PNSO : New for 2023

[Lynx]

Again: If you want to discuss PNSO themes that aren' about 2023 figures, please go here:
https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4503.3440

It's annoying how forum rule #5 is constantly being ignored .

We simply discuss whether the coloration of the new Gitganotosaurus is correct and give arguments. Without breaking the rules. Or do you think that in the new model there is no such aspect as coloring? A forum where there will be only touching mutual approvals does not make sense. Because smiles and friendly pats on the shoulder do not carry any new information. Or are we in a psychiatric hospital for neurotics? It seems to me that as long as we do not have personal and mutual insults, everything is in order. And don't call psychiatrists in straitjackets.

I agree in a way, there is no point in moving this discussion as it is perfectly on-topic and doesn't violate the rule at all. There are no new figures or important information either, so I am confused about how this would be 'annoying', as we aren't flooding anything.

[SRF]

I think it's time PNSO reveals their second release for 2023.

[Carnoking]

I think it's time PNSO reveals their second release for 2023.

If they follow last year's schedule, we can probably expect only one reveal a month. That said, March is around the corner already so we may be in for a new reveal soon.

[Sim]

I think camouflage would've been helpful to large predatory dinosaurs as the plants in their environments would have been huge as well.  Being very visible to prey would give the prey time to react and act in defense.  Extant raptors are generally coloured for camouflage I think, which would be helpful in getting close to prey, particularly if the prey is a bird or reptile.  They do tend to be strikingly coloured though, but there is definitely a trend for them to be less colourful than many other birds.  The king vulture is an exception to the trend in raptors, but it is a scavenger so it doesn't need to disguise itself.

[CARN0TAURUS]

I can't help but laugh at the notion that bland coloration somehow makes a giant theropod less conspicuous. And since when did birds of prey rely on camouflage for hunting? Sure, snowy owls have white plumage, but that's more for nesting purposes. They don't need camouflage to swoop down on lemmings.

It also needs to be pointed out again that the reason modern mammals are coloured the way they are is in large part due to the fact that most of them have dichromatic vision. They can't see a vast range of colours, so there's no evolutionary impetus for bright coloration in elephants or rhinos or bovids or antelope and so on. Primates are the only mammals with trichromatic vision.

Your post leads me to ask the following question.  Even if we could travel back in time and see living dinosaurs, would we be able to see their true colors?  I ask this because I know that birds are descended from dinosaurs and I know that we are not able to see all the colors (UV) in the way a lot of birds can.  Birds that look all one color to us could in fact have several colors mixed in and even camouflage patterns that we can't even see, correct?

We do know that animals adopt colorations for different reasons as well, sometimes it's to conceal themselves, sometimes to stand out to mates, and other times to warn other animals that they should be left alone.  Then there are animals that imitate those colors for their own reasons as well.  We have some ideas of the types of habitats these animals lived in, but we can't possibly know exactly what those places looked like.  There were periods when there was a LOT more vegetation on planet earth than we can possibly even conceive of today.  Entire continents covered with forests and vegetation from one end to the other entire oceans of plants of all sorts of colors.  So who can definitively say that if an animal was a certain size it no longer needed colors or whatever.  If we don't know what they would've used the colors for, if we don't know exactly what their environment looked like, and if we don't know what their behaviors were.  Like, did they hunt at night or whatever?

I like what PNSO does, they do some sophisticated things with their paint that doesn't always come across in photos.  But when you hold the pieces in hand you can see the fading, the filters, the layering of different shades of the same color, the washes, and the dry brushing.  I own 33 of their dinosaurs figures and I disagree with the idea that they are a one size fits all paint scheme across the board.  It might seem like that because of the sheer number of figures that they produce.  Does any other manufacturer have to worry about coming up with so many different schemes?  My guess is the folks that are saying those types of things probably don't own many of their figures.

