spent 90% of their lives walking around eating stuff. They'd eat whatever was in front of them. High, low, middle. They'd probably just walk around slowly moving their neck around sucking up plants like a vacuum cleaner. If 1/3 of possible neck postures we're "uncomfortable" because they deviated from mythical Osteological Neutral, they probably lived quite miserable lives.

[Thialfi]

.

[Flaffy]

Because the AMNH skeletal was posed with the neck lowered, as if in action, and the skeletal drawings show it in the animals comfortable neutral pose.

The myth of "comfortable neutral pose" started with all the horizontal neck stuff in the 90s and needs to die.

Anatomically neutral position / Standard anatomical position is quite literally a medical and scientifically agreed upon term though. I think it's incredibly disingenuous to discredit the work of paleontologists as nothing but a "myth". Had it not been for the work of such scholars, we'd still be stuck with kangaroo lizards and lumbering tail draggers of the olden days. Not sure why anyone would want to actively impede scientific progress on our journey to learn as much about these creatures as possible.

Sauropods probably spent 90% of their lives walking around eating stuff. They'd eat whatever was in front of them. High, low, middle. They'd probably just walk around slowly moving their neck around sucking up plants like a vacuum cleaner. If 1/3 of possible neck postures we're "uncomfortable" because they deviated from mythical Osteological Neutral, they probably lived quite miserable lives.

No one is saying that it would be impossible for sauropods to achieve high amounts of flexion. The point is that it's highly unlikely that sauropods would've kept their necks flexed at extreme angles for prolonged periods of time. Try dipping your own neck as one would when looking at a phone screen for a couple of hours, it certainly wouldn't comfortable. There's a reason why neck issues are more prevalent among people who regularly flex their necks at such angles for long periods. It's just a matter of biomechanics, at some point pressure and tension has to be released.


Poses shown: (1) maximum dorsiflexion; (2) highest vertical reach of the head (7.16 m from the ground), with the neck 90° deflected; (3) alert pose sensu Taylor Wedel and Naish 13 ; (4) osteological neutral pose sensu Stevens 14 ; (5) lowest vertical reach of the head (0.72 m from the ground at 0°), with the head as close to the ground without flexing the appendicular elements; (6) maximum ventriflexion. - Vidal, D., et al. (2020)

And again, there's a good reason why Giraffes don't have their necks flopped around when they're standing still or relaxing. Are poses that require significant flexion possible (e.g. browsing, drinking, combat)? Of course! But it certainly wouldn't keep it in that position for any longer than necessary.


Obviously, on a figure like the Safari Patagotitan, as well as many other pieces of paleoart that depict sauropods in non-neutral poses, the situation is different. I do recognize that in such instances, the intent of the artist is to capture a "snap-shot" in the life of the animal. There's a place for fun and wacky poses in the collector's market, and more power to those who enjoy it, but that doesn't mean everyone must be a fan of them. Moreover, I believe making broad statements that comes across as describing the study of anatomy/biomechanics being a "myth" & irrelevant does more harm than good.

And finally, a bit off topic, but not all sauropods fed on the same vegetation. Some were low browsers, some were generalists, and some were tree-top specialists. By learning about the anatomically neutral position for, well, any dinosaur really. We can learn not only about how it held itself in life, but also how it would've lived. Everything from feeding habits to blood supply, studies in cardiovascular & cardiorespiratory systems, pneumatic structures in the neck etc. (carbon isotopic analysis of enamel certainly helps in figuring out diets too)
Extreme niche partitioning has been proposed for Morrison sauropods, given the sheer density of sauropod diversity in the region. And there's certainly evidence to back up those claims too. EverythingDinosaur's written an easily digestible blog about this if you're interested: https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2014/10/11/how-did-huge-sauropods-manage-to-get-along-together.html

[Sim]

Because the AMNH skeletal was posed with the neck lowered, as if in action, and the skeletal drawings show it in the animals comfortable neutral pose.

I wasn't talking about the posture of the neck, I was talking about the posture of the torso.  But perhaps @Flaffy has answered my question, apparently the different posture seen in some skeletals, the mounted skeleton and the Wild Safari figure is simply wrong?  I'm not sure I can believe that entirely with confidence though, particularly if the reason for one difference is basing it on a relative rather than the actual bones.

And yes, the term "fantasy" is absolutely hyperbolic considering that Patagotitan is one of the most complete titanosaurs in the world, second only to Dreadnoughtus.

