Safari Ltd - New for 2021

[Doug Watson]

With Spinosaurus we know it walks on all four simply because of their size, it would have to actively clenching its toe up off the ground to not be walking on them all.

Actually in the latest paper that describes the new tail of Spinosaurus the authors contend that it would walk bipedally without the need to support itself with the forelimbs.

[Dinoxels]

With Spinosaurus we know it walks on all four simply because of their size, it would have to actively clenching its toe up off the ground to not be walking on them all.

Actually in the latest paper that describes the new tail of Spinosaurus the authors contend that it would walk bipedally without the need to support itself with the forelimbs.

If an animal of that size put half of it's weight on its arms they would probably break.

[Dromaenychus]

I have always loved Baryonyx, but none of the figures released looked quite right to me until now. The Invicta one was the first, but it had a fish attached to it. The Collecta one released recently looks good, but the tall back makes it look like a suchomimus. This Safari ltd one looks perfect to me.

That reminds me of Goldilocks and the Three Bears and the porridge, etc 

Yes, it's my Goldilocks Baryonyx!

[stargatedalek]

With Spinosaurus we know it walks on all four simply because of their size, it would have to actively clenching its toe up off the ground to not be walking on them all.

Actually in the latest paper that describes the new tail of Spinosaurus the authors contend that it would walk bipedally without the need to support itself with the forelimbs.

I said four toes, not four legs.

With Spinosaurus we know it walks on all four simply because of their size, it would have to actively clenching its toe up off the ground to not be walking on them all.

Actually in the latest paper that describes the new tail of Spinosaurus the authors contend that it would walk bipedally without the need to support itself with the forelimbs.

If an animal of that size put half of it's weight on its arms they would probably break.

It lacks the expected adaptations to support its weight using its fingers for knuckle walking, but that doesn't mean the forearms couldn't have bore weight. Not does it mean the animal was a traditional biped, far from it, as the lack of evidence for usage of the forelimbs in ambulation despite the atrophy of the legs implies Spinosaurus was not frequently moving on land at all. However it moved on land, it was not comfortable, and so this was not an animal that would have clambered around basking on land or anything of the like.

[indy1936]

Hi, Doug. Nice sculpts as usual.
Can you give the approximate scale of the new figures? 

[Flaffy]

Not sure how I feel about the position of Baryonyx's left nostril either, can Mr. Watson comment on this?

@Flaffy  A little more detail would of helped but if you mean it is too far forward ever since this paper came out I have placed the nostril opening forward of the actual bony opening as Witmer found in 45 extant species that he examined. I have noticed a lot of companies still put the opening to the rear of the skull nasal opening which is wrong. If you observe the fossil material of Baryonyx you can actually see a depression in the skull anterior to the nasal opening.

Nostril Position in Dinosaurs and Other Vertebrates and Its Significance for Nasal Function
Lawrence M. Witmer 2001

Thanks for the informative response Doug! And yeah I meant the nostrils being a bit too far forward.
Did you base the Baryonyx off a specific specimen / skeletal?  Interested to see what references you used for the figure.

[Doug Watson]

With Spinosaurus we know it walks on all four simply because of their size, it would have to actively clenching its toe up off the ground to not be walking on them all.

I said four toes, not four legs.

I see that now but if you read your quote you didn't say it in those exact words especially in the beginning of the sentence it was implied but not stated precisely. Once I read that I was thinking feet and carried that thought through to the end.

[Doug Watson]

Hi, Doug. Nice sculpts as usual.
Can you give the approximate scale of the new figures?

The Daspletosaurus and Baryonyx are both 1:35. I didn't do the Spinosaurus so I don't know what scale it was done in.

[Doug Watson]

Not sure how I feel about the position of Baryonyx's left nostril either, can Mr. Watson comment on this?

@Flaffy  A little more detail would of helped but if you mean it is too far forward ever since this paper came out I have placed the nostril opening forward of the actual bony opening as Witmer found in 45 extant species that he examined. I have noticed a lot of companies still put the opening to the rear of the skull nasal opening which is wrong. If you observe the fossil material of Baryonyx you can actually see a depression in the skull anterior to the nasal opening.

Nostril Position in Dinosaurs and Other Vertebrates and Its Significance for Nasal Function
Lawrence M. Witmer 2001

Thanks for the informative response Doug! And yeah I meant the nostrils being a bit too far forward.
Did you base the Baryonyx off a specific specimen / skeletal?  Interested to see what references you used for the figure.