[spinosaurus1]

When we talk about the coloration of PNSO dinosaurs, it is worth asking ourselves the question - why do we need bright coloring? To make the figurine look beautiful on the shelf? Because it's boring when all the models on your shelf have a similar range? Now think about what coloring the giant predator needed? An example with the supposedly bright coloration of large cats is incorrectly interpreted. The tiger and leopard have a protective coloration, in the ecosystem where they live these stripes and spots make them invisible to prey. Parrots generally have no such purpose. Their coloring plays a different role, far from the targets of predators. Birds of prey almost always also have a not bright defiant color, they should also be invisible to prey. Therefore, the coloration of the PNSO theropods is ideal. I am glad that PNSO do not go along with some speculations and do scientific reconstructions.

Re tigers and leopards: It's perfectly correctly interpreted! Their coloration is flamboyant, and looks really flashy... on a shelf, and also works as camouflage in their environment.

We saw a direct example of this, with intent, by Safari with their Albertosaurus last year.

There's literally zero reason to not apply this logic to dinosaurs except personal aesthetic preference.

Which is fine, but there's no justification to claim that it's less speculative or accurate.

Nor to mock opposing preferences which are just as scientific and valid.

So there you go, we are considering the kind of coloration that a giant predator would need.

I always find the focus on camouflage very confusing regardless. Plenty of jungle birds, like the parrots you reference, are indeed camouflaged in their home environments. Just like the jungle cats I mentioned. All camouflage is circumstantial.

But even aside from that: are you looking at this mega-predator, bigger than anything we can imagine living, and assuming that it needed to be drab or else it couldn't hide from its prey...? Like, a dull-colored Giganotosaurus is now stealthy enough to sneak around? Do you imagine these to be stealth predators? Invisible to prey? I'm genuinely confused. Either way this is off-base. Dinosaur visual systems were not like that.

Plus, birds of prey -- which can actually be silent because they're, you know, flying -- often look flashy as heck from a human perspective. As cited elsewhere in this thread.

Of course, it is just as realistic to use color schemes that are drab. But it is the same level of appropriately speculative.

So, if you mean to imply that reconstructions that are more colorful on the shelf are not scientific reconstructions, that is simply false. Even though your preference is still valid.

camouflaged is not circumstantial at all. it very much takes influence from environmental, behavioral, and even anatomical pressures. the reasons why tigers are orange is because the ungulates they hunt can't see orange. the reason why leopards are spotted is because their a low lying ambush predator whose spots help break up their outline. the vast majority of jungle birds resides in tree canopies, blending into foliage and the very residence of this habitat itself provides a degree of protection from predators. what colorations and the matter of which how it would or even intentionally would not camouflaged is very much influenced from both external and internal factors.

as for the question of if a giant megatheropod can be stealthy enough to sneak around. yes, in all likelihood they could. it's no different then the plenty of documentation of people getting surprised by the giant megafaunal mammal we have living today. theirs plenty of accounts of people out on safaris being surprised by elephants, giraffes, hippos, and rhinos being behind them without them even noticing. there's videos of Asian forest elephants completely disappearing in dense foliage and overhanging branches of trees. predatory megatheropod could definitely take advantage of situations such as this and get in close enough to at least get close enough without being detected for a chase, or in best case scenario for it, completely take the prey item by surprise.

[CARN0TAURUS]

Me, I don't feel any urgency to take a side in the color wars.  Not when there is so much we don't know.  It is interesting to read all of the expert opinions though, but I'm not going to invest heavily into any of them. Certainly not enough to come on here and condescend to anyone about it, especially given everything we don't know. 

When it comes to figures, if it appeals to me in a colorful scheme I'll buy it and if it appeals to me in a conservative scheme I'll buy that too and it doesn't matter to me what size the animal was.  Also, if I don't like the scheme but still love the sculpt I might buy it anyways and tinker with the scheme myself.

[Faelrin]

@CARN0TAURUS Yeah right there with you. Without more evidence, it's going to be a subjective thing. There are a few exceptions (Anchiornis, Borealopelta, Microraptor, Psittacosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, etc), where there is evidence to get an idea, but most may as well be free game, and honestly that's how it has been with the dinosaur toy market for quite some time. Honestly I think even where we do have evidence, it's still going to come down to personal preference anyways, in that someone may or may not find one of the above example appealing. Same goes for many extant animals as well.

