PNSO: New For 2021

[Rivera2171]

No skull with this one? Pity.

[Duck]

Body's great. Head? Not so much. I do like how much more robust it is than the other PNSO hadrosaurs.

[KrazyKaprosuchus]

Agreed with the masses on this one, the head is very off-putting. A shame since I really enjoy how robust the body is on it. And no skull replica or anything? This is rather disappointing.

[SidB]

Looks like it's in a bad mood, LOL.  I kind of like it, but not $60 like it.  The stripes are nice and the colors are not overdone.

Maybe it's in a foul mood because of the comments about the head. But I too would  like to hear what @Faras has to relate about justification about the head's configuration, if any is to be forthcoming. Why use a Mantellisaurus head, even though it was previously subsumed under Iguanodon, since it is no longer? Or is there another explanation?

[Sim]

Oh no, it doesn't have cheeks!  I'm surprised by that since PNSO's hadrosauroids have them.  I may have to get CollectA's 2018 Iguanodon after all.

[Grimbeard]

I still like the CollectA Deluxe better. Yay, money saved! Harvey does look nice, though.

Agreed, while PNSOs Iguanodon looks nice and definity has the better paint application, I prefer the collecta one. I think it has the better, more active pose, the better had and the better paint scheme.

Look forward to the rumored Straco, Acro and especially Centrosaurus. I hope both ceratopsian have a more colorfull frill, I always thinks its odd if ceratopsian skull are dull-colored when they have frills, horns and other structures that are most likely intended to impress/scare off other speciesmember or predators.

[dinofelid]

Oh no, it doesn't have cheeks!  I'm surprised by that since PNSO's hadrosauroids have them.  I may have to get CollectA's 2018 Iguanodon after all.

Yeah, I hope they release a video or something explaining their reasoning, my understanding was that most paleontologists thought ornithopods must have had cheeks to avoid food falling out of their mouth while chewing. For example, the discussion on p. 83-84 of David Norman's Dinosaurs: A Very Short Introduction at https://books.google.com/books?id=ynkRDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA83&pg=PA83 talks about their theorized mode of chewing (different from the way mammals chew) which he termed "pleurokinesis", and says:

This new chewing system could be linked to another important observation concerning dinosaurs such as Iguanodon. Its teeth are recessed (set inwards) from the side of the face. This creates a depression that might have been covered over by a fleshy cheek — another most un-reptilian feature. Given that the upper teeth slid past the lowers to cut up their food, it seems logical to expect that every time they bit through food in the mouth, at least half of it would be lost from the sides of the mouth ... unless, of course, it was caught and recycled in the mouth by some sort of fleshy cheek. So these dinosaurs appeared to be not only capable of chewing their food in a surprisingly sophisticated way, but they also had mammal-like cheeks, and of course to aid the positioning of the food between the teeth before chews, they would have needed a big, muscular tongue (and strong ceratobranchials – the tongue-muscle bones).

Once this new chewing system had been identified, I was able to recognize that the pleurokinesis was not a 'one-off invention associated with Iguanodon. It was actually widespread among the general group of dinosaurs known as ornithopods, to which Iguanodon belonged.

[SenSx]

First impression for me also was: the head is weird.
I'm not expert, maybe they had their reasons, but if you are saying it does not look like Iguanodon, I believe you.
I like the blulk of the body and the color, but I think I'll just stick with the Collecta as well.

Bring on the Acro now !
It might be for the museum line as well though, since this is a long overdue, but I hope it won't disappoint.

[Duck]

I like how everyone's opinion here is pretty much the same. Head's bad, body's fine.

[Bread]

Bring on the Acro now !
It might be for the museum line as well though, since this is a long overdue, but I hope it won't disappoint.

Yes this exactly!!!!
I've been sick of the constant Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus figures, now its time for an updated Acrocanthosaurus. I find this genus to be more appealing and unique.

[Stegotyranno420]

I like how everyone's opinion here is pretty much the same. Head's bad, body's fine.

Yeah I agree with everyone. I don't think the coummunity ever had such agreement on a figure to my knowledge

[Faras]

New Iguanodon is 229 CNY (20 CNY cheaper than new Triceratops), available from 0:00, 21st Dec. +8GMT on Taobao.

