JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

My 47th review for this thread is a positive 1 for the 2004 edition of Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books). If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

The best edition ( www.amazon.com/review/RZ0S3CGZFRCPL/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

As far as I know, there are 5 editions of Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books) (henceforth DD 1989/2004/2008/2010/2014). As much as I love DD, it was never truly great: For 1, see the Ben quote; What Ben says about "the AMNH fossil halls" goes for DD; For another, DD is a mixed bag in terms of paleoart.* If you want the current best DD-style book, get Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs. If I were to recommend reading an edition of DD in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs), it'd be DD 2004. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why that is.

1) In reference to "For 1" (which mainly refers to DD 1989), DD 2004 partially solves this problem with "8 pages of new text", all of which are "distinctly color-coded". This is especially apparent in the "Find out more" & Glossary sections: The former lists some of the best dino museums in the U.S. & their websites (which is good because [1] it makes DD interactive, & [2] to quote Norman/Milner, "You can also take a virtual tour of many museums over the internet if you cannot visit them in person"); The latter clearly explains all technical terms. DD 2008 is almost exactly the same in content, the problem being that much of what was accurate in 2004 was inaccurate in 2008 (E.g. The records for "biggest dinosaur", "biggest meat-eater", & "shortest dinosaur name"). DD 2010/2014 have the opposite problem as DD 1989. While DD 1989 is too esoteric, DD 2010/2014 are too simple & condescending (E.g. "Hadrosaur" is defined 10 times throughout DD 2010, including twice on page 70). & if that's not bad enough, DD 2010/2014 are even more inaccurate for their time (probably because they're authored by a non-expert) & exclude said websites.

2) In reference to "For another", DD 2004 partially solves this problem with "stunning real-life photographs of dinosaur bones, skulls, teeth and more". This is especially apparent in the "and more" photos: Many of DD 1989's not-so-good life reconstructions, most of which were outdated even in 1989, were replaced in DD 2004 (E.g. Hill & Winterbotham's tail-dragging Mamenchisaurus & Diplodocus, respectively, were replaced by a herd of Graham High's Brachiosaurus); Many of those that weren't replaced got new captions (E.g. The new caption for Graham High's Deinonychus reads, "Most scientists now agree that, unlike the model shown here, Deinonychus was probably feathered"). Pixel-shack's bad life reconstructions started to replace DD's good ones in 2008 & almost completely took over in 2010/2014. Pixel-shack's "DK 2003" Velociraptor ( https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/sauropedia/images/8/8b/Velociraptor1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110817011836 ) replacing the AMNH's "Fighting Dinos" Velociraptor ( https://digitalcollections.amnh.org/Assets/V2/ChFBTjFTNTAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMhIDVFIxGihcVFIxXDMwXGNjXGVjXDkwXDhkXHYxX0FOMVxBTjEyMzU5MjAuanBnIgQIARAPQAE-~/2URM1T9XJV4K/5@La5NKVZa1gSRqP/AN1235920.jpg ) is an especially good example of that.

*I'm specifically referring to DD's life reconstructions, many of which are not-so-good (I.e. Those by various illustrators & Pixel-shack in the older & newer editions, respectively).

Quoting Ben ( https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/02/26/framing-fossil-exhibits-phylogeny/ ):

Quote :

Within the actual fossil halls, interpretation remains stubbornly unapproachable. For example, the sign introducing proboscidians tells visitors that this group is defined primarily by eye sockets located near the snout. An observant visitor might wonder why scientists rely on such an obscure detail, as opposed to the obvious trunks and tusks. There’s a good teaching moment there concerning why some characteristics might face more selection pressure (and thus change more radically) than others, but instead visitors are only offered esoteric statements. Relatedly, the exhibit does little to prioritize information. Most label text is quite small, and there’s a lot of it. Compare this to Evolving Planet at the Field Museum, where there is a clear hierarchy of headings and sub-headings. Visitors can read the main point of a display without even stopping, and parents can quickly find relevant information to answer their charges’ questions (rather than making something up).
Evolving Planet also compares favorably to the AMNH fossil halls in its informative aesthetics and spatial logic. At FMNH, walls and signs in each section are distinctly color-coded, making transitions obvious and intuitive. Likewise, consistent iconography – such as the mass extinction zones – helps visitors match recurring themes and topics throughout the exhibit. AMNH, in contrast, has a uniform glass and white-walled Apple Store aesthetic. It’s visually appealing, but doesn’t do much to help visitors navigate the space in a meaningful way.

My 48th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Maynard's The Best Book of Dinosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Definitely NOT the best ( www.amazon.com/review/R797Y6F6B6JEW/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

In my experience, when a non-fiction dino book is given a superlative title, it's being set up for failure. As far as I know, only 1 such book lives up to its title & Maynard's The Best Book of Dinosaurs (henceforth BB) is definitely NOT it or even just decent in its own right.* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) BB's life reconstructions are mostly not-so-good. Those by Kirk are as good as it gets in BB, while those by Forsey are as bad as it gets: In reference to Kirk, the ornithischians & Barosaurus are depicted with too many claws; Otherwise, the dinos are mostly accurate for the time & completely awesome for all time (E.g. See the Deinonychus on the back cover, which have tiger stripes & a lightning storm background); In reference to Forsey, I've said all I have to say in my review of Theodorou's I Wonder Why Triceratops Had Horns ("Wonder's more realistic reconstructions" are by Forsey: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3493788414 ); Unfortunately, most of BB's life reconstructions are by Forsey. Those by Field fall somewhere in between, but more towards Forsey (E.g. See the Triceratops on the front cover, which have cartoonishly angry eyes & 4 clawed fingers per hand).

2) BB is a confusing mess in terms of organization. There isn't even an Introduction. BB just begins with a chapter about baby dinos & continues with no logical transitions or flow between the chapters.

3) BB fails to cover many dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner:** Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; This is especially apparent in the chapter about the dino extinction because 1) the main text explains nothing about the science behind the dino extinction story, & 2) the sidebar text needlessly re-tells said story; Other times, it's just plain wrong; This is especially apparent in said chapter because it's claimed that 1) the asteroid "hit Earth in Central America" (Last I checked, Mexico =/= Central America), & 2) only "some scientists think that dinosaurs were the ancestors of modern birds" (Quoting Witmer from a 1995 book: "There are so many derived similarities between birds and these Deinonychus-like theropod dinosaurs that most paleontologists today believe birds are theropod dinosaurs!").

*By "1 such book", I mean Holtz's Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages (Dinosaurs for short).

**By "many", I mean half of all the dino-related subjects a decent introduction to dinos would cover. Using Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs as a guide, BB fails to cover "The dinosaur world", "Getting about", "Living animals", "Dinosaurs and people", & "Dinosaurs and birds".

My 49th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Extremely nostalgic ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R1D5YN9OJS6MXU/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

If there's 1 thing I'm nostalgic for, it's Rey's traditional paleoart (which is overall better than his digital paleoart). If there's 1 thing I'm definitely NOT nostalgic for, it's the extreme dino genre: At best, "extreme" is a buzzword; At worst, it's an excuse to make dinos as monstrous as possible. Not only is Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs (henceforth ED) the best extreme dino book, but also the best traditional Rey book.* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) Unlike other extreme dino books, "extreme" actually means something in ED. This is especially apparent in the 1st 2 chapters. Not only do said chapters define "extreme" (See the 1st Rey quote), but also use "the dinosaur-bird link" to reinforce that definition (See the 2nd Rey quote).

2) Unlike other extreme dino books, ED is very well-organized. More specifically, the middle chapters are arranged in both geographical & chronological order: In reference to "geographical", each chapter focuses on a different continent; In reference to "chronological", the chapters are arranged in order of their continent's 1st dino discovery, beginning with Europe & ending with Asia; Furthermore, the dinos in each chapter are described in order of their discovery (E.g. The Europe chapter begins with Iguanodon & ends with Scipionyx).

3) Unlike other extreme dino books, ED is very well-illustrated. The last chapter in particular features Rey's then-best/most bird-like dinos in terms of appearance & behavior. "Customising a life-size Velociraptor" (which, as far as I know, was the best Velociraptor model next to Kokoro's) & "RAPTOR RED:Snow games" (which, as far as I know, is still the best dino play behavior art) are especially good examples of the former & latter, respectively.

If I could, I'd give ED a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. The Berlin Archaeopteryx is referred to as "the first Archaeopteryx fossil that was found") & writing (E.g. Some hadrosaurs are referred to as 4-legged, while others are referred to as 2-legged). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5. I recommend reading ED in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs) as well as "Luis V. Rey's Dinosaurs and Paleontology Art Gallery" ( http://web.archive.org/web/20021016144903/http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/gallery.htm ), which provides more info about most of Rey's ED work.

