Safari 2021 Hopes and Dreams!

[Sim]

A therizinosaur is one of the most obvious things currently missing from the Wild Safari line.  If Safari makes a new therizinosaur I hope it would be one of the more complete ones e.g. Falcarius or Beipiaosaurus, both of which lack a good figure representation.

A Larger Scale Acrocanthosaurus. 1:35, would put it near the same size as there Feathered T.rex.

Brachiosaurus(Or Giraffatitan) thats "JUST AS BIG", or Bigger then the 2012 Carnegie Model. If they can make a Oversized Amargasaurus, then why not a proper sized Brachiosaurus?

These are two things I would love to see.

The Acrocanthosaurus, and a lot of the theropods released around 2012-2014, don't really match the current look of the Safari line and could desperately use an update.

Also, a large, and I mean "large", sauropod is sorely missing from the current lineup. Hopefully, it's more like Camarasaurus than the Amargasaurus in terms of sculpting.

This is Basicaly what im thinking as well.  But I do not see them Updateing them all in one year.  So i selected just one for now.

But hey, thats what this threads for. Hopes and Dreams  .

I'd be happy to see Safari make a new Ceratosaurus and Suchomimus.  It would be great to have a good figure of both, and in the case of the Suchomimus a figure that stands on just its legs not on all fours.  Currently all the Wild Safari spinosaurids are on all fours and it would be good to have Wild Safari offer one that isn't.  What I'd like a new version of the most though is Rhamphorhynchus.  It's older than the 2012-2014 theropods, being a 2010 release and it needs an update even more than those theropods.  It doesn't even have pycnofibers!

[stargatedalek]

I don't see what's off with the Carnegie Beipiaosaurus, it looks perfect to me. It can unfortunately be hard to find now.

Rhamphorhynchus I'd love to see in a Safariology set! The weird shapes the beak takes on as it ages are plenty distinct enough.

[Loon]

I know this is a long shot, as it seems most companies tend to avoid them, but I'd love some new hominids. None of the existing figures, other Kaiyodo's, are up to snuff.

[Sim]

@stargatedalek, comparing the Carnegie Beipiaosaurus to fossil remains of the animal, it seems to me a fossil shows Beipiaosaurus's feathering was quite thick in the neck area, thicker than what I think the Carnegie figure shows.  The Carnegie Beipiaosaurus might be better accuracy-wise than I first thought.

You can see Beipiaosaurus fossils here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23782638_From_the_Cover_A_new_feather_type_in_a_nonavian_theropod_and_the_early_evolution_of_feathers

In case Safari is planning to make a new Beipiaosaurus, according to this, the neck of Beipiaosaurus had brown feathers: https://www.deviantart.com/albertonykus/art/In-Living-Color-Maybe-613196380

[Sim]

@stargatedalek, in case you haven't seen it I've edited my previous post as it seems the Carnegie Beipiaosaurus might be better with regards to accuracy than what I had been thinking.

On a different note, I've expressed interest to Safari about seeing them make a new Rhamphorhynchus or Dorygnathus, Plateosaurus, Herrerasaurus, Nothosaurus mirabilis and Saurornithoides.  We'll see if any of these get made!

[stargatedalek]

@stargatedalek, in case you haven't seen it I've edited my previous post as it seems the Carnegie Beipiaosaurus might be better with regards to accuracy than what I had been thinking.

On a different note, I've expressed interest to Safari about seeing them make a new Rhamphorhynchus or Dorygnathus, Plateosaurus, Herrerasaurus, Nothosaurus mirabilis and Saurornithoides.  We'll see if any of these get made!

Yah, it has a few weird features like the lack of a weight bearing dewclaw that probably aren't on purpose but fit well enough given the animals early placement in its family. Thin, almost "cat-fur-like" feathers are sadly present in near all of the Carnegie feathered dinosaurs, could be stylistic or could be a relic of their time, but it's at the absolute least an abnormal state for the animal to have them collapsed like that. Poor things look wet.

[Shonisaurus]

Although the remains are quite incomplete Safari could perform a machairoceratops is a fairly rare and unprecedented ceraptoside in toy dinosaur figures.

On the other hand we need more feathered dinosaurs Doug works wonders with these figures. The deinonychus and velociraptor are fabulous from the point of the paleoart of dinosaur figures in PVC.

