Safari Ltd - new for 2019

[SpinoDude]

I pass a video of SpinoDude from the pteranodon of Safari 2019. It looks magnificent. The best pteranodon made to date.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhf12yQMJE0

I just wanted to correct one claim made on this review. In it SpinoDude states as fact that the beak should curve upwards, I have addressed this earlier here on the DTF when someone else made the same claim, this is incorrect according to my research and this is my second go round with Pteranodon longiceps, I did the life size models for the Canadian Museum Nature under the supervision of their scientists. My beak is based on the holotype skull that according to Mark Witton on his blog it is "the only Pteranodon specimen with can be objectively referred to the genus". It has a straight beak and is complete with intact upper and lower jaws. As far as I know the upward swept representation of Pteranodon beaks is based on material attributed to Geosternbergia (formerly Pteranodon sternbergi). He also critiques the posture of the arms well maybe he should check out some pteronodon reference since I didn't pull that out of my rear end either.
Is SpinoDude on this forum I would love to discuss this with him. I have tried to leave comments on YouTube before and for some reason they never show up. I really wish reviewers would put some research into the subject before making statements of fact that other people who also don't have the knowledge accept. If I was presumptuous enough to do an online review I would certainly do some research first.

Hi Doug,

First of all just wanted to say I'm a huge fan of your work. As for the Pteranodon, I did indeed do my research and consulted a number of people who are more educated with Pterosaurs than I am. They all confirmed for me that the beak on Pteranodon longiceps should be curved upwards, and all the images/ articles I came across seemed to confirm it as well. I was not aware of this specimen and if you could send along some more info on it that would be appreciated. It was under my impression that both P. longiceps and what is now Geosternbergia have similar beak shapes, but their crests are different; P. longiceps having a longer pointed crest, and Geosternbergia having the shorter wider crest.

As for the arms, I never said there was anything wrong with them scientifically; I am just not a huge fan of how they appear from the front view. Just a subjective opinion.

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't blindly name things as fact in my videos without proper research on the subject matter, and in the case of P. longiceps, I felt confident with the material I found online. I am interested in learning more about the sculpting/ research behind this figure and some of your other ones, if you'd like to chat about it sometime. 

-SpinoDude

[Doug Watson]

I wonder on what specimin you based your allosaurus on. the guy in this review claims the propotions are wrong in many ways and thus it's not very accurate. A bit dissapointing to be honest.

Arggggggggh did you read what Patryx and I were just commenting on, having said that I see the Tubers have answered so I will address them separately. After this I don't think I will address these anymore because as you see neither of them have taken the time to post their reference that are leaving it to me to post mine and frankly I'm done with it.

P.S. @Dinoguy you should delete the copy of my original post in your post they don't like long repostings here on the DTF especially when they contain images. Just copy the pertinent quotes.

[Doug Watson]

I feel like lots of people have the idea that if it's not Tyrannosaurus all other theropods have to be very lean. I saw some videos of first impressions for the Safari lineup and it was a recurring theme that Allosaurus and Carnotaurus were too fat or bulky. These people seem to forget there can be individual variation and that have some bulk its often more likely than being all shrink wrapped.
This is going to sound like fanboyism but I've come to trust Doug when it comes to proportions, it's clear he does extensive research for his sculpts.

Well in reference to my review, that does seem to be a topic of hot debate, and really the only "more questionable" inaccuracy with the Allosaurus that I brought up. However I am not one to assume that all dinosaurs are to be shrink wrapped or lacking in soft tissue, quite the opposite. In the case of Allosaurus however, when I talk about the "bulk", I am talking about the actual width of the animal, yes it could be done for a more lean look, but objectively speaking I was referring the the width of the animal's representation, and its not horribly off, I still enjoy the model. However, the Carnotaurus should never be represented in such a manor of bulk, width and scale, it goes completely against the body structure of the animal, which was very lightly built, lean and likely very fast. I don't intend to argue much over the Carnotaurus, that ship has sailed with me. Back to the Allosaurus, if you watch my review you see that I mention the head and neck proportions and the width of the chest, which are objective issues with Allosaurus, and do slightly increase the visual affect of a"bulky" Allosaurus. Now don't twist my words here, I still love the model, but I will stand by my critique that the animal shouldn't be portrayed quite as bulky as it is, its not super bad, its just a bit off. 