"Hyperbolic" means intentionally exaggerated.  I responded to Halichoeres expressing that that wasn't what I was doing.  Why do you then feel the need to imply I'm a liar?  I'm a very honest person and I have little tolerance for assumptions that cross a line.

I beg your pardon? Pointing out that your use of "fantasy" is hyperbolic is hardly an implication that you're a liar. If I desired to accuse you of being one, I'd state it outright.

Saying my use of "fantasy" is hyperbolic after I've said it isn't is implying I'm lying as hyperbolic means intentionally exaggerated.

Being one of the most completely known species doesn't stop a reconstruction of it being fantasy, for a different example we can see that in megaraptorans, no-one knows what an adult one looks like, even for the most complete species.

That . . . is rather insulting to paleontologists, paleoartists, and the people who make a living constructing skeletal mounts for museums. And to Safari and other toy companies. It is not fantasy no matter how you try to slice it. It is a perfectly reasonable reconstruction based on relatively complete fossil material, images of which have been shown in this thread repeatedly. Fantasy would be making a Patagotitan toy with wings on its back or a second head at the end of its tail or colouring it hot pink with #metoo hashtags instead of stripes or spots. If you complained to the paleontology department at AMNH that they're guilty of exhibiting a "fantasy" dinosaur, they'd either laugh at you or tell you not to waste their time.

No, it isn't insulting and if you can't tolerate me thinking it's fantasy than I suggest we agree to disagree.

I don't think that Patagotitan and Dreadnoughtus are the second and most complete titanosaurs, I think those are Malawisaurus and Rapetosaurus.

I was talking about giant titanosaurs. I really didn't think I had to specify that, but I guess one should never underestimate pedantry.

That's an unnecessarily rude response.  I was polite and I wasn't being pedantic.

[Flaffy]

Because the AMNH skeletal was posed with the neck lowered, as if in action, and the skeletal drawings show it in the animals comfortable neutral pose.

I wasn't talking about the posture of the neck, I was talking about the posture of the torso.  But perhaps @Flaffy has answered my question, apparently the different posture seen in some skeletals, the mounted skeleton and the Wild Safari figure is simply wrong?  I'm not sure I can believe that entirely with confidence though, particularly if the reason for one difference is basing it on a relative rather than the actual bones.

The issues with scaling on the original skeletal alone should be enough evidence to point to a different posture. In layman terms, higher/larger hip = more horizontal posture, something that both the mount and the paper skeletal suffer from.

And since we do have mostly complete fossil material of both the pubis and ischium of Patagotitan, along with the lower part of the ilium; all we need to do is estimate & scale how tall/large the iliac crest would be, based on preserved pubic elements. Moreover, I believe we can infer from the cervicothoracic junction (where neck meets thorax) how the bones would've been positioned in life with the least amount of stress/tension. This part is also preserved in Patagotitan, along with the most of the thoracic vertebrae and a few cervical vertebrae.

Finally, as stated in my previous response to you, the skeletal and the mount are not depicted in a plantigrade stance as sauropod hindlimbs should be. Instead, an erroneous digitigrade stance is adopted. Further pushing up the hip region, leading to the more horizontal configuration of the torso. It is interesting to note however that the Safari Patagotitan does seem to adopt the correct plantigrade stance. (Left to right: Mount, paper skeletal, Hartman skeletal)


Having Futalongkosaurus's complete cervical series to reference is just a bonus to "cross-check" results. Obviously there is always a margin for error, as with most things in paleontology. But my point is that there's just so much evidence that points one way rather than the other, it'd be silly not to at least consider the possibility that the horizontal body posture might be problematic.

[Libraraptor]

I don't think that Patagotitan and Dreadnoughtus are the second and most complete titanosaurs, I think those are Malawisaurus and Rapetosaurus.

I was talking about giant titanosaurs. I really didn't think I had to specify that, but I guess one should never underestimate pedantry.

That's an unnecessarily rude response.  I was polite and I wasn't being pedantic.
[/quote]

At least unnecessarily sarcastic. Why don't you two return to a less fevered communication? Thank you

[Duna]

Wow, that's a huge mistake in the mount! Back feet should be plantigrade. Thanks for pointing it out.

[SidB]

Wow, that's a huge mistake in the mount! Back feet should be plantigrade. Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, that's significant - I was startled to see such an obvious error.

[Dinoguy2]

.