tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17543730635390202972024-02-19T01:56:13.955-07:00ART Evolved: Life's Time Capsuletraumadorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00387315561167115253noreply@blogger.comBlogger712125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-11229109101855060852019-01-26T04:06:00.003-07:002019-01-26T04:06:55.964-07:00The Palaeoart Time Capsule is being buried for fossilizationHey all,<br />
<br />
Craig here. It's been a little while.<br />
<br />
Life has not ceased to be busy on my end, and I just can't afford the time and energy for palaeoart like I could in the old days, let alone this blog.<br /><br />Given blogging's overall near extinction over the past years, and the complete lack of new proper palaeoart posts on this site, I thought it was time to properly and truly admit that this site and its mission are over.<br /><br />What has in particularly prompted this mode of thinking, is a number of correspondence to the site's master email of nature's I'm uncomfortable with: science denying palaeo-bros complimenting the recent posts for their "ivory tower bashing" ( posts I have not been vetting or really reading), and others wishing to advertise/promote their own commercial interests on this site without any real contribution of art to the great palaeo community.<br /><br />Peter and myself did not establish this site for these purposes. This was supposed to be a community site where artists could share their prehistoric artwork, and for several glorious years we succeeded. However with the evolution (fittingly) of social media, I feel this site's purpose has completely expired.<br />
<br />
I'm especially uncomfortable with the anti-science enthusiast emails, and this has really resolved my decision. This blog was me and Peter's brain child, and I do not want it to be remembered as being anti-palaeontologic science.<br />
<br />
As of such I'm truly mothballing ARTEvolved. I'm disabling all non founder members access to the site, and expect this will be the last post unless blogging undergoes some sort of miraculous resurgence (and again I'm pro science, so miracles don't hold any stock with me).<br />
<br />
Thank you to ALL our contributors and artists. You all helped make this a site a big success back in the day, but I feel that time is now long past, and I want to formerly retire the ARTEvolved legacy...<br /><br />The blog will be left in its articulated form to fossilize in the strata of the internet. So fret not, the content we all created will continue for as long as this virtual geologic formation we call the internet endures.<br />
<br />
Thank you again everyone<br />
<br />
Craig (and Peter)traumadorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00387315561167115253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-38132634989076445472019-01-18T04:16:00.000-07:002019-01-18T04:16:21.283-07:00My Paleontology Education Experience<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container tr_bq" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSA90vgw_yYsOhxX6ER1GUky2DSPjvjsQlOi2vbcG0y6V80jyPy-xrIe32xDhkDY0aUlUF77IdtcOQ69_BrBjWCQeRCamiBA-gQAovOap6YxykatM-7r8q4ic6T-dtpnZCvUoBAIszNXA/s1600/nighofdino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="900" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSA90vgw_yYsOhxX6ER1GUky2DSPjvjsQlOi2vbcG0y6V80jyPy-xrIe32xDhkDY0aUlUF77IdtcOQ69_BrBjWCQeRCamiBA-gQAovOap6YxykatM-7r8q4ic6T-dtpnZCvUoBAIszNXA/s320/nighofdino.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://theartoflucasculshaw.bigcartel.com/product/night-of-the-living-dinos">https://theartoflucasculshaw.bigcartel.com/product/night-of-the-living-dinos</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Short version: My Paleontology Education experience was like Ben's "Night of the Living Dead (1968)" experience (I.e. He went to what he thought was a safe place, fought off a bunch of zombies w/little-to-no help from the non-zombies, & was killed by the non-zombies who were supposed to help him). If you want consistently good sources of paleo education info, I recommend "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" ( <a href="http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/">http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/</a> ), "Paleoaerie" (which, as you may remember, is how I found out about "Dinosaur Ecosystems": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/12/my-dinosaur-ecosystems-experience.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/12/my-dinosaur-ecosystems-experience.html</a> ), & "Palaeos, la historia de la Vida en la Tierra" (the author of which made sure that my text is accurate: <a href="http://palaeos-blog.blogspot.com/">http://palaeos-blog.blogspot.com/</a> ), especially to non-expert dino fans like me who like reading/writing book reviews.<br />
<br />
Long version: Read on.<br />
<br />
~1 year ago, I joined the Paleontology Education group (henceforth PE) on Facebook. According to PE's description & header, it's "for educators, students, parents, and academic professionals who are interested in paleontology education...to share ideas and projects". Based on that, I was looking forward to joining PE & sharing book reviews. Just in case, though, I asked the Admins if that'd be OK & sent Gabriel Santos a link to "My 21st Pair of Reviews" ( <a href="https://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html">https://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html</a> ). In response, he said, "Sweet! I thought these were like paid reviews. In that case, I think it should be totally fine." Robert Gay also gave me the OK, & I was OK until September 2018. During that time, I was messaged by the Admins only twice & only about minor issues: The 1st was about being more descriptive when (re-)posting ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1536144796454852/ ); The 2nd was about (re-)posting less often ("Could I ask you to please limit your posts to 1 per day? Otherwise it swamps our other posts").<br />
<br />
1) The trouble began when my "Top 4 Natural Histories of Dinos" post was deleted by mistake: 1st, I re-posted it w/a new description (See the 1st quote); Then, Denver Fowler commented on my re-post (See the Fowler quote); Not only is his comment full of misleading/wrong claims, but also anti-non-expert sentiment; I then replied to his comment, explaining how misleading/wrong his claims & sentiment are (See the 3rd quote, which is modified to include the Chudzinski reference).<br />
<br />
2) The trouble continued when other, like-minded experts continued where Fowler left off. More specifically, Bobby Boessenecker, Sarah Boessenecker, & others tried bullying me into not sharing book reviews (I.e. Ganging up on me & peer pressuring me into adopting their exclusive POV; See "Relational Bullying": <a href="https://studylib.net/doc/5442771/anti--bullying">https://studylib.net/doc/5442771/anti--bullying</a> ). You can read the resulting comment thread if you want, but I wouldn't bother. It basically went as follows ad nauseam (& thus, got old quick):<br />
-Them: You shouldn't share book reviews here b/c we don't find them useful.<br />
-Me: "This group isn't just for you, but "for educators, students, parents, and academic professionals who are interested in paleontology education...to share ideas and projects"."<br />
-Them: You still shouldn't share book reviews here b/c they're not ideas or projects.<br />
-Me: "They are to many others, scientists (See "Research, Fieldwork and Publications": <a href="http://www.dayofarchaeology.com/a-year-in-a-day-my-life-as-an-arkansas-archeological-survey-archeologist/">http://www.dayofarchaeology.com/a-year-in-a-day-my-life-as-an-arkansas-archeological-survey-archeologist/</a> ) & [educators] alike ( <a href="https://eduscapes.com/tap/topic87.htm">https://eduscapes.com/tap/topic87.htm</a> )."<br />
-Them: You still shouldn't share book reviews here b/c reasons.<br />
-Me: That doesn't make sense.<br />
-It's also worth mentioning the Admins' comments on the matter: At best, Taormina Lepore's comment was well meant, but didn't tag Fowler or the bullies (who thus didn't seem to notice it: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/?comment_id=1777514125651250&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D">https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/?comment_id=1777514125651250&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D</a> ); At worst, Ashley Hall's response to my comment on a different-but-related post was almost as bad as Fowler's ( <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777187159017280/?comment_id=1777196285683034&reply_comment_id=1777416285661034&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D">https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777187159017280/?comment_id=1777196285683034&reply_comment_id=1777416285661034&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D</a> ).<br />
<br />
3) The trouble ended when the Admins updated/clarified the rules of conduct & posting ( <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1781747511894578/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1781747511894578/</a> ). I originally thought that the conduct part was in response to the obvious relational bullying. As for the posting part, I messaged the Admins about how I could make my (re-)posts more descriptive for them, starting w/"My 25th Pair of Reviews" ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-25th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-25th-pair-of-reviews.html</a> ). As you may have noticed, I don't like being overly descriptive, partly b/c it makes me feel like I'm talking down to my audience. However, I wanted to show the Admins that I was taking the updates/clarifications seriously, so I worked very hard to make my 25th pair post as overly descriptive as possible per their recommendations (See the last quote). Gabriel seemed to agree when he said, "Your most recent post is better than previous ones. Thank you for taking our recommendations into consideration." Despite this, my 25th pair post was still being deleted, allegedly to be reviewed/re-posted later. When I asked when they'd finish reviewing/re-posting it, Gabriel said, "You will notified of our decision." At the same time, I found out that the conduct part wasn't about controlling the bullies, but controlling me:<br />
-Gabriel: "After this conversation, the admins will be monitoring your posts (and all posts by all members) to ensure that they follow our criteria as admins."<br />
-Me: "Does that mean all members are doing only 1 per week now? Just wondering."<br />
-Gabriel: "No. Just you since we have had complaints and reports on many of your posts by multiple members." Presumably, "multiple members" = Fowler & the bullies, given everything that's happened up to this point.<br />
-In other words, the updates/clarifications apply to everyone, but are meant to target the bullied rather than the bullies. Hmm, where else has something like that happened? Oh yeah, 1960s California ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ZoH5P6UIE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ZoH5P6UIE</a> )!<br />
-It's also worth mentioning that the "apply to everyone" part doesn't seem to be true (E.g. Ashley's 12/3/18 post; Yes, it is "touching", but it has nothing to do w/paleo education & she doesn't even try to describe its relevance: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1879435632125765/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1879435632125765/</a> ).<br />
<br />
In my last message to the Admins, I said, "Sorry to bother you guys about this. I understand that you're probably busy with other things. It's just that it's been a week since I originally posted my 25th pair of reviews (which seems like an extremely long time to re-post something). Plus, said pair was meant to be posted in Sept (which is almost over). I hope you understand my concern." Both Taormina & Gabriel had seen my message by 10/10/18, yet neither of them have replied to it as of 1/17/19. Thus, my 25th pair post was the last time I tried to (re-)post anything in PE.<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting myself ( <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/</a> ): "I originally shared this post here back in August & have added a few updates along the way (including 1 last night). However, I just realized that the original post has since disappeared for no apparent reason, probably by mistake. This is very upsetting for 2 main reasons: 1) As explained in this post & its predecessor, NHDs are the best non-encyclopedic dino books (& thus, some of the best paleo education-related resources) & these 4 NHDs are the best of the best; 2) When the original post disappeared, so did all the nice reactions/comments from appreciative group members (E.g. Cam Muskelly). In any case, all I can do now is re-share this post, re-add the most recent update, & hope that the same mistake isn't made again." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Fowler ( <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/?comment_id=1777461982323131&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R1%22%7D">https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/?comment_id=1777461982323131&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R1%22%7D</a> ): "Disagree. This is just a blog post which lists the 4 favourite books of the blogger, who (by their own admission) is a fan, not someone qualified to assess the quality of the books -it's fair enough for them to make an article like this, but it is not educational or useful for education. Indeed, these books aren't even new. Moreover, in the previous version of this post I drew attention to the fact that a review (by Prof. Ray Rogers in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, in 2011) of Dinosaur Odyssey (published nearly 10 years ago) outlined specific concerns that it was not a good book for general readers (or indeed, specialists) and contained a number of factual errors. i.e. the opposite conclusion to the uninformed blog. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
I'm commenting here, because this has turned up on my wall, again, and it is this kind of post which really isn't any use for paleo-education." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting myself ( <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/?comment_id=1777461982323131&reply_comment_id=1777901092279220&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R6%22%7D">https://www.facebook.com/groups/paleontologyeducation/permalink/1777433795659283/?comment_id=1777461982323131&reply_comment_id=1777901092279220&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R6%22%7D</a> ): "1stly, with all due respect, your comment comes off as super-condescending, as if to say that non-experts can't make useful contributions to paleo education. By that logic, museums everywhere should have few-if-any volunteers (most of whom, from my experience, are non-expert fans [See the Chudzinski quote]). Yes, it's better when non-experts work in collaboration with experts, but even those who don't can still make useful contributions if they're well-read enough. Sattler's "Tyrannosaurus Rex and Its Kin: The Mesozoic Monsters" is a good example of that ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3INFL96O3PWAS/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=068807748X">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3INFL96O3PWAS/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=068807748X</a> ). I'm not saying I'm as well-read as Sattler. However, I always provide expert sources that support what I say in my reviews (including this post, which should be obvious to anyone who's read it) & I always have an expert make sure that my reviews are accurate before I post them (E.g. Paleoaerie). Also, to add to what Taormina said: Yes, I have made it clear that I'm not an expert, but I've also made it clear that I'm 1 of those "lifelong learners" with an educational background ("Yes, I have a Bachelor of Science in "Natural History and Interpretation"...& thus am very biased": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/08/natural-histories-of-dinos.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/08/natural-histories-of-dinos.html</a> ); Thus, I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to review informal paleo education (E.g. Popular dino books). </blockquote>
<blockquote>
2ndly, I read Rogers' review & he does make some good points (E.g. While few & far btwn, there are mistakes that could've been prevented with better editing). However, he also makes some bad points: For 1, this book's conclusions may be "rather obvious" to most experts, but not necessarily to most non-experts; If they were, then we wouldn't have to worry about the latter being misled/misinformed by science deniers & bad movies; For another, he apparently didn't read the Preface when he "tried to identify an appropriate audience" ("Although the book is intended for anyone with an interest in dinosaurs and science, it is my hope that science educators in particular will embrace some of the approaches presented here, using dinosaurs as a vehicle to address a broad range of topics": <a href="http://www.scottsampson.net/index.php?page=dinosaur-odyssey">http://www.scottsampson.net/index.php?page=dinosaur-odyssey</a> ); For yet another, he takes a partial quote out of context, misconstrues its meaning, & criticizes it based on that, seemingly ignoring everything in that chapter leading up to it ( <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CakwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq=%22exciting+rather+than+bleak%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS74G92L7dAhVIilQKHUGoCNoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22exciting%20rather%20than%20bleak%22&f=false">https://books.google.com/books?id=CakwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq=%22exciting+rather+than+bleak%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS74G92L7dAhVIilQKHUGoCNoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22exciting%20rather%20than%20bleak%22&f=false</a> ). Besides, 1 negative expert review doesn't necessarily mean that a book is bad (E.g. BANDit reviews of dino-bird books), especially when there are many more positive expert reviews. Ryan ( <a href="http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-review-dinosaur-odyssey.html">http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-review-dinosaur-odyssey.html</a> ) & Russell ( <a href="https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/50/3/474/615944">https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/50/3/474/615944</a> ) come to mind 1st, partly b/c they contradict the misleading/wrong claim that this book doesn't venture "more seriously into the current highlights and debates of dinosaur science." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
3rdly, not only are 2 of these NHDs from 2016 (which is still pretty recent), but 1 gets a new edition every few years & the other just got a new edition earlier this month ( <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dinosaurs-How-they-lived-evolved/dp/0565094769">https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dinosaurs-How-they-lived-evolved/dp/0565094769</a> )." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Chudzinski (See "Need for the Study": <a href="https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/22176/31295002517661.pdf?sequence=1">https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/22176/31295002517661.pdf?sequence=1</a> ): "My experience with docents indicates that they go to a museum with a desire to be of service but with little formal background. Docents are not experts on the collec- 8 tions, although many visitors expect them to be. Docents obtain their knowledge of artifacts through training and orientation sessions. A typical training session usually consists of "heavy doses of lecture and reading ... " (Scanlon, 1974, p. 37) with little emphasis on interpretive techniques." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting myself: "For my 25th pair of reviews, I review Rey 2001 (which is a great resource for casual readers, especially kids & their parents/educators) & Mash 2007 (which is a terrible resource for said readers). I picked these particular reviews partly b/c they represent opposite ends of the extreme dino book spectrum, & partly to coincide with [the] 20th anniversary of an "Xtreme" event. Remember, my reviews are for the sake of promoting paleo education & awareness, so any & all "Helpful" votes are greatly appreciated (especially for my 1st-6th, 12th, 15th, & 25th pairs). 2 more things of note: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
-1) For those who don't know what I mean by "casual readers": <a href="http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html">http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
-2) For those who don't know how I rate educational dino books: 2* for accurate text; 1* for accurate/good-quality paleoart; 1* for accurate/good-quality writing; 1/2* for being organized; 1/2* for being authoritative; I’ll also 1) add an extra 1/2* for extra authoritativeness if the book was published by a natural history museum (E.g. Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs"), & 2) add or subtract an extra 1* if the book's title makes a superlative claim (E.g. Lessem’s "National Geographic Kids Ultimate Dinopedia: The Most Complete Dinosaur Reference Ever", which doesn't live up to its title)."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-2379153714135078182018-12-04T05:34:00.001-07:002018-12-04T05:34:50.913-07:00My Dinosaur Ecosystems Experience<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-pj-4aigB8/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o-pj-4aigB8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
On 11/16/18, I received my verified certificate for passing the "Dinosaur Ecosystems" course (100%: <a href="https://courses.edx.org/certificates/f2ae3b4a8ceb4dcc803a44c50df024e8?fbclid=IwAR2e1wLhDY5vKXPFw8vNJBI_yh-xetTG-wEnySGNGvkIXf-kkLqIKubUhS0">https://courses.edx.org/certificates/f2ae3b4a8ceb4dcc803a44c50df024e8?fbclid=IwAR2e1wLhDY5vKXPFw8vNJBI_yh-xetTG-wEnySGNGvkIXf-kkLqIKubUhS0</a> ). I enrolled in the course partly b/c of Paleoaerie's recommendation ( <a href="https://paleoaerie.org/2018/09/14/national-online-learning-day/?fbclid=IwAR2VnWO0rjLiZey8oxqznDzl6U-tUqzTs9gxaKM7aCDp5sK5-8l1ToK7_kk">https://paleoaerie.org/2018/09/14/national-online-learning-day/?fbclid=IwAR2VnWO0rjLiZey8oxqznDzl6U-tUqzTs9gxaKM7aCDp5sK5-8l1ToK7_kk</a> ), & partly to prepare myself for volunteering at a local dino museum (I think it'll help me be a better natural history interpreter). This journal entry is a modified version of my course review. 1 more thing of note: Before starting the course, I felt like Solrac in "SOLRACUEST" (See 2:30-3:00: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJhATayEb4&t=1s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJhATayEb4&t=1s</a> ); After receiving my certificate, I felt like Homer in "The Simpsons- S-M-R-T" ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA</a> ).<br />
<br />
<b>Trying to review this course</b><br />
<br />
<i>I'm usually not very good at reviewing things in the moment, but I'll try.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>What I liked: Almost everything about this course, especially how thorough it was (even more so than some books I've read in terms reconstructing a dino ecosystem as completely as possible), how concise each video was (which made it easier for me to focus on learning the topic at hand & re-watch the video multiple times for good measure), the use of images in each video (which made the video less static for me & helped me better understand what the ppl were talking about), the inclusion of transcripts & CC (which gave me the option of reading & listening at the same time AWA helped me better understand the ppl w/thick accents), & the practice questions (which helped me better understand why the correct answers were correct).</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>What I didn't like: I previously mentioned a few things that were mislabeled or presented not-so-well...but those are easy fixes. The only 2 things I didn't like that might be not-so-easy fixes were 1) Brusatte's Week 2 video being hard to take seriously, & 2) Weeks 5-6 having too much content for that amount of time. In reference to #1, I previously mentioned the weird factual errors in Brusatte's popular work in general & said video in particular...The other problem w/said video is Brusatte's presentation (which was less like that of the credible expert I know he is & more like that of a George Blasing-esque dork: <a href="https://www.deviantart.com/tyrantisterror/art/Jurassic-Fight-Club-Formula-136354754">https://www.deviantart.com/tyrantisterror/art/Jurassic-Fight-Club-Formula-136354754</a> ). More specifically, his voice got high & giggly several times throughout said video, as if he was trying not to bust out laughing for some reason. I get that Brusatte's excited to talk about his professional interests, but so are Dr. Pittman & the other course experts, yet they had no trouble showing that while also being dignified. In reference to #2, this course should've been 8 weeks long w/Weeks 5-6 being Weeks 5-8. In Weeks 1-4, I was able to spread the content out over 1 week & focus on (re-)watching 1 video per day without taking time out of my busy schedule. In Weeks 5-6, however, there was so much content that I had to stay up later every day & (re-)watch multiple videos on a given day.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Overall, 8 or 9/10, highly recommended to anyone w/an interest in dinos, especially non-expert dino fans like me.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-25778490686783628902018-11-20T04:19:00.000-07:002018-11-20T04:19:40.710-07:00My 26th Pair of Reviews<div class="tr_bq">
As an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Helpful" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect: <a href="https://www.charlesbridge.com/products/if-you-were-raised-by-a-dinosaur">https://www.charlesbridge.com/products/if-you-were-raised-by-a-dinosaur</a> ). Many thanks in advance.</div>
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-My 11th-20th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 21st Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 22nd Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 23rd Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-23rd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-23rd-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 24th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/07/my-24th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/07/my-24th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 25th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-25th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-25th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix3yIZoGif6Tz6z6u6nrmbqarINDlzTswUFaaI1poSog4jPTZu_xwyk7vmdUJKkWiXJfaIpJG3_2cw7Qg1Inghc9xfG9QxE-xspIntGkHS2KvrYo6JAgE7egtejIrvfF5-bLT_8sl1zK_i/s1600/images.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="297" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix3yIZoGif6Tz6z6u6nrmbqarINDlzTswUFaaI1poSog4jPTZu_xwyk7vmdUJKkWiXJfaIpJG3_2cw7Qg1Inghc9xfG9QxE-xspIntGkHS2KvrYo6JAgE7egtejIrvfF5-bLT_8sl1zK_i/s320/images.jpeg" width="237" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT27PFh9TO4yRpLSs_Qgyz8R2qigeqlGrsCtQKy9o9sMdd_h6KO">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT27PFh9TO4yRpLSs_Qgyz8R2qigeqlGrsCtQKy9o9sMdd_h6KO</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>More cladistics yay! ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/RV35J07GNJZDT/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/RV35J07GNJZDT/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 5/5</b><br />
<br />
To quote Grandmother Fish ( <a href="https://plus.google.com/+Grandmotherfish/posts/9vgV2CqjerP">https://plus.google.com/+Grandmotherfish/posts/9vgV2CqjerP</a> ), clades "are central to a modern understanding of how we living things relate to each other." Before Holtz's "Dinosaurs", Witmer's "The Search for the Origin of Birds" (henceforth Search) was the best children's dino book when it came to introducing older kids to cladistics as well as the best pre-Sinosauropteryx dino-bird book for older kids. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.<br />
<br />
1) Like Hedley's "Dinosaurs and Their Living Relatives", Chapters 1-2 of Search cover cladistics & archosaurs. In fact, Search is even better: Not only does Search cover much of the same background info ("Homology versus convergence"), but also goes well beyond ("Primitive versus derived"); Thus, Search does more in 2 chapters than Hedley's book does in 4 chapters. 1 of my only gripes is that Search doesn't use the word "cladistics".*<br />
<br />
