Safari Ltd - new for 2019

[suspsy]

Yes, Darren Naish was the one who first raised that objection regarding the rib cage. He also noted the crucial fact that Henderson did not study the actual Spinosaurus fossils for his paper. He only used computer simulations, and despite all the technological advances we currently enjoy, I agree with Naish that there is no substitute for the real deal.

[Patrx]

Yes, Darren Naish was the one who first raised that objection regarding the rib cage.

Indeed; I should have clarified that I didn't make that observation independently, I had seen it brought up by both Naish and Dr. Thomas Holtz

[Concavenator]

There's a problem with the Spinosaurus though.The recent paper claiming that it wasn't a  specialised,aquatic dinosaur is a direct attack to the 2014 model.
This new paper has demonstrated that a Spinosaurus in water may have fallen to one side,making it very difficult for Spinosaurus to actually swim.
And if Ibrahim includes the 2014 version in his rebuttal,thinking the new material that's being studied for Spinosaurus doesn't contradict his own model,there would still be a lot of confusion.
@Patrx ,what do you think about the Safari Spinosaurus?Will you get it? What do you think about its accuracy?

Unfortunately, we still don't know very much about Spinosaurus' walking posture, so choosing a pose for a figure is tricky business, and a swimming one seems like the safest bet. The Henderson paper does suggest that the animal was a poor swimmer, which would be odd–it doesn't appear to have been a very efficient walker, either, and it must have been getting around somehow! One thing that stands out about the study, though, is that the model used to predict Spinosaurus' interactions with water has a narrow torso, like most theropods. Not much is known about Spinosaurus' ribcage, but what little we do have suggests a rounder torso. Since the conclusions of the Henderson study as goes Spinosaurus all hinge on that narrow-bodied model, I'm inclined, for the moment, to doubt that the animal really would have had much trouble in the water.

Well,I hadn't thought that.If the new paper says that Spinosaurs wasn't a specialised,aquatic dinosaur at all,then that means it would have necessarily been at least a decent walker,which doesn't look like so.In that case,you would have an all-clumsy animal.both in land and water.I don't know if that's possible.I can't think of any animal that can't move relatively fluidly in at least land or water.But perhaps there is.

I was surprised when that recent paper came out.It was very weird the fact that it denies that an animal that was recently claimed to be clearly specialised wasn't specialised at all.

So I guess the 2014 Spinosaurus is  accurate after all,but we'll have to see.
What is a total mistery is how it moved on land.However,there is a possibility that it didn't moveon land at all.It wouldn't make much sense,I think.If it was clearly a piscivorous dinosaur,why would it venture into land?I recall Carcharodontosaurus coexisted with Spinosaurus,didn't it?A Carcharodontosaurus could have easily killed a clumsy Spinosaurus in land.Also,the fact that Spinosaurus  was that specialised means that a previous genus was evolving into that specialised form,moving onto the water.
I kinda imagine it as an early whale,like an Ambulocetus,for instance.

[suspsy]

I seriously doubt that Carcharodontosaurus would have included Spinosaurus as part of its regular diet, not when there were ornithopods and sauropods to prey upon instead. Lions don't make a regular habit of preying on crocodiles when they're out of the water.

[Moldovan0731]

@Doug Watson yes, unfortunately the Spinosaurus figure wouldn't have been able to stand on it's legs neither in this pose:

A base would nip that issue right in the bud. I'd totally snap up a base-mounted Spinosaurus in that pose.

Well, bases are not my thing, but different strokes for different folks.

[Ikessauro]

There's a problem with the Spinosaurus though.The recent paper claiming that it wasn't a  specialised,aquatic dinosaur is a direct attack to the 2014 model.
This new paper has demonstrated that a Spinosaurus in water may have fallen to one side,making it very difficult for Spinosaurus to actually swim.
And if Ibrahim includes the 2014 version in his rebuttal,thinking the new material that's being studied for Spinosaurus doesn't contradict his own model,there would still be a lot of confusion.
@Patrx ,what do you think about the Safari Spinosaurus?Will you get it? What do you think about its accuracy?

Unfortunately, we still don't know very much about Spinosaurus' walking posture, so choosing a pose for a figure is tricky business, and a swimming one seems like the safest bet. The Henderson paper does suggest that the animal was a poor swimmer, which would be odd–it doesn't appear to have been a very efficient walker, either, and it must have been getting around somehow! One thing that stands out about the study, though, is that the model used to predict Spinosaurus' interactions with water has a narrow torso, like most theropods. Not much is known about Spinosaurus' ribcage, but what little we do have suggests a rounder torso. Since the conclusions of the Henderson study as goes Spinosaurus all hinge on that narrow-bodied model, I'm inclined, for the moment, to doubt that the animal really would have had much trouble in the water.