Again as I have mentioned above you have not presented your reference we are simply to believe you. I based this on A. fragilis and I just checked my reference and the skull and neck length are dead on, did you bother to run  a string along the vertebrae to account for the turn of the neck. I was going to post my reference but as I just mentioned I think if the reviewers don't want to take the time to do the same then neither will I just locate Scott Hartmans skeletal and check it yourself. Maybe the chest is a little wide but hey I am human but at least I have done the research and tried to get it right. I disagree with you on the shape of the lower lacrimal edge.

[Doug Watson]

Hi Doug,

First of all just wanted to say I'm a huge fan of your work. As for the Pteranodon, I did indeed do my research and consulted a number of people who are more educated with Pterosaurs than I am. They all confirmed for me that the beak on Pteranodon longiceps should be curved upwards, and all the images/ articles I came across seemed to confirm it as well. I was not aware of this specimen and if you could send along some more info on it that would be appreciated. It was under my impression that both P. longiceps and what is now Geosternbergia have similar beak shapes, but their crests are different; P. longiceps having a longer pointed crest, and Geosternbergia having the shorter wider crest.

As for the arms, I never said there was anything wrong with them scientifically; I am just not a huge fan of how they appear from the front view. Just a subjective opinion.

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't blindly name things as fact in my videos without proper research on the subject matter, and in the case of P. longiceps, I felt confident with the material I found online. I am interested in learning more about the sculpting/ research behind this figure and some of your other ones, if you'd like to chat about it sometime. 

-SpinoDude

As I have just mentioned if you won't present your reference I will no longer post mine. There are too many of these reviews coming out to keep up with and I really don't have the time to respond to all of them let alone be the only one posting reference. I said in the other post the skull is the P. longiceps holotype, look it up or read Whitton's blog if you don't believe me.

[Kikizilla101]

Hi Doug,

I would just like to remind you, how huge of a fan I am of your work, and how I never intend to mislead people with information that I provide. With that said, no one is perfect and I would love to have a conversation about it. However to be quite frank and am very disheartened and disappointed by your attitude. We are simple fans and we have both been very respectful, yet you make vast accusations instead of holding a conversation. I am very disappointed.

And yes I do very extensive research before I review any model. I have taken the time to visit multiple museums and have taken reference photos, as well as researching extensively online over everything that I could find on Allosaurus Fragilis. I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your depiction of A.fragilis' head-neck proportions. If you take a look at this 2019 reconstruction by franoys: https://www.deviantart.com/franoys/art/Allosaurus-fragilis-skeletal-DINO-2560-773506961

Yet again, this isn't horribly far off, but the head of the Allosaurus is slightly too large, now you may be correct in referencing the vertical neck position, as this may account for how it appears shorter. But I did take a small wire and it still seems as though the neck is still slightly to short. But that is with the Franoys reconstruction. If you look at Scott Hartmans, the one you referred to, it has an even smaller head, and a longer neck. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/51bf3928e4b09edc5f83d0af/51bf5ce3e4b0cad7682bf909/1382740221337/Allosaurus+sp.jpg?format=2500w

With the lacrimal ridge, both of the skeletals referenced before have a far more vertical appearance than the curved one on the model. Now as stated in the review, this is extremely minor, and may simply be down to painting mishap, I didn't hold it against the model in any fashion, I in-fact heavily praised the inclusion! Which heavy props to you, that is awesome that you included that.

I perfectly understand that people make mistakes. I am NOT trying to ridicule you, as stated before I am a huge fan of your work. However, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to just be coming off as extremely offended, overly defensive and kind of rude. I honestly am really hurt by your attitude and how you have judged both SpinoDude and myself without actually knowing how much time we spent not only researching the animals, but taking our time to properly and respectfully critique your models, and this is how you act. Thanks so much for the delightful conversation.

[SpinoDude]

Hi Doug,

First of all just wanted to say I'm a huge fan of your work. As for the Pteranodon, I did indeed do my research and consulted a number of people who are more educated with Pterosaurs than I am. They all confirmed for me that the beak on Pteranodon longiceps should be curved upwards, and all the images/ articles I came across seemed to confirm it as well. I was not aware of this specimen and if you could send along some more info on it that would be appreciated. It was under my impression that both P. longiceps and what is now Geosternbergia have similar beak shapes, but their crests are different; P. longiceps having a longer pointed crest, and Geosternbergia having the shorter wider crest.