2) Like Schlein's "The Puzzle of the Dinosaur-bird: The Story of Archaeopteryx", Chapters 3-8 of Search cover the history of "the dinosaur-bird connection" from the 1860s to the 1970s, the Protoavis controversy, the "Time Problem", & "The Origin of Flight". In fact, Search is even better: While both books invite readers to "inspect the evidence [scientists] have found, and [follow the] debate over what the evidence means", only Search does so in the context of cladistics; This is especially apparent in Chapter 6 (E.g. See the 1st Witmer quote, which is especially good at showing why birds & dinos are too similar to be convergent).<br />
<br />
3) Chapter 9 weighs the evidence & concludes that birds "evolved from a Triassic or Jurassic theropod dinosaur that resembled Deinonychus but was much smaller and, perhaps, spent a lot of time in the trees." However, because no such dinos were then known, the fringe group BAND (= Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) put forth the "Time Problem" & "The Origin of Flight" as arguments against said conclusion (I.e. Birds can't be dinos because [1] the earliest bird fossils are older than the most bird-like dino fossils, & [2] the earliest birds were small tree-climbers, but the most bird-like dinos were large ground-runners). The 2nd Witmer quote sums up why said conclusion is widely accepted & said arguments aren't. Put another way, said conclusion is based on mountains of hard evidence, while said arguments are from ignorance. It's also worth mentioning that many such dinos have since been found, including Anchiornis & Xiaotingia.<br />
<br />
*My other gripe is the hit-&-miss paleoart: While some of the reconstructions are mostly accurate (Archaeopteryx, Compsognathus, Hypsilophodon, & Euparkeria), others are mostly not-so-accurate (Sphenosuchus, Deinonychus, & Troodon); The Holtz quote sums up everything wrong with the latter. I hate to say it because Mather's paleoart is nice to look at ( <a href="http://thisisbozeman.com/discovering-first-montanans">http://thisisbozeman.com/discovering-first-montanans</a> ).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Holtz ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/05/holtzs-dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf-article.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/05/holtzs-dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf-article.html</a> ): "Paleoart is, admittedly, a difficult enterprise: after all, its subject matter is long dead, and science can never expect to know very much about the creaturers' external surfaces or, for that matter, any of their other perishable features. Nevertheless, there is one inviolate rule of dinosaur restoration: if the known fossil skeleton conflicts with the shape of the reconstruction, the reconstruction must be wrong. That rule gives the casual reader at least a fighting chance of separating the wheat from the chaff: distinguishing books that depict restorations consistent with fossil specimens from books that have more in common with medieval bestiaries, conjured from rumor and imagination alone. One reliable clue that a book belongs to the former group is the inclusion of drawings or photographs of the fossil skeletons on which the restorations are based." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Witmer: "Deinonychus is not all that similar to modern birds, but shows a number of close similarities to the Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx: the number and shapes of the openings in the snout, the positioning of the teeth in the skull, the number of fingers and the relative sizes of the finger bones, the unusual shapes of some of the wrist bones, the arrangement of the hip bones, a special kind of ankle structure, and a certain foot structure.<br />
If we look closely at this list, we'll see that some characteristics give us more specific information about relationships than others. Some of these birdlike features (such as the ankle joint) are found in all dinosaurs, but in almost no other archosaurs. These specializations show that birds might be related to dinosaurs. Some of the features...the snout openings and foot structure...are specializations of a certain group of dinosaurs, the theropod saurischian dinosaurs. Some of the features...the positioning of the teeth, the hand and wrist structure...are found in only a few kinds of theropod dinosaurs. One feature...the hip bones...is found only in Deinonychus and its relatives.<br />
These shared specializations that we see in Archaeopteryx, Deinonychus, and other dinosaurs suggest that birds indeed evolved from dinosaurs. But this idea is different from the old, original theory of dinosaur-bird relationships discussed in Chapter 3. The old version was very vague. It didn't show which group of dinosaurs might be closer to birds. This new theory not only says that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but also identifies a particular group of dinosaurs, the theropods. It even points to a small group of theropod dinosaurs that are most closely related to birds. There are so many derived similarities between birds and these Deinonychus-like theropod dinosaurs that most paleontologists today believe birds are theropod dinosaurs!" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Witmer: "In searching for the origin of birds, we came across many conflicting clues:...How do we make sense of these clues that point us in different directions?...The clues from the ages of fossils are not fully trustworthy. It's possible that we may someday discover Deinonychus-like fossils in old-enough rocks. If that happened, the "time problem" would disappear…The clues from the theories on the origin of flight are even less reliable. We don't know much about how dinosaurs lived their lives. Maybe some of the Deinonychus-like theropods actually were small and spent a lot of time in trees...The most reliable clues are the ones that come from the structure of the bones themselves. They are more certain…we can look at them, measure them, hold them in our hands."</blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggEvYIF_o5HjGfUSlw6RHQrShebmSAM3xWxJx8idlbktXWQ1RYcEc8Yn3419vWTxmwJN1BN7SxA8e0CkKtrYI11EfblG-_4ObN0XvZjZN-x4WNI7vYH6sDFhDPejhCdzB-kd5dmMLfA7I4/s1600/81RSxdiJ3CL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1349" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggEvYIF_o5HjGfUSlw6RHQrShebmSAM3xWxJx8idlbktXWQ1RYcEc8Yn3419vWTxmwJN1BN7SxA8e0CkKtrYI11EfblG-_4ObN0XvZjZN-x4WNI7vYH6sDFhDPejhCdzB-kd5dmMLfA7I4/s320/81RSxdiJ3CL.jpg" width="287" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81RSxdiJ3CL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81RSxdiJ3CL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>The worst popular baby dino book ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R2PBFKZ4BOZCNN/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R2PBFKZ4BOZCNN/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
Short version: If you want the best baby dino book for older kids, get Zoehfeld's "Dinosaur Parents, Dinosaur Young: Uncovering the Mystery of Dinosaur Families" & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's "Dinosaurs" in general & Chapter 36 in particular). Brooklyn's "If You Were Raised by a Dinosaur" (henceforth You) may be the worst. It just goes to show what a difference some expert consulting & personal research can make.<br />
<br />
Long version: Read on.<br />
<br />
Many popular baby dino books are OK, but not great. There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) They're mixed bags in terms of paleoart (Quoting Miller: "I bought the book expecting a more technical discussion of the animals discussed therein...but was surprised to find beautiful paintings of questionably-restored dinosaurs"); 2) They're confusing messes in terms of organization; 3) They fail to cover many baby dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, they simplify things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, they're just plain wrong). In this review, I focus on reasons #1 & #3 & why I think they make You the worst popular baby dino book.<br />
<br />
1) Not only is You's paleoart very questionable, but also very ugly. More specifically, it consists of cheap-looking collages of anachronistic assemblages of mostly gray/green/brown animals with wonky anatomy in inappropriate environments: In reference to "anachronistic assemblages", see the cover; There's a generic rhamphorhynchid pterosaur, a Massospondylus family, an Apatosaurus family, & a T.rex family; In reference to "wonky anatomy", see "Review update #52 (It's a big 1)!" for everything wrong with the cover in terms of anatomy ( <a href="https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585">https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585</a> ); In reference to "inappropriate environments", the cover depicts a grassland environment despite the fact that, to quote Holtz ( <a href="https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104shadow.html">https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104shadow.html</a> ), "grasses seem to have been relatively rare in the Mesozoic, and did not form grasslands until much later. Ground cover in the later Mesozoic was a mixture of ferns and herbaceous angiosperms. So as far as we know, no dinosaur other than birds ever wandered in prairies or savannahs".<br />
<br />
3A) In reference to "Sometimes", You's writing is overcomplicated (as opposed to oversimplified). More specifically, it's like when "Chandler and Monica ask Joey to write a recommendation letter for them to the adoption agency. To sound smart, Joey uses a thesaurus [on every word]" ( <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/315234/friends-sitcom-helps-esl-community-learn-english/">https://globalnews.ca/news/315234/friends-sitcom-helps-esl-community-learn-english/</a> ). The Brooklyn quote in "Review update #52 (It's a big 1)!" is the best example of that ( <a href="https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585">https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585</a> ): For 1, it's also the best example of incorrectly pluralized dino names (Seriously, "T. rexes"?); For another, it shamelessly rips off Chapter 17 of Holtz's "Dinosaurs".<br />
<br />
3B) In reference to "Other times", this is especially apparent in the Brooklyn quote below (which fails on so many levels that I need to quote the UCMP just to demonstrate): It fails to understand that Geist/Jones are 1) not dino experts, & 2) known for "publishing with a hidden agenda" ( <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/17/birds-cannot-be-dinosaurs">https://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/17/birds-cannot-be-dinosaurs</a> ); It fails to understand "modern-day [precocial] birds and alligators", most of which DO need parental care, including most of those in Geist/Jones's study; It fails to understand Maiasaura (which, to paraphrase Anthony J. Martin, "is arguably the best understood of nesting dinosaurs, only rivaled by its neighbors in the same field area, [Troodon]"); It fails to understand that Geist/Jones's study was at least 9 years out of date at the time of You's publication.<br />
<br />
1 more thing of note: To quote Dussart (See "Biosciences on the Internet: A Student's Guide"), "The speed and ease of email, plus its association with the web, mean that it is relatively easy to find and contact experts"; Thus, there's no excuse for You to not have expert consulting, especially given that some experts make a living from consultancy (E.g. Darren Naish: <a href="https://darrennaish.wordpress.com/">https://darrennaish.wordpress.com/</a> ); At the very least, having it would've helped prevent many of the textual fails (if not the visual ones too); In fact, said fails are so basic that they could've easily been avoided with up-to-date personal research; Unfortunately, there's very little of said research in You & it's mostly used incorrectly; In contrast, Sattler's "Tyrannosaurus Rex and Its Kin: The Mesozoic Monsters" shows how good a non-authoritative book can be with a lot of said research ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3INFL96O3PWAS/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=068807748X">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3INFL96O3PWAS/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=068807748X</a> ).<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting Brooklyn: "Not all scientists agree with the interpretation that Maiasaura babies needed parental care. Scientists Nicholas Geist and Terry Jones examined the hip and knee bones of different birds and alligators. They compared the hip bones and knee joints of Maiasaura to that of modern-day birds and alligators, which don't need parental care. The Maiasaura hips were at least as well developed as the birds', and the knee joints were no weaker than the birds' or alligators'. This might mean that Maiasaura babies did not need care from their parents as Horner believed." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting the UCMP ( <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eggshell/eggshell_case1.php">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eggshell/eggshell_case1.php</a> ): "In their original description of embryonic remains from the Willow Creek Anticline, Horner and Weishampel (1988) cited degree of ossification of the leg bones of Maiasaura and Troodon (then thought to be Orodromeus) to indicate the level of mobility of young after hatching. Subsequently, Geist and Jones (1996) compared extant perinatal (the developmental stage immediately prior to and following hatching) birds and crocodilians to fossil dinosaur embryos and hatchlings. They found that the extent of hip bone development was more important than leg bone development for recognizing precocial versus altricial hatchlings, and that the leg bones of Maiasaura, Troodon, and other dinosaurs did not reliably indicate the mobility of a hatchling. Geist and Jones suggested that the hatchling dinosaurs studied were likely precocial upon birth, although this does not preclude the provision of extended parental care. Horner et al. (2001) countered Geist and Jones' (1996) argument after an extensive histological analysis of turtle, crocodilian, non-avian dinosaur, and bird embryonic and perinatal bones that compared bone developmental patterns and growth rates. The authors correlated ossification and growth rates with life-history strategies. Horner et al. (2001) concluded that developmental differences (including growth rates) in embryonic and perinatal dinosaur bones from the Willow Creek Anticline indicate a precocial lifestyle for Troodon and Orodromeus hatchlings and an altricial lifestyle for hadrosaur hatchlings that necessitated parental care; this work supported their original hypothesis (Horner and Weishampel 1988)."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-14437301645535129052018-10-31T04:45:00.000-06:002018-10-31T04:45:57.583-06:00The Jurassic World 2 Movie and Challenge<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container tr_bq" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkxPF5YDYP6NIFz8SjiMBaZMKTL2ZZj9q_CIp41m2-yO8Wojgj-QtwIDuZf7jshiyMEPSzn6juDwhRXiFQHcKMxjm_YdH0VNQ1Up4sdGGrjZ3as9HYc7lWkud9eQRCLzyRxr8_fzis5WQL/s1600/91Vcg3SEomL._RI_SX300_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="300" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkxPF5YDYP6NIFz8SjiMBaZMKTL2ZZj9q_CIp41m2-yO8Wojgj-QtwIDuZf7jshiyMEPSzn6juDwhRXiFQHcKMxjm_YdH0VNQ1Up4sdGGrjZ3as9HYc7lWkud9eQRCLzyRxr8_fzis5WQL/s320/91Vcg3SEomL._RI_SX300_.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91Vcg3SEomL._RI_SX300_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91Vcg3SEomL._RI_SX300_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As you may remember, I saw "Jurassic World", took the "Jurassic World Challenge", & in the process committed to eventually moving to Seattle ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-jurassic-world-movie-and-challenge.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-jurassic-world-movie-and-challenge.html</a> ). I've since moved to Seattle & seen JW2. Unfortunately, there was no official "Jurassic World 2 Challenge". I didn't wanna feel like I was watching JW2 without a greater purpose, so I took an unofficial "Jurassic World 2 Challenge" in the following way:<br />
<br />
-1st, I read Vincent's JW2 review (I.e. "JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM – MARC’S REVIEW", which sums up my opinion of the movie: <a href="https://chasmosaurs.com/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-marcs-review/">https://chasmosaurs.com/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-marcs-review/</a> ). My only nit-pick is that there's no mention of Lockwood's dioramas (which, to me, are the most interesting things in the movie).<br />
<br />
-Then, I pledged $1/month (& thus, $12/year) to Darren Naish's Patreon ( <a href="https://www.patreon.com/TetZoo">https://www.patreon.com/TetZoo</a> ). As a big fan of Naish's work in general & his dino-related work in particular (E.g. Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved", which I reviewed: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VQ7TMT8EFOC7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VQ7TMT8EFOC7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ), I've been meaning to pledge for a while, but was waiting for the right time. Now is the right time for 3 main reasons: 1) The move; 2) The challenge; 3) "The Dinosaurs in the Wild book" (See the Naish quote; Also, my initial reaction to said quote: <a href="https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/gravityfalls/images/0/00/S2e5_stan_react.png/revision/latest?cb=20141019052029">https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/gravityfalls/images/0/00/S2e5_stan_react.png/revision/latest?cb=20141019052029</a> ).<br />
<br />
-Last, I donated $12 to the Woodland Park Zoo's conservation efforts ( <a href="https://www.zoo.org/conservation">https://www.zoo.org/conservation</a> ). In addition to the Burke (which has "the only real [dino] fossils on display in Washington state!": <a href="http://www.burkemuseum.org/calendar/i-dig-dinos">http://www.burkemuseum.org/calendar/i-dig-dinos</a> ), there's also the Pacific Science Center (which has robot dinos) AWA the WPZ & Seattle Aquarium (which have live birds). Of the latter 3, the WPZ is the best choice for 3 main reasons: 1) Its physical closeness to me; 2) "The role [it has] to play in the world for conservation and education" ( <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/08/why-the-world-needs-zoos">https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/08/why-the-world-needs-zoos</a> ); 3) Trevorrow's pretentious/ignorant zoo-shaming (See the Trevorrow quote; Also, my initial reaction to said quote: <a href="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/38179678_10215258105798805_7253572186617675776_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=1fc9aa581f503135e14b936a97a2d3e9&oe=5C896123">https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/38179678_10215258105798805_7253572186617675776_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=1fc9aa581f503135e14b936a97a2d3e9&oe=5C896123</a> ).<br />
<br />
P.S. Happy Halloween!<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting Naish ( <a href="http://tetzoo.com/blog/2018/9/3/the-last-day-of-dinosaurs-in-the-wild">http://tetzoo.com/blog/2018/9/3/the-last-day-of-dinosaurs-in-the-wild</a> ): "This blog, my research and many of my projects are made possible thanks to your kind support at patreon. The more support I receive, the more able I become to spend time producing the content you like to see: the Dinosaurs in the Wild book discussed here, for example, could be published if only I were able to devote the time to it." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Trevorrow ( <a href="https://www.slashfilm.com/jurassic-world-2-details/">https://www.slashfilm.com/jurassic-world-2-details/</a> ): "The dinosaurs will be a parable of the treatment animals receive today: the abuse, medical experimentation, pets, having wild animals in zoos like prisons, the use the military has made of them, animals as weapons."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-37729646166244038972018-09-21T13:54:00.000-06:002018-09-21T13:54:30.396-06:00My 25th Pair of ReviewsAs an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Helpful" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.<br />
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-My 11th-20th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 21st Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 22nd Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 23rd Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-23rd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-23rd-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<div>
-"My 24th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/07/my-24th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/07/my-24th-pair-of-reviews.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61EdWefHVIL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="500" height="259" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61EdWefHVIL.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61EdWefHVIL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61EdWefHVIL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Extremely nostalgic ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1D5YN9OJS6MXU/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1D5YN9OJS6MXU/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 5/5</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
If there's 1 thing I'm nostalgic for, it's Rey's traditional paleoart (which is overall better than his digital paleoart). If there's 1 thing I'm definitely NOT nostalgic for, it's the extreme dino genre (which is usually at best just a buzzword & at worst an excuse to make dinos as monstrous as possible). Not only is Rey's "Extreme Dinosaurs" (henceforth ED) the best extreme dino book, but also the best traditional Rey book.* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1) Unlike other extreme dino books, "extreme" actually means something in ED. This is especially apparent in the 1st 2 chapters. Not only do said chapters define "extreme" (See the 1st Rey quote), but also use "the dinosaur-bird link" to reinforce that definition (See the 2nd Rey quote).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2) Unlike other extreme dino books, ED is very well-organized. More specifically, the middle chapters are arranged in both geographical & chronological order: In reference to "geographical", each chapter focuses on a different continent; In reference to "chronological", the chapters are arranged in order of their continent's 1st dino discovery, beginning with Europe & ending with Asia; Furthermore, the dinos in each chapter are described in order of their discovery (E.g. The Europe chapter begins with Iguanodon & ends with Scipionyx).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3) Unlike other extreme dino books, ED is very well-illustrated. The last chapter in particular features Rey's then-best/most bird-like dinos in terms of appearance & behavior. "Customising a life-size Velociraptor" (which, as far as I know, is the best Velociraptor model next to Kokoro's: <a href="http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/custom.htm">http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/custom.htm</a> ) & "RAPTOR RED:Snow games" (which, as far as I know, is the best dino play behavior art, period: <a href="http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/rapred.htm">http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/rapred.htm</a> ) are especially good examples of the former & latter, respectively.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If I could, I'd give ED a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. The Berlin Archaeopteryx is referred to as "the first Archaeopteryx fossil that was found") & writing (E.g. Some hadrosaurs are referred to as 4-legged, while others are referred to as 2-legged). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5. I recommend reading ED in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's "Dinosaurs") as well as "Luis V. Rey's Dinosaurs and Paleontology Art Gallery" (which provides more info about most of Rey's ED work).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*Gee/Rey's "A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic" may be better in terms of paleoart (I.e. There's MUCH more of it), but definitely NOT in terms of text & writing.</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Rey: "There has never been a more exciting time to study dinosaurs. The better we get to know them, the more weird and wonderful and extreme they seem. We know a lot more about dinosaurs than we did when I was a kid. We used to think that dinosaurs were sluggish, cold blooded and not very bright. Then in 1964, Yale paleontologist John Ostrom found the arms and claws of a two-legged meat-eater he named Deinonychus...Deinonychus had enormous sickle-shaped claws on its feet. This meant that in order to kill its prey, it had to be able to leap into the air, cling to the victim with its hand claws, and slash with its feet. Deinonychus must have been a real acrobat. Could it be that dinosaurs were much more active than we had thought? Other extraordinary discoveries followed." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Rey: "In 1988, my Deinonychus Pack was a controversial painting. Paleontologists who favored the idea of the dinosaur-bird link loved it. Others didn't. They thought dinosaur feathers were science fiction...they wanted to see scaly skin! Lots of evidence has piled up in favor of feathers since those days."</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOmtoz0X9PF4njeHoDyEtxC9k88QelrahTlBifqmyfvPfy05hbkti3a21K6pc2x4flyPXvFSC5b6Pro6u262DQEKpeCXrZbNL-PWPzJZ75eGWqjy1HVv36q5v5iZGUm1tEpm1nnddFiibn/s1600/510crBKdlLL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="500" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOmtoz0X9PF4njeHoDyEtxC9k88QelrahTlBifqmyfvPfy05hbkti3a21K6pc2x4flyPXvFSC5b6Pro6u262DQEKpeCXrZbNL-PWPzJZ75eGWqjy1HVv36q5v5iZGUm1tEpm1nnddFiibn/s320/510crBKdlLL.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/510crBKdlLL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/510crBKdlLL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Extremely bad ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R10WWVQJN8L3MP/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R10WWVQJN8L3MP/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In my previous review, I referred to Rey's "Extreme Dinosaurs" as the best extreme dino book. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why Mash's "Extreme Dinosaurs" (henceforth ED) may be the worst extreme dino book.<br />
<br />
1) Trish's ED review ( <a href="http://babbletrish.blogspot.com/2011/07/lets-read-another-eye-searingly-bad.html">http://babbletrish.blogspot.com/2011/07/lets-read-another-eye-searingly-bad.html</a> ) sums up most everything you need to know about Martin's paleoart in ED. However, I'll add my own thoughts as well:<br />
-Martin's Brachiosaurus & Edmontosaurus are shameless rip-offs of Graham High's Brachiosaurus model & the NHM's Baryonyx model, respectively.<br />
-Remember when "Nigel-the-Pelican-flies-into-a-window" in "Finding Nemo" ( <a href="https://ohmy.disney.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2014/06/Nigel-the-Pelican-flies-into-a-window.jpg">https://ohmy.disney.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2014/06/Nigel-the-Pelican-flies-into-a-window.jpg</a> )? Martin's Microraptor is basically a Mockbuster version of that.<br />
-Remember the "All Yesterdays Cat" ( <a href="https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0073/83/1436510676473.jpg">https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0073/83/1436510676473.jpg</a> )? Martin's T.rex is basically a Shar-Pei version of that.<br />
<br />
2) Martin's paleoart isn't the only "Eye-Searingly Bad" part of ED. There's also Mash's writing: For 1, it goes back & forth between uncomfortably large & uncomfortably small; For another, it goes back & forth between several different fonts; Taken together, it's extremely difficult just to look at it, let alone read the words. & if that's not bad enough, Mash's writing is also annoyingly repetitive (E.g. "First, they were used first to kill the prey, and then to slice the meat")/inconsistent (E.g. Some of the info boxes list length; Others list length & weight; Still others list length, weight, & height)/derivative (E.g. See the Mash quote, which shamelessly rips off Chapter 4 of Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs").<br />
<br />