*Gee/Rey's A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic may be better in terms of paleoart (I.e. There's MUCH more of it), but definitely NOT in terms of text & writing.

Quoting Rey:

Quote :

There has never been a more exciting time to study dinosaurs. The better we get to know them, the more weird and wonderful and extreme they seem. We know a lot more about dinosaurs than we did when I was a kid. We used to think that dinosaurs were sluggish, cold blooded and not very bright. Then in 1964, Yale paleontologist John Ostrom found the arms and claws of a two-legged meat-eater he named Deinonychus. Deinonychus had enormous sickle-shaped claws on its feet. This meant that in order to kill its prey, it had to be able to leap into the air, cling to the victim with its hand claws, and slash with its feet. Deinonychus must have been a real acrobat. Could it be that dinosaurs were much more active than we had thought? Other extraordinary discoveries followed.

Quoting Rey:

Quote :

In 1988, my Deinonychus Pack was a controversial painting. Paleontologists who favored the idea of the dinosaur-bird link loved it. Others didn't. They thought dinosaur feathers were science fiction[...]they wanted to see scaly skin! Lots of evidence has piled up in favor of feathers since those days.

My 50th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Mash's Extreme Dinosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Extremely bad ( www.amazon.com/review/R10WWVQJN8L3MP/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

In my previous review, I referred to Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs as the best extreme dino book. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why Mash's Extreme Dinosaurs (henceforth ED) may be the worst extreme dino book.

1) Trish's ED review ( http://babbletrish.blogspot.com/2011/07/lets-read-another-eye-searingly-bad.html ) sums up most everything you need to know about Martin's paleoart in ED. However, I'll add my own thoughts as well:
-Martin's Brachiosaurus & Edmontosaurus are shameless rip-offs of Graham High's Brachiosaurus model & the NHM's Baryonyx model, respectively.
-Remember when "Nigel-the-Pelican-flies-into-a-window" in Finding Nemo ( https://ohmy.disney.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2014/06/Nigel-the-Pelican-flies-into-a-window.jpg )? Martin's Microraptor is basically a Mockbuster version of that.
-Remember the "All Yesterdays Cat" ( https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0073/83/1436510676473.jpg )? Martin's T. rex is basically a Shar-Pei version of that.

2) Martin's paleoart isn't the only "Eye-Searingly Bad" part of ED. There's also Mash's writing: For 1, it goes back & forth between uncomfortably large & uncomfortably small; For another, it goes back & forth between several different fonts; Taken together, it's extremely difficult just to look at it, let alone read the words. & if that's not bad enough, Mash's writing is also annoyingly repetitive (E.g. "First, they were used first to kill the prey, and then to slice the meat")/inconsistent (E.g. Some of the info boxes list length; Others list length & weight; Still others list length, weight, & height)/derivative (E.g. See the Mash quote, which shamelessly rips off Chapter 4 of Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs).

3) Mash's text is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in the info boxes because the misses stick out more with less text.* However, the other sidebar misses may be worse in degree: Some of them are due to being extremely outdated (E.g. Not only are pachycephalosaurs & heterodontosaurs claimed to be ornithopods, but ornithischians & saurischians are claimed to be no more closely related to each other than they are to crocs & pterosaurs); Others are due to being extremely nonsensical (E.g. The skeleton on pages 10-11 is "[seemingly] based on Marsh's 1880s "Brontosaurus" skeletal, complete with mismatched macronarian head", yet is referred to as that of Diplodocus).**

*Even if you only read the info boxes, you'll see that there's an average of at least 1 or 2 factual errors per page in ED, a 32 page book (E.g. Brachiosaurus =/= 150-140 MYA & "up to 90 tons").

**Google "Vintage Dinosaur Art: The evolution and ecology of the Dinosaurs: Part 2".

Quoting Mash:

Quote :

It is estimated a human being could have been torn apart in less than thirty seconds by a pack of Velociraptors!

My 51st review for this thread is a positive 1 for Witmer's The Search for the Origin of Birds. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

More cladistics yay! ( www.amazon.com/review/RV35J07GNJZDT/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

To quote Grandmother Fish, clades "are central to a modern understanding of how we living things relate to each other." Before Holtz's Dinosaurs, Witmer's The Search for the Origin of Birds (henceforth Search) was the best children's dino book when it came to introducing older kids to cladistics as well as the best pre-Sinosauropteryx dino-bird book for older kids. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) Like Hedley's Dinosaurs and Their Living Relatives, Chapters 1-2 of Search cover cladistics & archosaurs. In fact, Search is even better: Not only does Search cover much of the same background info ("Homology versus convergence"), but also goes well beyond ("Primitive versus derived"); Thus, Search does more in 2 chapters than Hedley's book does in 4 chapters. 1 of my only gripes is that Search doesn't use the word "cladistics".*

2) Like Schlein's The Puzzle of the Dinosaur-bird: The Story of Archaeopteryx, Chapters 3-8 of Search cover the history of "the dinosaur-bird connection" from the 1860s to the 1970s, the Protoavis controversy, the "Time Problem", & "The Origin of Flight". In fact, Search is even better: While both books invite readers to "inspect the evidence [scientists] have found, and [follow the] debate over what the evidence means", only Search does so in the context of cladistics; This is especially apparent in Chapter 6 (E.g. See the 1st Witmer quote, which is especially good at showing why birds & dinos are too similar to be convergent).

3) Chapter 9 weighs the evidence & concludes that birds "evolved from a Triassic or Jurassic theropod dinosaur that resembled Deinonychus but was much smaller and, perhaps, spent a lot of time in the trees." However, because no such dinos were then known, the fringe group BAND (= Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) put forth the "Time Problem" & "The Origin of Flight" as arguments against said conclusion (I.e. Birds can't be dinos because [1] the earliest bird fossils are older than the most bird-like dino fossils, & [2] the earliest birds were small tree-climbers, but the most bird-like dinos were large ground-runners). The 2nd Witmer quote sums up why said conclusion is widely accepted & said arguments aren't. Put another way, said conclusion is based on mountains of hard evidence, while said arguments are from ignorance. It's also worth mentioning that many such dinos have since been found, including Anchiornis & Xiaotingia.

*My other gripe is the hit-&-miss paleoart: While some of the reconstructions are mostly accurate (Archaeopteryx, Compsognathus, Hypsilophodon, & Euparkeria), others are mostly not-so-accurate (Sphenosuchus, Deinonychus, & Troodon); The Holtz quote sums up everything wrong with the latter. I hate to say it because Mather's paleoart is nice to look at ( http://thisisbozeman.com/discovering-first-montanans ).

Quoting Holtz ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Holtz-s-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ):

Quote :

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.

Quoting Witmer:

Quote :

Deinonychus is not all that similar to modern birds, but shows a number of close similarities to the Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx: the number and shapes of the openings in the snout, the positioning of the teeth in the skull, the number of fingers and the relative sizes of the finger bones, the unusual shapes of some of the wrist bones, the arrangement of the hip bones, a special kind of ankle structure, and a certain foot structure.
If we look closely at this list, we'll see that some characteristics give us more specific information about relationships than others. Some of these birdlike features (such as the ankle joint) are found in all dinosaurs, but in almost no other archosaurs. These specializations show that birds might be related to dinosaurs. Some of the features[...]the snout openings and foot structure[...]are specializations of a certain group of dinosaurs, the theropod saurischian dinosaurs. Some of the features[...]the positioning of the teeth, the hand and wrist structure[...]are found in only a few kinds of theropod dinosaurs. One feature[...]the hip bones[...]is found only in Deinonychus and its relatives.
These shared specializations that we see in Archaeopteryx, Deinonychus, and other dinosaurs suggest that birds indeed evolved from dinosaurs. But this idea is different from the old, original theory of dinosaur-bird relationships discussed in Chapter 3. The old version was very vague. It didn't show which group of dinosaurs might be closer to birds. This new theory not only says that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but also identifies a particular group of dinosaurs, the theropods. It even points to a small group of theropod dinosaurs that are most closely related to birds. There are so many derived similarities between birds and these Deinonychus-like theropod dinosaurs that most paleontologists today believe birds are theropod dinosaurs!