As for the arms, I never said there was anything wrong with them scientifically; I am just not a huge fan of how they appear from the front view. Just a subjective opinion.

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't blindly name things as fact in my videos without proper research on the subject matter, and in the case of P. longiceps, I felt confident with the material I found online. I am interested in learning more about the sculpting/ research behind this figure and some of your other ones, if you'd like to chat about it sometime. 

-SpinoDude

As I have just mentioned if you won't present your reference I will no longer post mine. There are too many of these reviews coming out to keep up with and I really don't have the time to respond to all of them let alone be the only one posting reference. I said in the other post the skull is the P. longiceps holotype, look it up or read Whitton's blog if you don't believe me.

I just looked through the Mark Witton blog post, and I found the holotype skull that your sculpt is based on. The caption under the photo says this:

"The holotype skull of Pteranodon longiceps, the only Pteranodon specimen which can be objectively referred to the genus. This skull is from a small (presumed female) morph."

Mark Witton also wrote about sexual dimorphism in P. longiceps. The holotype skull is presumed female, and females have straighter beaks and short crests.

This image right here shows sexual dimorphism in Pteranodon, depicting a male and female P. longiceps. The male has a longer crest with a curved beak, and the female a short crest with a straighter beak.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mm9OcviNQm0/V5XKrlCpt1I/AAAAAAAACSY/Z9iPnOfbXT8t00FlbA1iIDn6Syc9mc9wwCK4B/s1600/Pteranodon%2Bmorphs%2Blow%2Bres%2BWitton%2B2013.jpg

The Safari 2019 Pteranodon seems to have the straighter beak of the female, and the longer crest of the male.

Just to clarify, I never meant to attack your work. I am just clarifying my reasoning for bringing it up in my review because you seem offended by my comments in the video.

Also, I don't appreciate being thrown into this "stereotype" for reviewers who don't do their research. 

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

I wonder on what specimin you based your allosaurus on. the guy in this review claims the propotions are wrong in many ways and thus it's not very accurate. A bit dissapointing to be honest.

Arggggggggh did you read what Patryx and I were just commenting on, having said that I see the Tubers have answered so I will address them separately. After this I don't think I will address these anymore because as you see neither of them have taken the time to post their reference that are leaving it to me to post mine and frankly I'm done with it.

P.S. @Dinoguy you should delete the copy of my original post in your post they don't like long repostings here on the DTF especially when they contain images. Just copy the pertinent quotes.

Well, excuse me all to hell.

[Concavenator]

Arguing that Safari's models have inaccuracies is now pretty difficult.You may or may not like the models but at least they're accurate.

The only actual model that I'm not completely sure about is the Carnotaurus though.Not that it's anatomically inaccurate, but I think it's too bulky.I wonder why its proportions are so different than Carnegie's and CollectA's versions, respectively, when both of those could also be considered as very accurate ( yeah I get it the Carnegie is a tripod, but that's for stability in the same way that the Safari one has larger feet).

However, we got the great Citipati and Styracosaurus.

Not only that,but also I would regard the Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, Pteranodon and Camarasaurus as absolute gems.In particular , the Pteranodon and Camarasaurus are imo some of Safari's all time best models they have ever done, including the CC ( which as I have said many times is my favorite brand).So that means a lot

I do have the Citipati and I like it a lot, albeit the wings are sloppily painted on the inner side, near the hands.And now I'm eagerly awaiting for the Allosaurus that I have been waiting for since so many years...

[Doug Watson]

I wonder on what specimin you based your allosaurus on. the guy in this review claims the propotions are wrong in many ways and thus it's not very accurate. A bit dissapointing to be honest.

Arggggggggh did you read what Patryx and I were just commenting on, having said that I see the Tubers have answered so I will address them separately. After this I don't think I will address these anymore because as you see neither of them have taken the time to post their reference that are leaving it to me to post mine and frankly I'm done with it.

P.S. @Dinoguy you should delete the copy of my original post in your post they don't like long repostings here on the DTF especially when they contain images. Just copy the pertinent quotes.

Well, excuse me all to hell.

If you are talking about my last comment I wasn't trying to be rude I guess I should have put a smiley face. I was trying to be helpful. If you are talking about my first comment if that was rude I am sorry but you have no idea what it is like having your work questioned in public, if you do well sorry again.

[stargatedalek]

I imagine it's hard enough hearing from so many of us with our tiny nitpicks about things we've actually researched that became outdated over time or required knowledge of obscure details. It must be miserable to see people parading around reviews with outdated or incorrect references that are impossible to reasonably respond to.