3) Mash's text is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in the info boxes because the misses stick out more with less text.* However, the other sidebar misses may be worse in degree: Some of them are due to being extremely outdated (E.g. Not only are pachycephalosaurs & heterodontosaurs claimed to be ornithopods, but ornithischians & saurischians are claimed to be no more closely related to each other than they are to crocs & pterosaurs); Others are due to being extremely nonsensical (E.g. The skeleton on pages 10-11 is "[seemingly] based on Marsh's 1880s "Brontosaurus" skeletal, complete with mismatched macronarian head", yet is referred to as that of Diplodocus).**<br />
<br />
*Even if you only read the info boxes, you'll see that there's an average of at least 1 or 2 factual errors per page in ED, a 32 page book (E.g. Brachiosaurus =/= 150-140 MYA & "up to 90 tons").<br />
<br />
**Google "Vintage Dinosaur Art: The evolution and ecology of the Dinosaurs: Part 2".<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Mash: "It is estimated a human being could have been torn apart in less than thirty seconds by a pack of Velociraptors!"</blockquote>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-11273066545389655492018-08-06T23:39:00.000-06:002018-08-06T23:41:07.862-06:00Top 4 Natural Histories of DinosThis post is the sequel to "Natural Histories of Dinos" ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/08/natural-histories-of-dinos.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/08/natural-histories-of-dinos.html</a> ). It's nothing formal, just a list of what I (as a non-expert dino fan) think are the best NHD books & why. Even still, I hope that at least some of you will get something out of it.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51X8Pdmtg7L.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="350" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51X8Pdmtg7L.jpg" width="224" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51X8Pdmtg7L.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51X8Pdmtg7L.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
4/3) Tie btwn Fastovsky/Weishampel's "Dinosaurs: A Concise Natural History"/"The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs" & Sampson's "Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life": Despite their obvious differences (E.g. Fastovsky/Weishampel's book is a textbook w/a phylogenetic format, while Sampson's is a non-textbook w/a chronological format), these 2 books have 3 major similarities: 1) In both books, "the story builds in a stepwise fashion," "each chapter [building] upon the previous ones"; 2) "Part of [the goal in both books] is to explore the relationships of organisms to each other and to the biosphere"; 3) "It is [hoped] that science educators in particular will embrace some of the approaches presented" in both books. This is especially apparent when you compare the Introduction of Fastovsky/Weishampel's book ( <a href="http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/11729/excerpt/9780521811729_excerpt.pdf">http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/11729/excerpt/9780521811729_excerpt.pdf</a> ) to the Preface of Sampson's ( <a href="http://www.scottsampson.net/index.php?page=dinosaur-odyssey">http://www.scottsampson.net/index.php?page=dinosaur-odyssey</a> ).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51t8mO3z0sL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="392" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51t8mO3z0sL.jpg" width="250" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51t8mO3z0sL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51t8mO3z0sL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
2) Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs": To quote Hammond ( <a href="http://www.tehachapinews.com/lifestyle/pen-in-hand-wonder-bird-a-closer-look-at-a/article_d47df6a6-ba67-59b5-912d-3ec3620763d8.html">http://www.tehachapinews.com/lifestyle/pen-in-hand-wonder-bird-a-closer-look-at-a/article_d47df6a6-ba67-59b5-912d-3ec3620763d8.html</a> ), the red-tailed hawk is "the archetypal bird of prey". Similarly, this book was the archetypal NHD from 1993-2016 (See "Synopsis": <a href="https://www.amazon.de/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X">https://www.amazon.de/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X</a> ). There are 2 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) To paraphrase Naish ( <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/naish-and-barretts-dinosaurs-how-they-lived-and-evolved/">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/naish-and-barretts-dinosaurs-how-they-lived-and-evolved/</a> ), this book is backed by "one of the world's greatest and most famous of natural history museums, and [based on] one of the world's most important scientific collections of dinosaur fossils"; This is especially apparent in "The Dino Directory" ("which serves as a nice supplement to [this] book": <a href="https://paleoaerie.org/2015/09/18/the-natural-history-museum-book-of-dinosaurs/">https://paleoaerie.org/2015/09/18/the-natural-history-museum-book-of-dinosaurs/</a> ); 2) This book has a day-in-the-life format (I.e. The 1st part introduces the dinos & their world; The 2nd part shows how the dinos lived & evolved in their world); This makes sense given that, according to Ernest Thompson Seton, day-in-the-life stories are the best way to write natural history (See "NOTE TO THE READER": <a href="http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=seton&book=wild&story=_front">http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=seton&book=wild&story=_front</a> ). It's also worth mentioning that the newer editions are very much "enlarged and updated" compared to the older ones (E.g. 144 pages in 2006 vs. 128 pages in 1993).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91OaXhz1ihL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="609" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91OaXhz1ihL.jpg" width="243" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91OaXhz1ihL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91OaXhz1ihL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
1) Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved": In 2016, 10 years after the last edition of Gardom/Milner's book, this book became the new archetypal NHD. This book does everything Gardom/Milner's book does, but mostly bigger & better ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VQ7TMT8EFOC7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VQ7TMT8EFOC7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ). In fact, if I could, I'd give this book an extra star for being extra authoritative (I.e. An extra half star for the NHM & an extra half star for the Smithsonian). In other words, this is a 6-star book.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/612bISoDw6L.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="419" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/612bISoDw6L.jpg" width="268" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/612bISoDw6L.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/612bISoDw6L.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Honorable Mention) Bakker's "The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs": This book is the best children's NHD. There are 2 main reasons for why I think that is, besides the fact that this book is an updated version of a childhood classic:* 1) It's the best at emphasizing the safari aspect of natural history; This makes sense given that it's authored by Bakker ( <a href="http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/permanent-exhibitions/the-morian-hall-of-paleontology/">http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/permanent-exhibitions/the-morian-hall-of-paleontology/</a> ); 2) It's the best at reminding readers that "the dinosaur story is our story, too"; Put another way, to quote Barton ( <a href="https://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/humanist-perspectives-connecting-children-to-nature/">https://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/humanist-perspectives-connecting-children-to-nature/</a> ), "we’re part of the natural world along with every creature great and small, plant, rock, wave, and breeze...We must care for our planet not just for ourselves to remain, but for all of our extended family".<br />
<br />
*To paraphrase Paleoaerie ( <a href="https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/">https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/</a> ), this book is the "totally updated edition" of "the classic book that most people old enough to be parents grew up on". Thus, to paraphrase Earl Sinclair ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXiwXVrjYHc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXiwXVrjYHc</a> ), "this [book] works on two levels!"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-24637248902290391262018-07-20T06:36:00.001-06:002018-07-20T06:36:16.140-06:00Craig's Latest<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: left;">For anyone paying attention (and I don't expect that to be many of you ;) ) I've been threatening a palaeoart project for quite sometime. </span><span style="text-align: left;">The project kept dying in its tracks partially due to paying (board game) gigs, but also my over ambition.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I'd kept dreaming of doing animations for Youtube, but of course animation is very time consuming and hard. So I'd be overwhelmed fairly quickly.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
However it has recently occurred to me why do I need animation for little sci videoes? Why not just do a series of storyboard style illustrations with narration?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So thus my big break through!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Here is a sample of what I'm up to now. Let me know what you think of the style.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJuT2aCm6vYr_CrK4qbfohpffL4kdSKWclUBGP7Bstd5QbUXh5utLjYdKZOoiRnskpGeUTdoZWWPtibF6uq2EJZaoCxFm8uGjPDb-lpPdLpCiC1phNn-yqkddJ5bCqRZFhLgPFkbixTKIy/s1600/Mosasaur+Jurassic+Park+World+Submarine+Craig+Dylke+2018.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="427" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJuT2aCm6vYr_CrK4qbfohpffL4kdSKWclUBGP7Bstd5QbUXh5utLjYdKZOoiRnskpGeUTdoZWWPtibF6uq2EJZaoCxFm8uGjPDb-lpPdLpCiC1phNn-yqkddJ5bCqRZFhLgPFkbixTKIy/s640/Mosasaur+Jurassic+Park+World+Submarine+Craig+Dylke+2018.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I assure you this is not pure fan art. I'm planning on tearing this scene from the recent motion picture apart scientifically in a quick little kid friendly video.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Again I'm the guy who put together this Mosasaur Jurassic World size chart back in the day... </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBOIBWHeaa03t3D8VdMWSZEzKDBx2GMXsXCFMWi3zzVPDIMJH6ej7HF8t1O9kSOVUVH8dPgh_dXX7r1N_bL_rALU9ZKsfnyaLz5diDVSfGEApiSejshh2vZFQRurs1BkpRMb-Yz06p2y-p/s640/Mosasaur+jurassic+world+size+great+white+shark+science.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="624" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBOIBWHeaa03t3D8VdMWSZEzKDBx2GMXsXCFMWi3zzVPDIMJH6ej7HF8t1O9kSOVUVH8dPgh_dXX7r1N_bL_rALU9ZKsfnyaLz5diDVSfGEApiSejshh2vZFQRurs1BkpRMb-Yz06p2y-p/s200/Mosasaur+jurassic+world+size+great+white+shark+science.jpg" width="195" /></a></div>
traumadorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00387315561167115253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-38879226460804415652018-07-15T00:15:00.001-06:002018-07-15T00:15:55.645-06:00My 24th Pair of ReviewsAs an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Helpful" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a very good book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.<br />
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-My 11th-20th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 21st Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 22nd Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 23rd Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-23rd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-23rd-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51dWl9EXqzL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="372" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51dWl9EXqzL.jpg" width="238" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51dWl9EXqzL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51dWl9EXqzL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>The best edition ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/RZ0S3CGZFRCPL/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/RZ0S3CGZFRCPL/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 4/5</b><br />
<br />
As far as I know, there are 5 editions of "Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books)" (henceforth DD 1989/2004/2008/2010/2014). As much as I love DD, it was never truly great: For 1, see the Ben quote; What Ben says about "the AMNH fossil halls" goes for DD; For another, DD is a mixed bag in terms of paleoart.* If you want the current best DD-style book, get Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs". If I were to recommend reading an edition of DD in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's "Dinosaurs"), it'd be DD 2004. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why that is.<br />
<br />
1) In reference to "For 1" (which mainly refers to DD 1989), DD 2004 partially solves this problem with "8 pages of new text", all of which are "distinctly color-coded". This is especially apparent in the "Find out more" & Glossary sections: The former lists some of the best dino museums in the U.S. & their websites (which is good because [1] it makes DD interactive, & [2] to quote Norman/Milner, "You can also take a virtual tour of many museums over the internet if you cannot visit them in person"); The latter clearly explains all technical terms. DD 2008 is almost exactly the same in content, the problem being that much of what was accurate in 2004 was inaccurate in 2008 (E.g. The records for "biggest dinosaur", "biggest meat-eater", & "shortest dinosaur name"). DD 2010/2014 have the opposite problem as DD 1989. While DD 1989 is too esoteric, DD 2010/2014 are too simple & condescending (E.g. "Hadrosaur" is defined 10 times throughout DD 2010, including twice on page 70). & if that's not bad enough, DD 2010/2014 are even more inaccurate for their time (probably because they're authored by a non-expert) & exclude said websites.<br />
<br />
2) In reference to "For another", DD 2004 partially solves this problem with "stunning real-life photographs of dinosaur bones, skulls, teeth and more". This is especially apparent in the "and more" photos: Many of DD 1989's not-so-good life reconstructions, most of which were outdated even in 1989, were replaced in DD 2004 (E.g. Hill & Winterbotham's tail-dragging Mamenchisaurus & Diplodocus, respectively, were replaced by a herd of Graham High's Brachiosaurus); Many of those that weren't replaced got new captions (E.g. The new caption for Graham High's Deinonychus reads, "Most scientists now agree that, unlike the model shown here, Deinonychus was probably feathered"). Pixel-shack's bad life reconstructions started to replace DD's good ones in 2008 & almost completely took over in 2010/2014. Pixel-shack's "DK 2003" Velociraptor ( <a href="https://i037.radikal.ru/0805/62/0f35f1cca590.jpg">https://i037.radikal.ru/0805/62/0f35f1cca590.jpg</a> ) replacing the AMNH's "Fighting Dinos" Velociraptor ( <a href="http://65.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lru07qBMv11qio57co1_1280.jpg">http://65.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lru07qBMv11qio57co1_1280.jpg</a> ) is an especially good example of that.<br />
<br />
*I'm specifically referring to DD's life reconstructions, many of which are not-so-good (I.e. Those by various illustrators & Pixel-shack in the older & newer editions, respectively).<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Ben ( <a href="https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/02/26/framing-fossil-exhibits-phylogeny/">https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/02/26/framing-fossil-exhibits-phylogeny/</a> ): "Within the actual fossil halls, interpretation remains stubbornly unapproachable. For example, the sign introducing proboscidians tells visitors that this group is defined primarily by eye sockets located near the snout. An observant visitor might wonder why scientists rely on such an obscure detail, as opposed to the obvious trunks and tusks. There’s a good teaching moment there concerning why some characteristics might face more selection pressure (and thus change more radically) than others, but instead visitors are only offered esoteric statements. Relatedly, the exhibit does little to prioritize information. Most label text is quite small, and there’s a lot of it. Compare this to Evolving Planet at the Field Museum, where there is a clear hierarchy of headings and sub-headings. Visitors can read the main point of a display without even stopping, and parents can quickly find relevant information to answer their charges’ questions (rather than making something up).<br />Evolving Planet also compares favorably to the AMNH fossil halls in its informative aesthetics and spatial logic. At FMNH, walls and signs in each section are distinctly color-coded, making transitions obvious and intuitive. Likewise, consistent iconography...such as the mass extinction zones...helps visitors match recurring themes and topics throughout the exhibit. AMNH, in contrast, has a uniform glass and white-walled Apple Store aesthetic. It’s visually appealing, but doesn’t do much to help visitors navigate the space in a meaningful way."</blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BZrs5fTrL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="431" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BZrs5fTrL.jpg" width="275" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BZrs5fTrL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BZrs5fTrL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Definitely NOT the best ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R797Y6F6B6JEW/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R797Y6F6B6JEW/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
In my experience, when a non-fiction dino book is given a superlative title, it's being set up for failure. As far as I know, only 1 such book lives up to its title & Maynard's "The Best Book of Dinosaurs" (henceforth BB) is definitely NOT it or even just decent in its own right.* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.<br />
<br />
1) BB's life reconstructions are mostly not-so-good. Those by Kirk are as good as it gets in BB, while those by Forsey are as bad as it gets: In reference to Kirk, the ornithischians & Barosaurus are depicted with too many claws; Otherwise, the dinos are mostly accurate for the time & completely awesome for all time (E.g. See the Deinonychus on the back cover, which have tiger stripes & a lightning storm background); In reference to Forsey, I've already said everything I have to say about him in my Wonder review (I.e. "Wonder's more realistic reconstructions": <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/RGU1QQZ5DR8A5/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/RGU1QQZ5DR8A5/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ); Unfortunately, most of BB's life reconstructions are by Forsey. Those by Field fall somewhere in between, but more towards Forsey (E.g. See the Triceratops on the front cover, which have cartoonishly angry eyes & 4 clawed fingers per hand).<br />
<br />
2) BB is a confusing mess in terms of organization. There isn't even an Introduction. BB just begins with a chapter about baby dinos & continues with no logical transitions or flow between the chapters.<br />
<br />
3) BB fails to cover many dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner:** Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; This is especially apparent in the chapter about the dino extinction because 1) the main text explains nothing about the science behind the dino extinction story, & 2) the sidebar text needlessly re-tells said story; Other times, it's just plain wrong; This is especially apparent in said chapter because it's claimed that 1) the asteroid "hit Earth in Central America" (Last I checked, Mexico =/= Central America), & 2) only "some scientists think that dinosaurs were the ancestors of modern birds" (Quoting Witmer from a 1995 book: "There are so many derived similarities between birds and these Deinonychus-like theropod dinosaurs that most paleontologists today believe birds are theropod dinosaurs!").<br />
<br />
*By "1 such book", I mean Holtz's "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages" ("Dinosaurs" for short).<br />
<br />
**By "many", I mean half of all the dino-related subjects a decent introduction to dinos would cover. Using Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" as a guide, BB fails to cover "The dinosaur world", "Getting about", "Living animals", "Dinosaurs and people", & "Dinosaurs and birds".Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-64634319074660484612018-05-20T00:43:00.000-06:002018-09-04T20:46:36.568-06:00My 23rd Pair of Reviews<div class="tr_bq">
As an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a very good book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.</div>
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-My 11th-20th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 21st Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 22nd Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-22nd-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511UvQyUtuL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="315" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511UvQyUtuL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="202" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511UvQyUtuL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511UvQyUtuL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Mostly good, part 1 ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1BGIKWL90PWZD/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1BGIKWL90PWZD/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 4/5</b><br />
<br />
Hone's "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs" (henceforth TC) is mostly good, especially when it comes to describing key scientific concepts (E.g. Classification in Part 1). I say that b/c, unlike most of my positive reviews, this 1 is about TC's problems.<br />
<br />
1) The paleoart is seriously lacking: For 1, most of the illustrations (I.e. Hartman's skeletal reconstructions) are great, but too small for good comparisons; For another, said illustrations are few & far between (I.e. Most of the chapters have only 1 illustration, 3 at most, & 5 of them have none); For yet another, there's only 1 life reconstruction in TC's entirety (I.e. Hartman's T.rex). This is especially problematic because, according to Hone, TC is meant for casual readers, yet it's laid out more like an enthusiast's book (I.e. Mostly black-&-white pages with a series of color plates). To put this in perspective, Sampson's "Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life" is an enthusiast's book of similar length & layout, yet it has at least 3 illustrations per chapter, more in most, including a multi-species scene by Skrepnick at the beginning of every chapter.<br />
<br />
2) The "scaly Tyrannosaurus" & "larger females" hypotheses are very misrepresented. Depending on the context, I don't mind if 1 or 2 non-major hypotheses are misrepresented once or twice.* My Riddle review shows what happens when many major hypotheses are misrepresented on many levels ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R47I7QPHDIHYD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300164351">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R47I7QPHDIHYD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300164351</a> ). However, while not as major as "Birds Are Dinosaurs", "scaly Tyrannosaurus" & "larger females" do have major implications for tyrannosaur biology, among other things (See the Willoughby & Bakker quotes, respectively). In reference to the former, the evidence for it is "essentially" ignored, while "a liberal coating of feathers" is taken as a given. Yes, said evidence hadn't yet been described in detail, but it had been mentioned in the technical literature. In reference to the latter, the problem is more layered. See "Review update #45 (It's a big 1)!" for how: <a href="https://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Review-update-45-It-s-a-big-1-743681263">https://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Review-update-45-It-s-a-big-1-743681263</a><br />
<br />
In short, I recommend reading TC in conjunction with 1) GSPaul's "The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" for larger skeletal reconstructions & more life reconstructions, & 2) the Neal & Peter Larson chapters in Larson/Carpenter's "Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King" for more pre-TC info about T.rex skin & sexual dimorphism.<br />
<br />
*E.g. In Chapter 10, Hone claims that "Richard Owen...regarded dinosaurs as giant lizards" in terms of physiology. That's not right (Quoting Owen: "The Dinosaurs, having the same thoracic structure as the Crocodiles, may be concluded to have possessed a four-chambered heart; and, from their superior adaptation to terrestrial life, to have enjoyed the function of such a highly-organized centre of circulation to a degree more nearly approaching that which now characterizes the warm-blooded Vertebrata"). Also, in Chapter 14, Hone claims that "the discovery of multiple remains of the famous dromaeosaurid Deinonychus with bones of the ornithischian Tenontosaurus...is mostly the limit of the evidence in support of the [pack hunting large prey] hypothesis". Depending on what he means by "large prey", that's not right either (Google "Taphonomy and Paleobiological Implications of Tenontosaurus-Deinonychus Associations" & "Days of the Deinos" for the technical & popular versions, respectively).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Willoughby ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R4VJXNM6VVEIV/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300164351">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R4VJXNM6VVEIV/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300164351</a> ): "Along a similar vein, Kenneth Carpenter (1997) has pointed out evidence of Gorgosaurus scale imprints that have been known for at least twenty years, but have never been formally published. Research can of course take many years to publish for a myriad of reasons, but it seems highly likely that had these imprints been of feathers, they'd been published almost immediately. It seems like there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that more readily publishes research that is exciting and interesting because it conforms so smoothly with the dominant paradigm, when conflicting research that challenges some of these established lines of thinking might ultimately result in a more robust and less flawed theory overall." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Bakker (See "Raptor Red"): "Female dominance is a powerful piece of evidence that permits us to reconstruct the private lives of Cretaceous predatory dinosaurs. A family structure built around a large female is rare in meat-eating reptiles and mammals today, but it's the rule for one category of predatory species...carnivorous birds. Owls, hawks, and eagles have societies organized around female dominance, and we can think of tyrannosaurs and raptors as giant, ground-running eagles."</blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61TrsSw0HfL._SY458_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="500" height="294" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61TrsSw0HfL._SY458_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61TrsSw0HfL._SY458_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61TrsSw0HfL._SY458_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Stop liking things! ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R37ELAMHP3KSEA/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R37ELAMHP3KSEA/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
I was originally planning on reviewing Stan/Jan's "The Berenstain Bears and the Dinosaurs" (henceforth BB) the way I usually review bad dino books. However, I then remembered that Trish/Talcott's BB review is so perfect (especially when it comes to criticizing BB's art & message: <a href="https://berenstainbearcast.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/episode-37-the-berenstain-bears-and-the-dinosaurs/">https://berenstainbearcast.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/episode-37-the-berenstain-bears-and-the-dinosaurs/</a> ) that I can't possibly top it, so I won't even try. Instead, in this review, I'll point you to Trish/Talcott's BB review & add my own thoughts as well:<br />