Quoting Witmer:

Quote :

In searching for the origin of birds, we came across many conflicting clues:[...]How do we make sense of these clues that point us in different directions?[...]The clues from the ages of fossils are not fully trustworthy. It's possible that we may someday discover Deinonychus-like fossils in old-enough rocks. If that happened, the "time problem" would disappear[...]The clues from the theories on the origin of flight are even less reliable. We don't know much about how dinosaurs lived their lives. Maybe some of the Deinonychus-like theropods actually were small and spent a lot of time in trees[...]The most reliable clues are the ones that come from the structure of the bones themselves. They are more certain[...]we can look at them, measure them, hold them in our hands.

My 52nd review for this thread is a negative 1 for Brooklyn's If You Were Raised by a Dinosaur. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect: www.charlesbridge.com/products/if-you-were-raised-by-a-dinosaur ). Many thanks in advance.

The worst popular baby dino book ( www.amazon.com/review/R2PBFKZ4BOZCNN/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best baby dino book for older kids, get Zoehfeld's Dinosaur Parents, Dinosaur Young: Uncovering the Mystery of Dinosaur Families & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs in general & Chapter 36 in particular). Brooklyn's If You Were Raised by a Dinosaur (henceforth You) may be the worst. It just goes to show what a difference some expert consulting & personal research can make.

Long version: Read on.

Many popular baby dino books are OK, but not great. There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) They're mixed bags in terms of paleoart (Quoting Miller: "I bought the book expecting a more technical discussion of the animals discussed therein[...]but was surprised to find beautiful paintings of questionably-restored dinosaurs"); 2) They're confusing messes in terms of organization; 3) They fail to cover many baby dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, they simplify things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, they're just plain wrong). In this review, I focus on reasons #1 & #3 & why I think they make You the worst popular baby dino book.

1) Not only is You's paleoart very questionable, but also very ugly. More specifically, it consists of cheap-looking paper collages of anachronistic assemblages of mostly gray/green/brown animals with wonky anatomy in inappropriate environments: In reference to "anachronistic assemblages", see the cover; There's a generic rhamphorhynchid pterosaur, a Massospondylus family, an Apatosaurus family, & a T. rex family; In reference to "wonky anatomy", see "Review update 52 (It's a big 1)!" for everything wrong with the cover in terms of anatomy ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585 ); In reference to "inappropriate environments", the cover depicts a grassland environment despite the fact that, to quote Holtz ( www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104shadow.html ), "grasses seem to have been relatively rare in the Mesozoic, and did not form grasslands until much later. Ground cover in the later Mesozoic was a mixture of ferns and herbaceous angiosperms. So as far as we know, no dinosaur other than birds ever wandered in prairies or savannahs".

3A) In reference to "Sometimes", You's writing is overcomplicated (as opposed to oversimplified). More specifically, it's like "when Joey wrote a recommendation letter for Chandler and Monica to send to an adoption agency, but he used a thesaurus on every word to sound smart" ( www.buzzfeed.com/hopelasater/joey-friends-best-moments ). The Brooklyn quote in "Review update 52 (It's a big 1)!" is the best example of that ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585 ): For 1, it's also the best example of incorrectly pluralized dino names (Seriously, "T. rexes"?); For another, it shamelessly rips off Chapter 17 of Holtz's Dinosaurs.

3B) In reference to "Other times", this is especially apparent in the Brooklyn quote below (which fails on so many levels that I need to quote the UCMP just to demonstrate): It fails to understand that Geist/Jones are 1) not dino experts, & 2) known for "publishing with a hidden agenda" ( http://web.archive.org/web/20171216234814/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/17/birds-cannot-be-dinosaurs/ ); It fails to understand "modern-day[...precocial...]birds and alligators", most of which DO need parental care, including most of those in Geist/Jones's study; It fails to understand Maiasaura (which, to paraphrase Anthony J. Martin, "is arguably the best understood of nesting dinosaurs, only rivaled by its neighbors in the same field area, [Troodon]"); It fails to understand that Geist/Jones's study was at least 9 years out of date at the time of You's publication.

1 more thing of note: To quote Dussart (See Biosciences on the Internet: A Student's Guide), "The speed and ease of email, plus its association with the web, mean that it is relatively easy to find and contact experts"; Thus, there's no excuse for You to not have expert consulting, especially given that some experts make a living from consultancy (E.g. Darren Naish: https://darrennaish.wordpress.com/ ); At the very least, having it would've helped prevent many of the textual fails (if not the visual ones too); In fact, said fails are so basic that they could've easily been avoided with up-to-date personal research; Unfortunately, there's very little of said research in You & it's mostly used incorrectly; In contrast, Sattler's Tyrannosaurus Rex and Its Kin: The Mesozoic Monsters shows how good a non-authoritative book can be with a lot of said research ( www.amazon.com/review/R3INFL96O3PWAS/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ).

Quoting Brooklyn:

Quote :

Not all scientists agree with the interpretation that Maiasaura babies needed parental care. Scientists Nicholas Geist and Terry Jones examined the hip and knee bones of different birds and alligators. They compared the hip bones and knee joints of Maiasaura to that of modern-day birds and alligators, which don't need parental care. The Maiasaura hips were at least as well developed as the birds', and the knee joints were no weaker than the birds' or alligators'. This might mean that Maiasaura babies did not need care from their parents as Horner believed.

Quoting the UCMP ( www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eggshell/eggshell_case1.php ):

Quote :

In their original description of embryonic remains from the Willow Creek Anticline, Horner and Weishampel (1988) cited degree of ossification of the leg bones of Maiasaura and Troodon (then thought to be Orodromeus) to indicate the level of mobility of young after hatching. Subsequently, Geist and Jones (1996) compared extant perinatal (the developmental stage immediately prior to and following hatching) birds and crocodilians to fossil dinosaur embryos and hatchlings. They found that the extent of hip bone development was more important than leg bone development for recognizing precocial versus altricial hatchlings, and that the leg bones of Maiasaura, Troodon, and other dinosaurs did not reliably indicate the mobility of a hatchling. Geist and Jones suggested that the hatchling dinosaurs studied were likely precocial upon birth, although this does not preclude the provision of extended parental care. Horner et al. (2001) countered Geist and Jones' (1996) argument after an extensive histological analysis of turtle, crocodilian, non-avian dinosaur, and bird embryonic and perinatal bones that compared bone developmental patterns and growth rates. The authors correlated ossification and growth rates with life-history strategies. Horner et al. (2001) concluded that developmental differences (including growth rates) in embryonic and perinatal dinosaur bones from the Willow Creek Anticline indicate a precocial lifestyle for Troodon and Orodromeus hatchlings and an altricial lifestyle for hadrosaur hatchlings that necessitated parental care; this work supported their original hypothesis (Horner and Weishampel 1988).

My 53rd review for this thread is a positive 1 for Johnson/Stucky's Prehistoric Journey: A History of Life on Earth. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

I'm a sucker for dioramas ( www.amazon.com/review/R3F47215A3OEHY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

There's a lot to like about Johnson/Stucky's Prehistoric Journey: A History of Life on Earth (henceforth PJ). My favorite aspects of PJ are as follows:
-Similarly to Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs, PJ was published by 1 of the best natural history museums, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science (& thus, is extra high-quality/authoritative). I can't overstate the importance of books like PJ (in conjunction with museum websites) to ppl like me (who can't visit those museums in person).
-Also similarly to Gardom/Milner's book, PJ has a "direct, clear written style, with all unfamiliar names and technical terms clearly explained" ( www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ), which is especially important for a "primer on the evolution of the planet's life forms".
-As indicated by this review's title, the real highlights of PJ are the prehistoric habitat dioramas, 1 at the beginning of each chapter. As you may remember, I said that dioramas "are the best dino exhibits" ( www.amazon.com/review/R3PD2BYTU5ANKB/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ), especially walk-through dioramas like PJ's.* The "diorama of a Cretaceous Creekbed" is my favorite ( www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.jsp?med_id=66391&from ).

My only gripes & nit-picks are as follows:
-There are no cladograms in PJ despite it being a "primer on the evolution of the planet's life forms".
-There are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Deinonychus was discovered in Montana in 1964, not "Wyoming in 1966") & writing (E.g. "With the new herbivorous dinosaurs rose groups of new carnivorous animals, including[...]dromaeosaurs, troodontids, and velociraptors"; Technically correct, but still weird).
-Gurche's "Allosaurus and Stegosaurus" (which is based on the DMNS's "Fighting Dinosaurs") is on the cover, implying that the other 2D life reconstructions are of the same or similar quality. In actuality, they're watercolors by Greg Micheals (which are very easy on the eyes, but not on the level of Gurche's painting). This is like how some copies of The Last Dinosaur have Gurche's "Daspletosaurus and Styracosaurus" on the cover, implying that you're gonna get Jurassic Park-style dinos when you're actually getting Godzilla-style dinos.