On the other hand we would need a pterodaustro or a dsungaripterus, they are very little treated pterosaurs in the classic toy industry (except Asian figures) and sincerely deserve a better representation.

[Sim]

I've realised there's also another good figure of Beipiaosaurus, it's the Safari toob one.  The Wild Safari line still lacks a therizinosaur though, and that's one of the most obvious things missing from the line as well as a bipedal sauropodomorph and a rhamphorhynchid with pycnofibers.  Unless I've missed any, in this thread the following therizinosaurs have come up: Falcarius, Beipiaosaurus, Therizinosaurus.  If Safari is going to make a new therizinosaur figure, I wonder if it would be one of these three and if so which one.

Falcarius would look quite different to anything else that's available: https://www.deviantart.com/scotthartman/art/Basal-therizinosaur-172418114

Beipiaosaurus is a more typical therizinosaur: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beipiaosaurus_skeletal_Headden.jpg

Therizinosaurus only has size and fame going for it as it's very incompletely known: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Therizinosaurus_known_material.jpg

[Loon]

The Wild Safari line still lacks a therizinosaur though, and that's one of the most obvious things missing from the line as well as a bipedal sauropodomorph and a rhamphorhynchid with pycnofibers.

While I'd really like to see those. I also think that ornithomimosaurs are heavily underrepresented in the Wild Safari line, or really any line. As far as I know, the Deinocheirus is the only one that they have made, and really, one of maybe two(?) quality representations of the group on the market, both of which are Deinocheirus. Given the quality of his Deinocheirus, I'd love to see a Gallimimus or Ornithomimus by Doug Watson.

[Sim]

CollectA has made a couple of Deinocheirus, and also a Struthiomimus and Beishanlong, but ornithomimosaurs still lack enough representation in figure form.  I'd be happy to see Doug Watson make another one and Gallimimus would be a great choice.  Even with how famous it is thanks to its role in Jurassic Park, Gallimimus still doesn't have an adequate figure.  Depending on certain things I'd be happy to see a North American ornithomimid too.  Basically, Ornithomimus is based on very fragmentary remains and better specimens have kept being referred to as belonging to this genus even when it's not clear they are closely related to the type species of Ornithomimus.  This situation got so bad that even priority has been ignored.  As Mickey Mortimer says:

Makovicky et al. (2004), Kobayashi et al. (2006) and Longrich (2008) have synonymized Dromiceiomimus with Ornithomimus edmontonicus, which seems correct (again, see Dromiceiomimus comments). These authors have all used Ornithomimus edmontonicus for this species, but brevitertius was named seven years earlier, and given the species' somewhat distant relationship to Ornithomimus velox, Dromiceiomimus brevitertius should be the combination which is used.

From here.

With the above having been said, there's also this:

In 2018, Ian McDonald and Philip John Currie rejected the conclusions by Makovicky and colleagues. They showed that the thighbone/shinbone ratio of specimen UALVP 16182, found in 1967 by Richard Fox and referred to Dromiceiomimus, differed significantly from that of Ornithomimus edmontonicus. They also pointed out that if both species were to be considered synonymous nevertheless, the specific name brevitertius would have priority.

From here.  I think I've found the paper that's referenced here.  I get the impression that what's happened to Ornithomimus is similar to what happened with Troodon, usage of the genus has become overly generalised.  So if someone is considering making an Ornithomimus I would suggest checking the specimen numbers carefully to work out what species would be represented.

One other thing I would like to comment on is the integument from Ornithomimus or Dromiceiomimus.  My understanding is it has been suggested that this animal had bare skin from most of the leg to the feet.  I think it should be considered whether a feather covering was more extensive on the living animal and some of the feathers were lost in the process of fossilization.  I also think that when reconstructing Gallimimus, it would be good to consider whether it had more extensive feathering, as even though it was larger, Gallimimus lived in a relatively cold environment.  For the Ornithomimus/Dromiceiomimus with bare skin preserved, the environment might have been warmer.  In the end I just wouldn't be thrilled about a half-feathered ornithomimosaur figure.

[stargatedalek]

A cold and wet environment! Though there are no formal papers or anything discussing this, Gallimimus has a distinct beak which could conceivably have possessed some degree of filter feeding capability. Kind of like giant salt marsh flamingos (perhaps feeding on things like amphipods alongside a more traditional herbivorous diet).

