Safari Ltd.: New for 2018

[tanystropheus]

Somehow it doesn't grab me - partly its the green color (unrealistic in my view).  The sculpt also seems, well, a little cartoonish ... I'll keep my fingers crossed that PNSO releases its Amargasaurus ... after seeing pictures of that sculpt its kind of hard to get excited about the more toyish PVC versions ...

It doesn't look toyish. It is more like CGI (similar to the ultra-slick color scheme of last year's Diplo and Krono). Regardless, it is the best affordable Amarga, even though the $59 PNSO version is superior (assuming that it will be released).

[tanystropheus]

Ah dinosaurs, eventually! Glad I wasn't right on the Ankylosaurus being the next reveal.

Agree with Simon on the Amargasaurus, the bare teeth are off-putting, plus the way they painted the head makes it look like it's shrink-wrapped. Way too schleichy for my taste. I think it's better than that turquoise Diplodocus, but it probably needs a repaint to be acceptable.

Anzu on the other hand looks very nice, I don't understand where do you see a lack of detail in the head, it's just properly covered with feathers unlike most oviraptorid depictions, which stick to a shrink-wrapped appearance even when they have feathers. I'm surprised it's not by Doug Watson, as soon as I've seen it his feathered Velociraptor came to my mind. This one is actually a Safari model I might want to pick up, it doesn't have teeth so they can't go wrong with the paint app there. I'll see how the retail version will turn out and will decide, but I'm quite interested at the moment.

Does anybody see a suspicious similarity with Schleich's Oviraptor though? They both have the tail pointing down, the way how they are feathered is similar, and the Schleich model looks like something they wanted to paint like the Safari one but they stopped just after a splash of green on the back. Poor Schleich though, if their Oviraptor looked interesting before today, now it seems just the zombiesque knock-off version of the WS Anzu.

While I agree with what you are saying, I don't see the Schleich Oviraptor as 'zombiesque'. If you think about it, modern turkeys, vultures and condors are as zombiesque as it gets. The Schleich Oviraptor is a step up from the Papo version.

I really like the paint job on the Anzu (especially, the use of the greens). It is vibrant.

[DinoToyForum]

The highlights on the Amargasaurus skull bug me, that kind of shrink-wrapping highlights just don't turn out well generally.

Anzu is pretty good, fingers are wrong but of course they are, they always are.

Loving the frogfish and the cardinal isn't bad either, hammerhead mini is ok too.

The close up on this sculpt points up an obvious deficiency to these types of sauropod head reconstructions in general:

The teeth are BARE.  This is, of course, anatomically ridiculous.  The teeth have to be protected from the elements so they do not dry out and crack, and there is no example of any living animal that doesn't have a teeth cover of some sort (lips in mammals, skin in reptiles).

That's probably an oversimplification. Some modern animals (crocs, elephants, walrus) have exposed teeth/tusks. Plesiosaur and pterosaur teeth were almost certainly exposed to the environment, too. The situation in sauropods is not completely cut and dry (pun intended )

Hate to drag this out but it really isn't an oversimplification. Every animal with exposed teeth has very specific, easily detectable, reasons for having those exposed teeth. Crocodiles have exposed teeth because what would otherwise be lips and gums is instead hardened skin, walrus have tusks for display and intraspecific combat, same for elephants, Crocodiles, pterosaurs, and plesiosaurs also are aquatic, primarily aquatic, or at the very least hunt underwater, heavily lessening the effects of the environment and of food becoming caught.

The fact that some animals have exposed teeth demonstrates that the original statement, that there are none, and that teeth have to be protected from the outside environment, was an oversimplification.

I don't understand what you're saying about pterosaurs.

I'm happy to split this into a separate thread, if there isn't already a 'lips' topic on the forum?

[Jose S.M.]

Poor Schleich though, if their Oviraptor looked interesting before today, now it seems just the zombiesque knock-off version of the WS Anzu.