Link: https://detail.tmall.com/item.htm?spm=a1z0d.6639537.1997196601.4.63577484ANZbMD&id=664882795462

Not much additional info this time and no explanation for skull shape though, guess we'll have to wait for vid.

Spoiler

[close]

[Antey]

I think we all fall into the habit trap once again. We're used to some kind of standardized image, in this case the iguanodon. And as soon as the reenactor shows scientific courage, he encounters rejection. The author of the DinosDragons channel has demonstrated, over and over again, the seriousness of PNSO's approach to creating new images of extinct animals with his thorough investigations. For my part, I can say that the profile of the new iguanodon does not raise any questions for me. Only the frontal position seems strange. I will wait for an explanation from serious experts. But even now I like the iguanodon.

[John]

I think we all fall into the habit trap once again. We're used to some kind of standardized image, in this case the iguanodon. And as soon as the reenactor shows scientific courage, he encounters rejection. The author of the DinosDragons channel has demonstrated, over and over again, the seriousness of PNSO's approach to creating new images of extinct animals with his thorough investigations. For my part, I can say that the profile of the new iguanodon does not raise any questions for me. Only the frontal position seems strange. I will wait for an explanation from serious experts. But even now I like the iguanodon.

Judging by the pictures I've seen of it,the Iguanodon looks fine to me as well.

[SenSx]

I think we all fall into the habit trap once again. We're used to some kind of standardized image, in this case the iguanodon. And as soon as the reenactor shows scientific courage, he encounters rejection. The author of the DinosDragons channel has demonstrated, over and over again, the seriousness of PNSO's approach to creating new images of extinct animals with his thorough investigations. For my part, I can say that the profile of the new iguanodon does not raise any questions for me. Only the frontal position seems strange. I will wait for an explanation from serious experts. But even now I like the iguanodon.

I must say the head does look better from a true profile angle.
Three quarter view is weird.
So yes, I find it weird because the face felt unnatural  from certain angles, and because I am used to standardized images for that specie that is true.
I personnally can't say anything about scientific accuacy, I only rely on you for that.
So I can't wait for someone to make a deep analysis, explaining why they made it like that, maybe it's more accurate than we think ?
Still, it's odd it looks different from any other Iguanodon representation anywhere...

[Psittacoraptor]

I'll just add a "t" to the box and call it Iguanodont. Problem solved. Eventually some bored taxonomist will come up with a reclassification or renaming anyway. As long as the reconstruction is based on an actual fossil, it's valid, and I'm not too fussed about the name on the box.

[Flaffy]

I do not see how that's a valid skull for Iguanodon proper. Attached below is a skull comparison of various iguanodontians, with top right being Iguanodon, and bottom right being Mantellisaurus. The head reconstruction, along with the skeletal used for the PNSO figure is much more consistent with the latter genus.
Credit: GSP



Even if we take into account less robust specimens of Iguanodon (e.g. IRSNB 1534), the lower jaw is still noticeably more square and robust than PNSO's reconstruction.
Top image: Iguanodon
Bottom image: Mantellisaurus




I stand by that the body of the PNSO Iguanodon is near perfect (feet are a bit too elephantine/columnar), but the head is not true to Iguanodon.
Skeletal reconstruction of the holotype specimen.



I do look forward to PNSO's detailed explanations of their reconstruction however. But so far, none of the promotional material talk about the skull. Very interested to learn the thought process behind this one.

[suspsy]

I really hate how PNSO's artwork doesn't match their products.

https://www.facebook.com/814219578676241/posts/4556489717782523/?d=n

[Lynx]

As much as I dislike the sculpt of my Papo Iguanodon, looks like it has to stay.

[Dromaenychus]

Here's an comparison of the images Flaffy posted with the PNSO reconstruction
https://imgur.com/gallery/CvJEchU
top left is the PNSO skull, top right is Iguanodon, bottom left Mantellisaurus, bottom right Iguanodon and Mantellisaurus.
It definitely looks closer to Mantellisaurus than Iguanodon.
edit: tried to post the picture, but it didn't work, so I'm linking the url to my the image.