Safari: New for 2017

[CMIPalaeo]

Of course, one thing we do know is that several feathered dinosaurs have areas of feathers and scales/naked skin on different parts of their body. I'd say that the evidence is best that tyrannosaurs possessed both feathered and unfeathered body parts, much like the figure shows. How extensive these parts are is the question, but I'd say the Safari Tyrannosaurus does probably about the best job out there of making a convincing representation.

[Shonisaurus]

I can provide the following testimony. I am not a person versed in paleontology, I am simply an amateur collector of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals and extinct of the various geological periods, but I have to emphasize something interesting.


One of the best paleontologists in my nation and a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences with whom I had the opportunity and honor to coincide with him in a conference and in the signing of his books and is the author of several books and co-discoverer of Dinosaurs such as the pelecanimus and concavenator (named José Luis Sanz García) among others he states unabashedly in his writings and scientific theses and that is recorded in the book hunters of dragons saying that theropod dinosaurs (ie those that were not extinct are still among us ) Had feathers and affirms that the present birds, such as the chickens that we have ever eaten, are no more or less than descendants and survivors of the avian dinosaurs, but the non-avian dinosaurs (keratopsids, hadrosaurids, thyrophors or sauropods Other species) are extinct.

In fact it has just been published a news very recently that it has just discovered a theropod dinosaur tail preserved in amber. So the tyrannosaurus rex feathered from my humble point of view is well done from the paleontological point: Here I pass the news:

"There is a dinosaur tail with feathers preserved in amber
    To the piece of amber in which the feathered dinosaur tail has been found.

A Burmese trader sells an amber-feathered dinosaur tail, thinking it was a worthless curiosity.

Chinese paleontologist Lida Xing of China's Chinese Geosciences University in Beijing has been interested in this peach-like rarity at an amber flea market in northern Myanmar (Burma).

After studying with his team and other researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom, they have concluded that the amber piece has retained a tail with feathers of a dinosaur of 99 million years, a finding that they analyze in Current Biology magazine.

"I realized that the contents were of a vertebrate, probably a theropod, but not a plant, as the merchant who offered it thought. I certainly did not know the importance of this specimen, "Xing told CNN on Friday.

    I realized that the contents were of a vertebrate, probably a theropod, but not a plant, as the merchant who offered it thought. I certainly did not know the importance of this specimen, "Chinese paleontologist Lida Xing told CNN.

The researchers believe that the tail belonged to a non-avian theropod.



In their paper, the authors suggest that the tail, 3.7 centimeters, was chestnut brown on top and white on its bottom. The fragment conserves eight vertebrae of what they believe was a specimen of dinosaur with feathers.

According to his exams, it could belong to a juvenile non-avian theropod, a group of dinosaurs that includes velociraptors and tyrannosaurs. The state of Kachin, in northeastern Myanmar, where the specimen was found, has been producing amber for 2,000 years.

"This is the first time we have found dinosaur material preserved in amber," says co-author Ryan McKellar of the Royal Saskatchewan Museum in Canada, who also stresses the importance of this finding for the study of the evolution of feathers .

McKellar claims that the anatomy of the tail indicates that it belongs to a feathered dinosaur and not an adult bird. The main features that lead to this conclusion are the tail length, the shape of the vertebrae, and the fact that the vertebrae do not merge into a rod structure, as they do in birds.

"If they had a specimen in their hand it would have been the size of a sparrow," Mckellar told the British newspaper The Guardian on Thursday.


Published: Friday, December 9, 2016 19:22

[Concavenator]

Topic aside,I just preordered the Tyrannosaurus from Dan.Yes,it is expensive,but I think the model deserves it,I think it is the ultimate Tyrannosaurus figure.I hope he gets them soon.

[Postosuchus84]

Those pictures of the Feathered Tyrannosaurus and Feathered Velociraptor by Safari look wonderful! I can't wait to get my hands on the models myself!

[Daspletotyrannus]

I think I will start getting the new figures in 2017. That way any problems should be fixed by then.

[Killekor]

Someone have the Giganotosaurus? That's the unic dinosaur that anyone wants?

Thanks

Killekor

[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.

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.

