Safari Ltd can't make mammals?

[Seijun]

I thought only carnegie was not allowed to do mammals?

[SBell]

I thought only carnegie was not allowed to do mammals?

It's a weird story--what I had heard (and mentioned), I heard from the very top of Safari. Maybe there is some confusion. Maybe they just weren't worthwhile as a business venture. She wouldn't say, except that there were contract reasons. This conversation was from 4 years ago or so, but I see no reason to believe anything has changed (or will).

[CM]

I thought only carnegie was not allowed to do mammals?

This is interesting to me.  What reasons might there be for a company to be contractually forbidden from making ANY animal, let alone a specific group?  I don't know much about how this business works, so the very idea is hitting me oddly.

[CityRaptor]

Indeed, this also strikes me as odd, especially given that most Dinosaur Toy Lines do  atleast have the token Mammoth.

[SBell]

Indeed, this also strikes me as odd, especially given that most Dinosaur Toy Lines do  atleast have the token Mammoth.

Including Safari and Carnegie!

[Seijun]

I had heard before that mammals could not be made for the carnegie line, but I did not think this included other lines by safari. Safari has a mammoth, smilodon, and ambelodon all listed for sale in their online store as part of their regular "Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Life" series. And actually, carnegie DOES have a wooly mammoth still in their line.

[SBell]

I had heard before that mammals could not be made for the carnegie line, but I did not think this included other lines by safari. Safari has a mammoth, smilodon, and ambelodon all listed for sale in their online store as part of their regular "Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Life" series. And actually, carnegie DOES have a wooly mammoth still in their line.

I already said that (regarding Carnegie and Safari)--and those are the last in the line of the Safari mammals (there used to be others--Arsinoitheruim, Andrewsarchus, Doedicurus, Megatherium) but they have slowly been whittled away; I would expect the Amebeldon to suffer the same fate sooner than later. And Carnegie makes their own decisions, but apparently mammals are out for them as well; the Safari line is limited by Safari (hence, I referred to speaking to someone from Safari, not Carnegie).

I thought only carnegie was not allowed to do mammals?

It's a weird story--what I had heard (and mentioned), I heard from the very top of Safari. Maybe there is some confusion. Maybe they just weren't worthwhile as a business venture. She wouldn't say, except that there were contract reasons. This conversation was from 4 years ago or so, but I see no reason to believe anything has changed (or will).

Strange... However, with this evidence, I think it supports my wish that the toob is the pterosaur toob. 

I never said anything, one way or the other, about toobs. But still, no mammals.

[Arrancon]

The whole Safari not being able to do mammals is dissapointing, the ones they did make were top notch. But wouldn't they be forced to retire ALL the prehistoric mammals then? If they aren't allowed to design them, wouldn't they not be allowed to sell them as well?

[Takama]

Well what baffles me is, if they are not allowed to make more mammals, then what is up with this?



Exatcly why did they make it, and how is it any diffrent from the contract

[SBell]

Well what baffles me is, if they are not allowed to make more mammals, then what is up with this?



Exatcly why did they make it, and how is it any diffrent from the contract

It's not a figure, is it? I think the toobs may lie outside of the issue (please, nobody start going on about how they should make a toob of .... mammals). All I know is what Ramona Pariente told me--they can't make mammal figures for some contractual reason.  Until we see something otherwise, the issue needs to be left alone.  I'm not getting into further from this point out.

[DinoToyForum]

I thought only carnegie was not allowed to do mammals?

This is interesting to me.  What reasons might there be for a company to be contractually forbidden from making ANY animal, let alone a specific group?  I don't know much about how this business works, so the very idea is hitting me oddly.

/\ This. Surely it must be some sort of misunderstanding. Carnegie have a Dimetrodon too. 

[SBell]

I thought only carnegie was not allowed to do mammals?

This is interesting to me.  What reasons might there be for a company to be contractually forbidden from making ANY animal, let alone a specific group?  I don't know much about how this business works, so the very idea is hitting me oddly.

