PNSO New for 2025

[Concavenator]

I wasn't expecting PNSO to return to a scale that's outside the typical 1:30-35 range. Good news for a lot of collectors.

[Takkar]

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.

Ah yes, David Peters, i couldnt remember his name couple of days ago when i was reading something about dinosaurs. I just remembered him as that pterosaur guy. Im not an expert, nor do i want to come of as a redditor, but whats the point of making claims if you havent seen these fossils in person? I mean if he is a paleo-artist in the first place, shouldnt that be part of the job? Mauricio Anton is a great example of someone who utilizes his knowledge to give us the best up to date reconstructions of prehistoric animals, mammals mainly but still.

[suspsy]

If David Peters declared that the sky was blue, I would seek out second opinions. That's how untrustworthy he is.

[AcryAllo]

David Peters is the sort of person to say that a baby bird is a separate species to the adult...

I bet he'd say Nanotyrannus is real

[Dino_W]

David Peters is the sort of person to say that a baby bird is a separate species to the adult...

I bet he'd say Nanotyrannus is real

Dave Peters sucks, but I'd honestly say Nanotyrannus is probably real. I also very much so believed that Nanotyrannus was a juvenile rex, but the morphological differences in the arms and legs are too great to explain. Jane has a longer tibia and metatarsal than juvenile rex specimens 3x its size. And Bloody Mary's arms do not match that of an adult rex at all. Couple that with potential medullary tissue in Petey's long bones, and the holotype Nano potentially having an EFS, and it at least looks more and more likely that Nanotyrannus is valid.

We'll have to wait for more upcoming studies though, from what I've heard about current research this debate is about to get reignited.

[AcryAllo]

David Peters is the sort of person to say that a baby bird is a separate species to the adult...

I bet he'd say Nanotyrannus is real

Dave Peters sucks, but I'd honestly say Nanotyrannus is probably real. I also very much so believed that Nanotyrannus was a juvenile rex, but the morphological differences in the arms and legs are too great to explain. Jane has a longer tibia and metatarsal than juvenile rex specimens 3x its size. And Bloody Mary's arms do not match that of an adult rex at all. Couple that with potential medullary tissue in Petey's long bones, and the holotype Nano potentially having an EFS, and it at least looks more and more likely that Nanotyrannus is valid.

We'll have to wait for more upcoming studies though, from what I've heard about current research this debate is about to get reignited.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings with Nanotyrannus-I mean there are evidence on both sides of the argument...
Maybe Nanotyrannus convergently evolved to look like baby rexes...

I guess we'll have to wait for the dueling dinosaurs specimen to fully studied...

Nevertheless, only Peters could look at a pigeon skeleton and believe it's actually a phoenix...

[Shane]

Dave Peters sucks, but I'd honestly say Nanotyrannus is probably real. I also very much so believed that Nanotyrannus was a juvenile rex, but the morphological differences in the arms and legs are too great to explain. Jane has a longer tibia and metatarsal than juvenile rex specimens 3x its size. And Bloody Mary's arms do not match that of an adult rex at all. Couple that with potential medullary tissue in Petey's long bones, and the holotype Nano potentially having an EFS, and it at least looks more and more likely that Nanotyrannus is valid.

We'll have to wait for more upcoming studies though, from what I've heard about current research this debate is about to get reignited.

I still have thoughts about how mad a lot of people got when Safari dared to release a figure called Nanotyrannus, because it was SETTLED SCIENCE...until it wasn't.

But this isn't really the thread for that.

[suspsy]

Nanotyrannus' validity is still on very shaky ground at best. And here's something that doesn't get mentioned very often: even if the Duelling Dinosaurs specimen is found to be unique from T. rex, the original 1988 Nanotyrannus holotype needs to be confirmed as the same species as it. If it's found to be a juvenile T. rex instead, then the rules of taxonomy dictate that "Nanotyrannus" is invalid and the DD specimen would have to be named something else.

[Carnoking]

Nanotyrannus' validity is still on very shaky ground at best. And here's something that doesn't get mentioned very often: even if the Duelling Dinosaurs specimen is found to be unique from T. rex, the original 1988 Nanotyrannus holotype needs to be confirmed as the same species as it. If it's found to be a juvenile T. rex instead, then the rules of taxonomy dictate that "Nanotyrannus" is invalid and the DD specimen would have to be named something else.

