The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Concavenator]

Siats? At first glance it looked like an Albertosaurus to me (didn't notice it had 3 fingers)! Of course, since the thing is so fragmentary, it's total fantasy.

[Halichoeres]

Thanks for stopping by, everyone! I've updated Page 1.

That new Majungasaurus compliments the Carnotaurus very nicely.

Yeah, they're not really in scale, but they still look good together. It actually scales better with Safari's pterosaur! Majungasaurus was not huge.

Now someone needs to make a proper Simosuchus for the Majunga to chase...

After appearing in Prehistoric Planet, maybe Simosuchus has a fighting chance. Watch, it'll be Mattel.

I hadn't realised the pterosaur freebie was so tiny - thanks for the comparison shot!  I chose the same colour scheme for the Alamosaurus as you, but mine isn't coming till next week as I can't be in till then during the day to receive the parcel.  I strongly agree with you that it would be great if Haolonggood made smaller taxa at a larger scale.  My collection feels incomplete without their presence.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wants some of the little guys! In the meantime, I'm sure you'll love this Alamosaurus, it's a beauty. I just wish I could have shot it in better light.

Siats? At first glance it looked like an Albertosaurus to me (didn't notice it had 3 fingers)! Of course, since the thing is so fragmentary, it's total fantasy.

Maybe that's why they named it after a fantastical entity...

[triceratops83]

You were never tempted by the PNSO Alamosaurus? I'm torn, because I like the size of the Haolonggood, but I prefer the sculpt, particularly the head, of the PNSO. I might just get both.

[Concavenator]

@Halichoeres I'm curious, have you decided whether you will be going with PNSO's or HLG's Edmontosaurus? I'm having a very hard time deciding which one to go for... Both have their prons and their cons.

[Halichoeres]

You were never tempted by the PNSO Alamosaurus? I'm torn, because I like the size of the Haolonggood, but I prefer the sculpt, particularly the head, of the PNSO. I might just get both.

I absolutely was tempted by PNSO's. It's probably closer to 1:35 for the most definitely-Alamosaurus material, whereas HLG's is a better match for larger referred material. I think they could work together to show the size range possible in a single genus. I went for HLG's largely because of the head, which I prefer to PNSO's. Exposed teeth are not as unsightly on sauropods as they are on theropods, but I still prefer not to have them, so that was the tiebreaker.

@Halichoeres I'm curious, have you decided whether you will be going with PNSO's or HLG's Edmontosaurus? I'm having a very hard time deciding which one to go for... Both have their prons and their cons.

This is a tough one, too. I'm leaning toward Haolonggood's for now because I prefer the paint job. I might prefer it slightly larger, but I think I'd find the PNSO a little TOO large. I might even buy both, compare, and then trade away the runner-up.

[Flaffy]

@Halichoeres I'm curious, have you decided whether you will be going with PNSO's or HLG's Edmontosaurus? I'm having a very hard time deciding which one to go for... Both have their prons and their cons.

This is a tough one, too. I'm leaning toward Haolonggood's for now because I prefer the paint job. I might prefer it slightly larger, but I think I'd find the PNSO a little TOO large. I might even buy both, compare, and then trade away the runner-up.

Could always go the regalis x annectens route and get both

[Sim]

Exposed teeth are not as unsightly on sauropods as they are on theropods

I'm surprised to read that!  For me it's definitely the opposite.  I feel the exposed teeth on PNSO's sauropods look terrible.

[Flaffy]

Exposed teeth are not as unsightly on sauropods as they are on theropods

I'm surprised to read that!  For me it's definitely the opposite.  I feel the exposed teeth on PNSO's sauropods look terrible.

I am of the same opinion. Will sell off my PNSO Mamenchi in favour of the Haolonggood version. The Alamosaurus is a bit tricky though, I much prefer the posture and anatomy of PNSO's version, but HLG's one is spectacular in many other ways too.

