HAOLONGGOOD - New for 2024

[thomasw100]

B is actually a minotaurosaurus skull

But the figure caption states: "Crania of MPC 100/151, holotype of Saichania chulsanensis (A) and INBR21004, Tarchia kielanae (B) in anterior view. INBR21004 represented by cast specimen UALVP 49402. See list in text for an explanation of anatomical abbreviations."

[Sim]

Another issue I see is that the big posterior back osteoderms are placed at the base of the tail, where they should be placed on its hips.

I thought only the front half of Saichania is known?

And yeah, the second skull in Thomas's image is Minotaurasaurus.  It's the holotype of it, which was considered a specimen of Tachia by Arbour et al., but more recent studies found Minotaurasaurus to be valid and Tarchia to have different-looking skulls.

[thebermuda303]

Another issue I see is that the big posterior back osteoderms are placed at the base of the tail, where they should be placed on its hips.

I thought only the front half of Saichania is known?

And yeah, the second skull in Thomas's image is Minotaurasaurus.  It's the holotype of it, which was considered a specimen of Tachia by Arbour et al., but more recent studies found Minotaurasaurus to be valid and Tarchia to have different-looking skulls.

There is one almost fully complete specimen if I recall correctly. Most other Mongolian ankylosaurs have that big osteoderm placed right on the back of the hip.

[thebermuda303]

B is actually a minotaurosaurus skull

But the figure caption states: "Crania of MPC 100/151, holotype of Saichania chulsanensis (A) and INBR21004, Tarchia kielanae (B) in anterior view. INBR21004 represented by cast specimen UALVP 49402. See list in text for an explanation of anatomical abbreviations."

Taxonomy of Mongolian ankylosaurids is mostly a hot mess. A lot of genera have been switched around and that's the case for minotaurosaurus, among a few other dinos.

[Sim]

Taxonomy of Mongolian ankylosaurids is mostly a hot mess. A lot of genera have been switched around and that's the case for minotaurosaurus, among a few other dinos.

I think it's the case for ankylosaurids in general.  It's mostly due to Arbour and Penkalski disagreeing on ankylosaurid taxonomy.  Penkalski has been supported by papers by other authors, so I'm going with his taxonomy for now...

Most other Mongolian ankylosaurs have that big osteoderm placed right on the back of the hip.

I've seen some indeterminate Mongolian ankylosaurid specimens with a large osteoderm on the hip, but as far as I can tell the Haolonggood Saichania is in accordance with that, as shown in the image below it does have a large osteoderm pair on the hips.  The second large osteoderm pair posterior to those is speculative as far as I'm aware, but I don't think it's an inaccuracy if no Saichania specimen has the osteoderms of that area preserved.

[Halichoeres]

I don't have a Saichania yet, so I am certain to get one of these. Not sure which color yet. I'll have to look at similar taxa I have purchased by HLG and pick whatever is most different from what I already have LOL.

I think I'm going with gray. The only other gray ankylosaur I have from HLG is the Edmontonia, which similarly has some color on the underside (red rather than the yellow on this one). But they'll be far enough apart on the shelf that they won't interfere with each other visually.

[bmathison1972]

I don't have a Saichania yet, so I am certain to get one of these. Not sure which color yet. I'll have to look at similar taxa I have purchased by HLG and pick whatever is most different from what I already have LOL.

I think I'm going with gray. The only other gray ankylosaur I have from HLG is the Edmontonia, which similarly has some color on the underside (red rather than the yellow on this one). But they'll be far enough apart on the shelf that they won't interfere with each other visually.

Looking at pics on the preview on the DTB, I think I am also going to go grey for this one!

[Skorpio V.]

I know I'm late, but since were talking about accuracy and I dint see much convo about it, how's HLGs Gastonia in terms of accuracy

The osteoderms of Gastonia were found disarticulated, so all skeletals and reconstructions are speculative. Theirs follows the 2010 Greg Paul skeletal roughly. You can see the model right next to the skeletal in this thread on the forum: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=152.2680

[oscars_dinos]

I know I'm late, but since were talking about accuracy and I dint see much convo about it, how's HLGs Gastonia in terms of accuracy

The osteoderms of Gastonia were found disarticulated, so all skeletal and reconstructions are speculative. Theirs follows the 2010 Greg Paul skeletal roughly. You can see the model right next to the skeletal in this thread on the forum: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=152.2680

to my somewhat untrained eye it seems not too accurate but... these are times I wish dinodragon did a review lol

[suspsy]

Seven more dinosaurs still to be revealed. And didn't Haolonggood say they had even more in store for this year?

[Bread]

Seven more dinosaurs still to be revealed. And didn't Haolonggood say they had even more in store for this year?

Yes they confirmed there would be more releases, but the list/poster is priority.

I'm still hoping for the Amargasaurus to be next (please)

[Concavenator]

I'm still hoping for the Amargasaurus to be next (please)

If they managed to correct the neck sail, count me in!

[Bread]

I'm still hoping for the Amargasaurus to be next (please)

If they managed to correct the neck sail, count me in!

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I could go either way on the sail. Unless it's truly definitive, because as far as I know it's still debatable?

[Torvosaurus]

I'm still hoping for the Amargasaurus to be next (please)

If they managed to correct the neck sail, count me in!

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I could go either way on the sail. Unless it's truly definitive, because as far as I know it's still debatable?

Right now it's the popular opinion that the spines supported skin between them.

Has anything been postulated for Bajadasaurus spines? It seems unlikely they didn't support something.

Torvo

[Sim]

The paper that found Amargasaurus to have sails over its spines found the same for Bajadasaurus.

[thomasw100]

The paper that found Amargasaurus to have sails over its spines found the same for Bajadasaurus.

Is this conclusion now consensus in the paleontological community or is there still debate about this?

[Sim]

Is this conclusion now consensus in the paleontological community or is there still debate about this?

There's been no disagreement with the paper's conclusion as far as I'm aware.

[Concavenator]

Is this conclusion now consensus in the paleontological community or is there still debate about this?

There's been no disagreement with the paper's conclusion as far as I'm aware.

Exactly. So an Amargasaurus without fully-covered neck spines would now be considered inaccurate.

The paper behind this reasoning is this one.

There's also a really good video talking about this paper (and therefore, what an up-to-date Amargasaurus reconstruction should look like):

On another note, I highly recommend this channel, it's fun and informative to watch. Been following it for a good while.

[thomasw100]

Seven more dinosaurs still to be revealed. And didn't Haolonggood say they had even more in store for this year?

I really hope that among the ones that have not been in the catalogue will be one of the two remaining large sauropods, either Brachiosaurus or Argentinosaurus.

They said at some point that they plan to make 30 figures this year. The catalogue page shows 15 and before that 2 were released (Alamosaurus and Chasmosaurus). If they stick to their plans, there could be 10 or so more.

[Turkeysaurus]

Just quick thoughts.. If you could only buy one, would you prefer W-Dragon Giraffatitan or HLG Alamosaurus? Let's say prices are equal.