HAOLONGGOOD - New for 2024

[bmathison1972]

Looks like I'll probably get 7 of those in that teaser poster:

Huayangosaurus
Saichania
Gastonia
Euoplocephalus
Maisaura
Utahceratops
Xenoceratops

...so, basically the genera I don't have yet LOL

[Concavenator]

[Concavenator]

L @Leyster Do you know if the ornithischian expert at Paleo-Nerd will also be reviewing HLG's Edmontosaurus?

Still debating on whether to go with PNSO's or HLG's version...

[Concavenator]

From the review:



Edmontosaurus by CollectA, Safari and Haolonggood.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I love the HLG the most there, just wish it was bigger like the CollectA.

[Flaffy]

I'm surprised the HLG Edmontosaurus is smaller than the Safari one.

In Darian's opinion this represents E. annectens. Is there a second opinion on what species this represents? PNSO's Edmontosaurus still confuses me a bit too if anyone could share some knowledge on that front.

[Prehistory Resurrection]

[TlatolophusJuanorum]

I'm surprised the HLG Edmontosaurus is smaller than the Safari one.

In Darian's opinion this represents E. annectens. Is there a second opinion on what species this represents? PNSO's Edmontosaurus still confuses me a bit too if anyone could share some knowledge on that front.

As far as I could tell by the form of their skulls, PNSOs Zabad is mostly E.annectens while HLGs Edmontos are E.regalis. I made a few posts back then explaining my posture about it, but for a more educated guess I made some direct comparisons with both E.annectens and E.regalis skulls. (I hope DinosDragons gets more into the topic in his long awaited video for better insight than mines.)


Here is Zabad comparison, what do you think? That nasal lump aside, the skull for me matches better for E.annectens.
On the other hand, here is Xiao Rang comparison


For my own perspective, it actually resembles more an E.regalis.
But, what do you all think about this? Any more educated opinion? It is always a great concern regarding species matching issues. I think we should have better insight from every company when this kind of troubles arises. PNSOs video never clarifies which species they are talking about, only they seem to make a promotional video on Edmontosaurus. HLG seems more consistent in this regard by establishing more definite autopomorphies for their figures.

[Concavenator]

Zabad resembles the Edmontosaurus at the back (left) of this illustration. Since those Edmontosaurus are shown to be coexisting with Tyrannosaurus, I wouldn't be surprised if Zabad was meant to represent E. annectens, the Hell Creek species of Edmontosaurus. Its skull looks narrower and lower than HLG's I'd say, so regardless of the presence of the crest (which sometimes E. annectens is depicted with), I'd be tempted to ID it as E. annectens too on a morphological basis.

On the other hand, and as far as I've found, E. regalis is known from the Horseshoe Canyon (Vanderven et al. 2014) and Wapiti formations (Bell et al. 2014). So unless PNSO's Zabad is different from the Edmontosaurus in that illustration and PNSO mistook E. regalis for coexisting with T. rex (which I doubt), then that could be another reason to ID Zabad as E. annectens.

I'm afraid I can't give a more definitive answer, so I will wait for Paleo-Nerd's review of the PNSO Edmontosaurus. If I find out PNSO's and HLG's Edmontosaurus represent E. annectens and E. regalis, respectively, then I will go with HLG's for representing E. regalis (my preferred species), or viceversa.

[Gwangi]

Since there is no clear consensus on which species the PNSO or HLG Edmontosaurus represents why don't folks just use it to represent whatever they want it to be? Seems like it's pretty much up to personal interpretation. 

[postsaurischian]

....... why don't folks just use it to represent whatever they want it to be? Seems like it's pretty much up to personal interpretation. 

 I've been doing this all of my life .

[SRF]

Zabad resembles the Edmontosaurus at the back (left) of this illustration. Since those Edmontosaurus are shown to be coexisting with Tyrannosaurus, I wouldn't be surprised if Zabad was meant to represent E. annectens, the Hell Creek species of Edmontosaurus. Its skull looks narrower and lower than HLG's I'd say, so regardless of the presence of the crest (which sometimes E. annectens is depicted with), I'd be tempted to ID it as E. annectens too on a morphological basis.

On the other hand, and as far as I've found, E. regalis is known from the Horseshoe Canyon (Vanderven et al. 2014) and Wapiti formations (Bell et al. 2014). So unless PNSO's Zabad is different from the Edmontosaurus in that illustration and PNSO mistook E. regalis for coexisting with T. rex (which I doubt), then that could be another reason to ID Zabad as E. annectens.

I'm afraid I can't give a more definitive answer, so I will wait for Paleo-Nerd's review of the PNSO Edmontosaurus. If I find out PNSO's and HLG's Edmontosaurus represent E. annectens and E. regalis, respectively, then I will go with HLG's for representing E. regalis (my preferred species), or viceversa.

