Safari: New for 2017

[tanystropheus]

It is very likely that Safari and Papo are aware of the scientific connotations behind using the term "Feathered X".  Therefore, it should be concluded that the rationale behind such a move is purely...marketing.

Considering the heavy media attention given to featured dinosaurs in the past year or so, it is somewhat reassuring (and downright odd) to see "feathered" dinosaurs reaching 'awesomebro' status by the mainstream.

The term "Feathered" will becoming ubiquitous in the future, just like "gluten free" and "no trans fat".

[Concavenator]

Putting the term 'feathered' before Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor is indeed imaccurate,because we know
they were feathered.Someone who doesn't know very well the paleontology world and saw these figures,he or she would see the model itself as speculative when they're not,when,actually,if a model of  a scalyTyrannosaurus or Velociraptor model would be the speculative instead.

[stargatedalek]

The term "Feathered" will becoming ubiquitous in the future, just like "gluten free" and "no trans fat".

I miss gluten, I'm a bit of a white flour fiend 

[Sim]

It is very likely that Safari and Papo are aware of the scientific connotations behind using the term "Feathered X".  Therefore, it should be concluded that the rationale behind such a move is purely...marketing.

I do think the reason for "Feathered" before the name of those figures is probably marketing, but that doesn't mean I think it's good.

The term "Feathered" will becoming ubiquitous in the future, just like "gluten free" and "no trans fat".

I hope not.

Putting the term 'feathered' before Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor is indeed imaccurate,because we know
they were feathered.Someone who doesn't know very well the paleontology world and saw these figures,he or she would see the model itself as speculative when they're not,when,actually,if a model of  a scalyTyrannosaurus or Velociraptor model would be the speculative instead.

We don't know Tyrannosaurus had feathers.  Scott Hartman seems to have suggested research he's doing suggests Tyrannosaurus might not have had feathers.  I first saw him mention it in his first comment here (there's quite a lot of other interesting info in that comment too, mostly about mosasaur tails): http://comments.deviantart.com/1/543156057/4033495592
And then here: http://comments.deviantart.com/4/3907829/4278370892

I don't think I have a preference for whether Tyrannosaurus is represented feathered or featherless, since I don't think I find either more convincing than the other for it.  My preference is for Tyrannosaurus's body covering to be based on available evidence, research, and consideration for what seems more likely.  I have little interest in Tyrannosaurus, and I don't mean to upset anyone by saying that, it's just one of a number of dinosaurs I generally don't really find interesting.  That, combined with uncertainty on what it's body covering was like, makes me not very interested in the debates on whether Tyrannosaurus had feathers in life, outside of the implications it could have for other dinosaurs.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I agree, I still haven't read anything definitive for feathering on tyrannosaurs.  You can speculate they  may have of course.  I collect both, if nothing else it's interesting when you can show a progression of thought on your shelf.

[Silvanusaurus]

I think it's best to think more before throwing around words like 'know' in regards to things which we definitely do not know (e.g. T rex feathers). Saying something like that is only stifling to the very pursuit of knowledge that has led to these discoveries.

[stargatedalek]

We may not understand a definitive, but we do "know" that given our current evidence a feathered reconstruction clashes the least with the evidence we have. If one is going to avoid cumbersome work-around phrasing it's unreasonable to expect the word "know" to be substituted with "non-definitive solution that is the most parsimonious interpretation of data at this time".

[suspsy]

That Scott Hartman quote does not constitute an argument against T. rex feathers. At best, he's suggesting that it is possible that it may not have had them, which is playing it safe and smart.

Have to say too, I find it rather amusing how so many people try to use T. rex's sheer size as an argument against feathers, yet they seem to have no objection to Megatherium possessing fur. Especially given that Megatherium had far less skin surface area than T. rex, and that fur presents a far greater danger of overheating than feathers.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I don't see anyone arguing against feathers here.  All I'm reading is folks saying " it's possible"  and " we don't care either way" .  Sim posted the links , I believe, to illustrate his point that either is possible, which I agree with currently. 

