Safari: New for 2017

[suspsy]

For those who aren't as well versed on sea dragons and the models for them, what was the top one pictured, that looks reddish? Who made that one?My own take from this being....they all look kinda neat in their own way ....I seldom have use for much of what Collecta makes but I do find myself wanting this one, and the large Pterosaur coming out.Of course my vein of interest is far from marine reptiles so my  own triggermechanism to get it isn't as subject to critical factors as other models might be.

It's Kronosaurus.

[John]

For those who aren't as well versed on sea dragons and the models for them, what was the top one pictured, that looks reddish? Who made that one?My own take from this being....they all look kinda neat in their own way ....I seldom have use for much of what Collecta makes but I do find myself wanting this one, and the large Pterosaur coming out.Of course my vein of interest is far from marine reptiles so my  own triggermechanism to get it isn't as subject to critical factors as other models might be.

It's Kronosaurus.

Yup,like suspy said it's Kronosaurus made by CollectA.They say on Everything Dinosaur's page that it should be available around maybe the end of February or the beginning of March or somewhere around then.The wait is always a killer...that's why I'm happy that Safari started releasing their new stuff so early.
On the sublect of Safari,I hope the Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus do not have the word "feathered"stamped in front of the their generic names...that would be like "furry lion".

[Halichoeres]

On the sublect of Safari,I hope the Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus do not have the word "feathered"stamped in front of the their generic names...that would be like "furry lion".

Couldn't agree more. I think it would be more honest for anyone who makes a scaleless Velociraptor to stamp it "plucked Velociraptor," although I suppose even that would leave the scales unaccounted for. Anyway, thanks for the mini-reviews, John.

The lump is where the skull is thicker, I meant how the neck blends into the shoulders. In general though I was referring to how the features (hips, shoulders, jaw, etc.) are more defined. There's nothing so say one or the other is more likely, I just prefer the smoother aesthetic. As for the fin, while I agree it probably had one I'm not a fan of how CollectA applied it, like a fish's fin, I think something more "paddle-like" would suit a large animal like this better, but again that's just my preference.

I have some sympathy for some of your preferences, since these guys certainly show some convergence with whales, but as far as the tail goes, I would expect it NOT to be paddle-like because it has four excellent sternward paddles. I would expect a fin to be there for stability.

I'm finding the two Kronosaurus figures really difficult to choose between, but I can't wait for one of them to replace my old Carnegie.

[suspsy]

The CollectA version will be able to chomp down on the ammonites from the aquatic tube!

[stargatedalek]

The lump is where the skull is thicker, I meant how the neck blends into the shoulders. In general though I was referring to how the features (hips, shoulders, jaw, etc.) are more defined. There's nothing so say one or the other is more likely, I just prefer the smoother aesthetic. As for the fin, while I agree it probably had one I'm not a fan of how CollectA applied it, like a fish's fin, I think something more "paddle-like" would suit a large animal like this better, but again that's just my preference.

I have some sympathy for some of your preferences, since these guys certainly show some convergence with whales, but as far as the tail goes, I would expect it NOT to be paddle-like because it has four excellent sternward paddles. I would expect a fin to be there for stability.

I'm finding the two Kronosaurus figures really difficult to choose between, but I can't wait for one of them to replace my old Carnegie.

My bad, that was certainly poor phrasing. In-fact, the reason I dislike the fin is because it looks like it would be a propulsion device. When I said "paddle-like" I was meaning something more (aesthetically) akin to a beavers tail flipped on its edge, something that looks more like it would serve as a rudder while the limbs provided propulsion.

[Sim]

I don't know, on the first picture there's not much of a distortion, in my opinion. If I look better it does bear a resamblance in shape to Collecta's 2015 deluxe Pliosaurus, ironically, and to me looks like Collecta have done an updated, better take on a pliosaur with their Kronosaurus while Safari copied a bit Collecta's older model.

I would be very surprised if the Wild Safari Kronosaurus copies from the CollectA Pliosaurus, since our forum's admin, who's a plesiosaur palaeontologist, was consulted for the WS Kronosaurus.  He has also explained how inaccurate the CollectA Pliosaurus is.  Both the WS and CollectA Kronosaurus look much better than the CollectA Pliosaurus.  I think out of the two new Krono figures, the one that bears more resemblance to the Collecta Pliosaurus is the CollectA Kronosaurus due to the creases on the neck and where the flippers meet the body, and maybe even some of the skin texture on the side of the body, as seen in the image below.