What you say might be why Safari added "Feathered" in front of their names.  However, Safari has produced featherless Velociraptor figures for the Carnegie Collection and for toobs before their feathered versions, yet they didn't label the feathered versions "Feathered Velociraptor".  This can be seen for the 2015 Carnegie Collection Velociraptor here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2631.0

And there has been a feathered Tyrannosaurus in the Wild Safari line before this 2017 one, it just wasn't an adult: http://toyanimal.info//index.php?title=Safari_299529_Juvenile_Tyrannosaurus_rex

"... 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.

Just making sure, you know that wasn't said by Scott Hartman, right?  Scott Hartman is the one with the username "ScottHartman".

[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.

Just making sure, you know that wasn't said by Scott Hartman, right?  Scott Hartman is the one with the username "ScottHartman".

Sorry, I clicked on your link and read what was in the first post, I'm not used with that stuff so I didn't even got exactly where that discussion were from, reading your post I assumed it was Scott Hartman, which I know for his skeletals. It doesn't really matter who wrote that though, my intention was simply to underline those words, which I share wholeheartedly. So I must say that I could not agree more with that user, whatever he/she's called, and I say it again: most things people takes for facts regarding dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures are mere hypothesis. And most people these days think that having an internet connection makes them paleontologists. But we could swap the word paleontologists with basically everything, it depends on the subject matter. That's fine. Thank you for correcting me.

[Sim]

@ Verahin:  When I said this:

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 thought people would notice which comments are from Scott Hartman due to his username.  Sorry, I guess I should have indicated more clearly which comment was his.  In that first link, if you click on "Top" (it should be near the top of the page) it will load the discussion from the start.  What you quoted was from a user called Asuma17.  I linked to the discussion starting with their comment as Scott's comment that I referred to is a direct reply to it below it. Just to be clear, the comment by Scott I was referring to is the first comment shown here: http://comments.deviantart.com/1/543156057/4033829191

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Any further discussion on feathers should be taken to the appropriate thread elsewhere  for it. 

Also, Safari has a 20% off sale with free shipping for over 30.00, just enter code : SafariHoliday

ex:
ITEMS IN YOUR ORDER   QTY   PRICE
QUETZALCOATLUSSKU: 304329   1   $9.99
DEINOCHEIRUSSKU: 303229   1   $11.99
PSITTACOSAURUSSKU: 304229   1   $10.99
DIPLODOCUSSKU: 303629   1   $19.99
KRONOSAURUS SKU: 304029   1   $19.99
GIGANOTOSAURUSSKU: 303929   1   $20.99
Subtotal   $93.94
Shipping & Handling   $0.00
Discount (SAFARIHOLIDAY)   -$18.79
Grand Total   $75.15

[Georassic]

Also, Safari has a 20% off sale with free shipping for over 30.00, just enter code : SafariHoliday

I just tried to use the SafariHoliday code, and their site said it wasn't a valid coupon code. Might be expired already...

[Sim]

I would agree that the figures this year are all looking good. And more diverse in color than last year, where 3 out of 4 Dinosaurs were white and brown.

I think it was a bit worse than that regarding the new 2016 Wild Safari prehistoric figures, since it was 4 out of 5 figures with a similar colour scheme of yellow/brown + white.  I found that quite underwhelming.  With the 2017 WS prehistoric figures, I'm again disappointed by how many similar colour schemes there are.  And like with the 2016 figures it's a similar kind of yellow/brown colouration that's used for lots of the figures.

The figures I find bring clear diversity to the colour schemes of the 2017 figures are Microraptor, Kronosaurus, Velociraptor, Giganotosaurus, Tyrannosarus and Diplodocus.  The rest, which are over half of the new Safari prehistoric animals, are all mostly yellow/brown + black or white or black and white. They are Parasaurolophus, Coelophysis, Quetzalcoatlus, Tylosaurus, Psittacosaurus, Einiosaurus and Deinocheirus.  A few things I noticed:

- The Coelophysis and Quetzalcoatlus both have a similar yellow/brown for a lot of their colouration, white for the underside of the neck and blue on the face (+ red or pink on the crests).

- The Tylosaurus and Psittacosaurus seem to have the same yellow, brown and black for their main body colours, the difference being one has stripes and the other has spots.

- The Deinocheirus's colour scheme looks very similar to the Shunosaurus's...


- To me, the Parasaurolophus has a rather unique-looking colour scheme, but that a lot of this uniqueness is lost due to yellow+brown+black as the main body colours also being used for the Coelophysis, Tylosaurus and Psittacosaurus.

