Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources
Posts : 142
Points : 1532
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2016-06-08
|Subject: Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:55 pm|| |
I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 1: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.
- Quote :
- Hi everybody,
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 ).
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 keep 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), respectively, when parts of said books become outdated.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.
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" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20121029074649/http://nmstatefossil.org/ ) 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" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160919203728/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/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|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 ), "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|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 ), "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.
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://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Deviation-review-update-329070115 ). 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 "Jurassic Park" 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 "Why the world has to ignore ReptileEvolution.com" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20170319151511/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/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 ( https://www.deviantart.com/kajm/journal/Multiply-banned-Hatethiest-johnfaa-remanifests-335722111 ) 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": https://web.archive.org/web/20170226212405/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)."
Last edited by JD-man on Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:48 am; edited 12 times in total
Posts : 43
Points : 1406
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-06-09
Location : Home.
|Subject: Re: Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:54 am|| |
I think Wikipedia could manage to fall at the lowest end of Semi-Good. It has some good resources but it isn't very professional and isn't always accurate, sometimes rather arbitrary.
I would say the same thing for a little site called Prehistoric Wildlife.
But some really good websites I have been using for years include the Theropod Database (a database of all known, named or unnamed, theropod taxa) and Thescelosaurus (a database of all named dinosaurs and their taxonomy, obviously not as in depth as Theropod Database; site was shut down, but the author, Justin Tweet, was nice enough to put a spreadsheet with all the taxa up on his blog, Equatorial Minnesota). There is also a site called DinoHunter by Tracy Ford that lists all dinosaurs ever named by year and all the major papers published that year, sometimes supplying a PDF.
The site Paleofile.com, also by Tracy Ford, is meh, it has really outdated taxonomy, but it does have basically every taxon of prehistoric tetrapods besides mammals known to man. I would put it on the lower end of Semi-Good because of how confusing the taxonomy is.
The Dinosaur Mailing List is a great site, which has posts about new discoveries and so forth every single day, so you are 100% up to date on prehistoric discoveries, dinosaurs in particular.
"All major theme parks have delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked!"
"Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."
Posts : 61
Points : 1434
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : New Jersey
|Subject: Re: Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:22 pm|| |
^ Huh, the old DML at http://dml.cmnh.org/ was down for a few weeks there. Seems it's back.
You can sign up to it directly with these instructions
Posts : 142
Points : 1532
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2016-06-08
|Subject: Re: Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:07 am|| |
I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 2: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.
- Quote :
- Hi everybody,
This journal entry is the 2nd part in the "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources" series. If you haven't read the 1st part ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ), I recommend reading it b/c it explains how said series works. If you have read the 1st part, I recommend re-reading it b/c I've since modified it to be more explanatory. 2 more things of note: 1) Some complained that some of the sources were miscategorized as semi-good/bad, so in addition to making the 1st part more explanatory, I reconsidered & recategorized 1 of its semi-good sources as good in this journal entry (Many thanks to Mike Keesey for that); 2) Some also complained that too much attention was given to the semi-good/bad sources & not enough to the good sources, so I made sure to reverse that trend in this journal entry.
To paraphrase Switek ( http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/07/paleontological-profiles-rober/ ), Bakker ("Robert T. Bakker, Ph.D. | Houston Museum Of Natural Science": http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/curators/robert-t-bakker-ph-d/ ) is not only "a working paleontologist" (He led/leads the Dinosaur Renaissance/HMNS paleontology field program, respectively), but also 1 of the most "effective popularizers of science": His older popular work "inspired many young paleontologists and spun off numerous artistic clones" ( http://openpaleo.blogspot.com/2010/11/book-review-princeton-field-guide-to.html ); His newer popular work includes "inspiring reads for students in the early grades of elementary school" ( http://www.parentingscience.com/paleontology-for-kids-reviews.html ); He also blogs ( https://blog.hmns.org/author/bbakker/ ), lectures ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHJMOgzbI3w ), curates exhibitions ( http://www.hmns.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=336&Itemid=371 ), & appears in documentaries ( http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secrets-of-the-dinosaur-mummy/ ).
