Safari Ltd - New for 2022

[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.

Anatomically neutral position / Standard anatomical position is quite literally a medical and scientifically agreed upon term though.

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

I was simply having flashbacks to decades of online arguments about *osteologically* neutral pose instigated by Kent Stevens and popularized by WWD. As one of the figures you posted admirably shows, there's really no one "neutral" pose. There's ONP (A4 above) which many studies have shown is far from informative for anything regarding life position (see articles by Taylor, Naish, and Wedel - they must have done dozens of SV-POW articles on this over the years too). Note that the 2008 Carnegie Diplodocus was made under the presumption that ONP meant diplodocids could not raise their neck, or at least did so quite rarely. But Taylor et. al have shown that alert poses tend to be much more retracted relative to ONP (A3 in the figure above), and this also applies to diplodocids. So while diplodocids may generally gave preferred low browse, they almost certainly could browse at a range of heights, and the same is true of other sauropods. Ironically, the Safari Brachiosaurus in the ED image is NOT in neutral pose, it is in alert pose - ONP for Brachiosaurus is also a horizontal neck! Though of course at a slight upward angle given the shoulders. Same for Camarasaurus. I would assume true neutral pose for titanosaurs would also give a close to horizontal neck, making the pose in the "preferred" skeletals closer to an alert pose and the figure closer to osteological neutral.

[Halichoeres]

Sim, I generally enjoy our interactions and it sounds like this is bigger than the basically semantic disagreement we're having here, so I'm happy to drop it. I just want to say I do not co-sign anybody else's comments and I've tried to not be personal or aggressive.

[KrazyKaprosuchus]

@Sim I really don't mean to pick a fight, but if we're going to restrict 'hyperbole' to its narrowest sense, indicating that you intentionally exaggerated for rhetorical effect, then I think we need to construe 'fantasy' equally narrowly, to mean imagining something impossible or implausible. Reconstructing animals like Patagotitan rests on inference, interpolation, even extrapolation from time to time, based on the very reasonable assumption that things that are more closely related by evolution are likely to appear more similar than dissimilar. Equating that with fantasy strikes me as a bit ungenerous and, yes, an exaggeration.

I used fantasy to mean something imagined, and at the time enough of Patagotitan and definitely enough of Argentinosaurus was that that I felt it was appropriate to consider reconstructions of them to be fantasy.  What I think has been ungenerous is your and suspsy's responses to that.  Compare them with @Flaffy's who was respectful and manged to explain things in a way that got across her point and has made me reconsider Patagotitan being mostly fantasy.  @stargatedalek also expressed her disagreement in a respectful way.  While we're talking about what is fantasy, I noticed that this discussion revealed that the Patagotitan mounted skeleton has one more neck vertebra than a relative suggests, a guessed skull, an apparently inaccurate torso posture, digitigrade feet and a tail that's much longer than what its relatives suggest.  So that skeleton appears to be quite a lot of fantasy.

If some people are so intolerant of my views, and moderators think how they've expressed themselves is not much of a problem, then what should I do?  I feel I've been receiving presumptuous comments that are agressive and I've really had enough.  I find it astounding how some people here don't seem to think that they don't know what someone else goes through and they just leave them nasty comments.  I wish it wasn't so but I don't trust the moderation team to keep this place a safe space and I really have had enough of having my days spoilt by offensive posts.  So I wonder again, what should I do?  Maybe it's time I don't return to this forum once and for all.

Leave it to this forum to complain about negativity and then get their feathers all ruffled over an opinion of something. 

[Bread]

Leave it to this forum to complain about negativity and then get their feathers all ruffled over an opinion of something. 

Literally..... I come to check this thread for news regarding the 2022 releases, not to read paragraphs on the word hyperbole.

[TheCambrianCrusader]

I don't understand why many of you are pressed about a couple of toes or scale, I think it is a wonderful figure for kids, and I'll be getting one myself 

Yeah same here, its a very nice looking figure of an animal I was desperately waiting for. Absolutely gonna get it!
Can't wait to see what else safari's got in store.

[suspsy]

Challenging another person's argument or choice of terminology when you find reason to disagree with them isn't being intolerant. Nor is it bullying or bashing or being mean. Intolerant would be telling the other person to just shut up or go away or call them names. I haven't seen anything of that sort play out in this thread and I hope I never do. And I think the moderators have been doing a very good job. Theirs is a rather thankless one too.

Getting back to more interesting topics, it's bemusing to read about all these issues with the Patagotitan mount. I'd be curious to know what the AMNH thinks about it. Unfortunately, the majority of skeletal mounts with inaccuracies never end up getting corrected unless the museum does a major renovation. I also wonder if the mount at the Field in Chicago has any similar issues. Does anyone know?

