PNSO New for 2025

[Manospundylus gigas]

Theres nothing more accurate in "open mouth" reconstructions than in "cheeky" (but by cheeky im not referring to the muscle, but to the appearance due to the skin flaps), only aesthetics and preference, and because people are now so used to that appearance, many brands like PNSO have chosen to portray them like that, althoug it is no more accurate than one that has skin flaps, but both are more accuerate that one that has cheeks.

OK now I understand from where some of the lets say confusion in this discussion comes. I understand the term "cheeks" as the classic muscular structure analogous to mammals. Anything else should be termed differently, either by referring to "pseudocheeks" or "skin flaffs".

And I agree that given the present state of knowledge, both the "open mouth" and the "skin flaff" reconstruction would appear equally possible. One can of course bring forward arguments based on functional morphology which would lend support to the presence of some structure that keeps food in the mouth.

But again this is not a proof in the strict sense, only one hypothesis with some level of probability. We must wait until a ceratopsian or hadrosaur with rather complete soft tissue preservation of the head will be found.

Exactly, that's what I wanted to say, thank you for saying it in a more clear way.
For make it more clearly with images:
Directly from Nabavizadeh paper The muscle inserts into the dentary from the level of the very beginning of the dental battery, just after the cornified beak, leaving the teeth of the dentary totally covered in side view.

Now PNSO and Eofauna triceratops:

PNSO is on the verge, but it is still pausible, it has the muscle but exposed, with no skin flaps at all, the muscle is in the same spot as in the paper, in the beginning of dental battery, maybe slightly more backwards.
Eofauna Triceratops is straight wrong and inaccurate, it has no muscle at all, it even has some kind of skin flaps, or the muscle but covered, but very posteriorly, it is just WRONG, and the result of the paleomeme. Funny because they and people use to show off eofauna as the scientific accurate brand but here theirs is the least scientific Triceratops, THEY LEFT THE POOR ANIMAL WITHOUT  MUSCLES!! Haolonggoods one is much better and accurate, because you dont know if it has the muscle correctly positioned or no because they gave it skin flaps that covered the mouth, which is totally pausible.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

One reason I like closed mouths. No need to worry about it.

[Joel1905]

Theres nothing more accurate in "open mouth" reconstructions than in "cheeky" (but by cheeky im not referring to the muscle, but to the appearance due to the skin flaps), only aesthetics and preference, and because people are now so used to that appearance, many brands like PNSO have chosen to portray them like that, althoug it is no more accurate than one that has skin flaps, but both are more accuerate that one that has cheeks.

OK now I understand from where some of the lets say confusion in this discussion comes. I understand the term "cheeks" as the classic muscular structure analogous to mammals. Anything else should be termed differently, either by referring to "pseudocheeks" or "skin flaffs".

And I agree that given the present state of knowledge, both the "open mouth" and the "skin flaff" reconstruction would appear equally possible. One can of course bring forward arguments based on functional morphology which would lend support to the presence of some structure that keeps food in the mouth.

But again this is not a proof in the strict sense, only one hypothesis with some level of probability. We must wait until a ceratopsian or hadrosaur with rather complete soft tissue preservation of the head will be found.

Exactly, that's what I wanted to say, thank you for saying it in a more clear way.
For make it more clearly with images:
Directly from Nabavizadeh paper The muscle inserts into the dentary from the level of the very beginning of the dental battery, just after the cornified beak, leaving the teeth of the dentary totally covered in side view.

Now PNSO and Eofauna triceratops:

PNSO is on the verge, but it is still pausible, it has the muscle but exposed, with no skin flaps at all, the muscle is in the same spot as in the paper, in the beginning of dental battery, maybe slightly more backwards.
Eofauna Triceratops is straight wrong and inaccurate, it has no muscle at all, it even has some kind of skin flaps, or the muscle but covered, but very posteriorly, it is just WRONG, and the result of the paleomeme. Funny because they and people use to show off eofauna as the scientific accurate brand but here theirs is the least scientific Triceratops, THEY LEFT THE POOR ANIMAL WITHOUT  MUSCLES!! Haolonggoods one is much better and accurate, because you dont know if it has the muscle correctly positioned or no because they gave it skin flaps that covered the mouth, which is totally pausible.

Finally, we understand each other 😂 sorry for the argument, old chap!

[Elengassen]

Going back to companies bowing to public pressure, I think that's why Haolonggood and PNSO aren't making dromaeosaurids.  They know featherless ones are incorrect and so they just don't make them as that isn't the way the majority of the public sees them.

I don't think this is the main reason why they aren't making dromaeosaurids. To the extent that fame matters, I suspect the name itself is at least as important as the way the animal is depicted. After all, aren't Safari's feathered T. rex and Velociraptor among their best-selling figures?

[Gwangi]

Going back to companies bowing to public pressure, I think that's why Haolonggood and PNSO aren't making dromaeosaurids.  They know featherless ones are incorrect and so they just don't make them as that isn't the way the majority of the public sees them.