*To quote Cosh ( https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/items/f5556128-1b03-4e37-b7d4-7266a5cd4cbc ), "A diorama is "a three dimensional, life-size simulated environment in which models or taxidermied animals are placed in order to depict a scene or an event" (Mortensen 2010:324). In a walk-through diorama, the visitor is brought inside the display space and becomes somewhat of a participant rather than merely a spectator; in this respect, a walk-through is a type of museum "immersion experience" (Mortensen 2010:324)."

My 54th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Jenkins's Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Did you put any effort into this? ( www.amazon.com/review/R21LUEX1AD0VBE/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best children's book about both evolution & the history of life, get Kelly/Kissel's Evolving Planet: Four Billion Years of Life on Earth. It's everything that kind of book should be & MUCH more. Jenkins's Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution (henceforth Life) is the exact opposite of that in every way.

Long version: Read on.

As far as I know, there aren't many children's books about both evolution & the history of life. If you want the best 1, get Kelly/Kissel's book (which was published by 1 of the best natural history museums, the Field Museum of Natural History). If said book is the Sonic Sat AM of its genre, then Life is The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvTn8Qp8FAU ). In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why I think that is, besides the lack of expert consulting.

1) Life is very poorly-illustrated. This is especially apparent in the illustrations of non-bird dinos (E.g. The generic sauropod on the front cover has lizard feet & an ear hole on its neck; The generic tyrannosaur on the back cover has pronated hands & a vertical posture; Both have misshapen heads & dragging tails), but also applies to the illustrations of other things (E.g. The ostrich on the front cover has spaghetti legs with 3 long, clawed toes per foot). It doesn't help that "the illustrations are collages of cut and torn paper" & thus very cheap looking.

2) Life is very hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in the text about non-bird dinos (E.g. See the 1st Jenkins quote;* It's also worth mentioning that the aforementioned sauropod is referred to as Megalosaurus, a theropod), but also applies to the text about other things (E.g. What's clearly a Komodo dragon is referred to as Hylonomus, an early reptile). It's very telling that the only dino book listed under "For further reading" is from 1991.

3) Life is very poorly-written: For 1, it synonymizes "developed" with "evolved" ( www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html ); For another, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless (E.g. See the 2nd Jenkins quote; Notice that it fails to mention either DNA, which causes mutation, or variation, which is caused by mutation).

4) There are no cladograms in Life. This is despite the fact that, to quote Grandmother Fish, clades "are central to a modern understanding of how we living things relate to each other". Worse still, evolution is shown as a straight line. This is despite the fact that the 1993 edition of Gamlin's Evolution (DK Eyewitness Books), listed under "For further reading", debunks that "false picture" (See the Gamlin quote).

*In said quote alone, it's claimed that dinos are paraphyletic (They're not), that marine reptiles & pterosaurs are dinos (They're not), & that 230 - 160 = 65 (It doesn't).

Quoting Jenkins:

Quote :

230 million years ago. One or more groups of reptiles evolve into dinosaurs. They range from bird-like animals a few inches tall to giants more than 90 feet long. They live in the sea, on the land, and in the air. Dinosaurs will be the dominant animals on the earth for the next 160 million years.

Quoting Jenkins:

Quote :

Mutation. Sometimes when plants and animals reproduce, something unusual happens and completely new features, called mutations, appear in the next generation. Most mutations are harmful and cause the organism to die. Sometimes, though, they provide an advantage and are passed on.

Quoting Gamlin:

Quote :

GALLOPING UP
The evolution of the horse is often shown by a diagram such as this (left). Although the fossils of all these ancestors have indeed been found, this “ladder” gives a false picture. Evolution does not go in straight lines, and it is not always a steady march of progress from small-and-simple to large-and-complicated. A more realistic image is a densely branching bush (below). There have been dozens of species, most of which have died out, leaving just wild horses, donkeys, and zebras.

I originally posted the following at deviantART ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-1-5-789276373 ).

Quote :

Hi everybody!

"My Serious Dino Books" used to be an Amazon Listmania! List ( https://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/introducing-hadiazmy-1st-listmania-list.html ), but then Amazon stopped doing Listmania!, so now it's a Goodreads Listopia List ( https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/198241.My_Serious_Dino_Books_Please_don_t_vote_or_add_books_ ). I've since updated previous mentions of said list accordingly (E.g. Finally, my 1st journal entry!, hence the title of this journal entry). This journal entry is just in case you haven't already seen said updates. 3 more things of note:

-1) I've also since updated the requirements for said list. They're basically the same, but more streamlined.*

-2) I've also since completed said list (Amazon stopped doing Listmania! before I could add Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved", among others). I like to think of it as a near perfect reading list, partly b/c of its requirements (which, to quote Dino Dad Reviews, are for "separating the paleo-wheat from the cheap-cash-in-chaff"), & partly b/c it consists of 30 popular adult dino books spanning 30 years to the month (I.e. October 1986-October 2016).

-3) I've also since noticed that the 1st & last 6 books on said list are surprisingly similar (I.e. There's a great natural history of dinos w/a terrible cover, a book titled "Flying Dinosaurs", another natural history of dinos that accompanies a dino doc series, & a book authored & illustrated by GSPaul). Funny how that worked out.

*E.g. What used to be 2 requirements is now 1: For adult "casual readers"/"the enthusiast" ( http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

2/20/24 UPDATE: I've since replaced my Amazon Idea List (which, like Listmania!, Amazon inexplicably stopped doing) w/a Goodreads Listopia List (which, on the bright side, allowed me to include more backstory).

My 55th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Surprisingly great/awesomebro ( www.amazon.com/review/RJ6H99FGIW6CC/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (henceforth Earth) is 1) his best/most awesomebro children's book, & 2) 1 of the best/most awesomebro children's natural histories of dinos (Google "Jurassic Park 4: Awesomebro!" for what I mean by "awesomebro"). I recommend reading Earth in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long version: Read on.

Many Norman books are OK, but not great. There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) They're mixed bags in terms of paleoart (Quoting Miller: "I bought the book expecting a more technical discussion of the animals discussed therein[...]but was surprised to find beautiful paintings of questionably-restored dinosaurs"); 2) They're confusing messes in terms of organization; 3) They're dry & esoteric in terms of writing.* Thus, Norman wasn't the 1st person who came to mind when I thought of great/awesomebro dino books, but he might be now that I've read Earth. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why that is.

1) Vincent's Earth review ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2014/11/vintage-dinosaur-art-when-dinosaurs.html ) sums up most everything you need to know about Sibbick's paleoart in Earth. However, I'll add my own thoughts as well:
-In reference to the cover art, Symbion pandora put it best when she said, "Great cover, or Greatest cover?? Fire, random volcanoes, the obligate pterosaur AND a T-rex viciously killing something-- what more could you ask from an '80's kids' dinosaur book?" ( http://symbion-pandora.blogspot.com/2011/03/book-hoarding-update.html ). Is there any dino book cover more awesomebro (& accurate for the time) than that?
-In reference to the interior art, Hartman put it best when he said, "I was also impressed with the gritty realism of John Sibbick’s illustrations in David Norman’s When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/2013/02/interview-with-artist-and.html ). The keyword there is "gritty". All of Sibbick's paleoart is "hyper-realistic", but only his Earth work combines that hyper-realism with "gritty" awesomeness. This is especially apparent when you compare the large, green, front-facing ceratopsian in Earth (See the cover of Parker's The Complete Book of Dinosaurs: A Fascinating Insight to 500 Species from the Prehistoric Age) to those in the "Normanpedia" ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/06/vintage-dinosaur-art-illustrated.html ) & Creatures of Long Ago: Dinosaurs ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/12/vintage-dinosaur-art-creatures-of-long.html ).
-If Sibbick's Creatures of Long Ago: Dinosaurs work is mostly accurate for the time & his "Normanpedia" work is mostly not-so-accurate for the time, then his Earth work is semi-accurate for the time. My only other gripe is the "Dinosaur names" section (which includes non-dino names without clarifying that they're non-dino names).

2) Dry & esoteric writing works in technical books, but not in popular ones. Likewise, confusing organization doesn't work in any book. Fortunately, Earth doesn't have those problems. It helps that Earth is a natural history of dinos & thus the best kind of non-encyclopedic dino book. More specifically, Earth "is designed to be read from start to finish as the developing story of a remarkable group of animals[...in a...]direct, clear written style" ( www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ).** This is especially apparent in the Introduction (See the Norman quote).

