PNSO - New for 2024

[Manospundylus gigas]

I agree they are annoying, the editors snd moderators drive me nuts whenever I try to post my works there, but it is still a very neutral/conserved source by my experience.
Do you have any alternatives to Wikipedia in terms of paleo-articles. Basically something like wikipedia, but without the flaws you mention?

I don't know of any site that does what Wikipedia does but accurately. It should be more specific but so much so that the only thing that works is what we have today and that is tracking blogs and articles.

The main problem is that their articles are poorly written and outdated because the site is ruled by anyone who has no knowledge on the matter. Dacentrurus Miragaia issue for example, the latest paper is paywalled and new (june 2024) whoever the moderators and editors are they probably not going to be able to access the paper in years, not to mention their impossiblility to access phD theses. What bothers me more is that it seems like the main rule for wikipedia is to maintain the original text over the facts and newest studies, whenever the original was written and whoever wrote it. While writting this message Im reading the Allosaurus page of wikipedia for the laughs (its one of the first to pop up), it looks the same as almost 20 years ago, very little has changed and there are the same mistakes or even more, beacuse now they are 20 years outdated. For example it keeps mentioning that the specimen AMNH 680 is the biggest Allosaurus (note that it only mentions the genus, not species) individual, with no reference at all, thats because there isnt any study nor book that mentioned that, its a made up statement, there are several individuals bigger than 680, mentioned in many studies and theses. Also in the text it is said that the new mexico specimen is probably Saurophaganax, with a weak reference from 2007 although that specimen is undoubtedly Allosaurus and it has been classified as that since 2009!
And I stoped reading but I bet they are still with the "weak bite force of 200 kg like a leopard and less than a lion!"  myth that they helped to build or they even were the main responsibles for it, a statement based on an 2002 study, with very outdated and inadecuate methods. But they have been spreading that info for decades despite newer studies producing other more accurate results (the 200kg was from MOR 693 subadult jimmadeseni with outdated methods, Bates et al. in 2014 obtained +850kg from SMA 0005 young adult jimmadseni, and Sakamoto 2022 obtained +950kg from DINO 2560 subadult fragilis, funny enough that specimen is (mistakently) stated to be an adult in the wikipedia page with any reference at all... just... they were in the mood).

[Sim]

I think Wikipedia is a valuable resource, although it isn't perfect, but then what is?  I think a lot of the information there is up-to-date, although there can be weird mistakes, like the Citipati page saying the presence of baby Byronosaurus in a Citipati nest is a mystery, while the Byronosaurus page explains that it happened because some babies of the species were washed in from a nearby Byronosaurus nest...  Also, I read some editors on Wikipedia expressing regret about having created a page for Geosternbergia and that propelling that name into usage, as only Kellner used it and other pterosaur palaeontologists have kept using Pteranodon sternbergi for the animal.

Also, some editors on Wikipedia give too much support to ideas that aren't widely accepted, such as questioning whether some basal theropods are dinosaurs, or using Gregory Paul's size estimates as if they are the only correct ones.

Speaking of Wikipedia, I think on there I've come across the reason for the discrepancy in some Baryonyx skull reconstructions:

Sereno and colleagues suggested that some of Baryonyx's cranial bones had been misidentified by Charig and Milner, resulting in the occiput being reconstructed as too deep, and that the skull was instead probably as low, long and narrow as that of Suchomimus.

I did say that I put more trust in modern skull reconstructions and I think the above is a good example of why.

[Manospundylus gigas]

I think Wikipedia is a valuable resource, although it isn't perfect, but then what is?  I think a lot of the information there is up-to-date, although there can be weird mistakes, like the Citipati page saying the presence of baby Byronosaurus in a Citipati nest is a mystery, while the Byronosaurus page explains that it happened because some babies of the species were washed in from a nearby Byronosaurus nest...  Also, I read some editors on Wikipedia expressing regret about having created a page for Geosternbergia and that propelling that name into usage, as only Kellner used it and other pterosaur palaeontologists have kept using Pteranodon sternbergi for the animal.

Also, some editors on Wikipedia give too much support to ideas that aren't widely accepted, such as questioning whether some basal theropods are dinosaurs, or using Gregory Paul's size estimates as if they are the only correct ones.

Speaking of Wikipedia, I think on there I've come across the reason for the discrepancy in some Baryonyx skull reconstructions:

Sereno and colleagues suggested that some of Baryonyx's cranial bones had been misidentified by Charig and Milner, resulting in the occiput being reconstructed as too deep, and that the skull was instead probably as low, long and narrow as that of Suchomimus.

I did say that I put more trust in modern skull reconstructions and I think the above is a good example of why.