I'm not the biggest fan of your Spinosaurus but that comes down squarely to artistic differences, it's a solidly researched piece with spectacular sculpting.

The only accuracy issues I can recall from any recent Safari pieces are the Maniraptoran hands having un-fused fingers, but that's a particularly common error and one that scarcely impacts a piece as the wings largely hide these details anyway.

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

If you are talking about my last comment I wasn't trying to be rude I guess I should have put a smiley face. I was trying to be helpful. If you are talking about my first comment if that was rude I am sorry but you have no idea what it is like having your work questioned in public, if you do well sorry again.
[/quote]


I don't mind. Artists are supposed to be cranky (big fan of Beethoven). I love your models. They are more organic-looking than the ones by other artists/companies. Your mastodont is one of my all time favorites.

[stargatedalek]

I don't mind. Artists are supposed to be cranky (big fan of Beethoven). I love your models. They are more organic-looking than the ones of other artists/companies.

Agreed. There is something about your sculpts that feels truly alive in a way more than being accurate can describe. Like, even sculpts that are considered more accurate (largely due to passage of time) feel like taxidermy in comparison.

[Doug Watson]

Hi Doug,

I would just like to remind you, how huge of a fan I am of your work, and how I never intend to mislead people with information that I provide. With that said, no one is perfect and I would love to have a conversation about it. However to be quite frank and am very disheartened and disappointed by your attitude. We are simple fans and we have both been very respectful, yet you make vast accusations instead of holding a conversation. I am very disappointed.

And yes I do very extensive research before I review any model. I have taken the time to visit multiple museums and have taken reference photos, as well as researching extensively online over everything that I could find on Allosaurus Fragilis. I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your depiction of A.fragilis' head-neck proportions. If you take a look at this 2019 reconstruction by franoys: https://www.deviantart.com/franoys/art/Allosaurus-fragilis-skeletal-DINO-2560-773506961

Yet again, this isn't horribly far off, but the head of the Allosaurus is slightly too large, now you may be correct in referencing the vertical neck position, as this may account for how it appears shorter. But I did take a small wire and it still seems as though the neck is still slightly to short. But that is with the Franoys reconstruction. If you look at Scott Hartmans, the one you referred to, it has an even smaller head, and a longer neck. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/51bf3928e4b09edc5f83d0af/51bf5ce3e4b0cad7682bf909/1382740221337/Allosaurus+sp.jpg?format=2500w

With the lacrimal ridge, both of the skeletals referenced before have a far more vertical appearance than the curved one on the model. Now as stated in the review, this is extremely minor, and may simply be down to painting mishap, I didn't hold it against the model in any fashion, I in-fact heavily praised the inclusion! Which heavy props to you, that is awesome that you included that.

I perfectly understand that people make mistakes. I am NOT trying to ridicule you, as stated before I am a huge fan of your work. However, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to just be coming off as extremely offended, overly defensive and kind of rude. I honestly am really hurt by your attitude and how you have judged both SpinoDude and myself without actually knowing how much time we spent not only researching the animals, but taking our time to properly and respectfully critique your models, and this is how you act. Thanks so much for the delightful conversation.

Okay last words on this I promise. First I made it clear in my previous post that Patryx commented on that I am frustrated by online reviews that state as fact that there are inaccuracies then provide no reference. If you wonder why I am frustrated just read the comments that follow a lot of these reviews, maybe not this one in particular but a lot of followers take the review as gospel and pile on. Just look at Dinoguy's response to your review, he said he was disappointed, that is the power you have. People say I should have a sick skin so I'll turn that back on you if you write a critique and the artist takes offence don't be surprised. It is only after I posted these rebuttals that you have decided to provide reference. In this case still you did not address what I said, I said to check Scott Hartman's skeletal for A. Fragilis but refer me to A. sp the wrong one. Please check his A. Fragilis. I stand by my interpretation of A fragilis. Fair enough, I asked for reference and you provided it, thank you. I have seen some of Francisco's work but and I am not trying to insult him here but I don't know who he is. It is ironic however that you send me to this interpretation because when I scale it to my original not only is the neck correct but his skull is even longer that Scott's. My background is working in museums with scientists and I have been interpreting scientific drawings for years. So I don't know how you are scaling off these skeletal lets just agree to disagree.
Again I am sorry you found my response rude but this has been piling up and frankly with more and more of these reviews coming out of the woodwork I think my best solution is not to respond to them. The one person that I had previously contacted and presented my evidence to eventually relented and made a correction but I see now this was an exception and like I said you seem to be interpreting the same skeletal differently from me so there is really no use in continuing the conversation, believe what you want.
As to the insult you seem to be feeling again think how I feel when everyday a new one of these shows up and will be there for posterity.
You say I hurt you well your last comment was obviously meant to be sarcastic and a shot at me so touche.