/\ This. Surely it must be some sort of misunderstanding. Carnegie have a Dimetrodon too.

Are you baiting us admin? Of course, Safari has an Inostrancevia. So I don't think there is a reason they couldn't make more pelycosaurs or therapsids. They just currently don't.

[DinoToyForum]

No, I'm not baiting. I guess I'm just confused.    I didn't know what to call the new topic.

Edit -  you said there that "they just currently don't." Which is very different from "they just currently can't", which was the implication from your comments about a "contractual reason". I think we both agree that there is some confusion involved.

[SBell]

No, I'm not baiting. I guess I'm just confused.    I didn't know what to call the new topic.

Edit -  you said there that "they just currently don't." Which is very different from "they just currently can't", which was the implication from your comments about a "contractual reason". I think we both agree that there is some confusion involved.

I meant in regards to how they probably can make more synapsids/therapsids etc (i.e. non-mammalian synapsids) but that they don't.  What I should have said is that they aren't, at least now. Maybe it comes down to not wanting to make things with hair?

As such, I think the topic name is apt--they apparently can't, and so won't, make mammals (until/unless something changes, which would be great).

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I see a bright spot in this..you have named a new species of mammal !!! Recently during routine discussion on an online forum the members discovered an as yet un-named species, the "Token Mammoth" There will of course be more to follow.........

[CM]

The part I'm still having trouble with is ... who are they contracting WITH that forbids making certain animals?  That's very basically what I mean when I say I don't know much about this business.  Why do they NEED to have contracts for ANY lifeforms?  No one owns them, right?  Shouldn't every species of animal that has actually existed just be public domain for this type of thing?  Or am I being naive?

[SBell]

The part I'm still having trouble with is ... who are they contracting WITH that forbids making certain animals?  That's very basically what I mean when I say I don't know much about this business.  Why do they NEED to have contracts for ANY lifeforms?  No one owns them, right?  Shouldn't every species of animal that has actually existed just be public domain for this type of thing?  Or am I being naive?

I'll explain the Safari thing a little, for those who aren't completely aware. The Carnegie Collection is a high-end collection of figures that is decided upon, sculpted, and finalized by the Carnegie Museum. Safari Ltd is the company that they contract with to produce, market and distribute the figures.

From what I gathered, the contractual issues had to do with the contract between Safari (who makes the Wild Safari Dinosaurs and Prehistoric line) and Carnegie (who develops the Carnegie Collection).  So it isn't that someone owns the 'rights' to a species or something, but somehow, somewhere, there is something stating that prehistoric mammals in that particular size of figure are not allowed (so toobs would be alright, as would other sizes if they were so inclined, I guess).

Or, that was just the reason they gave, when in actuality the sales of those figures were mostly terrible and they didn't want to lose more money. No one ever said that, but I would guess it's a consideration.

[CM]

I was aware of the Carnegie-approved situation as far as accuracy went, guess I didn't realize how entwined the two entities were for business relations and that Safari required approval from Carnegie for things like species types.  I'd still be interested in the detailed reasons, which I realize we'll probably never get, but that does take me a few steps further than I was previously, so thanks.

[Gryphoceratops]

No, I'm not baiting. I guess I'm just confused.    I didn't know what to call the new topic.

Edit -  you said there that "they just currently don't." Which is very different from "they just currently can't", which was the implication from your comments about a "contractual reason". I think we both agree that there is some confusion involved.

I meant in regards to how they probably can make more synapsids/therapsids etc (i.e. non-mammalian synapsids) but that they don't.  What I should have said is that they aren't, at least now. Maybe it comes down to not wanting to make things with hair?

As such, I think the topic name is apt--they apparently can't, and so won't, make mammals (until/unless something changes, which would be great).

I don't think it has anything to do with hair if we are talking about WS here.  They make modern mammal figures no problem. 

[ruel]

I thought only carnegie was not allowed to do mammals?

There is at least one mammal -- the woolly mammoth -- in the Carnegie collection; I have one myself:


The regular Safari line also has a woolly mammoth: