PNSO 2021 releases

Cretoxyrhina and Livyatan are must-haves!

These are all simply beautiful! The livyatan especially...

Kikimalou wrote:

A Livyatan

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

Beautiful. A must have.

Far better than their other shark figures.

Why ? I love the Helicoprion

The Helicoprion got the fin number correct but it ends there, the head shape is off, the face is too oddly wrinkly, there are far better reconstructions.

Burgerenby wrote:

The Helicoprion got the fin number correct but it ends there, the head shape is off, the face is too oddly wrinkly, there are far better reconstructions.

Considering that Helicoprion is only known from the tooth whorls and a few pieces of skull, everything you just wrote is speculative.

When it comes to toys/figures from major commercial manufactures (not including models and model kits), the PNSO model is by far the best (not perfect, but the best).

bmathison1972 wrote:

Burgerenby wrote:

The Helicoprion got the fin number correct but it ends there, the head shape is off, the face is too oddly wrinkly, there are far better reconstructions.

Considering that Helicoprion is only known from the tooth whorls and a few pieces of skull, everything you just wrote is speculative.

When it comes to toys/figures from major commercial manufactures (not including models and model kits), the PNSO model is by far the best (not perfect, but the best).

I agree with you Blaine and I can't see any far better Helicoprion toy.

Theres so much from PNSO that i still need to get, but that's probably going to happen after Christmas

Great news for collectors in Europe!
MPV (Modellpferdeversand) is selling the complete PNSO animal and dinosaur collection at their web site at the moment!

 thank you for sharing Simone 

Too bad I already spent too much money those days 

And too bad Himalayasaurus, Cretoxyrhina and Livyatan aren't available 

Nice

One more model for 2021, better late than never  

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

I think her mouth looks weird, opening so wide, don't you think?

Ana wrote:

I think her mouth looks weird, opening so wide, don't you think?

That was my first thought when I saw the picture. It looks like they didn't bring the cheeks down far enough. The skull anatomy isn't entirely different from cattle- or horses- but their buccal openings are at the terminal end only.

Too bad, I want to like it, but that mouth kills it.

Well it is only a matter of view and not accuracy. The question is did Triceratops have cheeks like cattle mammals or not like crocs and birds ?  The ceratopsian skull anatomy is different from a cow or horse one. Triceratops have more teeth than the chewing mammals but also have a beak at the end of their mouth like birds.
This model is true to the skeleton and not so different from the last Eofauna Tric.

Ana wrote:

I think her mouth looks weird, opening so wide, don't you think?

What I think is that you're too used of the endless representations (figurines, paints, etc) of ceratopsians opening their mouths represented with smaller mouths, so used that you think that this should be the norm. Actually, nobody can know how wide was the mouth of a ceratopsian, if the open mouth looked like this new PNSO figure instead the classic "mammal-like" smaller mouth. Theropods in other side tend to be always represented with this same mouth conformation, so if saurischians are represented like this, then why no ornithischians too? There is no reason for the mouth "killing you" more than any other representation of ceratopsians, except the fact you're used to see in another way, but without knowing if it was accurate or not.

What actually I find a bit tiring is that dinosaurs and other prehistorics almost always need to have open mouths in every brand and representation. Ugh. Imagine a catalogue of CollectA with 80% of their antelopes, rhinos and equids have their mouths open... Please more dinos with closed mouth and less with open mouth

I agree we can only be sure about the parts that are preserved - the bones and sometimes some skin texture or footprints. And I know very little about prehistoric animals in general. However, I think specialists should be able to tell at least where the muscles must have been fastened to the bone and how big those muscles should be to allow the animal to move around, bite, chew, etc. Is there no agreement about this?  

It's not about what my eyes are used to, I like seeing any new interpretations of prehistoric animals. One of my favorite books about prehistoric animals is "All Your Yesterdays"
So why do I dislike the triceratops with a Kuchisake-onna mouth? The cheek muscle of horses, rhinos, cattle, and most other plant-eaters are big for a reason, the animal needs strong muscles all around the jaw to move it sidewards a lot for a LOT of chewing. There is no reason for them to open the mouth almost all the way to the ears, as they are not biting off anyone's legs. What was the lifestyle of triceratops? Much like a rhino or more like a crocodile?

As for the beak part, if you look at the parrots or even parrotfish where are the corners of their mouths?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Image source [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And sure, I agree with you Pardofelis, I would rather see more dinosaurs with closed mouths too, we can't tell for sure but I'd assume they weren't all pop singers?

Very interesting and reasoned point of view! Yeah, it's probable that being herbivore (tough even this is not 100% sure, some paleontologists purposed Triceratops could be a scavenger!) it needed strong cheek mustcles at a wide insertion point. But what I see now that I did not noticed before, is that the PNSO figure have a movable jaw! Clearly visible in the joint between jaw and throat in the image. So no worries about how weird can look the mouth open: it's enough with close it

Pardofelis wrote:

Very interesting and reasoned point of view! Yeah, it's probable that being herbivore (tough even this is not 100% sure, some paleontologists purposed Triceratops could be a scavenger!) it needed strong cheek mustcles at a wide insertion point. But what I see now that I did not noticed before, is that the PNSO figure have a movable jaw! Clearly visible in the joint between jaw and throat in the image. So no worries about how weird can look the mouth open: it's enough with close it

You're right it does have an articulated jaw! That rather solves the problem, true.

As I'm not actively collecting dinosaurs I would still probably choose a different model for me this year. I consider getting just one dinosaur per year so it must be one that really speaks to me I think I love the Parasaurolophus the most but's it's somewhat above my budget.

One more pic maybe ?

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

Crocodilian mouth and no cheeks? Plant eaters usually have cheeks. Looks more like a scrap scissor than a triceratops.

I agree with Kelly and Ana. There is no way to know for certain what the muscle would have looked like. We can make estimations based on modern animal anatomy and measurements of attachment features present on the skull but at the end of the day it is still estimation. 

That being said, the cheek muscling here simply looks odd. Sure, interpretation is objective but the one thing we CAN gauge from a skull with a high degree of accuracy to life is the mouth gape. The upper portion of a skull, the cranium, has skeletal attachments that will limit the lower jaw, as well as the lower jaw will contain features that also will limit its range of motion. From my understanding and quick internet search, there is no readily available measurement for a trike gape. But most herbivores don't need a wide gape compared to a predator. But I digress... for my taste, the muscling all over the body is a bit strange in places. For me, this includes the articulated mouth. Dom't even get me started on a species like Spinosaurus. 

I much prefer the livyatan. :)

I totally agree, an herbivore certainly needs cheeks if it is to chew or ruminate. On the other hand, a sauropod does not necessarily need it since it chews in its stomach using gastroliths. In addition it does not have the teeth necessary for chewing.
So what about ceratopsians? They have teeth but also a beak which excludes them from grazing.
In addition, their teeth are not profiled for chewing but rather for shearing.
So, were they vegetarians like black rhinos or omnivores like wild boars? This is the hypothesis that I prefer because it gives meaning to what I see. Teeth for shearing conifers, a beak for digging up roots, skinning carrion or catching fruit.
So ? Cheeks or not? What is certain is that having cheeks is an asset when you have to chew your food, it is a disadvantage when you have to swallow large pieces.

Wise words my friend. :) I would guess trikes may have been like modern moose. Browsers that plucked off ferns and twigs and ate opportunistically. My complaint isn't with the presence or form of cheek muscles per say, just the very wide gape. And that is 100% just my thoughts on the model. As a compliment to it, the finer detailing is VERY nice, as it is with all their models.