Well,I hadn't thought that.If the new paper says that Spinosaurs wasn't a specialised,aquatic dinosaur at all,then that means it would have necessarily been at least a decent walker,which doesn't look like so.In that case,you would have an all-clumsy animal.both in land and water.I don't know if that's possible.I can't think of any animal that can't move relatively fluidly in at least land or water.But perhaps there is.

I was surprised when that recent paper came out.It was very weird the fact that it denies that an animal that was recently claimed to be clearly specialised wasn't specialised at all.

So I guess the 2014 Spinosaurus is  accurate after all,but we'll have to see.
What is a total mistery is how it moved on land.However,there is a possibility that it didn't moveon land at all.It wouldn't make much sense,I think.If it was clearly a piscivorous dinosaur,why would it venture into land?I recall Carcharodontosaurus coexisted with Spinosaurus,didn't it?A Carcharodontosaurus could have easily killed a clumsy Spinosaurus in land.Also,the fact that Spinosaurus  was that specialised means that a previous genus was evolving into that specialised form,moving onto the water.
I kinda imagine it as an early whale,like an Ambulocetus,for instance.

Well, Henderson's paper seems to have a failure in it's methodology according to friends of mine, who by the way are paleontologists here in Brazil. They studied Spinosaur bones and published that paper about Brazilian aquatic Spinosaurs. They told me that Henderson did not use the proper density of Spinosaur bones. Henderson used bone density equivalent to other terrestrial theropods like Allosaurus. Several papers have shown that Spinosaurs had bones heavier and thicker than other dinosaurs. My paleontologist friend said they contacted Henderson asking for the software he used so they could replicate his experiment but he refused to provide the software . Henderson said de software was too complicated to use and that if they want it he would input the data and run the analysis himself.
I'm sure you all are aware that science must be falsifiable and scientists must be able to replicate tests to verify the accuracy of the results. Experiments must be repeatable but as it seems Henderson is not very keen to help others in this case. I will leave it to you the Task of drawing conclusions based on this.

[Appalachiosaurus]

The Henderson paper has one big problem with its model... the fact that you can't put a real Spinosaurus skeleton into it.

[Concavenator]

I preordered the Citipati from Dan.It's supposed to be released sometime this month,isn't it?

[Shonisaurus]

I prefer to wait until the eleven figures are available in a store in Europe to make the bulk purchase. I earn financially. Obviously I will buy the online company from Europe that previously sold those figures.

[suspsy]

There's a problem with the Spinosaurus though.The recent paper claiming that it wasn't a  specialised,aquatic dinosaur is a direct attack to the 2014 model.
This new paper has demonstrated that a Spinosaurus in water may have fallen to one side,making it very difficult for Spinosaurus to actually swim.
And if Ibrahim includes the 2014 version in his rebuttal,thinking the new material that's being studied for Spinosaurus doesn't contradict his own model,there would still be a lot of confusion.
@Patrx ,what do you think about the Safari Spinosaurus?Will you get it? What do you think about its accuracy?

Unfortunately, we still don't know very much about Spinosaurus' walking posture, so choosing a pose for a figure is tricky business, and a swimming one seems like the safest bet. The Henderson paper does suggest that the animal was a poor swimmer, which would be odd–it doesn't appear to have been a very efficient walker, either, and it must have been getting around somehow! One thing that stands out about the study, though, is that the model used to predict Spinosaurus' interactions with water has a narrow torso, like most theropods. Not much is known about Spinosaurus' ribcage, but what little we do have suggests a rounder torso. Since the conclusions of the Henderson study as goes Spinosaurus all hinge on that narrow-bodied model, I'm inclined, for the moment, to doubt that the animal really would have had much trouble in the water.

Well,I hadn't thought that.If the new paper says that Spinosaurs wasn't a specialised,aquatic dinosaur at all,then that means it would have necessarily been at least a decent walker,which doesn't look like so.In that case,you would have an all-clumsy animal.both in land and water.I don't know if that's possible.I can't think of any animal that can't move relatively fluidly in at least land or water.But perhaps there is.

I was surprised when that recent paper came out.It was very weird the fact that it denies that an animal that was recently claimed to be clearly specialised wasn't specialised at all.

So I guess the 2014 Spinosaurus is  accurate after all,but we'll have to see.
What is a total mistery is how it moved on land.However,there is a possibility that it didn't moveon land at all.It wouldn't make much sense,I think.If it was clearly a piscivorous dinosaur,why would it venture into land?I recall Carcharodontosaurus coexisted with Spinosaurus,didn't it?A Carcharodontosaurus could have easily killed a clumsy Spinosaurus in land.Also,the fact that Spinosaurus  was that specialised means that a previous genus was evolving into that specialised form,moving onto the water.
I kinda imagine it as an early whale,like an Ambulocetus,for instance.

