Haolonggood - New for 2025

[Turkeysaurus]

The chad PNSO Alamosaurus vs the Loser HLG Brachiosaurus. lol

Then there is this guy with human teeth 

[Flaffy]

PNSO Alamo seems to also have teeth and a beak?

Yes, but PNSO sauropods don't have a deep artifical-looking groove that separates the keratinous pseudobeak and scaly skin.

Both the HLG Brachio and Argent has an obvious separation between soft and hard tissue. But at least on the Argentinosaurus, the texture change is not as noticeable as both skin and keratin has a rough texture. While on the Brachiosaurus, the sudden switch from scaly skin to smooth grooved keratin is very jarring.

[Ajax88]

I could honestly care less about tooth count in a sauropod whose skull we haven't even found. Lips on the Argent are a blessing though.

[stargatedalek]

Turtles, vultures, and many fish have lips and beaks, it's not that "out there" of a thing to try and depict.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I don't see paying shipping and repair costs on a couple lines on a head that's only half an inch of so long. Could it have been made different? Yeah, but sitting on my shelf from 5-6' away I won't even see it.

[Turkeysaurus]

It seems like they took PNSO route with beaks & teeth so not that strange. Maybe just a bit sharper&deper lines around the beak.

Fleshy nasal area, throat pouch, little iguana  spikes on top of it's head. Positives outweights negatives with a great margin in this model.

And more importantly Haolonggood give us another 1:35 giant.

[Flaffy]

Turtles, vultures, and many fish have lips and beaks, it's not that "out there" of a thing to try and depict.

I am not arguing against this hypothesis, as the authors of the Camarasaurus beak paper make a good argument for why they think a pseudobeak might be present based on tooth wear patterns, dental bone & enamel morphology, and direct soft tissue evidence of such a covering.

The purpose of the pseudobeak as hypothesised by the authors of the paper, is to:
1) "Provide protection from abrasive plant matter during feeding"
2) "Provide a continuous cutting surface mini-mizing the gaps caused by tooth replacement"
  - via stabilising non-anchored rootless teeth in place before they are shed

Moreover the authors observed that strong connective tissue and gingiva would've covered at least half the height of the crown in life. Hence only the very tips of the crown would be visible. Alternative proposals like large scales and robust gingiva (e.g. in Iguanas lizards) rather than a full beak are mentioned in the paper and are equally valid to my knowledge.

The way HLG chose to reconstruct the pseudobeak on the Brachiosaurus (and PNSO sauropods) however directly contradicts the conclusions from the authors. The authors make no arguments in favour of exposed teeth, nor does the teeth morphology support this given their highly vascularised nature. The recessed oral tissue resulting in a high degree of tooth exposure on these figures is simply inconsistent with fossil evidence. It seems paradoxical to me to include spectulative structures like a pseudobeak, yet go the conservative route of having the teeth itself be exposed.

As it stands, I feel like a lot of paleoartists simply heard "sauropod beaks" and ran with it. Rather than trying to understand the fundemental principles of why such a structure would exist, and the arguments for/against it. Again, feels like the paleomeme of "Edmontosaurus hooves", where some folk reconstructed the manus in a similar fashion to mammalian equid limbs rather than base their reconstructions on the actual fossil.

[Manospundylus gigas]

Turtles, vultures, and many fish have lips and beaks, it's not that "out there" of a thing to try and depict.

I am not arguing against this hypothesis, as the authors of the Camarasaurus beak paper make a good argument for why they think a pseudobeak might be present based on tooth wear patterns, dental bone & enamel morphology, and direct soft tissue evidence of such a covering.

The purpose of the pseudobeak as hypothesised by the authors of the paper, is to:
1) "Provide protection from abrasive plant matter during feeding"
2) "Provide a continuous cutting surface mini-mizing the gaps caused by tooth replacement"
  - via stabilising non-anchored rootless teeth in place before they are shed

Moreover the authors observed that strong connective tissue and gingiva would've covered at least half the height of the crown in life. Hence only the very tips of the crown would be visible. Alternative proposals like large scales and robust gingiva (e.g. in Iguanas lizards) rather than a full beak are mentioned in the paper and are equally valid to my knowledge.

