HAOLONGGOOD - New For 2023

[Flaffy]

Ah shoot, I was away for a couple of days and missed the big Aliexpress summer sale... Hopefully there'll be another one coming in July? Need to get my hands on the Apatosaurus (grey), Pachyrhinosaurus, Wuerhosaurus and Edmontonia.

Like everyone, I'm very happy to see a proper Edmontonia available on the market again. The Battat version certainly had a long run as the best model of the genus, and can finally pass the torch onto Haolonggood's. The darker blue/grey version strikes me as particularly attractive, reminds me of Saurian's old Denversaurus design.


One thing I hope the Haolonggood Edmontonia gets right is the inclusion of a hardened cheek plate. As shown below in Saurian's Denversaurus sculpt and the holotype for Panoplosaurus.



@TheImmortalEye T @thomasw100 Never use Prehistoric Wildlife or Carnivora for accurate scientific information. They are notoriously biased and/or contain outdated & innaccurate sources.

[TheImmortalEye]

Ah shoot, I was away for a couple of days and missed the big Aliexpress summer sale... Hopefully there'll be another one coming in July? Need to get my hands on the Apatosaurus (grey), Pachyrhinosaurus, Wuerhosaurus and Edmontonia.

Like everyone, I'm very happy to see a proper Edmontonia available on the market again. The Battat version certainly had a long run as the best model of the genus, and can finally pass the torch onto Haolonggood's. The darker blue/grey version strikes me as particularly attractive, reminds me of Saurian's old Denversaurus design.


One thing I hope the Haolonggood Edmontonia gets right is the inclusion of a hardened cheek plate. As shown below in Saurian's Denversaurus sculpt and the holotype for Panoplosaurus.



@TheImmortalEye T @thomasw100 Never use Prehistoric Wildlife or Carnivora for accurate scientific information. They are notoriously biased and/or contain outdated & innaccurate sources.

I only used it to prove how notorios scaling dinosaurs is , i really dont care if smth is 1:35 or 1:40 as the diff can even be individual at that point.

[Quiversaurus]

@quiversaurus
The Pachyrhinosaurus is listed as 18 x 8.5 cm
Wuerhosaurus: 18 x 6.5 cm

I can't remember if it was mentioned already or announced somewhere - do we have the measurements for the Pachy and Wuerhosaurus yet?

Thanks for this! I saw this on Lana Time shop's Insta and thought it looked rather small - but the dimensions check out it seems.

Also those measurements will be straight-line length, not measured along the curve of the spine. You also need to remember with a model that the different parts are not always manufactured to the same scale - for instance the head might be large in proportion to the legs etc.

That's a good point @ceratopsian . Top view of the Wuerhosaurus for reference:



For me, I've found extrapolating the size of the model up to what it would be at full size to be more helpful. eg if Wuerhosaurus is 18cm, I would do 18cm x 35 = 630m, which would put it at a very reasonable estimate/realm of possible size and length.

My 1:35 human figure is supposed to be a model of a 1.8m specimen, but the people in my country are more likely to be 1.6-1.7m; so, give or take is useful here.

[thomasw100]

@quiversaurus
The Pachyrhinosaurus is listed as 18 x 8.5 cm
Wuerhosaurus: 18 x 6.5 cm

I can't remember if it was mentioned already or announced somewhere - do we have the measurements for the Pachy and Wuerhosaurus yet?

That would put Pachyrhinosaurus at 1:44 scale and Wuerhosaurus at 1:39 if I base that on the lengths given at: http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com

it can literally range from anywhere theres no point in trying to pinpoint the scale of these animals to double diggets. <lakustai varies from 5 up to freaking 8 metres XD and fossils are a 0.00001 percent estimate of the live animals, which even now vary massively (northern rats as tiny as mice or as big as a cat) https://carnivora.net/pachyrhinosaurus-lakustai-v-albertosaurus-sarcopha-t11599.html

You could have said this in a more friendly way actually.

[TheImmortalEye]

@quiversaurus
The Pachyrhinosaurus is listed as 18 x 8.5 cm
Wuerhosaurus: 18 x 6.5 cm

I can't remember if it was mentioned already or announced somewhere - do we have the measurements for the Pachy and Wuerhosaurus yet?