While I agree with what you are saying, I don't see the Schleich Oviraptor as 'zombiesque'. If you think about it, modern turkeys, vultures and condors are as zombiesque as it gets. The Schleich Oviraptor is a step up from the Papo version.

I really like the paint job on the Anzu (especially, the use of the greens). It is vibrant.

I think the Schleich Oviraptor just needs a bit more color on it's face to look better, it's one of their better offering regarding theropods. Something that I love about the W.S Anzu is it's fully feathered face.

[Joey]

The highlights on the Amargasaurus skull bug me, that kind of shrink-wrapping highlights just don't turn out well generally.

Anzu is pretty good, fingers are wrong but of course they are, they always are.

Loving the frogfish and the cardinal isn't bad either, hammerhead mini is ok too.

The close up on this sculpt points up an obvious deficiency to these types of sauropod head reconstructions in general:

The teeth are BARE.  This is, of course, anatomically ridiculous.  The teeth have to be protected from the elements so they do not dry out and crack, and there is no example of any living animal that doesn't have a teeth cover of some sort (lips in mammals, skin in reptiles).

That's probably an oversimplification. Some modern animals (crocs, elephants, walrus) have exposed teeth/tusks. Plesiosaur and pterosaur teeth were almost certainly exposed to the environment, too. The situation in sauropods is not completely cut and dry (pun intended )

Hate to drag this out but it really isn't an oversimplification. Every animal with exposed teeth has very specific, easily detectable, reasons for having those exposed teeth. Crocodiles have exposed teeth because what would otherwise be lips and gums is instead hardened skin, walrus have tusks for display and intraspecific combat, same for elephants, Crocodiles, pterosaurs, and plesiosaurs also are aquatic, primarily aquatic, or at the very least hunt underwater, heavily lessening the effects of the environment and of food becoming caught.

The fact that some animals have exposed teeth demonstrates that the original statement, that there are none, and that teeth have to be protected from the outside environemnt, was an oversimplification.

I don't understand what you're saying about pterosaurs.

I'm happy to split this into a separate thread, if there isn't already a 'lips' topic on the forum?

If you want I can make 'Dinosaur Lips' new thread

[DinoToyForum]

The highlights on the Amargasaurus skull bug me, that kind of shrink-wrapping highlights just don't turn out well generally.

Anzu is pretty good, fingers are wrong but of course they are, they always are.

Loving the frogfish and the cardinal isn't bad either, hammerhead mini is ok too.

The close up on this sculpt points up an obvious deficiency to these types of sauropod head reconstructions in general:

The teeth are BARE.  This is, of course, anatomically ridiculous.  The teeth have to be protected from the elements so they do not dry out and crack, and there is no example of any living animal that doesn't have a teeth cover of some sort (lips in mammals, skin in reptiles).

That's probably an oversimplification. Some modern animals (crocs, elephants, walrus) have exposed teeth/tusks. Plesiosaur and pterosaur teeth were almost certainly exposed to the environment, too. The situation in sauropods is not completely cut and dry (pun intended )

Hate to drag this out but it really isn't an oversimplification. Every animal with exposed teeth has very specific, easily detectable, reasons for having those exposed teeth. Crocodiles have exposed teeth because what would otherwise be lips and gums is instead hardened skin, walrus have tusks for display and intraspecific combat, same for elephants, Crocodiles, pterosaurs, and plesiosaurs also are aquatic, primarily aquatic, or at the very least hunt underwater, heavily lessening the effects of the environment and of food becoming caught.

The fact that some animals have exposed teeth demonstrates that the original statement, that there are none, and that teeth have to be protected from the outside environemnt, was an oversimplification.

I don't understand what you're saying about pterosaurs.

I'm happy to split this into a separate thread, if there isn't already a 'lips' topic on the forum?

If you want I can make 'Dinosaur Lips' new thread

No, if there isn't one, I'll create one with the posts in this thread.