*In reference to "dry", not as plain-toast as many Benton books, but dry nonetheless. In reference to "esoteric", it doesn't help that they lack glossaries.

**Google "For Love of Stories" for why it's important that popular dino books are designed that way.

Quoting Norman:

Quote :

Introduction
The last dinosaurs walked this Earth 64 million years ago[...]an almost unimaginably long time. They were members of a great group of reptiles that had dominated the Earth for 140 million years. Yet because the remains of these long-dead animals have been preserved as fossils it has proved possible, by painstaking work of excavation and scientific study, to learn much about their anatomy, way of life and evolutionary history[...]in fact to almost bring them back to life.
The purpose of this book is to introduce the enthusiast to most of the better-known dinosaurs. This is done by combining accurate life-like colour illustrations with careful discussion of what is presently known about dinosaur biology. In this way the reader should learn a great deal, not only about individual dinosaurs, but also of the world they inhabited and their position in the much greater history of life on Earth.

My 56th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Alexander's A Child's Introduction to Natural History: The Story of Our Living Earth–From Amazing Animals and Plants to Fascinating Fossils and Gems. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

This shouldn't be anyone's intro ( www.amazon.com/review/R18JAUMD9S7UY5/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best family-friendly intro to natural history that features non-bird dinos, get DK's Natural History (Smithsonian). It's everything that kind of book should be & MUCH more. Alexander's A Child's Introduction to Natural History: The Story of Our Living Earth–From Amazing Animals and Plants to Fascinating Fossils and Gems (henceforth AC) is the exact opposite of that in every way.

Long version: Read on.

As far as I know, there aren't many family-friendly intros to natural history that feature non-bird dinos. If you want the best 1, get DK's book. If DK's book is the Sonic Sat AM of its genre, then AC is The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvTn8Qp8FAU ). Yes, I already used that analogy in my Life review ( www.amazon.com/review/R21LUEX1AD0VBE/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ), but that's how bad AC is. There are 4 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) It's very poorly-illustrated; 2) It's very poorly-organized; 3) It's very non-authoritative; 4) It fails to cover many natural history-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). In this review, I list what I think are the best examples of said reasons.

1) Unlike DK's book (which is "The Ultimate Visual Guide to Everything on Earth"), AC is illustrated with Hamilton's childish drawings & Shutterstock's cheap-looking stock photos.* Hamilton's naturalist & dino drawings are especially bad: For 1, her Charles Darwin/Steve Irwin/Jane Goodall look like a baby doll/female clown/male Whig, respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC885L05.jpg ); For another, her Velociraptor & Deinonychus are shameless rip-offs of Terakoshi's Deinonychus (which she didn't even fully feather) & Martyniuk's Velociraptor (which she didn't even finish), respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC885L07.jpg ).

2) Unlike DK's chapters & their contents (which, as indicated by the 1st DK quote, are insanely well-organized), AC's are scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason. This is especially apparent in the reptile & dino chapters: Not only is the former preceded & followed by the freshwater & desert chapters, respectively, but it's divided into snake/turtle & lizard/croc sections despite the fact that snake/lizard & turtle/croc sections would've made MUCH more sense for obvious reasons;** Not only is the latter divided into plant eater, meat eater, & non-dino sections without any other context, but it isn't even consistent (I.e. The plant eater & meat eater sections discuss meat eaters & plant eaters, respectively).

3) Unlike DK's book (which, as indicated by the 2nd DK quote, is insanely authoritative), AC is authored by a non-expert who, in this case, neither collaborated with experts nor did enough up-to-date personal research. As indicated by my You review ( www.amazon.com/review/R2PBFKZ4BOZCNN/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ), there's no excuse for that.

4A) In reference to "It fails", this is especially apparent in the invertebrate & dino chapters: For 1, using DK's book as a guide, AC covers every major vertebrate group, but only 3 major invertebrate groups, completely ignoring the other 4; For another, using Holtz's Dinosaurs as a guide, AC only covers 8 genera representing 7 major groups, while DK's book covers 21 genera representing 16 major groups.

4B) In reference to "Sometimes," this is especially apparent in the Ice Age chapter (E.g. See the Alexander quote).

4C) In reference to "Other times," this is especially apparent in the dino chapter. Even if you only read the bolded sentences, you'll see that there's at least 8 factual inaccuracies in those 3 pages. The worst ones are the claims that 1) "Paleontology is the study of dinosaurs", & 2) "No true dinosaur flew". Besides being blatantly false, they're contradicted by the earlier claims that 1) "fossils aren't only about dinosaurs", & 2) "some even flew."

*In reference to "childish drawings", they look like those of a kid learning to draw by copying photos badly.

**It's also worth mentioning that unlike DK's book (which has a 4-page "tree of life", showing how all living things are related), AC has no cladograms.

Quoting DK:

Quote :

Natural History begins with a general introduction to life on Earth: the geological foundations of life, the evolution of life forms, and how organisms are classified. The next five chapters form an extensive and accessible catalog of species and specimens[...]from mineral to mammals[...]interspersed with fact-filled introductions to each group and in-depth feature profiles.

Quoting DK:

Quote :

Featuring more than 5,000 illustrations of everything on Earth[...]from rocks to redwoods, microbes to mammals[...]this is the most spectacular survey of our planet's treasures ever made. Compiled by a team of professional wildlife experts working with the world-renowned Smithsonian Institution, NATURAL HISTORY is the ultimate celebration of the world's extraordinary diversity of life.

Quoting Alexander:

Quote :

The ground sloth was an extra-large relative of a modern-day sloth. How large? Most were the size of an ox. Unlike today's sloths that spend their days up in the trees, some ground sloths stayed on the ground. They ate plants and stood on their hind legs to reach the tops of trees.

My 57th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Michard's The Reign of the Dinosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

A REALLY concise natural history ( www.amazon.com/review/R1XKIJYJI2F8YU/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

The best way I can describe Michard's The Reign of the Dinosaurs (henceforth Reign) is as a cross between the 1st edition of DK's Dinosaur (Eyewitness) & the 1st edition of Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) Like Gardom/Milner's book, Reign is very well-organized. More specifically, both books have a day-in-the-life format (I.e. The 1st part introduces the dinos & their world; The 2nd part shows how the dinos lived & evolved in their world); This makes sense given that, according to Ernest Thompson Seton, day-in-the-life stories are the best way to write natural history (See "Note to the Reader": https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wild_Animals_I_Have_Known ).

2) Like DK's book, Reign is very concise. This is especially apparent in Chapter 2 (I.e. "In search of an identity"), which is basically equivalent to the 1st 14 pages of Gardom/Milner's Chapter 8 (I.e. "Dinosaurs and people"), covering all of the same ground in ~1/2 as many pages (corrected for size).

3) Reign is very well-illustrated. Vincent's Reign review ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/01/vintage-dinosaur-art-reign-of-dinosaurs.html ) sums up most everything you need to know about that. However, I'll add my own thoughts as well:
-I'm surprised that Vincent doesn't mention the great photos & drawings of fossils, especially the historical ones in Chapter 2.
-I'm also surprised that Vincent doesn't mention Hallett's "The River" (which I really like not only because it shows a good bird's-eye view of that environment, but also because it shows where the dinos lived in that environment: https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/dinosaur-national-monument-panorama-mark-hallett.jpg ).
-Like DK's book, Reign features a lot of "well-worn art". Reign puts some of it into historical context, but not all of it (E.g. Most of Burian's 1956 work). There are a few other weird bits of art & text throughout Reign.* Otherwise, Reign is great & I recommend reading it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

*E.g. In reference to art, the Styracosaurus on page 80 is a shameless & abominable rip-off of Zallinger's Styracosaurus. In reference to text, it's claimed on page 33 that "the consensus among many specialists is that [T. rex] was probably more of a scavenger than a predator."

My 58th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Creagh's Dinosaurs (Nature Company Discoveries Libraries). If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Surprisingly bad ( www.amazon.com/review/RJC08JRY6J57L/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 2/5

For as long as there has been Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books) (henceforth DD), there have been wannabes. As much as I love DD, I understand why readers would want an alternative ( www.amazon.com/review/RZ0S3CGZFRCPL/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). However, as far as I know, Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs is the only good alternative. Creagh's Dinosaurs (Nature Company Discoveries Libraries) (henceforth DN), while not the worst alternative, is still very bad (which is surprising given Milner's involvement). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is, besides the confusingly-messy organization.*

1) DN is annoyingly redundant/vague in terms of writing: In reference to redundant, this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts"; 8 of the 14 questions had already been answered earlier in DN; In reference to vague, this is especially apparent in "Why Did They Vanish?"; Notice that the Creagh quotes don't explain how dinos went extinct, but just list causes.