That would put Pachyrhinosaurus at 1:44 scale and Wuerhosaurus at 1:39 if I base that on the lengths given at: http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com

it can literally range from anywhere theres no point in trying to pinpoint the scale of these animals to double diggets. <lakustai varies from 5 up to freaking 8 metres XD and fossils are a 0.00001 percent estimate of the live animals, which even now vary massively (northern rats as tiny as mice or as big as a cat) https://carnivora.net/pachyrhinosaurus-lakustai-v-albertosaurus-sarcopha-t11599.html

You could have said this in a more friendly way actually.

Sorry if it came out too harsh but it does annoy me sometimes how we talk about scales as if its set in Stone to single diggets, as if paleontology hasnt been wrong on fragmentary animals almost always ( see dunkleosteus and spinosaurus most recent)

Again just saying these are animals not modell planes, animals in life vary massively in size due to genetics, region , enviromental conditions etc. Basicly if u want ur pachy to be 5 m or 9 m is both within reasonable plausibility as fossils make up less than 0.00001 of the animals as a whole , and unless articulated it is just an educated estimate ( an informed guess )

This excludes well researched animals , with many skeletons and often articulated ( protoceratops, psittscosaurus , some hadrosaurs) or ones where the guess is based on close family ( even then it can be way off)

[Remko]

I don't think @TheImmortalEye was harsh in his comment, or I may have read it wrong.

But I agree with his statement.
For a lot of prehistoric animals we have very few material, or just a single individual. Even if it's 100 % complete and articulated, there's no way of knowing if that was a small, large or average indvidual for the species. David Hone has stated that we can't exclude a 20 meter T. rex for example. The only way to be absolutely sure is to have a billion fully intact specimens and

Sure, we are pretty confident that Protoceratops didn't grew to the size of an elephant, but a 10 to 15% (or more) size difference for a given animal can't be ruled out.
Just look at modern animals, including archosaurs and even humans. Some are larger than the average individual, others smaller. Also depending on where they live.

Anyway, looking forward to the full release of Edmontonia. Nothing yet exept for a single image. And also other releases.
I do hope they won't be doing species that everyone else has also made, except if it has been years and we're in need of an updated version. Wuerhosaurus and Edmontonia are very welcome. But if they release a Tarbosaurus or something like that, I'll probably pass. PNSO already released a very nice figure not that long ago.

But a Megaraptorid would be nice, very interesting animals, and only the Orkoraptor from Wild Past Safari has been released as far as I know.
Seeing what they can do with sauropods, a new Amargasaurus would also be welcome, or more Asian dinosaurs like Targia or Saichania.

[Concavenator]

(Probably) coming soon: Haolonggood Edmontosaurus.



Cap from Instagram.

[MLMjp]

(Probably) coming soon: Haolonggood Edmontosaurus.



Cap from Instagram.

PLEASE, be annectens, PLEASE!

[Flaffy]

Again just saying these are animals not modell planes, animals in life vary massively in size due to genetics, region , enviromental conditions etc. Basicly if u want ur pachy to be 5 m or 9 m is both within reasonable plausibility as fossils make up less than 0.00001 of the animals as a whole , and unless articulated it is just an educated estimate ( an informed guess )

I find this argument inherently flawed. Is it possible for a 9m specimen of Pachyrhinosaurus to exist? Maybe. But extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, and all current evidence points to Pachyrhinosaurus as a genus maxing out at ~7m, with P. lakustai specifically being noteably smaller than that. You can't claim that an extraordinary size estimate is scientifically plausible just because "we don't know". The burden of proof should instead be placed on those who make such claims in the first place. "Where is the evidence for a 9m Pachyrhinosaurus?" one might ask, and if the answer is "you can't definitively prove me wrong" then the argument falls apart.

Fossil organisms often don't have the luxury of having a wealth of well articulated specimens across multiple populations to compare to as in extant organisms. Especially in extinct taxa with only a single specimen available. Hence I believe that we must strive to match existing fossil evidence as much as possible because that's all we have of the animal, rather than dabble in the "maybes" and "what-ifs". That's not to say one can't reconstruct a super-sized individual, but to claim that a 20m long Tyrannosaurus is just as plausible as sizes directly supported by fossil evidence is most certainly not the way to go about things IMO. (for reference, Sue is ~12.5m, and that's one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens we have)

A figure based strictly on existing data & evidence is inherently going to be more scientifically accurate than speculative reconstructions. Currently as it stands, we have no evidence for P. lakustai ever reaching anywhere near 9m. And trying to pass off outdated oversized estimates from dodgy sources (or often times no sources) without concrete scientific backing as plausible strikes me as absurd.

