Holtz's A Dinosaur Lover's Bookshelf

As you may remember, I said that "Good, Semi-good, and Bad Dino Sources 1" was inspired by Holtz's "A Dinosaur Lover's Bookshelf" ( http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html ). However, I've since realized that not everyone may have access to it, hence this post. Here's hoping you get as much out of it as I did. It's been very influential to my collecting ( http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/introducing-hadiazmy-1st-listmania-list.html ).

P.S. I don't own anything in the following quote. For educational purposes only.

Quoting Holtz ( http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/16928013/dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf ): "A persistent problem for the dinosaur fan, and no less for the parents thereof, is the search for the perfect dinosaur book. What the reader is looking for is a work that is textually and visually accurate, up to date, and comprehensive.

The trouble is, no dinosaur book is going to get it all right, or have all the latest information. Dinosaur paleontology, like any other growing science, is a rapidly evolving field--as the articles in this issue, and the current dinosaur exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History, can attest. Investigators are describing new species all the time; a total of more than fifty new species or Mesozoic dinosaurs were named in 2003 and 2004 alone. New techniques of analysis are continually uncovering previously unrecognized details about the internal anatomy and growth patterns of dinosaurs. And finds of spectacularly well-preserved specimens are revealing unknown and unsuspected features of species first described many years ago: long tail quills on the horned dinosaur Psittacosaurus, for instance, were never dreamed of until a specimen clearly showing that feature was unearthed recently in China.

What all this means is that important descriptive details in dinosaur studies can change in less time than it takes to get a book from its author's hands onto the shelves of a bookshop. What is a discerning reader to do?

Luckily, there are signposts that point to the titles you can trust. The most significant discovery in dinosaur paleontology in recent decades, for example, is that birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs--in other words, following modern conventions of classification, birds are the only living members of Dinosauria. A good book will recognize this discovery.

Another indicator that a work on dinosaurs is reliable and modern is the way it treats the question of scaly skin. Until the late 1990s it would have been acceptable, at least within permissibly cautious bounds, to depict the hides of deinonychosaurs (the "raptor" dinosaurs, small to medium-size bipedal predators such as Troodon and Velociraptor) as scaly. But recent finds in northeastern China, coupled with improved knowledge about the evolutionary relation, between advanced carnivorous dinosaurs and birds, demonstrate that deinonychosaurs were feathered. Depicting a Troodon or a Velociraptor without feathers, therefore, would simply be antiscientific.

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.

The popularity of dinosaurs, particularly among children, tends to make people forget that paleontology is a science. It's obvious when you think about it that understanding the research in the field requires a substantial amount of background knowledge. But, equally obviously, most of the people who produce movies, TV documentaries, and popular books about dinosaurs do not have such specialized knowledge. That line of thinking leads to a few more clues for choosing a dinosaur book: What is the expertise of the author? What subject is the focus of the text?

The discriminating reader will look for a book written either by, or at least in collaboration with, a paleontologist. That isn't to say that paleontologists always provide the most accurate or most entertaining information. But if you or your offspring are keen to find out about dinosaur science, you'll be better off relying on expert knowledge, or at least on well-informed opinion.

Of course, children love to master the blizzard of available trivial facts about dinosaurs--their height and weight, the pronunciation of their names--and publishers exploit that hunger for surface knowledge. But paleontologists know that, ultimately, the science of dinosaurs is all about methodology. The subject matter of the best dinosaur books will follow suit. Look for texts that explain how paleontologists discover fossils, interpret anatomy, and frame hypotheses about evolution and behavior. Check to see whether the artist has sought to make a lifelike restoration, based on a collaboration with a scientist.

Most of all, look for some hints about what is not known. A good book will explain that some of the most prominent physical details of a picture--the color of a dinosaur's scales or feathers, for instance, not to mention many aspects of dinosaur behavior--cannot be confirmed in the fossil record. Does the book make it clear that such things are still matters of pure speculation?

Although few books will meet all those standards, many of those mentioned below deal at least in part with the analytical side of paleontology. In selecting them, I've avoided coffee-table varieties with the format "dinosaurs from A to Z." Although some dino books are excellent examples of that genre, the selections that follow--which range from books for the very young to volumes for professionals in the field--comprise a variety of fresh approaches to the study of the "fearfully great lizards."

While I'm on the subject of the work of scientists in the field, a disclaimer is in order. The world of dinosaur paleontology is not only fast changing, but also rather small. There are only a hundred or so of us dinosaur paleontologists, and the community of paleoartists is even smaller. Together we represent a close-knit community. So I want to make it clear to the reader that I have previously worked, and am currently working, with some of the scientists, authors, and artists represented in the books reviewed, and have written chapters, in fact, for two of the volumes discussed below: Dinosaurs: the Science Behind the Stories and The Dinosauria.

FOR YOUNG READERS
Dino Dung: The Scoop on Fossil Feces,
by Karen Chin and Thorn Holmes; illustrated
by Karen Carr (Random House Step
Into Reading, 2005; $3.99)
In the past several years the Step Into Reading imprint has released a number of children's books about specific subtopics in dinosaur studies, written by subject experts. Previous works include the paleontologist Robert T. Bakker's Maximum Triceratops, and my own T. rex: Hunter or Scavenger? The most recent of" them, and a splendid point of entry for the ten-year-old in all of us, is Dino Dung, an up-to-date book on dinosaur paleontology.

Karen Chin, a paleontologist and the co-author of this newest member of the series, is the leading expert on dinosaur coprolites, or fossilized feces. Karen Carr, the illustrator, is one of the more subdued paleoartists working today. Unlike the images of artists such as Luis V. Rey and Michael W Skrepnick, Carr's dinosaurs don't seem to be hurrying off somewhere; they're just causally going about the business of contributing to the fossil-fecal record.

Chin and Thorn Holmes, a science writer, also tell the tale of how coprolite studies began: how, in the early 1800s, the English vicar and "paleontologist William Buckland discovered fossilized hyena dung in Britain, then carried out comparative analyses of fresh droppings from zoo-kept hyenas. Chin and Holmes go on to tell us how feces can be preserved, and what kinds of in formation can be retrieved from these often-overlooked, and generally underappreciated, leftovers of the ancient world. Chin's presentations at technical conferences are notorious for including at least one bad pun, and she doesn't disappoint her fans here: one chapter is titled, "The Scat with Nine Lives."

Dinosaurs! by Robert T. Bakker; illustrated
by Luis V. Rey (Random House,
2005; $8.99)
This book combines the talents of two of the more imaginative (some might say "controversial") workers in dinosaur studies. Robert Bakker, whose curriculum includes stints at both Harvard and Yale, as well as the Tate Geological Museum in Casper, Wyoming, was the enfant terrible of the dinosaur renaissance in the 1970s, when his research, combined with similar studies by his colleagues, laid to rest the mid-century vision of dinosaurs as inept, maladapted failures. Rey's dinosaur reconstructions (digitally superimposed for this book onto scenic background photographs) are so brilliantly colored they are almost garish, and the figures are probably the most dynamically posed of any in the tradition of paleoart. Yet despite the bold effects, the results are surprisingly mainstream, in the best sense of the word. That is to say, few dinosaur paleontologists today would find the information and reconstructions in Dinosaurs! at all unreasonable (except perhaps for the imaginative colors). If you are looking for a short, colorful, easy-to-read overview of the new understanding of dinosaurian diversity, this book will serve as an excellent introduction for young readers.

