PNSO - New for 2024

[GojiraGuy1954]

I just wish it didn't have the comb

[BlueKrono]

I just wish it didn't have the comb

The comb is why I'm going to buy it. It will feel right at home with my lambeosaurs.

[MLMjp]

I just wish it didn't have the comb

It's really frustrating. I love E. annentecs and everything about this figure is great, except that comb. I just cant' see E.annectens with it unless fossil evidence proves otherwise.

You know what would have been acceptable? A small round comb. But no, they had to give a large and showy one...

There is a part of me that wants to look for a customizer and ask for the comb to be removed, but at the same time PNSO is already expensive enough and I'm kinda hessitant to modify figures, even if I'm asking a professional.

The worst part is...this is the ony E.annectens in the market and I doub there will be another anytime soon.

[crazy8wizard]

I don't understand why E. annectens couldn't have a crest just because there isn't explicit fossil evidence for it. There isn't explicit fossil evidence for it having eyelids but people depict it with those, yeah? If there was direct fossil evidence against it I could understand, but this is perfectly reasonable.

(also it isn't the only E. annectens figure, safari has a field museum anatotitan figure, but it's in a weird scale and it's really small)

[Stegotyranno420]

I don't understand why E. annectens couldn't have a crest just because there isn't explicit fossil evidence for it. There isn't explicit fossil evidence for it having eyelids but people depict it with those, yeah? If there was direct fossil evidence against it I could understand, but this is perfectly reasonable.

(also it isn't the only E. annectens figure, safari has a field museum anatotitan figure, but it's in a weird scale and it's really small)

Given the current situation, I would be more surprised if annectens lacked the crest.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I don't understand why E. annectens couldn't have a crest just because there isn't explicit fossil evidence for it. There isn't explicit fossil evidence for it having eyelids but people depict it with those, yeah? If there was direct fossil evidence against it I could understand, but this is perfectly reasonable.

(also it isn't the only E. annectens figure, safari has a field museum anatotitan figure, but it's in a weird scale and it's really small)

It makes it look the same as Regalis. Especially since it has almost the exact same colour scheme as the Safari Edmonto

[Carnoking]

To invoke the old saying, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I for one find it pretty easy to imagine that the younger species retained some form of comb as there was probably some evolutionary reason for it to appear in the first place (communication? Identification? Sexual display?)
If it evolved for any of those reasons, it seems advantageous to keep.

[Gwangi]

I see nothing wrong with a speculative comb for E. annectens. Seems reasonable. Better than giving every ceratopsian butt fuzz because of Psittacosaurus. 

[SidB]

I see nothing wrong with a speculative comb for E. annectens. Seems reasonable. Better than giving every ceratopsian butt fuzz because of Psittacosaurus. 

Agreed. What do 'they" say, "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." I think that this is one case where this could surely apply.

[Sim]

A possibly controversial post ahead!  I hope I don't offend anyone, it's not my intention to.  So here we go...  I find the situation with Edmontosaurus figures bizzare.  People wanted a new Edmontosaurus figure, the old Safaris werent't good enough, so Safari makes a good new one that was one of their larger figures and people aren't happy with it.  Next CollectA makes another good one and people aren't happy with it either.  People ask PNSO and Haolonggood to make one and again they aren't happy with them, the PNSO because of its crest and the Haolonggood because it's E. regalis.  If you wanted a crestless E. annectens why didn't you ask for that?  And frankly, Edmontosaurus is one of the least impressive dinosaurs known from good remains and the treatment it has gotten from figure companies is exceptionally good.  I'm surprised it has got so much attention.  The difference between the two Edmontosaurus species is minimal, what I don't understand is why it matters which species is represented when a figure has acceptable good qualities, and why things like having a crest matter?  If you like Edmontosaurus so much, why wouldn't you get one of the great figures that exist of it?  Even the old Wild Safari E. regalis and Safari E. annectens are great figures of Edmontosaurus, and they both lack a crest for the record.  I've just never seen anything like this pickiness when it comes to animal figures.  I guess if you're still not happy with any of the existing Edmontosaurus figures, you could ask Mojo or Papo to make one, maybe specifying you want a crestless Edmontosaurus annectens...  I can only wish some important prehistoric animals I like had even just one good figure...

I see nothing wrong with a speculative comb for E. annectens. Seems reasonable. Better than giving every ceratopsian butt fuzz because of Psittacosaurus. 

I hate how Psittacosaurus's filaments have been used as justification for things like identical tail filaments on pachycephalosaurians, quills covering ceratopsids, nevermind that we have ceratopsid skin impressions that show their skin wasn't like that...

