Jackson's chameleon (PNSO - African Animals) - walkaround

Walkaround of the Jackson's chameleon, Trioceros jacksonii (Boulenger, 1869), by PNSO African Animals (2018). This has always been one of my favorite reptiles, and always surprised they were not more commonly made in toy/figure form due to the armature of the males. When I decided to build a synoptic collection, I was happy PNSO released one, and at a decent size for my tastes! PNSO like to anthropomorphize their figures with silly names. If you must know, this figure is 'Kesia the Jackson's Chameleon' (which is odd, as Kesia sounds feminine but this is clearly a male figure!).

The figure is about 6.0 cm snout to vent, making it 1:3.4-1.4.2 for a male. The total length of the figure is about 9.0 cm (keeping in mind the tail is coiled). The hands on the left side are open as if in an ambulatory pose.

This is my first PNSO figure (I got 3 more with it...) and so far I am VERY impressed with their animals!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

interesting figure with other pose.

Thanks for sharing.

A very beautiful chameleon

I am srurprised with the size of the figure. I thought it was much larger what means that the level of detail is very good.
The posture doesn't seem very natural for a chameleon, they rarely opt for such a erect pose, at least using all limbs to do it. Though, it gives a somewhat seigneurial stance to the creature.
Your presentation is really wonderful and I surely didn't mind having one of these in my collection.

I'm surprised you gave him a 1:3.4-1.4.2 scale.
Assuming he has a tail as long as the body, it is a male (size around 25cm, 38 cm for the biggest) I would say it would be more 1:2-1:3.1 scale

Kikimalou wrote:

I'm surprised you gave him a 1:3.4-1.4.2 scale.
Assuming he has a tail as long as the body, it is a male (size around 25cm, 38 cm for the biggest) I would say it would be more 1:2-1:3.1 scale

Hi Kiki; math has never been my strongpoint. I calculated based on snout-to-vent length (not including tail), but when I go back and do it again, I get a scale of 1:2-1:2.7 (so your scale is closer, yes). Not sure where my numbers came from, either an error by myself or the reference I used was an outlyer.

Believe me, I feel better now. I thought I missed something and I spent time on the web trying to find a size which fit with your scale.

When this figure comes up for my Museum of Natural History thread, I will do a more thorough analysis

Unfortunately all photos has been removed

I can't see the photos either .

The photos are gone, the only way to save this topic is if Blaine reuploads them.