[thedeadlymoose]

camouflaged is not circumstantial at all. it very much takes influence from environmental, behavioral, and even anatomical pressures. the reasons why tigers are orange is because the ungulates they hunt can't see orange. the reason why leopards are spotted is because their a low lying ambush predator whose spots help break up their outline. the vast majority of jungle birds resides in tree canopies, blending into foliage and the very residence of this habitat itself provides a degree of protection from predators. what colorations and the matter of which how it would or even intentionally would not camouflaged is very much influenced from both external and internal factors.

Forgive me, but I don't think I actually disagree with you?

You listed examples of circumstances and circumstantial factors which determine the effectiveness of camoflauge. You've made the same argument as me, it seems, that camoflauge is circumstantial.

Perhaps there is a linguistic issue here? (If so, no worries at all.)

(I would add that there's more to tigers being orange than their prey not being able to distinguish orange as well. See the zebra example below, for one. Still, that is a small quibble. You're absolutely right that it's mostly about pattern in context of native environment.)

About stealth -- well-said; I did overstate my own case due to my incredulousness, and I know there's more to stealth than being in motion. My point was really as @suspsy says: drab coloration ain't what's making the difference at that scale.

I'm generally in agreement with @Sim on the importance of personal taste in what we individuals find appealing in model decoration. Different aesthetics appeal to different people. I personally find the depth and complexity of PNSO's schemes intensely appealing - mostly. I find their latest Triceratops a bit on the plain side. But by and large I value the appearance of their models so much that they inhabit the front of bookshelves in my study rather than my model room. I find each one completely individual and they don't blend into an amorphous mass for me. What E @Eatmycar finds "lifeless" I find full of life so vibrant I half expect them to move. For me, they are like a snapshot of a living animal frozen into immobility. But the key words here are "for me". It's all a matter of personal preference. One firm's aesthetic stamp won't appeal to all buyers.

However, I do enjoy unusual poses (provided they are not extreme). Despite her anatomical flaws, I'm fond of Andrea. I value the attempt even if she could have been better.

I find myself agreeing with you both! PNSO can do dull colorations very well, but I think they over-rely on those colorations, and I'm just not as impressed by them in aggregate -- if I bought them all and displayed them together, many of them would blend together on a shelf into an amorphous mass to my eye, albeit with a few standouts. As-is, I still don't display all the PNSOs I have together because they begin merging together to my eye.

Subjectively, I feel like PNSO makes too many of their figures too drab, compared to the color range and value range you see in mid-size and larger living land animals. And living land animals are skewed in favor of mammals, with the much more limited color ranges of fur.

This feels artistically disappointing. Sometimes this does make otherwise lively figures feel lifeless to me.

This brings down the Giga by comparison, even if it's slightly unfair on the figure's individual merits.

Side note: I really, really wanted to love Andrea. I also valued the attempt at the unusual realistic pose. More interesting coloration OR no glaring anatomical flaws in her legs would have sold me on her completely.

People are very quick to point at things like the BoTM Torosaur and say it's unrealistic.

Nobody is asking for that. Even some of PNSO's own art is more exciting looking than these things. Nobody has said paint the T. rex like it's a Mandarin Duck or a Wood Duck.

As it is, most of these figures look the same from a glance and are simply not eye catching at all. They take the, usually most simplistic option, for paint and create a forgettable figure that is pleasing when compared to a skeletal.

Not every dinosaur should be or can be flamboyant. A purple psittacosaurus would be out of line... because we actually know what color it was.

This is not true for most dinosaurs. There's no reason to dare to think outside of the box within scientific possibility, but PNSO dares to not even make their figures as striking as their artwork.

I'm perfectly down with more coloration like the BotM Torosaurus! It's perfectly realistic, in theory, especially for a large herd animal. Compare zebras: the black and white works great in a herd where the optical illusion is working for you (and in the case of zebras, the same optical illusion keeps away disease-spreading insects, which actually seems to be the primary fitness driver). And either way, even unlike a zebra, a fully-grown Torosaurus would not be hiding anywhere fast.

Zebras vs horses is a great example: in fact, zebra coloration has the same positive effect on regular horses. That's how biologists were able to test the benefits -- by draping zebra colors over horses.

