PNSO Scale Thread

[Dinoguy2]

Ha! That's a lot bigger than I'd originally figured. Good, that makes up my mind - too big for my collections. Thanks for the info @ halichoeres .

Yeah, I'm surprised such a big sauropod is in such a big scale in this case. Once again it seems there are proportion issues. If you measured this from nose to tail and compared it with length estimates, you'd probably get 1:30 or so! That's because the official estimates are assuming much longer neck and tail than the ones on the model. Compare the proportions of the model with say, the mounted Patagotitan. Hopefully someday PNSO will make a more correctly proportioned giant titanosaur in scale with the 1:25 model series.

[SidB]

Ha! That's a lot bigger than I'd originally figured. Good, that makes up my mind - too big for my collections. Thanks for the info @ halichoeres .

Yeah, I'm surprised such a big sauropod is in such a big scale in this case. Once again it seems there are proportion issues. If you measured this from nose to tail and compared it with length estimates, you'd probably get 1:30 or so! That's because the official estimates are assuming much longer neck and tail than the ones on the model. Compare the proportions of the model with say, the mounted Patagotitan. Hopefully someday PNSO will make a more correctly proportioned giant titanosaur in scale with the 1:25 model series.

Yes, that's the root of my initial misconception that it was in the 1/30-1/35 range and therefore a candidate for my collection.

[Dinoguy2]

Updated with Sinoceratops. Based on skull measurements the figure is closest to 1/28, but obviously with margin of error either 1/25 or 1/30 work.

[Halichoeres]

The new Atopodentatus is 1:9-1:10 based on several different measurements. It is much better proportioned than the miniature.

[Dinoguy2]

Thanks! Added.

[andrewsaurus rex]

thanks for starting and carrying on with this thread.

you'll find that many animal figures (not just dinosaurs) from a variety of manufacturers have overly large heads.  Schleich used to be notorious for this but have gotten much better over the past few years.

I guess manus like to make the heads a bit overly big so they can add more detail to them, as they are usually the focal point of any figure.

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, the mini Atopodentatus has a head 2-3× too large for its body.

[KeU]

I got my Parasaurlolophus in!
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5276.msg287644#msg287644
Measuring along the curves, I got 31cm.
Which gives about 1/30 if it is a big 9.5m individual.
Any other elements I can go measure?

[Dinoguy2]

I got my Parasaurlolophus in!
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5276.msg287644#msg287644
Measuring along the curves, I got 31cm.
Which gives about 1/30 if it is a big 9.5m individual.
Any other elements I can go measure?

You could also check the skull length. It should be about 1.8 m measured along the curve from snout to crest tip.

[KeU]

You could also check the skull length. It should be about 1.8 m measured along the curve from snout to crest tip.

I measured 7 cm along the top of the skull, i.e outside curve of the snout to crest tip.
That gives a scale of 1/26.
Is this another case of a big headed Hadrosaur from PNSO again?

[Dinoguy2]

You could also check the skull length. It should be about 1.8 m measured along the curve from snout to crest tip.

I measured 7 cm along the top of the skull, i.e outside curve of the snout to crest tip.
That gives a scale of 1/26.
Is this another case of a big headed Hadrosaur from PNSO again?

Maybe, though the proportions look pretty much correct to me in the photos. More likely another case of an overestimated "official" length.

[SRF]

Since there was a discussion the other day in which scale some of the PNSO theropods are, I thought I might just post my own findings in this thread as well.

- Tyrannosaurus - 1:35 altough I think at 1:35 it could be a bit too big to represent AMNH 5027 based on measurements of the skull and the total length around the curves, but it's  too small to represent a larger specimen like Sue at 1:35 either.
- Qianzhousaurus - 1:24 (based on the skull and a total length of 7 meters fot the animal)
- Carnotaurus - 1:33-1:35 based on the skull. I measured it at about 1,7 centimeters, but it could be 1,8 as well. It's hard to see exactly when it is that small. Based on the total length around the curves and a maximum size of between 8 to 9 meters, it's around 1:35 as well.

I don't own the Spinosaurus, but it is stated that based on the juvenile "tail-specimen" that one is 1:35 as well.

I'm looking forward to see what the exact scales of the newer theropods will be. 

Lastly, I've measured the Parasaurolophus. Based on total body length it's around 1:34 scale, but based on the head alone it's 1:26,7 scale. This means that the head is actually too large, but looking at the model I don't really feel it is? 

[Dinoguy2]

Lastly, I've measured the Parasaurolophus. Based on total body length it's around 1:34 scale, but based on the head alone it's 1:26,7 scale. This means that the head is actually too large, but looking at the model I don't really feel it is? 

Yes, the proportions look fine, which mean the commonly published total body length estimates are simply wrong. Using those estimates along with the proportions of known complete skeletons gives completely wrong proportions. This kind of overestimate for total body length is so common I seriously wonder if most publications that include total body length aren't just spitballing it. You MUST scale a completed restoration to a known element size in order to get an accurate body length.

