PNSO - New for 2024

[thomasw100]

New PNSO video about their Stegosaurus. The figure is obviously not new for 2024, but the video explaining some aspects of the reconstruction is quite interesting, not least in view of the recently released Haolonggood Stegosaurus ungulatus.

[Turkeysaurus]

If everyone keep up with official channel there would be less to critize about PNSO.

Zhao Chuang clearly knows his stuff and puts so much effort for his art.

When you cross analyzing criticsms and Zhao Chuang's explanation of the models you can tell most of the criticisms of scientific accuracy comes from personal preferences or misjudgement.

[stargatedalek]

If everyone keep up with official channel there would be less to critize about PNSO.

Zhao Chuang clearly knows his stuff and puts so much effort for his art.

When you cross analyzing criticsms and Zhao Chuang's explanation of the models you can tell most of the criticisms of scientific accuracy comes from personal preferences or misjudgement.

I disagree, somewhat vehemently even. Just because someone can cite papers or logic behind a choice, doesn't mean that it makes good sense or holds up to scrutiny.

Most paleontologists are coming at reconstruction from the perspective of bones or even geology, with training in geology. But to people approaching from a perspective of zoology, something like theropods having exposed teeth fundamentally does not make sense. Terrestrial animals, even most aquatic animals, by and large just don't have exposed teeth, it's extremely rare. And the few that do have very obvious adaptations to it (smooth teeth with no serrations, puncturing or blunt).

Similarly someone approaching from a perspective of zoology or ecology is going to struggle interpreting fossils, reaching the point where one could even make a skeletal reconstruction, or placing fossils in relevant strata.

There are times where my experience has led me to make bad assumptions. Things that make sense in the context of veterinary work, or fisheries ecology, do not always translate to sensible reconstruction. Someone might, for example, misinterpret something from her veterinary textbooks about how a broken feather shaft can leave a bird vulnerable to blood-borne illnesses, as feather shafts containing blood flow. And then further assume that would increase the capacity feathers have for ventilation. I wonder who might have done something like that... hehe...

But my experience also taught me that the conclusions being reached based on Microraptor aerodynamic studies made no sense. The seemingly forgone conclusion among professional paleontologists for the better part of two decades was that despite numerous studies indicating Microraptor gained lift when moving at high speed, it simply must not have been flight capable, as it was not a bird. The same people doing those tests would seemingly always come to the conclusion "Oh well, guess it was just very bad at gliding." and I spent a decade grumbling at people that it obviously flew. Because to an outsider looking at the raw data, it was simply obvious. Somehow it took molting pattern studies of all things to finally convince people.

Sometimes you need the perspective of people outside of a field to present perspectives that are either more topically relevant, or to see past the layers of preconceived bias within a given field. And other times something really is exactly what that field included training for and people on the outside simply aren't qualified for it.

[thomasw100]

If everyone keep up with official channel there would be less to critize about PNSO.

Zhao Chuang clearly knows his stuff and puts so much effort for his art.

When you cross analyzing criticsms and Zhao Chuang's explanation of the models you can tell most of the criticisms of scientific accuracy comes from personal preferences or misjudgement.

I disagree, somewhat vehemently even. Just because someone can cite papers or logic behind a choice, doesn't mean that it makes good sense or holds up to scrutiny.

Most paleontologists are coming at reconstruction from the perspective of bones or even geology, with training in geology. But to people approaching from a perspective of zoology, something like theropods having exposed teeth fundamentally does not make sense. Terrestrial animals, even most aquatic animals, by and large just don't have exposed teeth, it's extremely rare. And the few that do have very obvious adaptations to it (smooth teeth with no serrations, puncturing or blunt).

Similarly someone approaching from a perspective of zoology or ecology is going to struggle interpreting fossils, reaching the point where one could even make a skeletal reconstruction, or placing fossils in relevant strata.