Does that mean that zebra coloration is The Most Realistic, or the Ideal Coloration, for a horse-shaped animal? Absolutely not! It's simply one more option. (It does appear to the Objective Best at keeping away certain insects, but evolution doesn't work that way!)

That said, I'm NOT asking for PNSO to do a BotM-style black and bright blue Torosaurus either, because it simply wouldn't fit with their art style. Realistically, in a living animal, sometimes you would see the blue in its full glory (after going through water, or after rain), and the rest of the time the blue would also be dulled by dirt and dust. PNSO specializes in the latter. So, if PNSO did use the same color scheme for a Torosaurus -- or even this Giganotosaurus! -- I would think they'd "drab up" the black blue with a wash to represent a natural coat of dust, and let it artistically fit in more with the rest of the aesthetics of the line. (And probably skip the display eyespots for the Giga.)

THIS is the kind of thing I'd like to see them do more of, personally.

About Psittacosaurus: As @Sim points out, we only know the coloration of one Psittacosaurus species. Based on extant species variety, I would call it an absolute certainty that there was plenty of color varation. I'd love to see a purple iteration for another subspecies -- and even a flashy parrotlike iteration for a jungle species. Not that it matters, because PNSO hasn't made ANY Psittacosaurus. To be honest, there is no popular Psittacosaurus that I truly love, even the BotM. And I really want someone to make one that looks like the Bob Nicholls take. It's one of the cutest damn things I've ever seen. And the colors look beautiful. I would love PNSO to do just this!

From my perspective, the coloring issue facing the PNSO is less duller colors and much more overusing vertical stripes on their dinosaurs. I looked through last year's dino figures from PNSO and I found only two to have 0 vertical stripes on the figures: The Therizinosaurus and the Torosaurus. I'm not saying that vertical stripes are unnatural, but that PNSO does seem to be overusing them on recent figures. It not only makes figures feel a bit samey, but it does genuinely ignore the diversity of patterns in the modern day. Where's my spotted theropod like a Jaguar or a leopard? Where's my lion like Theropod with no patterns on it? Why are nearly all of the stripes vertical on recent figures? The more subdued colors are fine since I use Safari figures for more color anyway, but they really should diversify their patterns beyond how much of a dino is striped or not. After all, they did it before.

I agree. I would be just as happy with greater pattern diversity as I would with more color diversity, and I say this as a person who LIKES the vertical stripes in general. I honestly have begun wincing when I see this from PNSO.

It feels like... rushing, honestly. As if it's less about artistic intent as "eh, let's just get this out there in a pattern easy to mass-produce that we don't have to think about for too long." Except they're too good as artists to not put some kind of extra visual interest on the figure where appropriate, so they slap on some vertical stripes. And the stripes tend to be well-placed, but... it starts to look awkward.

I think the Giga's stripes are "meh" along those lines. Again, not that vertical stripes are bad -- the Suchomimus is GORGEOUS (and uses a different style of vertical stripes).

(The Therizinosaurus is a very, very nice brown figure, BTW. Though I would've loved it even more with the flash of bright red in the 2D art.)

Want my opinion on the perfect color - here it is with examples. (...)

Raul Martin is fantastic, one of the divine figures of paleoart, and indeed that Tyrannosaurus is beautifully patterned (and I prefer it to PNSO's Rexes AND the new Giga).

However... I do think Martin over-relies on samey color schemes between figures beyond what would be realistic in nature, just as PNSO does. And so I do not think this is artistically justified on the face of it by realism.

EDIT: Also -- Raul Martin is, I believe, responsible for the gorgeous paleoart meme of coloring Guanlong blue, reflected in a 2010 Kaiyodo figure, which itself looks great. See: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/aa/e8/71/aae8718e809963d270879f58a4f7a1c9.jpg

Also... the owl you show is using an example of ONE of many coloration approaches. It is not the only one. So there is not such thing as the perfect or most realistic color scheme approach! That's an unrealistic suggestion. @CARN0TAURUS said this better than I already, above.