2) DN is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. Again, this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts": 1st, it's claimed that dinos "could not fly", contradicting the earlier claim that Archaeopteryx was "a small, flesh-eating dinosaur[...that...]could fly"; Then, it's claimed that "about 800 species[...]have been described", contradicting the earlier claim that "we know of at least 1,000".

3) Unlike DD's life reconstructions, DN's are mostly not-so-good: Those by Kirshner are as good as it gets (E.g. See the Baryonyx on the cover of Long's Dinosaurs (Little Guides)); The others are shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. Many of them are shameless rip-offs of Sibbick's "Normanpedia" reconstructions), just plain outdated/abominable (E.g. See Eriksson's very dark & elephantine Styracosaurus on the cover), or some combination of both (E.g. Newman/Thornton's Maiasaura is a shameless rip-off of Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor with "a finely polished finish reminiscent of a 4x4 vehicle purchased by a money-crazed, wantonly aggressive businessperson").**

*At least DD has an Introduction. DN just begins with a section about pre-dinos & continues with no logical transitions or flow between the sections & chapters.

**Google "Vintage Dinosaur Art: A natural history of Dinosaurs – Part 1" & "Vintage Dinosaur Art: Dinosaurs! The 1987 Childcraft Annual - Part 1" for Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor & "a finely polished finish", respectively.

Quoting Creagh:

Quote :

BIG BANG
According to one theory, several volcanic eruptions produced climatic changes that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Quoting Creagh:

Quote :

METEORITE HITS
Perhaps a giant meteorite hit the Earth, causing dust clouds, acid rain, storms and huge waves.

My 59th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Brusatte's The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

It's complicated ( www.amazon.com/review/R1H5PAIZYRT2B/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Short version: Is Brusatte's The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World (henceforth Rise) mostly good? Yes. Is it mostly good enough for me to recommend reading it on its own? No. That said, I do recommend reading it, but in conjunction with Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved.

Long version: Read on.

This review's title refers to the fact that, as indicated by the Brusatte quote, Rise is trying to be what are usually 2 different kinds of dino book: 1) A dino field journal (E.g. Novacek's Dinosaurs of the Flaming Cliffs); 2) A natural history of dinos (E.g. Naish/Barrett's book). The most similar book I can think of is Sampson's Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life in which his short field stories are sprinkled throughout. Brusatte's field stories are MUCH longer. This works in some ways, but not in others. In this review, I list those ways.

The following things make Rise good:
-For what it is, Rise is very well-organized: After the Prologue, the chapters are arranged chronologically, beginning with the end-Permian extinction & ending the end-Cretaceous extinction; Furthermore, each chapter is like a mini-day-in-the-life story (I.e. The 1st part sets the scene/scenario/characters; The 2nd part describes how we know what we know about the scene/scenario/characters), which might not work as well if Brusatte's field stories weren't so long.
-For what it is, Rise is very well-illustrated: To quote Chris Kratt (See "Tazzy Chris"), "it's black and white, but sharp as a tack"; Furthermore, Marshall's Rise work is mostly accurate & very good-looking in a "gritty realism" kind of way, similar to Sibbick's 1985 work ( www.amazon.com/review/RJ6H99FGIW6CC/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ).

The following things keep Rise from being great:
-Because Brusatte's field stories take up so much space, there are only 12 life reconstructions in Rise (9 dinos, 2 proto-dinos, & 1 mammal) & none of them are of the animal in its natural environment. This is especially problematic for a natural history (which, to quote Geils/Vogler, "is a description of one kind of organism in its natural environment"). Also, Marshall's life reconstructions are a bit shrink-wrapped. This is especially apparent in his new Velociraptor on the cover & his new Archaeopteryx in Chapter 8 ( https://twitter.com/john_pickrell/status/1052379238211317761 ): In reference to the former, compare it to his old Velociraptor ( www.livescience.com/23922-velociraptor-facts.html ); In reference to the latter, compare it to Nicholls' Archaeopteryx in Naish/Barrett's book ( https://twitter.com/Paleocreations/status/1009062611407732736 ).
-There are several weird bits of text & writing throughout Rise: In reference to text, the most infamous example is the claim that T. rex were similarly intelligent to chimps because both have a 2.0 EQ; However, reptile EQ & mammal EQ are measured on different scales; It'd be like claiming that 2 students did equally well on their tests because both scored 9 even though 1 is 9/10 & the other is 9/100;* In reference to writing, the most annoying-to-read example is the incorrectly pluralized dino names (E.g. "Triceratopses, Edmontosauruses, and other prey"); In reference to both, the best example is the equine size comparisons (I.e. ~1/3 of the animal size comparisons); While most of the other animal size comparisons work, most the equine ones don't, some because the comparison is WAY off (E.g. Ornithomimus is referred to as horse-sized even though it's max. weight estimate is 180 kg & horses mostly range from 454-907 kg), & others because the weight range is so broad that it's almost meaningless (E.g. Several dinos ranging from beaver-to-grizzly-sized are referred to as mule-sized; Technically correct, but still weird).

1 more thing of note: It's weird to see a popular Brusatte book with so many negative reviews, especially given how much better Rise is than its predecessors. Where were all these reviewers when Brusatte's terrible Pixel-shack books were published ( www.amazon.com/review/R3J1R5BYAZABGZ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ) ( www.amazon.com/review/R1BHCV2E970BGY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 )?

*Based on relative cerebrum size, T. rex were probably similarly intelligent to crocs ( www.researchgate.net/publication/256536375_Hurlburt_G_R_R_C_Ridgely_and_L_M_Witmer_In_press_Relative_size_of_brain_and_cerebrum_in_Tyrannosaurus_rex_an_analysis_using_brain-endocast_quantitative_relationships_in_extant_alligators_pp_134-154_in ).

Quoting Brusatte:

Quote :

That is the tale I am going to tell in this book[...]the epic account of where dinosaurs came from, how they rose to dominance, how some of them became colossal and others developed feathers and wings and turned into birds, and then how the rest of them disappeared, ultimately paving the way for the modern world, and for us. In doing so, I want to convey how we’ve pieced together this story using the fossil clues that we have, and give some sense of what it’s like to be a paleontologist whose job it is to hunt for dinosaurs.

My 60th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Stewart/Brusatte's Pinocchio Rex and Other Tyrannosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

You know what, you just made the list! ( www.amazon.com/review/R33MKMXA6PR2MR/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 2/5

Like Stewart's other dino book ( www.amazon.com/review/RRMG7G6JUAPF7/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ), I really wanted to like Pinocchio Rex and Other Tyrannosaurs (henceforth Rex), especially given Csotonyi's paleoart. However, also like Stewart's other dino book, Rex is very bad (hence this review's title, which is what I thought when I 1st realized how bad Rex is).* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is.

1) You'd think the tyrannosaurs would be arranged in order of when they lived or when they were discovered (More on that below), but nope. They're just scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason.

2) Not only does Rex avoid using the word "evolution", but it synonymizes "developed" with "evolved" ( www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html ).

3) Rex fails to cover many tyrannosaur-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner:** Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless (E.g. See the 1st Stewart quote, which describes ALL meat-eating dinos); Other times, it's just plain wrong (E.g. See the 2nd Stewart quote, the 1st half of which contradicts the 2nd half).

Rex could've been a good natural history of tyrannosaurs, similar to Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs, or a good history of tyrannosaur research, similar to Naish's The Great Dinosaur Discoveries, for younger kids. Instead, Rex is basically just a well-illustrated pageant of tyrannosaurs, similar to "fossil exhibits[...]in the early days". To quote Ben ( https://extinctmonsters.net/2014/06/28/fossilexhibittypes/ ), "people could marvel at the great size of the animals, but there was very little to be learned besides the names of the species in question."

*If you don't get the reference, google "the list of Jericho".

**This is especially apparent in the Kileskus section. Based on Brusatte's The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World (which I reviewed: www.amazon.com/review/R1H5PAIZYRT2B/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ), A LOT more could've been said about how Kileskus lived &/or how it was discovered.

Quoting Stewart:

Quote :

Tyrannosaurs[...]A group of meat-eating dinosaurs that walked on two legs.

Quoting Stewart:

Quote :

Dinosaurs[...]A group of animals that lived mostly on land between 230 and 66 million years ago. They walked upright and had big arm muscles. The birds alive today developed from dinosaurs.