The way HLG chose to reconstruct the pseudobeak on the Brachiosaurus (and PNSO sauropods) however directly contradicts the conclusions from the authors. The authors make no arguments in favour of exposed teeth, nor does the teeth morphology support this given their highly vascularised nature. The recessed oral tissue resulting in a high degree of tooth exposure on these figures is simply inconsistent with fossil evidence. It seems paradoxical to me to include spectulative structures like a pseudobeak, yet go the conservative route of having the teeth itself be exposed.

As it stands, I feel like a lot of paleoartists simply heard "sauropod beaks" and ran with it. Rather than trying to understand the fundemental principles of why such a structure would exist, and the arguments for/against it. Again, feels like the paleomeme of "Edmontosaurus hooves", where some folk reconstructed the manus in a similar fashion to mammalian equid limbs rather than base their reconstructions on the actual fossil.

The rhamphotheca wouldn't have covered the whole tooth, leaving parts of the crown exposed, at least that was their conclusion, although there are other problems with the "beak" hypothesis, sauropods have teeth in their premaxilla unlike "beaked" animals and dinosaurs like ceratopsians and stegosaurs.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11zv2cvdeyfcewLTmSuweGUwK0C3VT6Hf/view

[Flaffy]

The rhamphotheca wouldn't have covered the whole tooth, leaving parts of the crown exposed, at least that was their conclusion, although there are other problems with the "beak" hypothesis, sauropods have teeth in their premaxilla unlike "beaked" animals and dinosaurs like ceratopsians and stegosaurs.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11zv2cvdeyfcewLTmSuweGUwK0C3VT6Hf/view

The infographic is directly based on Wiersma & Sander's own paper from 2016. My post directly references the original 2016 paper, relevant exerpt as follows:

"The pattern of wear of thewrinkled enamel surface of the teeth of Camarasaurus sp.SMA 0002 indicates that at least half of the crown was protected from wear before the tooth was shed, which is consistent with the gingiva and beak extending onto to the crown, with only the tip of the tooth crowns protruding from the soft tissue."

[Manospundylus gigas]

The infographic is directly based on Wiersma & Sander's own paper from 2016. My post directly references the original 2016 paper, relevant exerpt as follows:

"The pattern of wear of thewrinkled enamel surface of the teeth of Camarasaurus sp.SMA 0002 indicates that at least half of the crown was protected from wear before the tooth was shed, which is consistent with the gingiva and beak extending onto to the crown, with only the tip of the tooth crowns protruding from the soft tissue."

That was their poster at SVP 2019, the quote is exactly what I said. "The way HLG chose to reconstruct the pseudobeak on the Brachiosaurus (and PNSO sauropods) however directly contradicts the conclusions from the authors" not really, the authors didn't adressed how it would look like when the mouth was clossed, as they said the pseudo beak or tissue structure that would have held the teeth in place even after the death of the animal would have covered them but not entirely, leaving the tip of the crowns expossed. What happened with the tips of upper jaw teeth when they clossed their mouths? It is unlikely they where covered by the "beak" of the lower jaw because this itself wasnt covering the entire crown of the dentary teeth, and the tissue would not have left space for the upper teeth since it was attached enough to the lower jaw teeth to held them, unless the lower beak or whatever had sockets for them?. So PNSO and HLG interpretation doesnt contradict the study, they didnt clarify that part. It is a weird interpretation and I dont like it at all, but it is not wrong or contradictory.

[Sim]

although there are other problems with the "beak" hypothesis, sauropods have teeth in their premaxilla unlike "beaked" animals and dinosaurs like ceratopsians and stegosaurs.