[Doug Watson]

I just looked through the Mark Witton blog post, and I found the holotype skull that your sculpt is based on. The caption under the photo says this:

"The holotype skull of Pteranodon longiceps, the only Pteranodon specimen which can be objectively referred to the genus. This skull is from a small (presumed female) morph."

Mark Witton also wrote about sexual dimorphism in P. longiceps. The holotype skull is presumed female, and females have straighter beaks and short crests.

This image right here shows sexual dimorphism in Pteranodon, depicting a male and female P. longiceps. The male has a longer crest with a curved beak, and the female a short crest with a straighter beak.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mm9OcviNQm0/V5XKrlCpt1I/AAAAAAAACSY/Z9iPnOfbXT8t00FlbA1iIDn6Syc9mc9wwCK4B/s1600/Pteranodon%2Bmorphs%2Blow%2Bres%2BWitton%2B2013.jpg

The Safari 2019 Pteranodon seems to have the straighter beak of the female, and the longer crest of the male.

Just to clarify, I never meant to attack your work. I am just clarifying my reasoning for bringing it up in my review because you seem offended by my comments in the video.

Also, I don't appreciate being thrown into this "stereotype" for reviewers who don't do their research. 

The illustration that you linked to is based on Bennet's 1992 restoration and if you read on in the blog you will see that it has been called into question and further down you will see that the only fossil beak attributed to P. longiceps is the one with the straight beak for me whether or not it is a male or female is neither here nor there it is the only beak attributed to P. longiceps. Down further in the examples he gives the only two with curved beaks are D. kanzai and G. sternbergia. When I do a piece I stay on the conservative side and try to stay away from speculation so I stand by my piece, in the future it could very well be proven wrong. All the material I used was based on scientific papers available at the time not images that I found on the internet.
You say you take offence that I questioned your research well so far the only thing you have referenced is a blog I sent you to. You say you consulted people were any of them palaeontologists? When I did my life sized Pteranodons I worked with three palaeontologists as well as having access to the CMN collection.
I will agree that it seems like the curved beak version has become accepted at least amongst paleo artists but like I said until they find a definitive fossil I have to go by the material I have.
You say I seem offended and you don't appreciate my questioning your research well as I mentioned to Kikizilla101 when these reviews get posted for posterity and viewers take what is said as gospel and sometimes pile on how else do you think I will feel. I have read some reviews where the reader has said he was thinking about buying a piece but after reading the review he or she had decided not to. That is a fair amount of power. And like I also said if you write a critique that suggests inaccuracies don't be surprised when the artist takes offence, I have been told to grow a thicker skin well I guess that goes for reviewers as well. Hopefully that is all on this. If I haven't convinced you well we can leave it at that.

[suspsy]

Looking over this thread, I'm sharply reminded of a recent exchange on Andrea Cau's blog where one individual vehemently insisted that he understood the contents of Thomas Holtz's 2019 SVP poster better than Holtz himself did.

Very sorry this happened, Doug.

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

I really wanted Mr. Watson's dimetrodon. Read that it was terribly outdated and then decided i did't want it anymore. Reviews indeed have power. Now that i know how scientific Mr. Watson's  method is, it is on my list again. So yeah his messages helped me to be more critical regarding these 'experts' and their reviews.