I Like Dinosaurs! by Michael W.
Skrepnick, a series for children ages six
through eight (Enslow Publishers, Inc.,
$21.26 each)

Diplodocus: Gigantic Long-Necked
Dinosaur (2005)

Sinosauropteryx: Mysterious Feathered
Dinosaur (to appear in June 2005)

Triceratops: Mighty Three-Horned
Dinosaur (2005)

Tyrannosaurus rex: Fierce King of
the Dinosaurs (2005)
Everything paleontologists know about dinosaurs is ultimately based on fossil discoveries, a concept this new series conveys to children in a sparse but visually inviting manner. Each volume features a single, famous dinosaur species (though often with some mention of related forms). Michael Skrepnick provides a short passage about the scenes depicted--only about thirty words per page. His paintings and drawings, combined with photographs from the field and from museum exhibits, support the brief accounts of the various species, their probable habits, and the way paleontologists have applied the available fossil evidence.

FOR INTERMEDIATE READERS
The Dinosaur Library, by Thorn Hohnes
and Laurie Holmes, illustrated by Michael
William Skrepnick (Enslow Publishers,
Inc.; $26. 60 each)

Armored, Plated, and Bone-Headed
Dinosaurs (2002)

Baby Dinosaurs: Eggs, Nests, and Recent
Discoveries (2003)

Gigantic Long-Necked Plant-Eating
Dinosaurs (2001)

Great Dinosaur Expeditions and Discoveries
(2003)

Feathered Dinosaurs (2002)
Horned Dinosaurs (2001)
Meat-Eating Dinosaurs (2001)
Peaceful Plant-Eating Dinosaurs
(2001)
Prehistoric Flying Reptiles (2003)
This series occupies an intriguing literary niche between a primer for beginners and a book for adults. In some sense, the Holmeses, a husband-and-wife team of natural history writers, have produced a collection of books that is more deserving of the name "endcyclopedia" than many single-volume texts in the A-to-Z format. Taken together, the books represent a relatively comprehensive survey of the major groupings within the Dinosauria. Individual volumes also touch on some related issues, such as dinosaur nesting behavior and field paleontology.

The taxonomic books--the ones focusing on particular dinosaur clades (groups of species that include all the descendants of one common ancestor)--all share the same structure. An opening story focuses on the life of a particular individual dinosaur. Introductory matter discusses dinosaur origins and diversity. Then several chapters cover the anatomy, physiology, and feeding habits of the group in question, and its probable extinction scenario. For a series aimed at young audiences, The Dinosaur Library is unusual in including footnotes that refer to primary literature in the field. The series also gives separate chronological and geographic listings of important discoveries.

DINOSAURS AS LIVING ANIMALS
How to Keep Dinosaurs, by Robert Mash
(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003; $14.99)
A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for
Travelers in the Mesozoic, by Henry Gee, illustrated by
Luis V. Rey (Barron's, 2003; $24.95)
These two books present rather different takes on dinosaurs as living animals. Mash, a zoologist who heads the biology department at a prestigious English secondary school, has revised and updated a highly amusing book that first appeared in 1983. Adopting the conceit that some dinosaur and reptile genera of the ancient world are still with us, How to Keep Dinosaurs provides the would-be saurian-pet owner with details of how to feed, house, raise, and train creatures that range from the diminutive pterosaur Anurognathus to the enormous Brachiosaurus.

Icons at the entries for each animal signal various aspects of dinosaur care in amiably wacky-ways: the dieticon begets "fussy eater," "will eat other pets"; behavior evokes "worryingly clever," "iffy with babies"; practical considerations prompt "messy moulter" "government license necessary." Etymological readings of dinosaurs' genus names are also a source of unsuspected humor. Some are accurate derivations with humorous interpretations: Ornitholestes, literally "bird robber," is so named "for a tendency to break into poultry farms." Others are amusingly skewed: Dicraeosaurus (properly "bifurcated lizard") has become "two-meat-tray lizard," in reference "to the amount of meat a hunter can expect to get as his share of a carcass: this dinosaur is a popular diet item in Tanzania."

The new edition includes many recently named species, and several of these, are appropriately feathered. But, in general, the science in this book is vintage 1980s. Many illustrations (superimposed onto photographs of contemporary domestic settings) are repeated from the original edition.

Whereas Mash brings dinosaurs from the ancient world into modern life, Henry Gee, a senior editor for paleontology at the journal Nature, takes us back to the world of the Mesozoic. Gee's work, perhaps not surprisingly, is far better informed than: Mash's is about current dinosaur research. And for Gee, dinosaurs 'also become jumping-off points for addressing such general biological issues as mating displays, growth patterns, and symbiotic relations.

Luis Rey's illustrations are done both in black-and-white and in brilliant (sometimes Day-Glo) colors. Particularly dramatic are his "fish-eye lens" paintings, which lead to some unfamiliar (and sometimes disturbing) perspectives, even for familiar dinosaurs such as Diplodocus.

Gee warns that readers who believe what they see in his book do so at their own risk. And it's true that the casual reader might not be certain how much of the information is based on new discoveries, how much on reasonable speculation, and how much comes out of Gee's and Rey's fertile imaginations. But aside from the bright palate and the odd perspectives, the expert quickly recognizes that Rey's drawings, at least, are based on the latest paleontological data, and are probably more accurate than the typical popular images we're all accustomed to. Still, I wonder if some readers think that the supposed Arctic carnivore Tyrannosaurus helcaraxae, for instance, is already known to science?

TRANSITION TO THE TECHNICAL
Dinosaurs: The Science Behind the
Stories, edited by Judith G. Scotchmoor,
Dale A. Springer, Brent H. Breithaupt,
and Anthony R. Fiorillo (American Geological
Institute, 2002; $29.95)
How do we know what we know about dinosaurs? In this book, dinosaur paleontologists, geologists, and paleoartists explain their work to a general, educated audience. Don't expect to see lots of different dinosaurs fully restored, or an alphabetical listing of major species. But if you are interested in such topics as how dinosaur fossils are found and collected, what fossil trackways can tell us about dinosaur locomotion, how evolutionary interrelations of dinosaur groups are reconstructed, or how science can infer various modes of behavior--this volume is an excellent gateway to the primary technical literature.

