PNSO Sinopliosaurus

[Concavenator]

The new PNSO Sinopliosaurus announcement got me wondering... what do folks really want it for? (See the question).

[Shane]

I can't imagine anyone wants it to represent Sinopliosaurus, which is by all accounts a type of plesiosaur.

If you look at PNSO's own posts on social media, their interpretation of Siamosaurus is quite different from how this figure looks (their depiction is more like Spinosaurus with a sail and quadrupedal stance).

So it seems like this must be a Suchomimus stand-in, it's the only thing that makes sense. Though the naming still throws me way off.

[SenSx]

Definitely Suchomimus

[Concavenator]

Valid points, S @Shane , though worth mentioning PNSO's artwork often looks different than their figures.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Safari already has a good Baryonyx which is much cheaper

[Halichoeres]

One of the more baffling moves from PNSO.

[DinoToyForum]

I can't imagine anyone wants it to represent Sinopliosaurus, which is by all accounts a type of plesiosaur.

FTFY. So, yeah, option 2 simply doesn't make any sense. I was so confused when I saw this PNSO spinosaurid model with the name Sinopliosaurus attached to it. I wonder if it is too late for PNSO to correct the mistake, or at least correct it on future packaging.

Edited to add for the avoidance of doubt, here's the figure of the material of Sinopliosaurus from its original description as a plesiosaur by Young (1944). These bones were found disassociated in different locations so they do not represent a single individual. No single bone was allocated as the holotype so I suppose they are all considered syntypes. Not a good idea for such fragmentary material. Sinopliosaurus is considered a nomen dubium today, and the material is regarded as Plesiosauria indet. But there's no doubt the two large bones – the femur and ischium - belong to a plesiosaur, they are diagnostic.

[Concavenator]

@dinotoyforum To be honest, option 2 was more like a "negative control", I never really expected anyone to select it, but who knows? Some people still buy figures of Zhuchengtyrannus and Moros which are very fragmentary (okay, not as much as this case, but still).

[DinoToyForum]

The problem under question isn't that the material is fragmentary (thats a different 'problem'), its that Sinopliosaurus isn't a spinosaurid dinosaur, its a plesiosaur. Nobody has ever interpreted Sinopliosaurus as a spinosaurid. The confusion stems from some teeth, once referred in error to the plesiosaur Sinopliosaurus, being later reidentified as spinosaurid teeth. But that doesn't change what the original Sinopliosaurus is. Somehow PNSO have gotten the cart before the horse.

[SidB]

Despite their meticulous care in the fabrication of their figures, it seems that PNSO is far from infallible in their research. This, I suppose, is the most egregious case, but their are others: the Nanotyrannus (probably a juvenile rex), the handsome Iguanodon with its Mantellisaurus head, the Allosaurus chimera (characteristics of two species), for example. Don't get me wrong, I admire their work and have most of their figures. At the end of the day, I still will place my money on Safari's Doug Watson dinosaurs as the most reliably accurate ones around.

[Leyster]

S @SidB in what is the Allosaurus supposed to be a chimera? It's skull fits perfectly MOR 603 (...it was even show that it was the base they used) and the only thing linking it to A.fragilis is a social media post... which could be explained as the social media manager not knowing jimmadseni was a different species. But if it fits jimmadseni and Zhao Chuang himself shows that the skull is based on jimmadseni, it's jimmadseni.

[Concavenator]

the handsome Iguanodon with its Mantellisaurus head, the Allosaurus chimera (characteristics of two species), for example.

The Iguanodon's head is fine. I mean, sure, it's not the usual Iguanodon head, but it's directly based on a real specimen.

The specimen in the reference picture is pretty popular, here's another angle from an old postcard.

until last week I woul've agreed too that it was a chimera, but in one of the recent videos PNSO shares on Facebook they showed the skull they used for the model and, while not having the classic shape (different sex? crushing?) it's undoubtely Iguanodon bernissartensis.