If Audubon had done digital artwork, I bet it would've looked something like that of either Martyniuk ("Matthew P. Martyniuk": http://mpm.panaves.com/ ) or Willoughby ("Emily Willoughby Art": http://emilywilloughby.com/ ), both of whom are paleoartists who 1) specialize in reconstructing feathered dinos, & 2) have a major internet presence: The "Raptor Attack" trope includes links to their websites ("For good examples of accurate deinonychosaur portrayals, see these websites": http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RaptorAttack ); Naish's "Historical ornithology 101, a Tet Zoo Guide" features their artwork front & center ("Birds are dinosaurs, and 'birdiness'…evolved in theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds": https://web.archive.org/web/20160301071930/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/historical-ornithology-101-a-tet-zoo-guide/ ); The latter is especially fitting b/c Martyniuk's "Anchiornis huxleyi" & Willoughby's "Mei long is Not Always Sleeping" remind me of Audubon's "Wild Turkey, male" ( http://www.rare-prints.com/Oppenheimer/Watercolors/Wild%20Turkey,%20male.htm ) & "Wild Turkey, female and young" ( http://www.rare-prints.com/Oppenheimer/Watercolors/Wild%20Turkey,%20female.htm ), respectively.
Like Cau, Mortimer ("The Theropod Database": http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/ ) is a consistently good source of phylogenetic info for the enthusiast (See "The Theropod Database Blog")/the specialist (See "Phylogeny of Theropoda" through "Evaluating Phylogenetic Analyses"). Unlike Cau, Mortimer doesn't consistently cover other biological info & thus doesn't have Cau's "hit-&-miss" problem (See "Semi-good" for what I mean: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ).
Sampson ("Scott D. Sampson": http://www.scottsampson.net/ ) & Switek ("Brian Switek": http://brianswitek.com/ ) are both paleontologists (professional & amateur, respectively) & popularizers of science who specialize in putting dinos into an evolutionary & ecological context. You could say that 1) Sampson is the new Carl Sagan w/"Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life" basically being a dino-centric version of "Cosmos" (See the Orr quote), & 2) Switek is the new John Noble Wilford w/"My Beloved Brontosaurus: On the Road with Old Bones, New Science, and Our Favorite Dinosaurs" basically being an updated version of "The Riddle of the Dinosaur" (See the Wilford quote).
WitmerLab ("Witmer's Lab and Research": https://people.ohio.edu/witmerl/lab.htm ) is the ultimate source of dino anatomy info. Liebendorfer's "Digital Dinosaurs: How do scientists reconstruct the anatomy of ancient beasts?" ( http://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/witmer.cfm ) sums up why.
Benton ("Professor Mike Benton - Earth Sciences": http://www.bristol.ac.uk/earthsciences/people/mike-j-benton/ ) & Brusatte ("Stephen Brusatte, Paleontology Research": https://sites.google.com/site/brusatte/ ) are consistently good sources for the specialist (E.g. "Dinosaur Paleobiology", which is "a great overview of the state of the art regarding dinosaurs and how they lived": https://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/review-of-brusatte-2012-dinosaur-paleobiology/ ). However, they're also consistently not-so-good sources for casual readers/the enthusiast (E.g. "Dinosaurs", which is a representation of "uninformed laziness": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RG0yLeJE_U ).
