PNSO New for 2025

[oscars_dinos]

Oh dear, it appears we have a potential explanation for the proportions. It seems to have been based on a Peters skeletal...


https://x.com/Kamitoge/status/1946046718690140264/photo/3

is that bad ? genuine question i don't know

[Shane]

is that bad ? genuine question i don't know

David Peters is a formerly mostly well-liked paleo-artist from 90s who took a notorious turn when he started making all kinds of weird claims about mainly pterosuars, but also other prehistoric reptiles and many other animals in general, apparently based on observations only he can see from looking at photos of the fossils (ie. not examining them in person).

He has claimed almost all understood pterosaur science and anatomy is completely wrong, based on wild interpretations of fossil images, where he seems to see all kinds of structures and physical characteristics that either aren't there, or are obviously any number of much more likely explanations (cracks in rock, scratches/prep marks, shadows, topography changes, paint, or artifacts of the low quality images he's "studying").

https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem <- this post goes into much more detail if you have an afternoon to kill.

Needless to say his skeletals should not be trusted. His site is called Reptile Evolution and should be avoided at all costs.

[Sim]

I'm not sure it was based on the David Peters skeletal, the body shape and head (particularly the snout tip) don't match.

David Peters has a second site called Pterosaur heresies, it should be avoided too.

[oscars_dinos]

is that bad ? genuine question i don't know

David Peters is a formerly mostly well-liked paleo-artist from 90s who took a notorious turn when he started making all kinds of weird claims about mainly pterosuars, but also other prehistoric reptiles and many other animals in general, apparently based on observations only he can see from looking at photos of the fossils (ie. not examining them in person).

He has claimed almost all understood pterosaur science and anatomy is completely wrong, based on wild interpretations of fossil images, where he seems to see all kinds of structures and physical characteristics that either aren't there, or are obviously any number of much more likely explanations (cracks in rock, scratches/prep marks, shadows, topography changes, paint, or artifacts of the low quality images he's "studying").

https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem <- this post goes into much more detail if you have an afternoon to kill.

Needless to say his skeletals should not be trusted. His site is called Reptile Evolution and should be avoided at all costs.

thanks for informing me

[Joel1905]

Oh dear, it appears we have a potential explanation for the proportions. It seems to have been based on a Peters skeletal...


https://x.com/Kamitoge/status/1946046718690140264/photo/3

I don't see it...

[Turkeysaurus]

Oh dear, it appears we have a potential explanation for the proportions. It seems to have been based on a Peters skeletal...


https://x.com/Kamitoge/status/1946046718690140264/photo/3

I don't see it...

"Since PNSO officially announced their Dinocephalosaurus to be 2.7m long, it is mostly likely based on David Peters' reconstruction of incomplete specimen IVPP V 13898, which explains the missing neck vertebrae, short tail, and a skull oversized for no reason"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwG_KzAWwAAST-y?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwG_KzCWwAIdfCZ?format=jpg&name=large

[crazy8wizard]

Did it occur to anyone that the figure is based off of the model on display in the museum?

[Joel1905]

Oh dear, it appears we have a potential explanation for the proportions. It seems to have been based on a Peters skeletal...


https://x.com/Kamitoge/status/1946046718690140264/photo/3

I don't see it...

"Since PNSO officially announced their Dinocephalosaurus to be 2.7m long, it is mostly likely based on David Peters' reconstruction of incomplete specimen IVPP V 13898, which explains the missing neck vertebrae, short tail, and a skull oversized for no reason"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwG_KzAWwAAST-y?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwG_KzCWwAIdfCZ?format=jpg&name=large

That's not enough, it's far too different to the Peters skeletal, thankfully.

[Faelrin]

@crazy8wizard It did for me earlier up in this thread.

[Shane]

I'm not really seeing the Peters influence either, and I can't imagine any figure maker, especially one like PNSO that is closely tied to actual paleontologists, would use a Peters skeletal because 1) it's Peters and he's infamous in paleontology circles, and 2) his skeletals are frequently weirdly crushed and broken looking and I can't think of why anyone would look at them and say "yes, let's base our figure on that".

I think the proportion issues are likely to just make it work better as a figure; an extremely long and thin neck and tiny head doesn't showcase detail very well when you scale it down to figure size.

[Joel1905]

I'm not really seeing the Peters influence either, and I can't imagine any figure maker, especially one like PNSO that is closely tied to actual paleontologists, would use a Peters skeletal because 1) it's Peters and he's infamous in paleontology circles, and 2) his skeletals are frequently weirdly crushed and broken looking and I can't think of why anyone would look at them and say "yes, let's base our figure on that".