[TheCambrianCrusader]

Challenging another person's argument or choice of terminology when you find reason to disagree with them isn't being intolerant. Nor is it bullying or bashing or being mean. Intolerant would be telling the other person to just shut up or go away or call them names. I haven't seen anything of that sort play out in this thread and I hope I ever do. And I think the moderators have been doing a very good job. Theirs is a rather thankless one too.

Getting back to more interesting topics, it's bemusing to read about all these issues with the Patagotitan mount. I'd be curious to know what the AMNH thinks about it. Unfortunately, the majority of skeletal mounts with inaccuracies never end up getting corrected unless the museum does a major renovation. I also wonder if the mount at the Field in Chicago has any similar issues. Does anyone know?

I'm not familiar with the Chicago mount, but I'm pretty sure most of the problems with the AMNH mount are mainly a result of the hall just not being big enough to really house the animal.

[BlueKrono]

@suspsy I agree, I don't see any of the vitriol on this forum that is so common in other domains of the internet. What passes as "offensive" is comparatively quite mild.
You're right, museums rarely rehaul their dinos, but one that currently is right now is the Yale Peabody Museum, home of the famous Zallinger murals that inspired so many early dinosaur toys. They'll be reopening in 2024 with more modern depictions of dinosaurs, while of course still preserving the historic murals in their original state.
The AMNH is one of the world's best, and if they stock the Patagotitan in their gift shop I bet they'll sell a ton of them. The mount in question only looks dubious to those who have extensive knowledge of sauropod morphology. I am not such a person, and I would bet 99% of the target market for this figure aren't either. The strong opinions about it in the forum here honestly fascinate me.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

(..) and hollow (but detailed) seems to be the way to go, IMO.

Unfortunately big, hollow and detailed
doesn't mean cheap
I'm slowly collecting big (hollow)  vinyl StarAce/X-Plus models from Harryhausen line but they're twice the price of W-Dragon and Nanmu.
And shipping prices + taxes make the rest..
Hard times for collectors   

Unfortuntate, to say the least, but good point. I'm hoping that Safari finds a way, but maybe I shouldn't be too optimistic.

Getting a bit OT, but those are also licensed properties if sold without it they would be a 100.00 or so less I imagine. Also a bit heavy duty for vinyl.   I would be good with large and simple paint apps.  i can always repaint.

Yes, of course.
But nowadays a painted, big, detailed vinyl figure can't go under 100 USD (if the seller wants some profit from his work..) 

I'd be fine knocking off a 150.00 or so and still pay em a 100.00 lol   There are big hollow cheap dinos with limited paint apps, so it is technically possible.  There are probably a lot of reasons against it, retailer space, small businesses going under that used to order from Safari, shipping space/costs.  I get it. 

[suspsy]

Yeah, I'd say around 99.5% of AMNH visitors are either unaware or don't care about these details. They just want to see a really big dinosaur skeleton. And yes, I've been following the renovation at the Peabody. It badly needed it. Can't wait to see the Brontosaurus remounted properly. Or more specifically, can't wait to see images of it. Don't reckon I'll be going there in person anywhere in the near future.

As for the AMNH, I seriously doubt they'll do another major renovation of their prehistoric halls. It would be nice if they tweaked a few things here and there. That framework of Paraceratherium with a ridiculously short neck warrants correction more than the Patagotitan.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOglL0CX4AI8KjF?format=jpg&name=large

[Bokisaurus]

@Sim I really don't mean to pick a fight, but if we're going to restrict 'hyperbole' to its narrowest sense, indicating that you intentionally exaggerated for rhetorical effect, then I think we need to construe 'fantasy' equally narrowly, to mean imagining something impossible or implausible. Reconstructing animals like Patagotitan rests on inference, interpolation, even extrapolation from time to time, based on the very reasonable assumption that things that are more closely related by evolution are likely to appear more similar than dissimilar. Equating that with fantasy strikes me as a bit ungenerous and, yes, an exaggeration.

I used fantasy to mean something imagined, and at the time enough of Patagotitan and definitely enough of Argentinosaurus was that that I felt it was appropriate to consider reconstructions of them to be fantasy.  What I think has been ungenerous is your and suspsy's responses to that.  Compare them with @Flaffy's who was respectful and manged to explain things in a way that got across her point and has made me reconsider Patagotitan being mostly fantasy.  @stargatedalek also expressed her disagreement in a respectful way.  While we're talking about what is fantasy, I noticed that this discussion revealed that the Patagotitan mounted skeleton has one more neck vertebra than a relative suggests, a guessed skull, an apparently inaccurate torso posture, digitigrade feet and a tail that's much longer than what its relatives suggest.  So that skeleton appears to be quite a lot of fantasy.

