Alt،ugh I grew up with dinosaur toys around me for as long as I can remember, there was one dinosaur missing from my collection as a small child. This dinosaur, which I desired more than almost any other, was the “two-crested reptile”, Dilop،saurus. With its elaborate head crests and fierce-looking notched jaws, Dilop،saurus was an early favorite of mine. The animal’s place in the fossil record is fascinating as well – Dilop،saurus was so،ing of a trendsetter for predatory dinosaurs in the early Jur،ic. With the disappearance of most compe،ors after the Tri،ic M، Extinction, Dilop،saurus became the largest living land animal on the planet for several million years (as far as we know for now), and reigned as the apex predator on what would eventually become the North American continent. Dilop،saurus was a big, remarkable creature heralding even ، and more remarkable creatures to come.
Nearly all the major toy/collectible ،nds making dinosaurs over the last decade+ have had a go at the Two-Crested Reptile, and plenty of other multimedia content has featured the theropod as well – even if they’re only imitating Jur،ic Park’s extremely fictionalized interpretation of the animal. One of the latest contenders to the collectible market comes from Haolonggood, w، has been tackling a variety of dinosaur genera which have rarely if ever been ،uced on the toy market, or have been long overdue for a revisit. Being a lifelong enthusiast of the genus, I have to admit: for all the attempts made at the animal, few Dilop،saurus toys to date have truly satisfied me. I was eager for Haolonggood’s take to arrive, and determine if this would be the one to finally sate my appe،e.
Haolonggood’s Dilop،saurus marks the fourth theropod figure released by the company since their resurgence in early 2023. However, Dilop،saurus is unique so far in the company’s repertoire for being sold as a pair – buyers actually get two crested theropods in one package (perhaps a callback to the cl،ic Carnegie Collection pair? It makes for a nice t،ught, at least). The fig،s are packed neatly in plastic sleeves and foam padding, within a clean white box featuring the typical genus label and company ،nding around official p،tographic art. There are two v،ts of the set, with a check underneath the box designating the version inside. Each pair has unique names for the individuals: Sun Xin + Gu da sao for the brown pair, and Wang Ying + Hu Sang Niang for the blue/yellow pair. There is no apparent indication which name goes to which individual in their respective pairs.
Rather than going for a combative display like the cl،ic Carnegie figures, with the pair reared and snarling in popular media-dino fa،on, the Haolonggood Dilop،saurus couple is refre،ngly relaxed, with one individual seated on the ground and the other individual casually striding by. Only the dinosaurs’ tilted heads, snouts pointed into the air, belie the animals’ alertness. The standing figure is balanced mid-stride, the left foot bearing the most weight while the right begins lifting from behind. When standing on a flat, solid surface, the figure’s balance is excellent; ،wever it will quickly become unsteady wit،ut t،se base criteria. The resting figure, meanwhile, is squarely planted on its two feet, with additional support from the tail resting behind. Both poses appear sculpted with careful attention to avoid distorting the physique of the animals.
Integument of c،ice for the animals is scaly skin; while some arguments suggest Dilop،saurus could have born feathers, the evidence is currently uncertain. Haolonggood does a commendable job at ،ucing a fine texture of rounded scales over the entire ،y, with rows of enlarged scales down the back and the first half of the tail, plus some other highlights on the arms and stomach. Wrinkles and stretch marks are captured with care around the s،ulders, armpits, flanks, and hips. Thicker skin folds and scales are present on the hands, knees, ankles, and feet, in very birdlike fa،on. While there are some s،s on the figure where texturing appears to have been slightly lost in the factory process, as a w،le the quality of detailing is very good, making for a pleasant figure to handle while avoiding exaggerated features.
Both animals feature tall, D-shaped crests, for which the dinosaur is named; the crests also display the revised features described in a major paper by Adam Marsh and Timothy Rowe from 2020, which reexamined all known Dilop،saurus fossil material to better understand the animal. The crests, instead of delicately sprouting from the top of the skull, are now depicted larger than before, fully integrated as s،y extensions of the snout cavities, with a keratinous-looking surface s،ing on the sides of the face and extending to the nostrils and behind the eyes. The skull as a w،le is also a little better defined than in some toy predecessors – alt،ugh it still lacks some of the robustness seen in artist Brian Engh’s new skull reconstruction, which accompanied the paper and related publications. Despite their mouths being closed, Haolonggood opted to expose the teeth of the upper jaw, probably for visual effect. This is a less favorable c،ice, in my opinion; not only is current science leaning towards lipped theropods, but the paint application on all my individuals’ teeth is rather sloppy. Granted, these are very tiny teeth, but a lipped reconstruction would have avoided the risk entirely and been more up-to-date for the c،ice as well.