- I feel the Einiosaurus has the most different colour scheme out of all these yellow/brown Safari figures.  The grey on a lot of its body makes it stand out from all those other yellow/brown Safaris.  But it seems quite noticeable that that yellow that seems to have been used on so many of the 2017 (and 2016) Safari prehistoric figures is used for the Einiosaurus's lower parts.


To me these 2017 and 2016 Safari figures with these yellow/brown-based colour schemes share similarities to an extent that makes me find the figures less interesting.  It often results in my excitement for the new figure ending, since it's colour scheme feels like a rehash.  It reminds me of how CollectA gave their Saurophaganax a colour scheme very similar to their Allosaurus's, which didn't bother me since these two genera appear to be closely related if not the same, although it did feel a bit boring.  Then CollectA made the first ever Torvosaurus figure, and gave it a colour scheme that was almost the same as their Saurophaganax's.  To this day I still find the CollectA Torvosaurus's colour scheme boring.  I mentioned the WS Kronosaurus's colour scheme brings diversity to the 2017 WS prehistoric figures, which is true, but in terms of bringing diversity to the WS prehistoric line, it's not so true.  I generally like the WWD Liopleurodon type colour schemes, but when a toy line uses it for more than one pliosaur, I find it becomes boring.

If someone's going to make a new prehistoric animal species for their toy line, it seems clear to me that giving it a similar colour scheme to another species in the line will most likely make the new figure less interesting, but I guess some people don't feel this way about it.

[Neosodon]

The yellow-brown and white color scheme has only been used only once before on the Shunosaurus and it looks pretty cool so it doesn't bother me that they are using it twice. Safari does get a little carried away with their brown color schemes sometimes but it's a realistic color that looks good on any dinosaur. The blue Diplodocus and pale grey-green Giganotosaurus show they are getting more creative with their colors. The brown with white underside is a little over used but other than that I don't think their is really anything to complain about.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Also, Safari has a 20% off sale with free shipping for over 30.00, just enter code : SafariHoliday

I just tried to use the SafariHoliday code, and their site said it wasn't a valid coupon code. Might be expired already...

Oddly it was only good for 4 hours, 8pm-12am :/

[Georassic]

Also, Safari has a 20% off sale with free shipping for over 30.00, just enter code : SafariHoliday

I just tried to use the SafariHoliday code, and their site said it wasn't a valid coupon code. Might be expired already...

Flash Sale.  It was a great deal while it lasted.

Oddly it was only good for 4 hours, 8pm-12am :/

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

if only they had the feathered rex in stock i'd be done lol

[tanystropheus]

The color scheme looks more appropriate on the Deinocheirus than the Shunosaurus. The Shunosaurus looks a bit rabid.
There's a lot of figures and its difficult to differentiate so many models by colors. Its great that they are no longer focusing on lime greens, especially since Safari Ltd. went through a lime green phase at one point.

[tanystropheus]

The Diplodocus is picture perfect, but the model is rather smallish (kind of like the Papo Apatosaurus). Length wise it is very good, but there's hardly any girth at all (a lot flatter than the Papo Apato). Also, you can literally comb your hair with the dorsal spines running down its back (it's made of high quality materials). The paint finish is superb. It has anatomically correct feet, in case you guys are wondering.

[Simon]

The Diplodocus is picture perfect, but the model is rather smallish (kind of like the Papo Apatosaurus). Length wise it is very good, but there's hardly any girth at all (a lot flatter than the Papo Apato). Also, you can literally comb your hair with the dorsal spines running down its back (it's made of high quality materials). The paint finish is superb. It has anatomically correct feet, in case you guys are wondering.

This "smallishness" is an almost universal problem with mass-produced PVC sauropods, probably due to costs of production and problems with retail shelf space. 

[Neosodon]

The Diplodocus is picture perfect, but the model is rather smallish (kind of like the Papo Apatosaurus). Length wise it is very good, but there's hardly any girth at all (a lot flatter than the Papo Apato). Also, you can literally comb your hair with the dorsal spines running down its back (it's made of high quality materials). The paint finish is superb. It has anatomically correct feet, in case you guys are wondering.

This "smallishness" is an almost universal problem with mass-produced PVC sauropods, probably due to costs of production and problems with retail shelf space.

Carnegie used to make decent xl saurapods and collecta has a couple but they aren't that great and they are all kind of old. Maybe they have just gone out of style since people just don't want to invest the money and space for them. But I think there is enough demand that we will see a new 2 foot long sauropod sometime in the next 10 years.