[oscars_dinos]

You were never tempted by the PNSO Alamosaurus? I'm torn, because I like the size of the Haolonggood, but I prefer the sculpt, particularly the head, of the PNSO. I might just get both.

I absolutely was tempted by PNSO's. It's probably closer to 1:35 for the most definitely-Alamosaurus material, whereas HLG's is a better match for larger referred material. I think they could work together to show the size range possible in a single genus. I went for HLG's largely because of the head, which I prefer to PNSO's. Exposed teeth are not as unsightly on sauropods as they are on theropods, but I still prefer not to have them, so that was the tiebreaker.

So the pnso one is 1/35

[bmathison1972]

@Halichoeres I'm curious, have you decided whether you will be going with PNSO's or HLG's Edmontosaurus? I'm having a very hard time deciding which one to go for... Both have their prons and their cons.

This is a tough one, too. I'm leaning toward Haolonggood's for now because I prefer the paint job. I might prefer it slightly larger, but I think I'd find the PNSO a little TOO large. I might even buy both, compare, and then trade away the runner-up.

Could always go the regalis x annectens route and get both

Or blow them both off and stay with Safari's 

[Concavenator]

@oscars_dinos Rarely do organisms reach extreme sizes in nature, due to interactions with their environment and other organisms (be it with members of the same species or other species). So PNSO's could easily be in 1:35 scale for an average sized Alamosaurus. If we were to grow an Alamosaurus with unlimited resources, that could be a different story!

[oscars_dinos]

@oscars_dinos Rarely do organisms reach extreme sizes in nature, due to interactions with their environment and other organisms (be it with members of the same species or other species). So PNSO's could easily be in 1:35 scale for an average sized Alamosaurus. If we were to grow an Alamosaurus with unlimited resources, that could be a different story!

and the proportions wouldn't be different??

[Flaffy]

@oscars_dinos Rarely do organisms reach extreme sizes in nature, due to interactions with their environment and other organisms (be it with members of the same species or other species). So PNSO's could easily be in 1:35 scale for an average sized Alamosaurus. If we were to grow an Alamosaurus with unlimited resources, that could be a different story!

Indeed. USNM 15560 comes to mind.

[oscars_dinos]

@oscars_dinos Rarely do organisms reach extreme sizes in nature, due to interactions with their environment and other organisms (be it with members of the same species or other species). So PNSO's could easily be in 1:35 scale for an average sized Alamosaurus. If we were to grow an Alamosaurus with unlimited resources, that could be a different story!

Indeed. USNM 15560 comes to mind.

hmmmmmm the size was really the only thing that stopped me from getting it and I don't really like HGL's (hot take I know). I am getting HGL's mamenchi so I would hope if I end up getting the pnso alamo that the sculpt differences wouldn't look odd. Again if the proportions aren't off on the pnso for it being 1/35 I might just get it.

[Halichoeres]

Arthropods of the Cambrian! These are all from Oumcraft, released in painted versions in 2022, and several of them heavily influenced by the Palaeopedia Tumblr blog.


Waptia
Scale: 1:3 - 1:4
Middle Cambrian
Etymology: after Wapta Mountain in British Columbia, Canada
Waptia was first named in 1912, but it didn't get a proper description until 2018. It appears to be a mandibulate, on the lineage that would eventually produce true crustaceans, insects, and myriapods. This is a reasonable interpretation, with the little purple bits meants to represent the last pair of gills sticking out from the back of the carapace.


Habelia
Scale: 1:3
Middle Cambrian
Etymology: after Mount Habel in British Columbia, Canada
This isn't one of the best Oumcraft figures. Habelia was probably a very distant relative of spiders and horseshoe crabs, and it had a distinctive head (which, yes, had some texture), along with a flattened body with spines down the middle, and a long pointed telson (tail). This one looks a little like a freshly plucked turkey leg. I think the error comes from interpreting the Palaeopedia entry on Habelia incorrectly because of perspective. Anyway, in a couple of hundred figures, a few misses are certainly permitted.


