What would you want SAFARI Ltd. to do?

[Dan]

Where did we get confirmation on the Ichthyosaur?

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

May 24, 2009 6:52:12 GMT darwinian said:

May 24, 2009 6:44:40 GMT kuni said:

The downturned tripod-tails are just getting old at this point. I'll buy a theropod from Safari when it one has a more naturalistic pose.

Depends on how bad it looks. I hate the extreme curve on the T-rex, but the new Spino works just fine.

The new spino stands on two feet though


I also love their sinraptor, albertosaurus, and old pachycephalosaurus (pretty out of date, but a great pose). I wonder why safari hasn't done more of them in that fashion...

[bucketfoot]

I would like for Safari to re-do all of their older dinos in the style of the new Diplodocus/Nigersaurus/Dilophosaurus - to wit, make the sculpts look more detailed, more accurate and cooler!

[darwinian]

Any interest in the Cenozoic "Terror Birds"?

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

I think every able bodied person here would buy one...

[Dan]

What's a terror bird, is that like a Gastornis? I'd hit it. I mean, buy it.

[darwinian]

May 28, 2009 1:26:55 GMT Dan said:

What's a terror bird, is that like a Gastornis? I'd hit it. I mean, buy it.

Gastornis would be an adopted cousin. Basically the same thing, but the "true" terror birds were their own family and lived much later than big G. I have no idea when the name "terror bird" got stuck on them (though I suspect the Discovery Channel or BBC were involved).

[sbell]

May 28, 2009 1:35:45 GMT darwinian said:

May 28, 2009 1:26:55 GMT Dan said:

What's a terror bird, is that like a Gastornis? I'd hit it. I mean, buy it.

Gastornis would be an adopted. Basically the same thing, but the "true" terror birds were their own family and lived much later than big G. I have no idea when the name "terror bird" got stuck on them (though I suspect the Discovery Channel or BBC were involved).

A terror bird--more to the point, a terror crane--usually refers to a phorusrhacoid like Titanornis or Phorusrhacos.

Gastornis (aka Diatryma) are a different group altogether.

Either one would be great Safari figures. Fortunately, Bullyland did make a Diatryma.

[EmperorDinobot]

I still vouch for Lambeosaurus. All in favor of a Carnegie Lambeosaurus say "aye"

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Aye !

[sid]

Aye! ;D

[sbell]

ANOTHER RESURRECTION OF A THREAD!

But for a good reason.

So I have been talking with the good folks at Safari (have I mentioned I am a big supporter of what they are doing?). I suggested that, while large replicas of amphibians, early fish, etc. might be tough sells, a toob of early fish, sharks and amphians might be easier to pull off, perhaps followed with an early reptile one.

So now Ramona has asked for my suggestion of species for the toobs.

For the fish/amph one (I know, easy to do both, but to be fair, more marketable together) I have considered:

Amphibians:
Diplocaulus
Crassigyrinus*
Tiktaalik*
Eryops
Ichthyostega/Acanthostega


Fish (including placoderms and other extinct ones):
Coelacanth (it wouldn't be the first time a miniature was made of a larger figure--I was surprised there wasn't one in this year's toob)
Xiphactinus*
Alligator gar (a good modern tie-in, similar to the marine life toob modern element)
Dunkleosteus or another placoderm (there are lots to pick from)
Armoured agnathans (again, lots of different ones)
Climatius (an acanthodiian)
Hyneria/Eusthenopteron*


Shark:
Xenacanthus*
Hybodus
Helicoprion*
Stethacanthus

I did not suggest any reptiles.

So here's the deal--I will get back to her on Monday with my lists--can people please enter suggestions (other than the above) for sharks, fish, amphibians and reptiles (non-dinos, no pterosaurs, no marine reptiles).

List as many as you like, but please try to keep it reasonable--I don't think a list of 100 placoderms is really helpful. Also, try not to list animals that are already listed by someone else (although mentioning support for one is probably helpful).

Thanks.

[Griffin]

For amphibians, I think a platyhystrix would be really cool in addition to what you have mentioned.

[kuni]

I'd recommand Cephalaspis for the agnathan since it was in Walking with Monsters.

Let's lose Xenacanthus for the much cooler Orthacanthus:

[kuni]

Platyhystrix looks too much like Dimetrodon to really fly, though it could be fun to try.

What we REALLY need is a temnospondyll like Mastodonsaurus or one of its relatives.

[kuni]

Here are my favorites

Sharks:
Orthacanthus (looks more like an "eelshark" than Xenacanthus)
Helicoprion (VERY distinctive)
Stethacanthus (odd bristle head)

I think other sharks will look too modern at this scale even if they'd look interesting as a 5-6 inch model

Fish:
Dunkleosteus
Xiphactinus
Alligator Gar (GREAT idea)
Hyneria
Tiktaalik
Cephalaspis

I don't think the Coelacanth s a good pick as it'll look too much like Hyneria.

Amphibians: Tiktaalik, Crassigyrinus, Mastodonsaurus.

For our temnospondyll, Mastodonsaurus trumps Eryops in the coolness factor. Diplocaulus and Platyhystrix aren't bad backups either.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

How about gerrothorax?

I'm all for an orthacanthus-- But not if it wipes xenacanthus of the list.

[Griffin]

Sept 12, 2009 19:10:56 GMT kuni said:

Platyhystrix looks too much like Dimetrodon to really fly, though it could be fun to try.

What we REALLY need is a temnospondyll like Mastodonsaurus or one of its relatives.

I disagree. If they do the Platy correctly it will be distinguishable easily. The big frog-like head, the short tail, and the sail is a totally different shape and style. I feel its a good choice because its different from many other amphibians and will provide variety.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Little kids and parents, the primary market, probably won't see a difference though. (of course, it depends on the little kid, some would know, some wouldn't, I'm jsut betting most wouldn't )

[Griffin]

Yeah but I don't think a little kid will say, "hey that looks like dimetrodon ITS NOT AN AMPHIBIAN GASP" and then turn the product down. If anything they will see it in there and notice how much it stands out. Heck, they may buy it because they think it is a dimetrodon (a popular animal), later they can look and see that in fact, its not a dimetrodon and is something else entirely and ultimately learn something. I really don't think its a bad idea at all. I think its better than another basic Eryops-sh type design. It will provide variety along with Diplocaulus.