TECHNICAL LITERATURE
Feathered Dragons: Studies in the Transition
from Dinosaurs to Birds, edited by
Philip. J. Currie, Eva B. Koppelhus, Martin
A. Shugar, and Joanna L. Wright
(Indiana University Press, 2004; $49.95)
The Carnivorous Dinosaurs, edited by
Kenneth Carpenter (Indiana University
Press, to appear in July 2005; $49.95)
Thunder-Lizards:The Sauropodomorph
Dinosaurs, edited by Virginia Tidwell and
Kenneth Carpenter (Indiana University
Press, to appear in July 2005; $59.95)
These three volumes are the latest additions to the Indiana University Press series Life of the Past, which aims to publish peer-reviewed scientific literature on various topics in paleontology. The series is intended to reach a wider readership than the traditional scholarly journals do.

The Dinosauria, Second Edition, edited
by David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson,
and Halska Osmólska (University of California
Press, 2004; $95.00)
The Dinosauria is the primary professional reference for dinosaur paleontology. Well-worn copies of the first edition, conceived in 1984 and published in 1990, still occupy the desks of curators, fossil preparators, graduate students, paleoartists, and professors, not to mention the shelves of university and museum libraries.

But the discipline has grown substantially in the past fifteen years, and the new Dinosauria is a more than adequate update of the original. The number of contributors has grown from twenty-three to forty-three; many were still graduate students when the original was first published. The new edition also includes, significantly, a chapter on birds of the Mesozoic, thereby officially recognizing that Ayes belongs to the larger grouping, Dinosauria.

Comprising more than 800 pages, this work is the ultimate reference on dinosaurs, detailing the adaptations, anatomy, diversity, and inferred habits represented on the many branches of the dinosaur family tree. One long chapter examines the occurrence of dinosaur fossils (bones, eggs, and footprints) around the globe. Concluding chapters discuss topics such as dinosaur physiology and extinction. The massive bibliography is the most comprehensive single source of guidance to the professional dinosaur literature ever published.

So this book is a must for the serious student of dinosaur research. But unless you have already mastered vertebrate anatomy, Mesozoic stratigraphy, and phylogenetic analysis, it's probably not the place to begin."

The Master Harryhausen Passes Away

A true palaeo-artist (artist in every since really) has left us. Movie animator Ray Harryhausen.

Decades before Jurassic Park, Harryhausen brought out some of the most definitive Dinosaurs to ever hit motion pictures, in addition to many other amazing and engaging monsters and creatures.

Considering he did this slow movement by meticulously movement by himself over the course of weeks sometimes it is no small achievement. Given the armies of artists it takes to make equal visuals these days, I think it is very safe to say the world has just lost a true master.

One of the most powerful Dinosaur recreations I recall from my childhood is the caveman vs. Allosaurus fight from One Million BC. I still love watching this film to this day (with the added bonus of in adulthood the boring parts with Racquel Welch suddenly are more watch-able :P)

Dinosaur feather colours may not be as easy to determine

(Thanks to Diagenesis for the heads up, also check out Ed Young's post on it here)

A new study by Maria McNamara of the University of Bristol calls into question some (emphasis some) of the recent claims about feather colour in fossil Dinosaurs.

By Emily Willoughby

Doing studies on the effects of heat and pressure on the molecular composition of pigments in modern bird feathers, Dr. McNamara found that these molecules changed even under just these limited conditions reproducible in the lab. Meaning that given millions of years with similar long term conditions pigments could radically change.

With that said the original author of the feather fossil study Dr. Jakob Vinther has come out with a rebuttal stating his team had noted such possible changes.

Only time and more studies into both feather pigments and the processes by which they fossilize will tell us if we have truly unlocked the colour scheme of some Dinosaurs.

So some flexibility (and less certainty) has crept back into feather reconstructions there artists.

An Anting Alvarezsaurid

As you may have noticed, LITC's "All Yesterdays Contest Gallery" ( http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2013/04/all-yesterdays-contest-gallery.html ) includes my entry. I originally wasn't gonna enter any of the All Yesterdays contests given 1) my unrealistic style, & 2) my lack of artistic skill w/scientific accuracy. I generally avoid drawing real animals (especially those blameless, holy creatures known as dinos ;) ) for the same reasons as I just don't feel worthy. However, I was then reminded of LITC's contest rules. When that was combined w/the urge to put my ideas on paper, I decided to make an exception.

Now, for the entry itself. Of the 2 forms of anting (See the Editor quote), I figured the former was more likely given the facts that 1) alvazersaurids had long necks & short arms, & 2) alvazersaurids were probably seeking out ants for food, anyway. The alvazersaurid is generic, based loosely on Linhenykus ( http://www.desksketch.com/2012/07/24/it-is-a-linhenykus/ ), which lived in the Gobi region during the Late Cretaceous. The color scheme of the alvazersaurid is based loosely on a combination of the Northern Flicker (an insect-eater like Linhenykus) & the Scaled Quail (a ground-runner like Linhenykus), both of which live in the Nebraska Sand Hills & are known to ant (See the Viegas quote for why the Nebraska Sand Hills).

Quoting Editor ( http://www.birds.com/blog/anting-behavior-in-birds/ ): "Anting can take on different forms. Some birds will pick up ants in their beaks and rub the ant over their feathers, after which they eat the ant; while others will open their wings and lie down over an active anthill and allow ants to climb up onto them. But it does seem that one part of anting remains consistent: birds prefer using ants that produce formic acid. Ants use the formic acid their bodies produce as a defense mechanism, which they spray at their attackers, but at the same time provides birds with a certain something that scientists would love to discover."

Quoting Viegas ( http://naturalselectionsinscience.blogspot.com/2009/12/screaming-roadrunner-ran-circles-around.html ): "The presence of so much diverse wildlife in the Gobi region during the Late Cretaceous, along with geological studies, suggests that this area was once similar to the Channel Country of central Australia or to the Nebraska Sand Hills."

My 2nd Pair of Reviews

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.

P.S. For my previous reviews, see "My 1st Pair of Reviews": http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/my-1st-pair-of-reviews.html

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51AN8TBPXXL.jpg

The best dino Q&A book ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1BP8LPRNRAT01/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0520225015 ): 5/5

Short version: If you must have a dino Q&A book, get Norell et al.'s "Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated" (I.e. Evolution). It's as good as dino Q&A books get.

Long version: Read on.

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). Evolution is the ultimate exception to said genre because it does the exact opposite of all that & MUCH more:
-Precise questions? Check! It helps that Evolution focuses on quality over quantity (unlike my next review's book, which features "more than 600 questions about dinosaurs").
-Concise answers? Check! Again, it helps that Evolution focuses on quality over quantity (E.g. Evolution does in 1 Q&A & 4 pages what takes my next review's book 26 Q&As & 15 pages to do).*
-Good Q&As? Check times infinity! As far as I know, they were accurate at the time of publication, & are still mostly accurate now.** It helps that Norell et al. are the curators of the American Museum of Natural History's (I.e. AMNH's) "Hall of Dinosaurs" & thus know what they're doing (unlike the authors of my next review's book, who are neither experts nor even collaborators with experts). & if that's not good enough, Evolution is basically 2 books in 1, the 1st section listing the Q&As & the 2nd/3rd/4th section describing the dinos on exhibit in the AMNH's "Hall of Dinosaurs"/the AMNH's dino discoveries from the 1990s/the AMNH's dino expeditions from 1897-2000, respectively.

If I could, I'd give Evolution a 4.5/5. My only gripes are the lack of life reconstructions (The photos & drawings of fossils are great, but I like it best when a dino book is also illustrated with life reconstructions based on said fossils) & the sit-on-the-fence attitude of Norell et al. when it comes to controversial topics (1st, see the Mallison quote for why that annoys me; Then, compare the Norell et al. quote to the GSPaul quote).*** However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5.

*I'm specifically referring to Q&A #7 in Evolution ("Why are birds a type of dinosaur?") & 26 Chapter 9 Q&As in my next review's book.

**Google "Dinosaurs Explained - YouTube" for updated versions of Evolution's Q&As.

***I picked the GSPaul quote because 1) like Evolution  it's from 2000, & 2) to quote John Kwok, it's from "a splendid summary of the current state of knowledge of dinosaurian paleobiology."

Quoting Mallison ( http://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/review-of-brusatte-2012-dinosaur-paleobiology/ ): "With regards to physiology and in the final chapter on extinction Steve manages to present the highly controversial topics well, the evidence provided by all sides (as opposed to the BADNits with their lack of evidence; they get ignored), then finally sticks his neck out by hanging his hat on an option. Dinosaurs were, Steve concludes, what I term "functional endotherms", whatever the details and tiny differences from birds and mammals, and were killed off either directly and indirectly by the asteroid hit, or with ample help from it.I applaud Steve's decision to not sit on the fence out of a misguided sense of having to report evenly or some such nonsense. The evidence is clearly not evenly supportive of hypotheses, and Steve does a very good job of showing why that is the case. For a scientist that may not be necessary, but many laypeople will read this book, too."

Quoting Norell et al.: "Were nonavian dinosaurs warm-blooded? The evidence is still equivocal, and most claims that all dinosaurs are "warm-blooded" are speculative. There is no clear-cut evidence that dinosaurs were either cold-blooded or warmblooded, except that dinosaurs evolved endothermy sometime in their history, as documented by living birds."

Quoting GSPaul (See "The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs"): "Reese Barrick has been involved in leading-edge research that could have only been dreamed of in the 1970s, using bone isotope ratios to more directly measure the thermodynamics of dinosaurs. His essay combines this chemical analysis with other lines of evidence to conclude, as have most other researchers, that Bakker was correct: dinosaurs did not have reptilian energetics, and they consumed and burned oxygen at rates far higher than seen in modern reptiles."

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/513cktZtgKL._SX344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

The worst dino Q&A book ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2GYUK9TZ7D0HA/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B005SNKTJG ): 2/5

Short version: If you must have a dino Q&A book, get Norell et al.'s "Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated". The only thing Barnes-Svarney/Svarney's "The Handy Dinosaur Answer Book" (I.e. Answer) is consistently "handy" for is showing how bad dino Q&A books can get.

Long version: Read on.

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). In my previous review, I referred to Norell et al.'s "Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated" as the ultimate exception to said genre. This review is about Answer, the ultimate epitome of said genre. Before I look at Answer's content, though, I want to briefly look at its paleoart (which is an important part of any popular dino book).

The cover art is a poorly-photoshopped stock photo of inaccurate, cheap-looking CG theropods running around roaring for no apparent reason. I can't even tell what kind of theropods they're supposed to be: On the 1 hand, they have very allosaur-esque heads; On the other hand, they have very ceratosaur-esque arms. The interior art is more of the same as well as stock photos of outdated dino models (E.g. Tail-dragging, swamp-dwelling sauropods & scaly-skinned, bunny-handed dromaeosaurs).

Remember what I said about Answer & the dino Q&A genre earlier? Answer is the ultimate epitome because it does all that & MUCH more:
-Redundant questions? Check (E.g. 7 out of 62 Chapter 9 questions ask, "What...survived the extinction at/did not survive the extinction at/did not disappear at/went extinct at/lived at/survived past the end of the Cretaceous period?")!*
-Vague answers? Check (E.g. See the 1st Barnes-Svarney/Svarney quote; Notice that it doesn't explain what it means by "certain modern reptiles" nor how they & birds are related to dinos nor how we know what we know)!
-Bad Q&As? Check times infinity! The 2nd Barnes-Svarney/Svarney quote is the worst because it fails on many levels: It promotes debunked fringe ideas (The 2nd camp's belief); It fails to understand how evolution works (If birds descended from dinos, then they ARE dinos, & thus the 1st & 3rd camps are the same); It fails to understand how much evidence the 1st/3rd camp has ("There are not enough fossils to come to a definite conclusion"); It fails to understand how bad the 2nd camp's arguments are ("All sides have good arguments"); It contradicts itself from a previous Q&A (See the 3rd Barnes-Svarney/Svarney quote; If paleontologists have "good arguments", that implies that they have "acceptable fossil evidence to support" their arguments). & if that's not bad enough, Answer repeats said fails as well as misspells animal names throughout (E.g. In Chapter 9 alone, Dilophosaurus/Rahonavis/P.robusta/dinosaurs/coelurosaurs are misspelled as Dilaphosaurus/Rahona/P.robust/dinosuars/coelurasaurs, respectively).

*Chapter 9 in Answer is "DINOSAUR CONNECTIONS".

Quoting Barnes-Svarney & Svarney: "What are the closest living relatives to the dinosaurs?
The closest living relatives to the dinosaurs are thought to be certain modern reptiles and birds."

Quoting Barnes-Svarney & Svarney: "What are the major camps in the dinosaur-bird evolution debate?
There are several camps of paleontologists in the dinosaur-bird evolution debate. One group believes birds descended from certain dinosaurs about 60 million years ago. Another camp believes proto-birds evolved separately from dinosaurs about 200 million years ago. And there is another group that has emerged: scientists who believe that birds are actually dinosaurs. Right now, there are not enough fossils to come to a definite conclusion, and all sides have good arguments. However, with the advent of DNA sequencing, scientists may one day have the answer."

Quoting Barnes-Svarney & Svarney: "Does everyone believe Archaeopteryx was a link to dinosaurs?
No, not everyone believes Archaeopteryx was a direct link to the dinosaurs. Some scientists believe birds and dinosaurs evolved separately from a common reptilian ancestor, but so far, no one has yet found acceptable fossil evidence to support or disprove this idea."

What sort of research do you use for palaeo-art?

I'm getting ready a couple more posts on All Yesterday's and the recent "movement" it has spurred (if through anything else all the recent contests surrounding it).

In getting my posts ready a thought crossed my mind that is a good topic of discussion.

What if any types of academic research do you reference, if any at all, when you are looking for inspiration to create your palaeo-art?