I don't think this is the main reason why they aren't making dromaeosaurids. To the extent that fame matters, I suspect the name itself is at least as important as the way the animal is depicted. After all, aren't Safari's feathered T. rex and Velociraptor among their best-selling figures?

I think it's more a combination of size and difficulty. PNSO and HLG only seem to want to produce figures in a set scale and most feathered dinosaurs are small, and putting feathers on a dinosaur is more complicated a task than scales.

I would like to see more feathered dinosaurs from both companies but I'm also content with Safari having the win on this one. Safari has stiff competition from these companies but they're also making animals those other companies won't touch, due in part to having no set scale, I suspect.

[suspsy]

As long as Safari and CollectA keep turning out relatively small dinosaurs with feathers, I honestly don't care if PNSO and Haolonggood never do.

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

CollectA has been making more and more small animals at around 1:35 scale too, so that's neat for filling out formations. Just wish Safari was more inclined towards doing the same lol.

Also, speaking of outdated science, I wonder if PNSO will remake their old Hadrosaurs anytime soon (particularly the Corytho and Lambeo, Para would be neat too but I guess less needed). They look pretty (if a bit strange) but I would kind of like more up to date ones, at least by modern scientific standards. Would be neat if they got paint jobs similar to their original counterparts, as an homage.

[Sim]

I don't think PNSO will remake any hadrosaurids before giving lips to theropod species they previously made without (excluding Tyrannosaurus).  So if PNSO doesn't make any of those, I think remade hadrosaurids won't be coming.

[Turkeysaurus]

I can do close relatives. Magnapaulia & Hypacrosaurus instead of Lambeosaurus & Corythosaurus.

Meanwhile Haolonggood can make some Lambeosaurus & Corythosaurus.

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

I dunno, the lacking lips are a far less glaring issue than the gracile Hadrosaurs... :/

[Sim]

It depends on who you ask.  I think the gracile hadrosaurids are less of a "problem" than lipless theropods, and the latter I don't even think is a problem.  Also, based on how often it comes up, I think more people are wanting lipped theropods than bulkier hadrosaurids.

[Gwangi]

I'm not interested in new versions of anything. If I found it worth buying when it came out then I'm holding onto it for the long term. It took waiting from 1993 to 2021 to get another decent Corythosaurus figure, I'm not replacing Caroline 4 years after its release. If I had to replace dinosaur figures every few years I wouldn't even want to be in this hobby.

[GnastyGnorc]

I would also think re releasing the Hadrosaurus is very low on the list of priorities for pnso. (Or any figure for that matter save Trex and a select few others). I personally quite like the lambeosaurus. Some of them definitely could have had a more gracile build.

[Turkeysaurus]

I think PNSO only remakes most famous dinosaurs. T.rex, triceratops, stegosaurus , spinosaurus etc.

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

They remade Mamenchisaurus and Microraptor, so. Hopes not dead yet, I'd say.

[suspsy]

I think PNSO only remakes most famous dinosaurs. T.rex, triceratops, stegosaurus , spinosaurus etc.

I think PNSO's hadrosaurs still hold up well enough that they don't need to be remade. Except for maybe the chronically unstable Corythosaurus.

[Sim]

They remade Mamenchisaurus and Microraptor, so. Hopes not dead yet, I'd say.

And Yangchuanosaurus, Lufengosaurus...

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

I think PNSO only remakes most famous dinosaurs. T.rex, triceratops, stegosaurus , spinosaurus etc.

I think PNSO's hadrosaurs still hold up well enough that they don't need to be remade. Except for maybe the chronically unstable Corythosaurus.

...Olorotitan, Tsintaosaurus and Edmontosaurus, maybe. But Corythosaurus and Lambeosaurus, the ones I mentioned, in particular? Those thin twigs with the individual toes and the giraffe paintjobs? They hold up?

Heck, Parasaurolophus is very good in comparison but even it was already slightly outdated upon release... Can probably skip remaking that one and have a Charonosaurus as a spiritual successor or something, though.

[suspsy]

I think PNSO only remakes most famous dinosaurs. T.rex, triceratops, stegosaurus , spinosaurus etc.

I think PNSO's hadrosaurs still hold up well enough that they don't need to be remade. Except for maybe the chronically unstable Corythosaurus.

...Olorotitan, Tsintaosaurus and Edmontosaurus, maybe. But Corythosaurus and Lambeosaurus, the ones I mentioned, in particular? Those thin twigs with the individual toes and the giraffe paintjobs? They hold up?

Well enough, as I said. I'd rather see brand new hadrosaurs like Hypacrosaurus and Brachylophosaurus. Also, the paintjobs are fine.

[Joel1905]

PNSO have posted drawings of an updated Corythosaurus several times. Same colours and patterns as Caroline, but much chunkier and anatomically accurate.

However, we really do need some lipped theropods soon.

I wonder if we'll get an Easter figure?