If there has been any pliosaur toy copying, I think it could be that the Invicta Liopleurodon was copied a bit for the CollectA Kronosaurus.  I think both new Kronosaurus figures look good.  I think the CollectA's finned tail is more convincing than the WS's tail, while the WS's smooth skin is more convincing than the CollectA's wrinkled skin.

I think the stock photo from Safari's website makes the model look more dynamic than it actually looks in those Facebook pictures posted before. Particularly in the first, the one from above, the pose of the model seems pretty similar to that of the Pliosaurus, and also the heads of the two bear some resemblance, while Collecta Kronosaurus shows a more flat head shape, which seems more suitable for a pliosaur.

Honestly, I don't think the WS Krono's pose is reminiscent of the CollectA Plio's pose.  However, the CollectA Krono's pose reminds me of the Invicta Liopleurodon's pose.  Speaking as someone who hated the CollectA Pliosaurus's head right from the start, I honestly see no resemblance between it and the WS Krono's head.  Which is great, because the CollectA Plio's head is very inaccurate, ugly and un-pliosaur like.  Dr Admin has said what's wrong with the CollectA Plio's head and it would make no sense for the WS Krono he was consulted for to have a head that resembles the CollectA Plio's.  In any case, just looking at the two figures is enough to see their heads look extremely different.

To me the WS Krono seems to have a flatter head shape than the CollectA Krono, since the CollectA has those bulging muscles at the back of the head.  Additionally, the CollectA Plio has bulges at the back of its head, but it seems to be due to shrink-wrapping.

[dinoMD]

On the sublect of Safari,I hope the Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus do not have the word "feathered"stamped in front of the their generic names...that would be like "furry lion".

Couldn't agree more. I think it would be more honest for anyone who makes a scaleless Velociraptor to stamp it "plucked Velociraptor," although I suppose even that would leave the scales unaccounted for. Anyway, thanks for the mini-reviews, John.

Received my raptor from DeJankins today.  Unfortunately for you two, they do indeed have the "feathered" stamped on, albeit the text is miniscule...

Doesn't detract from the superb quality of the sculpt.  And no one can beat Safari on accuracy this season...still raving over the appropriate positioning of the Diplodocus' nostrils.

[John]

On the sublect of Safari,I hope the Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus do not have the word "feathered"stamped in front of the their generic names...that would be like "furry lion".

Couldn't agree more. I think it would be more honest for anyone who makes a scaleless Velociraptor to stamp it "plucked Velociraptor," although I suppose even that would leave the scales unaccounted for. Anyway, thanks for the mini-reviews, John.

Received my raptor from DeJankins today.  Unfortunately for you two, they do indeed have the "feathered" stamped on, albeit the text is miniscule...

Doesn't detract from the superb quality of the sculpt.  And no one can beat Safari on accuracy this season...still raving over the appropriate positioning of the Diplodocus' nostrils.

They both look fantastic,just as I expected.
It's a bit odd to see "feathered" stamped onto them. When I get them,I'll just have to suck it up.

[The Atroxious]

In regards to the label of "feathered Velociraptor" I wholeheartedly agree that in this day and age it's a silly, redundant term, but at the same time I feel it's excusable from the perspective of a toy company who previously made featherless renditions of the animal, and wants to distinguish the new version from the old one. I could see something similar happening if a company that was well known for producing mutant or speculative animals (e.g. hairless lion or naked eagle) branched out into realistic animals.

That said, I'm vaguely jealous of the people who have the new Velociraptor figure. I spent a lot on toys this month, so I'm somewhat disinclined to track it down immediately, though if I see it in a store it may be a different story. I'm not above the occasional impulse buy, and this Velociraptor would be very tempting.

[Nanuqsaurus]

In regards to the label of "feathered Velociraptor" I wholeheartedly agree that in this day and age it's a silly, redundant term, but at the same time I feel it's excusable from the perspective of a toy company who previously made featherless renditions of the animal, and wants to distinguish the new version from the old one. I could see something similar happening if a company that was well known for producing mutant or speculative animals (e.g. hairless lion or naked eagle) branched out into realistic animals.

That said, I'm vaguely jealous of the people who have the new Velociraptor figure. I spent a lot on toys this month, so I'm somewhat disinclined to track it down immediately, though if I see it in a store it may be a different story. I'm not above the occasional impulse buy, and this Velociraptor would be very tempting.

