Safari Ltd - new for 2015

[Gwangi]

Is that why the primaries are missing on the Velociraptor?

Touché!

I'm not sure Hermes888 was intending to shoot down the Carnegie Velociraptor.It sounds like a legitimate question as to why the wings were not done as we usually see.

I don't know if I should respond to this or the original post I was about to respond to. I'm not certain what Hermes meant with his comment but my interpretation is that he was pointing out a mistake with the Carnegie Velociraptor which would make sense in this conversation where people are discussing their reputation and penchant for accuracy and tendency to avoid speculation. Not starting a feather debate here.

Pointing out what you perceive to be a mistake. The exact level of feathering is not a done deal for this animal. Perhaps the museum had it's reasons to see a different possibility. It cannot be a mistake if there are unknowns surrounding it. It is a different interpretation. You could say it was a less popular or less likely interpretation. Wrong implies that a known fact is left off or done wrong. Not that a probable supposition is interpreted differently.....

You mean like a feathered Tyrannosaurus? If Carnegie is avoiding a feathered Tyrannosaurus due to lack of evidence or it being the less likely interpretation or less popular than by that same reasoning they should feather the arms of Velociraptor in line with what we know of feathered animals. Since feathers are not preserved directly for Velociraptor I will concede that there is a chance that the feathers did not extend down the finger but based on what we know about other feathered dinosaurs, like Microraptor and Archeopteryx and birds it seems likely that they would continue down the hand.

Most people that reconstruct feathered dinosaurs would agree with this logic. I'm far more inclined to believe it was an actual mistake, similar to the mistake they made with their Oviraptor in feathering it down the wrong finger. Paleoartists make this mistake all the time. Just look at oh so many Archeopteryx reconstructions. We can speculate all we want as to the hows and whys of the matter, only Carnegie knows for sure. If it was a mistake than it shows they aren't that concerned with their reputation and if it was intentional it was based on pure speculation with no regard for what we know about every other feathered animal. Is there a dinosaur or more specifically a dromaeosaur where the feathers stop at the wrist that I'm not aware of? If so please point it out.

Again, I'm not trying to participate in a feather debate, my comments concern Carnegie as a producer of accurate dinosaurs with concern for their reputation.

[amanda]

Why so aggressive? These things always get too heated. Sorry, I'm out. (Mostly because I am not able to really respond to situations i feel are tense, which is entirely on my end and probably not yours, I realize)

[Patrx]

Gotta agree with Gwangi here - it's either a mistake, or a very speculative take on Velociraptor. While I think that the former is more likely, the latter would imply that Carnegie isn't afraid to speculate when it comes to their reconstructions.

[stargatedalek]

keeping in mind this velociraptor has been postponed a few years (less publicity regarding hand feathering), I think its more likely to have been a mistake

[John]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with everyone seeing any "mistake" in the Carnegie Velociraptor.No offense,but no one is going to convince me that they know more than not only the paleontologists at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History but also the other paleontologists that they consult with in the making of their models.

[Gwangi]

Amanda, I didn't mean to come across aggressively. It's just easy to interpret it that way. All I was doing was trying to make my point clear.

John, I think you're putting an awful lot of trust in whoever is behind the Carnegie Collection. We don't even know to what degree actual dinosaur paleontologists are involved with these models, nor do we even know who they are. It seems unfortunate that you would blindly take their models at face value simply because of the museum name attached to it. Though they are often very accurate they are certainly not flawless or incapable of mistakes. At the end of the day, these are still toys, not sure how much the time the paleontologists put into them. I would be interested in knowing though if anyone has the info. To just dismiss all our opinions because we aren't actual paleontologists seems unfair, and unwise on your part.

This guy makes it quite clear that Carnegie has made mistakes regarding feather placement.


Pretty sure Microraptor didn't have four fingers either.

[Hermes888]

I was just asking if the avoidance of speculation was the reason behind the missing primaries, not trying to start a whole feathering debate. Sorry!

