What three Sauropods should SafariLTD make?

[Tapejara1122]

Should be at the 1:40 scale. I voted:
Argentinosaurus
Diplodocus
Giraffatitan

Knowing how large the scale number is with the theropods, and since sauropods are massive in size, I dont think that they would be 1/40. Maybe 1/50?

[darth daniel]

So far it seems Shunosaurus and Mamencisaurus are our highest Choices with Plateosaurus and Argentinosaurus coming in third as a tie.

If you forward the results to Safari, I´d suggest replacing Plateosaurus with some other species (for example Lufengosaurus, Yunnanosaurus, ...) since we´ll get a Plateosaurus from Battat anyway.

[Halichoeres]

I voted for Euhelopus, Mamenchisaurus, and Shunosaurus, because, while they're big, they're not THAT big--and I just think it's unlikely that Safari is going to give us a 1:40 Argentinosaurus, for instance.

Same three for me. There´s a whole lot of little-known (to the general public), quite unique asian sauropods which are extremely underrepresented in toy form. Almost all of the North American 'standard' sauropods have been done, and I don´t expect a well-sized (= 1:40) Argentinosaurus, Futalognkosaurus or Paralititan from Safari. Besides, for each of the three species the head is known.

Yeah, can't overestimate the importance of a known head, good point!

[Dinoguy2]

I'd love to see somebody make s huge 1:40 titanosaur, but I hope it's not Argentinosaurus. I'd rather have one based in more than a couple of bones that's gonna be outdated. Give me Dreadnaughtus!

[Takama]

Bump

Voting will be Closed at the end of the year

[profnik]

put Dreadnoughtus on voting

Dreadnoughtus is a genus of giant titanosaurian sauropod dinosaurs

[profnik]

an put "other" choice for you poll too!

[terrorchicken]

picked mamenchi, shunosaurus, and melanorosaurus which I thought was a prosauropod but now checking on Wiki-says they are doing away with the prosauropod grouping. True? 

[Takama]

Well What were once called Prosauropods, are now called Sauropodomorphs

[Halichoeres]

picked mamenchi, shunosaurus, and melanorosaurus which I thought was a prosauropod but now checking on Wiki-says they are doing away with the prosauropod grouping. True? 

In general, paleontologists like names for groups to be monophyletic (ie, to include every descendant). Because sauropods evolved from within prosauropods, they've mostly abandoned the name for "sauropodomorphs," which includes both.

[terrorchicken]

interesting, thanks! didnt know that! 

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Glad to see Shunosaurus and Mamenchisaurus so high up in the votes (even if I didn't vote for the latter. I picked Euhelopus instead)! Plateosaurus has gotten plenty of love: it's the most famous prosauropod, give another one a chance to shine! Melanorosaurus for the win! I would've voted Aardonyx though, if it had been up there. Also, no Dreadnoughtus? For shame!

[123hellobgbg]

I'd really like safari LTD to make a shunosaurus figure. It's a unique dinosaur .

[Kovu]

While I'd like an Argentinosaurus, I kind of feel it might be too big for Safari... The Mamenchisaurus would be comparable in size to Safari's Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus and they are beautiful!

I'd 100% absolutely support a Shunosaurus and would pre-order/order/whatever the moment I could. It's such a cool little sauropod!

[Newt]

Suddenly, everybody loves Shunosaurus! 

What about poor, unloved Haplocanthosaurus? or OpisthoNemegtoCoelicaudia?

In general, paleontologists like names for groups to be monophyletic (ie, to include every descendant). Because sauropods evolved from within prosauropods, they've mostly abandoned the name for "sauropodomorphs," which includes both.

*in Mr. Spacely voice* "HENNIG!"

Cladistics. Whatevs. There's no actual way to make it work with Linnaean taxonomy - something's got to give!

[Takama]

Im glad Shunosaurus gets love.     We need a Good figure of that Species

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

*in Mr. Spacely voice* "HENNIG!"

Cladistics. Whatevs. There's no actual way to make it work with Linnaean taxonomy - something's got to give!

lol, when you're right, you're right. Cladistics certainly does clearly and accurately describes familial relationships between organisms, but every once in a while it muddles up a perfectly acceptable terms that actually does provide useful information to the listener. For example, say the words "rhamphorynchid" or "hypsilophodont" and everyone will know what you mean. Would it be so scientifically unsound to use these terms to describe generally similar animals even though they may not technically form a natural group? I mean, if botanists are allowed to talk about "trees" for crying out loud, then we should be allowed to talk about bloody prosauropods.

[Halichoeres]

*in Mr. Spacely voice* "HENNIG!"

Cladistics. Whatevs. There's no actual way to make it work with Linnaean taxonomy - something's got to give!

lol, when you're right, you're right. Cladistics certainly does clearly and accurately describes familial relationships between organisms, but every once in a while it muddles up a perfectly acceptable terms that actually does provide useful information to the listener. For example, say the words "rhamphorynchid" or "hypsilophodont" and everyone will know what you mean. Would it be so scientifically unsound to use these terms to describe generally similar animals even though they may not technically form a natural group? I mean, if botanists are allowed to talk about "trees" for crying out loud, then we should be allowed to talk about bloody prosauropods.

Honestly, in my limited experience, plenty of paleontologists throw around words like "pelycosaur" (implicitly excluding mammals), "theropod" (implicitly excluding birds), and "fish" (implicitly excluding tetrapods) in ordinary conversations. But in print they have to be very precise, and as that precision spreads from technical literature to the popular press, I think enthusiasts adopt it with greater zeal than the paleontologists themselves. If I were to arbitrarily choose 100,000 words of dialogue from paleontologists' conversations and 100,000 words of dialogue from this forum, I would probably hear the by-now-superfluous reminder "birds ARE dinosaurs" from the forum more often than from the conversations.

All of which is to say, if we all know what we mean when we use a word like "prosauropod," by all means use it. And whereas both the Linnean model and the cladistic one are wrong about some things, they are each less wrong than anything that went before them, and are useful for getting a handle on the incomprehensible diversity of life.

/soapbox

[Sim]

The thing with "prosauropods" is, "Prosauropoda" was defined as all animals more closely related to Plateosaurus engelhardti than to Saltasaurus loricatus.  Modern analyses have found it to contain the same animals as Plateosauridae which makes it a junior synonym of the latter.  The modern analyses have also found most of the animals often thought of as "prosauropods" are not plateosaurids/"prosauropods" by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateosauridae

[Shonisaurus]

I voted for the Shunosaurus, barosaurus and Camarasaurus. I love these three species especially the first two which are poorly represented in the toy market.