I think it just takes a while for people to get used to feathered dinosaurs, especially if it's about their favorite childhood JP dinosaurs. As of now, feathered dinosaur figures are still quite rare, but I'm sure it won't be long until these toys just get names like ''Tyrannosaurus'' and Velociraptor.''

[Killekor]

Raptor added to my wishlist.

Killekor

[Halichoeres]

Ha, good to know. I'll get over it. It doesn't make me angry or anything, I just think it's a little silly. Great pieces, can't wait to pick them up.

[Sim]

Bottom line: while I prefer the CollectA version, I still think these are both superb renditions. You can always think of one as K. queenslandicus and the other as K. boyacensis.

While Safari's Kronosaurus is specified as K. queenslandicus on Safari's site,CollectA's preference for releasing species that have not been seen in most lines raises the strong possibility that the CollectA one actually is intended to be Kronosaurus boyacensis.

Yeah, the Safari Kronosaurus is identifed as K. queenslandicus on their site.  On the CollectA Facebook page, in the description of a photo of the Kronosaurus, it's mentioned it's an Australian pliosaur, which implies the CollectA figure is meant to represent K. queenslandicus too: link

In Colin McHenry's study of Kronosaurus queenslandicus http://ogma.newcastle.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:12164 he shows that Kronosaurus queenslandicus has four premaxillary teeth and then has a gap in the tooth row before the maxillary teeth begin.  The WS Kronosaurus's skull has these features and appears to match perfectly with the Kronosaurus skull reconstruction in McHenry's study.  I wonder if Dr Admin has something to do with the accuracy of the WS Kronosaurus's skull.

It looks like the CollectA Kronosaurus might have five premaxillary teeth and no gap in the tooth row before the maxillary teeth... just like the mounted Harvard specimen that's notorious for having quite a bit of it reconstructed out of plaster.  Maybe CollectA didn't realise these are inaccuracies in that Harvard specimen...?  For that matter, every single image of Kronosaurus queenslandicus on Wikipedia appears to have those dentition inaccuracies and/or other dentition inaccuracies!  For comparison, the reconstructed upper and lower jaws of K. queenslandicus that show its dentition can be seen separately in McHenry's study in Figure 4-41 and Figure 4-42 respectively.

I'm not sure to what extent the two Kronosaurus species are interchangeable...  From what's explained on this page, it seems K. boyacensis might look quite a bit different to Kronosaurus queenslandicus...: http://www.kronosauruskorner.com.au/kronosaurus  In McHenry's study, he mentioned K. boyacensis was described as having five pairs of premaxillary teeth but that this needs confirmation.  He also said this:

If the premaxillary tooth count in K. boyacensis is confirmed as five, then this may prove constitute grounds to place K. boyacensis into a separate genus to K. queenslandicus, as pliosaur taxonomy typically places species with differing premaxillary tooth counts into separate genera. However, if the premaxillary tooth count in K. boyacensis is actually four, then;
o a premaxillary tooth count of four becomes a genus level character for Kronosaurus, rather than a species level character for K. queenslandicus, and
o K. boyacensis remains a valid taxon, diagnosable from K. queenslandicus on the basis of post-cranial anatomy,

The contents of the quote below are from Chapter 6 of McHenry's study, I think it's relevant to this forum...:

Estimates of body mass require a model of the relationship between length and volume in the taxa under study; previous workers have used scale models of life reconstructions to achieve this for extinct species (Alexander, 1989). For this method to produce useful results, the model chosen must be as realistic as possible. Numerous scale models of pliosaurs are available commercially: for this study, I used the British Museum (Natural History) model, labelled 'A PLIOSAUR (Liopleurodon)', and made by Invicta Plastics Ltd (hereafter, the 'BMNH model' – see below and Figure 6-1). Although it is based upon the body proportions of a large pliosaurid, and the five specimens that form the primary focus of this study are brachaucheniids, the BMNH model is notable for its excellent quality, presumably achieved in part through consultation with scientific staff at the Natural History Museum in London (A. Cruickshank, pers. comm.). Scale models of brachaucheniids are commercially available, specifically of Kronosaurus – however, these are obviously influenced by the Harvard mount of MCZ 1285 which, as detailed below, is of doubtful accuracy. The BMNH model is here considered, based upon preliminary examination of the body proportions in brachaucheniids, to be a more realistic reconstruction.