You could say Don Lessem ("Dino Don – Just another WordPress site": http://dinodon.com/ ) is the Don Bluth of dinos: Bluth's pre-1990 work is mostly good, while his post-1990 work is mostly not-so-good; The same goes for Lessem's pre- & post-2000 work, respectively. As you may remember, I reviewed the best of his pre-2000 work ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R1SLNBX289TA4K/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1563975971 ) & the worst of his post-2000 work ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VAJM4MMKUN2D/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1426329059 ). Compared to the former, the latter fails to cover many dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, it's just plain wrong).*
*E.g. Compare the definition of "amphibians" in "Dinosaur Worlds" ("vertebrate animals...that lay their eggs in water but usually spend their adult life on land") to that of "AMPHIBIAN" in "The Ultimate Dinopedia: The Most Complete Dinosaur Reference Ever" ("animal that is able to live both on land and in water").
I hate to say it, but neither Blasing ("Dinosaur George Company") nor Dixon ("Welcome to Dougal Dixon's Website") can be taken seriously as "dinosaur experts": The problem w/Blasing "is that he is impersonating a professional in the field, and in the process, he is misleading the public when he talks so matter of factly about some of his subjects" ( http://reptilis.net/2008/09/14/jfc-lockjaw/ ); Similarly, "Dixon has a superfi-cial understanding of dinosaur and pterosaur biology, and of their actual evolutionary patterns- i. e. he is not familiar with the technical literature, a necessity since the popular literature re-mains incomplete and sometimes obsolete...In addition, he wants to make archosaurs more mammalian than is appropriate" ( http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf ). I say "I hate to say it" b/c, based on what I've read, both Blasing & Dixon are nice guys.* I can't say the same about the other bad sources (E.g. Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa are trolls &/or cyberbullies; See "Bad" for how: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ).
*Miller's "Interview with Dinosaur George Blasing" ( http://empyricaltales.blogspot.com/2013/11/interview-with-dinosaur-george-blasing.html#.UsUgIf1SE4Y ) & Bonnan's "Now the circle is complete -or- a belated dinosaur Christmas gift" ( https://matthewbonnan.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/now-the-circle-is-complete-or-a-belated-dinosaur-christmas-gift/ ), respectively, sum up what I mean.
Quoting Orr ( http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2010/02/dinosaur-odyssey-review.html ): "Sampson is clearly aiming for a Sagan-like position as a popularizer of science, and his prose owes a definite debt to the revered astronomer There are stylistic debts, such as the phrase "in a very real sense," the very real meaning of which I don't know. More importantly, he seems to have been influenced by Sagan's efforts to help his fellow Earthlings understand their precarious place in this huge universe. There is no Dawkinsish acidity here, no baiting of anti-science pundits. The image presented is positive and accessible, tying in with his job as host of the PBS kids cartoon Dinosaur Train. One of the great revelations in my life was that what's happening under my feet is as interesting as what's happening around me. Dinosaur Odyssey, with its easily understood illustrations of the networks that make ecosystems work, has the potential to open plenty of eyes to that reality. This book should be in schools."
Quoting Wilford ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/science/my-beloved-brontosaurus-millions-of-years-gone-but-still-evolving.html?_r=1& ): "Other books have dealt with new dinosaur research, but like museum exhibits on the subject, they quickly become outdated. This may be the one book for catching up on what has become of the dinosaurs you thought you knew from grade school. Mr. Switek and his brontosaur spiritual sidekick take you to dig sites, museums and laboratories to experience the rapid changes in dinosaur paleontology. His account is spiced with history of bone wars in the American West, odd facts and asides. For example, there is no such thing as an intercostal clavicle, the bone Cary Grant is frantically searching for in “Bringing Up Baby.”"
Last edited by JD-man on Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:12 am; edited 6 times in total
Posts : 142
Points : 1532
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2016-06-08
|Subject: Re: Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:55 am|| |
I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 3: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.
- Quote :
- Hi everybody,
This journal entry is the 3rd & last part in the "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources" series. If you haven't read the 1st ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ) or 2nd part ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 ), I recommend reading them b/c the former explains how said series works & the latter explains what's changed since the former.
