PNSO: New For 2021

[Sim]

A bit late, but I too am not interested in Zhuchengtyrannus being made.  For that matter I would like PNSO to stop with the tyrannosauroids and make other animals e.g. dromaeosaurids.  They've made more than enough tyrannosauroids for now.

I know this is not the hopes and dreams thread, but I would have much preferred Ichthyovenator, not as fragmentary but has enough evidence for a figure by now. I think Collecta's is the only one on the market.

Ichthyovenator is about as fragmentary as Spinosaurus.  Additionally all spinosaurids with known skulls have a different head, and Ichthyovenator's skull isn't known.  So any figure of it would be a fantasy creature.

I am a fan of the larger (THICC) Tyrannosaurs, but I rather have, like Faerlin mentioned, Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, Lythronax, etc... if it means a genus is VERY fragmented.

Lythronax is very fragmentary.

Knuckle walking is out, it was out long before the 2014 paper because we already had a finger and it shows no adaptations for supporting weight. Walking on the fingers would probably have caused Spinosaurus extreme discomfort if not be actively painful. But Spinosaurus still had tiny, tiny legs with relatively atrophied muscles, so walking like a traditional biped wouldn't have been comfortable either.

Andrea Cau has written a blog post on how the finger of Spinosaurus might suggest it was a quadrupedal animal: http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2018/09/ledumahadi-e-le-implicazioni-per-lo.html

What is the source for Spinosaurus having atrophied leg muscles?

It certainly could have done either, if it really had to, IE; pushing off with the knuckles to move quickly if startled, or rising up on its hind legs to hold itself off the ground and waddle across a rocky area of shoreline. But resting on the belly or forearms (think of an army crawl) would be far more comfortable for slow normal movement, and nothing about the new paper challenges this idea for how Spinosaurus moved on land. If anything the stiffer paddle tail supports this idea, as using the tail as a prop while standing upright is basically out of the question now.

Regarding the bolded part, Andrea Cau doesn't think so: http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2020/07/tripod-spinosaurus-reloaded.html

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

Thanks again, @Faras! The first time, i saw the PNSO Dunk Head, i instantly thought of a Rancor :D

I have to say, that this Model looks wonderful. Not perfect in Terms of accuracy, blabla... That will always be this way with Figures. But they managed (for me at least) to make it life like. Because of the (but great) Paint application, it really looks wonderful. But not super big. But a Tiger Shark also doesn't look big on Photos without something to scale. Even Great Whites. I think i really want that Figure. My first Dunk.

I really love its left side. That Muscle and Movement. Wonderful.

*generic it is a bit tooo expensive as a European sentence* (but true to me.)

[Faras]

My pleaure  It's very nice to hear that my posts help folks make decisions 

Oh just came across a proper albino Dunk online;)

[Sim]

Regarding the validity of Nanotyrannus, I was surprised to seea thread where it's generally considered valid on The Fossil Forum.  I find some of the evidence presented convincing.  I'm linking the aforementioned thread below and would be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/93287-the-case-for-nanotyrannus/

[Carnoking]

I don't really have a dog in the Nanotyrannus fight but I find it fascinating to read about arguments on both sides nonetheless. Thank you for sharing this!

[suspsy]

Until something is formally published, Nanotyrannus is in the same league as Bigfoot and Nessie.

[Bread]

I know this is not the hopes and dreams thread, but I would have much preferred Ichthyovenator, not as fragmentary but has enough evidence for a figure by now. I think Collecta's is the only one on the market.

Ichthyovenator is about as fragmentary as Spinosaurus.  Additionally all spinosaurids with known skulls have a different head, and Ichthyovenator's skull isn't known.  So any figure of it would be a fantasy creature.

I am a fan of the larger (THICC) Tyrannosaurs, but I rather have, like Faerlin mentioned, Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, Lythronax, etc... if it means a genus is VERY fragmented.

Lythronax is very fragmentary.

My bad about the assumption of Lythronax being "not too fragmented." I quickly assumed, since this figure has a few figures made, that this genus had plenty of evidence for a good depiction.

I knew Ichthyovenator would be as fragmented as any Spinosaurid. Again, I wouldn't mind a figure of this genus, compared to another Spinosaurus which has countless amount of figures.

Regardless though, my bad on the lack of information I had on both species I named.

[stargatedalek]

Regarding the validity of Nanotyrannus, I was surprised to seea thread where it's generally considered valid on The Fossil Forum.  I find some of the evidence presented convincing.  I'm linking the aforementioned thread below and would be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/93287-the-case-for-nanotyrannus/

That's an awful lot of awfully damning evidence, assuming you take Pete Larson at his word, both in terms of honesty and competency. Which is not something I recommend doing.

