Concavenator’s Collection (new 29/4/2024)

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 [member=1161]Sim[/member] ’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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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 [member=1453]Fembrogon[/member] 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:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if you ask me.

The most complete lambeosaurine found in Mexico so far. It is known from a single, partial specimen (CIC/P/147). This specimen’s remains were first discovered back in 2005, but it wasn’t until 2013 that a joint team of INAH/UNAM paleontologists launched a project which aimed to recover said remains (Ramírez Velasco et al. 2021).

I’d be lying if I said this hasn’t been a stressful order. For context, check the Ancestors 2023 thread. But what else can I say? This is an absolutely beautiful model and maybe even one of my favorite pieces from the collection altogether. I am glad I waited (all this time).

I bought this figure for several reasons. First of all, Tlatolophus has been my favorite lambeosaurine ever since I knew about it back in 2021. A very elegant hadrosaurid. And I wasn’t entirely sure it would get made into a figure. If it’d been a noteworthy tyrannosauroid or carcharodontosaurid instead, then I may not have bought it so quickly. Turns out that hadrosaurids are not as neglected as some people suggest, but again, I wasn’t sure about Tlatolophus getting made back then, so I didn’t hesitate to grab it.

I also just really liked this figure and since I didn’t have anything from Ancestors, I figured I’d try them out…  ::)

I wouldn’t have expected that HLG would be coming up with their own Tlatolophus. If I’d had such a knowledge, my decision to get Ancestors’ wouldn’t have been so straightforward. Not that I’d have necessarily bought HLG’s instead, but I would have thought about it more carefully. As a depiction of Tlatolophus, Ancestors’ is more accurate than HLG’s, based on their skulls:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ancestors’ version does a great job at accurately capturing the shape of the skull:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But HLG’s doesn’t capture the slight curvature that can be seen at the base of the crest:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here’s a screen cap from DinosDragon’s review:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In HLG’s figure’s crest, that curvature is non-existent, with the base of the crest running an almost straight line all the way to the tip of the beak. In addition, I have to agree with DinosDragons in that the premaxilla is clearly too short as well.

HLG’s version is still recognisable as Tlatolophus by its crest. Its issues may seem minor or “nitpicks”, but when you think about it, lambeosaurines are, in general, similar-looking animals that mostly differed by their skull ornamentations. So I’d say it should be particularly important for a lambeosaurine figure to accurately capture the skull’s shape. Or at least, make sure the shape of the skull could be feasible, accounting for the possibility of external keratin. But with something like a premaxilla being shorter than in the fossil itself, there’s no excuse.

If one doesn’t care about the inaccuracies with HLG’s figure’s skull, it is still a nice figure. Another inaccuracy I can spot are the hands being pronated, but I don’t think that’s a big deal. This is a common inaccuracy seen in quadrupedal ornithischian figures.

When it comes to Ancestors’ figure, the only inaccuracy I can spot are the hands being pronated. But HLG’s gets this wrong as well. However, its skull is more accurate than HLG’s, so Ancestors’ version wins in the scientific accuracy department.

So, comparing Ancestors’ and HLG’s takes on Tlatolophus, I think they make up for each other in different ways. Ancestors’ is more accurate, but is also noticeably more expensive. Ancestors’ version ended up being about the same price as the infamous PNSO ML Tsintaosaurus. Meanwhile, HLG’s Tlatolophus can be bought for less than 20 € on AliExpress, so it costs a fraction of Ancestors’ price. And I’m sure HLG’s could be bought for even less if one waits for a sale. HLG’s wins in the price department, then. On another note, I don’t think Ancestors’ Tlatolophus can still be bought. AFAIK, it could only be bought through preorders, and those are no longer available.

Ancestors’ figure also feels quite fragile. It is made of hollow resin, so it starkly contrasts to the usual solid PVC figures. So HLG’s wins in the durability department.

All in all, I’m glad I got Ancestors’ version. It is a lovely figure and the most accurate depiction of the species so far in figure form. Since it appears to be no longer available, if you’re interested in getting a Tlatolophus for your collection, for the moment you’d have to resort to HLG’s, with which you should also be good with.

The earliest large-bodied dinosaur known to have lived in North America (Marsh & Rowe 2020). Despite having been classified as a coelophysoid several times (Holtz 1994, Rowe & Gauthier 1990, Tykoski 1998, 2005, Tykoski & Rowe 2004, Holtz 1998), it displays an increased body size compared to Triassic theropods like them (Marsh & Rowe 2020). Such an increase represents an “evolutionary experiment” associated with a potential tendency towards macropredation in theropods across the Late Triassic-Early Jurassic (Marsh & Rowe 2020). This tendency would eventually lead to the typical concept of the big carnivorous theropod with a big skull and short forearms (Canale et al. 2022).

Five specimens have been attributed to the genus (which has been found to be monotypic): UCMP 37302, UCMP 37303, UCMP 77270, TMM 43646-1 and TMM 47006-1. UCMP 37302 represents the holotype (Welles 1954). Together, they offer us a relatively confident image of the dinosaur (GetAwayTrike 2020), with the exact shape of the nasolacrimal crests being the biggest mystery. Dilophosaurus represents a key taxon for understanding the early history of theropods (Marsh & Rowe 2020).