The funny thing is, people are so in love with obviously false size measurements, the last few times I've tried to publish a corrected scale diagram for Lambeosaurus to its Wikipedia page, it keeps getting deleted 

For the record, here is a reasonably accurate scale diagram for Parasaurolophus. You can see the largest specimens should be around 8m or less in body length. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasaurolophus#/media/File:Parasaurolophus_Scale.svg

[andrewsaurus rex]

yes this is a common problem with all prehistoric animals, not just hadrosaurs..  But it can be dodgy saying something 'looks right' just by eyeballing it,  especially since we are so used to seeing animal figures which often have oversized heads, so we can get a bit numb to it.  The best way is to find an accurate adult skull length, an accurate skeletal restoration and then measure and do some basic math.  If you can find the length of the largest known skull for the species, that's uber better because it gives you the known maximum size for an animal species.

Dino sizes tend to get exaggerated because 'bigger is better'.  Doing the math has been really eye opening for me.

However, animal sizes usually vary quite a bit.  And the odds of discovering large examples of a species are remote.  When a fossil is discovered,  you are essentially seeing one animal that has been selected at random from a population of millions, or even potentially billions, depending how long the species was around.  Chances are the fossil represents an average size animal or a below average size animal.  Less than 10% of the members of a species would be considered 'large', so logically only about one fossil find in 10 would be of a large animal.  And the odds of finding a very large animal (ie a basketball player of the species) is about 1/1000.

So, what this means to people who like collecting animal figures to scale (like me) is that there is a lot of freedom.   

[Dinoguy2]

yes this is a common problem with all prehistoric animals, not just hadrosaurs..  But it can be dodgy saying something 'looks right' just by eyeballing it,  especially since we are so used to seeing animal figures which often have oversized heads, so we can get a bit numb to it.  The best way is to find an accurate adult skull length, an accurate skeletal restoration and then measure and do some basic math.  If you can find the length of the largest known skull for the species, that's uber better because it gives you the known maximum size for an animal species.

Dino sizes tend to get exaggerated because 'bigger is better'.  Doing the math has been really eye opening for me.

However, animal sizes usually vary quite a bit.  And the odds of discovering large examples of a species are remote.  When a fossil is discovered,  you are essentially seeing one animal that has been selected at random from a population of millions, or even potentially billions, depending how long the species was around.  Chances are the fossil represents an average size animal or a below average size animal.  Less than 10% of the members of a species would be considered 'large', so logically only about one fossil find in 10 would be of a large animal.  And the odds of finding a very large animal (ie a basketball player of the species) is about 1/1000.

So, what this means to people who like collecting animal figures to scale (like me) is that there is a lot of freedom.   

That's all true, which is why I like PNSO's tendency of using particular specimens as reference rather than "generic member of species". For all we know there were 20ft tall Dimetrodon out there. But I don't really care if there were or not. What I care about is, will the representatives on my shelf look the way they would if they were skeletons in a museum. That includes not just imagining how much bigger a species may or may not have been able to grow, but also recognizing that smaller specimens exist and are more common. The PNSO Spinosaurus is perfect because it's both based on a smaller specimen, and representative of a species where we know nothing about how the proportions of the tail, sail, skull, etc. may or may not have changed during growth. Using that as a 30ft specimen represents something real. Using it as a 50ft specimen is pure speculation.

[SidB]

"Settling" for an accurate 30 footer is immensely better than a speculative 50 foot specimen - well said!

[Dinoguy2]

Added Nanotyrannus and Tarbosaurus. Note that Nanotyrannus is almost exactly 1:25 if based on the Cleveland skull (holotype).

Tarb is almost exactly 1:30 based on skull length assuming a 1.3m skull which is apparently the largest one. It comes out as 1:35 using total length of 12m, but as always I would caution skull length is a far more accurate measurent. That being said, the skull is a little elongated compared to the biggest specimen, and I don't know the measurements of the longer snouted specimen it's based on. So, given the individual variation present, I think this figure would work in either a 1:30 display or a 1:35 display (probably even a 1:25 if you imagine it's a smaller individual).

[Dinoguy2]

Also just added Pachycephalosaurus and Pinacosaurus. Both are in the 1:20 - 1:25 range. Pinacosaurus is based on a total length of 5m, Pachycephalosaurus is based on the holotype skull. Pinacosaurus is just shy of 1:25, Pachycephalosaurus is exactly 1:23.

[Dinoguy2]

Just got the 2021 Doyle, so added it to the list. This one has the benefit of being based on a specific individual for which measurements are published (Triceratops elatus AMNH mount paper contains lots of measurements). The mount is 7m along the curves as stated in the paper, which makes the PNSO figure 1:29. However, the mount actually has slightly different proportions from the figure including an overly long tail, so better to measure the skull (helpful it includes an actual skull!). The paper says the skull is 1.12m from the rostrum to occipital condyle. Measuring this on the skull accessory which appears to be the same scale as the figure, gives a little less than 5cm, making the figure and skull 1:23 scale.


 If you pretend it's a larger Triceratops of around 8m+ it could be 1:35 as advertised.

[Halichoeres]

I get an average of about 1:40 for Tsintaosaurus, but the head is too small for the body.

I get about 1:25 - 1:30 for the Centrosaurus and the Styracosaurus both.

I get about 1:30 for Torosaurus.

I get about 1:30 - 1:25 for Acrocanthosaurus.