[Samrukia]

Haolonggood shared a differently painted Wuerhosaurus on their instagram page:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ctv85pqvehL/

[Flaffy]

Haolonggood shared a differently painted Wuerhosaurus on their instagram page:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ctv85pqvehL/

Interesting! Definitely prefer these patterns over the squiggly lines of the original.

I still haven't made up my mind on which Wuerhosaurus to get though... The purple Ube-like colour scheme is very unique, but yellow plates of the green version go so well with the red thagomisers.

(Probably) coming soon: Haolonggood Edmontosaurus.

Cap from Instagram.

PLEASE, be annectens, PLEASE!

Same. We've already had good E. regalis from CollectA and Safari already, so a E. annectens from Haolonggood would be perfect!

[Faelrin]

The only accurate E. annectens on the market is from Ancestors models, which is probably very niche, and not as readily available (although beautifully done). I'd love to see Haolongood put that one out as well.

I wonder if that new Wuerhosaurus coloration is a custom or new paint variant? There has been a custom shared of the Ouranosaurus on their insta too, so it is possible this might be too. Gotta wait and see I guess.

[Bread]

I don't care if Haolonggood are going to charge me $40-$60 for a 1/35 scale large bull Edmontosaurus, I'll pay it!

[Bread]

I wonder if that new Wuerhosaurus coloration is a custom or new paint variant? There has been a custom shared of the Ouranosaurus on their insta too, so it is possible this might be too. Gotta wait and see I guess.

I am most certain it is just a custom. Vampiredesign, even before his new company full of already colorful designs, was very prominent in repaints.

See here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=9034.20

I am curious to see or know if he'll ever update us regarding his amazing collection.

[ceratopsian]

He's probably rather too busy at present to update us on his collection!

I wonder if that new Wuerhosaurus coloration is a custom or new paint variant? There has been a custom shared of the Ouranosaurus on their insta too, so it is possible this might be too. Gotta wait and see I guess.

I am most certain it is just a custom. Vampiredesign, even before his new company full of already colorful designs, was very prominent in repaints.

See here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=9034.20

I am curious to see or know if he'll ever update us regarding his amazing collection.

[Faelrin]

@Bread I do recall actually, which is also why I was wondering. While not related, but that JP raptor paddock he did a while back was nothing short of legendary.

[TheImmortalEye]

Again just saying these are animals not modell planes, animals in life vary massively in size due to genetics, region , enviromental conditions etc. Basicly if u want ur pachy to be 5 m or 9 m is both within reasonable plausibility as fossils make up less than 0.00001 of the animals as a whole , and unless articulated it is just an educated estimate ( an informed guess )

I find this argument inherently flawed. Is it possible for a 9m specimen of Pachyrhinosaurus to exist? Maybe. But extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, and all current evidence points to Pachyrhinosaurus as a genus maxing out at ~7m, with P. lakustai specifically being noteably smaller than that. You can't claim that an extraordinary size estimate is scientifically plausible just because "we don't know". The burden of proof should instead be placed on those who make such claims in the first place. "Where is the evidence for a 9m Pachyrhinosaurus?" one might ask, and if the answer is "you can't definitively prove me wrong" then the argument falls apart.

Fossil organisms often don't have the luxury of having a wealth of well articulated specimens across multiple populations to compare to as in extant organisms. Especially in extinct taxa with only a single specimen available. Hence I believe that we must strive to match existing fossil evidence as much as possible because that's all we have of the animal, rather than dabble in the "maybes" and "what-ifs". That's not to say one can't reconstruct a super-sized individual, but to claim that a 20m long Tyrannosaurus is just as plausible as sizes directly supported by fossil evidence is most certainly not the way to go about things IMO. (for reference, Sue is ~12.5m, and that's one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens we have)

A figure based strictly on existing data & evidence is inherently going to be more scientifically accurate than speculative reconstructions. Currently as it stands, we have no evidence for P. lakustai ever reaching anywhere near 9m. And trying to pass off outdated oversized estimates from dodgy sources (or often times no sources) without concrete scientific backing as plausible strikes me as absurd.