I think the proportion issues are likely to just make it work better as a figure; an extremely long and thin neck and tiny head doesn't showcase detail very well when you scale it down to figure size.

I think the thickness of the neck and body as well as the curvature just make it look shorter than it is.

[Torvosaurus]

is that bad ? genuine question i don't know

David Peters is a formerly mostly well-liked paleo-artist from 90s who took a notorious turn when he started making all kinds of weird claims about mainly pterosuars, but also other prehistoric reptiles and many other animals in general, apparently based on observations only he can see from looking at photos of the fossils (ie. not examining them in person).

He has claimed almost all understood pterosaur science and anatomy is completely wrong, based on wild interpretations of fossil images, where he seems to see all kinds of structures and physical characteristics that either aren't there, or are obviously any number of much more likely explanations (cracks in rock, scratches/prep marks, shadows, topography changes, paint, or artifacts of the low quality images he's "studying").

https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/7/23/the-david-peters-problem <- this post goes into much more detail if you have an afternoon to kill.

Needless to say his skeletals should not be trusted. His site is called Reptile Evolution and should be avoided at all costs.

Oh my god, don't get me going on Peters. When she was in high school, my daughter had to do a paper on a biological science topic of her choice. She chose hyeanadonts, or more specifically Hyeanodon, mainly because I have alway been fascinated by the former order of the Creodonta. Anyways, the night before she has to turn the paper in, I proofread her paper and was immediately stopped where she said hyeanodonts were marsupials. I was like, "What?" I asked her where she got her info and "poof", we were at Reptile Evolution dot com. I couldn't be mad at her because she didn't have the knowledge to know better, but I was pissed. So I grabbed a couple of my books and tutored her in creodonts. She ended up using me as her source and the teacher called me a couple of days later. We talked a bit and he was glad to accept me as a source after we talked, especially after Reptile Evolution came up, but that would not have happened if it wasn't for that infernal site.

Anyways, Darren Naish has posted several times (in his blog) over the years about Peter's site, on his site at Tetrapod Zoolgy, as have other well-known paleontologists on their blogs.

Torvo

Edit: Sorry about the rant, being off-topic and all, but I get furious by Peter's site.

[Berno]

Did it occur to anyone that the figure is based off of the model on display in the museum?

Exactly, it looks just like the museum model.

[oscars_dinos]

I'm not really seeing the Peters influence either, and I can't imagine any figure maker, especially one like PNSO that is closely tied to actual paleontologists, would use a Peters skeletal because 1) it's Peters and he's infamous in paleontology circles, and 2) his skeletals are frequently weirdly crushed and broken looking and I can't think of why anyone would look at them and say "yes, let's base our figure on that".

I think the proportion issues are likely to just make it work better as a figure; an extremely long and thin neck and tiny head doesn't showcase detail very well when you scale it down to figure size.

I think the thickness of the neck and body as well as the curvature just make it look shorter than it is.

yeah im hoping in hand this figure ends up being more acurate then these pics are leading to it to be

[Monkeysaurus]

I just ordered it on Amazon. Now I have to find a suitable place to display it on account of its 1/25 scale. Maybe I'm over thinking it and should just put it up on the wall with the rest. They made another Triassic goober - that wide mouthed weirdo. That's another one I'd get if not for the scale.

[GnastyGnorc]

I just ordered it on Amazon. Now I have to find a suitable place to display it on account of its 1/25 scale. Maybe I'm over thinking it and should just put it up on the wall with the rest. They made another Triassic goober - that wide mouthed weirdo. That's another one I'd get if not for the scale.

I have section of just what I refer to as reptile/prehistoric oddities. Which basically is just everthing Triassic and earlier. I generally try and keep everything in scale except for these since Triassic and pretriassic animals are generally more rare and too small to make in a 1:30-1:35 scale.

[SBell]

It's already available on the aliexpress PNSO official store, $30.99.

For americans, it's 40.99

It was $44 cdn last night. Then jumped to $55 a half hour later. Apparently they do surge pricing!

[Gwangi]

It's $30 on Amazon (US) but with a $10 shipping fee. I have a feeling that the shipping fee will go away, it usually does with PNSO models. For example, the Coronosaurus has free shipping. I'll just have to be patient and wait and see, I'm not spending $40 on it. I feel like even $30 is too much but I'm willing to pay it. I guess I'm stuck in the past, when models like the Atopodentatus cost (and still cost) $20.

[Monkeysaurus]

@ GnastyGnorc

Great idea. I'm going to start a separate section of various odd balls in varying scales to the right of my 1/35 collection. I must hang marine critters from my ceiling because it's the only place left for them.

[Turkeysaurus]

PNSO says 2.7 meter for this animal. So it's 1:10 scale.