I thought from your initial post you had no intention of buying it since we took so long are you reconsidering that decision since you have so many questions? 
I used the skeletal restoration and fossil descriptions from the 1987 paper below plus Scott Hartman's restoration from 2018.
Charig, A. J.; Milner, A. C. (1997). "Baryonyx walkeri, a fish-eating dinosaur from the Wealden of Surrey". Bulletin of the Natural History Museum of London. 53: 11–70.

[Flaffy]

I thought from your initial post you had no intention of buying it since we took so long are you reconsidering that decision since you have so many questions? 
I used the skeletal restoration and fossil descriptions from the 1987 paper below plus Scott Hartman's restoration from 2018.
Charig, A. J.; Milner, A. C. (1997). "Baryonyx walkeri, a fish-eating dinosaur from the Wealden of Surrey". Bulletin of the Natural History Museum of London. 53: 11–70.

It's not that I have no intentions of ever buying the 2021 offerings, it's just that I don't have the budget to be able to commit to any new figures that aren't already on my wish list, or have a dedicated budget allocated waaaay beforehand. I'm particularly interested in the Daspletosaurus, but with so many other Safari figures to catch up on, I don't foresee myself acquiring the tyrannosaur in the near future.

For the Baryonyx, I'm asking so many questions because its a new and rather unconventional take on Baryonyx's nostrils. I wanted to acquire more information on the decisions and science behind the sculpt, and see if there's anything I can incorporate into my own dinosaur-related artwork. That being said, I'm definitely warming up to your Baryonyx.

And thanks for the references! Will be checking out the linked papers in my spare time

[Faelrin]

@Doug Watson Glad to see these (Baryonyx, and Daspletosaurus) are both in 1:35 scale. Will display nicely alongside the Feathered Tyrannosaurus, etc, from prior years. It's nice to have most of the larger dinosaurs all in the same scale or close to it to see how they all size up against one another give or take.

[MLMjp]

Really late reaction to the reveals from my part.

Very pleased on how the Baryonyx and Daspletosaurus turned out, now I am not sure if I should go for the Collecta Bary or this one...

I see the tendency on using "sandy" colors on Safari figures continues.

The Spinosaurus is... interesting...I was expecting it to look worse with the blue but the final result isn that bad, but it is not the most attractive thing. And of course, way too small.

A little bit off-topic but I am kinda sad that, despite the new Spinosaurus appearance being made into figures this early, almost all of them are too freakin´ small, specially since most of the figures the 2014 appearance got were on the large side.

Safari and PNSO already missed their shot by making their new Spinos too small, I don´t trust Schleich and Papo won't do anything. The GR toys Spino size is perfect but it has certain things that bother me.

That only leaves Collecta (or one of those "third party" companies) for a 1:40-1:35 scale figure of the new Spinosaurus, and unlike other companies making a smaller one doesn't restrict them from making a large one and viceversa. But still, why did the other companies had to make their new Spinos too small...I guess I am just frustrated because PNSO make the most beautiful Spino ever but because is too small I cant justify it being in my collection, not even as a subadult since I prefer my figures to represent adults.

[Shane]

A little bit off-topic but I am kinda sad that, despite the new Spinosaurus appearance being made into figures this early, almost all of them are too freakin´ small, specially since most of the figures the 2014 appearance got were on the large side.

Safari and PNSO already missed their shot by making their new Spinos too small, I don´t trust Schleich and Papo won't do anything. The GR toys Spino size is perfect but it has certain things that bother me.

That only leaves Collecta (or one of those "third party" companies) for a 1:40-1:35 scale figure of the new Spinosaurus, and unlike other companies making a smaller one doesn't restrict them from making a large one and viceversa. But still, why did the other companies had to make their new Spinos too small...I guess I am just frustrated because PNSO make the most beautiful Spino ever but because is too small I cant justify it being in my collection, not even as a subadult since I prefer my figures to represent adults.

I would imagine it's hard for any company that just made a new large Spinosaurus within the last couple of years to justify creating another large Spinosaurus just a year or two later. A figure that large is a significant investment.

It's possible that smaller versions were the only way to go for these companies to get an updated Spino out fast enough without involving a huge investment in tooling and molds (also considering that COVID has drastically affected many companies).