[John]

My shelves show the ultimate example of riding the fence on whether or not Tyrannosaurus rex had a feathery covering,the ones from Kaiyodo (the feathered one from the 2013 Capsule Q set and the one with bare,pebbly skin from the 2015 Cretaceous set that can be displayed alongside Triceratops in battle.) 

One model from Safari's 2017 release cycle I am really looking forward to seeing more of is the Diplodocus.Along with everything else of course...

[suspsy]

I don't see anyone arguing against feathers here.  All I'm reading is folks saying " it's possible"  and " we don't care either way" .  Sim posted the links , I believe, to illustrate his point that either is possible, which I agree with currently. 

And I'm simply noting that Scott's informal words in those links shouldn't be read into too deeply. I'd certainly been interested to read any and all research he's done on this topic.

[Rogue1stClass]

Sorry for not going through the whole thread (I haven't been around for a while), but has anyone talked about how big the Rex is yet? I balked a little at the price when I ordered it from Amazon, assuming he'd be about the size of the other WS figures, but he turned out be huge for Wild Safari, being as big as the Papo, Collecta Deluxe, and Carnegie toys. Is this a thing Safari is doing, making a "deluxe" line to take the place of Carnegie, or this a one off thing, like a left over sculpt from the Carnegie line that got shoved into WS?

I'm thrilled with this guy, btw, and I may have to order the raptor even though I have way too many (but not enough) of Silva's raptors on the way...

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Sorry for not going through the whole thread (I haven't been around for a while), but has anyone talked about how big the Rex is yet? I balked a little at the price when I ordered it from Amazon, assuming he'd be about the size of the other WS figures, but he turned out be huge for Wild Safari, being as big as the Papo, Collecta Deluxe, and Carnegie toys. Is this a thing Safari is doing, making a "deluxe" line to take the place of Carnegie, or this a one off thing, like a left over sculpt from the Carnegie line that got shoved into WS?

I'm thrilled with this guy, btw, and I may have to order the raptor even though I have way too many (but not enough) of Silva's raptors on the way...

Actually I was surprised at how big the Tylosaurus is , the Velociraptor is as big or bigger than Carnegie and the Coelophysis fights right in with their creations, they may not be labeled Carnegie but they fill the vacant hole that was left.

Having some of David's Raptors on the way is also why i skipped the Papo Deinonychus..lol

[Silvanusaurus]

We may not understand a definitive, but we do "know" that given our current evidence a feathered reconstruction clashes the least with the evidence we have. If one is going to avoid cumbersome work-around phrasing it's unreasonable to expect the word "know" to be substituted with "non-definitive solution that is the most parsimonious interpretation of data at this time".

Theres a pretty big difference between knowing something is likely, and knowing it is a fact. Saying "we know T rex likely had feathers of some form" is not the same as "we know T rex had feathers". I'm not suggesting that it isn't likely that this was the case, I'm saying that people saying "we know it was" and then using that false statement to immediately dismiss any kind of query or questioning, is not the kind of discourse I believe in, and it's not scientific.

[The Atroxious]

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.

Toobs, the Carnegie Collection, and Great Dinos are not part of the Wild Safari line proper. Safari only listed the dinosaurs they had previously depicted as naked "feathered X" in their most recent iterations. Microraptor and Coelophysis were never before made for the Wild Safari line. As I say, I believe the label has more to do with differentiating the figures for the purpose of cataloguing than it has to do with people at Safari actually thinking feathers make Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus unusual.

We may not understand a definitive, but we do "know" that given our current evidence a feathered reconstruction clashes the least with the evidence we have. If one is going to avoid cumbersome work-around phrasing it's unreasonable to expect the word "know" to be substituted with "non-definitive solution that is the most parsimonious interpretation of data at this time".

To be fair, we could say the same thing about ornithiscians. We have found basal ornithischians sporting featherlike structures, therefore by the logic we use to argue for a feathered Tyrannosaurus we should assume that unless proven otherwise, more advanced ornithischians did too. The thing is, we know that hadrosaurs lost this featherlike integument in place of scales, and as far as I know (not a hadrosaur expert by any stretch of the imagination) scientists do not know why. Therefore, it seems entirely possible that advanced tyrannosaurs traded in their feathers for scales, so to speak, even if we can't figure out why they would. Regardless, it wouldn't be the first time for a group of animals to lose one type of integument in place of another.

My shelves show the ultimate example of riding the fence on whether or not Tyrannosaurus rex had a feathery covering,the ones from Kaiyodo (the feathered one from the 2013 Capsule Q set and the one with bare,pebbly skin from the 2015 Cretaceous set that can be displayed alongside Triceratops in battle.) 

Hedging your bets, eh? At least when it comes down to it, one of them has to be close enough to accuracy!

[Concavenator]

That Scott Hartman quote does not constitute an argument against T. rex feathers. At best, he's suggesting that it is possible that it may not have had them, which is playing it safe and smart.

Have to say too, I find it rather amusing how so many people try to use T. rex's sheer size as an argument against feathers, yet they seem to have no objection to Megatherium possessing fur. Especially given that Megatherium had far less skin surface area than T. rex, and that fur presents a far greater danger of overheating than feathers.
[/
Seconded.As I have said many times,feathers also have the ability to cool down the animal's temperature,unlike fur.

[Verahin]

"... we all still go through this one swirl of acceptance that when one thing is changed and seen how it is everything must follow the same trend and personally I don't believe that. It's like with all the theropods (namely Coelurosaurs) we found only ten or six that have feathers and now we label all of them to have them..."

Couldn't agree more with Scott Hartman. Most things people takes for facts regarding dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures are mere theories.

[suspsy]

Be careful how you employ the term "theory." In paleontology, like all other sciences, a theory is far more than just an idea or a hypothesis.

[Verahin]

Well, I shall use the word hypothesis instead.

[stargatedalek]

We may not understand a definitive, but we do "know" that given our current evidence a feathered reconstruction clashes the least with the evidence we have. If one is going to avoid cumbersome work-around phrasing it's unreasonable to expect the word "know" to be substituted with "non-definitive solution that is the most parsimonious interpretation of data at this time".

To be fair, we could say the same thing about ornithiscians. We have found basal ornithischians sporting featherlike structures, therefore by the logic we use to argue for a feathered Tyrannosaurus we should assume that unless proven otherwise, more advanced ornithischians did too. The thing is, we know that hadrosaurs lost this featherlike integument in place of scales, and as far as I know (not a hadrosaur expert by any stretch of the imagination) scientists do not know why. Therefore, it seems entirely possible that advanced tyrannosaurs traded in their feathers for scales, so to speak, even if we can't figure out why they would. Regardless, it wouldn't be the first time for a group of animals to lose one type of integument in place of another.

While that sets a baseline for ornithodirans loosing soft integument, it has far more evidence in favour of it than there is in favor of naked or scaled Tyrannosaurs. First is the material itself, feathers, even the comparatively simplistic feathers of tyrannosauroids (and some ratites), are far more complex than the Kulindadromeus integument (or fur), and capable of entrapping heat and of dissipating it at greater efficiency.

Yutyrannus is not particularly far removed from Tyrannosaurs, especially when compared to hadrosaurs and Kulindadromeus. Genetic evidence becomes less reliable the further apart the two points of data in question are. One could argue hadrosaurs retained the genetic structure of soft integument (like crocodilians did), but there is simply so much time, so many new branches splitting off, each of such different environmental niches, that it's almost inevitable the animals integuments would have changed several times through these transitions. In contrast Yutyrannus is in a similar ecological niche to tyrannosaurs, and the groups separating it from tyrannosaurs were of the same general niche too.

There is overwhelming evidence proving that hadrosaurs were covered in scales, even mummies. For tyrannosaurs all we have is scale impressions from the underside of Tarbosaurus' foot, and some possible scale impressions (they could be skin) from the lower flank of Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus. We also have skin impressions from Albertosaurus' flanks and Tarbosaurus' neck.