[stargatedalek]

The unfortunate colouration of the wings makes that clump of feathers look like a fourth finger, I'm sure its only got 3 fingers

[SBell]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with everyone seeing any "mistake" in the Carnegie Velociraptor.No offense,but no one is going to convince me that they know more than not only the paleontologists at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History but also the other paleontologists that they consult with in the making of their models.

But we're toy collectors--who could possibly know more!?  Keeping in mind that this is exactly the same sort of nitpicking that recently, eventually frustrated a representative of another popular company into minimizing his interactions here.

Whatever happened to: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all? Or at least in the world if Internetz, say your bit and move on.

I'm just annoyed at Safari's 'toob offerings' which are pretty uninspiring (to me). That's my main take on the 2015 releases.

[Patrx]

I've said plenty of nice things about the new Velociraptor.  It looks like a nicely detailed sculpt, and I really do like the coloration. I'll probably even buy one, eventually. It would be fun to try and customize. As to critiquing, well, yes, we do that. That's largely what the reviews on the blog are all about. Just try to keep it constructive!

[John]

John, I think you're putting an awful lot of trust in whoever is behind the Carnegie Collection. We don't even know to what degree actual dinosaur paleontologists are involved with these models, nor do we even know who they are. It seems unfortunate that you would blindly take their models at face value simply because of the museum name attached to it. Though they are often very accurate they are certainly not flawless or incapable of mistakes. At the end of the day, these are still toys, not sure how much the time the paleontologists put into them. I would be interested in knowing though if anyone has the info. To just dismiss all our opinions because we aren't actual paleontologists seems unfair, and unwise on your part.

This guy makes it quite clear that Carnegie has made mistakes regarding feather placement.


Pretty sure Microraptor didn't have four fingers either.

The paleontologists put in enough time on the models for them to not be ready for release as soon as we would like...the delays have gotten to the point that we now only see one per year rather than two like it used to be.But fortunately there are so many other good lines out at the same time like Safari's Wild Safari,Battat ect.

That Microraptor by the way only has three fingers.That is a feather over the first digit.The painters seem to have mistaken it for a fourth digit and painted brown on the tip.
But the Oviraptor IS a little dated now,so you're right on that one.Science marches on.

Here's something that will be of interest:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/124895027@N02/15465600825/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124895027@N02/15278713839/

The juvenile Sinornithosaurus in the pics linked has reduced wings that start nearly at the wrist (the wings feathers still look like they start at the second digit,but the wings are more reduced than those of Microraptor.) So there is some variation.The feathering of the Carnegie Velociraptor looks to me like it's mostly based on Sinornithosaurus with even more reduced wings.I also notice that it has tail feathers based on those of Microraptor,so there was some thought put into the feathering.While it could well have had feathers exactly as you describe,the option chosen by the Carnegie is still possible.

[John]

"I'm just annoyed at Safari's 'toob offerings' which are pretty uninspiring (to me). That's my main take on the 2015 releases."

I also noticed the lack of any prehistoric or modern animal themes in any of the new toobs for next year.Most of what I saw were people related,including historicals and national monuments.

[CityRaptor]

Think about the postive: The USA toob allows one to have a giant eagle attacking various monuments...think of "The Giant Claw"

[SBell]

Think about the postive: The USA toob allows one to have a giant eagle attacking various monuments...think of "The Giant Claw"

Or at a larger scale, an eagle eating the organs of a victim! I still won't buy any of them though.

[John]

Think about the postive: The USA toob allows one to have a giant eagle attacking various monuments...think of "The Giant Claw"

Or at a larger scale, an eagle eating the organs of a victim! I still won't buy any of them though.

The human organs could be put at the feet of the new grizzly bears!The mom is just feeding her cute little cub!

[DinoLord]

They could also be used in a realistic JP diorama.

[John]

They could also be used in a realistic JP diorama.

The Velociraptor would be a very fitting choice for that.

[Dinoguy2]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with everyone seeing any "mistake" in the Carnegie Velociraptor.No offense,but no one is going to convince me that they know more than not only the paleontologists at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History but also the other paleontologists that they consult with in the making of their models.

