Concavenator’s Collection

[Halichoeres]

AFAIK, Paleokhris' Pachyrhinosaurus is fine. Except the hands could perhaps be oriented a bit more laterally? Not a big deal either way. Anyways, what happens with it is that it's a 3D printed model in resin, and not everybody collects those. I personally don't, I prefer PVC models as resin is a more fragile material. Not only that, but the models themselves are not cheap either. Add shipping to that, and I would also have to commission having the figure/s painted, since my painting skills are nonexistent. Plus, shipping to the painting artist back and forth. So all in all, the purchase would end up being more than I'm willing to pay for a figure. But for collectors who are not bothered by any of this, it would be a great option as far as I'm concerned. Christopher Chávez is a brilliant paleoartist.

I have mostly the same attitude about 3d prints. I'll go for them if it's an animal that has a very slim chance of being made in PVC, but for dinosaurs proper somebody is going to make it by and by.

I still like Safari's Pachyrhinosaurus best, although as has been pointed out several others have their merits. I think it must be the third most frequently made ceratopsian, so we can expect a new one from some company or another every year or two.

For a theropod fan, this was a theropod-light year for you! Although I imagine there are a few more on the old wish list...

[BlueKrono]

@Halichoeres I have to ask: which ceratopsian is #2?

[Halichoeres]

@Halichoeres I have to ask: which ceratopsian is #2?

Got to be Styracosaurus.

[BlueKrono]

@Halichoeres I have to ask: which ceratopsian is #2?

Got to be Styracosaurus.

In the mid-90's I would have agreed, but Styraco's been largely ignored since then.

[Halichoeres]

@Halichoeres I have to ask: which ceratopsian is #2?

Got to be Styracosaurus.

In the mid-90's I would have agreed, but Styraco's been largely ignored since then.

I don't have a rigorous count, but DTC certainly lists more cumulative Styracosaurus than Pachyrhinosaurus. In the past five or so years there have been figures from PNSO, BotM, Safari, Schleich, Mattel, Eikoh, and Takara Tomy. It's no Triceratops, but I don't think of it as ignored!

[BlueKrono]

@Halichoeres I have to ask: which ceratopsian is #2?

Got to be Styracosaurus.

In the mid-90's I would have agreed, but Styraco's been largely ignored since then.

I don't have a rigorous count, but DTC certainly lists more cumulative Styracosaurus than Pachyrhinosaurus. In the past five or so years there have been figures from PNSO, BotM, Safari, Schleich, Mattel, Eikoh, and Takara Tomy. It's no Triceratops, but I don't think of it as ignored!

I consider myself corrected. While most of those companies have put out a profusion of ceratopsians in recent years, it escaped my memory that  Styracosaurus was one of them.

[Concavenator]

@Sim So had Battat carried on, you wouldn't have replaced them? I agree their paint application wasn't the best, but then again some figures from current companies are sometimes sloppily painted as well. However, they paid a lot of attention to accuracy and that's praiseworthy. It's a shame they disappeared.

Thank you for the recommendation of the Safari Shunosaurus! I've thought about it and decided to give it a go, so I have placed an order for it, seeing both as it is now retired and that it isn't a terribly popular animal that warrants many additional figures. Had to act quickly too, there was only 1 copy left on Amazon and that was the only place where I could find it for sale brand new and at an affordable price. Will share my thoughts on it when I get it. Spoiler: it's going to be a longer review this time.

As for the PNSO Saurophaganax, it's a magnificent figure, but I'm not interested in it. I'm not the type of collector who gets figures of different taxa as stand-ins for taxa I'm interested in. Just as I also didn't plan to get PNSO's so called "Sinopliosaurus" as a stand-in for Suchomimus even though back then I really thought that was going to be PNSO's take on it. The way I see it, PNSO markets that figure as Saurophaganax and so that's the animal they're trying to represent. I know it's basically an Allosaurus fragilis figure, but that's because Saurophaganax is so fragmentary that it has no identity. And I'm not interested in getting a figure of such a fragmentary taxon. I'd rather get Safari's version back, which is a good and legit Allosaurus fragilis. Scrappy nature of Saurophaganax remains aside, it's so phylogenetically close to Allosaurus that I don't need to have both (not to mention that Saurophaganax itself may even be Allosaurus).