-The part around 13:00 reminds me of the "I Love Dinosaurs" series. I'm surprised said series isn't mentioned by name.<br />
-The parts around 14:00 & 17:00 remind me of the Holtz quote below. More specifically, "it feels like...the creatures in the mind of a concerned parent whose only knowledge of [dinos] comes from the films of the 30s" (& thus, has "more in common with medieval bestiaries, conjured from rumor and imagination alone"). Furthermore, not only are said creatures inconsistent with "these [dino] skeletons on this page", but said skeletons are inconsistent with "the fossil skeletons on which [they're] based."<br />
-The parts around 16:00 & 20:00 remind me of "The Berenstain Bears' Nature Guide": Not only do the Berenstain Bears explore "the whole of nature" (including non-bird dinos), but 1) they do so with Actual Factual (who supplies "actual facts about nature"), & 2) "they're happy" to spend the day together doing so; Keep in mind that this book was published 9 years before BB.<br />
-The part around 30-32:00 sums up part of the reason why "The Berenstain Bears and the Bad Dream" does BB's story better, the other part being that Mama & Papa don't "take advantage of Brother's fear to talk him out of...his new interest".<br />
-The part around 31-33:00 reminds me of 1) Switek's "Paleontological Profiles: Robert Bakker" (To quote Bakker, "We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science"; This interview is especially good at showing both why an interest in dinos is good & why BB's message is bad), & 2) Waldrop/Loomis' "Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book" (which is 1 of the "better kids' books of the time": <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R94XM1O8E45DV/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R94XM1O8E45DV/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ).<br />
-The part around 37:00 reminds me of Jan/Mike's "The Berenstain Bears' Dinosaur Dig" (which also does BB's story better).*<br />
-At around 39:00, they recommend Bakker's "The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs" & Holtz's "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages", but forget the author & title, respectively (which surprises me given that [1] they mentioned "The Dinosaur Heresies" at around 9:00, & [2] Holtz's book has the best title ever).<br />
<br />
*For 1, both Brother & Sister take an interest in dinos. For another, not only does Actual Factual encourage their interest, but he also takes them on a tour of a dino dig. For yet another, this book begins & ends with 2 important messages (See the Jan/Mike & Papa quotes, respectively).<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting Holtz ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/05/holtzs-dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf-article.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/05/holtzs-dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf-article.html</a> ): "Paleoart is, admittedly, a difficult enterprise: after all, its subject matter is long dead, and science can never expect to know very much about the creaturers' external surfaces or, for that matter, any of their other perishable features. Nevertheless, there is one inviolate rule of dinosaur restoration: if the known fossil skeleton conflicts with the shape of the reconstruction, the reconstruction must be wrong. That rule gives the casual reader at least a fighting chance of separating the wheat from the chaff: distinguishing books that depict restorations consistent with fossil specimens from books that have more in common with medieval bestiaries, conjured from rumor and imagination alone. One reliable clue that a book belongs to the former group is the inclusion of drawings or photographs of the fossil skeletons on which the restorations are based." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Jan/Mike: "A special kind of beast lived very long ago.<br />
Its different forms and names are very good to know." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Papa (in reference to sitting on Sister's Stegosaurus toy): "Sister...I'm delighted that you and Brother have this wonderful new interest. But...the Jurassic Age will just have to settle for the coffee table."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-44265150126086138142018-02-19T02:31:00.000-07:002018-06-25T00:11:07.821-06:00My 22nd Pair of Reviews<div class="tr_bq">
As an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.</div>
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-My 11th-20th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 21st Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-21st-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9781550376449_p0_v1_s550x406.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="309" height="320" src="https://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9781550376449_p0_v1_s550x406.jpg" width="247" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71I-YkKcvaL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71I-YkKcvaL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>How to REALLY build a dino ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R3PD2BYTU5ANKB/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R3PD2BYTU5ANKB/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 5/5</b><br />
<br />
Short version: Cooley/Wilson's "Make-a-saurus: My Life with Raptors and Other Dinosaurs" (henceforth Life) may be the best children's dino book when it comes to showing kids how to build a dino. I recommend reading Life in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved" in general & Chapter 3 in particular).<br />
<br />
Long version: Read on.<br />
<br />
This review's title is a reference to Horner/Gorman's "How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn't Have to Be Forever" (which, to paraphrase Kosemen, should've been called "[How to build a] sort of dinosaur look-alike retarded monstrosity").* Point is, to quote Willoughby ( <a href="https://emilywilloughby.com/about">https://emilywilloughby.com/about</a> ), "paleontology is unique in that there is no equivalent method of using film to capture the reality of its natural subjects...we must paint, sculpt and draw to bring these animals to life." Life may be the best children's dino book when it comes to showing kids how to do that. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.<br />
<br />
1) As you may remember, Life was 1 of the books that got me into feathered dinos, along with Sloan's "Feathered Dinosaurs". Cooley's life-like models of feathered dinos are 1 of the main reasons why that is (See reason #1: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R1UO9MSFJ9W37N/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0792272196&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books">http://www.amazon.com/review/R1UO9MSFJ9W37N/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0792272196&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books</a> ).<br />
<br />
2) Life provides a lot of background info. This is especially apparent in the introductory section: 1st, Currie explains why art is important to his science (See the Currie quote); Then, Cooley explains why science is important to his art (See the Cooley quote); Last, "The World of Sinornithosaurus" tells a day-in-the-life story of the Sinornithosaurus specimen Cooley's model is based on; More specifically, it tells a story of how said specimen lived, died, & became fossilized.<br />
<br />
3) Similarly to Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs", Life uses a "popular approach [that] not only accurately mirrors the methods used by [paleoartists in creating] dinosaurs, but also satisfies the overwhelming curiosity of people to know what dinosaurs were like when alive" ( <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X">https://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X</a> ). This is especially apparent in the main sections: 1st, Cooley explains the paleoartistic process without dumbing down; Then, Cooley shows readers how they can adapt said process using tools & materials around their house (E.g. Instead of beginning "with a welded steel armature," they can make an armature using "rolled-up newspaper, wire, foam and tape, even balloons"); Last, Cooley shows readers how they can go 1 step beyond & create dino environments (I.e. Dioramas, which are the best dino exhibits).<br />
<br />
If I could, I'd give Life a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Dino scales, which are non-overlapping, are compared to lizard scales, which are mostly overlapping) & writing (E.g. Liaoning is misspelled as Laioning). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5.<br />
<br />
*Google "Is it Possible to Re-Create a Dinosaur from a Chicken?"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Currie: "Even with all my training and experience, I still learn a lot when Brian asks me how the bones of a skeleton actually go together. Often we end up pulling bones out of the Museum's collections so we can consider how they fit together and how the muscles were attached. Most people can learn more by building models than by just looking at museum displays and books." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Cooley: "Life takes us in marvelous directions and, as luck would have it, the first job I found upon graduating from art school was sculpting a volcano for the Calgary Zoo's new Prehistoric Park. That led to making a dinosaur for a company in Vancouver. My wife, artist Mary Ann Wilson, worked on that dinosaur with me, and since then we have completed many dinosaurs together. While doing research for that project, Mary Ann and I met Dr. Philip J. Currie, who was soon to become one of the world's most prominent paleontologists. It was Dr. Currie whose enthusiasm and riveting stories about new discoveries and theories rekindled my passion for dinosaurs. Twenty years since that meeting, I'm still making dinosaurs". </blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5110sVRVgtL._SY445_QL70_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5110sVRVgtL._SY445_QL70_.jpg" data-original-height="445" data-original-width="293" height="320" width="210" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81vEf3glzCL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81vEf3glzCL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Bad dino doc + bad dino movie ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1ANUT6L08H5CM/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1ANUT6L08H5CM/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
Short version: As far as I know, most dino time travel books aren't meant to be educational. Of those that are, I recommend reading White's "Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game" in conjunction with other, more educational books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved"). Miller/Blasing's "Dinosaur George and the Paleonauts: Raptor Island" (henceforth DG) fails at being either a decent educational book or a decent science fiction book.<br />
<br />
Long version: Read on.<br />
<br />
As you may remember, I said that "Jurassic Fight Club" is 1 of the worst dino docs ( <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R2FFY9S77ANRTK/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0810957981&nodeID=283155&store=books">http://www.amazon.com/review/R2FFY9S77ANRTK/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0810957981&nodeID=283155&store=books</a> ). Despite this, I originally thought that DG was going to be better than JFC given that dino books are usually better than dino docs. Boy, was I wrong about DG! Not only is DG as bad as JFC in some ways, but also as bad as the movie "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" (henceforth JP2) in other ways. In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why I think that is, besides the annoyingly-repetitive writing.*<br />
<br />
1) In DG, George is the only well-defined/developed character, & not in a good way: He's basically an 18-year-old male version of Sarah Harding from JP2 (I.e. A "naive, impulsive paleontologist...whose dumb decisions constantly put the team in greater danger");** This is especially apparent when he 1st compares the Saichania's poor eyesight to that of rhinos, but then makes a sudden move; Similarly, in JP2, Sarah 1st explains "the dangers of the bull rex tracking the group with its powerful olfactory sense, but [then] brings the jacket coated in the infant's blood with her as they flee."** The other Paleonauts are just character archetypes. More specifically, Vince Witmer is "The Lancer", Lloyd Lance is "The Big Guy", Parker Holtz is "The Smart Guy", & Sonya Currie is "The Chick".** There's also Professor Stone & Dr. Morgan, but they're only in Chapter 1.<br />
<br />
2) In some ways, DG's dromaeosaurs are better than JFC's (E.g. They're more fully feathered, though not entirely). In other ways, DG's dromaeosaurs are worse than JFC's (E.g. They have whip-like tails). In still other ways, they're about the same (E.g. They're "super persistent" predators of "impossibly large prey").** This is especially apparent in Chapter 8, when a pack of 30 flightless, blue jay-sized "mini-raptors" attack George over & over again despite being blasted with a surge gun & attacked by a 20-ft constrictor, among other things. Put another way, Chapter 8 is basically an extreme version of JP2's "Compy Attack" scene.<br />
<br />
3) I have 2 major problems with DG's story: 1) It's dependent on the reader caring about the characters; See reason #1 above for why that's a major problem; 2) As indicated by its sub-title, DG mostly takes place on/around Raptor Island in Southern Asia, presumably the Gobi region given that that's where all the dinos are from; The problem is that's near the center of the continent, & it's not like Asia ever had an inland sea like the Western Interior Sea of North America; In other words, DG's story is dependent on a setting that could never have existed.<br />
<br />
4) DG's text is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in "PaleoFacts" because the misses stick out more with less text.*** However, the main text misses may be worse in degree: Like JFC's misses, some of DG's are due to being very outdated (E.g. Compare the Miller/Blasing quote to the Naish/Barrett quote; It's also worth mentioning that Sauropoda is a suborder or infraorder, not a family); Also like JFC's misses, some of DG's are due to being very nonsensical (E.g. "A creature, about the size of an owl, suddenly swooped down from its perch above and grabbed the lizard in midair. At first, George thought it must have been some sort of bird, but when it landed on the ground it quickly ran into the woods on only its back legs. It was no bird. It was a flying dinosaur!").<br />
<br />
*E.g. The fact that George dislikes guns is stated 4 times in the span of 1 chapter, including twice in the same paragraph.<br />
<br />
**Google "The Lost World: Jurassic Park (Film) - TV Tropes" & "Raptor Attack - TV Tropes" for reasons #1 & #2, respectively.<br />
<br />
***In "PaleoFacts" alone, it's claimed that Nemegtosaurus was 7 m tall & 15.2 m long (More like 2.46 m tall & 12 m long), Saichania was 2.4 m tall (More like 1.3 m tall), Plesiosaurus was 7 m long & 3 tons (More like 3-5 m long & 150 kg), Plesiosaurus lived during the Late Cretaceous (It didn't), Bactrosaurus means "Bactrian lizard" (It doesn't), & Tylosaurus was 20 tons (More like 4.5 tons), among other things.<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting Miller/Blasing: "George knew this species. His uncle taught him a lot growing up. Because of that, he knew by the end of the Jurassic Period nearly all members of the Sauropod family had become extinct. A few species managed to survive all the way to the end of the late Cretaceous Period when they, along with all other non-avian dinosaurs, became extinct. The majority of the long necks that survived into late Cretaceous were from the Titanosaurus family. Although not as large as their earlier cousins, they were still massive dinosaurs and among the largest living things on earth by the end of the Cretaceous Period." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Naish/Barrett (See "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved"): "As recently as the 1990s it was thought that sauropods were a mostly Jurassic event and that they had largely disappeared by the Cretaceous. We now know that this view was completely inaccurate, and that sauropods were a major presence on many continents throughout much of the Cretaceous. And, rather than being stagnant or static in evolutionary terms, they were constantly evolving new anatomical features and new ways of cropping plants."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-48900574138541150662018-01-16T01:16:00.000-07:002018-01-16T01:16:40.432-07:00Raptor-related donations and edits<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3IZkA5tj7B8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3IZkA5tj7B8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
1stly, Scott Madsen needs help raising funds for "The Utahraptor Project" ( <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/utahraptor">https://www.gofundme.com/utahraptor</a> ). I'm spreading the word & giving Scott some money for 2 main reasons: 1) "Among the predators, at least six Utahraptors have been tentatively identified...two adults, each 5 to 6 meters in length; three juveniles about the size of turkeys; “and one that’s tiny, a little bitty baby with all the teeth in it — beautiful”" ( <a href="http://westerndigs.org/dinosaur-death-trap-found-in-utah-may-contain-raptor-family-horse-dragons-cannibalized-baby/">http://westerndigs.org/dinosaur-death-trap-found-in-utah-may-contain-raptor-family-horse-dragons-cannibalized-baby/</a> ); This is probably evidence of hawk-like gregariousness in Utahraptor (See "DevLog #24": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-saurian-dakotaraptor-could-be-better.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-saurian-dakotaraptor-could-be-better.html</a> ); 2) "The exposed bones also suggest that Utahraptor looked quite different from previous projections. While the juveniles are long and lanky in the classic raptor mold, the adult appears to have packed on mass to deal with bigger prey. “The front end of the jaw is unlike any other meat-eating dinosaur I’ve ever seen...It’s not just a blown-up Velociraptor. This thing is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or a Sherman tank”" ( <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/science/utah-paleontologists-turn-to-crowdfunding-for-raptor-project.html?mwrsm=Email">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/science/utah-paleontologists-turn-to-crowdfunding-for-raptor-project.html?mwrsm=Email</a> ); This is especially apparent in Hartman's "new Utahraptor skeletal" ( <a href="http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/at-long-last-utahraptor">http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/at-long-last-utahraptor</a> ).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xZP6kmX9ysA/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xZP6kmX9ysA?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
2ndly, my dino-building friend & fellow Facebooker, Chris Kastner ( <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ChrisKastner1982">https://www.facebook.com/ChrisKastner1982</a> ), needs help raising funds for his "Velociraptor Enclosure Rebuild" ( <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/velociraptor-enclosure-rebuild">https://www.gofundme.com/velociraptor-enclosure-rebuild</a> ). I'm spreading the word & giving Chris some money for 2 main reasons, besides the fact that he's a friend in need: 1) Chris provides a very important service (See "My name is Chris Kastner": <a href="http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/2013/10/chris-kastner-backyard-terrors-and.html">http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/2013/10/chris-kastner-backyard-terrors-and.html</a> ); 2) Chris is 1 of the best at providing said service (See "Question 10": <a href="http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/10/return-to-backyard-terrors-and-dinosaur.html">http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/10/return-to-backyard-terrors-and-dinosaur.html</a> ).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8-mFh0xjJp0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8-mFh0xjJp0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
3rdly, I recently edited "My 1st dino-related career activity!" ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/08/my-1st-dino-related-career-activity.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/08/my-1st-dino-related-career-activity.html</a> ) & "The Saurian Dakotaraptor could be better" ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-saurian-dakotaraptor-could-be-better.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-saurian-dakotaraptor-could-be-better.html</a> ), the original versions of which didn't say enough about their raptor-related awesomeness.<br />
<br />
This post is partly in honor of National Bird Day (which was on 1/5/17: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_Day#National_Bird_Day_(United_States)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_Day#National_Bird_Day_(United_States)</a> ), & partly in honor of Ostrom's 90th birthday (which is on 2/18/18: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ostrom">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ostrom</a> ). Here's hoping everyone reading this post spreads the word & gives Scott & Chris some money too.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-5619454548811753382017-11-20T23:42:00.000-07:002018-05-11T23:03:31.692-06:00My 21st Pair of Reviews<div class="tr_bq">
As an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.</div>
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-My 11th-20th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-20th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61BEQKjQQ8L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="306" data-original-width="260" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61BEQKjQQ8L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61BEQKjQQ8L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61BEQKjQQ8L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Dino ecology yay! ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/RP5K90YL2VODH/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/RP5K90YL2VODH/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 5/5</b><br />
<br />
Bonner's "Dining With Dinosaurs: A Tasty Guide to Mesozoic Munching" (henceforth Guide) is basically a cross between Chapter 5 of Sampson's "Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life" (I.e. "Solar Eating") & the "Dinosaur Block Party" episode of "Dinosaur Train", but better. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why I think that is.<br />
<br />
1) Like "Solar Eating", Guide examines the different trophic levels of Mesozoic ecosystems, beginning with "mega carnivores" (E.g. T.rex) & ending with "trashivores" (I.e. Detritivores & decomposers). Also like "Solar Eating", Guide explains how food webs & photosynthesis work. In fact, Guide does the latter even better: For 1, instead of using a trophic pyramid to explain food webs, Guide uses a trophic layer cake (To paraphrase Gaffigan, "[Pyramids] can't compete with cake"); For another, instead of explaining photosynthesis in a paragraph of text, Guide explains it in a recipe with step-by-step directions & pictures showing how to create "SUGAR FROM SUNSHINE".<br />
<br />
2) Like "Dinosaur Block Party", Guide is hosted by a human & a dino (I.e. Bonner & "her Microraptor pal"), who compare the features of different organisms in each trophic level. Also like "Dinosaur Block Party", Guide reconstructs entire Mesozoic ecosystems (E.g. That of the Jehol Group) & interviews experts about the science behind said reconstructions (I.e. "Ask a Scientist"). In fact, Guide does the latter even better: For 1, Guide's reconstructions are similarly cartoony, but MUCH more accurate; "The insectivores" is an especially good example of that ( <a href="https://hannahbonnerblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/featured-slider-dinning-2.jpg?w=768">https://hannahbonnerblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/featured-slider-dinning-2.jpg?w=768</a> ); For another, Guide's interviews don't just tell about said science, but also show it; "Mini carnivores and omnivores" is an especially good example of that ( <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBmOl20dzYEikguJax1d-FgnIiWpvFaoMiVxcji_RnoPZF2sQBBX_y6avaJi8TmC1aO3vBmhk9zrwH1byJ2GdDDMUk167KLNKUNs1HgM87HeadsLAQ9RfjE_Vi3C27OH2DIM8I7NTdQcoO/s1600/dining+with+dinosaurs+DSC01790.JPG">https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBmOl20dzYEikguJax1d-FgnIiWpvFaoMiVxcji_RnoPZF2sQBBX_y6avaJi8TmC1aO3vBmhk9zrwH1byJ2GdDDMUk167KLNKUNs1HgM87HeadsLAQ9RfjE_Vi3C27OH2DIM8I7NTdQcoO/s1600/dining+with+dinosaurs+DSC01790.JPG</a> ).<br />
<br />
My only nit-picks with Guide are the paleoart (which, while still good, is sketchier & less defined than Bonner's previous work) & the lack of explanatory/identifying text in some parts (which, while few & far between, is still weird for a book both by Bonner & for older kids).* With that in mind, I recommend reading Guide as 1) an introduction to dino ecology for younger kids, & 2) a transition to other, more adult books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved" in general & Chapter 4 in particular) for older kids.<br />
<br />
*In reference to the paleoart, don't take my word for it. Compare the cover of Guide to that of Bonner's "When Fish Got Feet, When Bugs Were Big, and When Dinos Dawned: A Cartoon Prehistory of Life on Earth". In reference to the lack of explanatory/identifying text, I'm specifically referring to "The raptors: midsize predators" & "Who ate who"/"Who eats who today?": The former makes a "Raptor Prey Restraint" reference ("The raptors couldn't fly, but feathered arms may have been used...for keeping their balance during an attack"), but doesn't explain it; The latter are meant to draw parallels between Mesozoic & modern ecosystems, yet only "Who ate who" identifies the different organisms in its ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61dLANn8fnL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="321" data-original-width="260" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61dLANn8fnL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="259" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61dLANn8fnL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61dLANn8fnL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Where's the substance? ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R2D7VXPQ8H787T/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R2D7VXPQ8H787T/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 2/5</b><br />
<br />
If you want a substantial children's dino book about what we do & don't know, get Kudlinski's "Boy, Were We Wrong About Dinosaurs!" (henceforth Boy) & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's "Dinosaurs"). It helps that Kudlinkski & Schindler are 1) very well-read, as indicated by the bibliography, & 2) collaborators with experts (I.e. Brinkman, Butler, & Norell). I can't say the same about Hort & O'Brien. As far as I know, Hort's "Did Dinosaurs Eat Pizza?: Mysteries Science Hasn't Solved" (henceforth Pizza) has neither a bibliography nor any expert collaboration & it shows in the lack of substance. In this review, I list the 3 main indications of that lack of substance.<br />
<br />
1) Unlike Boy (which has a roughly chronological format, beginning with the discovery of Iguanodon & ending with the discovery of the Chinese feathered dinos), Pizza consists of a bunch of so-called "Mysteries Science Hasn't Solved" scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason. Each mystery is illustrated with dinos doing things we know they didn't do, so maybe Pizza's title was supposed to tie all the mysteries together. However, since Pizza's content has nothing to do with eating pizza, it's just a confusing mess.<br />
<br />
2) Unlike Boy (which is illustrated with mostly-good cartoon dinos & page-by-page comparisons of what people used to think vs. what we think now), Pizza is illustrated with mostly-bad cartoon dinos (E.g. O'Brien's T.rex is basically a cartoon version of Solonevich's Antrodemus: <a href="https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2013/08/vintage-dinosaur-art-dinosaurs-and-more.html">https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2013/08/vintage-dinosaur-art-dinosaurs-and-more.html</a> ). Not only are the dinos themselves bad, but they make a lot of the text misleading: It's claimed that "different scientists can disagree by as much as [20 or 30] tons in estimating weights"; While this is technically true when it comes to sauropods, it's illustrated with a Styracosaurus (which weighed between 1 & 4 tons) outweighing an entire family farm.<br />