I dont care again if u see scales as the be all end all , but i as someone who works with animals and see individual variation could not care less,

If u want the burden of proof on me sure id do that, taking the example of the current holotypes being 7 m max as an example, by necessity of statistics and animal variation seen today there is basicly a net zero chance there wasnt 8-8.5 m meter animals if genetics, or even just enviromental changes happened, brown rats can basicly double in soze simply due to more food being available. It doesnt prove it existed , but neither does a size estimate based on fragments as most dinosaurs are.

I dont care as statet and im not claiming an absurd 12 m pachy being "maybe a thing"
Just that double diggets to me seem superarbituary . See dinosdragons video where he said lynthronax being 1:30 , yet we only have fragments( of the skull mostly ironicly)  at best so i dont see it not being possibly 1:35.

Weve been wrong before on dunkleosteus,giganotosaurus, spinosaurus and way more, just dont treat it like a cult and have some fun.

[thomasw100]

@quiversaurus
The Pachyrhinosaurus is listed as 18 x 8.5 cm
Wuerhosaurus: 18 x 6.5 cm

I can't remember if it was mentioned already or announced somewhere - do we have the measurements for the Pachy and Wuerhosaurus yet?

That would put Pachyrhinosaurus at 1:44 scale and Wuerhosaurus at 1:39 if I base that on the lengths given at: http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com

it can literally range from anywhere theres no point in trying to pinpoint the scale of these animals to double diggets. <lakustai varies from 5 up to freaking 8 metres XD and fossils are a 0.00001 percent estimate of the live animals, which even now vary massively (northern rats as tiny as mice or as big as a cat) https://carnivora.net/pachyrhinosaurus-lakustai-v-albertosaurus-sarcopha-t11599.html

You could have said this in a more friendly way actually.

Sorry if it came out too harsh but it does annoy me sometimes how we talk about scales as if its set in Stone to single diggets, as if paleontology hasnt been wrong on fragmentary animals almost always ( see dunkleosteus and spinosaurus most recent)

Again just saying these are animals not modell planes, animals in life vary massively in size due to genetics, region , enviromental conditions etc. Basicly if u want ur pachy to be 5 m or 9 m is both within reasonable plausibility as fossils make up less than 0.00001 of the animals as a whole , and unless articulated it is just an educated estimate ( an informed guess )

This excludes well researched animals , with many skeletons and often articulated ( protoceratops, psittscosaurus , some hadrosaurs) or ones where the guess is based on close family ( even then it can be way off)

I just made a quick scale estimate based on some general length assumptions about these species. There was nothing said about 2 digits. There was also nothing said that this should be any definitive number. Probably it is better to convert the quoted size of the model into length of the dinosaur rather than calculating a scale. I understand very well that young individuals, young adults or fully grown adults obviously have different sizes. It was implicit that the size should apply to an adult, otherwise any model size comparison between species would become meaningless. Also environmental conditions will affect the maximum size of the fully grown adults. But there is certainly a limit to the size an adult of a given species would reach given the optimum environmental conditions. This is probably a factor of genetic programming of the growth process and the life expectancy of a species. You would agree that for example Pachyrhinosaurus would not have reached 30 m in length?

[thomasw100]

Again just saying these are animals not modell planes, animals in life vary massively in size due to genetics, region , enviromental conditions etc. Basicly if u want ur pachy to be 5 m or 9 m is both within reasonable plausibility as fossils make up less than 0.00001 of the animals as a whole , and unless articulated it is just an educated estimate ( an informed guess )

I find this argument inherently flawed. Is it possible for a 9m specimen of Pachyrhinosaurus to exist? Maybe. But extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, and all current evidence points to Pachyrhinosaurus as a genus maxing out at ~7m, with P. lakustai specifically being noteably smaller than that. You can't claim that an extraordinary size estimate is scientifically plausible just because "we don't know". The burden of proof should instead be placed on those who make such claims in the first place. "Where is the evidence for a 9m Pachyrhinosaurus?" one might ask, and if the answer is "you can't definitively prove me wrong" then the argument falls apart.