The holotype of Dilophosaurus (UCMP 37302) is the theropod specimen with the largest number of bone afflictions (Senter & Juengst 2016).

If Dilophosaurus and the famous Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt were to have a 100-m race, it is believed Usain would emerge victorious (Lee 2022).

Replaces the Papo version, which I sold in 2021. A noticeable upgrade that also takes into consideration the 2020 reconstruction of Dilophosaurus. Feels great to have a Dilophosaurus in my collection again, one of my favorite dinosaurs!

I was on the fence about getting this one. Upon first impressions, I was certain the torso was too short, which was later confirmed by a member of the DTF . The torso shortening isn’t as drastic as I’d initially thought. If you had asked me how short the torso was, I’d say around 45 % or so, but it’s close to 20 % according to that DTF member’s calculations. That’s still a notable shortening, although it’s possible it was due to stability reasons. This shortening of the torso could’ve been avoided if Haolonggood had included an acrylic stand as PNSO does, but hey, not all companies work the same way I guess. I would be fine with an inaccuracy arising from the intrinsic nature of a figure (just as I’m also OK with articulations on BotM figures), and that seems to be the case here, because Dilophosaurus’ elongated body is so characteristic that they can’t have overlooked it, especially as a reconstruction of “the 2020 Dilophosaurus”. And the sitting specimen does a good job at hiding the proportion issues.

However, a design choice I really don’t understand is why didn’t they represent the Dilophosaurus with lips. In one of the WIPs they shared, it appeared as if the figure was going to have lips, at least that was my impression (and other people’s as well). And I don’t simply mean it from an accuracy standpoint, I actually imagine it would have been easier for the sculptor to just give the Dilophosaurus lips and not go through the difficulty of sculpting those tiny teeth in that small head. They wouldn’t have needed to paint the teeth afterwards, either. Not to mention the general preference is theropods having lips too, so I don’t see why going lipless was the better choice here.  ??? Well, not the end of the world in any case.

It’s also convenient that this Dilophosaurus is close to 1:35, and sitting at that! It looks calm and mundane, and as a byproduct, it effectively kills stability-related issues. I probably won’t be getting many/any more figures of resting dinosaurs, so this pose makes the figure stand out in this regard. And it could serve as a tribute to this painting:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Dilophosaurus by Kyoht Luterman.

Which alludes to resting traces left by a Sinemurian theropod’s tail found in Utah (Moenave Formation) (Kim & Lockley 2013). Not that that theropod was necessarily Dilophosaurus (Dilophosaurus hasn’t been found in the Moenave Formation anyways), but for that illustration it was depicted as such. And something as simple as a resting theropod gives us a slight glimpse at non-avian dinosaur behaviour, so that’s pretty interesting.

There are some aspects I prefer about the upcoming Creative Beast versions. Apart from the appropriately long torso and the presence of lips, I also prefer the feathering they gave to it. But proportions were the elephant in the room for me, and with this particular figure I’m not bothered any longer. I’m also glad I won’t have to buy the BotM version. As per usual, it will be fantastic, but it will be quite bigger and fairly more expensive (and articulated). So I’m happy to get this HLG instead. In person it’s really beautiful! It officially has the flashiest color scheme of any figure from my collection. HLG does a spectacular job in the paint department.

I’ve already sold the standing individual, even though HLG’s Dilophosaurus come as a pair, I only need 1. I only collect 1 figure/genus, after all.

In general, HLG’s Dilophosaurus gives me Linghu Cryolophosaurus vibes:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I also find it somehow reminiscent of Linghu’s Dilophosaurus:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And considering how beautiful those pieces are, a slight resemblance to them isn’t unwelcome!*

Not to mention HLG’s pair could be considered as an up-to-date (and way more affordable!) version of Sideshow’s:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

* I’m not saying HLG’s piece was based/inspired by them, just that I see certain stylistic resemblances.

A famous long-frilled ceratopsid from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Acorn 2023). Despite its frill’s great size, this structure was lighter than what could be expected, due to the presence of large fenestrae (after which the genus is named) on it (Dixon 2010). Many specimens have been attributed to the genus (Campbell et al. 2016). Up to seven species have been proposed, but only two are generally accepted as valid: C. belli and C. russelli (Campbell et al. 2016). Skin impressions were found in a juvenile specimen of C. belli (Currie et al. 2016).

Replaces the BotM version. That figure was a sight to behold, but this replacement allows me to save space (and a fair amount at that!), which is always appreciated. And of course, this is a nice Chasmosaurus too!

I also really liked Wild Past’s, but: 1) who knows when (or if) will it come out, 2) it includes a baby, which I don’t need and 3) it will probably be more expensive. And if PNSO makes a Chasmosaurus, it will surely be a really good depiction of the animal as well, but assuming it will be the same price as their Styracosaurus/Centrosaurus, it will be 3 times more expensive than HLG’s. And it will probably be brown, which will look similar to their Styracosaurus I already have. So I’m happy to get HLG’s. And about time somebody made a good figure of this particular ceratopsid genus in the 1:35(ish) range, so hats off to them!