[Joey]

The highlights on the Amargasaurus skull bug me, that kind of shrink-wrapping highlights just don't turn out well generally.

Anzu is pretty good, fingers are wrong but of course they are, they always are.

Loving the frogfish and the cardinal isn't bad either, hammerhead mini is ok too.

The close up on this sculpt points up an obvious deficiency to these types of sauropod head reconstructions in general:

The teeth are BARE.  This is, of course, anatomically ridiculous.  The teeth have to be protected from the elements so they do not dry out and crack, and there is no example of any living animal that doesn't have a teeth cover of some sort (lips in mammals, skin in reptiles).

That's probably an oversimplification. Some modern animals (crocs, elephants, walrus) have exposed teeth/tusks. Plesiosaur and pterosaur teeth were almost certainly exposed to the environment, too. The situation in sauropods is not completely cut and dry (pun intended )

Hate to drag this out but it really isn't an oversimplification. Every animal with exposed teeth has very specific, easily detectable, reasons for having those exposed teeth. Crocodiles have exposed teeth because what would otherwise be lips and gums is instead hardened skin, walrus have tusks for display and intraspecific combat, same for elephants, Crocodiles, pterosaurs, and plesiosaurs also are aquatic, primarily aquatic, or at the very least hunt underwater, heavily lessening the effects of the environment and of food becoming caught.

The fact that some animals have exposed teeth demonstrates that the original statement, that there are none, and that teeth have to be protected from the outside environemnt, was an oversimplification.

I don't understand what you're saying about pterosaurs.

I'm happy to split this into a separate thread, if there isn't already a 'lips' topic on the forum?

If you want I can make 'Dinosaur Lips' new thread

No, if there isn't one, I'll create one with the posts in this thread.

Ok

[Josesaurus rex]

The close up on this sculpt points up an obvious deficiency to these types of sauropod head reconstructions in general:

The teeth are BARE.  This is, of course, anatomically ridiculous.  The teeth have to be protected from the elements so they do not dry out and crack, and there is no example of any living animal that doesn't have a teeth cover of some sort (lips in mammals, skin in reptiles).

That's probably an oversimplification. Some modern animals (crocs, elephants, walrus) have exposed teeth/tusks. Plesiosaur and pterosaur teeth were almost certainly exposed to the environment, too. The situation in sauropods is not completely cut and dry (pun intended )

I would also like to emphasize the fact that both elephants and walruses have their tusks covered with ivory, which they spend where I know, no evidence has been found that the Dinosaurs had it. I also agree with the user who mentioned earlier the reason why crocodiles do not have lips, and the same I think can be applied to plesiosaurus and some marine reptiles.

[Joey]

The close up on this sculpt points up an obvious deficiency to these types of sauropod head reconstructions in general:

The teeth are BARE.  This is, of course, anatomically ridiculous.  The teeth have to be protected from the elements so they do not dry out and crack, and there is no example of any living animal that doesn't have a teeth cover of some sort (lips in mammals, skin in reptiles).

That's probably an oversimplification. Some modern animals (crocs, elephants, walrus) have exposed teeth/tusks. Plesiosaur and pterosaur teeth were almost certainly exposed to the environment, too. The situation in sauropods is not completely cut and dry (pun intended )

I would also like to emphasize the fact that both elephants and walruses have their tusks covered with ivory, which they spend where I know, no evidence has been found that the Dinosaurs had it. I also agree with the user who mentioned earlier the reason why crocodiles do not have lips, and the same I think can be applied to plesiosaurus and some marine reptiles.

Completely agree about the Crocodile/Alligator comparison to Plesiosaurs and other marine reptiles

[Reptilia]

The Schleich Oviraptor is a step up from the Papo version.