PNSO's Edmontosaurus also features in some artwork that came with their Torosaurus, also featuring T. Rex.

http://www.pnso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/16%E7%89%9B%E8%A7%92%E9%BE%99A3%E6%B5%B7%E6%8A%A5-%E8%8B%B1_09-1536x1086.jpg

[Concavenator]

Since there is no clear consensus on which species the PNSO or HLG Edmontosaurus represents why don't folks just use it to represent whatever they want it to be? Seems like it's pretty much up to personal interpretation. 

More than being up to personal interpretation, I think what happens here is that some of us (me included) are not versed enough on the matter, so we come with our own interpretations based on the information we've gathered. I'm confident somebody more knowledgeable on the matter could give a more reliable answer, like the ornithischian expert at Paleo-Nerd (which I'm assuming is Dr. Filippo Bertozzo).

As to why some collectors don't like using "stand-ins", I can't speak for others, but I can easily think of 2 reasons why:

- It's scientifically inaccurate (for the most part). For instance, something like using a Lufengosaurus as a stand-in for Plateosaurus is just inaccurate, both genera have morphological differences. And using a Saurophaganax as a stand-in for Allosaurus, while I'm not sure it could be considered as inaccurate (as for the moment Saurophaganax depictions are literally depictions of Allosaurus with a bigger size and a different name), here comes the 2nd reason:

- It's less satisfactory. There's a reason in recent times brand new figures of genera like Utahraptor, Chasmosaurus, Centrosaurus, etc. have been so well-received. These are genera that have been requested over and over in our community for years. Had you gotten any figure as a stand-in for said genera, I guess you would still be interested in those species getting made. So let's say you use "stand-ins", they would merely be a stopgap measure.

[Gwangi]

Since there is no clear consensus on which species the PNSO or HLG Edmontosaurus represents why don't folks just use it to represent whatever they want it to be? Seems like it's pretty much up to personal interpretation. 

More than being up to personal interpretation, I think what happens here is that some of us (me included) are not versed enough on the matter, so we come with our own interpretations based on the information we've gathered. I'm confident somebody more knowledgeable on the matter could give a more reliable answer, like the ornithischian expert at Paleo-Nerd (which I'm assuming is Dr. Filippo Bertozzo).

As to why some collectors don't like using "stand-ins", I can't speak for others, but I can easily think of 2 reasons why:

- It's scientifically inaccurate (for the most part). For instance, something like using a Lufengosaurus as a stand-in for Plateosaurus is just inaccurate, both genera have morphological differences. And using a Saurophaganax as a stand-in for Allosaurus, while I'm not sure it could be considered as inaccurate (as for the moment Saurophaganax depictions are literally depictions of Allosaurus with a bigger size and a different name), here comes the 2nd reason:

- It's less satisfactory. There's a reason in recent times brand new figures of genera like Utahraptor, Chasmosaurus, Centrosaurus, etc. have been so well-received. These are genera that have been requested over and over in our community for years. Had you gotten any figure as a stand-in for said genera, I guess you would still be interested in those species getting made. So let's say you use "stand-ins", they would merely be a stopgap measure.

I'm just saying, I've seen what seems like endless discussion over which species these two Edmontosaurus figures represent without any consensus. This isn't something like Plateosaurus vs. Lufengosaurus...two different genera from different parts of the world that lived during different periods. These two Edmontosaurus are in the same genus, from the same continent, and separated by only a couple million years. To be clear, I have no issues with wanting both species when the difference between them is obvious, like with Pachyrhinosaurus or Stegosaurus. If the difference was obvious between the two Edmontosaurus species I would probably want both too. But when this amount of discussion lasts this long with no clear conclusion maybe it's time to throw in the towel. Maybe...just maybe...it doesn't really matter which species a toy exhibiting external anatomy of an animal we've never seen can be identified as. Examples like Utahraptor, Chasmosaurus, and Centrosaurus don't work because there really aren't good stand-ins for those. They're different genera with their own unique features.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket if this is fun for y'all but seeing people groan "oh no, not ANOTHER E. regalis" only to then go back-and-forth for months on if it is or isn't E. regalis makes me think people are being a bit too pedantic about it and that this isn't a real issue worth getting anxious about. And you said it yourself, you're not well versed enough to come to a clear conclusion, but that just makes me wonder why it matters at all then. 

[SidB]

By default, I've sorta reverted to this same position regarding these two species. I've too much on my plate , so to speak, to try to resolve the precise details of the morphological distinctions, if that's really possible at this point for the raw layperson, such as myself, so, for now at least, I'm contenting myself with the PNSO Edmontosaurus. Then again, space issues are becoming more acute and limitations have to be set.