<br />
3) Unlike Boy (which has mostly-accurate text that uses multiple lines of evidence to show why we think what we think), Pizza has a lot of misleading or wrong text, partly because of the aforementioned illustrations, & partly because it refers to many non-mysteries as mysteries (hence the "so-called" in indication #1 above). This is especially apparent in the text about T.rex & birds (E.g. See the Hort quotes, which fail on many levels).*<br />
<br />
*They fail to get the facts straight (E.g. Giganotosaurus & Spinosaurus were larger; To quote Hendrickson, "I feel very sure, as do 99 percent of all dinosaur paleontologists, that T. rex was a predator"); They fail to understand how ecology works (Quoting GSPaul: "The idea that animals as big as most theropods were true scavengers is ecologically unfeasible"); They fail to understand how evolution works (If "birds evolved from dinosaurs," then they ARE "considered dinosaurs"); They fail to understand that, "scientifically, traditions are an idiot thing" ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7HmltUWXgs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7HmltUWXgs</a> ); They fail to understand that, traditionally, "the word dinosaur" refers to non-bird dinos, not "extinct dinosaur species of the Mesozoic Era" (which include many bird species).<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting Hort: "Tyrannosaurus rex may have been the largest meat eater ever. But the jury is still out on whether T. rex mostly hunted for its food or mostly scavenged to find dinner that was already dead." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Hort: "Most scientists now agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and a convincing case can be made that, as long as birds survive, dinosaurs aren't really extinct. Since there is still some disagreement on whether birds should be considered dinosaurs, I have followed tradition in using the word dinosaur to refer only to extinct dinosaur species of the Mesozoic Era."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-50209699369401745732017-10-02T02:05:00.000-06:002018-08-06T00:49:29.562-06:00The Saurian Dakotaraptor could be better<div class="separator tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOBTMBOWAAALedR.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="566" height="320" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOBTMBOWAAALedR.jpg" width="226" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In terms of ecology/behavior, the "Dinosaurs in the Wild" Dakotaraptor is better. More on that below: <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOBTMBOWAAALedR.jpg">https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOBTMBOWAAALedR.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Long story short, I disagreed w/the ecological/behavioral depiction of the Saurian Dakotaraptor & provided contradictory evidence (which I think is more in line w/the generally agreed-upon hypothesis that "Dromaeosaurs Are Terrestrial Hawks": <a href="https://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/dromaeosaurs-are-terrestrial-hawks/">https://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/dromaeosaurs-are-terrestrial-hawks/</a> ) in my Saurian DevLog comments. I originally wasn't planning on posting modified versions of said comments here. However, since the Saurian team never got back to me, I figured this post might be a good way to 1) find out more from readers about the Saurian team's reasoning, & 2) remind readers to always think critically about what they're reading.<br />
<br />
P.S. In terms of ecology/behavior, the "Dinosaurs in the Wild" Dakotaraptor is better. More specifically, it "has an extensive plumage, nests in colonies, and behaves like a big, flightless hawk" ( <a href="https://twitter.com/TetZoo/status/927831813791379457">https://twitter.com/TetZoo/status/927831813791379457</a> ). This is especially apparent in the hatchery ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-mFh0xjJp0&t=6s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-mFh0xjJp0&t=6s</a> ).<br />
<br />
<b>DevLog #22</b><br />
<br />
Sorry for commenting on DevLog #19 here, but it took me a while to get all my thoughts together in writing. I wasn't even sure if I should comment at all: For 1, I get that it's probably too late to make changes at this stage of the Saurian-making process; For another, I get that you guys probably have valid reasons for the ecological/behavioral depictions in Saurian. However, I decided that, just like when reviewing books, contradictory evidence should always be made known whether or not it changes anything. At the very least, maybe it'll help for future reference.<br />
<br />
<i>"but parents will not bond to their children or partners. This means that Dakotaraptor hatchlings will generally try to follow one of their parents while simultaneously searching for food and water, while their parents will mostly ignore them and go about their business. Players can rely on the presence of their parents to help defend from some certain threats, but the parents won’t hesitate to abandon them if they are threatened. At a certain age, the hatchlings will start to see their parents as threats, and their parents will see them as food, so they will part ways" ( <a href="https://sauriangame.squarespace.com/blog/1633">https://sauriangame.squarespace.com/blog/1633</a> ).</i><br />
<br />
1stly, in reference to parent-parent bonding, see the Varricchio et al., Zelenitsky/Therrien, & Mike quotes. They discuss evidence suggesting that at least some deinonychosaurs, including a probable dromaeosaurid, formed cooperative mated pairs that worked together to build nests &, presumably, raise young.<br />
<br />
2ndly, in reference to parent-child bonding, see the Horner quote AWA the page 10 abstract in this link. They discuss evidence suggesting that at least some small to medium-sized tetanurines, including a deinonychosaur, had semi-precocial young: <a href="https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/upload/Fossil_Conference7_Full_Report_Lowres.pdf">https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/upload/Fossil_Conference7_Full_Report_Lowres.pdf</a><br />
<br />
There are other quotes discussing related evidence, but this comment is running long. If you want to see said quotes, let me know & I'll include them in another comment.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Varricchio et al. ( <a href="http://www.academia.edu/12248015/Nest_and_egg_clutches_of_the_dinosaur_Troodon_formosus_and_the_evolution_of_avian_reproductive_traits">http://www.academia.edu/12248015/Nest_and_egg_clutches_of_the_dinosaur_Troodon_formosus_and_the_evolution_of_avian_reproductive_traits</a> ): "The longer time required by coelurosaurians to generate a clutch with monoautochronic ovulation and brooding may have necessitated a longer pair-bond between mates and greater parental investment in coelurosaurians like Troodon in comparison with typical crocodilians." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Zelenitsky/Therrien ( <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00815.x/full">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00815.x/full</a> ): "Montanoolithus strongorum is only the second type of maniraptoran clutch known from North America, after that of Troodon formosus (Horner and Weishampel 1996; Varricchio et al. 1997, 1999). Our cladistic analysis reveals that TMP 2007.4.1 belongs to a maniraptoran theropod that is phylogenetically bracketed by Citipati (Oviraptoridae) and Troodon (Troodontidae) + Numida (Aves); the basal position of Deinonychus in this analysis may be due to missing data (50%) for this taxon. The phylogenetic position of Montanoolithus within Maniraptora indicates that this taxon is more derived than Oviraptoridae but less derived than Troodontidae. The only maniraptorans (besides Troodon) known from the Two Medicine and Oldman formations of North America are caenagnathids and dromaeosaurids (Weishampel et al. 2004), which represent the most probable egg-layers of Montanoolithus. However, the crownwards position of Montanoolithus relative to oviraptorids may support a dromaeosaurid affinity." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Mike ( <a href="http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/11/15/3977934.html">http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/11/15/3977934.html</a> ): "By studying the fossil the scientists have been able to determine that this dinosaur dug its nest in freshly deposited, loose sand, possibly along the shore of a river. An analysis of the substrate under the actual fossil indicates that the dinosaur disrupted the rock underneath, indicating that there was a substantial amount of effort put into the digging when excavating the nest. Perhaps this indicates that the mated pair worked together". </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Horner ( <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268506001_Evidence_of_dinosaur_social_behavior">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268506001_Evidence_of_dinosaur_social_behavior</a> ): "Data from Egg Mountain and Egg Island now provide extensive evidence to hypothesize the nesting behaviors of Troodon and the paleoecology of its nesting ground. The animals nested in colonies, used the nesting ground on at least three different occasions, constructed nests with rimmed borders, arranged their eggs in neat, circular clutches, brooded their eggs by direct body contact, and, apparently brought the carcasses of Orodromeus to the nesting area for their hatchlings to feed on. The hatchlings left their respective nests, but may have stayed in the nesting area for a short period of time before following the adults out of the nesting ground."</blockquote>
<b>DevLog #24 (For whatever reason, the original version of this comment isn't visible)</b><br />
<br />
Sorry for repeating this comment from DevLog #23, but for whatever reason, it never got officially approved there (which is especially weird given that 5 troll comments by Garrus got approved here). Anyway, to add to my DevLog #22 comment ("There are other quotes discussing related evidence, but this comment is running long. If you want to see said quotes, let me know & I’ll include them in another comment": <a href="https://sauriangame.squarespace.com/blog/1691">https://sauriangame.squarespace.com/blog/1691</a> ):<br />
-The Britt et al. quotes discuss evidence of hawk-like gregariousness in Utahraptor ("Through observation in New Mexico over a period of years, Dr. Bednarz has determined that hawk families -- generally two primary breeders, some younger adults and some immature yearlings -- form hunting parties each morning": <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/19/science/rabbits-beware-some-birds-of-prey-hunt-in-packs.html?pagewanted=all">http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/19/science/rabbits-beware-some-birds-of-prey-hunt-in-packs.html?pagewanted=all</a> ).<br />
-The Bakker quote discusses evidence of hawk-like "family values" in allosaurs that also applies to velociraptorines ("Juvenile teeth display the same features as those of adults, but on a smaller scale": <a href="https://www.academia.edu/1974330/SWEETMAN_S._C._2004._The_first_record_of_velociraptorine_dinosaurs_Saurischia_Theropoda_from_the_Wealden_Early_Cretaceous_Barremian_of_southern_England._Cretaceous_Research_25_353-364">https://www.academia.edu/1974330/SWEETMAN_S._C._2004._The_first_record_of_velociraptorine_dinosaurs_Saurischia_Theropoda_from_the_Wealden_Early_Cretaceous_Barremian_of_southern_England._Cretaceous_Research_25_353-364</a> ).<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting Britt et al. (See "4.2.2. Dinosaurs", page 5: <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0031018209002132/1-s2.0-S0031018209002132-main.pdf?_tid=e6f32422-4966-11e7-a204-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1496609376_b1e828585f4e80840ee76ec6ac5534cb">http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0031018209002132/1-s2.0-S0031018209002132-main.pdf?_tid=e6f32422-4966-11e7-a204-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1496609376_b1e828585f4e80840ee76ec6ac5534cb</a> ): "The number of identifiable specimens, NISP, of dinosaurs in our collection is 2069 (excluding 590 ankylosaur osteoderms) and the MNI is 67. These numbers are the basis for the comparisons presented here. Theropods are unusually abundant at DW (NISP= 227; MNI= 13), comprising 11% of the dinosaurian NISP and 19% of the dinosaurian MNI. The dromaeosaurid theropod, Utahraptor, dominates the theropod assemblage, and is represented by 62 teeth and 146 bones pertaining to at least nine individuals (based on hind limb elements), including 2 adults, 3 subadults, and 4 juveniles." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Britt et al. (See "5.5. Historical taphonomic history of the Dalton Wells bone beds", page 14: <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0031018209002132/1-s2.0-S0031018209002132-main.pdf?_tid=e6f32422-4966-11e7-a204-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1496609376_b1e828585f4e80840ee76ec6ac5534cb">http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0031018209002132/1-s2.0-S0031018209002132-main.pdf?_tid=e6f32422-4966-11e7-a204-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1496609376_b1e828585f4e80840ee76ec6ac5534cb</a> ): "The presence of clusters of partial carcasses of Gastonia, Venenosaurus, and the iguanodontid, suggest that groups of these taxa died and were introduced enmasse to the thanatocoenose. Accordingly, we speculate that these, and possibly other well-represented taxa at DW (basal macronarian, Utahraptor, other sauropods) were gregarious." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Bakker (See Wolberg's "Dinofest International: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored By Arizona State University", page 62): "A striking difference exists in modern communities between cold-blooded predators and hot-blooded predators. Most bird and mammal species feed their young until the youngsters are almost full size; then and only then do the young set out to hunt on their own. Consequently, the very young mammals and birds do not chose food items independently of the parents. Young lions and eagles feed on parts of carcasses from relatively large prey killed by the parents. Most snakes, lizards, and turtles do not feed the young after birth, and the new-born reptiles must find prey suitably diminutive to fit the size of the baby reptilian jaws and teeth. A single individual lizard during its lifetime usually feeds over a much wider size range of prey than a single individual weasel or hawk, because the lizard begins its life hunting independently.<br />
Therefore, a predatory guild of three lizard species with adult weights 10g, 100g and 1000g would require a much wider range of prey size than a guild of three mammal predator species with the same adult weights. If allosaurs had a lizard-like parental behavior, then each individual allosaur would require a wide size range in prey as it grew up. The evidence of the Como lair sites strongly suggests that the dinosaur predatory guild was constructed more like that of hot-blooded carnivores than that of lizards or snakes.<br />
This theory receives support from the shape of the baby allosaur teeth. In many cold-blooded reptilian predators today, the crown shape in the very young is quite different from the adult crown shape. For example, hatchling alligators have the same number of tooth sockets in each jaw as do the adults, but the hatchling crowns are very much sharper and more delicate. In the hatchling all the teeth are nearly the same shape, and the young gators have less differentiation of crown size and shape along the tooth row; the hatchlings lack the massive, projecting canine teeth and the very broad, acorn-shaped posterior crowns of the adults. Young gators feed extensively on water insects, and the sharp crowns are designed for such insectivorous habits. Adult gator species use their canine teeth for killing large prey, such as deer, and employ the acorn crowns to crush large water snails and turtles (Chabreck, 1971; Delaney and Abercrombie, 1986; McNease and Joanen, 1977; Web et al, 1987).<br />
If allosaur hatchlings fed independent of adults, I would not expect the hatchling tooth crowns to be the same over-all shape as that of the adult. However, the over-all tooth crown shape in the tiniest allosaur IS identical to that of the adult (figs. 3,4). Thus it appears that hatchlings were feeding on prey tissue of the same general texture and consistency as that fed upon by adults."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-59745585300946473652017-09-18T23:49:00.000-06:002018-01-13T10:52:35.291-07:00My 20th Pair of ReviewsAs an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.<br />
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 11th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 12th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 13th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 14th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 15th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 16th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 17th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-17th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-17th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 18th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/04/my-18th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/04/my-18th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 19th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/06/my-19th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/06/my-19th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Gg5kN-drL._SX378_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="380" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Gg5kN-drL._SX378_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="243" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Gg5kN-drL._SX378_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Gg5kN-drL._SX378_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>My NEW favorite serious dino book ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VQ7TMT8EFOC7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VQ7TMT8EFOC7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 5/5</b><br />
<br />
As you may remember, Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" WAS my favorite serious dino book ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2URWS93D4PO4C/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=184442183X">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2URWS93D4PO4C/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=184442183X</a> ). However, Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved" (henceforth DH) is my NEW favorite. Thus, DH is now my go-to natural history of dinos. There are 2 main reasons for why that is: 1) DH is very comprehensive; This is especially apparent in Chapters 5-6 (which not only cover "the origin of birds" like Chapter 10 of Gardom/Milner's book, but also birds "beyond the Cretaceous"); 2) DH is very well-illustrated; In addition to Sibbick (who illustrated Gardom/Milner's book), DH is illustrated by Bonadonna, Conway, Csotonyi, Knüppe, Nicholls, Willoughby, & Witton. My only nit-picks are the cover art (which, while not the worst, neither reflects the interior art nor compares to the cover art of Gardom/Milner's book) & the lack of focus on the museum website (although the museum logo should be enough to show readers where to go for more info). Otherwise, these 2 books are very similar (E.g. Compare the quotes at the end of this review). 2 more things of note: 1) Contra what Publishers Weekly says, the "chapter on dinosaur cladistics" is 1 of the highlights of DH; Each section reads like a mini-story of how that sub-group evolved; 2) For whatever reason, Amazon doesn't do Listmania! anymore; If it did, DH would be right under Pickrell's "Flying Dinosaurs: How Fearsome Reptiles Became Birds" on "My Serious Dino Books" ( <a href="http://www.amazon.com/lm/R2H4F8H299AK8M/ref=cm_pdp_lm_title_1">http://www.amazon.com/lm/R2H4F8H299AK8M/ref=cm_pdp_lm_title_1</a> ).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"For 160 million years, dinosaurs were the most successful and diverse creatures to dominate the Earth. This book is based on the world-famous fossil collections and permanent “Dinosaurs” exhibition at London’s Natural History Museum. Written by two experts from one of the world’s leading Paleontology departments, this book features hundreds of color photos and illustrations that reveal the astonishing variety of life that proliferated in the Mesozoic Era—the Age of Dinosaurs. Tim Gardom has researched several major exhibitions, including The Natural History Museum’s acclaimed “Dinosaurs.” Angela Milner is Head of Fossil Vertebrates at The Natural History Museum" ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X">https://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X</a> ). </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"From the Victorian golden age of dinosaur discovery to the cutting edge of twenty-first century fossil forensics 'Dinosaurs' unravels the mysteries of the most spectacular group of animals our planet has ever seen. Despite facing drastic climatic conditions including violent volcanic activity, searing temperatures and rising and plunging sea levels, the dinosaurs formed an evolutionary dynasty that ruled the Earth for more than 150 million years.Darren Naish and Paul Barrett reveal the latest scientific findings about dinosaur anatomy, behaviour, and evolution. They also demonstrate how dinosaurs survived the great extinction at the end of the Cretaceous Period and continued to evolve and thrive alongside us, existing today as an incredibly diverse array of birds that are the direct descendants of theropods. 'Dinosaurs' is lavishly illustrated with specimens from the Natural History Museum's own collections, along with explanatory diagrams and charts and full-colour artistic reconstructions of dinosaur behaviour" ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-They-Lived-Evolved-2016/dp/0565093118">https://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-They-Lived-Evolved-2016/dp/0565093118</a> ).</blockquote>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81qHonFPJoL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="750" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81qHonFPJoL.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81qHonFPJoL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81qHonFPJoL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>The worst dino museum in book form ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1EIPWIOLMYAWT/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1EIPWIOLMYAWT/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
Short version: If you want the best dino museum book for older kids, get Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs". If you want the best dino museum books for younger kids, get Aliki's dino books & read them in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's "Dinosaurs").* Green's "The Dinosaur Museum: An Unforgettable, Interactive Virtual Tour Through Dinosaur History" (henceforth Museum #2) may be the worst children's dino museum book I've ever read.<br />
<br />
Long version: Read on.<br />
<br />
TripAdvisor Reviewers say that The Dinosaur Museum in Dorchester (henceforth Museum #1) is "the worst dinosaur museum", & based on their reviews & photos, I'm inclined to agree ( <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g186263-d268146-r137214416-The_Dinosaur_Museum-Dorchester_Dorset_England.html">https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g186263-d268146-r137214416-The_Dinosaur_Museum-Dorchester_Dorset_England.html</a> ). In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why Museum #2 is similarly bad or worse while using "The Meat-Eaters" as the main example (See the back cover).<br />
<br />
1) Like Museum #1, Museum #2 is lacking in real fossils & full of bad reconstructions: In reference to fossils, each chapter has 1 or 2 at most & only some of them are real (E.g. "The Meat-Eaters" has a replica Velociraptor claw & a real T.rex tooth); In reference to reconstructions, each chapter has at least 3 or 4 & they're shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. The Iguanodon on the front cover is a shameless rip-off of the "Walking With Dinosaurs" Iguanodon), just plain outdated/abominable (E.g. The T.rex has pronated hands; Both of the Giganotosaurus are unrecognizable as such), or some combination of both (E.g. The Velociraptor is a shameless rip-off of the "Jurassic Park" Velociraptor with pronated hands & feathers that look more like yellow grass).<br />
<br />
2) Like Museum #1's text, Museum #2's is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. In "The Meat-Eaters", it's claimed that Velociraptor "charged after prey at up to 40 miles...per hour" (More like 24 mph), T.rex's "tiny front limbs may have helped it to stand up after lying down" (They didn't), "T.rex teeth had serrated...edges that could cut through flesh like steak knives" (They couldn't), & Giganotosaurus was 3 m high (More like 4 m high).<br />
<br />
3) Like Museum #1's writing, Museum #2's is annoyingly vague. In fact, Museum #2's is even worse in that it's also annoyingly hyperbolic (E.g. See the Green quote for both vagueness & hyperbole) & repetitive (E.g. The word "terrify" is used 3 times in "The Meat-Eaters" alone).<br />
<br />
4) Like Museum #1, Museum #2 is poorly-organized. Not only are the dino chapters scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason, but so are the dinos within each chapter. This is especially apparent in "The Meat-Eaters" (which features Velociraptor, Giganotosaurus, & T.rex) & "Small but Deadly" (which features Oviraptor, Troodon, Deinonychus, Coelophysis, & Compsognathus). Not only are the theropod chapters separated by ornithischian & sauropod chapters, but the theropods within each chapter are almost completely random. In other words, nothing in Museum #2 makes any chronological/phylogenetic/ecological/etc sense.**<br />
<br />
*In reference to "Aliki's dino books", google "paleoaerie.org/tag/aliki/".<br />
<br />
**In reference to "chronological/phylogenetic/ecological/etc sense", google "DINOSOURS! on tumblr. - Framing Fossil Exhibits - Framing".<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Green: "Giganotosaurus<br />
Monster-size Giganotosaurus was probably even larger than T.rex. Its enormous jaws opened more than wide-enough to swallow you! Most likely it lunged at victims and took great bites of flesh with its sharp teeth. One twist of its sturdy neck could have ripped its victim limb from limb."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-25228670553168547422017-08-07T21:07:00.001-06:002018-11-25T16:23:25.947-07:00Natural Histories of Dinos<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/51637647?wid=520&hei=520&fmt=pjpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="520" height="320" src="https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/51637647?wid=520&hei=520&fmt=pjpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">As far as I know, this is the most recent NHD book as of 8/7/17: <a href="https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/51637647?wid=520&hei=520&fmt=pjpeg">https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/51637647?wid=520&hei=520&fmt=pjpeg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
When I think of what natural history means, I think of the Geils/Vogler quote below. A Natural History of Dinos (henceforth NHD) is the best kind of non-encyclopedic dino book. There are 2 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) It's "designed to be read from start to finish as the developing story of a remarkable group of animals...[in a] direct, clear written style" ( <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X</a> ); See Weimberg's "What's the Best Way to Talk about Science?" ( <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whats-the-best-way-to-talk-about-science/">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whats-the-best-way-to-talk-about-science/</a> ) for why it's important that popular dino books are designed that way; 2) It puts dinos into an evolutionary & ecological context; See "Item Mentality and Dinosaurs in Popular Science" ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJjOwKh6RY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJjOwKh6RY</a> ) & "Alternatives to the Item Mentality in Dinosaur Books and Art" ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAXXUCjYHs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAXXUCjYHs</a> ) for why it's important that popular dino books do that. Yes, I have a Bachelor of Science in "Natural History and Interpretation" ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/introducing-hadiazmy-1st-listmania-list.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/introducing-hadiazmy-1st-listmania-list.html</a> ) & thus am very biased. That said, NHD books are mostly very good to great & I wanna know about all of them, hence this post. All the NHD books I know about are listed below. If there are any books you think should be listed, please let me know. Many thanks in advance. 2 more things of note: 1) No children's WWD books, only adult WWD books; 2) When trying to identify NHD books, look for a combination of the following or similar phrases:<br />