This is why I don't believe sauropods had beaks.  D @Dinoguy2 made a thorough blog post about how the teeth of Hesperornis never occupy the same part of its mouth as the its beak and how this applies to other animals with both a beak and teeth.  Sauropods don't have the osteological attachment point for a beak, except for Nigersaurus as far as I'm aware, although Nigersaurus has been said to have a "keratin sheath", I'm not sure if that is different to a beak.

[Flaffy]

That was their poster at SVP 2019, the quote is exactly what I said.

Yes I know.

"The way HLG chose to reconstruct the pseudobeak on the Brachiosaurus (and PNSO sauropods) however directly contradicts the conclusions from the authors" not really, the authors didn't adressed how it would look like when the mouth was clossed, as they said the pseudo beak or tissue structure that would have held the teeth in place even after the death of the animal would have covered them but not entirely, leaving the tip of the crowns expossed. What happened with the tips of upper jaw teeth when they clossed their mouths? It is unlikely they where covered by the "beak" of the lower jaw because this itself wasnt covering the entire crown of the dentary teeth, and the tissue would not have left space for the upper teeth since it was attached enough to the lower jaw teeth to held them, unless the lower beak or whatever had sockets for them?. So PNSO and HLG interpretation doesnt contradict the study, they didnt clarify that part. It is a weird interpretation and I dont like it at all, but it is not wrong or contradictory.

I think we are having different interpretations of the text and diagram? I took "only exposing parts of their crown (Fig. C, results)." as in just that, only a small portion of the teeth would've been visible in life. A condition not dissimilar to many modern squamates. Rather than the authors making an argument for permanently air-exposed teeth.

For the diagram, I took it as the authors demonstrating the "gumline" (more accurately the tough connective tissue + gingiva) ascending much further up than what we usually expect. Many reconstructions still have the gingival border end right at the dental alveolar bone which the authors noted leads to excessive sensitive root exposure. The authors recognise that the structure of any further integumentary covering on top of the gingiva is up for debate, be it a pseudobeak as they propose, or simply just large toughened scales.

As for the figures, I believe they condradict the study because the way they reconstruct the pseudobeak so far back means...
a) Significant portion of the enamel is exposed; in Lingwulong's case we can arguably even see the roots.
b) Therefore the teeth are not protected adequately
c) Nor do thoes it form a continuous cutting surface
d) as mentioned in my original post, tooth morphology does not support permanent air-exposure

My prefered interpretation of the material is shown in this previous interaction. Much more rigid than the leathery JP sauropod lips, but also not dangly snaggle-toothed. A healthy amount of coverage.

I think it's possible that if not a beak exactly, there could be larger and thicker scales on the mouth to make it stronger for stripping plants. I added some tougher keratin like skin around the mouth of my new juvenile Brachiosaurus I'm working on and it doesn't look bad.

I think that's more likely than a beak.  The Camarasaurus specimen that the beak idea came from is said to possess tough scales around the mouth.

I personally adopt the term "pseudobeak". I subscribe to the idea that tough cornified/keratinised epidermis was present on some sauropods rather than a full on beak.

[Turkeysaurus]

Blue Brachiosaurus' size , colors & patters are more similar to Blue Alamosaurus than Blue Argentinosaurus. They are undeniably blue (unlike grey-ish Argentino) & busy patterns.

In fact HLG pretty much has done the blue Alamosaurus prototype on Brachiosaurus.

[Paleo Flo]

My blue Brachiosaurus will arrive today....    

[Turkeysaurus]

My blue Brachiosaurus will arrive today....    

Photos, please.

[Manospundylus gigas]

That was their poster at SVP 2019, the quote is exactly what I said.

Yes I know.