Well thats what I was talkig about, the current consensus is that Sereno et al original Suchomimus skull reconstruction is inaccurate and wrong, being too low, the most recent reconstructions show a deeper temporal region more in line with Baryonyx, you can see this even in Sereno's own latest works. (that quote from wikipedia is from suchos description of 1998...26 years old now...)
PNSO  Sucho has the "deep" temporal region of the newest reconstructions.



Despite PNSO artworks having the wrong skull





This image is from Serenos paper about Spinos swimming capabilities, its on wikipedia, shame they are unable to understand the very basics and they put contradictory things everywhere in their own page. Classic wikipedia.

dan folkes latest sucho for reference

[Sim]

Thanks for pointing that out!  The Wild Safari Baryonyx still has a head that's too short though, as can be seen in the comparison with the actual bones of Baryonyx I posted.

[thomasw100]

Another PNSO video from their collaboration with the Shanxi museum. This time they introduce the small tyrannosaur Jinbeisaurus wangi. There is an interesting hint in that video. The show a reconstruction at 2:09 which could be a drawing or a render of a 3D model and this one has lips. Maybe a preview of things to come?

[Sim]

I don't think it can be called a hint, as we don't know if it will lead to anything more.  I hope PNSO doesn't make figures of these very fragmentary dinosaurs with unknown appearances.  Even that video explained that the appearance of the tyrannosauroid is unknown.  I would find it boring if PNSO made these dinosaurs.

[thomasw100]

I don't think it can be called a hint, as we don't know if it will lead to anything more.  I hope PNSO doesn't make figures of these very fragmentary dinosaurs with unknown appearances.  Even that video explained that the appearance of the tyrannosauroid is unknown.  I would find it boring if PNSO made these dinosaurs.

You have misunderstood what I was hinting at. I meant that the appearance of this lipped reconstruction could indicate that the next PNSO theropod figures could have lips again.

[Sim]

I don't think the reconstruction in the video has any relevance to whether the next PNSO theropod has lips or not.  Thanks for clarifying though!

[thomasw100]

First in hand pictures of the Baryonyx as per Paleofiguras:

[SRF]

In hand the colors remind me more of PNSOs Albertosaurus than their Saurophaganax.

[thomasw100]

Some more comparison pictures:

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

At first it seems smaller than the Sucho, from above it's by much at all though. Looks a bit more bulky too.

[SenSx]

Thanks for the pics.
I wish it did not have the same pose as the Saurophaganax, only inverted, but It's still a must have, best Baryonyx on the market now.

[Sim]

The Baryonx looks so good with the Suchomimus and Spinosaurus!  I am looking forward to getting this figure so much!!!

[Baryonyx]

wow, the tail base is finally as muscled as contemporary understanding suggests, as wide as the hips - the last thing they've been missing since lips have been introduced - compare to suchomimus for instance. Saurophaganax was perfect except for this; it's tail is like those on late Carnegies (no disrespect! )

[Joel1905]

Another PNSO video from their collaboration with the Shanxi museum. This time they introduce the small tyrannosaur Jinbeisaurus wangi. There is an interesting hint in that video. The show a reconstruction at 2:09 which could be a drawing or a render of a 3D model and this one has lips. Maybe a preview of things to come?

Those aren't just lips, they're big smoochy lizard lips    and I love them!!! I can't wait for PNSO's first lipped Tyrannosaur!

[Joel1905]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQDOC1ruNFc

New Learn to Draw video from PNSO, focussing on the newly discovered Jinbeisaurus. They emphasised the thick lips!!!!! Hopefully we get a lipped Tyrannosaur soon!

[thomasw100]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQDOC1ruNFc

New Learn to Draw video from PNSO, focussing on the newly discovered Jinbeisaurus. They emphasised the thick lips!!!!! Hopefully we get a lipped Tyrannosaur soon!

But according to the comment by someone higher up, this has no relevance to whether the next PNSO theropod has lips or not. I do however think that the fact that Zhao Chuang reconstructs this tyrannosaur with lips increases the probability that PNSO will fully transition to lipped theropod figures as well, with the notable exception of the spinosaurs.

[Sim]

I think PNSO has shifted to lips on theropods except spinosaurids (even Scott Hartman who has been studying lips on theropods and has been updating his theropod skeletals to include lips, thinks that spinosaurids might have been lipless due to anatomy of their skulls).  That the PNSO Tyrannotitan lacked lips has been explained as PNSO having completed that figure's sculpt prior to their switch to lips.  I wish they wouldn't leave their sauropods teeth exposed, it looks so wrong to me.

[Baryonyx]

repeated earlier point