Well, Henderson's paper seems to have a failure in it's methodology according to friends of mine, who by the way are paleontologists here in Brazil. They studied Spinosaur bones and published that paper about Brazilian aquatic Spinosaurs. They told me that Henderson did not use the proper density of Spinosaur bones. Henderson used bone density equivalent to other terrestrial theropods like Allosaurus. Several papers have shown that Spinosaurs had bones heavier and thicker than other dinosaurs. My paleontologist friend said they contacted Henderson asking for the software he used so they could replicate his experiment but he refused to provide the software . Henderson said de software was too complicated to use and that if they want it he would input the data and run the analysis himself.
I'm sure you all are aware that science must be falsifiable and scientists must be able to replicate tests to verify the accuracy of the results. Experiments must be repeatable but as it seems Henderson is not very keen to help others in this case. I will leave it to you the Task of drawing conclusions based on this.

This isn't the first time Henderson has made this critical and frankly, puzzling error. Back in 2007, he coauthored a paper in which he concluded that Spinosaurus had a mass of 12 to 20 tons. Granted, this was back when it was still assumed that the animal walked on two massive hind legs just like in JP3, but Henderson still chose to use tyrannosaurs and carnosaurs for
comparison despite the fact that it had been established by then that spinosaurs had a significantly different body structure.

[Sauropelta]

Are they going to fix the warped horns on the Styracosaurus? Making it straighter will make the figure look bigger.

[IrritatorRaji]

Are they going to fix the warped horns on the Styracosaurus? Making it straighter will make the figure look bigger.

I don't know if it'd actually be possible for the horns on the frill to be fixed given that they are made of a thin plastic that, I'm assuming just based on how it looks, if softer than the rest of the body (child protection?). I'm sure there'd be some way to fix the horns once the figure is purchased though.

[Jose S.M.]

Are they going to fix the warped horns on the Styracosaurus? Making it straighter will make the figure look bigger.

I don't know if it'd actually be possible for the horns on the frill to be fixed given that they are made of a thin plastic that, I'm assuming just based on how it looks, if softer than the rest of the body (child protection?). I'm sure there'd be some way to fix the horns once the figure is purchased though.

Maybe they can come up with something like the plastic things they use on the bipedal figure legs to avoid warping.

[Shonisaurus]

Are they going to fix the warped horns on the Styracosaurus? Making it straighter will make the figure look bigger.

Perhaps with a hair dryer the bent horns of the styracosaurus would be solved, or by putting it in cold or hot water.

In my case, I'm not really traumatized by that defect. For me it is the best styracosaurus made to date by a toy dinosaur company.

Although I have to admit that other Styracosaurus of other brands are great in ingenuity and details and do not go exactly unnoticed. I have some in my mind that now do not come to mind in this thread.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Thank you to anyone and everyone who explained about Stegosaurus better than I ever could. Personally, the Stegosaurus is the best of the bunch out of the 2019 figures, with Camarasaurus in second place.

[Halichoeres]

Are they going to fix the warped horns on the Styracosaurus? Making it straighter will make the figure look bigger.

I don't know if it'd actually be possible for the horns on the frill to be fixed given that they are made of a thin plastic that, I'm assuming just based on how it looks, if softer than the rest of the body (child protection?). I'm sure there'd be some way to fix the horns once the figure is purchased though.

Maybe they can come up with something like the plastic things they use on the bipedal figure legs to avoid warping.

Yeah, the Schleich Kentrosaurus came with a sort of shell that kept all of its spines in place during shipping. I think otherwise many would have been pretty deformed.

[Sauropelta]

Where are the carnosaurus's teeth? One of it's defining traits is razor sharp teeth. I actually like the figure besides this one flaw.

[Patrx]

They are behind its lips

[Shonisaurus]

So it seems there is a theory that theropods such as carnotaurus for example had lips like the Komodo dragon although that is a guess, since other theories suggest that the theropods had teeth like crocodiles. I do not say it because I have my own knowledge, I say it because they have commented it in a certain way, people from the forum. As you know, unfortunately, I have no idea of paleontology and biology, although I am fascinated by animals of any geological age, even those that fortunately survive with us for now.

[Sauropelta]

The lips thing kinda makes sense but I still think the teeth should be visible when it's mouth is open like that. Should have made them at least sharp looking so it stands out better but they look like human teeth. Carno looks like an old man to me.