Feel free to either reply in the comment section, or if you'd really like your answer fleshed out, feel free to write up a guest post and email it to artevolved@gmail.com.

******************************************************

I personally tend to read, at least these days, mostly taphonomy and palaeogeography related research. This is mostly due to the fact I tend to find tidbits of environmental information that set up interesting scenarios and settings for prehistoric critters to live in.

Additionally I did mostly geology science courses at University. I understand that end of the science more than anatomy. While I certainly can follow basic anatomy, the details tend to bore/bog me down, and I am not versed enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from it by myself. I certain will skim the discussion and conclusion sections of anatomic descriptions and there is definitely great info to be found in these papers, but typical find the most inspiration from taphonomy and palaeogeography papers (plus having to find ways to get them through the paywalls limits my paper tracking efforts).

Good, Semi-good, and Bad Dino Sources 1

This post was inspired by Holtz's "A Dinosaur Lover's Bookshelf" ( http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/16928013/dinosaur-lovers-bookshelf ). It's nothing formal, just a list of what I (as a non-expert dino fan) think are especially notable dino sources (for better or worse) & why. Even still, I hope that at least some of you will get something out of it. 2 more things of note: 1) Just in case you were wondering, the sources aren't listed in any particular order; 2) If you don't know what I mean by "casual readers"/"the enthusiast"/"the specialist", see Miller's "Paleo Reading List" ( http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).

Good

Holtz's "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages" ( http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Complete-Up---Date-Encyclopedia/dp/0375824197 ) & Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" ( http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ) are the best encyclopedic & non-encyclopedic dino books, respectively, for casual readers. Taylor's review of the former ( http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/books/index.html#hr2007 ) & Amazon's synopsis of the latter ( https://www.amazon.de/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ) sum up most of the reasons why, but not the most important reason: Holtz & the NHM keeps updates on "Supplementary Information for Holtz's Dinosaurs" ( http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/ ) & "The Dino Directory" ( http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/dino-directory/index.html ), respectively, when parts of said books become outdated.

Hone ("David Hone": http://www.davehone.co.uk ) reminds me of a young Holtz in both research ( http://www.davehone.co.uk/academic/research-profile/ ) & outreach ( http://www.davehone.co.uk/outreach/ ). I hope he writes dino books like Holtz too, someday. Until then, see his technical papers (for free) under "Academic" & his blogs ("Lost Worlds"/"Archosaur Musings" for casual readers/the enthusiast, respectively) under "Outreach".

You could say Conway et al. ("All Yesterdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals": http://www.amazon.com/All-Yesterdays-Speculative-Dinosaurs-Prehistoric/dp/1291177124 ) are the A-Team of paleoart: Naish does the paleontology ("Darren Naish | palaeozoological researcher, consultant, author, lecturer": http://darrennaish.wordpress.com/ );* Conway does the art ("John Conway's Art": http://johnconway.co/ ); Kosemen drives the van ("C. M. Kosemen": http://cmkosemen.com ). ;)

*Naish's popular dino books (excluding "All Yesterdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals", which is for the enthusiast)/blogs are for casual readers/the enthusiast, respectively.

Semi-good

Cau ("AndreaCau": https://sites.google.com/site/cautheropoda/ ) is a consistently good source of phylogenetic info for the enthusiast (See "5. Blog, articoli/recensioni giornalistiche e pagine web dedicate alle mie ricerche")/the specialist (See "3. Pubblicazioni / Publications"). However, he's also a consistently hit-&-miss source of other biological info for the enthusiast/the specialist.*

Celeskey's "Coelophysis - New Mexico's State Fossil" ( http://ec2-54-245-84-242.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com/ ) is basically Colbert's "The Little Dinosaurs of Ghost Ranch" ( http://www.amazon.com/Little-Dinosaurs-Ghost-Ranch/dp/0231082363 ) in website form, the former being for casual readers & the latter for the enthusiast. I have mixed feelings about single species accounts. Martin's "Book Reviews" ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222938800770211 ) sums up why. In any case, it's the ultimate source of Coelophysis info.

GSPaul ("The Official Website of Gregory S. Paul - Paleoartist, Author and Scientist": http://gspauldino.com/ ) is a mixed bag. Naish's "Greg Paul’s Dinosaurs: A Field Guide" ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/02/21/greg-pauls-dinosaurs-a-field-guide/ ) sums up what I mean. In any case, see his technical papers (for free) & books under "CURRICULUM VITAE" for interesting yet controversial dino art/science.**

*E.g. According to Cau (See "First, we start with": http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2010/04/billy-e-il-clonesauro-guida_06.html&hl=en&langpair=it ), "no Mesozoic dinosaur...has offspring inept" (See "Opposed hypotheses" under "Testing ideas and community analysis" for why that's wrong: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eggshell/eggshell_case1.php ). Also according to Cau (See "Just the fact that": http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2010/04/billy-e-il-clonesauro-guida_06.html&hl=en&langpair=it ), "the fact that the children had early leads us to think that the animal did not need particular parental care and that was autonomous in search of food" (See "Precocial" & "Semi-precocial" for why that's misleading: http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Precocial_and_Altricial.html ).

**"Predatory Dinosaurs of the World: A Complete Illustrated Guide" ( http://www.amazon.com/Predatory-Dinosaurs-World-Complete-Illustrated/dp/0671687336 )/"The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs" ( http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-American-Dinosaurs-Byron-Preiss/dp/B005SNHXQ8 )/"Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds" ( http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Air-Evolution-Flight-Birds/dp/0801867630 )/"The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" ( http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Field-Guide-Dinosaurs-Guides/dp/069113720X ) are for the enthusiast/casual readers/the specialist/the enthusiast, respectively.

Bad

Hunter ("Cladistic Existentialism") is a BANDit (BAND = Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) & his website is basically a list of anti-cladistic writings (1 of which I reviewed: http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/my-1st-pair-of-reviews.html ). His website's header ( http://ncsce.org/images/format/header.jpg ) sums up said writings in 2 major ways: 1) The depiction of non-bird dinos as "silly grossly inaccurate Jurassic Park dinosaur knock-offs" (which is probably part of the reason why BANDits are compared to creationists: http://web.archive.org/web/20121115074704/http://dinoharpist.blogspot.com:80/2012/11/creation-crackhouse-in-kentucky-is.html ); 2) The statement about "determining the number of birds' fingers" (which, as indicated by the Naish quote, is blatantly hypocritical & misleading).

Peters ("Reptile Evolution") is a GSPaul wannabe & his website is basically a list of reasons why (according to him) he's great & everyone else is an idiot. Naish's "Reptile Evolution" review ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/07/03/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/ ) sums up what I mean.

There are 3 main reasons why Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney ("Pterosaurs to Modern Birds") & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa ("Gwawinapterus") are bad sources of dino (or any other) info: 1) They're non-experts who act like they're experts; 2) They're infamous for trolling ( http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-moderation-policy-doug-dobney-is.html ) &/or cyberbullying ( http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/3460936/1/ ) people who don't think like them; 3) They're terrible at sourcing their work, never doing so unless it proves their point (They'll ignore any source that contradicts them).