I only collect 1 figure per genus and I make no exceptions, so even though I love all three Allosaurus species, I'd just get a figure of one, preferably A. jimmadseni. Up until recently, I thought I was going to go with one of the upcoming Creative Beast A. jimmmadseni versions, but I've been thinking about it and I think I'll only be going for one of them if a 1:35 version is released. I do think the Creative Beast one(s) will be the best version(s) of the species when available, but at the same time I don't think the differences with PNSO's Paul are worthy of spending that much extra money and space in a 1:18 Creative Beast version. I'm also interested in the BotM Carnotaurus and Dilophosaurus, in those cases I consider the differences with other existing versions to be more relevant. And they are big figures, so I could save some space with the Allosaurus, regardless of it being my all-time favorite dinosaur. For the moment I'm holding out for a 1:35 Creative Beast or an Eofauna Allosaurus. I think both are reasonably likely to occur at some point, and if I eventually become tired of waiting, I'll just go for PNSO's Paul, which, even if imperfect, is still a pretty solid A. jimmadseni and even based on Big Al. I could commission a lips add-on and a bigger thumb claw if I finally go for it, since those are the two very things holding me back from it.

Haolonggood seems to be quite fond of ceratopsids, I think they might be the most likey company to make an Achelousaurus. Perhaps PNSO as well, when they eventually get back to ceratopsids? Safari seems to be done with them. The Vitae one was great from what could be seen. They also had a brilliant Shunosaurus and Suchomimus (though thankfully PNSO and even Papo have done a great job with it ever since). Vitae seriously had a lot of potential, and if they were still around, I firmly believe they would be among the best companies in the (scientifically accurate prehistoric animal figure) market.

Here's a pic of those (and other) figures, in case anyone is wondering:



Credit: Paleo-Nerd

@Halichoeres Do you really think we will eventually be getting figures of even all the basal ornithopods? 

Funnily enough, Ornithischia is the most represented group in my collection at the moment! And you got more theropods than I did this year!   

But sure enough, there are several theropods in my wish list, but since so many are getting made these days, I'm not in a hurry to get the lipless ones at least.

[Sim]

If Battat kept on producing figures I might not have replaced the ones I had.  I did enjoy them while I had them though.

I understand about not wanting to get figures to stand-in for other species, I don't do it either.  I have both Safari's 2019 Allosaurus and PNSO's Paul and I'm very happy with both.  I do recommend them, but I undrestand you have your reasons for not wanting them in your collection ... for now at least

I don't expect an Achelousaurus figure anytime soon, unfortunately.  It's an interesting animal, but it seems there's not much interest in it.  I hope that's incorrect!  If someone were to make it, PNSO seems the most likely to me.  I remember I was getting frustrated when Safari was making a new ceratopsid almost every year because they were lacking good versions of other types of dinosaurs.  But I feel we've reached a point where nearly every prehistoric animal type is represented appropriately as figures.  So I'd like Safari to make ceratopsids again now.

Vitae seemed to be improving every few releases, it is unfortunate they had to shut down.

[Concavenator]

@Sim So I guess in the end you weren't really dissatisfied with Battat, because them continuing with the series is an external factor unrelated to the figures themselves...  I think I would follow the opposite approach. To some extent, I like to have a diversity of companies and lines represented in my collection, a representative at least. So if I had several Battats, I would try holding onto at least 1, unless there's another version that is clearly better.

Yeah, Achelousaurus is not necessarily a genus I would envision getting made anytime soon. It's not in the Top 3 most famous ceratopsids (Triceratops, Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus) nor is it a particularly recently-described taxon either (which usually get the preference too). And since the closely related Pachyrhinosaurus happens to be one of the most famous members of the group, that might be another reason why Achelousaurus in particular gets overshadowed (just as Styracosaurus overshadows Centrosaurus). In any case, Achelousaurus is still a ceratopsid, and ceratopsids are popular, so I don't think it's impossible for it to eventually be made justice. If anything, I'd deem it's more likely Achelousaurus will get a good figure than something like a basal ornithopod or even some theropods, like the more unusual dromaeosaurids (unenlagiines, halszkaraptorines, microraptorians), troodontids, alvarezsaurids...

Achelousaurus would also have been a much better choice for the BotM ceratopsian series than the scrappy Wendiceratops they chose. Just as Austroraptor would have made a lot more sense than Achillobator as well.