[Carnoking]

And frankly, Edmontosaurus is one of the least impressive dinosaurs known from good remains

Take it back! Take it back, I say!

[Sim]

And frankly, Edmontosaurus is one of the least impressive dinosaurs known from good remains

Take it back! Take it back, I say!

I will if I am aware of something that changes that!

[MLMjp]

A possibly controversial post ahead!  I hope I don't offend anyone, it's not my intention to.  So here we go...  I find the situation with Edmontosaurus figures bizzare.  People wanted a new Edmontosaurus figure, the old Safaris werent't good enough, so Safari makes a good new one that was one of their larger figures and people aren't happy with it.  Next CollectA makes another good one and people aren't happy with it either.  People ask PNSO and Haolonggood to make one and again they aren't happy with them, the PNSO because of its crest and the Haolonggood because it's E. regalis.  If you wanted a crestless E. annectens why didn't you ask for that?  And frankly, Edmontosaurus is one of the least impressive dinosaurs known from good remains and the treatment it has gotten from figure companies is exceptionally good.  I'm surprised it has got so much attention.  The difference between the two Edmontosaurus species is minimal, what I don't understand is why it matters which species is represented when a figure has acceptable good qualities, and why things like having a crest matter?  If you like Edmontosaurus so much, why wouldn't you get one of the great figures that exist of it?  Even the old Wild Safari E. regalis and Safari E. annectens are great figures of Edmontosaurus, and they both lack a crest for the record.  I've just never seen anything like this pickiness when it comes to animal figures.  I guess if you're still not happy with any of the existing Edmontosaurus figures, you could ask Mojo or Papo to make one, maybe specifying you want a crestless Edmontosaurus annectens...  I can only wish some important prehistoric animals I like had even just one good figure...

I have the old safari mini Edmontosaurus, somewhere. But it's a mini figure, of course I want a larger Edmontosaurus figure. I actually think Collecta and Safari figures were great and I had the intention of getting one, but they were not E. annectens, so of course I had to express my disspoinment. But still, great E. regalis figures, although I will probably get Haolonggoonds take, but still. It will be a regalis, not annectens.

Just because I love something doesnt mean I'm gonna get everything that has it's name on it, and also because I love Edmontosaurus annectens, I want it to get the best figure possible, and the PNSO is that, escept for that one thing that just so happens to be almost a dealbreaker for me.

So now is our fault for not being specific about not wanting a crest in a E. annectens? Do I have to ask for every single detail I want in a figure? Despite E. annectens being usually depicted without a crest to differienciate it from E. regalis? Sure, a couple recontructions of annectens have incorporated the comb, but it should be logical that a good way to differenciate the two species is, apart from their skulls, not giving the comb to annectens. Prehistoric planect depicted their Edmontosaurus annenctens withouth a comb, cased closed.

Also, ask Papo or Mojo for a combless Edmontosaurus...It's that a joke or something?

So you think the difference between both Edmontosaurus species doesn matter enough to complain about a figure not being that specific species? Tell that to those who want a Triceratops prosus...

Edmontosaurus not being impresive enough?! Literally one of the largest hadrosaurs, with lots of fossils, even mummies! With a specimiem potentially being almost as large as a Shanthungosaurus! It was a formidable animal that lived alongside T.rex, Triceratops, Ankylosaurus...etc.

[Concavenator]

@Sim In mi opinion, Edmontosaurus is in a similar league to dinosaurs like Brachylophosaurus, Psittacosaurus, Microraptor, Borealopelta, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, etc. Animals that we know so much about that just by those facts alone, they are intrinsically valuable. If you get a good figure of Edmontosaurus for your collection (or a good figure of one of the other aforementioned animals), you're getting an accurate depiction of a prehistoric animal we know a lot about. Rarely are extinct animals so well-known, and onto the figures themselves, not all figures are good, either. That's what I would consider a valuable addition.

When it comes to those genera I mentioned, I'm not saying they should result interesting to any prehistoric model collector. I'm simply saying those are the kind of genera that I don't think anyone could deny they would be good (great, actually) choices for a figure, if we go by how much of the animal is known. By contrast, something like Saurophaganax would not be a good choice for a figure, going by how complete its remains are.

And in a context where people are happily getting figures of poorly-known taxa like Saurophaganax, Zhuchengtyrannus, etc., because of how pretty they are, I'm happy to see new releases featuring well-known animals, even if that means additional good figures of a certain creature.

