Search found 13 matches for 8

Shunosaurus is a small eusauropod from China (Ma et al. 2022) and is also one of the most well-understood sauropods (and probably the most well-known basal sauropod according to Chatterjee & Zheng 2002), thanks to the ~ 20 specimens that have been recovered, belonging to individuals from different ontogenetic stages (Dixon 2010). Some of these are complete and articulated. Which brings to another point: Shunosaurus is a rarity among dinosaurs in that every single one of its bones has been preserved (Dixon 2010). It’s most famous for its clubbed-tail, though it is also notable for its short (for a sauropod) neck (Chatterjee & Zheng 2002). Shunosaurus is believed to have been one of the most abundant dinosaurs from its time and place (Dixon 2010, Chatterjee & Zheng 2002).

I have always liked Shunosaurus and I’ve been requesting a figure of it. Then this figure was revealed all the way back in 2015 and while I liked it, it didn’t really impress me and so it fell under my radar after a while. I kept on collecting other species and recently I thought I’d hold out for a better version, potentially coming from someone along the likes of PNSO/Haolonggood. However, after [member=1161]Sim[/member] ’s recommendation, I thought: “Well, this guy is retired now, and it’s still a decent depiction of this important animal. It’s cheap and there’s only 1 copy left. I’ll get it”. Basically, I bought it to avoid missing out on this animal altogether. PNSO, Haolonggood, or even MENG, might eventually make their version of it, but I can’t guarantee it either, since this animal is more overlooked than I’d expect. If the aforementioned companies release a version of theirs and those represent an improvement in accuracy over this one, I will consider replacing it, but at least this one will surely be less space-consuming, and that’s an advantage as far as I’m concerned.

As far as accuracy goes, there are some aspects I’m not entirely sure about.



Shunosaurus lii skeletal by Scott Hartman (2022).

Comparing Hartman’s skeletal’s proportions to Safari’s version, to me it looks like the proportions on Safari’s might be slightly off. Namely, the neck might be a bit too short (yes, Shunosaurus is known to have a proportionally short neck, but I’d say the Safari figure probably overdoes it) and the tail might be a tad too long. I haven’t taken any measurements, so take these statements with a grain of salt (I also had this gut feeling with Haolonggood’s Dilophosaurus and [member=1453]Fembrogon[/member] confirmed my suspicions). Safari’s figure must be based on an older skeletal. In Shunosaurus’ case, one could think that, as a result of the excellent preservation of its remains, this may not necessarily represent an issue. However, Ma et al. (2022) suggest that the quality of prior descriptions of the postcranial skeleton is not the best (and so, presumably skeletals based on them), so I would definitely consider Hartman’s version the more reliable reference. And thus, as previously said, I think the proportions on Safari’s figure may be somewhat off. But still, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, because the characteristically short neck is still there.

On another hand, to me it doesn’t look like the head is really accurate to Shunosaurus. See the skeletal above and:



Restored skull of Shunosaurus lii specimen ZG65430. Modified from Chatterjee & Zheng 2002. Even being an older reconstruction, the skull’s shape is still consistent with Hartman 2022.

The arch formed by the premaxillary and the nasal bones isn’t really reflected on Safari’s figure. While there is a slight curvature on top of its snout, it seems that said curvature begins closer to the distal end of the premaxilla than it should. However, such a discrepancy could be attributed to the small size of the figure’s head.

Also, why are the thumb claws off the ground? Another detail about them that I find to be a bit strange is their orientation. Why are they looking down instead of pointing at each other?

On another hand, I’d have preferred the scales to be smaller. Safari’s Patagotitan shows a noticeable improvement in this area. Sculptors, just like every other artist, improve over the years.

When it comes to paint application quality, while the figure in general is well-painted, the teeth were handled pretty crudely. The head is certainly small, but I would still have expected better. It could also have been depicted with a closed mouth in order to avoid this.

In conclusion, I think Safari’s Shunosaurus may have slightly off proportions and a not totally accurate skull shape (even if an argument could be made for the small size of the figure’s head). The position and orientation of the thumb claws appear to be wrong as well. In general, the paint application’s quality is decent (except for the teeth). The detail is not totally up to today’s standards, the scales could be smaller. All things considered though, I still think it’s a relatively decent depiction of this very important sauropod, and it’s a pity it was retired. It looks better in person than in online pics/reviews as well. Shunosaurus is way more interesting (and relevant) than huge titanosaur [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if you ask me.