I also think that owl is beautiful and could look quite flamboyant on a shelf, outside its native environment

In any case, I agree we cannot over-extrapolate. Even modern megafauna cannot remotely compare in scale to dinosaurs. But that just means that speculation is mandatory, and that speculating on many different possibilities is perfectly scientific, and the most appropriate.

I like what PNSO does, they do some sophisticated things with their paint that doesn't always come across in photos.  But when you hold the pieces in hand you can see the fading, the filters, the layering of different shades of the same color, the washes, and the dry brushing.  I own 33 of their dinosaurs figures and I disagree with the idea that they are a one size fits all paint scheme across the board.  It might seem like that because of the sheer number of figures that they produce.  Does any other manufacturer have to worry about coming up with so many different schemes?  My guess is the folks that are saying those types of things probably don't own many of their figures.

You're right that the paint application is overall highly sophisticated. I'm mostly speaking of the color schemes and patterning.

I do own most of their figures, and I do think that because of the sheer number of figures they produce, they do indeed over-rely on similar patterns and color schemes! Certainly not across the board -- just look at the recent and gorgeous Theri, Deinocheirus. And the Sucho and Sinopliosaurus, both of which have color/pattern design elements distinctly taken from common with "generic PNSO coloration" but look striking and beautiful -- zero complaints from me.

TBH, that's part of my issue with the Giga; it's more on the "wrong-to-me" side of the line.

I'm sympathetic to their need to worry about coming up with so many different schemes -- but the answer to your question is "yes, at least one other manufacturer needs to worry about this." David Silva has needed to come up with significantly more, and, well... has. (Not saying PNSO needs to match BotM even to resolve the issue I sometimes have with their approach. See my Torosaurus example.)

To sanity-check, I went and quickly rechecked the past figures. I thought that a bit over 50% had samey/generic color schemes (even if all individually well-executed).

Of the remaining half, 2/3 had elements of those samey color schemes, but with something else added (or subtracted, as with the Theri) to make the figures more distinct.

Leaving only 1/3 with distinctive approaches.

This is subjective, mind. Just my opinion. It's also... not actually a bad thing, by itself. But see my other points.

Why so many puma/lion-style colors, and so few leopard/tiger/ocelot?

Why so many komodo dragon, and so few giant tegu or Asian water monitor or crocodile monitor or rock monitor or Perenti Goanna? (Actually among the extant big lizards, the komodo dragon stands out to me for being so dull, and yet often apparently considered the most "realistic and representative".)

But I digress; I think your post is generally spot on.

Me, I don't feel any urgency to take a side in the color wars.  Not when there is so much we don't know.  It is interesting to read all of the expert opinions though, but I'm not going to invest heavily into any of them. Certainly not enough to come on here and condescend to anyone about it, especially given everything we don't know. 

When it comes to figures, if it appeals to me in a colorful scheme I'll buy it and if it appeals to me in a conservative scheme I'll buy that too and it doesn't matter to me what size the animal was.  Also, if I don't like the scheme but still love the sculpt I might buy it anyways and tinker with the scheme myself.

To be honest, I'm mainly motivated because I've spent such a long time observing people say it's akin to a moral wrong -- or at the very least, objectively inaccurate -- to pick less conservative colors and patterns, followed by appeals to realism which are incorrect on the merits. Such as the mockery of parrot-like colors upthread which prompted me to respond, myself. I've seen this cause many artists to be shut down and produce duller work out of being inaccurately shamed.

That's not what's happening here (or if it is, this thread sure ain't causing it). It's just where my investment comes from. I also feel personally invested because of my own art background.

In PNSO's case, it's more that I see them, more often than not, come up with so many neat color approaches and patterns, and then relegate them to staying in the paintings. I would love to see them put more of that approach on their figures.

This Giga looks "meh" to me overall, and I wish it didn't, especially at the Museum line price. (I actually really like the head coloration, but the body feels like another assembly-line redo. The sculpt is VERY good, probably the best out there of the species, TBH.)

As for buying sculpts and tinkering with them -- absolutely, but PNSO puts such care into the paint execution that I also love it when they come out with more visually interesting color schemes to go with that! And the visual interest and complexity of SOME of their patterns is extremely high. I'd just like to see more of that.