On the other hand, I do take your point about there being several good Edmontosaurus already, and at the same time it is also true there are many animals known from good remains awaiting to receive not just good figures, but even a single good figure (!).

[Sim]

Thanks @Concavenator.   You are right that Edmontosaurus is a good choice to make into a figure.  So I take back what I said about it being one of the least impressive animals.

Just because I love something doesnt mean I'm gonna get everything that has it's name on it, and also because I love Edmontosaurus annectens, I want it to get the best figure possible, and the PNSO is that, escept for that one thing that just so happens to be almost a dealbreaker for me.

But if it's true that no E. annectens mummies preserve the integument of the head, a crest on an E. annectens figure doesn't affect it being the best figure possible.

So now is our fault for not being specific about not wanting a crest in a E. annectens? Do I have to ask for every single detail I want in a figure? Despite E. annectens being usually depicted without a crest to differienciate it from E. regalis? Sure, a couple recontructions of annectens have incorporated the comb, but it should be logical that a good way to differenciate the two species is, apart from their skulls, not giving the comb to annectens. Prehistoric planect depicted their Edmontosaurus annenctens withouth a comb, cased closed.

It's not your fault.  But if there's something you really don't want on a figure that is quite possible to happen, I would recommend saying it.  There was already a trend to give Edmontosaurus reconstructions a crest, regardless of species, for example the Ancestors E. annectens.  If the cranial integument of annectens isn't preserved, not giving it a crest would be more speculative than giving it one, especially since annectens is a descendant of regalis.

Also, ask Papo or Mojo for a combless Edmontosaurus...It's that a joke or something?

Well, no.  It's more likely they will make one at this point than any of the other companies making another.  You might want to specify Mr Seo makes the Edmontosaurus too though, if you ask Papo.  Although I had a feeling I had forgotten about someone, Eofauna might be a good choice to ask for a crestless Edmontosaurus, although they might believe it's more likely annectens had a crest too...

So you think the difference between both Edmontosaurus species doesn matter enough to complain about a figure not being that specific species? Tell that to those who want a Triceratops prosus...

I've only seen one member here wanting Triceratops prorsus, although even with that case I think there's more difference between the Triceratops species than there is between the Edmontosaurus species.  The fact that throughout this year there's been constant backwards and forwards over which Edmontosaurus species is being represented by a particular figure shows there isn't much difference between the Edmontosaurus species.  So I don't understand why it matters which species is represented?  But I think I need to accept that to some people it matters.

[Faelrin]

This thread's recent discussion has been pretty enlightening for me, with all the points and questions being raised, in particular towards Edmontosaurus.

@Sim I think there may be others around here that would like a figure of that species. I know I would, particularly because it is always T. horridus that gets made (unless the ones Eofauna and PNSO made count against that, not 100% sure what species they were made to represent). It would be nice for a change.

[Sim]

Okay, that makes two members I've seen wanting Triceratops prorsus.   The PNSO Triceratops are definitely T. horridus.  Maybe if Haolonggood makes Triceratops they could make T. prorsus?  I think they would if there's enough demand for it.

[Sim]

So I've found out that there is some integument from the head preserved for E. annectens, but it's just from the snout and right at the back of the head.  The top of its head, including where the crest is preserved in E. regalis doesn't have any integument preserved.  So at this stage I think it is more speculative to represent E. annectens without a crest than with one.  The hadrosaurid integument map here shows the extent of preserved cranial skin in E. annectens: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html

Also, for the record I'm not sure the PNSO Edmontosaurus is E. annectens, I await Paleo nerd's explanation for it.

[GojiraGuy1954]

To invoke the old saying, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I for one find it pretty easy to imagine that the younger species retained some form of comb as there was probably some evolutionary reason for it to appear in the first place (communication? Identification? Sexual display?)
If it evolved for any of those reasons, it seems advantageous to keep.

That's not the point.

At the end of the day, these models are still art pieces, and there's no point having a ton that all look very similar. It's also not wrong to omit the comb as E. annectens has no direct evidence of it, so for a more varied set of shelves it would make sense to make separate species of the same animal as visually distinct as possible while still remaining accurate.

There's also the fact that... if it has the crest, there's always a chance it was meant to represent Regalis, and i've just bought an expensive duplicate animal. I want an Annectens that I know for sure is actually an Annectens.

[SRF]

We actually know for sure that PNSO's Edmontosaurus was always meant te be Annectens. Just look at the artwork PNSO published earlier of T. rex and Torosaurus, featuring multiple Edmontosaurs with a crest.