There are times where my experience has led me to make bad assumptions. Things that make sense in the context of veterinary work, or fisheries ecology, do not always translate to sensible reconstruction. Someone might, for example, misinterpret something from her veterinary textbooks about how a broken feather shaft can leave a bird vulnerable to blood-borne illnesses, as feather shafts containing blood flow. And then further assume that would increase the capacity feathers have for ventilation. I wonder who might have done something like that... hehe...

But my experience also taught me that the conclusions being reached based on Microraptor aerodynamic studies made no sense. The seemingly forgone conclusion among professional paleontologists for the better part of two decades was that despite numerous studies indicating Microraptor gained lift when moving at high speed, it simply must not have been flight capable, as it was not a bird. The same people doing those tests would seemingly always come to the conclusion "Oh well, guess it was just very bad at gliding." and I spent a decade grumbling at people that it obviously flew. Because to an outsider looking at the raw data, it was simply obvious. Somehow it took molting pattern studies of all things to finally convince people.

Sometimes you need the perspective of people outside of a field to present perspectives that are either more topically relevant, or to see past the layers of preconceived bias within a given field. And other times something really is exactly what that field included training for and people on the outside simply aren't qualified for it.

I think that you are going a bit overboard with your criticism. I posted this PNSO video because I thought it would be useful to see the arguments from Zhao Chuang for the design of the PNSO Stegosaurus, particularly now in comparison with the Haolonggood model. And Turkeysaurus expressed his appreciation of the fact that PNSO puts a lot of thought and knowledge into their models and moreover explains their reasoning with these detailed videos. No other dinosaur model manufacturer does this and it is certainly worth commending that PNSO makes these videos. Moreover, your criticism centers on the lipped versus non-lipped debate about theropods, which however was not even been touched in the Stegosaurus video.

Science is by its very definition a process of constant relearning and discovery and also a process of debate involving sometimes models and theories which are at extreme disagreement with each other. There is no absolute truth in science and what seemed to be the state-of-the-art a day ago may become outdated and obsolete today. We even have scientific models sometimes going in circles, with the question of bipedalism versus quadrupedalism of Iguanodon being a good example. There is also the aspect of power and authority involved. The young PhD researcher who comes up with an intriguing new hypothesis will have a hard time defending this against the established professors. So there is no simple follow the science approach as some are propagating in questions of paleontology but also in questions relevant to society.

Unfortunately, the scientific training and education at universities has become more and more specialized over the last decades, reflecting the vast increase in knowledge over the same time span. This has resulted in a considerable fragmentation in the science and also has made it difficult for specialists to discuss with and understand each other because they sometimes have too little common ground. Fortunately this is increasingly realized and there are some trends to work in multidisciplinary teams. But there is still a long way to go until this will be the norm in scientific research.

For me PNSO does an outstanding job in at least trying to design their models based on the latest research and to openly and transparently explain their reasoning, even if they sometimes make decisions with which I would not agree with.

[stargatedalek]

I have no issues with you sharing the video or with what you've said. My issue was very specifically with the idea that "if people had only watched PNSO's videos, they wouldn't be complaining", because like, a solid logic from paper to design does not make something free from error, especially since we have a tendency to take papers as inherent gospel in this field when they really shouldn't be.

When we hear something from a formal source or as part of our own formal training, we tend to give it extra weight, sometimes even undue weight, and that's something worth deconstructing about the ways we engage with scientific media. Particularly in this field (not so much in things like medicine or climatology, which work in different manners and with very clear cut information).

[CARN0TAURUS]

Every toy company get's criticized, it's just part of the deal.  None of them are ever going to please everyone.  Overall I think PNSO is trying really hard and I give them credit for that.  They are not perfect and they like everyone make odd decision on figures too.  I've seen them make some serious mistakes but unlike other companies instead of sitting on a mold until it pays for itself 100 times over they redo a better version of the figure.  That's not typical and it's that quest for improvement that has taken PNSO figures to the level they've attained in a short 6-7 years.  It blows my mind when I see the figures that they were producing just in 2017-2019 let alone before that...compared to where they are today, yeah, I'd say that they have been working hard to make more accurate figures.