-"a [adjective] look at"<br />
-"a safari through time"<br />
-"a trip to the Mesozoic"<br />
-"as living animals"<br />
-"dinosaur history"<br />
-"evolution and ecology"<br />
-"how they lived"<br />
-"in a [adjective] context"<br />
-"in the context of"<br />
-"places them in"<br />
-"the dinosaur story"<br />
-"their evolution and extinction"<br />
-"their history"<br />
-"their natural habitat"<br />
-"their natural environment"<br />
-"their rise and fall"<br />
-"their story"<br />
-"their world"<br />
-"time and space"<br />
-"who they were"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Geils/Vogler (See "A Natural History Perspective": <a href="https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p063/rmrs_p063_210_217.pdf">https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p063/rmrs_p063_210_217.pdf</a> ): "The term history in natural history derives from the Greek for inquiry or knowing. A natural history is a description of one kind of organism in its natural environment. It is a narrative on the development, behavior, relationships, evolution, and significance of a subject organism. We are inspired by Charles Darwin and E. O. Wilson. Their work demonstrates that natural history is not just for charismatic species, but also for ‘lowly’ barnacles and ants. Natural history unites biology and philosophy. What we perceive depends on how we observe and integrate that observation into an operational model of reality (see Hawking and Mlodinow 2010). What we perceive determines what we accept as true, beautiful, and right—therefore, what motivates our action."</blockquote>
Colbert's "The Dinosaur Book: The Ruling Reptiles and Their Relatives" ( <a href="https://archive.org/details/dinosauruli13colb">https://archive.org/details/dinosauruli13colb</a> )<br />
<br />
Watson's "Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Reptiles" ( <a href="https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/">https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/</a> )<br />
<br />
Halstead's "The Evolution and Ecology of the Dinosaurs"<br />
<br />
Moody's "A Natural History of Dinosaurs"<br />
<br />
Tweedie's "The World of Dinosaurs" (See "Key Features" under "About this product": <a href="https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/The-World-of-Dinosaurs-by-Michael-W-F-Tweedie-Hardback-1977/89888062?iid=352124426006">https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/The-World-of-Dinosaurs-by-Michael-W-F-Tweedie-Hardback-1977/89888062?iid=352124426006</a> )<br />
<br />
Charig's "A New Look at the Dinosaurs" ( <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/naish-and-barretts-dinosaurs-how-they-lived-and-evolved/">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/naish-and-barretts-dinosaurs-how-they-lived-and-evolved/</a> )<br />
<br />
McLoughlin's "Archosauria: A New Look at the Old Dinosaur" ( <a href="https://marswillsendnomore.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/archosauria-a-new-look-at-the-old-dinosaur/">https://marswillsendnomore.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/archosauria-a-new-look-at-the-old-dinosaur/</a> )<br />
<br />
Sattler's "Dinosaurs of North America" ( <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2267190.Dinosaurs_of_North_America">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2267190.Dinosaurs_of_North_America</a> )<br />
<br />
Colbert's "Dinosaurs: An Illustrated History" (See the back cover: <a href="http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/d/49916-1/Main+Dino+Books+rear.jpg">http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/d/49916-1/Main+Dino+Books+rear.jpg</a> )<br />
<br />
Waldrop/Loomis' "Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book" ("A magazine published ten times a year containing stories, photographs, riddles, games, and crossword puzzles relating to natural history": <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Ranger_Rick_s_Nature_Magazine.html?id=xvNJAAAAYAAJ">https://books.google.com/books/about/Ranger_Rick_s_Nature_Magazine.html?id=xvNJAAAAYAAJ</a> )<br />
<br />
Norman's "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" (See "About this Item": <a href="https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=676254730">https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=676254730</a> )<br />
<br />
Wexo's "Zoobooks - Dinosaurs" ("Zoobooks...both natural history and the environment": <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Zoobooks+and+Dolphin%22">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Zoobooks+and+Dolphin%22</a> )<br />
<br />
Zallinger's "Dinosaurs and Other Archosaurs" (See "Overview": <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dinosaurs-and-other-archosaurs-peter-zallinger/1000158456">https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dinosaurs-and-other-archosaurs-peter-zallinger/1000158456</a> )<br />
<br />
Bakker's "The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction" ( <a href="http://cloggie.org/books/dinosaur-heresies.html">http://cloggie.org/books/dinosaur-heresies.html</a> )<br />
<br />
Wallace's "The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaur"<br />
<br />
Elting's "The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs" ("Part of the Golden Book series dealing with natural history for young people": <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Elting%2C+Mary%2C+1988%2C%22">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Elting%2C+Mary%2C+1988%2C%22</a> )<br />
<br />
Man's "The Natural History of the Dinosaur"/"The Day of the Dinosaur"<br />
<br />
Dixon's "The Big Book of Dinosaurs: A Natural History of the Prehistoric World"<br />
<br />
Russell's "An Odyssey in Time: The Dinosaurs of North America" (See "About this book": <a href="https://www.nhbs.com/an-odyssey-in-time-the-dinosaurs-of-north-america-book?bkfno=17435">https://www.nhbs.com/an-odyssey-in-time-the-dinosaurs-of-north-america-book?bkfno=17435</a> )<br />
<br />
Kricher's "Peterson First Guide to Dinosaurs" ("A Guide to Field Guides: Identifying the Natural History of North America": <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22to+Dinosaurs%2C+723%22">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22to+Dinosaurs%2C+723%22</a> )<br />
<br />
Gaffney's "Dinosaurs" ("A Guide to Field Guides: Identifying the Natural History of North America": <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22715.+Gaffney%2C+Eugene%22">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22715.+Gaffney%2C+Eugene%22</a> )<br />
<br />
Czerkas/Czerkas' "Dinosaurs: A Global View" ( <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dinosaurs-Global-Sylvia-J-Czerkas/dp/1850280509">https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dinosaurs-Global-Sylvia-J-Czerkas/dp/1850280509</a> )<br />
<br />
Norman's "Dinosaur!" ("The book was based on the television series of the same name, and examines the natural history of the dinosaurs, what they ate, where they lived and why they died": <a href="https://www.biblio.com/book/dinosaur-norman-david/d/431441993">https://www.biblio.com/book/dinosaur-norman-david/d/431441993</a> )<br />
<br />
Michard's "Reign of the Dinosaurs" (See "Key Features" under "About this product": <a href="https://www.ebay.com/p/Reign-of-the-Dinosaurs-by-Jean-Guy-Michard-I-Mark-Paris-Paperback-1992/89717900">https://www.ebay.com/p/Reign-of-the-Dinosaurs-by-Jean-Guy-Michard-I-Mark-Paris-Paperback-1992/89717900</a> )<br />
<br />
Wallace's "Familiar Dinosaurs" ("A Guide to Field Guides: Identifying the Natural History of North America": <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Familiar+Dinosaurs%2C+731%22">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Familiar+Dinosaurs%2C+731%22</a> )<br />
<br />
Lessem's "Dinosaur Worlds" ( <a href="http://westnoblemiddle.mysurpass.net/websafari.exe/detail?sid=E7BC76EF-2CAF-4370-A100-3F5527DE3A2F&database=westnoblemiddle&list=R&rec=5&marc=11377">http://westnoblemiddle.mysurpass.net/websafari.exe/detail?sid=E7BC76EF-2CAF-4370-A100-3F5527DE3A2F&database=westnoblemiddle&list=R&rec=5&marc=11377</a> )<br />
<br />
Haines' "Walking with Dinosaurs: A Natural History"<br />
<br />
Martill/Naish's "Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence - How Did They Know That?"<br />
<br />
Benton's "Walking With Dinosaurs: Fascinating Facts"<br />
<br />
Colagrande/Felder's "In the Presence of Dinosaurs" (See "About this book": <a href="http://www.nhbs.com/title/109299/in-the-presence-of-dinosaurs">http://www.nhbs.com/title/109299/in-the-presence-of-dinosaurs</a> )<br />
<br />
Stout's "The New Dinosaurs"/"The Dinosaurs: A Fantastic New View of a Lost Era" (See the back cover: <a href="http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/d/49916-1/Main+Dino+Books+rear.jpg">http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/d/49916-1/Main+Dino+Books+rear.jpg</a> )<br />
<br />
Barrett's "Dinosaurs: A Natural History"/"National Geographic Dinosaurs"<br />
<br />
Gee/Rey's "A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic" ( <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC261880/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC261880/</a> )<br />
<br />
Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs"<br />
<br />
Brusatte/Benton's "Dinosaurs" (See "Key Features" under "About this product": <a href="http://www.ebay.com/p/Dinosaurs-by-Michael-Benton-Steve-Brusatte-Hardback-2008/95523642?_trksid=p2047675.m4099.l9056#ProductDetails">http://www.ebay.com/p/Dinosaurs-by-Michael-Benton-Steve-Brusatte-Hardback-2008/95523642?_trksid=p2047675.m4099.l9056#ProductDetails</a> )<br />
<br />
Brusatte's "Field Guide to Dinosaurs" (To quote Reed J. Richmond, "This is a slimmed down version of the huge coffee table book that Brusatte did earlier (titled "Dinosaurs")")<br />
<br />
Sampson's "Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life" ( <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7048639-dinosaur-odyssey">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7048639-dinosaur-odyssey</a> )<br />
<br />
Scott's "Planet Dinosaur" ( <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Planet-Dinosaur-Natural-History-BBC-x/dp/1849900930">https://www.amazon.co.uk/Planet-Dinosaur-Natural-History-BBC-x/dp/1849900930</a> )<br />
<br />
Bakker's "The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs" ( <a href="https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/">https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/</a> )<br />
<br />
DeCourten's "Dinosaurs Of Utah" ( <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/book/41386">https://muse.jhu.edu/book/41386</a> )<br />
<br />
White's "Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game" (See "My thoughts": <a href="https://prehistoricpulp.com/2017/08/05/dinosaur-hunter-by-steve-white-2015/">https://prehistoricpulp.com/2017/08/05/dinosaur-hunter-by-steve-white-2015/</a> )<br />
<br />
Chuang/Yang's "THEM: Age Of Dinosaurs" (See "Product Key Features" under "About this product": <a href="https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/PNSO-Them-Age-of-Dinosaurs-Book/9009516086">https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/PNSO-Them-Age-of-Dinosaurs-Book/9009516086</a> )<br />
<br />
Brusatte's "Day of the Dinosaurs: Step into a spectacular prehistoric world" (See "Children's Books and other Popular Books": <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/brusatte/home/stephen-brusatte-science-writing">https://sites.google.com/site/brusatte/home/stephen-brusatte-science-writing</a> )<br />
<br />
Kuether's "The Amazing World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Journey Through the Mesozoic Era" (See "Key Features" under "About this product": <a href="https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/The-Amazing-World-of-Dinosaurs-An-Illustrated-Journey-Through-the-Mesozoic-Era-by-James-Kuether/232639747">https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/The-Amazing-World-of-Dinosaurs-An-Illustrated-Journey-Through-the-Mesozoic-Era-by-James-Kuether/232639747</a> )<br />
<br />
Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved"<br />
<br />
Paul's "The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs"/"Dinosaurs: A Field Guide" ( <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/birds/w2field.html">https://press.princeton.edu/birds/w2field.html</a> )<br />
<br />
Fastovsky/Weishampel's "Dinosaurs: A Concise Natural History"/"The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs"<br />
<br />
Brusatte's "The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: The Untold Story of a Lost World"/"The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-10733695387025682042017-06-18T21:50:00.000-06:002017-12-16T02:09:54.726-07:00My 19th Pair of ReviewsAs an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a very good book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.<br />
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 11th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 12th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 13th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 14th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 15th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 16th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 17th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-17th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-17th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 18th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/04/my-18th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/04/my-18th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51E7EQZ2N4L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="294" data-original-width="260" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51E7EQZ2N4L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51E7EQZ2N4L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51E7EQZ2N4L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Why didn't anyone tell me about this book? ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R39WS997IOS6UW/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R39WS997IOS6UW/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 4/5</b><br />
<br />
If you're anything like me (I.e. A life-long dino fan born in the 1980s), you probably grew up with Lauber's work in general & "The News About Dinosaurs" in particular, the latter of which introduced me to Henderson. It's amazing then that I didn't know about Lauber's "How Dinosaurs Came to Be" (henceforth HD) until adulthood. & it's doubly amazing how good HD is for a children's book about a very important yet under-appreciated subject:* For 1, it's very well-illustrated (I.e. Henderson's pastels are especially easy on the eyes; See the cover for what I mean); For another, it's very well-organized (I.e. Not only does it have a chronological format, but each chapter begins with a day-in-the-life story & ends with a lead-in to the next chapter); For yet another, it's very complete & in-depth.**<br />
<br />
At this point, you may be wondering why only 4/5 stars? For 1, there are several technical problems throughout HD (I.e. Dinos with too many claws & non-pastels with hard-to-make-out details). For another, HD avoids using the word "evolution" (E.g. "By studying the fossil record, paleontologists can see when and how new kinds of life developed"). Even still, I recommend reading HD in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's "Dinosaurs" in general & Chapter 39 in particular).<br />
<br />
*Google "Triassic Officially Loses Status! - General Fossil Discussion" for what I mean by "very important yet under-appreciated".<br />
<br />
**After Chapter 1 (which summarizes "the world of the early dinosaurs" & how "we know about these ancient times"), HD consists of 4 chapters, each of which focuses on a different period or epoch (Permian, Early Triassic, Middle Triassic, Late Triassic). Not only does each chapter describe the dominant land animals, but also key scientific concepts related to their dominance (E.g. Chapter 2 describes the pelycosaurs that dominated the Permian landscape as well as the continental drift that led to their dominance).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51LyHsq-0ML._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="286" data-original-width="260" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51LyHsq-0ML._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51LyHsq-0ML._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51LyHsq-0ML._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>The REAL worst dino field guide ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R11QFC0SN4L2PA/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R11QFC0SN4L2PA/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
If you want the best dino field guide for casual readers, get Holtz/Brett-Surman's "Jurassic World Dinosaur Field Guide". As you may remember, I referred to Brusatte's "Field Guide to Dinosaurs" as "the worst dino field guide" ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1BHCV2E970BGY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1849160066">https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1BHCV2E970BGY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1849160066</a> ). However, that was before I read Moody's "Dinofile: Profiles of 120 Amazing, Terrifying and Bizarre Beasts" (henceforth Dinofile). Brusatte's book is at least well-organized & authoritative. Dinofile isn't even that. In this review, I list the other, more major problems (which, ironically, are listed as highlights on the back cover) while using the Microraptor profile as the main example ( <a href="http://palaeofail.tumblr.com/post/71902141271/happy-new-year-from-palaeofail">http://palaeofail.tumblr.com/post/71902141271/happy-new-year-from-palaeofail</a> ).<br />
<br />
1) To say that Dinofile is annoying in terms of writing would be a major understatement. This is especially apparent in the so-called "in-depth profiles".* Even if you only read the "at-a-glance information", you'll see that the animal names are annoyingly misspelled (E.g. Maniraptora is misspelled as Manuraptora) & inconsistent (E.g. Some of the dromaeosaurs are grouped as maniraptorans, while others are grouped as eumaniraptorans).<br />
<br />
2) To say that Dinofile is hit-&-miss in terms getting the facts straight would be a major understatement. Again, this is especially apparent in the so-called "in-depth profiles". Even if you only read the "at-a-glance information", you'll see that there's an average of at least 3 factual errors per page in Dinofile, a 64 page book (E.g. Microraptor =/= 50 cm & 128-126 MYA).<br />
<br />
3) Pixel-shack's "stunning and accurate computer artworks" are actually anything but. The scaly-skinned, bunny-handed Microraptor is bad, but not as bad as it gets in Dinofile (E.g. The Thecodontosaurus has a green iguana's feet, the Falcarius has a Velociraptor's head, & the Pachyrhinosaurus is a cyclops). It's also worth mentioning that many of the dinos drool a lot.<br />
<br />
4) Many of the "silhouettes showing size comparison to humans" are ridiculously oversized. This is especially apparent in the dromaeosaur profiles: The Microraptor silhouette is Velociraptor-sized compared to humans, while the Velociraptor silhouette is Deinonychus-sized compared to humans; See FredtheDinosaurman's "Dromaeosauridae size chart for Wikipedia" for how said dromaeosaurs actually compare in size: <a href="https://fredthedinosaurman.deviantart.com/art/Dromaeosauridae-size-chart-for-Wikipedia-708931961">https://fredthedinosaurman.deviantart.com/art/Dromaeosauridae-size-chart-for-Wikipedia-708931961</a><br />
<br />
*So-called because they're annoyingly vague (E.g. See the Microraptor profile; Notice that it doesn't explain what it means by "bird-like dinosaurs" nor why Microraptor & Troodon don't count).Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-83242827159545210012017-04-16T22:12:00.000-06:002018-02-06T17:28:09.891-07:00My 18th Pair of ReviewsAs an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a very good book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.<br />
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 11th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 12th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 13th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 14th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 15th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 16th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 17th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-17th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-17th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61xwXEevNGL._SX260_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="260" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61xwXEevNGL._SX260_.jpg" width="250" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61xwXEevNGL._SX260_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61xwXEevNGL._SX260_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>Could be better, but still good ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1Z11U1ZI7TALW/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1Z11U1ZI7TALW/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 4/5</b><br />
<br />
As you may remember, I've always wanted a sequel issue to Wexo's "Zoobooks - Dinosaurs" (henceforth ZD: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/RAVE9K9147YWQ/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/RAVE9K9147YWQ/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ). Now, thanks to "Bring Dinosaurs Back to Life: New Zoobooks Dinos for Kids", there's a whole series of sequel issues. "Zoobooks Zoodinos Tyrannosaurus Rex" (henceforth ZZ) is the 1st sequel issue. In this review, I list the 3 major differences between ZZ & ZD that seem bad, but are actually good.<br />
<br />
1) ZZ is for younger kids than ZD (6-12 vs. 9 & up, respectively): This seems bad because it implies that ZZ doesn't do as much as ZD; This seems to be the case when you compare "Meet the Theropods!" ( <a href="https://sayeridiary.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/theropod.png?resize=760%2C463">https://sayeridiary.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/theropod.png?resize=760%2C463</a> ) to the theropod part of "Zoobooks: Dinosaurs - Poster" ( <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/babbletrish/5747604441">https://www.flickr.com/photos/babbletrish/5747604441</a> ); However, this is actually good because, to paraphrase the Nostalgia Critic ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL4vRihNk4s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL4vRihNk4s</a> ), ZZ "had to find new avenues that people wouldn't think of if they had the luxury of" a higher age range; In this case, ZZ has less text, but uses more of it to discuss theropods & what they have in common; Also, ZZ has fewer theropod genera, but does more with them by showing the most extreme examples of theropod diversity doing their thing in their natural environment (as opposed to running around in a vacuum like ZD).<br />
<br />
2) ZZ is mostly illustrated by Wilson (as opposed to Hallett like ZD): This seems bad because 1) nostalgia is a powerful thing, & 2) Hallett is "one of the most influential masters of modern dinosaur imagery" ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hallett_%28artist%29">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hallett_%28artist%29</a> ); However, this is actually good because 1) variety is the spice of life, & 2) while Hallett's paleoart is better overall, Wilson's is easier on the eyes & thus better for younger kids (Google Books search "Aesthetics A classroom is" for why); Also, while Wilson's ZZ work isn't the best, it's still good & MUCH better than his previous work (E.g. Compare ZZ's cover to that of Brown's "The Day the Dinosaurs Died").<br />
<br />
3) 1 definitely-good difference is the organization of ZZ. More specifically, ZZ is a reverse day-in-the-life dino book & thus MUCH better organized than ZD. I like how the science builds up to a day-in-the-life story of "Hungry Tara" that ties all the science together. My only problem with the story is Harren's paleoart (which is better looking but less accurate than Wilson's).*<br />
<br />
*E.g. Harren's T.rex is a shameless rip-off of the "Jurassic Park" T.rex.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61XSVK7MBCL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61XSVK7MBCL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="237" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61XSVK7MBCL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61XSVK7MBCL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>The odd life of a young sparkleraptor ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R2BSHHZ5GWKWZJ/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R2BSHHZ5GWKWZJ/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
If you want the best day-in-the-life dromaeosaur book, get Bakker's "Raptor Pack" & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's "Dinosaurs" in general & Chapter 20 in particular). As far as I know, Bakker's book gives the best idea of 1) what dromaeosaurs were like when alive, & 2) how we know what we know. I can't say the same about Henry's "RAPTOR: The Life of a Young Deinonychus" (henceforth Life). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.<br />
<br />
1) The 1st part of a day-in-the-life dino book usually tells a day-in-the-life story of a dino. 1 of the major problems I have with many day-in-the-life dino books is that their stories are poorly-written. The same goes for Life: Being complete & in-depth is especially important to a day-in-the-life story that covers more than a day ( <a href="http://prehistoricpulp.blogspot.com/2007/07/raptor-red-by-robert-t-bakker-1995.html">http://prehistoricpulp.blogspot.com/2007/07/raptor-red-by-robert-t-bakker-1995.html</a> ); The problem is that Life is anything but, skipping & glossing over many important things in Deinonychus's life (E.g. Everything related to reproduction).<br />
<br />
2) 1 of the major problems I have with many day-in-the-life dino books is that their stories are poorly-illustrated. The same goes for Life: If you think Rey's Deinonychus is ugly, then you'll hate Penney's; The former is at least plausible; The latter isn't even that (E.g. Pronated hands, feathers that look more like bush viper scales, etc); Worse still, the latter is a "Sparkleraptor" ( <a href="http://babbletrish.deviantart.com/art/PSA-Addendum-177783393">http://babbletrish.deviantart.com/art/PSA-Addendum-177783393</a> ); Not only is that misleading, but also hypocritical (Quoting Penney: "Painting dinosaurs in bright colors…makes more sense than thinking that all dinosaurs were either gray or brown, which is how they were painted during the first half of the twentieth century").<br />
<br />
3) The 2nd part of a day-in-the-life dino book usually explains the science behind the story. 1 of the major problems I have with many day-in-the-life dino books is that they concentrate on the story with only limited emphasis on the science (which doesn't make sense to me given how much science there is behind a given story). The same doesn't go for Life, but only because there's almost no emphasis on the science: There's a map (See the Henry quote) & an artist's note; That's about it. In other words, not only do the dinos not act like dinos, but there's no scientific justification given for how they acted.*<br />
<br />
*At best, Life's Deinonychus is more croc-like than dino-like. At worst, Life's Deinonychus is unlike any real animal. In reference to "At best", it's stated that "Deinonychus's mate sits on a buried clutch of eggs", presumably based on croc nest-guarding (Quoting GSPaul: "A female drapes part of her body in irregular poses atop a nest within which her eggs are deeply buried"). In actuality, pennaraptorans in general & Deinonychus in particular brooded their eggs ( <a href="http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e06-033">http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e06-033</a> ). In reference to "At worst", it's implied that animal packs are competition-based hierarchies, presumably based on "the notions of "alpha wolf" and "alpha dog"" ( <a href="http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629">http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629</a> ). In actuality, wolf packs are families. The same goes for dino packs (Quoting Orellana/Rojas: "Cooperative hunting is executed by pairs, family groups, or sibling groups, and is generally related to cooperative breeding").<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Henry: "The Cretaceous Period lasted from 146 million years ago until 65 million years ago. This map shows how the landmasses of the planet looked at the time of our story, 100 million years ago. The white outlines denote the modern shapes of the continents as we know them today.<br />