My 61st review for this thread is a positive 1 for White's Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

1 of the best dino field guides ( www.amazon.com/review/R2DH2U4T7MNS0N/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: As far as I know, most dino time travel books aren't meant to be educational. Of those that are, I recommend reading White's Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game (henceforth DH) in conjunction with other, more educational books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long version: Read on.

As far as I know, there are 2 kinds of dino field guide: 1) Those that are written like a traditional reference work (E.g. Holtz/Brett-Surman's Jurassic World Dinosaur Field Guide); 2) Those that are written like a speculative fiction book (E.g. Gee/Rey's A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why DH is the best of the 2nd kind, besides the paleoart.*

1) The Introduction summarizes everything you need to do before going on Mesozoic safaris. My favorite parts are "So, what happens now?" & "If I pass the training/acclimatization?": For 1, said parts emphasize the extreme danger of hunting in the Mesozoic, making it clear that it's only meant for true hunters like Theodore Roosevelt & not for "shooters" like Walter Palmer ( www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/27/theres-no-sport-in-that-trophy-hunters-and-the-masters-of-the-universe ); For another, said parts emphasize the extreme importance of altitude acclimatization & breathing equipment, making it clear that (to paraphrase Boromir) "one does not simply walk into [the Mesozoic]". This reminds me of the "Dinosaur Safari" part of the Introduction in GSPaul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs.

2) After the Introduction, DH consists of 5 chapters, each of which focuses on a different Mesozoic site (1 Late Triassic, 1 Late Jurassic, 3 Late Cretaceous). The 1st part of each chapter describes the site's natural history, beginning with "Conditions"/"Geography and environment", continuing with "Licensed targets" (I.e. Top predators), & ending with "Other fauna" (I.e. Mesopredators & prey). Thus, DH is similarly in-depth to Lessem's Dinosaur Worlds (See reason #3: www.amazon.com/review/R1SLNBX289TA4K/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). Also similarly to Lessem's book, DH is very complete: Using Holtz's Dinosaurs as a guide, the least speciose site in DH features representatives of 9 different dino groups; Compare that to the 6 different dino groups of the most speciose site in Gee/Rey's book.

3) The 2nd part of each chapter tells a day-in-the-life story of 2 previous hunters, 1 of whom gets killed or maimed. I originally wasn't expecting to like the stories as much as I did, mostly because I thought they'd all be the same. In actuality, each story depicts a different combination of personalities & circumstances. Also, each story is written in a way that reminds me of Elder/Finch's The Norton Book of Nature Writing. This is especially apparent in Chapter 4's story (I.e. "The Hide"; 1st, see the Nicci Holmes quote, which is from said story; Then, compare it to the Matthiessen quote, which is from Elder/Finch's book).

If I could, I'd give DH a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the writing (E.g. "T-rexes") & a lack of maps/landscapes (which would've made it MUCH easier to understand the geographic/environmental info). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5. 2 more things of note: 1) I'm not a fan of the Papo T. rex (which is a shameless rip-off of the Jurassic Park T. rex) on the cover; 2) As much as I like the Bahariya Formation (which reminds me of the Everglades), DH would've been even better if Chapter 3 focused on the Cedar Mountain Formation; For 1, none of the chapters focus on Early Cretaceous or dromaeosaur-dominated sites; For another, all but Chapter 3 focus on N.American sites; In other words, Chapter 3 could've both been uniquely interesting & helped tell a more complete/cohesive story.

*Remember what I said about Sibbick's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth work ( www.amazon.com/review/RJ6H99FGIW6CC/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 )? The same goes for White's DH work, but even more so because of White's mostly-accurate comic book-style paleoart.

Quoting Nicci Holmes:

Quote :

The colony now looked like the remains of a Napoleonic battlefield, covered in adult bodies that looked like blasted fortifications, skeletons like wheel spokes, and bodies everywhere, while overhead, scavenging birds circled remorselessly. Our first day at the hide, we'd worn the rebreathers. It helped with the smell. It was the stench not just of rotten flesh but of rotten vegetation and rotten eggs. We had sat thunderstruck while trying not to puke when the wind shifted and blew the fug into the hide. Through binoculars we watched raptors, so beautiful as they went about their ugly business, wrestling baby Ceratopsians almost as large as they were out of their nests. The cries of the baby would sometimes bring an adult charging in but as it was invariably not their own nest, once the raptors had scattered it would leave and the hunters would return and continue on. These calves died slowly, the raptors lacking the killing power to put an end to the suffering with any speed. And usually one became two became three became more. These were not packs but mobs.

Quoting Matthiessen:

Quote :

A mile and a half east of the den, the pack cut off a herd of zebra and ran it in tight circles. There were foals in this herd, but the dogs had singled out a pregnant mare. When the herd scattered, they closed in, streaming along in the early light, and almost immediately she fell behind and then gave up, standing motionless as one dog seized her nose and others ripped at her pregnant belly and others piled up under her tail to get at her entrails at the anus, surging at her with such force that the flesh of her uplifted quarters quaked in the striped skin. Perhaps in shock, their quarry shares the detachment of the dogs, which attack it peaceably, ears forward, with no slightest sign of snapping or snarling. The mare seemed entirely docile, unafraid, as if she had run as she had been hunted, out of instinct, and without emotion: only rarely will a herd animal attempt to defend itself with the hooves and teeth used so effectively in battles with its own kind, though such resistance might well spare its life. The zebra still stood a full half-minute after her guts had been snatched out, then sagged down dead. Her unborn colt was dragged into the clear and snapped apart off to one side.

My 62nd review for this thread is a negative 1 for Strauss' A Field Guide to the Dinosaurs of North America: and Prehistoric Megafauna. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Krasovskiy deserves better ( www.amazon.com/review/R2J9L4TSUN4V1G/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

While not as terrible as Moody's Dinofile: Profiles of 120 Amazing, Terrifying and Bizarre Beasts (which I'd give 0/5 stars if I could: www.amazon.com/review/R11QFC0SN4L2PA/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ), Strauss' A Field Guide to the Dinosaurs of North America: and Prehistoric Megafauna (henceforth FG) is still pretty terrible. The FG reviews of RaptorRex ( http://raptorrexdinosauria.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-dinosaur-field-guide.html ) & Chronomorphosis ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/2530364999?book_show_action=true ) sum up why. In this review, I point you to said reviews & add my own thoughts as well:
-In reference to seeing for yourselves "how much credibility [About.com] establishes Strauss", don't bother.* I've already seen it for myself & it's more-or-less the same info as on FG's back cover.
-If you want Krasovskiy's best work, get White's Dinosaur Art II (which even features his "Torvosaurus gurneyi" on the front cover). It's a bit shrink-wrapped, but otherwise very good to great. Unfortunately, FG only features his older work (which still looks good, but is outdated to varying degrees). You can see what I mean by comparing his older & newer work at his DeviantArt ( www.deviantart.com/atrox1 ).
-Speaking of DeviantArt, Krasovskiy's "featherless raptor with green scales" (I.e. "deinonychus (retro)") is there too. I'm surprised it isn't featured or linked to in RaptorRex's FG review.
-In reference to FG pointlessly featuring "a few random mammoths", I'm glad RaptorRex criticized it. It's an annoyingly-common problem in dino books, even good ones like DK's Where on Earth? Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Life.
-Speaking of annoyingly-common problems in dino books, I'm glad Chronomorphosis criticized Strauss' "constant insistence on the lack of intelligence of long-extinct animals". Non-maniraptoran dinos were at least as intelligent as living reptiles (which are MUCH more intelligent than people like Strauss give them credit for).** 2 more noteworthy examples of FG's annoyingly-repetitive writing & inaccurate text are 1) the phrase "The fact is that[...]" (which is used 6 times in the introductory sections alone), & 2) the claims that Albertosaurus & Stegosaurus lived together (as opposed to 78+ million years apart).
-As you may remember, there are 2 kinds of dino field guide ( www.amazon.com/review/R2DH2U4T7MNS0N/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). FG can't decide which kind it is (E.g. Compare the Strauss quotes, which are from back-to-back sections). Either way, both Holtz/Brett-Surman 2015 & White 2015 are MUCH better books than FG (which is like reading Creepypastas: https://phelous.com/category/phelous/oldmanreads/ ).

*What used to be "About.com" is now "ThoughtCo.com".