Check out the numerous Twitter comments on the Safari raptor to see what real paleontologists think about it. Hint: they're harsher than anybody here and many are saying they don't believe Carnegie even uses consultants. Personal story from Darren Naish is that he has spoken with paleontologists who get paid to be consultants like this, who flat out say they do not care what dinosaurs looked like in life, they are only concerned with the bones. So why did they take a job consulting on life appearance when they have no reason to know or care how their evidence translates into a living animal? Easy paycheck. Seriously.

So no, I don't trust consultants and neither should you!

And neither should the sculptors. Sculptors like Dan Lo Ruso would get better advice and less hurt feeling about their scientifically implausible art if they checked with people on this board, Facebook, Twitter, etc. who would provide better feedback for free than these so called expert consultants charge for.

It's not Dan's fault that he somehow was able to sculpt a bald maniraptorans in the year 2013. Somebody who did not know what they were talking about and claiming to be an expert in paleoart just because they work in the related field of paleontology told him to do it. This is also how we get shockingly horrible, inaccurate life restorations in nearly every Dino news article that comes out.

Here's a recent article published in a scientific journal discussing this very problem
http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2014/917-commentary-state-of-the-palaeoart

who should consider whether their expertise is really adequate for advisory roles. History shows that being an expert on a group of fossil organisms does not necessarily demonstrate expertise in the portrayal of their life appearance, and making poorly-informed decisions on artwork has knock-on effects on education, the potential re-use of the image concerned (and hence the budget and economics of the relevant project or company), the perpetuation of scientific inaccuracy, and the way in which the project is perceived by critics, colleagues, and the public.

But the Oviraptor IS a little dated now,so you're right on that one.Science marches on.

This isn't so much a case of science marches on as an artist who doesn't understand how wings work. You can tell this because their Caudipteryx has the exact same issue when there are plenty of photos of Caudipteryx fossils online that show crystal clear how the feathers attach and were ignored completely for the toy. The artist clearly copied some inaccurate painting rather than doing actual research or glancing at a fossil, and the consultant approved it because they didn't know or didn't care about the relevant details. Not every paleontologist is an expert in every single form of prehistoric life. The Carnegie Caudipteryx proves that consultants are utterly useless and often have no clue what they're talking about. Any one of us can compare the model with the fossil and show that the model is objectively wrong in a very major detail.



Note that Caudipteryx only has two fingers and the third is a tiny internal splint! *head desk*


If they can't even get the number of fingers right, how can they hope to get feathers right? Accuracy is clearly not a priority for anybody here.

Here's something that will be of interest:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/124895027@N02/15465600825/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124895027@N02/15278713839/

The juvenile Sinornithosaurus in the pics linked has reduced wings that start nearly at the wrist (the wings feathers still look like they start at the second digit,but the wings are more reduced than those of Microraptor.) So there is some variation.The feathering of the Carnegie Velociraptor looks to me like it's mostly based on Sinornithosaurus with even more reduced wings.I also notice that it has tail feathers based on those of Microraptor,so there was some thought put into the feathering.While it could well have had feathers exactly as you describe,the option chosen by the Carnegie is still possible.

First, as you say even this has primaries. Primaries don't necessarily attach to the distal finger, often only to the first phalange. Even so, when the wing is folded you'd see them coming from the finger at a different angle than the secondaries.

Second, Sinornithosaurus lacks quill knobs, so the evidence shows the wings of Velociraptor would have been bigger, not more reduced.

[Simon]

Dinoguy2:

I must say one thing in defense of that Caudipteryx sculpt:  It can stand on its own 2 feet.  For Carnegie in 2014, that is a major achievement.   

[Gwangi]

Thanks for the info Dinoguy, you all but confirm what I was thinking. Would be interested in seeing some of these Twitter comments but a Twitter search on "Carnegie Velociraptor" does not yield much. Also, didn't know Caudipteryx only had two fingers like that, and I reviewed it for the blog! Thanks for the info there too.