[Kikizilla101]

Okay last words on this I promise. First I made it clear in my previous post that Patryx commented on that I am frustrated by online reviews that state as fact that there are inaccuracies then provide no reference. If you wonder why I am frustrated just read the comments that follow a lot of these reviews, maybe not this one in particular but a lot of followers take the review as gospel and pile on. Just look at Dinoguy's response to your review, he said he was disappointed, that is the power you have. People say I should have a sick skin so I'll turn that back on you if you write a critique and the artist takes offence don't be surprised. It is only after I posted these rebuttals that you have decided to provide reference. In this case still you did not address what I said, I said to check Scott Hartman's skeletal for A. Fragilis but refer me to A. sp the wrong one. Please check his A. Fragilis. I stand by my interpretation of A fragilis. Fair enough, I asked for reference and you provided it, thank you. I have seen some of Francisco's work but and I am not trying to insult him here but I don't know who he is. It is ironic however that you send me to this interpretation because when I scale it to my original not only is the neck correct but his skull is even longer that Scott's. My background is working in museums with scientists and I have been interpreting scientific drawings for years. So I don't know how you are scaling off these skeletal lets just agree to disagree.
Again I am sorry you found my response rude but this has been piling up and frankly with more and more of these reviews coming out of the woodwork I think my best solution is not to respond to them. The one person that I had previously contacted and presented my evidence to eventually relented and made a correction but I see now this was an exception and like I said you seem to be interpreting the same skeletal differently from me so there is really no use in continuing the conversation, believe what you want.
As to the insult you seem to be feeling again think how I feel when everyday a new one of these shows up and will be there for posterity.
You say I hurt you well your last comment was obviously meant to be sarcastic and a shot at me so touche.

Well I am not going to get deeper into this argument anymore on here, I was sharing my honest opinions and I was genuinely respectful, and I extremely highly recommended the figure in my review. I see no harm. If you would like to discuss this further, maybe we can get on the same page, I am a really reasonable guy that will admit when I am wrong, I just currently am not convinced.

I would love to chat more personally about it with you if you would be willing.

I would prefer discord -
My username and tag: Kikiziller#4920
My server: https://discord.gg/E8B6zJt

or if that doesn't work then -
You can contact me through email at: [email protected]
or facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Kikizilla101/

Dinotoyblog is awesome but it is more difficult to keep up on and is frustrating to get notifications through. Let me know if you would be willing to chat about this, I would love to get your perspective on these figures and hear your side. Maybe I could make some kind of video sharing your side of the story so you can feel like your opinion is getting more exposure Keep up the great work!

[Halichoeres]

The part of this exchange that surprises me most is that there are people who watch video reviews without hitting the mute button.

[Concavenator]

I have read some reviews where the reader has said he was thinking about buying a piece but after reading the review he or she had decided not to. That is a fair amount of power.

That does happen sometimes.For instance, I wanted the Carnegie Spinosaurus until Ibrahim's 2014  study came out , because it then became inaccurate.Pointing out potential inaccuracies that are not justified with references can have a similar effect,yet not as drastic, although if the result is someone not buying a piece due to accuracy issues,then in that matter it is exactly the same.

So yeah, reviewers should be more sensible when pointing out a piece's inaccuracies.Only if the reviewer has done proper research, then he ought to speak.
As a sciences student,I'm starting to understand  how frustrating it is to see people pointing out potential inaccuracies, when they're not, because they haven't put the time to do some research.
In particular, Safari clearly focuses on scientific accuracy, so if someone points out potential inaccuracies, I could see how Doug might feel,specially if those inaccuracies they point out are not.

[SidB]

I've noticed a certain proliferation of reviewers and reviews on Youtube over the last while, which, by and large has been a positive development. It's good to see the enthusiasm for the hobby growing and becoming more sophisticated in the process. It's the latter that seems to be a sticking point in the ongoing conversations above. I too was jarred by the critiques of some elements of the Allosaurus and Pteranodon, since they were objections that were not backed up by demonstrated evidence on the part of the reviewers.

There's no evidence of ill will on their part, nor was any suggested by anyone. Rather, IMO, I think that what is lacking on the part of the reviewers in general is an awareness of what properly constitutes adequate proof for the assessments that dissent from the paleoartist's interpretation. For some companies that habitually play fast and easy with strict accuracy for the sake of artistry, the reviewer can legitimately let subjectivity of even inadequate research suffice. This shortfall becomes apparent when it comes face to face with an artist, such as Doug Watson or Dan Lorusso, who habitually does meticulous and disciplined research before executing the sculpt.

This brings up the question of what constitutes adequate research. Doug has brought this point up with some force. It really is the make or break that confronts a reviewer who wants to be legitimate, dependable and grounded in reality. Let alone around for the long haul. I really think that a more rigorous approach to a study of the literature and more basically, an awareness of the resources out there, is called for. Perhaps some sort of online catalog of research materials could be accessed or assembled or pointed out for the reviewers, if such already exists.