[Loon]

One other thing I would like to comment on is the integument from Ornithomimus or Dromiceiomimus.  My understanding is it has been suggested that this animal had bare skin from most of the leg to the feet.  I think it should be considered whether a feather covering was more extensive on the living animal and some of the feathers were lost in the process of fossilization.  I also think that when reconstructing Gallimimus, it would be good to consider whether it had more extensive feathering, as even though it was larger, Gallimimus lived in a relatively cold environment.  For the Ornithomimus/Dromiceiomimus with bare skin preserved, the environment might have been warmer.  In the end I just wouldn't be thrilled about a half-feathered ornithomimosaur figure.

I wouldn't mind an ostrich like feather pattern. Also, I completely forgot about those two CollectA figures.

Also, I was just thinking about, since they tend make atleast one $20+, larger figure every year, I would think a Paraceratherium would be a good fit. The recent prehistoric mammals have been fantastic, and I don't even know if any other company has made one.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Plain and simple... Alamosaurus. Not just because we need one to go with the other Maastrichtian super-stars, but to me at least, it was that iconic sauropod that doesn't get enough attention nowadays. I remember vivid pictures of it being pounced upon by monstrous Tyrannosaurs in my childhood dinosaur books. I have to admit, the Collecta Alamosaurus is probably my favourite of their earlier figures, but a decent Safari (Doug Watson) version at 1:35 scale (or at least bigger than the other 1:35 animals) would be the standout toy of 2021. For a better future, let's all stand behind Alamosaurus!

I agree. And it's not like Alamosaurus is more difficult to say than Apatosaurus, right?

Enthusiastically seconded! I'd love to recreate this display at the Perot Museum in Dallas! Who knows, maybe it would convince that trashy gift shop of theirs to finally start stocking Safari models.



The other two taxa I really need in my life are Lambeosaurus and Ouranosaurus. I can't believe Lambeosaurus is so rare in museum quality form (the Bullyland version is the only one I'd consider getting), and since the Battat version of Ouranosaurus looks like it won't see the light of day again, there aren't currently any truly good versions of this one out there.

[Loon]

It could happen. It's been a bit since we've had a Sauropod.

[suspsy]

It could happen. It's been a bit since we've had a Sauropod.

You mean aside from Camarasaurus in 2019, Amargasaurus and Malawisaurus in 2018, Diplodocus in 2017, and Shunosaurus in 2016?

[Loon]

It could happen. It's been a bit since we've had a Sauropod.

You mean aside from Camarasaurus in 2019, Amargasaurus and Malawisaurus in 2018, Diplodocus in 2017, and Shunosaurus in 2016?

Listen...I honestly thought the Camarasaurus came out last year. Nevermind.

[Sim]

A cold and wet environment! Though there are no formal papers or anything discussing this, Gallimimus has a distinct beak which could conceivably have possessed some degree of filter feeding capability. Kind of like giant salt marsh flamingos (perhaps feeding on things like amphipods alongside a more traditional herbivorous diet).

Yes, good point about Gallimimus's environment being quite wet too.  That makes me think Gallimimus was more feathered than what has been suggested for Ornithomimus/Dromiceiomimus even more.  There does appear to be papers that discuss Gallimimus's feeding, it's summarised here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallimimus#Feeding_and_diet

[Dinoguy2]

I'd absolutely love to see a Doug Watson ornithomimid. Ornithomimids in general are severely underrepresented. What do we have, the Battat Gallimimus, the CollectA Struthiomimus, and...?

A Struthiomimus sedens would be nice, since it would start to round out the Hell Creek fauna from Safari.

[Loon]

I'd absolutely love to see a Doug Watson ornithomimid. Ornithomimids in general are severely underrepresented. What do we have, the Battat Gallimimus, the CollectA Struthiomimus, and...?

Safari and CollectA both did Deinocheirus. CollectA also did a Deluxe Beishanlong.

A Struthiomimus sedens would be nice, since it would start to round out the Hell Creek fauna from Safari.

^This

[Shonisaurus]

Safari could make a tsintaosaurus is a hadrosaur represented in the toy market but its figures do not do that dinosaur justice.