Fossil organisms often don't have the luxury of having a wealth of well articulated specimens across multiple populations to compare to as in extant organisms. Especially in extinct taxa with only a single specimen available. Hence I believe that we must strive to match existing fossil evidence as much as possible because that's all we have of the animal, rather than dabble in the "maybes" and "what-ifs". That's not to say one can't reconstruct a super-sized individual, but to claim that a 20m long Tyrannosaurus is just as plausible as sizes directly supported by fossil evidence is most certainly not the way to go about things IMO. (for reference, Sue is ~12.5m, and that's one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens we have)

A figure based strictly on existing data & evidence is inherently going to be more scientifically accurate than speculative reconstructions. Currently as it stands, we have no evidence for P. lakustai ever reaching anywhere near 9m. And trying to pass off outdated oversized estimates from dodgy sources (or often times no sources) without concrete scientific backing as plausible strikes me as absurd.

I very much like your comment, because it follows strictly the scientific logic. A hypothesis (in this case the hypothesis that an extraordinarily sized individual of a dinosaur exists) must be able to be tested and falsified. If anything is considered possible without any evidence, we enter the realm of the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence of something style discussion. This in my view is bordering the realm of dogma or belief, not the proper course of science. And of course the size of living animals varies within some range and different scientists propose a different range, but a good model should approximately conform to a size within this range. At best the manufacturers would state which source they used for their size estimate.

[TheCambrianCrusader]

Again just saying these are animals not modell planes, animals in life vary massively in size due to genetics, region , enviromental conditions etc. Basicly if u want ur pachy to be 5 m or 9 m is both within reasonable plausibility as fossils make up less than 0.00001 of the animals as a whole , and unless articulated it is just an educated estimate ( an informed guess )

I find this argument inherently flawed. Is it possible for a 9m specimen of Pachyrhinosaurus to exist? Maybe. But extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, and all current evidence points to Pachyrhinosaurus as a genus maxing out at ~7m, with P. lakustai specifically being noteably smaller than that. You can't claim that an extraordinary size estimate is scientifically plausible just because "we don't know". The burden of proof should instead be placed on those who make such claims in the first place. "Where is the evidence for a 9m Pachyrhinosaurus?" one might ask, and if the answer is "you can't definitively prove me wrong" then the argument falls apart.

Fossil organisms often don't have the luxury of having a wealth of well articulated specimens across multiple populations to compare to as in extant organisms. Especially in extinct taxa with only a single specimen available. Hence I believe that we must strive to match existing fossil evidence as much as possible because that's all we have of the animal, rather than dabble in the "maybes" and "what-ifs". That's not to say one can't reconstruct a super-sized individual, but to claim that a 20m long Tyrannosaurus is just as plausible as sizes directly supported by fossil evidence is most certainly not the way to go about things IMO. (for reference, Sue is ~12.5m, and that's one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimens we have)

A figure based strictly on existing data & evidence is inherently going to be more scientifically accurate than speculative reconstructions. Currently as it stands, we have no evidence for P. lakustai ever reaching anywhere near 9m. And trying to pass off outdated oversized estimates from dodgy sources (or often times no sources) without concrete scientific backing as plausible strikes me as absurd.

I dont care again if u see scales as the be all end all , but i as someone who works with animals and see individual variation could not care less,

If u want the burden of proof on me sure id do that, taking the example of the current holotypes being 7 m max as an example, by necessity of statistics and animal variation seen today there is basicly a net zero chance there wasnt 8-8.5 m meter animals if genetics, or even just enviromental changes happened, brown rats can basicly double in soze simply due to more food being available. It doesnt prove it existed , but neither does a size estimate based on fragments as most dinosaurs are.

I dont care as statet and im not claiming an absurd 12 m pachy being "maybe a thing"
Just that double diggets to me seem superarbituary . See dinosdragons video where he said lynthronax being 1:30 , yet we only have fragments( of the skull mostly ironicly)  at best so i dont see it not being possibly 1:35.

Weve been wrong before on dunkleosteus,giganotosaurus, spinosaurus and way more, just dont treat it like a cult and have some fun.

Yeah I agree animals can vary widely in size (within a reasonable margin). For example at a zoo I used to work at we had two binturongs that were the same age and were both hand raised but the female ended up being close to double the size of the male. That's also why I'm not too bothered with the Nasutoceratops' horns not matching up 100% with the holotype. Horns vary A LOT. I've worked with a bunch of bovids at this point; bison, Texas longhorns, Scottish highlanders, Nubian goats, Spanish goats, boar goats, klipspringers and no two individuals had the same horns. The same seems to be case for ceratopsians as Centrosaurus and Styracosaurus specimens vary WILDY. So the Nasutoceratops'horns being a little different seems completely within reason