"The way HLG chose to reconstruct the pseudobeak on the Brachiosaurus (and PNSO sauropods) however directly contradicts the conclusions from the authors" not really, the authors didn't adressed how it would look like when the mouth was clossed, as they said the pseudo beak or tissue structure that would have held the teeth in place even after the death of the animal would have covered them but not entirely, leaving the tip of the crowns expossed. What happened with the tips of upper jaw teeth when they clossed their mouths? It is unlikely they where covered by the "beak" of the lower jaw because this itself wasnt covering the entire crown of the dentary teeth, and the tissue would not have left space for the upper teeth since it was attached enough to the lower jaw teeth to held them, unless the lower beak or whatever had sockets for them?. So PNSO and HLG interpretation doesnt contradict the study, they didnt clarify that part. It is a weird interpretation and I dont like it at all, but it is not wrong or contradictory.

I think we are having different interpretations of the text and diagram? I took "only exposing parts of their crown (Fig. C, results)." as in just that, only a small portion of the teeth would've been visible in life. A condition not dissimilar to many modern squamates. Rather than the authors making an argument for permanently air-exposed teeth.

For the diagram, I took it as the authors demonstrating the "gumline" (more accurately the tough connective tissue + gingiva) ascending much further up than what we usually expect. Many reconstructions still have the gingival border end right at the dental alveolar bone which the authors noted leads to excessive sensitive root exposure. The authors recognise that the structure of any further integumentary covering on top of the gingiva is up for debate, be it a pseudobeak as they propose, or simply just large toughened scales.

As for the figures, I believe they condradict the study because the way they reconstruct the pseudobeak so far back means...
a) Significant portion of the enamel is exposed; in Lingwulong's case we can arguably even see the roots.
b) Therefore the teeth are not protected adequately
c) Nor do thoes it form a continuous cutting surface
d) as mentioned in my original post, tooth morphology does not support permanent air-exposure

My prefered interpretation of the material is shown in this previous interaction. Much more rigid than the leathery JP sauropod lips, but also not dangly snaggle-toothed. A healthy amount of coverage.

I think it's possible that if not a beak exactly, there could be larger and thicker scales on the mouth to make it stronger for stripping plants. I added some tougher keratin like skin around the mouth of my new juvenile Brachiosaurus I'm working on and it doesn't look bad.

I think that's more likely than a beak.  The Camarasaurus specimen that the beak idea came from is said to possess tough scales around the mouth.

I personally adopt the term "pseudobeak". I subscribe to the idea that tough cornified/keratinised epidermis was present on some sauropods rather than a full on beak.

Yes, that illustration by Atuchin is also the interpretation that I like the most, I think it is the most plausible and the one that best explains sauropod morphology.

[thomasw100]

My blue Brachiosaurus will arrive today....    

You seem to be lucky. I am not. My one got stuck at Shanghai airport 6 days ago and has not moved any millimeter since. This is now the second time it happened like this. I ordered on day 1 of the pre-order, paid the higher cost for EMS shipping and then shipping time in the end turns out like railways shipping which however is considerably cheaper. This is simply not fair.

[Concavenator]

Concavenator is here, and Concavenator approves. This little guy is great!

They really did me dirty. 

Fortunately, can't say the same about HLG. 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

My blue Brachiosaurus will arrive today....    

You seem to be lucky. I am not. My one got stuck at Shanghai airport 6 days ago and has not moved any millimeter since. This is now the second time it happened like this. I ordered on day 1 of the pre-order, paid the higher cost for EMS shipping and then shipping time in the end turns out like railways shipping which however is considerably cheaper. This is simply not fair.

Chinese new year probably.

[Duna]

You seem to be lucky. I am not. My one got stuck at Shanghai airport 6 days ago and has not moved any millimeter since. This is now the second time it happened like this. I ordered on day 1 of the pre-order, paid the higher cost for EMS shipping and then shipping time in the end turns out like railways shipping which however is considerably cheaper. This is simply not fair.

I think that is because of Chinese new year. I ordered it the day 1 or the presale and has arrived to Madrid yesterday so it got out from chinese holidays in time.