Safari 2020

[ItsTwentyBelow]

Cool, thanks for the clarification there. The pod has grown a lot recently, with good scale models of Temnodontosaurus, Excalibosaurus, Eurhinosaurus, and now this, the classic genus and species.

[Faelrin]

Thank you for the response and indepth answer to my questions. I certainly went back and had a closer look at the sculpt detail of that Edmontosaurus and it absolutely boggles my mind how you pulled that off. I knew about the comb but was not aware of the rest of that finding so that is exciting to learn about. I truly wonder why hadrosaurids seem to preserve so well so often. It is truly beneficial to science however. Really nice to hear about the other stuff as well.

Also I don't think I mentioned this but I certainly appreciate the closed mouths (which like the Yutyrannus, is quite refreshing to see figures done this way), and lips included on many of these (where appropriate).

[ZoPteryx]

Well, this is some nice news. Just as I and others predicted, there's a slightly reduced lineup this year...Now for my opinions:

Shringasaurus: While I'm excited to see this genus finally be represented in toy form, it does have the misfortune of being based on a now-inaccurate skeletal (although that was only a recent discovery, so I can forgive them for that). I'll wait until CollectA's reveals before deciding whether to get this one, just incase they make a more accurate one next year as well.

@Ravonium  Could you point me to that "recent discovery" I can't find anything in the scientific literature but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. I have seen that very different skeletal that @AcroSauroTaurus posted earlier in the thread but when I originally saw it all I could find was that it was by an artist on her twitter account. She didn't mention that she worked with the fossil material or with the author's of the original paper that I used. She did say she rescaled the material but those cervical vertebrae look a lot different from the specimens in the paper. I haven't seen anywhere that this new skeletal has been accepted by the scientific community or that the original skeletal was no longer valid but if I missed that please let me know.

@Doug Watson  I think Ravonium is just referring to that twitter post which was recent (February 2019), not that a new fossil discovery had been made.  Nothing new has been reported in the peer reviewed literature on Shringasaurus since its description that I'm aware of.  According to the post, the skeletal reconstruction in the paper describing Shringasaurus (Sengupta et al. 2017) is just a previously published Azendohsaurus skeletal (Nesbitt et al. 2015) with a different skull and modified vertebral spines.  This appears to be an accurate observation:




I don't know that the twitter poster's rendition has been independently verified, but respected paleoartists Liam Elward and Joschua Knuppe felt comfortable enough to use it in their renditions of Shringasaurus.

Liam's thread: https://twitter.com/paleobyliam/status/1096081710394081280

[Ravonium]

Well, this is some nice news. Just as I and others predicted, there's a slightly reduced lineup this year...Now for my opinions:

Shringasaurus: While I'm excited to see this genus finally be represented in toy form, it does have the misfortune of being based on a now-inaccurate skeletal (although that was only a recent discovery, so I can forgive them for that). I'll wait until CollectA's reveals before deciding whether to get this one, just incase they make a more accurate one next year as well.

@Ravonium  Could you point me to that "recent discovery" I can't find anything in the scientific literature but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. I have seen that very different skeletal that @AcroSauroTaurus posted earlier in the thread but when I originally saw it all I could find was that it was by an artist on her twitter account. She didn't mention that she worked with the fossil material or with the author's of the original paper that I used. She did say she rescaled the material but those cervical vertebrae look a lot different from the specimens in the paper. I haven't seen anywhere that this new skeletal has been accepted by the scientific community or that the original skeletal was no longer valid but if I missed that please let me know.

@Doug Watson  I think Ravonium is just referring to that twitter post which was recent (February 2019), not that a new fossil discovery had been made.  Nothing new has been reported in the peer reviewed literature on Shringasaurus since its description that I'm aware of.  According to the post, the skeletal reconstruction in the paper describing Shringasaurus (Sengupta et al. 2017) is just a previously published Azendohsaurus skeletal (Nesbitt et al. 2015) with a different skull and modified vertebral spines.  This appears to be an accurate observation:

I don't know that the twitter poster's rendition has been independently verified, but respected paleoartists Liam Elward and Joschua Knuppe felt comfortable enough to use it in their renditions of Shringasaurus.