The AMNH ("The American Museum of Natural History": http://www.amnh.org ) is the best popular source of any dino museum next to the NHM (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ). 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.*
Remember what I said about Martyniuk & Willoughby (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 )? The same goes for Brougham ("softdinosaurs | Jason Brougham Paleontological Art": http://jasonbrougham.com ). His species reconstructions in general & "Three dinosaur genera: Gallus, Zhongornis, Bambiraptor" in particular remind me of Audubon's Bird Guide ( https://www.audubon.org/field-guide ) & 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": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm ), respectively.
You could say that Csotonyi ("csotonyi.com": http://www.csotonyi.com ) & Hartman ("Scott Hartman's Skeletal Drawing.com": http://www.skeletaldrawing.com ) are the 2 halves of the new & improved GSPaul (See "Semi-good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ): Csotonyi is "one of the world's most high profile and talented contemporary paleoartists" ( http://www.amazon.com/Paleoart-Julius-Csotonyi/dp/1781169128 ); Hartman is "a terrific resource for artists looking for reference material for illustrating dinosaurs" ( http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/06/this-thursday-learn-anatomy-from-scott.html ); Like GSPaul, both are scientists whose "scientific training has been instrumental in informing [their] artwork" ( http://www.scienceworld.ca/blog/love-science-and-art-julius-csotonyis-dinosaurs ); Unlike GSPaul, neither are "needlessly controversial" ( http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2012/01/great-skeletal-repose-of-2011_20.html ).
Remember what I said about Hone (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? He has since written a dino book like Holtz ("The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs", which is for casual readers: http://www.amazon.com/Tyrannosaur-Chronicles-Biology-Tyrant-Dinosaurs/dp/1472911253 ). Yay!
Whether they're called "Jersey Boys Hunt Dinosaurs" or "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" (henceforth PBOTW: http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/ ), DiPiazza & friend(s) are, to paraphrase Thomas Edison ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0 ), "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 ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html ), "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" ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html ); 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 ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/media.html ); I hope they write/illustrate dino books like Bakker too, someday.
"Paleoaerie" ( http://paleoaerie.org/ ) is to AR what "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" is to NJ.
SV-POW! ("Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week": https://svpow.com/ ) is the ultimate source of sauropod anatomy info. Classicalguy's "Sauropod Vertebra Picture Adventure!" ( http://classicalguy.deviantart.com/art/Sauropod-Vertebra-Picture-Adventure-411152781 ) sums up why. Put another way, SV-POW! is basically a sauropod-centric version of Naish's "Tetrapod Zoology".
If Conway et al. are the A-Team of paleoart (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ), then Witton is the Lone Ranger ("HOME - markwitton": http://www.markwitton.com/ ): Whenever there's trouble, he rides in on his giant pterosaur & saves the day; His Spinosaurus posts are an especially good example of that ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/search/label/Spinosaurus ).
*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": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Review-update-3-361770836 ) & Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" (which mentions the AMNH's "Hall of Dinosaurs", "Fighting Dinos", & "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Review-update-29-625351172 ) for casual readers.
**Some paleontologists have tried w/mixed results (E.g. Cau; See "Semi-good" for what I mean: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ). Some zoologists have tried w/even worse results (E.g. Marven; See "Bad" below for what I mean).
Rey's "Re: Horner Talks" ( http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Jul/msg00306.html ) sums up why Horner ("John R. Horner - Faculty and Staff": http://www.montana.edu/wwwes/facstaff/horner.htm ) is a semi-good source of dino info.
Remember what I said about Peters, Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney, & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa (See "Bad": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? 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" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20180127071711/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/08/birds-come-first-hypothesis/ ) 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: https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/to-those-who-would-prove-us-wrong-a-guide-to-scientific-dialogue/ ).
Zorak's "Nigel Marven is the Worst" ( http://www.anorbitalgrouse.com/video/nigel/ ) sums up why Marven ("Nigel Marven") is a bad source of dino info.