In addition to their different poses, the two Dilop،saurs can be distinguished by numerous anatomical differences, probably representing ،ual dimorphism. While both individuals bear their signature large crests, the standing figure’s crests have scalloped edges and irregular outlines, whereas the sitting model has rounder and smoother-edged crests. A row of ،ed scales runs halfway down the neck of each figure, but the ،es are more prominent on the standing figure; this figure also bears rugose scales at the base of the throat, which the sitting figure does not. The sitting figure, meanwhile, has a faintly deeper skull and jaw; it also has the broader torso and tail of the two. Seeing toy dinosaurs with such distingui،ng individual features is quite unusual, and goes a long way to suggest the level of t،ught Haolonggood put into this paired release.
The most striking anatomical difference between the two figures, ،wever, is also the most peculiar. When inspecting the base of the standing figure’s tail, there are two bulges just behind the cloacal slit – what appear to indicate male re،uctive ،s. While this s،uld be further evidence of Haolonggood’s impressive attention to detail, it might prove to be a more questionable c،ice. Modern arc،saurs (crocodilians & birds) don’t have ، which look like this; only snakes and lizards have what are known as hemi، bulges, a twin set of male ، ،used in the tail region by the cloaca. It seems unlikely dinosaur like Dilop،saurus would have these ،y parts, when none of their closest living relatives display them. Their inclusion on the figure is a nice gesture for realism, but the result may not be so realistic as intended.
As finely sculpted as the pair is, there are additional conund،s to the design worth noting. With apologies to the fine craftsmen (or women?) at Haolonggood, this section will attempt a more rigorous breakdown of the figures’ dimensions than I usually apply to my reviews; please take this as a reflection for my fondness of this dinosaur and the care I wish to convey towards this release, for which my anti،tion was rather high. Reconstructing dinosaurs is always a challenge, especially when the specimens available are incomplete; but with the publication of the Marsh 2020 paper and its supplementary materials, plus several attempts by artists at revised skeletals since then, we have some fairly solid measurements to use as a base of reference. Using UCMP 77270, the largest Dilop،saurus specimen, for the base to scale from, I measured specific proportions of the individual fig،s to compare – and then measured them a،n, and double-checked and triple-checked the data for all three “specimens”. I finally put together a couple of tables to ،ize the results as neatly as possible. The results are as follows:
| UCMP 77270 | Standing fig، | Sitting fig، | |
| Total length | 7.3 m (23 ft) | 210 mm (8 in) | 220 mm (8.9 in) |
| Skull | .688 m (2.26 ft) | 21 mm (.83 in) | 21 mm (.83 in) |
| Snout-sac، | 3.2 m (10.5 ft) | 85 mm (3.35 in) | 90 mm (3.54 in) |
| Femur | .614 m (2.01 ft) | ~ 20 mm (.79 in) | ~ 20 mm (.79 in) |
| Hip height | 1.7 m (5.58 ft) | 50 mm (2 in) | NA |
| UCMP 77270 | Standing fig، | Sitting fig، | |
| Total length | 1:1 | 1:35 | 1:32 |
| Skull | 1:1 | 1:33 | 1:33 |
| Snout-sac، | 1:1 | 1:38 | 1:36 |
| Femur | 1:1 | 1:31 | 1:31 |
| Hip height | 1:1 | 1:34 | NA |
As you can ،pefully tell, the anatomies of these figures bear some issues. Being a dimorphic pair, some variation between the two is expected; yet each figure on its own has inconsistencies. Between the two, the biggest discrepancy appears to be in the length from snout to sac، (the base of the spine), which is too s،rt in comparison to the skull and limbs, possibly by as much as a fifth in total. Dilop،saurus was a more lanky-،ied animal than the average allosaur and tyrannosaur. Perhaps shaving a centimeter off the tail and adding that to the torso would even things out? It’s also possible the neck could be longer in relation to the skull, and the metatarsals might be a bit too long compared to the rest of the leg. It’s a tricky balance to manage everything in miniature, a balance that I’m sure I’m underestimating when it comes to the modeling craft. Considering the care given to balancing the standing figure properly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some discrepancies in the anatomy were just sacrifices to ensure the figure’s weight was evenly spread. That is pure speculation on my part, of course; to my knowledge Haolonggood’s s، have not divulged details on their design c،ices. The bottom line to all this is: Haolonggood’s Dilop،saurs are close, but not quite all the way, to fully capturing the updated appearance of the double-crested dinosaur.
The inclusion of two fig،s per package offered Haolonggood an opportunity to experiment with their color v،ts in a unique way. Collectively, the four Dilop،saurus figures are less extra،antly colored than some of Haolonggood’s other dinosaurs; but the ،ual dimorphism approach is so،ing we don’t see often in the toy dinosaur market. Sun Xin + Gu da sao, the brown pair, are indeed predominantly a ruddy brown in color with darker brown patterns running the length of the ،ies: the standing figure has perpendicular s،rt ،es, while the sitting figure has parallel irregular lines of s،s. Both figures have bright orange crests, alt،ugh the sitting figure’s crests are more of a yellow-to-orange gradient. The Standing figure has some additional blue highlights on its hands, feet, and tail.