Our story takes place in North America, in the great forest that existed beyond the western shore of the great inland sea called the Niobrara. The fossil remains of several different kinds of dinosaurian raptors...including Deinonychus...have been discovered here."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-53540993167596002582017-01-22T20:09:00.000-07:002018-04-30T00:06:48.778-06:00My 17th Pair of Reviews<div class="tr_bq">
As an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.</div>
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 11th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 12th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 13th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 14th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 15th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 16th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-16th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51QRC6vj%2BvL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51QRC6vj%2BvL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="213" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51QRC6vj%2BvL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51QRC6vj%2BvL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>1 of a kind ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R385LV9OEXYSG8/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R385LV9OEXYSG8/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 5/5</b><br />
<br />
Short version: If you want the only popular adult book about dino traces, get Martin's "Dinosaurs Without Bones: Dinosaur Lives Revealed by their Trace Fossils" (henceforth Bones). If you want the best adult day-in-the-life dino book, get Bones. If you want the most 1 of a kind adult dino book, get Bones.<br />
<br />
Long version: Read on.<br />
<br />
As you may have noticed, I usually review non-fiction dino books that either don't get enough praise for being good or don't get enough criticism for being bad. What's interesting about Bones is that it got a lot of praise for covering so much ground on dino traces, but little-to-no praise for how it covers said ground (which is what really makes it 1 of a kind). Not only is Bones the only popular adult book about dino traces, but also the best adult day-in-the-life dino book. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why I think that is.<br />
<br />
1) The 1st part of a day-in-the-life dino book usually tells a day-in-the-life story of a dino. 1 of the major problems I have with many day-in-the-life dino books is that their stories are poorly-written. Thanks to Martin, Bones doesn't have that problem. In fact, Bones is basically a dino-centric version of Aardema's "Why Mosquitoes Buzz in People's Ears: A West African Tale" written in the style of Bakker's "Raptor Red", but better: For 1, Chapter 1 tells a day-in-the-life story of a "big male Triceratops" & how its "aggressive movement...triggered overt and subtle changes in the behaviors of nearly every dinosaur nearby"; This is like Aardema's book ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1K4wXy2CI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1K4wXy2CI</a> ), but better because it's more realistic; For another, Chapter 1 "serves as a vehicle for [Martin] to give science lessons in a user-friendly format" ( <a href="http://prehistoricpulp.blogspot.com/2007/07/raptor-red-by-robert-t-bakker-1995.html">http://prehistoricpulp.blogspot.com/2007/07/raptor-red-by-robert-t-bakker-1995.html</a> ); This is like Bakker's book, but better because "most [of the dinos in Chapter 1] are from near the end of the Cretaceous Period (about 70 million years ago) and in an area defined approximately by Montana and Alberta, Canada."* This is especially apparent in the Martin quote.<br />
<br />
2) The 2nd part of a day-in-the-life dino book usually explains the science behind the story. 1 of the major problems I have with many day-in-the-life dino books is that they concentrate on the story with only limited emphasis on the science (which doesn't make sense to me given how much science there is behind a given story). It'd be like "The Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy: Extended Edition — Blu-ray" having 26 hours of film & only 11 hours of bonus material ( <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/dvd/2011-06-30-lord-of-the-rings-dvd-extra_n.htm">http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/dvd/2011-06-30-lord-of-the-rings-dvd-extra_n.htm</a> ). Thanks to Martin, Bones doesn't have that problem. In fact, Bones is the closest thing we have to an adult day-in-the-life dino book done right, LOTR style: Not only do Chapters 2-11 cover all of the dino traces in Chapter 1, but also all related dino traces (E.g. See the Martin quote; Not only does Chapter 8 cover dino "scat", but also dino stomach & intestinal contents, vomit, & urine); It helps that, like LOTR DVD extras, Chapters 2-11 are very well-organized, beginning with Triceratops tracks (in reference to the big male's "aggressive movement") in Chapter 2 & ending with sauropod trails (which made "the sunlit valley" itself possible) in Chapter 11.<br />
<br />
If I could, I'd give Bones a 4.5/5. My only problem is the lack of paleoart (There's a series of color plates; That's about it): On the 1 hand, Bones is a "TRANSITION TO THE TECHNICAL" & thus doesn't have "lots of different dinosaurs fully restored" ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/05/holtzs-dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf-article.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/05/holtzs-dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf-article.html</a> ); On the other hand, similar books do have "high quality pictures and graphs that break up the text" ( <a href="https://paleoaerie.org/2014/06/02/best-introduction-to-evolution-textbook/">https://paleoaerie.org/2014/06/02/best-introduction-to-evolution-textbook/</a> ); At the very least, Chapter 1 should've been illustrated for obvious reasons. However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5.<br />
<br />
*To quote Holtz ( <a href="http://dml.cmnh.org/1995Sep/msg00258.html">http://dml.cmnh.org/1995Sep/msg00258.html</a> ), "The fauna Bakker portrays is a very artificial one, combining genera from two different parts of the Early Cretaceous."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Martin: "In between the two Triceratops, a group of small feathered theropod dinosaurs with stubby forearms—similar to the Asian alvarezsaur Mononykus—and a nearby bunch of slightly larger ornithopod dinosaurs (Thescelosaurus) looked on warily. Each of these groups of dinosaurs had been striding unhurriedly across the floodplain, tolerating one another's presence, spurred on by intriguing scents wafting down the sunlit valley. Nevertheless, a charging Triceratops provided a good reason to temporarily abandon their longterm goals and deal with this more immediate problem.<br />
In unison, they all looked up at the advancing Triceratops, its profile and rapidly increasing pace causing it to appear ever larger as it neared. Next to them, a mixed flock of toothed birds and pterosaurs all turned and aligned themselves with the wind at their backs. They began hopping while flapping their wings, and then were aloft, chattering loudly. This was all the motivation one of the more skittish theropods needed to start running, and the rest of his group followed suit. The ornithopods only hesitated a second or two before doing the same. First, though, more than a few of both species lightened the load before taking off, involuntarily voiding their bowels and leaving variably colored and sized scat, peppered with seeds, on top of their distinctive footprints. In her haste, one Thescelosaurus slipped on a muddy patch and fell on her side. She quickly righted herself and bolted to catch up with the others, leaving a long, smeared body impression on the sand among the tracks."</blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn-rainbowresource.netdna-ssl.com/products/032507.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="600" height="253" src="https://cdn-rainbowresource.netdna-ssl.com/products/032507.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn-rainbowresource.netdna-ssl.com/products/032507.jpg">https://cdn-rainbowresource.netdna-ssl.com/products/032507.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>The paleoart is the only good part ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/RRMG7G6JUAPF7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/RRMG7G6JUAPF7/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 2/5</b><br />
<br />
If you want the best digital paleoart, get Csotonyi's "The Paleoart of Julius Csotonyi". If you can't afford Csotonyi's book, get Stewart's "Why Did T. rex Have Short Arms?: And Other Questions about Dinosaurs" (henceforth Arms). Arms is some of Csotonyi's best work next to his Oxford University Museum of Natural History labels ( <a href="https://morethanadodo.com/2015/08/07/bringing-dinosaurs-to-life/">https://morethanadodo.com/2015/08/07/bringing-dinosaurs-to-life/</a> ). In terms of paleoart, Csotonyi is basically "Peter Zallinger, Doug Henderson and Greg Paul" combined into 1 awesome being ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Paleoart-Julius-Csotonyi/dp/1781169128">https://www.amazon.com/Paleoart-Julius-Csotonyi/dp/1781169128</a> ). Unfortunately, the paleoart is the only good part of Arms.<br />
<br />
As you may remember, I generally dislike the dino Q&A genre for 3 main reasons: 1) Redundant questions; 2) Vague answers; 3) Bad Q&As (I.e. Stupid or misleading questions & misleading or wrong answers). Arms, while not the worst Children's dino Q&A book, is still very bad:<br />
-Redundant questions? Uncheck (There are only 16 questions), but Arms more than makes up for this in the following ways.<br />
-Vague answers? Check times infinity! The 1st Stewart quote is the worst because it answers 1 of the biggest questions in science with a vague "just so" story (See the penultimate paragraph).<br />
-Bad Q&As? Check times infinity! The 1st Stewart quote is the worst because it fails on many levels: It contradicts itself from a previous Q&A (See the 2nd Stewart quote; If "birds are a group of dinosaurs", then people did, & still do, "live at the same time as dinosaurs"); It avoids using the word "evolution" (as does the rest of Arms); It fails to understand that "developed" =/= "evolved" ( <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html</a> ); It fails to get the facts straight (E.g. To quote Witmer, Archaeopteryx looked like "just another feathered predatory dinosaur"; Each wing had 3 LONG fingers); It fails to explain what it means by "dino-bird". & if that's not bad enough, it isn't even illustrated with Csotonyi's Archaeopteryx, but with a stock photo of a shameless rip-off of Sibbick's Archaeopteryx with a scaly dragon face & "Wings...but with hands!" ( <a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/illustration-of-archaeopteryx-preys-on-a-dragonfly-in-stock-graphic/82828488">http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/illustration-of-archaeopteryx-preys-on-a-dragonfly-in-stock-graphic/82828488</a> ).*<br />
<br />
To sum up, I recommend getting Arms ONLY for the paleoart. If you want to know "Why Did T. rex Have Short Arms", google "Wyrex’s fancy footwork and tender hands: Get to know this tyrannosaur’s softer side".<br />
<br />
*Google "Vintage Dinosaur Art: The Age of Dinosaurs" for "Wings...but with hands!"<br />
<blockquote>
Quoting Stewart: "Are there any dinosaurs alive today?<br />
Believe it or not, birds are the modern relatives of dinosaurs. In fact, T.rex is more closely related to a blue jay than to an alligator.<br />
Most paleontologists think that birds are a group of dinosaurs that developed around 150 million years ago. Archaeopteryx...may be the earliest true bird discovered so far. It lived in central Europe about 150 million years ago.<br />
Archaeopteryx looked like a cross between a lizard and a bird. Like a lizard, it had sharp teeth and a long tail. Its body was covered in feathers, and it had wings. But each wing had three small fingers with claws on the ends.<br />
Scientists think that feathers first developed to help dinosaurs stay warm. Over time, feathers became larger and dino-bird bodies became more equipped to fly. At some point, feathered dinosaurs got a split-second of extra "lift" when they pounced on prey. This gave them an advantage over other small dinosaurs and helped them survive. As their bodies continued to change, dino-birds learned to glide. Eventually, they took flight.<br />
By the time an asteroid struck Earth 65 million years ago, many kinds of dino-birds lived all over the world. Some of them survived the disaster and developed into the birds we see today." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Stewart: "Did people live at the same time as dinosaurs?<br />
No way! The earliest humans walked the earth around 2.3 million years ago. By then, dinosaurs had been dead and gone for more than 60 million years.<br />
Our ancient relatives shared the world with large herbivores such as woolly mammoths and giant ground sloths. They worried about being attacked by cave bears and saber-tooth cats. None of these larger mammals are alive today. They are extinct. Scientists are still trying to figure out why they disappeared."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-48235075802524415612016-12-31T18:09:00.000-07:002018-01-24T16:48:17.958-07:00Ben's Phylogenetics is Moon Man TalkHi everybody,<br />
<br />
As you may remember, I said that I have a Bachelor of Science in "Natural History and Interpretation" ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/introducing-hadiazmy-1st-listmania-list.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/introducing-hadiazmy-1st-listmania-list.html</a> ). Thus, I had a lot to say in my comment on Ben's "Phylogenetics is Moon Man Talk" ( <a href="https://extinctmonsters.net/2016/12/21/phylogenetics-is-moon-man-talk/">https://extinctmonsters.net/2016/12/21/phylogenetics-is-moon-man-talk/</a> ). This post is a modified version of said comment. Here's hoping you get as much out of Ben's blog as I did. It's been very influential to my reviewing ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1Y51RJP1YORCC/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1416938575&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1Y51RJP1YORCC/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1416938575&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books</a> ).<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Herman Diaz<br />
<br />
P.S. Happy New Year!<br />
<br />
Quoting Ben: "People are introduced to these categories in grade school, and you’d be hard-pressed to find somebody who couldn’t tell you whether (say) a cat is a mammal or a reptile. What is missing is what that actually means. We can’t assume that just because somebody knows a cat is a mammal, they know that fur and milk glands…are things to look for when categorizing mammals. They also may not know that “mammal” is an evolutionary group – that all the animals that fall under this banner are more closely related to each other than they are to anything else."<br />
<br />
If that's the case, then I'm surprised, given that even I (I.e. A little dum-dum who grew up in various small hick towns) knew & heard all that in grade school: That some animals are more closely related than others; That the more closely related ones share certain features that others lack (E.g. In reference to mammals, even whales have some body hair). My lifelong interest in dinos & educational tv might've helped, but I still didn't know much else about evolution until college. Speaking of educational tv, the "Who's Who?" episode of "Kratts' Creatures" may be the best children's tv explanation of how animals evolved (& thus, should be required viewing for anyone who talks to laypeople about phylogeny: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01HE2Z9CU?tag=clicker_nonpiv-20&SubscriptionId=0SMVYTEJQZQ0MFNMXQ02&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01HE2Z9CU">https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01HE2Z9CU?tag=clicker_nonpiv-20&SubscriptionId=0SMVYTEJQZQ0MFNMXQ02&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01HE2Z9CU</a> ).<br />
<br />
Paraphrasing Ben: "as Torrens and Barahona demonstrate, [cladograms] are regularly misinterpreted by the public."<br />
<br />
Cladograms on their own, yes, but if an educator is using one like you describe ("How can educators hope to cover so much ground without confusing, distracting, or alienating their audiences? One option is to use a cladogram, or evolutionary tree"), then that shouldn't be a problem b/c the educator is there to clarify the cladogram.<br />
<br />
Quoting Ben: "Basic Vertebrate Classification…Evolutionary History Through Deep Time"<br />
<br />
You're obviously much more intelligent/experienced than I could ever hope to be. However, I feel like maybe I can provide a different perspective (& thus, a possible solution), given my personal experience as a little dum-dum who had to figure out a lot of that on his own through trial & error.<br />
<br />
When laypeople ask me what something is, I 1st ask them if they know what reptiles/mammals/etc are & then describe the something accordingly. For instance, when talking about dinos, I describe reptiles as "4-legged backboned animals characterized by keratin scales (among other things)", dinos as "land-living reptiles with an erect posture", birds as "flying (or secondarily flightless) feathered dinos", etc. In your case, I'd describe mammals as "4-legged backboned animals characterized by body hair & milk glands (among other things)" & non-mammal synapsids as "proto-mammals, or extinct relatives of true mammals".* Also, when asked why something (E.g. Pterosaurs) isn't part of a certain group (E.g. Dinos), I say, "All dinos (including birds) share a common ancestor & certain features inherited from that ancestor (E.g. An open hip socket). Pterosaurs lack said features, which is how we know they're not dinos." If/when need be, I explain that said features might seem small/insignificant to us, but make a big difference in the evolution of said animals (E.g. An open hip socket allowed the erect posture of dinos, which allowed them to run faster & grow larger than other reptiles). Does that help?<br />
<br />
*Seriously, educators should use "proto-" more often. It helps a lot when describing intermediate groups to laypeople (E.g. Non-dino dinosauromorphs = proto-dinos, or extinct relatives of true dinos; Non-croc pseudosuchians = proto-crocs, or extinct relatives of true crocs; etc).<br />
<br />
Quoting Ben: "How Scientists Discover Evolutionary Relationships"<br />
<br />
Have you read Hedley's "Dinosaurs and Their Living Relatives"? If not, I definitely recommend doing so. It may be the best children's dino book when it comes to explaining that (& thus, should be required reading for anyone who talks to laypeople about phylogeny). I like it so much that I reviewed it in "Cladistics yay!" ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1SCM65CLPZD4M/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1SCM65CLPZD4M/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ). Here's hoping you like "Cladistics yay!" (&, assuming you have an Amazon account, vote Yes for it ;) ).Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-27062686998992732452016-12-13T20:01:00.003-07:002016-12-13T20:01:56.843-07:00Animation is back<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I'm still alive, but have had a few board game gigs (that paid) pop up. I haven't given up on my palaeo-animation project. <br /><br />I have been discouraged by the difficulty of proper CGI pixar style animation (I'm only the one person, and a hobbyist at that).<br /><br />As I'm aiming for little lighthearted factoid clips, and not full length products, I've started experimenting with a more 16 bit video game technique, which I think is starting to look cool.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyzW60pFe92balqlOmchG_zin_S_KPMyvxOZpVwid0MOjw8vq2Yxzin0uqrLjRi5gkfCNeNaSj3aFBll5ih_Q' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Input is welcome.traumadorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00387315561167115253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-56418514334569217522016-12-04T06:15:00.001-07:002016-12-04T06:15:16.071-07:00Case of a Mosasaur picture<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This story originally <a href="https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.hk/2016/12/the-case-of-stolen-tylosaurus.html">posted by Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs</a>. For more details please do visit their very fine site.<br />
<br />
This particular case particularly interests me as it involves a Mosasaur from the Southern Hemisphere...<br /><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4d3HWFeNX4vLFtCuRbmzkPko2a4FW_l7deEEsjSCaRL92ShPi_9NbAHBFFR1_2XR9CcgWMGL0v-TneZzFxYw5vAdt4PjHX9sFcvZgrMWMwDEWkEFNa13O6lW4HO9rYjOcm24JwdIvCB4M/s1600/elbein-art-theft.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4d3HWFeNX4vLFtCuRbmzkPko2a4FW_l7deEEsjSCaRL92ShPi_9NbAHBFFR1_2XR9CcgWMGL0v-TneZzFxYw5vAdt4PjHX9sFcvZgrMWMwDEWkEFNa13O6lW4HO9rYjOcm24JwdIvCB4M/s640/elbein-art-theft.png" width="640" /></a><br />The short version is someone took Asher Elbein's fine picture of a Tylosaurus, and without his permission reposted it onto the site Dinopedia under a CC licence. Obviously this licence was illegal, but compounding the issue is a research team/paper picked up the picture and copied it for use in a paper about a new Antarctic Tylosaurine. Despite the false CC licence, the scientists in question did not credit the art that they blatantly traced...<br /><br />As I'm still in palaeo art hibernation, I'm not pretending to be super involved or knowledgeable beyond that, and again direct you to <a href="https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.hk/2016/12/the-case-of-stolen-tylosaurus.html">Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs</a> if you want any more details.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />traumadorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00387315561167115253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-26728862450118027132016-11-22T00:53:00.000-07:002018-03-30T19:48:08.674-06:00My 16th Pair of Reviews<div class="tr_bq">
As an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.</div>
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 11th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 12th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 13th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 14th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 15th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://ia600708.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/34/items/olcovers702/olcovers702-L.zip&file=7024262-L.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://ia600708.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/34/items/olcovers702/olcovers702-L.zip&file=7024262-L.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://ia600708.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/34/items/olcovers702/olcovers702-L.zip&file=7024262-L.jpg">https://ia600708.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/34/items/olcovers702/olcovers702-L.zip&file=7024262-L.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Cladistics yay! ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1SCM65CLPZD4M/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1SCM65CLPZD4M/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv</a> ): 5/5</b><br />
<br />
To quote Grandmother Fish ( <a href="https://plus.google.com/+Grandmotherfish/posts/9vgV2CqjerP">https://plus.google.com/+Grandmotherfish/posts/9vgV2CqjerP</a> ), clades "are central to a modern understanding of how we living things relate to each other." Before Holtz's "Dinosaurs", Hedley's "Dinosaurs and Their Living Relatives" (henceforth Living) was 1 of the best children's dino books when it came to introducing older kids (especially those who like activity books) to cladistics. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is, 1 for each part of Living (See the Hedley quote).<br />
<br />
1) To quote Sampson ( <a href="http://www.scottsampson.net/index.php?page=dinosaur-odyssey">http://www.scottsampson.net/index.php?page=dinosaur-odyssey</a> ), "all science writing should follow Albert Einstein’s dictum: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”" That's exactly what Living does. More specifically, Living guides readers step-by-step through using cladistics to work out relationships. This is especially apparent in the 1st part (E.g. 1st, it defines & gives examples of homologues; Then, it defines & gives examples of analogues; Last, it asks readers, "Can you recognize homologues? Two of these animals have structures that are homologous to a bird's wing. Which do you think they are?"). In that sense, Living is basically a cladistic activity book.<br />
<br />
2) To paraphrase Milner ( <a href="http://www.accessscience.com/content/dino-birds/YB061940">http://www.accessscience.com/content/dino-birds/YB061940</a> ), "It has been widely accepted for more than [20 years before Sinosauropteryx] that birds are direct descendants of small theropods...called maniraptorans." Living is very good at showing that. This is especially apparent in the 2nd part (I.e. See the Padian quote; Chapter 5 is basically that, but in a more step-by-step form).<br />
<br />
3) The 3rd part is illustrated with Graham High's dino models & they're very life-like. This is especially apparent in the cover: Remember when Lex shines the light into the T.rex's eye in "Jurassic Park"?; To quote Faraci ( <a href="http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2011/05/05/best-movies-ever-jurassic-park-1993">http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2011/05/05/best-movies-ever-jurassic-park-1993</a> ), "the way the beast’s pupil dilates is amazing and scary at once. This seems to be a real thing!, you think, in awe. And it’s right there, inches away!, you think, afraid for the kids"; The same goes for the cover. It's also worth mentioning that the Preface & Chapter 1 are illustrated with Peter Snowball's dino paintings & they're very easy on the eyes. 1 of my only gripes is that some of the herbivorous dinos (especially the sauropods) are depicted as dragging their tails.*<br />
<br />
*My other gripe is the lack of evolution (I.e. Living uses the word "evolution" multiple times, but doesn't define it).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Hedley: "This book takes a completely new approach to the study of dinosaurs. It sets out to discover how dinosaurs are related to other animals...both living and extinct. It begins by explaining a simple method for working out the relationships between animals. Then, using many photographs and diagrams, it applies this method to the dinosaurs. The book ends with a unique series of new full-colour illustrations of many of the Natural History Museum's most famous dinosaurs...as they may have appeared when they were alive." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Padian ( <a href="https://ncse.com/library-resource/dinosaurs-birds-update">https://ncse.com/library-resource/dinosaurs-birds-update</a> ): "In a short paper in Nature, John Ostrom (1973) first laid out a case for the descent of birds from theropod dinosaurs. At the time, other ideas had recently been proposed, linking birds to crocodiles or to a more vaguely defined group of archosaurs (the group that includes birds, dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs, and many extinct relatives). Although all three hypotheses had early proponents, only the dinosaur-bird hypothesis survived the decade, mainly because (1) the evidence was convincing, (2) the hypothesis survived repeated tests using cladistic analysis, and (3) the alternatives were too vaguely phrased, there was no convincing evidence for them, and they failed repeated cladistic testing. The public tends to think that there is a substantial controversy among scientists about the ancestry of birds, partly because the public does not understand cladistics and partly because cladistics is rejected as a method by the opponents of the dinosaur-bird hypothesis."</blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511PuhIrNhL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511PuhIrNhL.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511PuhIrNhL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511PuhIrNhL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>BANDitry boo! ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VEMQKSPPFFLC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330">https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VEMQKSPPFFLC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330</a> ) 1/5</b><br />