If some people are so intolerant of my views, and moderators think how they've expressed themselves is not much of a problem, then what should I do?  I feel I've been receiving presumptuous comments that are agressive and I've really had enough.  I find it astounding how some people here don't seem to think that they don't know what someone else goes through and they just leave them nasty comments.  I wish it wasn't so but I don't trust the moderation team to keep this place a safe space and I really have had enough of having my days spoilt by offensive posts.  So I wonder again, what should I do?  Maybe it's time I don't return to this forum once and for all.

Leave it to this forum to complain about negativity and then get their feathers all ruffled over an opinion of something. 

I don't know how to address this without derailing this thread, but I feel like I have to respond to this based solely on my own feelings.
@Sim You know, it's really unfair and unfortunate that you would say that about the moderators. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but as a moderator, I feel you have no appreciation whatsoever of really what I have to put up with and deal with.
Speaking only for myself, it's been difficult navigating and dealing with so many issues in multiple threads.
Moderators are so under appreciated and easily blamed.
We don't get paid for being a moderator, it's purely as a service to this community and hobby.

Now, let's go back on topic and all cools down.

[CarnotaurusKing]

Come on, cut Safari some slack, it's a whole different game now, they're trying their best. The mods too, they don't get paid for this.

I wonder if this could work as a Nemegtosaurus/Opisthocoelicaudia. It looks a bit slim, and the tail a bit long, but the head and general proportions don't look too far off from Scott Hartman's skeletal. If it can work as one, maybe it can be displayed with PNSO's Tarbosaurus? What do you guys think?

[suspsy]

I wonder if this could work as a Nemegtosaurus/Opisthocoelicaudia. It looks a bit slim, and the tail a bit long, but the head and general proportions don't look too far off from Scott Hartman's skeletal. If it can work as one, maybe it can be displayed with PNSO's Tarbosaurus? What do you guys think?

I would say the toy's neck is possibly too long and the limbs are definitely too thin for a proper Opisthocoelicaudia. It had super chunky limbs.

[Flaffy]

D @Dinoguy2 It seems I have mistaken ONP and habitual pose as being the same thing, when in reality they are separate terms meaning different things. Apologies.

I was simply having flashbacks to decades of online arguments about *osteologically* neutral pose instigated by Kent Stevens and popularized by WWD.

I see! I now get your frustration at people latching onto ONP, considering how heated and emotionally charged discussions gotten back in the day. Though I believe over the years, the online paleontological community has certainly evolved, and now is a good time to revisit past-topics in an unbiased manner with new data & new perspectives.

As one of the figures you posted admirably shows, there's really no one "neutral" pose. There's ONP (A4 above) which many studies have shown is far from informative for anything regarding life position (see articles by Taylor, Naish, and Wedel - they must have done dozens of SV-POW articles on this over the years too). Note that the 2008 Carnegie Diplodocus was made under the presumption that ONP meant diplodocids could not raise their neck, or at least did so quite rarely. But Taylor et. al have shown that alert poses tend to be much more retracted relative to ONP (A3 in the figure above), and this also applies to diplodocids. So while diplodocids may generally gave preferred low browse, they almost certainly could browse at a range of heights, and the same is true of other sauropods. Ironically, the Safari Brachiosaurus in the ED image is NOT in neutral pose, it is in alert pose - ONP for Brachiosaurus is also a horizontal neck! Though of course at a slight upward angle given the shoulders. Same for Camarasaurus. I would assume true neutral pose for titanosaurs would also give a close to horizontal neck, making the pose in the "preferred" skeletals closer to an alert pose and the figure closer to osteological neutral.

After reading more articles, you are correct that ONP =/= habitual poses, as such, I have to agree that ONP is not always indicative of habitual positions in life. Quoting Taylor et al. (2009): "ONP is merely the midpoint between the postural extremes."

And as @Halichoeres has pointed out to me, a "standard anatomy pose" is: "It's just a pose agreed upon for reference because  it maximizes how many structures are visible at once."

So all this time I was essentially referring to "habitual pose", and as such, we shall continue our discussion from there.
I recognize that the Safari figures ED uses are not indicative of latest consensus on habitual poses. The point of me linking the article is just as an example of different sauropod feeding habits and preferences (as the article also discusses tooth morphology, skull morphology and stresses, something clearly off topic to the discussion), and not to claim that it represents the latest research. Though I really should've used a better article. As you may recall in the Eofauna 2022 thread, I did lament that their Diplodocus was in a horizontal pose instead of a more erect one.