The Papo Oviraptor must be seen in a completely different way, it is a 90s Oviraptor, it's even stealing an egg so it's clearly an intentional retro representation. You're probably right on the zombiesque aspect, maybe I'm a little bit influenced by the look of other Schleich figures in saying so, but now that I see this Safari oviraptorid I can't help but thinking that this looks natural, while Schleich's doesn't. I can go further and suggest that Schleich might have known the Safari model in some way and deliberately copied the idea, choosing the safer option and calling their figure Oviraptor. The similarity is very suspicious.

[Faelrin]

I'm wondering though, is this actually the first figure of Anzu? I mean it's the first that I'm aware about anyways.

[Jose S.M.]

I'm wondering though, is this actually the first figure of Anzu? I mean it's the first that I'm aware about anyways.

If the Shapeways ones count then there's one, in different sizes.

[Takama]

I'm wondering though, is this actually the first figure of Anzu? I mean it's the first that I'm aware about anyways.

If the Shapeways ones count then there's one, in different sizes.

Personaly I do not count Shapeways models Because ANYONE can make the models, and it would count.

[stargatedalek]

The fact that some animals have exposed teeth demonstrates that the original statement, that there are none, and that teeth have to be protected from the outside environment, was an oversimplification.

I don't understand what you're saying about pterosaurs.

I'm happy to split this into a separate thread, if there isn't already a 'lips' topic on the forum?

But those teeth are protected, either through specialized anatomy or through environmental conditions or behavior.

Elephants, walrus, and boars protect their exposed tusks through their anatomy. These teeth are extremely large and the outer layers are proportionally extra thick so that the cores don't erode away and become exposed and injured. Even with these adaptations the tusks become dulled to the point where they can't function as normal teeth, only as spears or bludgeons.

Crocodiles instead protect them through their behavior; because they can't clean their teeth using saliva they rely on symbiotic birds to clean them, and they spend most of their time underwater (crucially they also sleep underwater) which means they dry out much more slowly.

Plesiosaurs were likely fully aquatic, and so their teeth wouldn't dry out. If they had exposed teeth they likely relied on symbiotic animals to clean them as many marine animals do.

Most toothed pterosaurs don't show evidence of extensive beaks, and those that do have teeth and evidence of beaks were aquatic hunters like Rhamphorhynchus, Dsungaripterus, and Anhanguera. While certainly not as aquatic as crocodiles, they still hunted or foraged underwater (ala auks or eiders), and it's unclear just how much time piscivorous or shellfish eating pterosaurs spent in the water when not feeding. It's entirely possible animals like Rhamphorhynchus spent months of a year in the open ocean like puffins do without visiting land.

All modern animals with exposed teeth have easily detectable adaptations showing us that their teeth are exposed, even based solely on skeletal material. One can tell just from seeing them that elephant or boar tusks are exposed to the elements based on the patterns of wear, and crocodiles based on the presence of osteoderms on their heads, the rapid tooth replacement, and inference of aquatic nature from their general anatomy. Doing strange things with ones teeth tends to lead to severe damage long term and even high mortality, such as Weddell seals.

We don't see any of these signs on sauropods, sauropods just have large teeth proportionally (and not that large to be frank).

[ZoPteryx]

Really impressive reveals!

The Amargasaurus is a great sculpt, both artistically and anatomically.  I will admit I'm not a huge fan of the coloration, especially the face.  The size is also troubling, about half the size would have been much better, imho.  But maybe there's a reason for that, maybe there's an upcoming predator it's meant to scale with.

The Anzu is really phenomenal, I think it's my favorite reveal thus far!  I like the detail on the tail feathers and the different feather types on the body.  The coloration is definitely non-conventional, but certainly not impossible.  It reminds me of certain ground-rollers and jewel-babblers.  If I was feeling nit-picky, I would argue that the second and third digits on the hand should be mostly fused together and I'd incorporate the hand into the wing more.  Other than that, provided the figure doesn't have any stability issues, it looks awesome! 

That frogfish is also really nice!

