PNSO - 2025 Hopes and Dreams

[Concavenator]

Alright folks, which species would you like PNSO to make? Bear in mind that size matters!

Here's my list:

Non-dinosaurs

Quetzalcoatlus
Megatherium
Basilosaurus
Shonisaurus

Ornithischians

Kentrosaurus
Tenontosaurus
Maiasaura or Brachylophosaurus
Scelidosaurus

Sauropodomorphs

Amargasaurus
Apatosaurus
Shunosaurus
Turiasaurus
Plateosaurus

Theropods

Dilophosaurus or Sinosaurus (I'm still upset with them for not having made either)
Gallimimus
Herrerasaurus
A therizinosaurian known from better remains than Therizinosaurus. Nothronychus or Segnosaurus come to mind (I don't see them considering smaller taxa)
Carnotaurus (new version)
Utahraptor

I haven't included taxa like Halszkaraptor, Eoraptor, Zhenyuanlong, Rhamphorhynchus, Tiktaalik or Aquilolamna (even though I'd like to have good figures of those as well) because I don't think PNSO would consider them, due to their sizes.

Now it's your turn!

[Samrukia]

Cryolophosaurus
Saurolophus
Utahraptor
new Tarbosaurus
Kentrosaurus
any Abelisaurid
Gigantoraptor

[Sim]

Bear in mind that size matters!

I think size matters less for PNSO than it does for Haolonggood.  I also think Kentrosaurus and Scelidosaurus would be too small for PNSO to make in 1:35 scale.

[Ajax88]

Cool things with feathers, Big raptors, Azhdarchids, Gigantoraptor.

[suspsy]

Miniatures return at last.

[Sim]

Linheraptor
Zhenyuanlong
Herrerasaurus
Sinornithosaurus
Buitreraptor
Dilophosaurus (I'm happy with my Papo version but I'd be happier with a more modern one from PNSO!)
Rhamphorhynchus
Edestus
Basilosaurus (new version)
Edmontonia rugosidens
Medusaceratops
Polacanthus
Anchiceratops
Gallimimus
Supersaurus
Saltasaurus

[Halichoeres]

They haven't made a non-dinosaur in three years. I'd like to see them do that again.

[Sim]

They haven't made a non-dinosaur in three years. I'd like to see them do that again.

Unfortunately it looks like your wish will be granted with the most unnecessary species: Mosasaurus.

[crazy8wizard]

At the end of the day are any figures really "necessary"?

[Sim]

For me yes

[GnastyGnorc]

They haven't made a non-dinosaur in three years. I'd like to see them do that again.

Unfortunately it looks like your wish will be granted with the most unnecessary species: Mosasaurus.

Is there a leak I am not aware of?

[Concavenator]

At the end of the day are any figures really "necessary"?

Yeah, I would say so. If companies are releasing models of species like Tyrannotitan, Zhuchengtyrannus, "Sinopliosaurus' or Ceratosuchops and we still haven't gotten a single good Herrerasaurus (just to give some examples), well, I don't think that's fair.

[crazy8wizard]

Annoying maybe, but I wouldn't say unfair. It's not like they're making these specifically to spite anyone in particular or are trying to tarnish the legacy of anyone. I know a lot of people on this forum are very annoyed when fragmentary genera are made but it's not like there's a rule that says "You must have this many preserved bones to enter". If there was shouldn't we be more annoyed by the Haolonggood Argentinosaurus? Argentinosaurus has less described skeletal material than Tyrannotitan.

[Sim]

Is there a leak I am not aware of?

Yes, Paleofiguras who is very reliable has said PNSO will be making Ichthyovenator and a new Mosasaurus.

[Concavenator]

shouldn't we be more annoyed by the Haolonggood Argentinosaurus? Argentinosaurus has less described skeletal material than Tyrannotitan.

I think both Argentinosaurus and Tyrannotitan are bad choices for a figure, because we don't know what they looked like. Argentinosaurus at least I can see why it could be more interesting, being potentially the biggest dinosaur we know of. Meanwhile Tyrannotitan is just a carcharodontosaurid, one of the biggest theropods, but not THE biggest^*, and it has relatives with known appearances, like Meraxes or Acrocanthosaurus. But at the end of the day, I think both are poor choices.

The Haolonggood Argentinosaurus sure is a popular and impressive model. But the choice of species is not good IMO. One can always appreciate a dinosaur figure for its aesthetics, that doesn't mean the species it represents is remarkable or a good choice. Those are two different things.