I wasn't expecting to find this!  It made me smile.  So, good prehistoric animal toys can be useful in palaeontology!  (McHenry used the Invicta "Plesiosaur" as well in Chapter 8 and explained that figure is most likely based on Elasmosaurus).  I laughed when I read what he said about the available Kronosaurus models.  Yeah, at that point in time (2009) the available Kronosaurus models were definitely not realistic reconstructions.  It's also nice to see the Invicta Liopleurodon get well-deserved praise.  I think up till now the Invicta Liopleurodon has been the most accurate pliosaur toy.  I wonder if it will share the position of most accurate pliosaur toy with any of the two new Kronosaurus figures?  Although, the crests over the eyes of the WS and CollectA Kronosaurus look unconvincing to me.  I wonder what the reasoning is for this feature?

Edit on 16/12/2016: As I mentioned in a later reply in this thread, after doing some more comparisons with the reconstructed Kronosaurus skulls in Colin McHenry's study, including 3D reconstructions, the 'crests' over the eyes of the Wild Safari and CollectA Kronosaurus actually look right to me.

[Verahin]

Received my raptor from DeJankins today.  Unfortunately for you two, they do indeed have the "feathered" stamped on, albeit the text is miniscule...

Doesn't detract from the superb quality of the sculpt.  And no one can beat Safari on accuracy this season...still raving over the appropriate positioning of the Diplodocus' nostrils.

The Velociraptor looks fantastic, and I'm starting to change my mind on my initial disappointment for the Tyrannosaurus. Great!

[Neosodon]

I heard the T Rex couldn't stand without it's packaging base but it looks like its standing just fine. For those who have the model was it easy to balance of did you have to mess with it?

[tanystropheus]

Received my raptor from DeJankins today.  Unfortunately for you two, they do indeed have the "feathered" stamped on, albeit the text is miniscule...

Doesn't detract from the superb quality of the sculpt.  And no one can beat Safari on accuracy this season...still raving over the appropriate positioning of the Diplodocus' nostrils.

The Velociraptor looks fantastic, and I'm starting to change my mind on my initial disappointment for the Tyrannosaurus. Great!

That's pretty much what my T-rex looks like. The white splash on the underbelly and tail is dilute and doesn't rise all that much.

[tanystropheus]

I heard the T Rex couldn't stand without it's packaging base but it looks like its standing just fine. For those who have the model was it easy to balance of did you have to mess with it?

My T-rex was standing just fine for the first few days, until a cold rainy day. It fell forward. I placed it in the plastic tray. Perhaps, I should remove the tray to see whether the T-rex can stand unassisted, again?

[tanystropheus]

Bottom line: while I prefer the CollectA version, I still think these are both superb renditions. You can always think of one as K. queenslandicus and the other as K. boyacensis.

While Safari's Kronosaurus is specified as K. queenslandicus on Safari's site,CollectA's preference for releasing species that have not been seen in most lines raises the strong possibility that the CollectA one actually is intended to be Kronosaurus boyacensis.

Yeah, the Safari Kronosaurus is identifed as K. queenslandicus on their site.  On the CollectA Facebook page, in the description of a photo of the Kronosaurus, it's mentioned it's an Australian pliosaur, which implies the CollectA figure is meant to represent K. queenslandicus too: link

In Colin McHenry's study of Kronosaurus queenslandicus http://ogma.newcastle.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:12164 he shows that Kronosaurus queenslandicus has four premaxillary teeth and then has a gap in the tooth row before the maxillary teeth begin.  The WS Kronosaurus's skull has these features and appears to match perfectly with the Kronosaurus skull reconstruction in McHenry's study.  I wonder if Dr Admin has something to do with the accuracy of the WS Kronosaurus's skull.

It looks like the CollectA Kronosaurus might have five premaxillary teeth and no gap in the tooth row before the maxillary teeth... just like the mounted Harvard specimen that's notorious for having quite a bit of it reconstructed out of plaster.  Maybe CollectA didn't realise these are inaccuracies in that Harvard specimen...?  For that matter, every single image of Kronosaurus queenslandicus on Wikipedia appears to have those dentition inaccuracies and/or other dentition inaccuracies!  For comparison, the reconstructed upper and lower jaws of K. queenslandicus that show its dentition can be seen separately in McHenry's study in Figure 4-41 and Figure 4-42 respectively.

