PNSO: New for 2022

[KrazyKaprosuchus]

A nice model, but of something so very fragmentary... Anybody know if this model could pass as another more... complete spinosaurid?

[Concavenator]

@Faras Do you think it's possible this was what the rumours were referring to when Suchomimus was mentioned? Would be really disappointed if that's the case... 

Anyways, this a very nice figure. But Sinopliosaurus, as mentioned before, is a plesiosaur, not a spinosaurid. It should be named Siamosaurus, and then again Siamosaurus is only known from teeth remains... so this is an easy pass.

If PNSO loves making Chinese dinosaurs so much, then how about a Zhenyuanlong? Or Psittacosaurus? Jianianhualong? Sinornithosaurus? Caudipteryx? Sinocalliopteryx? There's dozens of dinosaurs from the Yixian Formation alone that they could tackle.

Absolutely this. If they're making figures of taxa for the only sake of being Chinese, there are lots of other taxa also known from China that are really well preserved and very well known. So choosing these extremely fragmentary species instead, in my opinion, doesn't make sense.

[bmathison1972]

But Sinopliosaurus is a plesiosaur. It should be Siamosaurus.

OK good, that was bothering me too for a sec

Lovely model but very large and known from such little material (will it even remain a valid taxon?). I will pass on this one for now (besides my theropods are nearly exclusively Safari models  )

[Carnoking]

I too was wondering if this was originally meant to be another species (I.e. the rumored Suchomimus) before its name was arbitrarily replaced to appeal more to PNSO's domestic market. Regardless, I'm not going to let myself get too hung up on it. It's a gorgeous model, so I'll buy it and ignore what's written on the box and just refer to it by whatever may suit it better.

[ceratopsian]

All too true. And my particular pet longing is Caihong. But these lack the "big bad carnivore" pull of a spinosaur [which autocorrect thought should be a "spin issue"!]

If PNSO loves making Chinese dinosaurs so much, then how about a Zhenyuanlong? Or Psittacosaurus? Jianianhualong? Sinornithosaurus? Caudipteryx? Sinocalliopterus? There's dozens of dinosaurs from the Yixian Formation alone that they could tackle.

[SidB]

All too true. And my particular pet longing is Caihong. But these lack the "big bad carnivore" pull of a spinosaur [which autocorrect thought should be a "spin issue"!]

If PNSO loves making Chinese dinosaurs so much, then how about a Zhenyuanlong? Or Psittacosaurus? Jianianhualong? Sinornithosaurus? Caudipteryx? Sinocalliopterus? There's dozens of dinosaurs from the Yixian Formation alone that they could tackle.

I really wish that there was a practical way that PNSO could develop to present these smaller dinosaurs to eliminate the need to always have to merchandise the larger ones. We need smaller specimens, still in the 1/30-1/35 range, but perhaps in a group that still has impact, like Carnegie or CollectA did on occasion.

[Faras]

@Concavenator No "official info" atm, imo that's pretty likely...

Ugly broken masseter muscles again just when I thought they finally fixed the issue, ugh. Well guess I'll grab it anyways.

[Concavenator]

@Faras Oh no... Hopefully a Suchomimus is still coming. 

When it comes to the name, Rubén Molina (from Eofauna) shared something interesting on Paleofiguras group. He says Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis is indeed classified as a spinosaurid whereas Sinopliosaurus weiyuanensis is a plesiosaur. He also says Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis is a synonym of Siamosaurus suteethorni. I also saw another person on Instagram point out that one of the two species of the genus is a spinosaurid (which the PNSO intends to represent) and the other one a plesiosaur. This is very weird. I looked it up and on Wikipedia for S.fusuiensis the genus name is "Sinopliosaurus" so for a brief moment I thought it was an informal name. However, I checked the bibliography Wikipedia used, and the species name Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis appears in an actual paper described as a "spinosaurid theropod closely allied to Siamosaurus suteethorni, from the Early Cretaceous of Thailand" (as cited).

before its name was arbitrarily replaced to appeal more to PNSO's domestic market.

Not sure the only way to appeal to PNSO's domestic market is releasing Chinese species. I bet they've also enjoyed the Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Spinosaurus, Triceratops, Styracosaurus and Iguanodon, among others.

[Carnoking]

I'm sure. Perhaps PNSO just wanted to produce something truly unique to the market. How well thought through that was is the question.

[DinoToyForum]

@Faras Oh no... Hopefully a Suchomimus is still coming. 