^* Not that I think that being big per se makes a creature interesting. But for a lot of people it does, and I respect that, but that's also what causes that there are clades with the biggest member/s being poorly-known and overshadowing smaller, more completely-known (and therefore, more scientifically relevant) taxa. This is what happens with Titanosauria and Therizinosauria, for example.

it's not like there's a rule that says "You must have this many preserved bones to enter".

Ironically, having more bones preserved doesn't always make a taxon more well-known. It definitely helps, but having a lot of material isn't necessarily crucial. Rather than that, what makes an animal's appearance "known" is the variable parts of the clade it belongs to being well-preserved in the fossil material.

Some ceratopsids are only or mostly known from just skull material, and we are still able to represent them more confidently than, for example, Gigantoraptor or Magnapaulia, two animals with fairly complete postcrania, but with key parts of their skeleton being absent. Any of those taxa, technically, have more complete remains than, say, Diabloceratops. But we "know" what Diabloceratops looked like, we can't say the same for Gigantoraptor or Magnapaulia.

[crazy8wizard]

Idk, saying we don't know what they look like so matter of factly seems really dismissive of phylogenetic bracketing and the people who work with it. If we really want to get technical, there's very few dinosaurs we really know what they look like. Just because we know the bones doesn't necessarily mean the overall appearance of the animal is known, it means we know what the fossilized bones look like. Horn length, exact soft tissue coverage, color, habitual posture, and soft displays might be a total mystery unless something preserves with it.

[Concavenator]

Idk, saying we don't know what they look like so matter of factly seems really dismissive of phylogenetic bracketing and the people who work with it.

The more one has to resort to phylogenetic bracketing when reconstructing a particular taxon, the less known that animal's appearance is. This is self-explanatory, that's why phylogenetic bracketing is needed there to begin with. Of course that phylogenetic bracketing is relevant, I never implied that it isn't. However, we would be more confident about an animal's appearance by having more remains (or key elements being found, like the variable parts I mentioned) than by largely resorting to phylogenetic bracketing. This is something that again is self-explanatory.

If we really want to get technical, there's very few dinosaurs we really know what they look like..

You're probably thinking of dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx, Anchiornis, Microraptor or Borealopelta there. But we don't factually know what they looked like. Because, for example, when it comes to those theropods, we don't know what colors its scaly body parts were.  Technically, it would be more appropriate to say we are highly confident we know what they looked like.

When I say "known appearance" I don't intent to say we know what they looked like. Obviously, as you mention, there are elements we don't know, and probably never will. But what I mean with that is that enough of the skeleton is preserved so we can have a relatively confident idea of what it looked like. That's what I would define as a prehistoric animals with with a "known" appearance. There are plenty of animals in such a situation. Diabloceratops qualifies for that, Gigantoraptor or Magnapaulia doesn't. Despite the former having less complete fossil material than the latter two.

[Sim]

I think species which don't have a known appearance, consistent with what @Concavenator described above, can make a good choice for being made into a figure sometimes.  It depends on the circumstances.  For one example, there's been regular requests for a figure of a large titanosaurian that's in scale with other dinosaur figures, and a figure like this represents an interesting aspect of prehistoric fauna.  For these reasons I think the Haolonggood Argentinosaurus was a good choice.  In contrast, I think the CollectA Argentinosaurus is pretty pointless.  The only interesting part of the animal, its very large size, is lost.  Why not make Saltasaurus or Rapetosaurus instead then?  The CollectA Argentinosaurus was from before CollectA became good at sauropods and its head looks like an alien's, so it's not a real loss that they made that figure then.

[thomasw100]

I think species which don't have a known appearance, consistent with what @Concavenator described above, can make a good choice for being made into a figure sometimes.  It depends on the circumstances.  For one example, there's been regular requests for a figure of a large titanosaurian that's in scale with other dinosaur figures, and a figure like this represents an interesting aspect of prehistoric fauna.  For these reasons I think the Haolonggood Argentinosaurus was a good choice.  In contrast, I think the CollectA Argentinosaurus is pretty pointless.  The only interesting part of the animal, its very large size, is lost.  Why not make Saltasaurus or Rapetosaurus instead then?  The CollectA Argentinosaurus was from before CollectA became good at sauropods and its head looks like an alien's, so it's not a real loss that they made that figure then.

I agree with this view. Haolonggood could of course have opted for Patagotitan which has better remains and had featured in this very popular exhibition at the NHM and elsewhere. But Argentinosaurus is known to the broader general public as the icon of the largest land animal to ever walk this planet. So the choice is perfectly understandable from the perspective of Haolonggood which needs to sell their figures. Choosing Patagotitan would probably not have resulted in a much different figure and the skull of these giant titanosaurs is not known anyway and will maybe never be found in the fossil record.