If you eventually feel like you just need an Achelousaurus, you can always commission an artist to do one for you. Christopher Chávez would be a great choice off the top of my head. That said, it would most likely be made of resin, and you might be interested in having it painted as well, so it would not be an affordable purchase.

I used to have both Vitae's Jinyunpelta and "Zhejiangosaurus" and the former definitely had crisper detailing, more elaborate paint application and felt more premium overall, so I have to agree with the notion that Vitae was improving. The Tiantaiosaurus was great as well. If only they were back...

[Halichoeres]

@Halichoeres Do you really think we will eventually be getting figures of even all the basal ornithopods? 

Depends what you mean by "ornithopod..." Anyway I don't expect every genus will be made, but I do expect that eventually someone will make enough of them to cover most of the obvious morphological variation.

Speaking of Vitae, for me the most tragic thing isn't the Achelousaurus--I do think every ceratopsid will get a figure in time--but their marine reptiles. They were going to finally make some mosasaurs other than Mosasaurus and Tylosaurus!

[Concavenator]

@Halichoeres I see why the Plioplatecarpus is a miss, but is the Kaikaifilu that big of a loss? Nothing against the figure, actually, it looked really good, but Kaikaifilu has poor remains. The most interesting aspect about it might be that it was discovered in Antarctica. That said, had it been released, I bet it would have been very popular among Prehistoric Planet's fans!

[Primeval12]

He's just a silly little guy and I love him

@Halichoeres I see why the Plioplatecarpus is a miss, but is the Kaikaifilu that big of a loss? Nothing against the figure, actually, it looked really good, but Kaikaifilu has poor remains. The most interesting aspect about it might be that it was discovered in Antarctica. That said, had it been released, I bet it would have been very popular among Prehistoric Planet's fans!

...



Binomial name: Shunosaurus lii (Dong, Zhou & Zhang, 1983)
Name etymology: Li Bing's Sichuan lizard (Chinese and Greek)
Classified as: Dinosauria -> Sauropodomorpha -> Bagualosauria -> Massopoda -> Sauropodiformes -> Sauropoda -> Eusauropoda
Period: Late Jurassic (Oxfordian)
Fossils found in: Xiashaximiao Formation, present day China (Asia)

Company: Safari Ltd.
Line: Wild Safari Prehistoric World
Sculptor: Doug Watson
Year of release: 2016

Review:

Spoiler

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 @Sim '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 @Fembrogon 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 #8 if you ask me.

[close]

[Sim]

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

[Image removed]

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.

The arch over the nostril in dinosaurs seems to be a bony support for the soft tissue nostrils that is enveloped in them, making the life appearance hide the arch shape.  This is how I see it restored by professional palaeoartists.

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?

Regarding the thumb claws being off the ground, I remember @Doug Watson saying that when he sculpted the Safari Camarasaurus with its thumb claws off the ground this was based on published data.  I get the impression that for some sauropods at least the thumb claw was kept off the ground.  In Scott Hartman's skeletal of Shunosaurus that you provided the animal has its thumb claws off the ground!

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.

Personally I prefer the scales of the Shunosaurus to stippled texture.

Shunosaurus is way more interesting (and relevant) than huge titanosaur #8 if you ask me.

YES!

[Halichoeres]

@Halichoeres I see why the Plioplatecarpus is a miss, but is the Kaikaifilu that big of a loss? Nothing against the figure, actually, it looked really good, but Kaikaifilu has poor remains. The most interesting aspect about it might be that it was discovered in Antarctica. That said, had it been released, I bet it would have been very popular among Prehistoric Planet's fans!

Well, when it comes to marine reptiles, beggars can't be choosers...

I'm glad Safari made this little Shunosaurus. Another genus Vitae had planned, as you pointed out above, but its loss hurts less with this one on the market, even as short-lived as it was.

[Concavenator]

Thank you for the comments! 

The arch over the nostril in dinosaurs seems to be a bony support for the soft tissue nostrils that is enveloped in them, making the life appearance hide the arch shape.  This is how I see it restored by professional palaeoartists.

That certainly is a possibility. A skull shape not totally matching could be attributed to soft tissue if one wants to believe that, it's perfectly valid. I mostly mentioned it because it is common to depict dinosaur skulls just by following the silhouette (even if some artists depict external soft tissue). However, considering both the possibility of external soft tissue and the tiny size of the figure's head, this aspect doesn't really bother me.