He and the various private collectors all have huge economic and personal incentives to promote every possible bit of distinction as evidence of Nanotyrannus. He's been making tidy sums off of the idea of it being valid, and those collectors really really want it to be valid and will go very far to promote that idea in a sunk cost fallacy.

A lot of these differences such as the thickness of the lower jaw are potentially taphonomic, and a formal study of the bones could conclude this pretty easily, hence he's gone out of his way to make sure all of his totally provable definitely completely legit Nanotyrannus fossils invariably end up in private collections.

As for the alleged smoking gun that is the arms being, some people claim larger, (but as you can even see in those figures there the "nano" arms are actually slightly smaller and practically the same size); plenty of animals will go so far as to re-absorb parts of themselves even as dramatic as bones as they age, something especially relevant to an animal that occupies different niches as it ages, or during seasonal variations. Marine iguanas being probably the best known example.

[Dinoxels]

I met a person the other day (who shall remain anonymous) that was skeptical about Nanotyrannus so he went to every single Nanotyrannus "expert" to hear there opinions instead of hearing a broad spectrum of opinions. It's hilarious how many people online will just say one thing and a bunch of people will just believe it.

Until something is formally published, Nanotyrannus is in the same league as Bigfoot and Nessie.

I second this. Speaking of which PBS Eons just made a great video explaining why Nanotyrannus does not make much sense ecologically. Here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXe9IHVX17U

[Psittacoraptor]

I met a person the other day (who shall remain anonymous) that was skeptical about Nanotyrannus so he went to every single Nanotyrannus "expert" to hear there opinions instead of hearing a broad spectrum of opinions. It's hilarious how many people online will just say one thing and a bunch of people will just believe it.

Until something is formally published, Nanotyrannus is in the same league as Bigfoot and Nessie.

I second this. Speaking of which PBS Eons just made a great video explaining why Nanotyrannus does not make much sense ecologically. Here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXe9IHVX17U

Regarding that video: I'm not particularly interested in the Nanotyrannus debate (never been that crazy about T-rex to begin with), but I find preservation bias (scavenging, fragmentation etc.) and gaps in the fossil record more likely than medium-sized species simply not existing. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves what an extraordinarily rare occurrence terrestrial fossilization really is.

[Dinoguy2]

Regarding the validity of Nanotyrannus, I was surprised to seea thread where it's generally considered valid on The Fossil Forum.  I find some of the evidence presented convincing.  I'm linking the aforementioned thread below and would be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/93287-the-case-for-nanotyrannus/

That's an awful lot of awfully damning evidence, assuming you take Pete Larson at his word, both in terms of honesty and competency. Which is not something I recommend doing.

He and the various private collectors all have huge economic and personal incentives to promote every possible bit of distinction as evidence of Nanotyrannus. He's been making tidy sums off of the idea of it being valid, and those collectors really really want it to be valid and will go very far to promote that idea in a sunk cost fallacy.

A lot of these differences such as the thickness of the lower jaw are potentially taphonomic, and a formal study of the bones could conclude this pretty easily, hence he's gone out of his way to make sure all of his totally provable definitely completely legit Nanotyrannus fossils invariably end up in private collections.

As for the alleged smoking gun that is the arms being, some people claim larger, (but as you can even see in those figures there the "nano" arms are actually slightly smaller and practically the same size); plenty of animals will go so far as to re-absorb parts of themselves even as dramatic as bones as they age, something especially relevant to an animal that occupies different niches as it ages, or during seasonal variations. Marine iguanas being probably the best known example.

People misunderstand just how complete T. rex arms are, even from Sue. I did an experiment a few years ago using a diagram someone posted comparing"Nano" arms from the DD specimen and T. rex arms. They looked pretty different. Until I used Photoshop to delete the reconstructed parts off of T. rex and replaced them with parts from DD. You simply end up with differently proportioned T. rex arms. No reabsorbed body parts necessary, we just have T. rex arms slightly wrong. You just need to assume that the arms stay the same size from "teenager" phase up to large adult, while the rest of the body grows. Which actually would nicely explain how tyrannosaurids have such small arms.

[suspsy]

People misunderstand just how complete T. rex arms are, even from Sue. I did an experiment a few years ago using a diagram someone posted comparing"Nano" arms from the DD specimen and T. rex arms. They looked pretty different. Until I used Photoshop to delete the reconstructed parts off of T. rex and replaced them with parts from DD. You simply end up with differently proportioned T. rex arms. No reabsorbed body parts necessary, we just have T. rex arms slightly wrong. You just need to assume that the arms stay the same size from "teenager" phase up to large adult, while the rest of the body grows. Which actually would nicely explain how tyrannosaurids have such small arms.

It's just like that comparison image Thomas Holtz keeps sharing on Facebook whenever this topic gets brought up.