Quoting Naish (See "All the fuss over those weird little hands": http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/19/limusaurus-is-awesome/ ): "As you'll surely know, embryologists have often (though not always) argued that birds exhibit BDR, such that their tridactyl hands represent digits II, III and IV rather than the I, II and III thought universal among coelurosaurian theropods. Those who contend that birds cannot be theropods have latched on to this as an integral bit of their case: Alan Feduccia in particular has repeatedly said that bird hands and theropod hands are fundamentally different, and that this degree of difference bars theropods from avian ancestry (Burke & Feduccia 1997, Feduccia 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, Feduccia & Nowicki 2002) [developing ostrich hands from Feduccia & Nowicki (2002) shown below]. Yeah, as if one feature - no matter how profound or major - can somehow outweigh tens of others: what excellent science. The hypothesis (note: hypothesis) that bird hands represent digits II-IV rests mostly on the fact that the primary axis of condensation (the first digit precursor to appear in the embryonic hand) corresponds to digit IV: because bird embryos grow two fingers medial to this axis, these two must be digits III and II (incidentally, this is contested by some embryologists and is not universally accepted. To keep things as simple as possible, we'll ignore that for now).Despite what Feduccia and his `birds are not dinosaurs' colleagues state, the morphological evidence showing that birds really are theropod dinosaurs is overwhelmingly good, so if birds and other theropods really do have different digit patterns in the hand, something unusual must have occurred during evolution. One idea is that a frame shift occurred: that is, that the condensation axes that originally produced topographical digits II-IV became modified during later development, such that the digits that grew in these places came to resemble topographical digits I-III instead of II-IV (Wagner & Gauthier 1999). If the frame shift hypothesis is valid, then - somewhere in theropod evolution - the `true' digit I was lost, and `true' digit II became digit I. However, evidence from Hox genes indicates that the condensation axis for embryonic digit I receives a Hox signal normally associated with.... topographical digit I, thereby showing that the bird `thumb' really IS the thumb (Vargas & Fallon 2005, Vargas et al. 2008)."

My 1st Pair of Reviews

As an Art Evolved member, I'm gonna 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.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51t8mO3z0sL.jpg

My favorite serious dino book ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2URWS93D4PO4C/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=184442183X ): 5/5

Of all my serious dino books ( http://www.amazon.com/lm/R2H4F8H299AK8M/ref=cm_pdp_lm_title_1 ), Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" (I.e. History) is definitely my favorite. The quote at the end of this review sums up why. There are 2 analogies that best describe History: 1) A more family-friendly version of Sampson's "Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life" ( http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-review-dinosaur-odyssey.html ); 2) The "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries" exhibition ( http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries ) in book form. If I could, I'd give History an extra half star for being extra authoritative. My only gripes are the maniraptoran reconstructions in Chapters 1-9 (all of which have scaly skin &/or pronated hands) & the writing in the middle of Chapter 10 (which isn't as good as that in the beginning or end of Chapter 10). 2 more things of note: 1) Chapter 10 is basically an updated version of Milner's "Dino-birds: From Dinosaurs to Birds"; 2) The NHM keeps updates on "The Dino Directory" ( http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/dino-directory/index.html ) when parts of History become outdated.

"Taking fossil records as its evidence, "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" treats dinosaurs as a group of living animals, making frequent reference to today's animals as a basis for comparison. This popular approach not only accurately mirrors the methods used by palaeontologists in studying dinosaurs, but also satisfies the overwhelming curiosity of people to know what dinosaurs were like when alive. Unlike an encyclopedia, a data book or even a learned exposition, this book is designed to be read from start to finish as the developing story of a remarkable group of animals. The book's direct, clear written style, with all unfamiliar names and technical terms clearly explained, and extensive illustrations make it an ideal introduction to dinosaurs for the older child or adult" ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ).

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51lfz3wxpQL.jpg

More of the same old nonsense ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R47I7QPHDIHYD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300164351 ): 1/5

I originally wasn't planning on reviewing Feduccia's "Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China" (I.e. Riddle), mostly because, to quote Mallison, "the web is full of dissections of BANDit papers" (BAND = Birds Are Not Dinosaurs). Also, anyone who actually looks into the reviewers praising Riddle can see that they're either Feduccia's fellow BANDits (E.g. Storrs L. Olson) or non-experts who naively bought Feduccia's rhetoric (E.g. At least 1 of the 5-star Amazon Reviewers) &/or took Feduccia's side for non-scientific reasons (E.g. D. G. Martin). However, while reading the 5-star Amazon Reviews, I realized that 1) non-experts may not bother looking for reviews of Riddle when there are so many in 1 place, & 2) so many seemingly-good reviews in 1 place may mislead non-experts into thinking that it's a definitely-good book about bird origins & early evolution, an actual example of which is Chiappe's "Glorified Dinosaurs: The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds".

Going into Riddle, I was expecting more of the same old nonsense given Feduccia's more recent papers.* Surprise, surprise, that's exactly what I got. Thanks to Mallison's "BANDitry, creationism, and global warming denial", I was better able to keep track of the underhanded BANDit tactics used. In Appendix 1 alone, Feduccia concentrates on individual data points/refuses to look at "big pictures" (See what he says about Erickson et al. 2009 & Pontzer et al. 2009), uses strawman arguments ("One might also consider the alternative to one of their primary questions based on a traditional theropod ancestry of birds...that is, "how birds became miniaturized""), decries perceived methodological weaknesses by others while himself failing to live up to these standards ("Hypotheses of dinosaurian endothermy go way back and have traditionally relied on correlations of metabolic rate with weakly supported criteria"), repeats debunked BANDit claims ("Comparative physiologist John Ruben has long argued, based on data from the muscle physiology of extant reptiles, that the urvogel Archaeopteryx was a flying ectotherm"), fails to understand the methods he criticizes (Cladistics) & advances conspiracy theories about mainstream science (See what he says in the last paragraph).

To sum up, Naish put it best when he said, "It must be understood that Feduccia's opinion is not a valuable, informed alternative or anything like that; rather, it relies on deliberate obfuscation and misinformation and ignorance with respect to what we actually know. I cannot see that he and his colleagues have done anything but add confusion, contradiction and erroneous interpretations to our understanding of bird origins and early evolution" ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/05/07/thor-hanson-feathers-review/ ).

*For those who don't know what the same old nonsense is, Google the following BANDit dissections (I limited my list to those mentioning Riddle either directly or indirectly):
-"BANDitry, creationism, and global warming denial" by Mallison.
-"(Almost) Famous: I'm (mis)quoted in Feduccia's new book!" by Mortimer.
-"Dinosaurs of a Feather" by Switek.
-"Canadian Amber, Fin-Tailed Dinosaurs, and a Despairing Blogger" by Headden.
-"Getting a major chapter on birds - ALL birds - into a major book on dinosaurs" by Naish.
-"On the Structure of Fossil Feathers" by Headden.

