Safari Ltd.: New for 2018

[Jose S.M.]

I'm so excited about the Triceratops that I went to safari website to order it and it says coming soon, that was sad hahaha. But in all seriousness I really love it and it was such a nice surprise,  after the Regaliceratops I wasn't expecting a ceratopsian.
And my figures from safari should be arriving today in the afternoon or tomorrow morning, I can't wait!

[Doug Watson]

So is this all of them?  I ask because i was waiting to order til all were released.

That is all I did but I can't speak for any other artists.

[suspsy]

That said, this figure will certainly be the definitive Triceratops in my collection. I'm curious, Doug: did you consider at any point adding spiky osteoderms in the manner of the restorations by Mark Witton, or was that too speculative in your view?

To tell the truth to me T. prorsus can look a little derpy with that elongated snout so I chose the one with a more robust look.

Fair enough. I like T. prorsus precisely because it looks so derpy.

I looked into all the theories on the nipples and I decided to steer away from conjecture and show what we actually know.

P.S. If I had made little spikes like that they would have been blunted by the factory for child safety.

Yes, that is probably true. On that note, I was comparing my two WS T. rex figures the other night and it's strange how the 2011 version got away with having bigger, sharper teeth than the 2017. Perhaps safety standards were tightened sometime between the two releases.

[Nanuqsaurus]

Really happy with these announcements! They look great, but that was to be expected from Safari. I'm really glad they got a new Triceratops, it's exactly what I was looking for!

[Doug Watson]

@Doug : Did you consult for the Triceratops? I must say it looks somehow different than what I'm used to, but that may be because it is very accurate. I personally find it majestic, and that coloration makes it look more intimidating.

No I winged that one on my own but luckily the images and some description of the Lane skin impressions were public so I was able to incorporate those details. That specimen was also identified as T. horridus so that also helped in deciding the species to do.

[Bokisaurus]

Wow, impressive new additions to the 2018 Collection! I'm really surprised (very happy) by the high number of prehistoric mammals they are releasing next year, it half the number. I guess being free of the Carnegie contract was really good for Safari.
That sauropod is awesome, but just like the Amarga, what is up with this years sauropods having that odd skeletal pain scheme on their faces? Just looks odd to me.
It's great that Safari is building up their Collection, after all they have to replace the old top selling Carnegie line. I expect the trend of high number of figure will continue for a couple of years, they back to more conservative once they fill all of the void.
Was surprised me the most is the lack of meat eater in the dino world, wow!

[Sim]

Doug, I'm curious about why the osteoderms on the Wild Safari Ankylosaurus are painted brown only on top and not underneath?  Is it how you chose the osteoderm colouration to look, or could it be a painting error from the factory?

Been so long I had to go back and check my images of my prototypes. That is how I painted them no other reason than why not.

Thanks for your response.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

Some awesome additions to the Safari lineup here!

Malawisaurus is super impressive, and I'm happy that it will be in roughly 1:40 scale.

Great to see even more mammals! Safari has really opened the flood gates.

All look nice, among the best examples we have of these species.

[IrritatorRaji]

That Malawisaurus looks amazing, I can't wait to get my hands on it!

[Shonisaurus]

This year, from what I observe in Safari, Collecta and Papo have focused practically on herbivorous dinosaurs.


As far as Safari is concerned, it seems to me very well that this year they have only made herbivorous dinosaurs and that they have focused so much on the Cenozoic era and also on the Paleozoic (dimetrodon) so brilliantly. Sincerely these prehistoric mammals are going to set a high bar to the companies of the competition especially to Collecta.

[tanystropheus]

This year, from what I observe in Safari, Collecta and Papo have focused practically on herbivorous dinosaurs.

Possibly, also REBOR, now that they got the raptor craze out of their system...

[Simon]

Of this batch, I was consulted on the Anzu, Amargasaurus and Malawisaurus. It was an honour, as always. I didn't have any input on the scale or colouration of the models. One of these days I might ask Safari Ltd for permission to write an illustrated blog post about the process, I've been meaning to do so ever since I helped Doug with the Liopleurodon, years ago.

BTW, to answer a question from earlier in this thread, the Anzu was intentionally posed so that it is supported by one of its wings.

Once again, a wonderful lineup from Safari Ltd. We are being spoiled!

DR Admin, can you tel me why the Malawisaurus looks less like the Skeletal by Scott Hartman?

Perhaps Hartman's reconstruction has ramped up the angle of the neck a bit too much.  I think that there is a very valid school of thought that the angle of the neck should pretty much be an extension of the spine - if you lower the angle of the neck in Hartman's skeletal to achieve that angle, I think you'll find its pretty close to the Safari figure ....

[Halichoeres]

As far as I can tell all the claims about synapsid skin come from a single 1968 paper on Estemmenosuchus by a Soviet paleontologist named Chudinov. Again, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has examined the remains in question and published on them since. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) The earliest synapsids we have impressions for seem to show scales, more analogous to those on crocodiles than those on lizards (the latter are pretty highly derived). It's worth remembering that tetrapods, and probably also amniotes, are primitively scaly, so anything other than scales represents an innovation (even today's amphibians had scaly-ish ancestors).