Brachiosaurus diagram Dinoguy2 mentioned. Note that the "middle" horizontal neck posture for both A and B is ONP. While the highest posture for A is close to what one would consider a habitual pose. - Taylor et al. (2009)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you've mentioned, Taylor et al. uses extant organisms as reference for the difference between ONP and habitual neck posture. They do conclude that sauropods, in their habitual posture, would be in the aforementioned conscious "alert" pose, with a strongly extended neck (i.e. upwards incline) and highly flexed head (i.e. chin tucked towards body). Do be mindful that the word "alert" used in the papers is to denote a state of the animal being "aware" and "conscious", and NOT a state of vigilance and caution. To my understanding a "habitual pose" = "neutral pose" = "alert pose"; but ONP is just that, a osteological neutral state that does not necessarily have implications for an in-life posture.
*Detailed explanation from Naish (2009) as to what "flexed" and "extended" means:

Spoiler

"By X-raying alert, unrestrained animals, Vidal et al. (1986) and Graf et al. (1992, 1995) showed that mammals, birds and lizards consistently do the same things with their heads and necks when in normal alert posture: the neck is strongly extended (that is, the cervico-dorsal junction is strongly bent such that the neck extends strongly 'upwards' relative to the dorsal vertebrae) while the head is strongly flexed relative to the neck (that is, the cranio-cervical joint is strongly bent such that the head is virtually at a right angle relative to the cervical vertebrae*). The 'middle' part of the neck is held relatively rigid, and the neck as a whole is held near-vertical. This is true even of animals that seem to have very short necks, like shrews, rodents and rabbits."
Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20090530032703/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/05/sauropods_held_necks_erect.php

[close]

A: Habitual pose; B: ONP for Lepus capensis. Notice how much higher the neck is held compared to ONP. - Taylor et al. (2009)


The extended-neck + flexed head posture is consistent throughout multiple groups of extant tetrapod groups, ranging from birds, mammals, reptiles (and all subdivisions), to lissamphibia; suggesting that this Habitual > ONP condition is basal to amniotes as a whole. As such, there is little reason to assume that sauropods were doing something entirely novel from all tetrapod groups. Doing so would require jumping many logical hoops, and postulating structures that are unlikely to have existed. Moreover, soft tissue like intervertebral cartilage, ligaments and muscles would've certainly contributed to supporting the neck (+ increasing flexibility) at minimum energy expendature, as it does in extant amniotes.** Of course the paper itself goes into much more detail, but this is just a rough summary.

**Detailed explanation extract from Taylor et al. (2009) in regards to soft tissue:

Spoiler

"Stevens and Parrish (1999: 799) argued that little muscular effort is needed to hold a neck in ONP whereas holding it elevated requires continuous firing of the epaxial muscles. However, Graf et al. (1992: 132) pointed out that "the resting position of the head−neck ensemble, including the upright posture of the cervical vertebral column, is almost exclusively the product of passive mechanical constraints [allowing] the maintenance of the resting head−neck posture with minimum energy expenditure". Also, the mass of a horizontal neck acts at a greater horizontal distance from the cervicodorsal joint than a raised neck, requiring greater force at that joint to counteract gravity. For these reasons, an elevated neck posture, as seen in extant amniotes, is mechanically credible."

[close]

Various extant amniotes in their "alert" habitual pose, along with the proposed "alert" habitual pose for the extinct Diplodocus - Taylor et al.



And of course, there's the topic of the bone morphology & osteological adaptations itself. While I don't feel confident in being able to give an accurate summary of what the paper goes deeply into, I will say this: The necks of sauropods were flexible, more so than what Stevens, Parrish & Kent may lead some to believe (them and a few others are avid supporters for stiff, horizontal sauropod necks), especially considering how soft tissue can further increase flexibility. Sauropod posture isn't as much of a mystery now in 2022 as it was during the 1990s. We have come a long way in the field of paleontology. From new research & data, new fossil specimens, a far better understanding of Dinosauria as a whole, the aid from ever more advanced technology, to even something as simple as using extant organisms for comparison; I dare say we can accurately predict the life appearances of dinosaurs better than ever before. Will there be margins for error? Is it possible that our current understanding may be incorrect in a couple decades time? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Such is the beauty of Paleontology. We can never know for sure, but with each new attempt, we will be one step closer to the truth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So are ONPs useless in paleontology? Are they just a "myth"?