[Psittacoraptor]

I just got home and watched that Eons video again, and there is one thing that bothers me about the hypothesis. They say T-rexes lived into their late 20s, and the Jane specimen, the juvenile/Nano, was approx. 13 years old at the time of its death. This would mean that T-rex was less than half its adult size at around the middle of its lifespan. That seems very odd to me. Birds obviously reach adult body sizes much faster than this, and even elephants, who are slow-growing and live into their 60s or 70s, reach most of their full body size at 12-15 years - a quarter or less into their (potential) lifespan. So, T-rex still being a small juvenile halfway through its life seems very strange to me. Especially when you take sexual maturity and reproduction into account, they would basically have very little time to make baby rexes in relation to their lifespan. Is there an animal that has such an odd growth pattern? Is the late 20s estimate way too short for a T-rex lifespan, or did Eons get the estimate wrong?

This is NOT me arguing for Nanotyrannus btw, I personally do not care if it's a valid species or not. I just find this to be a rather large hole in the explanation of the video.

[stargatedalek]

I just got home and watched that Eons video again, and there is one thing that bothers me about the hypothesis. They say T-rexes lived into their late 20s, and the Jane specimen, the juvenile/Nano, was approx. 13 years old at the time of its death. This would mean that T-rex was less than half its adult size at around the middle of its lifespan. That seems very odd to me. Birds obviously reach adult body sizes much faster than this, and even elephants, who are slow-growing and live into their 60s or 70s, reach most of their full body size at 12-15 years - a quarter or less into their (potential) lifespan. So, T-rex still being a small juvenile halfway through its life seems very strange to me. Especially when you take sexual maturity and reproduction into account, they would basically have very little time to make baby rexes in relation to their lifespan. Is there an animal that has such an odd growth pattern? Is the late 20s estimate way too short for a T-rex lifespan, or did Eons get the estimate wrong?

This is NOT me arguing for Nanotyrannus btw, I personally do not care if it's a valid species or not. I just find this to be a rather large hole in the explanation of the video.

I'd never heard late 20's before either, always "around 30". If we assume "late 20's" means 27+, 13 is closer to a third into the lifespan.

[Leyster]

I just got home and watched that Eons video again, and there is one thing that bothers me about the hypothesis. They say T-rexes lived into their late 20s, and the Jane specimen, the juvenile/Nano, was approx. 13 years old at the time of its death. This would mean that T-rex was less than half its adult size at around the middle of its lifespan. That seems very odd to me. Birds obviously reach adult body sizes much faster than this, and even elephants, who are slow-growing and live into their 60s or 70s, reach most of their full body size at 12-15 years - a quarter or less into their (potential) lifespan. So, T-rex still being a small juvenile halfway through its life seems very strange to me. Especially when you take sexual maturity and reproduction into account, they would basically have very little time to make baby rexes in relation to their lifespan. Is there an animal that has such an odd growth pattern? Is the late 20s estimate way too short for a T-rex lifespan, or did Eons get the estimate wrong?

This is NOT me arguing for Nanotyrannus btw, I personally do not care if it's a valid species or not. I just find this to be a rather large hole in the explanation of the video.

Dinosaurus were tendentially r-reproduction strategists, which means a large clutch of babies and relatively few cares. Among theropods Tyrannosaurids seems to have adopted an exceptionally fast growing rate. You can read more on this blogpost and these twoarticles.

[SidB]

Fascinating blogpost L @Leyster , "Live fast, die young," even without a cigarette in its mouth. I really appreciated the breakdown of the various aspects of the transitions during the various growth phases in a rex's life, as well as the sense of the ephemerality of the individual's existence. Quite moving.

[Psittacoraptor]

Dinosaurus were tendentially r-reproduction strategists, which means a large clutch of babies and relatively few cares. Among theropods Tyrannosaurids seems to have adopted an exceptionally fast growing rate. You can read more on this blogpost and these twoarticles.

Thanks you very much for the links! I've only had time to read the blog post so far, I'll save the pdfs for later. So, similar to its closest living relatives, T-rex was fast growing. Interesting that their "adulthood" seems to not have lasted very long.

[RCM9698]

If you look at Tufts-Love Rex and Mor 555, who were about 11,5 meters at 15 to 17 years old, that does require quite a growth spurt when looking at the supposed Nanotyrannus.

[bone crusher]

So I'm on the hunt for a fully gown version of a scientific accurate Spinosaurus, kinda torn between Essien 2019, Pappo and GR Toys. Which would you say is the most definitive Spino right now?

[SRF]

So I'm on the hunt for a fully gown version of a scientific accurate Spinosaurus, kinda torn between Essien 2019, Pappo and GR Toys. Which would you say is the most definitive Spino right now?

Out of these three I would pick the GR Toys. But it still wouldn't surprise me if PNSO releases a new fully grown version in their Museum Line shortly.