An Clarification/Olive Branch extension to Brian Engh

I just wanted to drag this out of the comment section and into a public post for all to see. As I worry some have gotten the wrong impression from my previous posts.

Just to clarification to all (Brian included) my recent commentary on Brian Engh's Sauropods in a cave piece, has not been meant to target Brian, his artwork, or even this specific piece. I was more calling into question some of the philosophic frameworks of what I see this new movement towards highly speculative palaeo-art (dubbed by many the Yesterday's movement due to the recent book All Yesterday's)...

By Brian Engh

The only reason I've been fixated on Brian's piece is that it had a focal point of great enough interest to me, that it has really boot kicked my recent palaeo apathy in the head.

His inclusion of glowworms is right up my alley, as they are a very interesting component of New Zealand natural history. As many on this site know I lived in New Zealand for several years, and was heavily involved in volunteer work for scientists and a couple local (Dunedin) institutions during this time. So it is one of those very rare fields where I can claim to know something about in a non-soft or armchair capacity. While I don't know everything there is to know about glowworms, I have read about them a bit and have seen them in wild in dozens of places frequently while living in NZ.

It is due to this I've had to be a little critical of Brian's choice in putting giant Sauropods into the glowworms environment. I haven't meant this in a malicious or mean sense, but simply in an (attempted) educational heads up capacity. I haven't articulated it well at times (partially due to time constraints, and also compounded by my still lingering palaeo-burn out), but my intentions were never to attack Brian. Simply get the information and science flowing (which with glowworms is important. New Zealand tourism has a very weird and odd monopoly on photographs of the key big caves in the country... check out this comment section for full details)

My satirical Basketball Raptor piece was meant as a response to the quoted comments I was getting from scientists (which I still think were not in any sort of spirit of discussion... they basically told me to shut up and go away... which I did coming here ;P). My Raptor piece was NOT meant to make fun of Brian's piece (and I never quoted Brian in the satire part... however again I probably didn't articulate the distinction as well as I could have). I was meaning to highlight responses from which I could derive what I think is a weak formula for palaeo-reconstruction (I would have preferred to illustrate a oceanic krill catching sauropod, but I didn't have the time or energy to do so. Thus the Raptor ball...)

While I think Brian's Caveopods as depicted here (aka with glowworms) is a highly unlikely scenario to have ever happened in real life, it has still been an excellent piece. I mean this on all levels. Above all else it clearly is a powerful piece as it has ignited passions and opened up discussion and thought on the subject.

In my opinion palaeo-art can do more than this, but this engaging people is still one of the key goals. It isn't just any piece that can get people this charged and involved in discussing prehistory. So again I just want to make clear I actually really like this piece of art (just the Kiwi naturalist in me can't believe it).

I promise I have more commentary on the "Yesterday's" movement that has nothing to do with Brian's piece, in the pipeline. So Brian, again I'm not singling you out. If anything you're piece getting me back into thinking about palaeo-art is a compliment. I've been out of the scene for over half a year now, and nothing else (including my own working being used in museums) could get me engaged again. So that speaks to the quality of the piece (I'm just sorry it had to be in a [well meant] critical manner).

By John Conway

I have an article in the works looking at various Ceratopsian restorations including this All Yesterdays one by John Conway... So stay tuned.

Home Stretch for Project Daspletosaur

I'm not pretending to be the one to first notice or plug this. Just trying to overcome my palaeo apathy, and at least have this site do what it is intended to do ;) So thanks to Mark over at Saurian and all the other reminders I saw posted yesterday (Mark's is just the post I happen to have in my feed at the moment)!

David Hone is in very close and easy striking distance of his goal of raising money to visit my old stomping grounds in Alberta to look at cannibalistic behaviour in Daspletosaurs.

He still needs a little bit of support which you can give to him here. There is JUST over a week now. So please consider helping out this cool and neat research with a donation of even just $5...

Introducing Hadiaz/My 1st Listmania! List

For those of you who don't know me personally, my real name is Herman Diaz. I'm a Devious Deviant ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/ ), an Amazon Reviewer ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AF6SZGURNEK2PAWF3XGTVY3SXWZA ), & most importantly a lifelong dino fan w/a Bachelor of Science in "Natural History and Interpretation" (which is now known as "Environmental Education and Interpretation": www.esf.edu/efb/eei/ ). My ultimate goal is to work at a natural history institution as either a Natural History Interpreter or a Gift Shop Guy. In the meantime, I'll be using this blog to update you on my dino-related deviations, reviews, & most importantly career activities.

For my 1st post, I published my 1st Listmania! list (which I'll add to as time goes on). The requirements are listed below & the books are listed in the bolded link. If there are any books you think should be listed, please let me know. Many thanks in advance.

My Serious Dino Books ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/R2H4F8H299AK8M )

My serious (I.e. For learning) dino books must be all of the following:
-About dino paleobiology to a large extent (at least 50%).
-About non-T.rex theropods in particular, if not dinos in general.
-At least 100 pages.
-Authored/edited/introduced/forwarded by at least 1 BAD ("Birds Are Dinosaurs": http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/the-whole-bad-band-thing/ ) dino paleontologist who isn't Louis Jacobs.
-Described/reviewed on Amazon.
-For adults.
-For "casual readers"/"the enthusiast" ( http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).
-Non-fiction.
-Not authored/edited/introduced/forwarded by Louis Jacobs.
-Not "reference works" (See "Citations, cross-references and xreferences": http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue30/ref-books ).*
-Post 1986 ("Arguably, the most recent previous attempt by a paleontologist to synthesize the cutting edge of dinosaur paleontology was Robert Bakker’s 1986 book": http://www.scottsampson.net/index.php?page=dinosaur-odyssey ).
-With dino-related titles.

*2-3 parters are exempt from this requirement.

David Maas on the "Yesterday's" movement

David Maas has come out with a quick, but yet excellent post on his thoughts about the Yesterday's movement in palaeo-art.

"What I see as problematic however is the reference to Yesterdays as a sort of movement, as that shifts the focus dangerously close to speculation for speculation’s sake, which is right next door to the sensationalism practiced – among others – by television ‘documentaries’ out to make a good cut among the viewing public. The same sensationalism rightly abhorred by the palaeoart community. I know media producers who defend such formats as audience-oriented science with a healthy portion of speculation. Go figure."

Go check out the whole post here. 

4 Years of ART Evolved... The end of an era

Here is the post celebrating the passing of ART Evolved's fourth year in existence. Technically this post is a couple weeks late (and it was just 4 years and one month ago the behind the scenes stuff occurred to get this site off the ground).

A lot has happened here and in the great palaeo-blogging sphere over this time. The past 1.5-2 years in particular have been quite different in palaeo-blogging, and I'd argue there has been something of an extinction event going on in palaeo-blogging. Not a catastrophic end type extinction, but certainly a marked and noticeable one. The number of causal palaeo blogs have dropped, and the community has moved onto other online venues. Online palaeo is by no means extinct, but its blogging lineage (at least for now) appears to have had its glory day.

