Accuracy of older Wild Safari figures?

[Loon]

I'm looking to buy some of the older Wild Safari prehistoric mammals (Woolly Mammoth & baby, Smilidon, Giant Sloth, Doedicurus, Andrewsarchus, Ambelodon). I like to have the most accurate models available, and mammals are so rare, so how accurate are they?

I'm also interested in the accuracy of their Dimorhodon, Archaeopteryx, Gastornis, Nigersaurus, Dunkleosteus, and Inostrancevia. I know these are older models, so, I'm unsure of how up to date they are.

Any help would be much appreciated, and thanks in advance.

[Faelrin]

There was a lot of discussion on the issues of the Archaeopteryx in this topic I made a while back: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=6150.msg181841#msg181841 I'm not quite sure there's any models out there that get the feet exactly right either based on the current understanding (in regards to not having the bird like reversed first digits on the feet, except perhaps the Favorite one maybe), despite other issues here and there.

The Andrewsarchus is based on the older understanding of it being or being related to mesonychids, instead of artiodactyls.

Dunkleosteus isn't too bad, but is outdated as of now. For one thing it has lips to some extant, but however the tail is certainly based upon the older eel like understanding, versus what has recently been suggested for it (having a shark like tail).

The Inostrancevia still holds up pretty well, at least to my general knowledge of it. From what I can tell the only thing going against it is that it lacks lips. The rest is probably still well within the realms of what could be possible for it to look like based on the current evidence. As far as I'm aware this is the only model of this genus? If so, then it wouldn't hurt to get one (unless you have one already) as it has been retired now.

I'm afraid I can't help out with the others, without doing some more research, but if I had to guess the Gastornis and Smilodon are probably fine.

[Halichoeres]

The Dimorphodon definitely holds up. Pteroid, wings of the correct proportions, pycnofibers, head well-rendered. Good stuff.

The Nigersaurus is pretty good, my favorite version of the genus, but the forefeet are incorrect (elephantine instead of crescent-shaped with only a single claw). There might be other problems, but that's the only one that jumps out at me.

[suspsy]

The Dimorphodon definitely holds up. Pteroid, wings of the correct proportions, pycnofibers, head well-rendered. Good stuff.

Wonderful toy.

The Nigersaurus is pretty good, my favorite version of the genus, but the forefeet are incorrect (elephantine instead of crescent-shaped with only a single claw). There might be other problems, but that's the only one that jumps out at me.

The head is way oversized compared to the body.

[Loon]

There was a lot of discussion on the issues of the Archaeopteryx in this topic I made a while back: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=6150.msg181841#msg181841 I'm not quite sure there's any models out there that get the feet exactly right either based on the current understanding (in regards to not having the bird like reversed first digits on the feet, except perhaps the Favorite one maybe), despite other issues here and there.

I think I'll be fine with the Favorite figure then. The Safari isn't bad, but it looks a little too anemic to me.

[Ravonium]

The Gastornis is pretty good, only thing wrong with it I can think of are the oversized toes.

[Duna]

I think Safari's Nigersaurus is the best model nowadays, I've bought one last week (if you want one, hurry because it's discontinued). I've also got an smilodon, it could be better done, but I think it's the best in the market of small figures and among the "good" ones the only that has the mouth wider open.