Finally, it also gives more casual collectors some option on whether they want a large Spino or a small Spino. Sure, if you're a stickler for accuracy, you need to go smaller or get the GR Toys version. But if you're just a parent or grandparent buying for their kids or someone who isn't 100% concerned with accuracy as much as you are with size and space, then having both large and small options helps differentiate the two so you and gives more buying options so the toys aren't in direct competition with each other.

For example, a company like PNSO or Safari or what have you might not want to offer two Spinos that are the same size with the only difference being the tail. They can change the pose and colors sure, but changing the size also helps separate their offerings. It offers a smaller version for the more space conscious and also a lower priced option for those on more of a budget.

[Dinoguy2]

Really late reaction to the reveals from my part.

Very pleased on how the Baryonyx and Daspletosaurus turned out, now I am not sure if I should go for the Collecta Bary or this one...

I see the tendency on using "sandy" colors on Safari figures continues.

The Spinosaurus is... interesting...I was expecting it to look worse with the blue but the final result isn that bad, but it is not the most attractive thing. And of course, way too small.

A little bit off-topic but I am kinda sad that, despite the new Spinosaurus appearance being made into figures this early, almost all of them are too freakin´ small, specially since most of the figures the 2014 appearance got were on the large side.

Safari and PNSO already missed their shot by making their new Spinos too small, I don´t trust Schleich and Papo won't do anything. The GR toys Spino size is perfect but it has certain things that bother me.

That only leaves Collecta (or one of those "third party" companies) for a 1:40-1:35 scale figure of the new Spinosaurus, and unlike other companies making a smaller one doesn't restrict them from making a large one and viceversa. But still, why did the other companies had to make their new Spinos too small...I guess I am just frustrated because PNSO make the most beautiful Spino ever but because is too small I cant justify it being in my collection, not even as a subadult since I prefer my figures to represent adults.

I think in the long run the smaller size of these might work out to have been a good thing. The PNSO one at least is about 1:30-1:35 scale, IF you base it on the actual fin-tail specimen, which is not nearly as big as the dal Sasso skull or the old Stromer holotype. I have feeling a lot might have changed about the size and appearance of the various fin stuff as animals reached the really enormous sizes.

[Gwangi]

I'm personally alright with the smaller size of this Spinosaurus. I need an updated one for my shelf but don't really want to fork over the money (or space) for the larger models when we're still working out what Spinosaurus looked like. I'm also not such a fan of Spinosaurus that I need an especially large one.

[ceratopsian]

I am not budget conscious but as I have been collecting avidly for a few years now, I am very space conscious. I'm always pleased to see small models.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

 Its always interesting to read from Doug Watson about the specimens and studies consulted and used during the sculpting of the fantastic sculpts.

Definitely the best Baryonyx on the market I think, not saying much given how most Baryonyx figures are pretty poor, but the CollectA and Favorite Co. are good, but this is nicer, and I say this as a great appreciator of the genus.

And I am so glad both this and the Daspletosaurus are 1:35 scale too. Perfect. A small selection, but a very nice one.

[MLMjp]

I think in the long run the smaller size of these might work out to have been a good thing. The PNSO one at least is about 1:30-1:35 scale, IF you base it on the actual fin-tail specimen, which is not nearly as big as the dal Sasso skull or the old Stromer holotype. I have feeling a lot might have changed about the size and appearance of the various fin stuff as animals reached the really enormous sizes.

Well, yeah, because it is a subadult. I said I wanted an adult.

[SidB]

@Doug Watson Glad to see these (Baryonyx, and Daspletosaurus) are both in 1:35 scale. Will display nicely alongside the Feathered Tyrannosaurus, etc, from prior years. It's nice to have most of the larger dinosaurs all in the same scale or close to it to see how they all size up against one another give or take.

Good to see that 1/35 has emerged as a sort of "standard" scale for many of Safari's offering. Enhances the possibilities for dioramas, while allowing better detailing than the old 1/40 of Carnegie and Battat. I also like the added "heft" of these figures, combined with Doug's "well-fed" style ( no shrink wrapping).

[Skorpio V.]

If anything, Safari's newest Spino looks like a CollectA figure: more uniformed, un-Doug-like scales; flashier colour scheme; smoother overall finish; some select parts that are a bit odd (the arms). 'Tis peculiar.

Does Doug know who sculpted it? We, or at least I, don't know if the sculptors have any contact with each other.