Waptia and Habelia with ol' reliable, CollectA's Redlichia.


Apankura
Scale: 1:2
Late Cambrian
Etymology: Quechua "crab"
Until I was researching for this post, I had no idea that there were was a Cambrian formation in Argentina, the Santa Rosita formation. Another reason, besides all the great Triassic stuff, to be excited about Argentine paleontology! This faithfully reproduces the reconstruction in the description of Apankura, which the authors assign to the Mandibulata. 


Isoxys
Scale: 1:2
Middle to Late Cambrian
Etymology: Gr. "equal surfaces"
One of the bivalved arthropods, not to be confused with bivalve molluscs. Except for a couple of appendages and eyes sticking out front, the whole body was hidden under this carapace, here whimsically depicted in sky blue.


With Sidneyia from Safari's last prehistoric Toob (ever?).


Nereocaris
Scale: 1:6
Middle Cambrian
Etymology: Gr. "Nereus (god of waves) shrimp"
You'll be unsurprised to learn that this is a larger relative of Waptia above. They're even from the same formation! Unlike Waptia, it has these little hooklike projections on the front of its carapace. Another winner.


Being chased by Anomalocaris.


Odaraia
Scale: 1:7 - 1:8
Middle Cambrian
Etymology: after Odaray Mountain in British Columbia, Canada
Another tiny animal named after a mountain, and another bivalved arthropod. I guess the advantage to sculpting these is you can get away with skipping a lot of complicated appendages because they're hidden inside the shell. Odaraia had 45 or more pairs of appendages, so that's no small thing.


The seam along the top suggests that this figure depicts it swimming upside-down, a pretty reasonable hypothesis.

Exposed teeth are not as unsightly on sauropods as they are on theropods

I'm surprised to read that!  For me it's definitely the opposite.  I feel the exposed teeth on PNSO's sauropods look terrible.

I am of the same opinion. Will sell off my PNSO Mamenchi in favour of the Haolonggood version. The Alamosaurus is a bit tricky though, I much prefer the posture and anatomy of PNSO's version, but HLG's one is spectacular in many other ways too.

Understandable, but for me the exposed teeth are much more obvious on the larger heads of theropods. For the same reason, I think it's more reasonable to make a figure of a sauropod whose skull is unknown, if we have a decent fraction of the skeleton, than a theropod whose skull is unknown. It just contributes a smaller amount to the overall impression of the animal, in my view.

@oscars_dinos Rarely do organisms reach extreme sizes in nature, due to interactions with their environment and other organisms (be it with members of the same species or other species). So PNSO's could easily be in 1:35 scale for an average sized Alamosaurus. If we were to grow an Alamosaurus with unlimited resources, that could be a different story!

and the proportions wouldn't be different??

They might be, but I don't think we have enough material of Alamosaurus to be able to tell whether or how the proportions would differ.

[Faelrin]

It will be a sad day when you show off the last of the Life game figures (well for me, as I've been enjoying these posts).

I dig the pastel colors on these. I think they fit their bizarre natures pretty well.

[ceratopsian]

How do you display them? All together en masse?  Or dispersed amongst other figures?

[Halichoeres]

It will be a sad day when you show off the last of the Life game figures (well for me, as I've been enjoying these posts).

I dig the pastel colors on these. I think they fit their bizarre natures pretty well.

I am starting to run low. Maybe by the time I'm done we'll be hearing word of an expansion.

And yeah, the pastels work for small crustaceans, if they lived in a tropical environment.

How do you display them? All together en masse?  Or dispersed amongst other figures?

Dispersed, although like my other figures they're arranged by scale and then by time period. That means on some shelves they augment but don't overwhelm:


whereas elsewhere they have very little company:

[ceratopsian]

Thanks for the display photos and info @Halichoeres.

[Concavenator]

Very nice setup there!