And when it comes to the Allosaurus, on top of what L @Leyster shared, check this out:

However, the ventral margin of the jugal, maxillary, and premaxilla resembles A.fragilis more and even PNSO confirmed that it's this species.

This was the "official" confirmation by PNSO.

Direct confirmation from PNSO that "Paul" is A. fragilis

But check out this recent video.

Minute 1:26. Zhao Chuang himself confirmes the model was based on Big Al, and thereby, A.jimmadseni.

All things considered, I think this "Sinopliosaurus" has to be the worst fail from PNSO yet, even worse than the Nanotyrannus if you ask me. "Nanotyrannus" is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus, but at least at some point there was some debate. This time, however, they've taken a very fragmentary plesiosaur and use it as a base for creating a generic spinosaurid figure (because, by using that name, it's what they intended, even if by the looks of it you'd identify it as a baryonichine). Which again, by itself is a bad idea because of the noticeable morphological variation between the genera of that family (Spinosaurus and Baryonyx look fairly different than each other, for example). And that...after people anticipating a Suchomimus (based on the leaked list) which is a species many people were hoping to see. Granted, this last part about people anticipating it isn't PNSO's fault, but it's still admittedly disappointing.

And I don't understand the Chinese language, but it seems some Chinese collectors, for some reason, aren't too happy with this announcement... I wonder why... 

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7975787839

Notice the emoji they use.

@dinotoyforum I think it's too late indeed. This figure is now available so the name Sinopliosaurus appears in every single box and not only that, but PNSO also supplies manuals and booklets with every single figure, talking about the animal (which makes me think... what sort of information will be included in this case?  It will probably be made up information).

I think the best solution would simply be renaming it, but I don't see PNSO doing this, because they would probably think:

"What will our fans say if we rename this figure after having announced it under a different name? What are we going to tell them in that case?"

[SidB]

@Concavenator , thanks for the up to date, detailed information on Allosaurus and Iguanodon. I have to admit, I too doubt that the box info will be updated. I suspect that a lot of people will buy it "as is", because it's a handsome figure, regardless. If we consider the idiosyncrasies that have been incorporated into so many, if not most of the respected figures produced by the mainline dinosaur companies over the years, well, what's a few relatively minor points if one takes this one and calls it "Suchomimus:, I suppose. At least that's my approach.

[Faras]

And I don't understand the Chinese language, but it seems some Chinese collectors, for some reason, aren't too happy with this announcement... I wonder why... 

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7975787839

Notice the emoji they use.

Yeah tbh I've yet to see anyone happy with it in Chinese forums/groups. Nearly everyone wants a Suchomimus instead of "funny teeth species"...

From what I understand, they probably make announcements after producing first batch, so things are set in stone before we learn about new release.

[SidB]

Well, my figure just arrived in the mail and looking at it, I'm really pleased with the quality of the sculpt as a technical production per se. No problem there. As for the name, taking my cue from the the posted sketelal in the PNSO thread, I'll take this to be patterned after the older Suchomimus interpretation.

[Mattyonyx]

I'm starting to regret voting "As a stand-in for Suchomimus/Baryonyx". That was because I immediately noticed the resemblance with Marco Auditore's Suchomimus skeletal from the Fabbri et al. paper, which was the object of an interview I made with all the Italian researchers involved in the bone density study.

After carefully observing the model and comparing it to the aforementioned skeletal I can affirm that, even though it's clearly based on Auditore's skeletal, there are a couple of differences, especially in the head and neck region.

This is basically confirmed in this video as part of their concept of a "Sinopliosaurus" reconstruction with both the Baryonychinae and Spinosaurinae features shown on the five teeth.
 

I have to admit, it's an interesting use of a skeletal that would not easily have been brought to life due to Ceratosuchops, Riparovenator, and the 2022 Suchomimus.