Remember what I said about Blasing & Dixon (See "Bad": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 )? The same goes for Strauss ("Bob Strauss - ThoughtCo"). RaptorRex's "Another Dinosaur Field Guide!?" ( http://raptorrexdinosauria.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-dinosaur-field-guide.html ) 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 ( https://twitter.com/KarenCarr_Illus/statuses/400718813361999872 ) sums up what I mean.
Last edited by JD-man on Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Posts : 142
Points : 1532
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2016-06-08
|Subject: Re: Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:39 am|| |
I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 4: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-Semi-good-and-Bad-Dino-Sources-4-800236863 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.
- Quote :
- Hi everybody,
I was originally planning on "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources 3" being the last part in the series ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 ). However, I've since learned more about some of the already-listed sources & others.
Remember what I said about the AMNH (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 )? The same goes for the Smithsonian ("Smithsonian Institution: Smithsonian Homepage": https://www.si.edu/ ). "The museum's new Deep Time Hall" ( http://dino-sours.tumblr.com/post/170584157882/10-things-im-excited-for-in-the-new-national ) & the book based on it ( https://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-Dinosaurs-Other-Amazing-Creatures-ebook/dp/B07H1XJTJB ) are especially good examples of that.
Remember what I said about Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved" does everything Gardom/Milner's book does, but mostly bigger & better (See books #2 & #1 for what I mean: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Top-4-natural-histories-of-dinos-758236511 ).
Remember what I said about "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" & "Paleoaerie" (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 )? The same mostly goes for "Palaeos, la historia de la Vida en la Tierra" ( http://palaeos-blog.blogspot.com/ ). Put another way, the latter is more-or-less to Mexico what the former are to NJ & AR, respectively.
Remember what I said about Witton (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 )? Apparently, I didn't say enough. My bad. Given the combination of his paleoart influence ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-great-2017-palaeoart-survey-some.html ), his paleoart books ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU3n7SMi0FI ), & his recent paleoart ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-mural-for-dippy-restoring-celebrity.html ), he's basically the modern day Charles R. Knight.
Remember what I said about Benton & Brusatte (See "Semi-good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 )? Norman ("Dr David Norman — Department of Earth Sciences": https://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/directory/david-norman ) is similar, but more layered:
-On the 1 hand, he's a consistently good source for the specialist. His ornithopod work is especially notable (E.g. To quote Witton, "For an easy to access, relatively up to date and inexpensive look at a bunch of iguanodonts, you could do a lot worse than checking out Dave Norman's chapter on ornithopods in English Wealden Fossils": http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2014/01/remembering-iguanodon.html ).*
-On the other hand, he's a not-so-consistent source for casual readers/the enthusiast. Yes, "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" & "Dinosaur!" are both great & I reviewed the former as such ( https://www.amazon.com/review/RJ6H99FGIW6CC/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). However, a lot of his other popular work is just OK for reasons discussed in said review.
-1 especially good example of that is his "Ask the Expert" column in "Dinosaurs!" magazine ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/01/vintage-dinosaur-art-yet-more-dinosaurs.html ): For 1, compare his T.rex answer to "Mythical Match" (which is from the 1971 book, "Animal Ghosts": http://agathaumas.blogspot.com/2011/10/antropocentrismo-e-paleoillustrazione.html ); For another, compare his "feather theory" answer to the Gardom/Milner quote (which is from the 1993 edition of "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs").
-Another especially good example is his review of Bakker's "Raptor Red" & how it reminds me of the "nature fakers controversy" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy ): On the 1 hand, I agree w/Burroughs about unverified claims being presented as facts; On the other hand, Burroughs comes off as blindly dismissive of the possibility that animals are more than just automatons; In reference to the latter, I think Seton was especially good at showing that "animals are creatures with wants and feelings differing in degree only from our own" ( http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=seton&book=wild&story=_front ); You could argue that Seton ultimately won the debate given that "his contributions to natural history included pioneering work in what would become the sciences of ecology and ethology" (which backed up a lot of what he said: https://books.google.com/books?id=RWQH8iSDQhEC&pg=PR7&dq=%22seton+may+be+best%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN_cXk7IjaAhUET98KHcSEAFUQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22seton%20may%20be%20best%22&f=false ). Similarly, Norman comes off as blindly dismissive of Bakker's book (which got a lot right: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Trivia/RaptorRed ).