Thinking of it that way, I'm probably more "meh" than I otherwise would be on the Giga because it comes after the Deinocheirus, Therizinosaurus, Suchomimus, and Sinopliosaurus, all of which had color approaches that I loved, and the Deinocherius color scheme and execution is so good it feels unreal. But now here is a pricey Museum line baby with generic PNSO stripes on a generic PNSO dull orange-brown background. It's just not what I wanted to see, even though it's truly not a bad figure.

[CARN0TAURUS]

$$$$

This is one of the big issues with comparing say BOTM toys to PNSO figures.  If you apply the PNSO approach for realizm with the fun color applications in BOTM toys we'd be paying over $100 for a figure.  PNSO is going for cost effective realism, BOTM toys look like toys and they are meant to look like toys.  Their schemes are beautiful but they serve a different purpose.  Both are sophisticated but in different ways and because a wider range of colors is used he BOTM toys reflect those costs in their price.  PNSO shoots for more realism and keeps costs down by using less colors, instead using filters, fading, mixing the shades of single colors, and using washes and dry brushing to bring out all the exquisite details in a realistic way. 

At the end of the day, it still amazes me that as fancy as the paint applications are that we pay in the $30-60 range for these figures.  Anyone who has taken the time to paint a dinosaur understands the commitment in time and materials that is required to get anything to look halfway decent.  Considering that these are mass produced things it's pretty impressive what both of these companies have managed to turn out and especially at the price range that PNSO does it.

[Antey]

Smart approach. I think it is important to understand that with all the variety of tasks that coloring performs, the evolutionary choice will take into account priorities. What was important for a particular Giganotosaurus - to be bright and attractive to a partner, or invisible to prey? Or maybe it was both, but in order of priority, for example, our Lucas number two had enough yellow combs on his head and general fatness to attract a partner. But in order not to lose this fatness, hunting camouflage is needed. What we see. Regarding the bright color of parrots, these are animals that protect themselves with the help of life in a flock, when many eyes allow them to protect themselves from predators. Note that solitary parrots have a modest camouflage coloration.

[Antey]

1. The fact that deer do not see the orange color of a tiger does not mean that they do not see the same orange colors of dry undergrowth during the dry period of the year in the jungle or the same color of dry reeds. This means that the tiger has chosen a color that blends with the environment. So the deer argument is wrong.
2. Regarding owls and other birds of prey - they are in the vast majority of cases the same camouflage color - show me an owl that has the color of a parrot.
3. Regarding the fact that we do not see the variegated colors of mammals in a large size class, with a rare (I emphasize) exception - here, too, cause and effect are confused. They are modestly colored not because they are mammals, but because they are large.
4. And the last - the apparent monotony of the colors of PNSO is due to the fact that during the entire era of dinosaurs their ecosystems were quite conservative. Indirect evidence of this is the relatively slow evolution of dinosaur faunas. Just compare the time gaps in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic and the rate of evolution of dinosaurs and mammals. If the environment does not change, then we will inevitably meet the same looking giant theropods belonging to different genera and eras.
P.S. And yes, I'm not an artist, I'm a scientist. You can't imagine how many dissatisfied with the real history of mankind I meet in my museum. Many want alien intervention or a secret history. It's more colorful, in their opinion!

[JosepZ]

1. The fact that deer do not see the orange color of a tiger does not mean that they do not see the same orange colors of dry undergrowth during the dry period of the year in the jungle or the same color of dry reeds. This means that the tiger has chosen a color that blends with the environment. So the deer argument is wrong.
2. Regarding owls and other birds of prey - they are in the vast majority of cases the same camouflage color - show me an owl that has the color of a parrot.
3. Regarding the fact that we do not see the variegated colors of mammals in a large size class, with a rare (I emphasize) exception - here, too, cause and effect are confused. They are modestly colored not because they are mammals, but because they are large.
4. And the last - the apparent monotony of the colors of PNSO is due to the fact that during the entire era of dinosaurs their ecosystems were quite conservative. Indirect evidence of this is the relatively slow evolution of dinosaur faunas. Just compare the time gaps in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic and the rate of evolution of dinosaurs and mammals. If the environment does not change, then we will inevitably meet the same looking giant theropods belonging to different genera and eras.
P.S. And yes, I'm not an artist, I'm a scientist. You can't imagine how many dissatisfied with the real history of mankind I meet in my museum. Many want alien intervention or a secret history. It's more colorful, in their opinion!