Liam's thread: https://twitter.com/paleobyliam/status/1096081710394081280

Yeah, what ZoPteryx said. I didn't realise it was only a revised skeletal (and not a new paper entirely) - should have probably looked more into that when I initially posted, as I understand that 'new discovery' is a potentially confusing way of wording it.

[Flaffy]

The only figures I have minor issues with are:
Dilophosaurus - Not convinced with a fully lipped dilophosaurus. I personally would've preferred some exposed teeth.
Sarcosuchus - nostrils too wide and large
Shringasaurus - Too smooth, could use more wrinkles/skin folds. The facial features and head anatomy could've been sharper/more detailed as well.

[Shonisaurus]

In my case I like the appearance of the new prehistoric, carnivorous animals of Safari without exposed teeth and without lips. Sincerely Doug has demystified these extinct animals and has given them a scientific appearance and has taken away the terrifying appearance that was given and continues to give of those extinct animals such as dinosaurs. The change in appearance has been for me and is much more attractive.

[Doug Watson]

Well, this is some nice news. Just as I and others predicted, there's a slightly reduced lineup this year...Now for my opinions:

Shringasaurus: While I'm excited to see this genus finally be represented in toy form, it does have the misfortune of being based on a now-inaccurate skeletal (although that was only a recent discovery, so I can forgive them for that). I'll wait until CollectA's reveals before deciding whether to get this one, just incase they make a more accurate one next year as well.

@Ravonium  Could you point me to that "recent discovery" I can't find anything in the scientific literature but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. I have seen that very different skeletal that @AcroSauroTaurus posted earlier in the thread but when I originally saw it all I could find was that it was by an artist on her twitter account. She didn't mention that she worked with the fossil material or with the author's of the original paper that I used. She did say she rescaled the material but those cervical vertebrae look a lot different from the specimens in the paper. I haven't seen anywhere that this new skeletal has been accepted by the scientific community or that the original skeletal was no longer valid but if I missed that please let me know.

@Doug Watson  I think Ravonium is just referring to that twitter post which was recent (February 2019), not that a new fossil discovery had been made.  Nothing new has been reported in the peer reviewed literature on Shringasaurus since its description that I'm aware of.  According to the post, the skeletal reconstruction in the paper describing Shringasaurus (Sengupta et al. 2017) is just a previously published Azendohsaurus skeletal (Nesbitt et al. 2015) with a different skull and modified vertebral spines.  This appears to be an accurate observation:

I don't know that the twitter poster's rendition has been independently verified, but respected paleoartists Liam Elward and Joschua Knuppe felt comfortable enough to use it in their renditions of Shringasaurus.

Liam's thread: https://twitter.com/paleobyliam/status/1096081710394081280

I was well aware that the Shringasaurus skeletal was augmented by the post cranial skeleton of Azendohsaurus since I also used Nesbitt et al. 2015 "Postcranial Osteology of Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis" as a reference. They didn't simply put the head of Shringasaurus on the skeleton of the related Azendohsauridae, Azendohsaurus they also incorporated the other found materials if you look closely. That is common when reconstructing similar species. I will always base my pieces on peer reviewed restorations when I can or at least skeletal produced by artists who are also palaeontologists  like Scott Hartman or artists working under the supervision of a palaeontologist. Just because other artists use a restoration that doesn't meet that criteria. That is why I don't simply copy other life restorations off of the internet.

P.S. I am not saying the artist's new interpretation is categorically wrong, I am not qualified to say that but before I would use it I would have liked to have seen it verified or barring that I would have contacted Dr. Sengupta and asked his opinion on it.

[Libraraptor]

Wow, I need that Shringasaurus and the Deinonychus. The Pachy is cool, too!

[Dromaenychus]

I knew if I kept saying "Deinonychus" at Safari ltd we'd get one! I had been hoping for a Doug Watson Deinonychus, and now we got one!
I love the relaxed posture. It's not lunging, running or roaring. It's just chilling there.
I'm getting two of these, at least.