Regarding the thumb claws being off the ground, I remember @Doug Watson saying that when he sculpted the Safari Camarasaurus with its thumb claws off the ground this was based on published data.  I get the impression that for some sauropods at least the thumb claw was kept off the ground.  In Scott Hartman's skeletal of Shunosaurus that you provided the animal has its thumb claws off the ground!

Thank you for the info! To be honest, when I was writing the post I vaguely recalled having read somewhere that sauropods had their thumb claws off the ground, but I did a search and didn't find mention of this anywhere. Perhaps I was thinking about what @Doug Watson said. Instead, I read that sauropods had their thumb claws in contact with the ground because that's what their tracks suggest. As I understand it, the latter is the more common situation, even if there may have been some exceptions. I'm not really sure on the matter, though.

It's true that in Hartman's skeletal the Shunosaurus has its thumb claws raised, but from what I've seen, that's the case with most of his sauropod skeletals as well.

All things considered, what I really find odd about the thumb claws is not that they are off the ground, but rather that they are facing downwards. I don't recall ever seeing a sauropod's manus reconstructed like that. That's one of the two main issues I have with the figure, the other being the proportions, which while probably not very off, I wish they resembled Hartman's skeletal more closely (not Doug's fault, I know, since his figure is from 2016 and Hartman's skeletal is from 2022).

Well, when it comes to marine reptiles, beggars can't be choosers...

I'm glad Safari made this little Shunosaurus. Another genus Vitae had planned, as you pointed out above, but its loss hurts less with this one on the market, even as short-lived as it was.

I can also understand that, there have been quite a few figures of poorly-known megatheropods recently, so a Kaikaifilu wouldn't hurt! 

Sure, at least we got Safari's. It's a pity it was retired, I guess people are not into non-massive sauropods that much...

[Flaffy]

I couldn't get over how crudely painted the heads of all the copies I've seen of the Shunosaurus were. (both online and in person)

I probably would've picked it up if the figure was larger and/or if mouth was sculpted closed back in 2016. Not sure why Safari decided to make the Shunosaurus so small when the factory didn't have the precision to paint such minute details. Even the promo pics looked far superior to the final product. I have faith that PNSO or HLG will step up to produce new figures of this genus.

[Concavenator]

@Flaffy I actually think the head itself is well painted, I'd say it's just the teeth that were handled really badly. I saw BionicleSaurus' review and he mentioned how the CollectA juvenile Tyrannosaurus (2014) has better painted teeth despite also being very small. I know these are quite affordable figures, but I don't think a better paint app is asking too much. Indeed, they could also have gotten away with this just by depicting it with its mouth closed, I don't understand why didn't they do that.

As for the size, @Halichoeres estimated its scale to be 1:50, so it's perhaps a bit too small for most people. That said, I recall Doug said he made it that size so it would be in scale with his Apatosaurus. Though I would say the most obvious outlier in the sauropod department was the ginormous Amargasaurus! 

It would be interesting to see a Shunosaurus by PNSO or HLG! I could even see MENG releasing one. PNSO at least recently showed this piece:



In any case, to play it safe I got Safari's, at least in the meanwhile.

[Concavenator]

*deleted*

[Sim]

Well-spotted on the curvature on the forehead being absend on the Haolonggood Tlatolophus!  However I think it might be due to the crest's keratin increasing the size of the crest and making it flow smoothly with the rest of the head.

But with something like a premaxilla being shorter than in the fossil itself, there's no excuse.

You might be surprised how often inaccuracies are present in figures of animal species that are still alive today!  It's quite frequent!  And members on the Animal Toy Forum are quite tolerant of inaccuracies on extant animal figures!  It's been a surprise to me, and I find it interesting people tend to care more about accuracy in the prehistoric animal model community than in the extant animal model community.  I'm not sure what to think of this!

[Dusty Wren]

That's a lovely figure, @Concavenator, and I'm so glad it finally got to you. I considered ordering it, but I'm a little wary of making expensive purchases from small studios or individual artists (a concern that's not unfounded in this case, I guess). I'm still debating on the Haolonggood. You're right about the premaxilla, and it bugs me for the reasons you mentioned.