Hey, I was actually just reading about this in Witton's King Tyrant

[suspsy]

Nanotyrannus' validity is still on very shaky ground at best. And here's something that doesn't get mentioned very often: even if the Duelling Dinosaurs specimen is found to be unique from T. rex, the original 1988 Nanotyrannus holotype needs to be confirmed as the same species as it. If it's found to be a juvenile T. rex instead, then the rules of taxonomy dictate that "Nanotyrannus" is invalid and the DD specimen would have to be named something else.

Hey, I was actually just reading about this in Witton's King Tyrant

Bingo.

[Over9K]

Hey, I was actually just reading about this in Witton's King Tyrant

SHHHHHHHHHH!!! Spoilers man!!!

j/k

[Dino_W]

Nanotyrannus' validity is still on very shaky ground at best. And here's something that doesn't get mentioned very often: even if the Duelling Dinosaurs specimen is found to be unique from T. rex, the original 1988 Nanotyrannus holotype needs to be confirmed as the same species as it. If it's found to be a juvenile T. rex instead, then the rules of taxonomy dictate that "Nanotyrannus" is invalid and the DD specimen would have to be named something else.

Yes of course. Though there is that SVP abstract that claimed to find an EFS in the holotype skull, which would make it likely a skeletally mature adult.

[Torvosaurus]

There's arguments both ways on "Nanotyrranus" and no way anyone on here is going to say that it "is" or "isn't" a separate species of tyrannosaurid (or possibly a tyrannosauroid) separate from t-rex, no matter what sources you quote. Right now, based on my readings, I am open to the idea of a smaller species of tyrranosaurid. I believe the differences are too distinct for there not to be a smaller species involved. However, my overall judgement is still based on what the evidence shows and not merely what I can quote as "my" truth.

Torvo

[AcryAllo]

Fr. However whatever happens in that regard, it'll change our understanding of the Maastrichtian Hell Creek greatly.

[Shane]

There's arguments both ways on "Nanotyrranus" and no way anyone on here is going to say that it "is" or "isn't" a separate species of tyrannosaurid (or possibly a tyrannosauroid) separate from t-rex, no matter what sources you quote.

This was not the case just a few short years ago. People on this forum were all too eager to take an absolute, rock solid position on Nanotyrannus's (in)validity as a genus, to the point where people seemed personally insulted that a company would dare to make a figure of that genus.

[suspsy]

I still think it's highly questionable for any company to make a toy of a species whose validity is so seriously in doubt. I can think of many tyrannosauroids that I wish Safari had made instead. But as it turned out, I do own the toy in question and I'm planning on reviewing it eventually. I was hoping that there would be a formal publication about the Duelling Dinosaurs sometime this year that would help shed more light on the matter, but I don't think that's going to happen, so I may just go ahead and start working on the review. Mark Witton's "King Tyrant" book provides a good overview, so I'll work with that. 

It is certainly a well made toy either way.

[crazy8wizard]

In some fairness, Safari's Nanotyrannus was a Dino Dana movie tie-in (and iirc the movie does eventually assert that nanotyrannus is most likely a juvenile).

PNSO I have no excuse for, but I'm more annoyed that such a little figure is over $30 than I am that it's named after a dubious genus.

[Carnoking]

Outside of the Deuling Dinosaurs, I wonder if the recent Teen Rex specimen might hold some information that will further elucidate the matter?

[crazy8wizard]

Outside of the Deuling Dinosaurs, I wonder if the recent Teen Rex specimen might hold some information that will further elucidate the matter?

I've seen the specimen up close and unfortunately I think it's going to throw a wrench in the works and continue muddying the waters because the skull is mostly complete but significantly more robust than Jane's
Here's a photo from March of this year. Notice how much taller the nose and dentary are!

[Carnoking]

Outside of the Deuling Dinosaurs, I wonder if the recent Teen Rex specimen might hold some information that will further elucidate the matter?

I've seen the specimen up close and unfortunately I think it's going to throw a wrench in the works and continue muddying the waters because the skull is mostly complete but significantly more robust than Jane's
Here's a photo from March of this year. Notice how much taller the nose and dentary are!

This was my impression as well after seeing it in December(?) but wondered if perhaps anyone had heard anything more concrete on the matter.