So that leaves myself and Peter in an interesting position. This blog was launched those four long eventful years ago with the idea of being a central community hub for online palaeo artists to gather and collect events, thoughts, and happenings in the field in one place. While it certainly has been no failure, and done far better than either of us thought it would, ART Evolved never really developed into what we'd imagined it to be either.

Don't get me wrong I've been quite ecstatic with the site, and I hope it still has a long prosperous future ahead of it. However things have certainly changed in blogging. More to the point things have also changed in both the lives of Peter and myself. We are not the young free time blessed substitute teachers we once were. Full time jobs and other life commitments find us with far less time for this site than we once had.

Which is why we've had to really consider on this anniversary the future of the crown jewels of ART Evolved. The thing one we're both the most proud of in our blogging careers. The galleries of life...

With the down turn in blogging the past year plus, there has been a down turn overall in the galleries entrants, and a down turn in the overall impact these galleries have had in the field. Don't get me wrong, we certainly have had many very talented and exceptional entries in even the past few galleries (and my many thanks to those who have still been submitting art!). However it is safe to say the galleries are just not as big of  an event, draw, and/or focus of the online palaeo-art community they once were.

So rather than let them struggle themselves into complete failure (especially given me and Peter's continued inability to give them the time and attention they deserve), we have decided to (at least for the foreseeable future) to bring them to a conclusion on this the 4th anniversary of ART Evolved.

Now I'm not saying we're ending it right this moment. No, no, no my friends. We've decided to end the galleries of life on as big a note (hopefully) as possible. We'd been planning on saving this gallery topic for the 5th anniversary of the site, but what's the harm in unleashing it a year early?

To celebrate the 4 year long ongoing collection of great new palaeo-art by our many, many, many amazing, awesome, and really appreciated contributors and artists we give you the finale gallery of ART Evolved...

So please get started on your Tyrant lizards. We are aiming this gallery for a June 1st launch.

Please spread the word, as again this is hoped to be a fun event to celebrate, and yet mark the end of, this long running online palaeo-art tradition! The dreamed for goal, though obviously it is just hoped for, would be an entry from ALL our past galleries participants.

Of course with this announcement, please don't mistaken this as the end of ART Evolved.

We will be remaining up and running.

We will still happily post the palaeo-art of anyone and everyone who submits it to us. We just won't be organizing the big themed events anymore.

Who knows, if demand returns, the galleries could return as well. However for the immediate future, we thought end on a bang while the going was still good.

So please consider joining us for one last go at creating a gallery of new and fantastic palaeo-art.

One way or the other, to all our past gallery participates a very heart felt thank you from me and Peter. You've given us one heck of a fun ride, and we've made some great virtual friends through the process.

Thank you again everyone who has helped make this site what it is today!

Craig

David Krentz's Yesterdays

He put this out a while ago now, but David Krentz made this hilarious commentary piece on the All Yesterday's movements possible potential. I think it is hilarious. 

By David Krentz

I've made a perfect Yesterday's piece according to some...

Well I've hit a lot of flak, for my position on SVPoW that this otherwise beautiful picture by  Brian Engh (click for his website). I love this piece... but it is too much of a stretch for me to be humoured as scientific restoration.

I want it made clear I'm not attacking Brian or this piece. Again I think it is a fantastic piece of art, and please go check out the rest of his portfolio. This post is in response to the comments I've received from the scientists and others on this post.

Brian has stated himself this piece was meant as an exploration of what we don't know about Dinosaurs. That is a totally fair. I understand where he is coming with this. I too have been known to take people on for saying we don't know everything about Dinosaurs. Brian has also stated we need to inject imagination into our palaeo-art. I don't disagree. Again one of my favourite palaeo-artists of all time, and personal heroes draws Trilobites with wings.

Brian has also stated he is not deliberately trying to be part of the Yesterdays movement, and that he has always been into speculative art. There are parts of this piece I love on the front. The spine whiskers and such. What I worry about is how the animals AND the setting are very extreme speculation. There isn't any of this grounded on evidence. I could honestly add some of Glendon's wings to these and this piece would fit in with the Trilobites.

So again I'm not saying this to attack Brian. I in fact really want to be fair to him, and get his exact motivations about his work out there. I'm paraphrasing, and you can read his more detailed comments again here.

Where my concern arises has been the response his piece has received from the scientific side of SVPoW. Initially they said they really liked the piece, but as it fits in with the Yesterday's movement they've started supporting it as though it was a very viable piece of scientific palaeo-art. Many of the responses I've received have me incredibly concerned with where this Yesterday's stuff could take the science...

I'm cherry-picking with these quotes, and please do be sure to read all the comments to get the full story. My mission here is to (literally) illustrate the message these people have said (as I've interpreted them... again read the whole thing for the unbiased version... you may not agree with my take)... 

So I basically questioned how elephants going into caves is sufficient evidence to say Sauropods might have gone into caves. Sure they might of, but is this the type of behaviour we want our palaeo-art to be emphasising. Given it is essentially complete speculation with not one piece of fossil evidence. These are some of the answers I got.

"First, it depends on what you mean by “scientifically accurate”. If you mean “demonstrated by evidence”, then no, but there’s tons of important stuff in science that isn’t demonstrated by evidence (yet). If you mean, “plausible given what we know about how animals behave”, then yes..."

"Most of the time when someone says, “that’s unrealistic”, they’re just farting through their larynx, because they’re poorly acquainted with what real animals actually do today."  

"Behaviour doesn’t (directly) fossilise, so we are extremely limited in the behaviours that we can know any extinct animal manifested. Will future palaeontologists in 100 million years recognise how distinctly different the lifestyles of social lions and solitary tigers are? I very much doubt it. (I don’t think they’d even recognise they were dealing with more than one taxon.) But “all Anthropocene big cats had the same behaviour” will, for them, be just one more not-directly-supported-by-evidence hypothesis..." 

“ 'sauropod mooching around on plain” is just as much an unsupported hypothesis as “sauropod harvesting minerals in cave'... ”

"Craig seems, like many non-scientist fans of science, to have confused science with certainty, and plausibility with accuracy. A scientist must be comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity, so as to avoid the temptation of false certainty. Yes, we know some things. And there are some things we may never know. Science has to work in the gap. If it only ever stays on the side of certainty and accuracy, it can never advance..."

Okay. So what they've said is we can't prove or disprove any behaviour. Therefore so long as I have a modern analogue of an animal doing something it is viable behaviour to slap on a prehistoric animal.

Done...

So there is this one primate that plays with spheroid shaped objects to help increase their social bonds. Now maniraptorid hands were perfectly shaped to hold a spheroid, and they might have lived in social groups.

So...

By Craig Dylke

I've made perfect Yesterday's art by the statements made to me.