I'm not sure to what extent the two Kronosaurus species are interchangeable...  From what's explained on this page, it seems K. boyacensis might look quite a bit different to Kronosaurus queenslandicus...: http://www.kronosauruskorner.com.au/kronosaurus  In McHenry's study, he mentioned K. boyacensis was described as having five pairs of premaxillary teeth but that this needs confirmation.  He also said this:

If the premaxillary tooth count in K. boyacensis is confirmed as five, then this may prove constitute grounds to place K. boyacensis into a separate genus to K. queenslandicus, as pliosaur taxonomy typically places species with differing premaxillary tooth counts into separate genera. However, if the premaxillary tooth count in K. boyacensis is actually four, then;
o a premaxillary tooth count of four becomes a genus level character for Kronosaurus, rather than a species level character for K. queenslandicus, and
o K. boyacensis remains a valid taxon, diagnosable from K. queenslandicus on the basis of post-cranial anatomy,

The contents of the quote below are from Chapter 6 of McHenry's study, I think it's relevant to this forum...:

Estimates of body mass require a model of the relationship between length and volume in the taxa under study; previous workers have used scale models of life reconstructions to achieve this for extinct species (Alexander, 1989). For this method to produce useful results, the model chosen must be as realistic as possible. Numerous scale models of pliosaurs are available commercially: for this study, I used the British Museum (Natural History) model, labelled 'A PLIOSAUR (Liopleurodon)', and made by Invicta Plastics Ltd (hereafter, the 'BMNH model' – see below and Figure 6-1). Although it is based upon the body proportions of a large pliosaurid, and the five specimens that form the primary focus of this study are brachaucheniids, the BMNH model is notable for its excellent quality, presumably achieved in part through consultation with scientific staff at the Natural History Museum in London (A. Cruickshank, pers. comm.). Scale models of brachaucheniids are commercially available, specifically of Kronosaurus – however, these are obviously influenced by the Harvard mount of MCZ 1285 which, as detailed below, is of doubtful accuracy. The BMNH model is here considered, based upon preliminary examination of the body proportions in brachaucheniids, to be a more realistic reconstruction.

I wasn't expecting to find this!  It made me smile.  So, good prehistoric animal toys can be useful in palaeontology!  (McHenry used the Invicta "Plesiosaur" as well in Chapter 8 and explained that figure is most likely based on Elasmosaurus).  I laughed when I read what he said about the available Kronosaurus models.  Yeah, at that point in time (2009) the available Kronosaurus models were definitely not realistic reconstructions.  It's also nice to see the Invicta Liopleurodon get well-deserved praise.  I think up till now the Invicta Liopleurodon has been the most accurate pliosaur toy.  I wonder if it will share the position of most accurate pliosaur toy with any of the two new Kronosaurus figures?  Although, the crests over the eyes of the WS and CollectA Kronosaurus look unconvincing to me.  I wonder what the reasoning is for this feature?

Excellent, detailed and informative review. However, now I feel like owning both versions

[Silvanusaurus]

Honestly, as fantastic as the T rex is, I think I'm more eager to get my hands on the Velociraptor, Deinocheirus, Coelophysis and Psittacosaurus. 

[Sim]

I thought it was weird when Papo added "Feathered" in front of the name for their more recent Velociraptor figure, but Safari doing it for their Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus is much weirder.  It's silly, and pointless.  It's especially weird for Velociraptor which has been known to have definitely had feathers since 2007...  And Safari has produced feathered Velociraptor figures before (although I think they are all insufficiently feathered): in a toob, in the Carnegie Collection, and in the Great Dinos line (although the sculptor labelled this figure Velociraptor antirrhopus on their website, so I guess it's actually meant to represent Deinonychus).  Highlighting the absurdity of the situation, Safari is releasing another feathered Wild Safari dromaeosaurid for their 2017 figures, but they aren't putting "Feathered" in front of the name of Microraptor.

As for Tyrannosaurus, it's not known to have feathers, but then neither is Guanlong which is feathered in the Wild Safari version of it but isn't labelled "Feathered Guanlong".  The Wild Safari Coelophysis is also feathered, and might be less likely to have feathers than Tyrannosaurus, yet it doesn't have "Feathered" in front of its name.

I hope in the future Safari removes "Feathered" from the writing on the belly of these two figures, or at least the Velociraptor.