Then, about the name, I'm actually ok with "Sinopliosaurus": yes, it should only exist with quotations and without italics to avoid confusion with Sinopliosaurus‭ ‬weiyuanensis, but many writers use "S." fusuiensis when referring to the five teeth on various publications (with just one of them calling it "Chinese Siamosaurus" which is more of a nickname), and it's the only name currently available for any Chinese spinosaurid remain found so far.

So, my choice would be "Options 1 & 2": I like the figure because it's based on a skeletal made by an Italian paleoartist, and I'm not interested in calling it "Siamosaurus" or "Suchomimus", like many people tend to do.

[DinoToyForum]

Here's a hypothetical. Imagine someone found some fossil teeth and described them as a new species of Tyrannosaurus. They name it Tyrannosaurus two. Alas, the teeth of Tyrannosaurus two turn out to be indeterminate mosasaur teeth instead. PNSO decide to make a model of this indeterminate mosasaur. They call the mosasaur model Tyrannosaurus.

I doubt anybody here would, in good faith, be okay with an indeterminate mosasaur being called Tyrannosaurus like this.

But that's what's happening here with an established plesiosaur called Sinopliosaurus. Just as Tyrannosaurus in the above hypothetical is still a dinosaur, and only a dinosaur, based on an established type species Tyrannosaurus rex, Sinopliosaurus is still a plesiosaur, and only a plesiosaur, based on an established type species Sinopliosaurus‭ ‬weiyuanensis.

I should add that putting the genus 'Sinopliosaurus' in inverted commas does not avoid confusion. You might think the commas indicate the model is not really Sinopliosaurus, but what they actually do, in isolation without the species name alongside it, is flag the genus Sinopliosaurus as invalid. Putting the genus name in inverted commas alongside the species name, e.g. 'Sinopliosaurus' fusuiensis, would indicate that the species fusuiensis has been referred to Sinopliosaurus but doesn't actually belong to that genus.

Ultimately, Sinopliosaurus/'Sinopliosaurus' is a plesiosaur, whether or not it is valid. Seeing a spinosaurid model marketed as Sinopliosaurus hurts my brain, just as a mosasaur model marketed as Tyrannosaurus would surely hurt yours.

[Mattyonyx]

This hypothetical got me thinking... What would I do in such a scenario? Well, probably the same thing I did with this one: after some initial doubts, I would make some research, get a more complete idea of the context, and form an opinion on the matter, be it good or bad.

About the name, I had to check my comment again and I now understand I should have handled the sentence differently, so apologies for that: by 'it', I meant "S". fusuiensis, and I'm well aware that the PNSO-style packaging doesn't make things less confusing, although they at least put the full gen. et sp. name in additional material like the videos and the site: http://www.pnso.org/?p=1396

Now, my point is, I could call this specific dinosaur "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis, Siamosaurus fusuiensis (as written on Dinosaur Facts and Figures: The Theropods and Other Dinosauriformes), Chinese Siamosaurus, Fusui spinosaurid, or even IVPP V4793, as I usually do with Wilson/AMNH 5027...

I just won't call it Siamosaurus suteethorni or Suchomimus tenerensis, because I don't feel the urge for such a change.

However, I have to say, all of this has to do with the very existence of the figure, which is one of the things I love the most about dinosaur toys & models: if it hadn't been made, I wouldn't even have known this messy situation, so ultimately I'm glad I learned something from it.

[Primeval12]

I have the Sinopliosaurus and I have to say, it is one of my favorite PNSO models. I love the sculpt, color, and design of it so much.

Personally, I use it as a stand in for either Siamosaurus or this indeterminate spinosaurid (picture below).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/SM-KK_14_skeletal_diagram_by_PaleoGeek.png/2880px-SM-KK_14_skeletal_diagram_by_PaleoGeek.png

[Bread]

Funny how great of a figure this is to be such a fragmented and incorrectly classified genus.

Edit: And to clarify, I may even buy this one due to its appealing and aesthetically self.