*I'm specifically referring to his 1980s Iguanodon work (which reminds me of Dollo's 1880s Iguanodon work in terms of changing our views of how Iguanodon looked & behaved).
Quoting Gardom/Milner: "Why feathers? It is generally agreed that birds evolved from small meat-eating theropod dinosaurs. Obviously these dinosaurs did not sprout feathers overnight and become birds, so there must have been a long period when some of the small theropods were experimenting with feathers, which are only a different version of scales."
As you may remember from my Riddle review ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R47I7QPHDIHYD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300164351 ), BANDits are basically the paleo equivalent of creationists & global warming deniers ( https://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/banditry-creationism-and-global-warming-denial/ ). Similarly, Ford ("Brian J Ford scientific home page") is basically the paleo equivalent of a flat earther. Ford's dino work is so bad that 1) NHBS sells it w/a Surgeon General-esque warning ("The aquatic dinosaur hypothesis of Ford, who is not himself a palaeontologist, is considered controversial in palaeontological circles and generally not taken seriously, being at odds with a large body of evidence. Interested readers might also want to have a look at the pieces written by palaeontologists Brian Switek for Smithsonian.com, and Darren Naish for Scientific American": https://www.nhbs.com/too-big-to-walk-book ), & 2) Naish has had to dissect it 3 separate times (which are as follows):
-"Palaeontology bites back…": https://darrennaish.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/naish-2012-labnews-response-to-ford-aquatic-dinosaurs.pdf
-"Brian J. Ford's Aquatic Dinosaurs, 2014 Edition": https://web.archive.org/web/20180422065207/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/brian-j-ford-s-aquatic-dinosaurs-2014-edition/
-"A Vast Quantity of Evidence Confirms That Non-Bird Dinosaurs Were Not Aquatic": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG50CGJJfUs
Remember what I said about Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa (See "Bad": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? Apparently, I didn't say enough. My bad. For 1, his real name is Carlos Miguel Albuquerque & he has since moved his "Gwawinapterus" content to "Ichthyoconodon – Prehistoric esoterism". For another, he's since been permabanned from both Wikipedia (as Falconfly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=868840663&fbclid=IwAR0cqwNa_ZkFJEDHs6VF71y9sd2DRJRxraMGwLk7az_8XeGUceUnaWi6Eo4#User:Falconfly ) & the Tetrapod Zoology group (See the Naish quote).
Quoting Naish ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/156954631577624/permalink/318195005453585/?comment_id=318639152075837&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D ): "Hi everyone. A load of drama has happened in my few days of absence from this group. I can't make any sense of what's happened nor do I understand what the source of argument is. But one person here has been accused of bullying, of sending vindictive personal messages, and of displaying an attitude that is very contrary to the group-minded, co-operative discussions I most want to see here. I have therefore decided to remove that person from the group and I would advise other parties involved not to engage further via DM or whatever."
|Subject: Re: Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources || |
Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources
|How do you rate Fallen Kingdom?|
| 20% ||[ 20 ]|
| 15% ||[ 15 ]|
| 24% ||[ 24 ]|
| 16% ||[ 16 ]|
| 8% ||[ 8 ]|
| 12% ||[ 12 ]|
| 1% ||[ 1 ]|
| 1% ||[ 1 ]|
| 0% ||[ 0 ]|
| 1% ||[ 1 ]|
|Total Votes : 98|
|Who is online?|
In total there are 18
users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 18 Guests
Most users ever online was 163
on Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:04 am