Speaking of HLG’s, its coloration reminds me a bit of Dinosaur King’s, and that’s certainly a plus in my book.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have a fondness for Dinosaur King, and while I’m not a big fan of some of their designs (also, some just happen to have become outdated), there are others that I like, and their Chasmosaurus is among them.

Chasmosaurus itself has always been among my favorite ceratopsids too. It is a beautiful animal, and when you couple that to its taxonomic relevance (for naming the Chasmosaurinae clade, and also for the good quality of the available material), you get a ceratopsid that’s far more interesting than the overrated Tr*cerat*ps.

A primitive carcharodontosaurid that had a hump-like structure on its back. It also possessed a series of small bumps on its ulna, which might have been homologous to quill knobs present on some extant birds. Concavenator is known from a single, almost complete and very well-preserved specimen (MCCM-LH 6666) (Ortega, Escaso & Sanz 2010).

Replaces Carnegie’s version. Not a drastic improvement, IMO. I mostly replaced it for scale reasons:

Spoiler:

This Safari version also has lips (also, nice to get a theropod figure with its mouth shut!), which the Carnegie lacks. It’s also bipedal, in contrast to Carnegie’s, which is a tripod. However, it’s not all advantages in the accuracy department for the newer Safari, as it seems to lack those scutes in the underside of the tail that the Carnegie had. In any case, having had both Carnegie’s and this one, this new Safari one is my favorite of the 2.

My copy came with some severe warping out of the bag:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Somehow, it is still able to stand on its own!  ;D I hope it won’t have stability issues (though seeing its current state, won’t be surprised if it does) and I won’t have to resort to the hot-cold water treatment, because every single time I’ve tried it, it hasn’t worked. Well, I guess I could always place a small coin under one of its feet, because, in my experience, that does work…

A proper, feathered, Concavenator would be appreciated, but in the meantime, I’m happy to have this one. A pity to see it retired so soon, too. That’s another reason I picked it up, it’s not everyday that a good Concavenator is released, let alone a 1:35 one.

A large mosasaurine that achieved cosmopolitan distribution through the Campanian - Maastricthtian. Mosasaurus might not be monophyletic. M. hoffmannii is the type species, and it is mainly known from skull material. Mosasaurus was the first mosasaur to be discovered (Street & Caldwell, 2017), as well as the first genus of extinct reptile to be named (Evans, 2010). At the time of its discovery, the concept of extinction was not widely accepted, so the creature was difficult to classify as a member of a living group of animals. Initially, it was considered to be a crocodile or an Odontoceti. It took more than 25 years after the discovery of the holotype of M. hoffmannii (MNHN AC  9648) for it being finally classified as a reptile (Street & Caldwell, 2017). Mosasaurus depictions have traditionally been based on Tylosaurus, but they possessed different morphology and proportions (PWNZ3R-Dragon, 2017).

I had been having CollectA’s 2014 version on the radar up until this newer version became a thing. Impressive figure (especially in person, WOW  ), and as far as I know, the best Mosasaurus figure on the market and also one of the best mosasaur figures in general. There’s been several Mosasaurus figures released recently, but it’s nice to see such a good and accurate Mosasaurus, in contrast to the ridiculous JW version of the creature, and also in contrast to the “Tylosaurus V2” reconstructions.

My only complaint with this figure is the lack of definition on the pterygoid teeth. Inexplicably, the previous (non-Deluxe) version’s pterygoid teeth are clearly more defined than this one’s:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Pic by [member=132]suspsy[/member]

Vs

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I’ve said more than once that I consider CollectA’s Standard figures to be better detailed than their Deluxe ones… Still, my copy’s pterygoid teeth appear to be more defined than other copies’ I have seen, so I guess I’m lucky after all!

In any case, the pterygoid teeth are still there, so I wouldn’t call this an inaccuracy, but rather an aspect related to manufacturing. But again, it’s puzzling how the Standard version is more refined in this detail compared to its Deluxe counterpart. ::) Otherwise, and based on my limited knowledge on mosasaurs, this is an excellent reconstruction, and very highly recommended. Its proportions actually look accurate for Mosasaurus. I also like that it is countershaded, which would agree with Lindgren et al., 2014, and also that it has lips. Its skin is in line with modern mosasaur depictions’ as well (and as a result, it’s also rather pleasing to handle  ^-^).

On another note, I also like that it comes with a human figure - my favorite accessory for a figure, as it goes to demonstrate the size of the animal compared to a human:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Actually, it is the only accessory I care about, I’m not into skulls nor juveniles.

Funnily enough, as a kid I wasn’t too fond of mosasaurs. But then one day I got to hold a real mosasaur tooth and I felt shocked to be able to hold part of an extinct animal in my hand. Plus, after seeing up-to-date paleoart of mosasaurs, I started liking them. I also went to Brussels in 2014 and visited the Natural Sciences Museum, where they had a really cool temporary exhibition about mosasaurs.

All in all, amazing figure by CollectA. I agree with CollectA’s non-dinosaurs being generally superior to their dinosaurs.