I just joined the forum and I'm late to this discussion; plus I'm most definitely not a scientist and therefore unqualified, but this is what my guts tell me regarding coloration. I have a hard time accepting Horner's argument for dinosaurs as huge as Triceratops being brightly colored based solely on the idea that "birds are colorful". I mean, really? Chickens, owls, falcons, eagles, vultures, sparrows, pigeons, crows... they all have either muted or dark colors. I don't think the existence of brightly colored birds supports the idea of a large ceratopsian that looks like a tropical parrot, honestly. Am I missing something in Horner's reasoning, or it just doesn't make much sense?

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about. It seems to be depicting Horner's idea.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHUnAgJVQAkYjXs.jpg

[Lynx]

1. The fact that deer do not see the orange color of a tiger does not mean that they do not see the same orange colors of dry undergrowth during the dry period of the year in the jungle or the same color of dry reeds. This means that the tiger has chosen a color that blends with the environment. So the deer argument is wrong.
2. Regarding owls and other birds of prey - they are in the vast majority of cases the same camouflage color - show me an owl that has the color of a parrot.
3. Regarding the fact that we do not see the variegated colors of mammals in a large size class, with a rare (I emphasize) exception - here, too, cause and effect are confused. They are modestly colored not because they are mammals, but because they are large.
4. And the last - the apparent monotony of the colors of PNSO is due to the fact that during the entire era of dinosaurs their ecosystems were quite conservative. Indirect evidence of this is the relatively slow evolution of dinosaur faunas. Just compare the time gaps in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic and the rate of evolution of dinosaurs and mammals. If the environment does not change, then we will inevitably meet the same looking giant theropods belonging to different genera and eras.
P.S. And yes, I'm not an artist, I'm a scientist. You can't imagine how many dissatisfied with the real history of mankind I meet in my museum. Many want alien intervention or a secret history. It's more colorful, in their opinion!

I just joined the forum and I'm late to this discussion; plus I'm most definitely not a scientist and therefore unqualified, but this is what my guts tell me regarding coloration. I have a hard time accepting Horner's argument for dinosaurs as huge as Triceratops being brightly colored based solely on the idea that "birds are colorful". I mean, really? Chickens, owls, falcons, eagles, vultures, sparrows, pigeons, crows... they all have either muted or dark colors. I don't think the existence of brightly colored birds supports the idea of a large ceratopsian that looks like a tropical parrot, honestly. Am I missing something in Horner's reasoning, or it just doesn't make much sense?

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about. It seems to be depicting Horner's idea.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHUnAgJVQAkYjXs.jpg

The theory is just as acceptable as triceratops being any other color. Maybe your gut tells you it's wrong, but that's how speculation works. Until there is direct proof it is impossible, it is perfectly plausible. So until we get the colors and a full, well-preserved "mummy" of the creature, Horners parrot-colored and vibrant Triceratops is just as "valid" as PNSO's duller and safer depictions.

[Cretaceous Crab]

Can we please call it a draw on the whole coloration debate? Or st least move it to a separate thread or something? At the end of the day, we just. Don't. Know. For. Sure. (For most dinos, anyway).

I keep checking this thread when it has updates, hoping for news of another release but I'm growing weary of seeing yet another argument in the coloration topic.

[Lynx]

Has anyone considered the idea of depicting dinosaurs with different colors during the seasons? Like Anhingas, which most of the time are dull with blackish and yellow colors with a bit of white, but in the mating season have vibrant(er) plumage with whisps of white feathers and beautiful blues along their beak. Many other birds also have this with much more extreme cases.

[SRF]

Can we please call it a draw on the whole coloration debate? Or st least move it to a separate thread or something? At the end of the day, we just. Don't. Know. For. Sure. (For most dinos, anyway).