[Doug Watson]

I knew if I kept saying "Deinonychus" at Safari ltd we'd get one! I had been hoping for a Doug Watson Deinonychus, and now we got one!
I love the relaxed posture. It's not lunging, running or roaring. It's just chilling there.
I'm getting two of these, at least.

I have also been suggesting it but who knows your suggestion could have been the one that tipped the scales, they do listen.

[Killekor]

I'm happy to finally see the new Safari models. They're all exceptional!
I'm particular happy to see a decently sized Qianzhousaurus (a great rendition), and a great Dilophosaurus (finally!)
But the best one is certainly the Pachycephalosaurus. It's probably one of the best dinosaur toys I ever saw. I like everything of it, also it's large size!
Plus, both the Deinonychus and the Sarcosuchus are excellent! And the Shringasaurus is really nice!
Anyways, I'm really happy of next year's lineup. @Doug Watson congratulations for your new models. They are perfect!

Killekor

[Doug Watson]

Out of curiosity, what scale were these done in? I tried to do some eyeball scaling earlier in the thread, but I suspect I was way off for several of these (Especially the Qianzhousaurus. The pose is one that would throw off any attempt at scaling without being in person. Same with Deinonychus.)

Actually @TaranUlas you did a pretty good job with your eyeball scaling you nailed several of them, here are the scales I worked from

Deinonychus - 1:14
Ichthyosaurus - 1:16
Pachycephalosaurus - 1:20
Shringasaurus - 1:22
Concavenator - 1:35
Edmontosaurus - 1:35
Qianzhousaurus - 1:35
Sarcosuchus - 1:35 (I originally used Paul Sereno's 40 foot estimate but the new paper from March 2019 by Haley O'Brien et al. puts the max TL estimate at 31 feet)
Dilophosaurus - 1:35

[Renecito]

Out of curiosity, what scale were these done in? I tried to do some eyeball scaling earlier in the thread, but I suspect I was way off for several of these (Especially the Qianzhousaurus. The pose is one that would throw off any attempt at scaling without being in person. Same with Deinonychus.)

Actually @TaranUlas you did a pretty good job with your eyeball scaling you nailed several of them, here are the scales I worked from

Deinonychus - 1:14
Ichthyosaurus - 1:16
Pachycephalosaurus - 1:20
Shringasaurus - 1:22
Concavenator - 1:35
Edmontosaurus - 1:35
Qianzhousaurus - 1:35
Sarcosuchus - 1:35 (I originally used Paul Sereno's 40 foot estimate but the new paper from March 2019 by Haley O'Brien et al. puts the max TL estimate at 31 feet)
Dilophosaurus - 1:35

Awesome I see many 1:35 scale!!!

I hope you will share with us pics of the original sculpt in the future. 

[Jose S.M.]

Oh I'm going to have to make a new shelf just for figures at 1:35 scale!

[suspsy]

@Doug Watson, I wasn't aware of that study regarding the size of Sarcosuchus. That's very interesting how it's been cut down to size! Deinosuchus and Purussaurus must be chuckling.

I also want to state that I'm very happy at how Safari revealed all of their prehistoric toys at once. I really like it. Much more than only revealing a couple every week. I hope this is the norm from now on. I'd like CollectA and other companies to do the same.

[ceratopsian]

A new line-up that I'm really happy with.  I'll buy most of them (just a couple don't fit into my collecting areas, it's not that I don't like them).  For me the one that immediately catches my eye is the Edmontosaurus.  And I too liked the full reveal in one go rather than teasers/piecemeal reveal.

[TaranUlas]

Actually @TaranUlas you did a pretty good job with your eyeball scaling you nailed several of them, here are the scales I worked from

Deinonychus - 1:14
Ichthyosaurus - 1:16
Pachycephalosaurus - 1:20
Shringasaurus - 1:22
Concavenator - 1:35
Edmontosaurus - 1:35
Qianzhousaurus - 1:35
Sarcosuchus - 1:35 (I originally used Paul Sereno's 40 foot estimate but the new paper from March 2019 by Haley O'Brien et al. puts the max TL estimate at 31 feet)
Dilophosaurus - 1:35

I'm glad to see that I wasn't too off on these then. I would have been embarrassed if they had been that badly off.