[Concavenator]

@Gwangi Of course a Lufengosaurus wouldn't work as a Plateosaurus, but that was my point. Using this sort of "stand-ins" is scientifically inaccurate. However, not everyone cares about scientific accuracy. And I've seen several people already comment on how they're planning to use PNSO's new Lufengosaurus as the Plateosaurus for their collections.

And when it comes to "stand-ins" for Utahraptor/Chasmosaurus/Centrosaurus. Imagine there's no Safari or Creative Beast Utahraptor. If I showed you an image of one of the upcoming Creative Beast Achillobator figures and told you it's an Utahraptor, would you believe it?

As for Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus. Someone could consider Vagaceratops and Spinops to be Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus species, respectively. Prior to 2010, Vagaceratops was called Chasmosaurus irvinensis. And some people consider Spinops to be a species of Centrosaurus (Centrosaurus sternbergorum). So some people may have been using Safari's Vagaceratops and PNSO's Spinops as Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus figures, respectively, prior to the release of HLG's Chasmosaurus and PNSO's Centrosaurus. Not what one will envision when thinking of those genera (C. belli/C. russelli and C. apertus) but still within the same genera. If used as "stand-ins" for those species, Vagaceratops and Spinops wouldn't work, but again, I already went on how using these stand-ins is scientifically inaccurate.

As to why the ID of the species matters, in my case it's because (apart from caring about scientific accuracy) I only collect a single figure per genus, and I don't do exceptions. So for a polytypic genus, I'd rather get a figure of my preferred species.

[Gwangi]

@Gwangi Of course a Lufengosaurus wouldn't work as a Plateosaurus, but that was my point. Using this sort of "stand-ins" is scientifically inaccurate. However, not everyone cares about scientific accuracy. And I've seen several people already comment on how they're planning to use PNSO's new Lufengosaurus as the Plateosaurus for their collections.

And when it comes to "stand-ins" for Utahraptor/Chasmosaurus/Centrosaurus. Imagine there's no Safari or Creative Beast Utahraptor. If I showed you an image of one of the upcoming Creative Beast Achillobator figures and told you it's an Utahraptor, would you believe it?

As for Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus. Someone could consider Vagaceratops and Spinops to be Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus species, respectively. Prior to 2010, Vagaceratops was called Chasmosaurus irvinensis. And some people consider Spinops to be a species of Centrosaurus (Centrosaurus sternbergorum). So some people may have been using Safari's Vagaceratops and PNSO's Spinops as Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus figures, respectively, prior to the release of HLG's Chasmosaurus and PNSO's Centrosaurus. Not what one will envision when thinking of those genera (C. belli/C. russelli and C. apertus) but still within the same genera. If used as "stand-ins" for those species, Vagaceratops and Spinops wouldn't work, but again, I already went on how using these stand-ins is scientifically inaccurate.

As to why the ID of the species matters, in my case it's because (apart from caring about scientific accuracy) I only collect a single figure per genus, and I don't do exceptions. So for a polytypic genus, I'd rather get a figure of my preferred species.

We're on the same page for most of this, I feel like I made a lot of these same points in my last post. Obviously Vagaceratops cannot stand-in for Chasmosaurus belli, no matter what you call it. Or to use one of my own examples, Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai cannot stand-in for P. canadensis. Not if you're trying to reconstruct the ecosystem of a specific formation or whatever. In those instances it's justifiable to want both, they're clearly distinct from each other at a skeletal level. But on the subject of Edmontosaurus, it very much seems like one can stand-in for the other in the absence of a clear identification.

As for your Utahraptor analogy. I probably would believe that your suggested Achillobator was a Utahraptor at face value. And I wouldn't take issue with someone using one to stand-in for the other. Like how some folks use the PNSO Zhuchengtyrannus as a T. rex stand-in. I don't like doing that, to me the figure has to represent the genus it is advertised as. But at the species level, when identification is not provided and there's no big difference between species, I can be more flexible. I'm not about to rack my brain too hard over identifying a toy at the species level. I guess we all draw our own lines though.

And again, to your last point, if you have a preferred species of Edmontosaurus but cannot confidently identify which species the toy is, then maybe it's time to just get the one you like most. There's clearly wiggle room here. I feel like even a lot of experts would be pretty lenient on this one. I'm willing to bet a lot of them also wouldn't be able to agree on what long extinct species a toy is meant to represent.

[Pinbacker]

I just received the green Haolonggood Edmontosaurus yesterday, it's a beautiful model. Both the PNSO and Haolonggood models are great. I'm using the PNSO Edomontosaurus as annectens and the Haolonggood Edmontosaurus as a smaller specimen of regalis.

[dragon53]

[thomasw100]

Some interesting pictures appeared on the Haolonggood Facebook account. They look like two designer editions of the Dacentrurus.