When it comes to the name, Rubén Molina (from Eofauna) shared something interesting on Paleofiguras group. He says Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis is indeed classified as a spinosaurid whereas Sinopliosaurus weiyuanensis is a plesiosaur. He also says Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis is a synonym of Siamosaurus suteethorni. I also saw another person on Instagram point out that one of the two species of the genus is a spinosaurid (which the PNSO intends to represent) and the other one a plesiosaur. This is very weird. I looked it up and on Wikipedia for S.fusuiensis the genus name is "Sinopliosaurus" so for a brief moment I thought it was an informal name. However, I checked the bibliography Wikipedia used, and the species name Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis appears in an actual paper described as a "spinosaurid theropod closely allied to Siamosaurus suteethorni, from the Early Cretaceous of Thailand" (as cited).

before its name was arbitrarily replaced to appeal more to PNSO's domestic market.

Not sure the only way to appeal to PNSO's domestic market is releasing Chinese species. I bet they've also enjoyed the Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Spinosaurus, Triceratops, Styracosaurus and Iguanodon, among others.

It's just taxonomy as usual in palaeontology. Here's the simplified timeline:

Young (1944) described and named a new genus and species of plesiosaur: Sinopliosaurus weiyuanensis.

Hou et al. (1975) named a new species of Sinopliosaurus based on teeth: S. fusuiensis.

Buffetaut & Ingavat (1986) named a new dinosaur based on teeth: Siamosaurus suteethorni.

Buffetaut et al (2008) reidentified the teeth of S. fusuiensis as belonging to a spinosaurid "closely allied to Siamosaurus suteethorni".

[Sim]

It's a lovely figure but I'm not getting it because of what PNSO has called it.  I expected better from PNSO.  Hopefully in a few years time a Suchomimus from David Silva will be made that satisfies those who want a nice figure of it, like me.

[Faelrin]

A better take on Siamosaurus then Mattel's, but the naming is clearly unfortunate. PNSO should do better then to push out inaccurate info. This is like the Nanotyrannus again.

Granted Siamosaurus is know from teeth and potential other remains, but regardless is still incredibly fragmentary. The reconstruction looks decent but is still pretty speculative. I do like the coloration as well.

Anyone know how this compares to spinosaurids with better material? I mean at first glance I thought it was a Baryonyx. I guess I should dig up some skeletals to compare. Though I do already have Doug's nice Baryonyx, even if mine suffers from a goofy warped jaw.

Edit: Okay I dug up Scott Hartman's skeletal and I guess it could work. Only thing is possibly too many teeth, and maybe the first claw could be bigger but hard to tell at the angles the images is at. Though perhaps someone more informed on it can help me out here.

Edit 2: What scale would this be in if Baryonyx as well?

[Flaffy]

Highly reminiscent of Dan Folkes's recent Spinosaurid skeletals.
I'll be using the PNSO "Sinopliosaurus" as a stand in for Siamosaurus.

[SidB]

It is a beautiful model. Shame it isn't Baryonyx or Suchomimus or Irritator.

I'm already wondering for which spinosaurid this figure will be an acceptable substitute - guess that I'll just listen to the banter here to see which candidate becomes something of a consensus.

[Sim]

Looking at the figure again, while it's good, it's disappointing that the jaw connective tissues don't line up - their Tarbosaurus suffered a little from this and it looks worse in the Sinopliosaurus.

[Lynx]

My new favorite model from the company! A odd species choice, but certainly not a bad one. Will be ordering this guy soon!

[Flaffy]

A spitting image of Auditore's Suchomimus from Fabbri et al, sail/hip dip and all. Thanks to L @Leyster for pointing that out.

[Flaffy]

My new favorite model from the company! A odd species choice, but certainly not a bad one. Will be ordering this guy soon!

How is misrepresenting a plesiosaur as a spinosaur considered not a bad species choice? @Lynx

[JohannesB]

Would I delude myself too much if I bought this figure as a stand in for Suchomimus (or even Baryonyx - possibly one of my favourite dinosaurs)? I mean, I love how this model looks, but if it is indeed based on such very(!) fragmentary remains, I would not want to own it, being just a hypothetical reconstruction (however much it may be true to life). But if it indeed closely resembles Baryonyx or Suchomimus, I would be interested in getting it.

[Lynx]

My new favorite model from the company! A odd species choice, but certainly not a bad one. Will be ordering this guy soon!

How is misrepresenting a plesiosaur as a spinosaur considered not a bad species choice? @Lynx

I was unaware of this until recently, I still think it's a good Spinosaurud figure, however. @Flaffy