After careful deliberation, yes and no. Based on my further reading, ONP is essentially an arbitrary midpoint that correlates to how the bones best fit together with minimal flexion/extension. It is not indicative of habitual postures, and certainly shouldn't be used as the end-all-be-all for discussions about poses.

However, I do believe there is a place for ONPs. They can serve as a "baseline" for further studies into:
- Neck flexibility (something beyond the scope of this discussion), allowing paleontologists to more easily identify what is possible, and impossible in terms of movement. e.g. Vidal et al. (2020) "High browsing skeletal adaptations in Spinophorosaurus reveal an evolutionary innovation in sauropod dinosaurs"
- And for those who have the technological know-how, ONPs can be used as sort of a "default" starting pose to test out models and hypothesis, anything from sauropod gait various other studies into biomechanics.

[Flaffy]

Challenging another person's argument or choice of terminology when you find reason to disagree with them isn't being intolerant. Nor is it bullying or bashing or being mean. Intolerant would be telling the other person to just shut up or go away or call them names. I haven't seen anything of that sort play out in this thread and I hope I ever do. And I think the moderators have been doing a very good job. Theirs is a rather thankless one too.

Getting back to more interesting topics, it's bemusing to read about all these issues with the Patagotitan mount. I'd be curious to know what the AMNH thinks about it. Unfortunately, the majority of skeletal mounts with inaccuracies never end up getting corrected unless the museum does a major renovation. I also wonder if the mount at the Field in Chicago has any similar issues. Does anyone know?

I'm not familiar with the Chicago mount, but I'm pretty sure most of the problems with the AMNH mount are mainly a result of the hall just not being big enough to really house the animal.

@TheCambrianCrusader While that certainly is a factor for the odd pose, it is by no means the only explanation for the AMNH mount's issues. Please see my previous responses on why the mount is fundamentally erroneous itself.

1) http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10043.msg312277#msg312277
2) http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10043.msg312375#msg312375


@Sim  Found another diagram that should be much clearer to understand than my cropped images, see how a more inclined scapula position alone would lead to a more upright posture, even if the neck is not extended:

"A: Posture based on the 1977 reconstruction by Borsuk-Białynicka[3] with a horizontal back. B: Posture based on the 2007 reconstruction by Schwarz et al.[35] with a much steeper scapula (green) angled 60° towards the horizontal, resulting in a downwards tilting back." - Wikipedia, Opisthocoelicaudia.

Notice how horizontally angled the scapula is on the AMNH mount.

[Skorpio V.]

@Flaffy Not only have your replies been extremely informative, but they're very clearly unbiased and objective. Thank you!

[Sim]

I don't know how to address this without derailing this thread, but I feel like I have to respond to this based solely on my own feelings.
@Sim You know, it's really unfair and unfortunate that you would say that about the moderators. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but as a moderator, I feel you have no appreciation whatsoever of really what I have to put up with and deal with.
Speaking only for myself, it's been difficult navigating and dealing with so many issues in multiple threads.
Moderators are so under appreciated and easily blamed.
We don't get paid for being a moderator, it's purely as a service to this community and hobby.

Now, let's go back on topic and all cools down.

I agree what I said is unfortunate but I disagree it's unfair.  I think something that is unfair is what I've had to put up with over the years on this forum.  Once it got so bad that I spoke to dinotoyforum about it and he apologised for the bad behaviour of the member in question and took action.  He wouldn't have had to do that if moderators had dealt with the bad behaviour I reported.  To be clear I think the moderators have done good but not always and I know I'm not the first to have expressed this on this forum.  Even now, after I expressed that the nasty behaviour has become too much again, you tell me I'm being unfair and don't show appreciation for what you deal with.  I expect to be able to share opinions that aren't disrespectful without getting offensive responses for them.  Is that unreasonable?  I will say that I appreciate being a moderator can be difficult.  I'll also say that I intend to ignore future nasty comments, since they apparently will keep happening.

I would like to follow your call to get back on topic and cool down.


@Libraraptor, regarding your last post in this thread, I appreciate it, but could you please fix the quoting, I don't want anyone thinking I said what suspsy said.  I've fixed it below:

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.

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

[Halichoeres]

Someone asked about the Field Museum mount, and somehow this is the only photo I have of it. I was distracted at my last visit, I guess.

[SidB]

Questions of pose aside, wow!

[BlueKrono]

I visited very briefly during early 2020, just zipping through in the last five minutes. It was eerily empty, but great for pictures. I'm particularly proud of the third one.