I'm wondering though, is this actually the first figure of Anzu? I mean it's the first that I'm aware about anyways.

If the Shapeways ones count then there's one, in different sizes.

But I think that one's labeled Chirostenotes, which is still a valid genus, even if the figure was based on what we now call Anzu.

[Takama]

Really impressive reveals!

The Amargasaurus is a great sculpt, both artistically and anatomically.  I will admit I'm not a huge fan of the coloration, especially the face.  The size is also troubling, about half the size would have been much better, imho.  But maybe there's a reason for that, maybe there's an upcoming predator it's meant to scale with

I agree with this.

The Shunosaurus is there smallest Sauropod in the line, and it is dwarfed by this Amargasaurus which should be the same size.

Same issue happend with the Cacaradotosaurus and the 2017 Giganotosaurus. I honestly wished they would not made these figures so damn big, but everyone kept beggin them to make 'BIGGER MORE DETAILED"Figures when i thoght that the size they were made at prior to 2017 was perfect from the get go. I was hopeing the Amargasuarus would have matched the Carnegie model in size, but nope.  It dwarfs the Shunosaurus.

   

[Patrx]

I'm wondering though, is this actually the first figure of Anzu? I mean it's the first that I'm aware about anyways.

If the Shapeways ones count then there's one, in different sizes.

But I think that one's labeled Chirostenotes, which is still a valid genus, even if the figure was based on what we now call Anzu.

Nah, Aaron Doyle, the sculptor, updated the name some time ago - and the figure itself, I think.

Can't really add anything new with my first impressions here, the Anzu looks nice apart from the scaly unfused hands. Definitely nice to see the neck densely fluffed like that! The Amarga is a great replacement for the Carnegie version, but yes, it's gonna take some paint and maybe even some putty or something to fix its face.
Overall, Safari's looking pretty good this year!

[Irritation]

Really impressive reveals!

The Amargasaurus is a great sculpt, both artistically and anatomically.  I will admit I'm not a huge fan of the coloration, especially the face.  The size is also troubling, about half the size would have been much better, imho.  But maybe there's a reason for that, maybe there's an upcoming predator it's meant to scale with

I agree with this.

The Shunosaurus is there smallest Sauropod in the line, and it is dwarfed by this Amargasaurus which should be the same size.

Same issue happend with the Cacaradotosaurus and the 2017 Giganotosaurus. I honestly wished they would not made these figures so damn big, but everyone kept beggin them to make 'BIGGER MORE DETAILED"Figures when i thoght that the size they were made at prior to 2017 was perfect from the get go. I was hopeing the Amargasuarus would have matched the Carnegie model in size, but nope.  It dwarfs the Shunosaurus.

   

If only the Shunosaurus was a bit bigger.

[tanystropheus]

It seems as if the sculptor that did the Diplo also did the Amarga. I'm really digging the sculptor's sauropod aesthetic. I bet he/she would make an awesome Mamenchi.

...but the Amarga isn't the sauropod pictured in the Safari Ltd. illustration (that sauropod has a prominent dewlap). Is there another sauropod coming out this year?

[tanystropheus]

I'm wondering though, is this actually the first figure of Anzu? I mean it's the first that I'm aware about anyways.

If the Shapeways ones count then there's one, in different sizes.

But I think that one's labeled Chirostenotes, which is still a valid genus, even if the figure was based on what we now call Anzu.

Nah, Aaron Doyle, the sculptor, updated the name some time ago - and the figure itself, I think.

Can't really add anything new with my first impressions here, the Anzu looks nice apart from the scaly unfused hands. Definitely nice to see the neck densely fluffed like that! The Amarga is a great replacement for the Carnegie version, but yes, it's gonna take some paint and maybe even some putty or something to fix its face.
Overall, Safari's looking pretty good this year!

I think the sculptor was going for that Amarga's  mythical-crazed-horse-dragon-pony look  that is replete in dino pop culture.