As for Dimetrodon, it sits squarely between these primitive scaly synapsids and Estemmenosuchus. I'm not sure why everyone accepts Chudinov's interpretation uncritically when, in the same paper, he claims that it is related to Ichthyosaurus based on its skin impressions (NB: I too have been guilty of parroting it). The remains are, moreover, only from the head. After reading the paper, I think the description therein is definitely consistent with glandular skin, but it's hard to completely rule out other integuments. For Dimetrodon, I tend to agree that the most parsimonious interpretation is scales of some sort, until and unless A) the Estemmenosuchus material is re-examined in a phylogenetically explicit way or B) we find additional skin impressions of Permian stem-mammals.

My two cents, with the caveat that I'm no expert on synapsids.

[alexeratops]

Wouldn't it just be dandy if the new Triceratops was in the same scale as our lovely feathered Tyrannosaurus by Safari?

They are both in 1:35 scale.

Oh. The stock photo makes the Trike seem about the size of most of the other ceratopsians by Doug in the past few years, but then again, maybe I have just forgotten how big a Triceratops was compared to a Tyrannosaurus.

[Dromaenychus]

The Amargasaurus is fantastic! Buuuut, I can't leave well enough alone and had to fix the head. The color is a bit off, but I'll do a yellow wash to adjust it.


It's a great sculpt!

[Simon]

I just perused the Safari Ltd home page to see the different angles of the critters.  I must say that this THE best one-year crop of critters that any company has ever released.

Magnificent!!  (The only sad exception is the oddly shaped and proportioned Amargasaurus, but hey, everyone's entitled to a "miss" once in a while...)

[Faelrin]

As far as I can tell all the claims about synapsid skin come from a single 1968 paper on Estemmenosuchus by a Soviet paleontologist named Chudinov. Again, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has examined the remains in question and published on them since. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) The earliest synapsids we have impressions for seem to show scales, more analogous to those on crocodiles than those on lizards (the latter are pretty highly derived). It's worth remembering that tetrapods, and probably also amniotes, are primitively scaly, so anything other than scales represents an innovation (even today's amphibians had scaly-ish ancestors).

As for Dimetrodon, it sits squarely between these primitive scaly synapsids and Estemmenosuchus. I'm not sure why everyone accepts Chudinov's interpretation uncritically when, in the same paper, he claims that it is related to Ichthyosaurus based on its skin impressions (NB: I too have been guilty of parroting it). The remains are, moreover, only from the head. After reading the paper, I think the description therein is definitely consistent with glandular skin, but it's hard to completely rule out other integuments. For Dimetrodon, I tend to agree that the most parsimonious interpretation is scales of some sort, until and unless A) the Estemmenosuchus material is re-examined in a phylogenetically explicit way or B) we find additional skin impressions of Permian stem-mammals.

My two cents, with the caveat that I'm no expert on synapsids.

Thanks for all this information. I guess I was wrong in a lot of places with my other post on this matter. I was not aware that there were synapsids found with skin impressions, and scales to boot. Is there anything I can read up on or check out these impressions found? I'm really curious now. In any case I suppose I'll accept the scaly Dimetrodon more then I did before.

[DinoToyForum]

I just perused the Safari Ltd home page to see the different angles of the critters.  I must say that this THE best one-year crop of critters that any company has ever released.

Magnificent!!  (The only sad exception is the oddly shaped and proportioned Amargasaurus, but hey, everyone's entitled to a "miss" once in a while...)

I assure you, the shape and proportions are perfect. Amargasaurus was oddly shaped and proportioned.  You don't have to like it, though.

[DinoToyForum]

Of this batch, I was consulted on the Anzu, Amargasaurus and Malawisaurus. It was an honour, as always. I didn't have any input on the scale or colouration of the models. One of these days I might ask Safari Ltd for permission to write an illustrated blog post about the process, I've been meaning to do so ever since I helped Doug with the Liopleurodon, years ago.

BTW, to answer a question from earlier in this thread, the Anzu was intentionally posed so that it is supported by one of its wings.

Once again, a wonderful lineup from Safari Ltd. We are being spoiled!

DR Admin, can you tel me why the Malawisaurus looks less like the Skeletal by Scott Hartman?

Perhaps Hartman's reconstruction has ramped up the angle of the neck a bit too much.  I think that there is a very valid school of thought that the angle of the neck should pretty much be an extension of the spine - if you lower the angle of the neck in Hartman's skeletal to achieve that angle, I think you'll find its pretty close to the Safari figure ....

Yeah, the pose makes it look different.

[tanystropheus]

I just perused the Safari Ltd home page to see the different angles of the critters.  I must say that this THE best one-year crop of critters that any company has ever released.

Magnificent!!  (The only sad exception is the oddly shaped and proportioned Amargasaurus, but hey, everyone's entitled to a "miss" once in a while...)

I assure you, the shape and proportions are perfect. Amargasaurus was oddly shaped and proportioned.  You don't have to like it, though.

Exactly. It's strange that folks here don't seem to understand or want to understand what an Amarga is supposed to look like. I'm not even from a Paleo background but it is pretty obvious to me that the Safari model matches with known skeletal restorations.