I keep checking this thread when it has updates, hoping for news of another release but I'm growing weary of seeing yet another argument in the coloration topic.

Exactly what I meant when I said that it's about time PNSO releases their second figure for 2023. 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Can we please call it a draw on the whole coloration debate? Or st least move it to a separate thread or something? At the end of the day, we just. Don't. Know. For. Sure. (For most dinos, anyway).

I keep checking this thread when it has updates, hoping for news of another release but I'm growing weary of seeing yet another argument in the coloration topic.

Exactly what I meant when I said that it's about time PNSO releases their second figure for 2023. 

Agreed.

On a related note ( to the actual topic lol ) Lana has shipped my Giga already.

[stargatedalek]

1. The fact that deer do not see the orange color of a tiger does not mean that they do not see the same orange colors of dry undergrowth during the dry period of the year in the jungle or the same color of dry reeds. This means that the tiger has chosen a color that blends with the environment. So the deer argument is wrong.
2. Regarding owls and other birds of prey - they are in the vast majority of cases the same camouflage color - show me an owl that has the color of a parrot.
3. Regarding the fact that we do not see the variegated colors of mammals in a large size class, with a rare (I emphasize) exception - here, too, cause and effect are confused. They are modestly colored not because they are mammals, but because they are large.
4. And the last - the apparent monotony of the colors of PNSO is due to the fact that during the entire era of dinosaurs their ecosystems were quite conservative. Indirect evidence of this is the relatively slow evolution of dinosaur faunas. Just compare the time gaps in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic and the rate of evolution of dinosaurs and mammals. If the environment does not change, then we will inevitably meet the same looking giant theropods belonging to different genera and eras.
P.S. And yes, I'm not an artist, I'm a scientist. You can't imagine how many dissatisfied with the real history of mankind I meet in my museum. Many want alien intervention or a secret history. It's more colorful, in their opinion!

1. If deer had better colour vision they would be able to distinguish variations of colour more easily. Tiger orange does not perfectly match dry foliage, nor are they always hunting in such conditions. As an example many big cats have significant difficulty sneaking up on birds relative to most mammals, to the point some birds and primates will "serve as lookouts" that other species will reference to be aware of predators.

2. Owls and birds of prey are camouflaged against their own predators, not for sneaking up on prey. Owls in particular are at high risk of attack from other birds of prey and corvids, hence their more dramatic camouflage. They don't exactly need it to remain hidden from prey while hunting at night now do they? It's to keep them getting mobbed by crows or taken as prey by hawks during the day.

You (and others) are also ignoring the long list of carnivorous birds that are brightly coloured.

3. You are concluding that based on no solid evidence. There is no cause and effect proof here. Most small mammals are equally as dull as their larger relatives, ergo I can argue there is evidence of the opposite, that large animals are dull because they are mammals, not because they are large.

4. Ecosystems can not be "conservative", conservative in the context of sciences means "an assumption or reconstruction that takes minimal speculative risk". I repeat, ecosystems can not be conservative, that's just not how that word works in any context. It's also an extremely reductive (and baseless) take to try and argue all Mesozoic ecosystems are the same or that dinosaurs "evolved slower than mammals". We see plenty of dramatic variation among dinosaurs, much of it appearing as rapidly as mammals would diversify at their fastest points (IE speciation among large ceratopsians).

[Lynx]

Also, most of the dinosaurs we DO have colors known from are reasonably vibrant, much more so than any mammal we have today. It's unlikely and even rather close-minded to assume giant dinosaurs being vibrant is out of the picture simply because mammals of that size are dull, especially since we have few if any examples of dinosaurs even being CLOSE to mammals in that degree. We see many interesting colors like reds, iridescence, intriguing patterns, quills, scutes, display structures, and more, zero of which point to anything like a mammal. No doubt some dinosaurs would have been "dull" and "boring", that's a given, but its also very unlikely large theropods and ornithopods were dull.

Just as people arguing for 'vibrancy' only have the argument of birds being vibrant, people arguing that the same creatures were 'dull' only have the argument of mammals being dull.

I've said it way too many times, a vibrant and bright-colored large theropod is just as valid and speculative as a dull and "safely colored" version of the same creature.