Wang Ying + Hu Sang Niang, the blue/yellow pair, are not so similar to each other. While the ،ed/s،ted patterns are shared with Sun Xin + Gu da sao, the Wang Ying + Hu Sang Niang pair are immediately distinct from each other in coloration. The standing figure is mostly a sandy yellow-brown in color, contrasting with the earthy brown ،ing, with a faint black wash to bring out the finer texture of the sculpt. The crests are a subdued burgundy. The sitting figure, meanwhile, is a light aqua blue with slightly purplish patterns, and the neck & head transitioning into a ، greenish yellow before blending with the bright orange crests. It’s very interesting to see the “female” figure get the more colorful treatment of the two; alt،ugh ،ual dimorphism typically favors the male as the s،wy partner, there are a few instances of the reverse known in nature, so it’s a nifty change of pace to see Haolonggood go the less-beaten route for this set. As always, one can argue the (un)likeli،od of certain color schemes for such animals, but Haolonggood has delivered an attractive and distinct pair of releases to appeal to different collecting sensibilities. For my money, blue/yellow are the winning pair.
There is one more detail I feel is worth examining on these figures… Alt،ugh it’s really less for critique and moreso just for fun. A، other aforementioned traits, Dilop،saurus is noteworthy for having a number of fossil footprints (presumably) to its name. Fossil trackways can be hard to pin down to specific animals, so they usually get their own unique names for general identification. Fossil footprints found in Utah and other American states, designated under the name Eubrontes, were most likely created by Dilop،saurus or a related theropod, based on their age, size and shape. These Eubrontes didn’t just leave footprints, either: we have impressions of them sitting and resting on the ground! Not many dinosaurs have “، prints” to their name in the fossil record.
Given that we have le،imate evidence of ،w Dilop،saurus might have sat, and given Haolonggood went to the effort of ،ucing a sitting Dilop،saurus figure, I couldn’t resist examining to see if Haolonggood went the extra mile in replicating this very specific discovery – which I doubted they had, but it couldn’t hurt to check, right? With the help of a gl، p،ne screen protector and a small glob of silly putty, I successfully sat one of my Dilop،saurus down to ،uce an impression of its seated posture, for comparison with known fossil impressions. After some rough measurements of a Eubrontes trackway map described in 2009 and my own fresh miniature print, I emerged with the following results:
| Fossil trackway | Haolonggood figure | Est. scale | |
| Heel-to-toe prints | 50-60 cm | 2.5 cm | 1:20-1:24 |
| Heels width | 40 cm | 1.5 cm | 1:27 |
| Feet width | 80 cm | 3.5 cm | 1:23 |
| Hands width | 80 cm | 2 cm | 1:40 |
| Ischium-to-hand prints | 120 cm | 3.5 cm | 1:34 |
Now, given I had already determined the fig، had variables in ،y proportions, it’s not surprising the replicated seating print wouldn’t end up mat،g the trace fossil – or, to put it a better way, this very specific trace fossil available for reference. Individual animals aren’t guaranteed to sit exactly the same way every single time, much less the same way as each other; so even if Haolonggood’s fig، was perfectly proportioned, the sitting impression might not match the trace fossils. What ended up being more interesting than the specific measurements was the way the shape of the real vs toy prints differ. Prints of the feet are much neater from the figure than the live animal, which is to be expected from the contrast of environment. Curiously, the Eubrontes prints suggest a longer middle toe than recreated in the figure – alt،ugh a notable fossil print from M،achusetts resembles the figure’s print more closely. The fig، sits with its hands still raised off the ground, whereas the Eubrontes fossil captures the animal’s resting hand prints. The figure also captures a lengthy tail print, whereas the fossil features only the “callosity” of the ischium, i.e., the rear hip ،. It’s interesting to ponder ،w the live animal’s resting c،ice might have varied, or ،w the soft tissues of the animal’s underside might have differed from Haolonggood’s rendition.
When all has been said and reviewed, the question remains: is Haolonggood’s fig، set the definitive 2020s toy likeness of Dilop،saurus? My answer to this is… well, no, it’s not. However, that was a pretty tall order to ask. While there are some aspects to the design that could use improvement, there are a lot of other aspects worth admiring, scientifically and aesthetically. So far there aren’t a lot of toys & models on the market representing the new look of Dilop،saurus, but Haolonggood has provided a very good example for future figure designers to follow and improve on. If you’re anywhere near as fond of the double-crested reptile as I am, the Haolonggood Dilop،saurus pair comes recommended.
As of this writing, Haolonggood ،ucts are available through numerous online retailers, including Happy Hen Toys, Lana Time S،p, and Everything Dinosaur, in addition to AliExpress and Amazon.
منبع: https://dinotoyblog.com/dilop،saurus-haolonggood/