<br />
If you want the best insider's book about dinos for kids, get Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs". Despite all the praise heaped on them (See "More About the Author"), Markle's "Outside And Inside" series in general & "Outside And Inside Dinosaurs" (henceforth Outside) in particular were never the best or even just decent in their own right. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why I think that is while using the Markle quote as an example.<br />
<br />
1) Outside seems to pander to the fringe group BAND (= Birds Are Not Dinosaurs). More specifically, debunked BANDit claims are depicted as being as valid as dino expert facts. In the Markle quote alone, it's claimed that growth rings indicate ectothermy (They don't), Troodon was ectothermic (It wasn't), scaly skin indicates ectothermy (It doesn't), Sinosauropteryx imprints could be "frilly fins" (They couldn't be), & said imprints could be collagen fibers (They couldn't be). Said claims are probably because BANDit Terry Jones is 1 of the researchers Markle thanks "for sharing their enthusiasm and expertise". The problem is that BANDits aren't dino experts (See the GSPaul quote), but 9 of the researchers are & have been debunking BANDit claims for years, especially Tim Rowe, who co-authored Dingus/Rowe's "Mistaken Extinction: Dinosaur Evolution and the Origin of Birds".<br />
<br />
2) Even if you ignore the fringe pandering, Outside still fails in the following ways (which apply to the "Outside And Inside" series in general):<br />
-The photos are grainy to varying degrees. Surprise surprise, the grainiest photos are of feathered dino fossils & taken by Terry Jones, who (as indicated by the Naish quote) is known for using grainy-as-heck photos.<br />
-The writing is too simple & condescending (E.g. To quote Bakker from a good children's dino book, "When you look at dinosaur bone under a microscope, you see it's full of tiny holes for little blood vessels. That means that the blood flow was high and the body generated a lot of heat"; Compare that to the 1st 2 paragraphs of the Markle quote).<br />
-The text is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight: On average, there's 1 or 2 factual errors per page in Outside, a 40 page book; Those in the Markle quote are especially cringe-worthy (E.g. "Feathery scales" & "Feathered scales"; See "Feather evolution" for why they're so cringe-worthy: <a href="http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm">http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm</a> ).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Markle: "A special tool, called a microscope, was used to enlarge this slice of a Troodon's leg bone. It offers a clue to solving a mystery: Did dinosaurs produce their own body heat or did they just soak up heat from the world around them?<br />
See the rings in the bone? Some dinosaur experts believe these rings could mean the dinosaur soaked up heat. All animals need heat energy to be active and grow, so the dinosaur may have grown more when it was warmer. However not all dinosaur bones have rings. Some dinosaur bones are full of holes, like the bones of animals that make their own body heat. When the dinosaur was alive, the holes were filled with tubes that carried blood. The blood quickly spread heat energy throughout the animal's body.<br />
But the question still remains: Did dinosaurs produce their own heat? More clues are needed to solve this mystery.<br />
Here's another clue. It's an imprint of a Hadrosaurus' skin. The little bumps are like those on an alligator. This sort of scaly skin is a good, tough covering for a body that soaks up heat by lying on the ground. So did all dinosaurs have scaly skin?<br />
Dinosaur imprints, like this one of a Sinosauropteryx, make some researchers believe there were dinosaurs with feathery scales. If these were like down feathers they would have been good for holding in body heat. Feathered scales could be proof that at least some dinosaurs produced their own heat.<br />
Other researchers don't think such imprints show skin at all. Some believe the imprints show frilly fins like those seen on the backs of some of today's lizards. Others believe the imprints show a kind of tissue that lies just underneath the skin, connecting the skin to the muscles and bones."</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting GSPaul ( <a href="http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Jan/msg00318.html">http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Jan/msg00318.html</a> ): "I also agree with AF that although cladistics is very important, it is also not phylogenetic nirvana. What AF does not know is how overwhelming is the skull, skeletal, eggshell and nesting behaviour evidence that advanced theropods are the ancestors of birds. Feduccia and other paleoornithologists sometimes say that we dinoologists do not understand bird anatomy well enough. Actually, we know birds quite well because they are the living dinosaurs we look at all the time. The real problem is that some paleoornithologists do not understand the anatomy of nonavian archosaurs well enough." </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Quoting Naish ( <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/17/birds-cannot-be-dinosaurs/">http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/17/birds-cannot-be-dinosaurs/</a> ): "— the innards of Sinosauropteryx and Scipionyx supposedly falsify avian-like air-sac systems in non-avian coelurosaurs and demonstrate a croc-like hepatic piston diaphragm (Ruben et al. 1997, 1999), even though a gigantic dose of personal interpretation is required to accept that this claim might be correct, even though crocodilians and dinosaurs are fundamentally different in pelvic anatomy, and even though some living birds have the key soft-tissue traits reported by Ruben et al. in Sinosauropteryx and Scipionyx yet still have an avian respiratory system [alleged diaphragm of Sinosauropteryx highlighted in adjacent image; unconvincing on all levels]"</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-36238249734063799432016-09-04T22:59:00.000-06:002017-05-27T14:57:23.253-06:00Good, Semi-good, and Bad Dino Sources 3This post is the 3rd & last part in the "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources" series. If you haven't read the 1st ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> ) or 2nd part ( <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2014/05/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2014/05/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> ), I recommend reading them b/c the former explains how said series works & the latter explains what's changed since the former.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Good</b><br />
<br />
The AMNH ("The American Museum of Natural History": <a href="http://www.amnh.org/">http://www.amnh.org</a> ) is the best popular source of any dino museum next to the NHM (See "Good": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> ). AFAIK, the AMNH has published more/better popular dino books (2 of which I reviewed) & organized more/better dino exhibitions (3 of which I mentioned in reviews) than any other dino museum.*<br />
<br />
Remember what I said about Martyniuk & Willoughby (See "Good": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2014/05/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2014/05/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> )? The same goes for Brougham ("softdinosaurs | Jason Brougham Paleontological Art": <a href="http://jasonbrougham.com/">http://jasonbrougham.com</a> ). His species reconstructions in general & "Three dinosaur genera: Gallus, Zhongornis, Bambiraptor" in particular remind me of Audubon's Bird Guide ( <a href="https://www.audubon.org/field-guide">https://www.audubon.org/field-guide</a> ) & Norell's comments about quill knobs on Velociraptor ("The more that we learn about these animals the more we find that there is basically no difference between birds and their closely related dinosaur ancestors like velociraptor. Both have wishbones, brooded their nests, possess hollow bones, and were covered in feathers. If animals like velociraptor were alive today our first impression would be that they were just very unusual looking birds": <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm</a> ), respectively.<br />
<br />
You could say that Csotonyi ("csotonyi.com": <a href="http://www.csotonyi.com/">http://www.csotonyi.com</a> ) & Hartman ("Scott Hartman's Skeletal Drawing.com": <a href="http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/">http://www.skeletaldrawing.com</a> ) are the new & improved GSPauls (See "Semi-good": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> ): Csotonyi is "one of the world's most high profile and talented contemporary paleoartists" ( <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Paleoart-Julius-Csotonyi/dp/1781169128">http://www.amazon.com/Paleoart-Julius-Csotonyi/dp/1781169128</a> ); Hartman is "a terrific resource for artists looking for reference material for illustrating dinosaurs" ( <a href="http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/06/this-thursday-learn-anatomy-from-scott.html">http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/06/this-thursday-learn-anatomy-from-scott.html</a> ); Like GSPaul, both are scientists whose "scientific training has been instrumental in informing [their] artwork" ( <a href="http://www.scienceworld.ca/blog/love-science-and-art-julius-csotonyis-dinosaurs">http://www.scienceworld.ca/blog/love-science-and-art-julius-csotonyis-dinosaurs</a> ); Unlike GSPaul, neither are "needlessly controversial" ( <a href="http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2012/01/great-skeletal-repose-of-2011_20.html">http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2012/01/great-skeletal-repose-of-2011_20.html</a> ).<br />
<br />
Remember what I said about Hone (See "Good": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> )? He has since written a dino book like Holtz ("The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs", which is for casual readers: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tyrannosaur-Chronicles-Biology-Tyrant-Dinosaurs/dp/1472911253">http://www.amazon.com/Tyrannosaur-Chronicles-Biology-Tyrant-Dinosaurs/dp/1472911253</a> ). Yay!<br />
<br />
Whether they're called "Jersey Boys Hunt Dinosaurs" or "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" (henceforth PBOTW: <a href="http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/">http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/</a> ), DiPiazza & friend(s) are, to paraphrase Thomas Edison ( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0</a> ), "so dope that [they] even make New Jersey look good". There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) To quote DiPiazza ( <a href="http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html">http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html</a> ), "Never before has there been a site that revolved around paleontology that ALSO had a strong foothold in modern animal biology, particularly endangered species conservation"; Naish's "Tetrapod Zoology" is similar, but more for the enthusiast, while PBOTW is more for casual readers; Point is, very few sources are consistently good at combining paleontology & zoology;** 2) DiPiazza is "a published paleo-artist, having painted images of dinosaurs and other prehistoric life for displays in museums, books, magazines, scientific publications, and websites. His professional experience, working closely with and observing living animals, gives him an inspirational edge when creating paleo-art" ( <a href="http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html">http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html</a> ); In other words, DiPiazza's paleoart is both the medium & the message of PBTOW's awesomeness; 3) DiPiazza & friend(s) remind me of a young Bakker in terms of background & outreach ( <a href="http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/media.html">http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/media.html</a> ); I hope they write/illustrate dino books like Bakker too, someday.<br />
<br />
"Paleoaerie" ( <a href="http://paleoaerie.org/">http://paleoaerie.org/</a> ) is to AR what "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" is to NJ.<br />
<br />
SV-POW! ("Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week": <a href="https://svpow.com/">https://svpow.com/</a> ) is the ultimate source of sauropod anatomy info. Classicalguy's "Sauropod Vertebra Picture Adventure!" ( <a href="http://classicalguy.deviantart.com/art/Sauropod-Vertebra-Picture-Adventure-411152781">http://classicalguy.deviantart.com/art/Sauropod-Vertebra-Picture-Adventure-411152781</a> ) sums up why. Put another way, SV-POW! is basically a sauropod-centric version of Naish's "Tetrapod Zoology".<br />
<br />
If Conway et al. are the A-Team of paleoart (See "Good": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> ), then Witton is the Lone Ranger ("HOME - markwitton": <a href="http://www.markwitton.com/">http://www.markwitton.com/</a> ): Whenever there's trouble, he rides in on his giant pterosaur & saves the day; His Spinosaurus posts are an especially good example of that ( <a href="http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/search/label/Spinosaurus">http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/search/label/Spinosaurus</a> ).<br />
<br />
*I'm specifically referring to Norell et al.'s "Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated" (which mentions the AMNH's "Hall of Dinosaurs": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-2nd-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-2nd-pair-of-reviews.html</a> ) & Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" (which mentions the AMNH's "Hall of Dinosaurs", "Fighting Dinos", & "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-15th-pair-of-reviews.html</a> ) for casual readers.<br />
<br />
**Some paleontologists have tried w/mixed results (E.g. Cau; See "Semi-good" for what I mean: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> ). Some zoologists have tried w/even worse results (E.g. Marven; See "Bad" below for what I mean).<br />
<br />
<b>Semi-good</b><br />
<br />
Rey's "Re: Horner Talks" ( <a href="http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Jul/msg00306.html">http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Jul/msg00306.html</a> ) sums up why Horner ("John R. Horner - Faculty and Staff": <a href="http://www.montana.edu/wwwes/facstaff/horner.htm">http://www.montana.edu/wwwes/facstaff/horner.htm</a> ) is a semi-good source of dino info.<br />
<br />
<b>Bad</b><br />
<br />
Remember what I said about Peters, Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney, & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa (See "Bad": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> )? The same goes for Jackson ("sciencepolice2010 | Become a better scientist in under an hour! See 'Essential First Post'"), but worse b/c he's basically all 3 combined into 1 horrible being. Don't take my word for it, though. Compare Jackson's comments on Naish's "The ‘Birds Come First’ hypothesis of dinosaur evolution" ( <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/08/birds-come-first-hypothesis/">http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/08/birds-come-first-hypothesis/</a> ) to Hone's "To those who would prove us wrong – a guide to scientific dialogue" (which is basically a list of how not to be Jackson: <a href="https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/to-those-who-would-prove-us-wrong-a-guide-to-scientific-dialogue/">https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/to-those-who-would-prove-us-wrong-a-guide-to-scientific-dialogue/</a> ).<br />
<br />
Zorak's "Nigel Marven is the Worst" ( <a href="http://www.anorbitalgrouse.com/video/nigel/">http://www.anorbitalgrouse.com/video/nigel/</a> ) sums up why Marven ("Nigel Marven") is a bad source of dino info.<br />
<br />
Remember what I said about Blasing & Dixon (See "Bad": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2014/05/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2014/05/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html</a> )? The same goes for Strauss ("Dinosaurs at About.com"). RaptorRex's "Another Dinosaur Field Guide!?" ( <a href="http://raptorrexdinosauria.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-dinosaur-field-guide.html">http://raptorrexdinosauria.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-dinosaur-field-guide.html</a> ) sums up what I mean. I hate to say it b/c, based on what I've read, Strauss is a nice guy. Carr's 11/13/2013 tweet ( <a href="https://twitter.com/KarenCarr_Illus/statuses/400718813361999872">https://twitter.com/KarenCarr_Illus/statuses/400718813361999872</a> ) sums up what I mean.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754373063539020297.post-51616222857111025902016-08-14T21:44:00.000-06:002018-05-20T23:08:04.554-06:00My 15th Pair of ReviewsAs an Art Evolved member, I post a pair of my reviews here every so often, the 1st being positive & the 2nd being negative. I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" for said reviews in the bolded links below. Besides wanting to make sure said reviews give a good idea of what to expect, they need all the "Yes" votes they can get because 1) the 1st is for a great book that deserves more attention, & 2) the 2nd is outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.<br />
<br />
P.S. For my previous reviews, see the following posts:<br />
-My 1st-10th Pairs of Reviews: <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/06/my-10th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 11th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-11th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 12th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-12th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 13th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-13th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
-"My 14th Pair of Reviews": <a href="http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html">http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-14th-pair-of-reviews.html</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61neUCWtvAL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61neUCWtvAL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61neUCWtvAL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61neUCWtvAL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>This book would make a great exhibit ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1G5HZTPACE9QG/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=140277074X&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1G5HZTPACE9QG/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=140277074X&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books</a> ): 5/5</b><br />
<br />
Short version: The best exhibits are attractive, brief, & clear (I.e. The ABCs of exhibit design). Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" (henceforth ID) takes the AMNH's best dino exhibits & combines them into the AMNH's best children's dino book.<br />
<br />
Long version: Read on.<br />
<br />
As you may have noticed, I usually review non-fiction dino books that either don't get enough praise for being good or don't get enough criticism for being bad. What's interesting about ID is that it got a lot of praise for being very well-illustrated, but little-to-no praise for being very well-organized & thematic. Put another way, to quote Ham (See "Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets"), the other Amazon Reviewers "worried more about the "A" than they did about the "B" and "C."" In this review, I focus on the "B" & "C" & why I think they make ID great.<br />
<br />
1) Like a great exhibit, ID is very brief/well-organized: To quote Ham, "Brief exhibits are well organized and simple; they contain five or fewer main ideas and only enough text to develop the theme; rather than having a lot of words, they show details visually; they don't appear like they require a lot of work from the viewer". That's exactly what ID does: Not only does ID contain 5 main ideas as outlined on the 1st inside flap, but also 10 fold-out pages; Not only do said pages "allow kids to dig deeper into the topics and enjoy amazing illustrations", but also make ID interactive (Quoting Ham: "Besides being more enjoyable, interactive exhibits are better "teachers" than static ones"); This reminds me of the new "DK Eyewitness" books, but more engaging.<br />
<br />
2) Like a great exhibit, ID is very clear/thematic: To quote Ham, "Clear exhibits contain a theme that is so conspicuous it can be recognized and understood in only a second or two." That's exactly what ID does: As outlined on the 1st inside flap, "This amazing book will give you the inside scoop on [dinos]...As a daring insider, you'll walk in the steps of these astonishing creatures"; The opening pages reinforce the "inside scoop" part of the theme (See the 1st Abramson et al. quote), while the closing pages reinforce the "daring insider" part of the theme (See the 2nd Abramson et al. quote); This reminds me of the "Dinosaur Train" series (Quoting Sampson: "Get outside, get into nature, and make your own discoveries!"), but for older kids.<br />
<br />
If I could, I'd give ID an extra half star for being extra authoritative. My only gripes are the non-maniraptoran reconstructions (some of which have shrink-wrapped heads &/or too many claws) & the lack of pronunciations (especially of Chinese names). 2 more things of note: 1) There are direct & indirect references to the AMNH's "Hall of Dinosaurs", "Fighting Dinos", & "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries"; 2) The AMNH keeps updates on "American Museum of Natural History" when parts of ID become outdated.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Abramson et al.: "Let's learn to look through a paleontologist's eyes and take a trip back to the time when fierce Albertosaurus stalked prey in the forests, spike-frilled Styracosaurus grazed in the ferns, groups of Corythosaurus hung out, and early birds darted through the sky. Join us as we explore the world of the dinosaur to get an inside look at the lives of these amazing creatures from long ago."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Abramson et al.: "The discovery of new dinosaur fossils can happen almost anywhere and at any time. Amateur dinosaur hunters have discovered many fossils and even whole new species. The bones of the dinosaur Bambiraptor were found by a fourteen-year-old boy on his family's ranch in Montana. So if you have exposed sedimentary rock in your backyard, don't be afraid to get out there and try to make your very own dinosaur discovery. Don't have any sedimentary rock nearby? Look at the trees…the birds you see are your very own dinosaur discoveries."</blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61lQQygI4hL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61lQQygI4hL.jpg" width="277" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61lQQygI4hL.jpg">https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61lQQygI4hL.jpg</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>The worst alternative ( <a href="https://www.amazon.com/review/R1Y51RJP1YORCC/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1416938575&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books">https://www.amazon.com/review/R1Y51RJP1YORCC/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1416938575&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books</a> ): 1/5</b><br />
<br />
For as long as there has been "Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books)" (henceforth DD), there have been wannabes. As much as I love DD, I understand why readers would want an alternative: For 1, see the Ben quote; What Ben says about "the AMNH fossil halls" goes for DD; For another, DD is a mixed bag in terms of paleoart.* However, as far as I know, Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" is the only good alternative. Long's "Dinosaurs (Insiders)" (henceforth DI) is the worst of all the other alternatives. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why I think that is, besides the text.**<br />
<br />
1) Unlike DD, DI is an annoying & confusing mess in terms of writing & organization. In reference to "annoying...writing", this is especially apparent in the sub-chapter about the dino extinction because 1) the main text explains nothing about the science behind the dino extinction story, & 2) the sidebar text needlessly re-tells said story. In reference to "confusing...organization", this is especially apparent in the sub-chapters about studying & finding/reconstructing dino fossils because 1) you have to find dino fossils BEFORE you can study/reconstruct them, & 2) the text explaining said processes is scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason.<br />
<br />
2) Unlike DD's life reconstructions, DI's are mostly not-so-good. Those by Carr are as good as it gets in DI, while those by Pixel-shack are as bad as it gets: In reference to Carr, that's not saying much; Some of her life reconstructions are OK (E.g. See the small T.rex on the front cover), while others are just plain outdated/abominable (E.g. See the feathered dinos on the back cover; Some have pronated hands or splayed legs; Others look like demented muppets or feathered lizards); In reference to Pixel-shack, I've already said everything I have to say about them in my Dinosaurs review (See reason #4: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R3J1R5BYAZABGZ/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1847244173&nodeID=283155&store=books">http://www.amazon.com/review/R3J1R5BYAZABGZ/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1847244173&nodeID=283155&store=books</a> ); In DI, the ankylosaurs are depicted as being piles of poop, while the tyrannosaurs are shameless rip-offs of the "Jurassic Park" T.rex. Those by the other illustrators fall somewhere in between, but more towards Pixel-shack (E.g. See Eriksson's large T.rex on the front cover, which is a poorly-photoshopped lace monitor). McKinnon's paleoart may be the 2nd worst in DI (E.g. Not only is the Struthiomimus un-feathered with pronated hands, but also duck-billed with cheeks).<br />
<br />
*I'm specifically referring to DD's life reconstructions, some of which are not-so-good (E.g. Those by various illustrators & Pixel-shack in the older & newer editions, respectively).<br />
<br />
**Even if you only read the "Fast facts" & the "Time bar", you'll see that there's an average of at least 3 or 4 factual errors per page in DI, a 64 page book.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Quoting Ben (Google "Framing Fossil Exhibits: Phylogeny"): "Within the actual fossil halls, interpretation remains stubbornly unapproachable. For example, the sign introducing proboscidians tells visitors that this group is defined primarily by eye sockets located near the snout. An observant visitor might wonder why scientists rely on such an obscure detail, as opposed to the obvious trunks and tusks. There’s a good teaching moment there concerning why some characteristics might face more selection pressure (and thus change more radically) than others, but instead visitors are only offered esoteric statements. Relatedly, the exhibit does little to prioritize information. Most label text is quite small, and there’s a lot of it. Compare this to Evolving Planet at the Field Museum, where there is a clear hierarchy of headings and sub-headings. Visitors can read the main point of a display without even stopping, and parents can quickly find relevant information to answer their charges’ questions (rather than making something up).<br />
Evolving Planet also compares favorably to the AMNH fossil halls in its informative aesthetics and spatial logic. At FMNH, walls and signs in each section are distinctly color-coded, making transitions obvious and intuitive. Likewise, consistent iconography...such as the mass extinction zones...helps visitors match recurring themes and topics throughout the exhibit. AMNH, in contrast, has a uniform glass and white-walled Apple Store aesthetic. It’s visually appealing, but doesn’t do much to help visitors navigate the space in a meaningful way."</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com