[Turkeysaurus]

I have no issues with you sharing the video or with what you've said. My issue was very specifically with the idea that "if people had only watched PNSO's videos, they wouldn't be complaining", because like, a solid logic from paper to design does not make something free from error, especially since we have a tendency to take papers as inherent gospel in this field when they really shouldn't be.

When we hear something from a formal source or as part of our own formal training, we tend to give it extra weight, sometimes even undue weight, and that's something worth deconstructing about the ways we engage with scientific media. Particularly in this field (not so much in things like medicine or climatology, which work in different manners and with very clear cut information).

If it's not based on works of experts of the field, it's not a scientifically accurate toy. Even guesswork should be based on some kind of scientific explanation. Of course not everything is agreed upon on by scientists. In that case artists can select whichever seems more convincing.

PNSO exactly does that yet they get criticized for lack of lips or cheekless dinosaurs for following scientific papers.

Some scientists are convinced they had lips. Other still think they were lipless. Then there is 3rd faction who thinks we don't know until we find an impression etc.

I don't think PNSO should be criticize for on going debates in paleontology field. Lips on their Saurophaganax doesn't make it more accurate than their Tyrannotitan .

btw: i find lipped look more aesthetically pleasing.

[JimoAi]

I hope that new PNSO Mosasaurus rumor is true.
I like the Collecta, but PNSO could make it even better.

Idk how it would be much different from the Tylosaurus figure. That's essentially Mosasaurus already.

I'm sorry what?!?!?!

The PNSO Tylosaurus doesn't even have the "knob" on the snout that Tylosaurus is named for. It's also bulkier like Mosasaurus, rather than the sleeker Tylo.

Can any mosasaur experts confirm this?

[Sim]

I'm not an expert, but as L @Leyster has shown, there are Tylosaurus specimens without the "knob".  Also, I read Tylosaurus would have had fat deposits that increased its buoyancy, if I remember right, so all this makes the PNSO Tylosaurus plausible as a Tylosaurus in my opinion.

[Leyster]

PNSO Tylosaurus is cleary a Tylosaurus and not a Mosasaurus. They are very different animals from quite removed gruops, differencies aren't only bulk or a knob (which is not even that evident in some specimens).

[thomasw100]

PNSO posted a video about the Yunganglong datongensis, which is probably the first of a series in their collaboration with the Shanxi Natural History Museum. This is the collaboration that was mentioned earlier this year. I wonder if we will get a figure of the Yunganglong.

[Halichoeres]

I'm a little skeptical that this is going to lead to figures, but I wouldn't mind a basal hadrosauromorph, which are pretty thin on the ground generally.

[thomasw100]

Another PNSO video about their collaboration with the Shanxi Natural History Museum. This is about the stegosaur Yanbeilong ultimus. They show some interesting skeletal reconstructions of this genus and of Wuerhosaurus, and there is mentioning of making a reconstruction. The latter could indicate a figure or a resin model.

[Halichoeres]

Unless I'm very mistaken, that's a stegosaur genus with no plate material preserved. I guess they could really go wild on the shape!

[Renecito]

Baryonyx

[JimoAi]

Isn't that the name of the main villain of Despicable me 4? Maybe PNSO trying to cash in. Jokes aside, it doesn't look like a successor to the Safari figure and miles above Haolonggood

[Carnoking]

Good to see them back after a quiet month. Maybe not the most exciting release but certainly looks good. Glad I held off on the HLG release, I prefer the extra bulk and lack of crocodilian scutes on this one.

Perhaps this and the Tyrannotitan release suggest PNSO are going back to unfinished business with their large theropods. Can we expect a new lipless Tyrannosaur next?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Nice. I do like a good Baryonyx!

[Quiversaurus]

My goodness that is a good looking Baryonyx. I'm charmed by that pose.

[Flaffy]

Stunning sculpt. Only nitpick I have with the sculpt is I wish the signature claw was more recurved. Otherwise this may very well be the best Bary on the market; beating out the Safari, Favorite and HLG versions.

Colour scheme though... not too warm on. Wish it was as vibrant and complex as the promotional artwork.