So now, with Doug Watson's scale numbers in, let's see the measurements now:

Concavenator remains the same at 19.34 feet long, 7.67 feet tall, and 4.17 feet wide

Deinonychus is a little smaller at 10.21 feet long, 4.01 feet tall, and 2.04 feet wide.

Dilophosaurus is smaller at 18.58 feet long, 8.75 feet tall, and 3.82 feet wide.

Edmontosaurus is definitely smaller and more around the average size at 30.13 feet long, 10.94 feet tall and 7.61 feet wide.

Ichthyosaurus is a bit bigger now at 10 feet long, 3.25 feet tall, and 3.51 feet wide.

Pachycephalosaurus is the same size at 13.55 feet long, 6.67 feet tall, and 4.38 feet wide.

Qianzhousaurus is also the same size at 26.31 feet long, 10.38 feet tall, and 5.54 feet wide

Sarcosuchus is bigger now at 30.25 feet long, 6.56 feet tall and 7.67 feet wide.

Shringasaurus is also bigger at 12.27 feet long, 4.33 feet tall and 5.06 feet wide.

(If anyone wants a really easy means to calculate this stuff, use excel or an equivalent program and set up the following formula for height, length, and width: (h/l/w of figure*scale number)/12 The easy formula to calculate scale using our knowledge of the figure size is (h/l/w of real animal in feet*12)/h/l/w of figure. Remember that scale is flexible so you can adjust it within reason to either direction. Say within 3-5 depending on how close to 0 you are.)

[MLMjp]

@Doug Watson, I wasn't aware of that study regarding the size of Sarcosuchus. That's very interesting how it's been cut down to size! Deinosuchus and Purussaurus must be chuckling.

I also want to state that I'm very happy at how Safari revealed all of their prehistoric toys at once. I really like it. Much more than only revealing a couple every week. I hope this is the norm from now on. I'd like CollectA and other companies to do the same.

If you are interested on how the big crocs measure up today, I recommend you check this @suspsy: https://www.deviantart.com/randomdinos/art/Tick-Tock-Mk-III-703542464

[Halichoeres]

This is a good looking batch of toys. I'm especially excited about the Shringasaurus--any new Triassic animal is welcome as far as I'm concerned. The Edmontosaurus, Deinonychus, and Qianzhousaurus are also standouts.

I made a little bar graph of 2020 Safari figures by geological period across the Phanerozoic. I don't mean this as a dig, Safari's offerings for 2020 are actually much more balanced than those of most companies in most years. This is just an illustration that the whole dinosaur toy market is really heavily weighted to the Cretaceous, whereas obviously if I had my druthers there would be a lot more Paleozoic and Triassic stuff. I get it, I'm not the main audience, but there's a whole lot of evolutionary history full of crazy morphologies kinda being left on the table. Anyway, you can see why I'm so pleased by the Shringasaurus!

[Faelrin]

@Halichoeres Honestly me too, and this comes from someone who has always loved dinosaurs first and foremost (edit: though no doubt aside from a few books I've read as a child, one of which I've even found and bought a few years back and shared to the forum, but it was certainly Walking with Monsters that probably really gave rise to my interest in the Paleozoic, giving me my first glimpse at creatures like Anomalocaris, and Inostrancevia and Scutosaurus, etc, which in turn inspired me to learn more about life before archosaurs). In fact I was even browsing the Dinotoycollector site today by the various Paleozoic periods just to get an idea of what other figures are out for species, beyond the typical ones. Cenozoic creatures (pre- Pleistocene) are also in short supply though we thankfully now have some good ones thanks to both Safari Ltd and CollectA. There certainly is no short supply of Cretaceous fauna figures (though no doubt a large portion of those are likely T rex and Triceratops, and a few others), however I am still rather satisfied to see the ones here, as it's perhaps been a long time coming for updated versions of most if not all of those species.

Come to think of it, I think I would be thoroughly pleased with at least one Triassic and/or Paleozoic figure a year if we are to get them. At least since 2017 that's been the case (Ceolophysis, Dimetrodon, Prestosuchus, and now Shringasaurus), so I'd like to see that continue, if at all possible.