**Don't take my word for it, though. Google "Reptile and Amphibian Intelligence: How Smart Are They?" & see for yourself. As for non-bird maniraptorans, they & Archaeopteryx were 1) similarly intelligent to each other ( www.academia.edu/1061233/Directions_in_Palaeoneurology ), & 2) similarly intelligent to chickens ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.583.8968&rep=rep1&type=pdf ). Furthermore, chickens 1) "probably fall about mid-range on the intelligence scale of birds" ( https://books.google.com/books?id=Ct4-qGkuC-kC&pg=PA34&dq=%22fall+about+mid-+range%22 ), & 2) "are intelligent animals, outperforming dogs and cats on many tests of advanced cognition. As just one example, in a study by the Silsoe Research Institute in England, researchers showed that chickens have the ability to make a conscious choice to delay gratification" ( https://issuu.com/grantjustinflowers/docs/annual_report_book ). Said study is Abeyesinghe et al. 2005 ( www.silsoeresearch.org.uk/animal-welfare/siobhan/scarticle.pdf ).

Quoting Strauss:

Quote :

Why have we gone into such excruciating detail about dinosaur eggs? Because there's a particular subculture of dinosaur-watchers[...]and you may know one yourself[...]who aren't much interested in watching a live pack of Coelophysis but can while away an entire afternoon happily humming to themselves as they arrange and rearrange the Anchisaurus eggs on their mantelpiece.

Quoting Strauss:

Quote :

One problem with establishing the herd behavior of dinosaurs is that there can be multiple explanations for why multiple fossil specimens happen to be discovered in the same location.

My 63rd review for this thread is a positive 1 for Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

The best children's natural history of dinos ( www.amazon.com/review/R2INIHTO7ANTSM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (henceforth BG) is the best children's natural history of dinos. There are 2 main reasons for why I think that is, besides the fact that BG is an updated version of a childhood classic:* 1) It's the best at emphasizing the safari aspect of natural history; This makes sense given that it's authored by Bakker ( www.hmns.org/exhibits/permanent-exhibitions/the-morian-hall-of-paleontology
); 2) It's the best at reminding readers that "the dinosaur story is our story, too"; Put another way, to quote Barton ( https://foundationbeyondbelief.org/news/humanist-perspectives-connecting-children-to-nature/ ), "we’re part of the natural world along with every creature great and small, plant, rock, wave, and breeze[...]We must care for our planet not just for ourselves to remain, but for all of our extended family". 1 more thing of note: My only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. "Dimetrodon and his kin" are referred to as "one-hole reptiles") & paleoart (E.g. To quote Vincent, "the cover brachiosaur[...]looks like it's had some of the skin peeled away from its face").**

*To paraphrase Paleoaerie ( https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/ ), BG is the "totally updated edition" of "the classic book that most people old enough to be parents grew up on". Thus, to quote Earl Sinclair ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXiwXVrjYHc ), BG "works on two levels!"

**In reference to paleoart, google "It's a great big beautiful Golden Book of Dinosaurs".

My 64th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Brusatte's Day of the Dinosaurs: Step into a spectacular prehistoric world. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Annoyingly bad ( www.amazon.com/review/R3ONMHUZP9NE6O/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

I was originally planning on reviewing Brusatte's Day of the Dinosaurs: Step into a spectacular prehistoric world (henceforth DD) the way I usually review bad dino books. However, I then remembered that Kirkus's DD review is so perfect (especially when it comes to criticizing the paleoart & writing: www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/steve-brusatte/day-of-the-dinosaurs ) that I can't possibly top it, so I won't even try. Instead, in this review, I'll point you to Kirkus's DD review & add my own thoughts as well:
-The paleoart is annoyingly inconsistent in 2 major ways: 1) The appearance of a given environment (I.e. Sometimes, the ground is a darker color than the sky or the water; Other times, it's a lighter color; Still other times, they're so similar in color that it's hard to tell which is which); 2) The appearance of a given species (E.g. Ceratosaurus has relatively-long limbs sometimes, but more normally-proportioned limbs other times).
-The paleoart is also annoyingly outdated/abominable. This is especially apparent in the shrink-wrapped heads of 1) the sauropods like Cetiosaurus because they're also depicted with fat & shapeless bodies (See the front cover), & 2) the ornithischians like Triceratops because, despite their beaks & cheeks, even they're depicted with big exposed teeth.
-The paleoart is also annoyingly anachronistic. This is especially apparent in the "EARLY-MIDDLE JURASSIC" chapter. In it, 2 Early Jurassic North American Dilophosaurus stalk a Middle Jurassic English Cetiosaurus.*
-The "FIELD NOTES" part of each chapter reminds me of the Holtz quote below. More specifically, showing accurate skeletal reconstructions & inaccurate life reconstructions side-by-side shows how much they conflict with each other.
-In reference to the annoyingly "forced value judgements", the worst 1 is about Dorygnathus (1st, see the Brusatte quote below; Then, google "Dorygnathus tweets its way through development" for why it's the worst).
-The text is annoyingly hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight: Sometimes, it's contradicted by the paleoart (E.g. "Heterodontosaurus[...]is fluffy, covered with what look like long hairs all over its body"); Other times, it's just plain wrong (E.g. The Brusatte quote about Velociraptor; Google "The Predatory Ecology of Deinonychus" for more info).
-If you want a good alternative to DD, get Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (which I reviewed: www.amazon.com/review/R2INIHTO7ANTSM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ).

*Even if they did live together (which they didn't), Dilophosaurus was a predator of relatively-small prey.

Quoting Holtz ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Holtz-s-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ):

Quote :

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.

Quoting Brusatte:

Quote :

You turn your head in disgust as you put down your binoculars. There is no other way to put it: the flying animal you have seen is ugly. It kind of looks like a big furry bat. This is Dorygnathus, a type of pterosaur.

JD-man wrote:

My 64th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Brusatte's Day of the Dinosaurs: Step into a spectacular prehistoric world. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Annoyingly bad ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R3ONMHUZP9NE6O/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=184780845X ): 1/5

I was originally planning on reviewing Brusatte's Day of the Dinosaurs: Step into a spectacular prehistoric world (henceforth DD) the way I usually review bad dino books. However, I then remembered that Kirkus's DD review is so perfect (especially when it comes to criticizing the paleoart & writing: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/steve-brusatte/day-of-the-dinosaurs ) that I can't possibly top it, so I won't even try. Instead, in this review, I'll point you to Kirkus's DD review & add my own thoughts as well:
-The paleoart is annoyingly inconsistent in 2 major ways: 1) The appearance of a given environment (I.e. Sometimes, the ground is a darker color than the sky or the water; Other times, it's a lighter color; Still other times, they're so similar in color that it's hard to tell which is which); 2) The appearance of a given species (E.g. Ceratosaurus has relatively-long limbs sometimes, but more normally-proportioned limbs other times).
-The paleoart is also annoyingly outdated/abominable. This is especially apparent in the shrink-wrapped heads of 1) the sauropods like Cetiosaurus because they're also depicted with fat & shapeless bodies (See the front cover), & 2) the ornithischians like Triceratops because, despite their beaks & cheeks, even they're depicted with big exposed teeth.
-The paleoart is also annoyingly anachronistic. This is especially apparent in the "EARLY-MIDDLE JURASSIC" chapter. In it, 2 Early Jurassic North American Dilophosaurus stalk a Middle Jurassic English Cetiosaurus.*
-The "FIELD NOTES" part of each chapter reminds me of the Holtz quote below. More specifically, showing accurate skeletal reconstructions & inaccurate life reconstructions side-by-side shows how much they conflict with each other.
-In reference to the annoyingly "forced value judgements", the worst 1 is about Dorygnathus (1st, see the Brusatte quote below; Then, google "Dorygnathus tweets its way through development" for why it's the worst).
-The text is annoyingly hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight: Sometimes, it's contradicted by the paleoart (E.g. "Heterodontosaurus...is fluffy, covered with what look like long hairs all over its body"); Other times, it's just plain wrong (E.g. The Brusatte quote about Velociraptor; Google "The Predatory Ecology of Deinonychus" for more info).
-If you want a good alternative to DD, get Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (which I reviewed: https://www.amazon.com/review/R2INIHTO7ANTSM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0375859586 ).

*Even if they did live together (which they didn't), Dilophosaurus was a predator of relatively-small prey.

Quoting Holtz ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Holtz-s-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ):

Quote :

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.

Quoting Brusatte:

Quote :

You turn your head in disgust as you put down your binoculars. There is no other way to put it: the flying animal you have seen is ugly. It kind of looks like a big furry bat. This is Dorygnathus, a type of pterosaur.

Sorry to hear you didnt like this one dude, esp because Brusatte is the new paleo advisor for the upcoming movie.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Sorry to hear you didnt like this one dude, esp because Brusatte is the new paleo advisor for the upcoming movie.

1stly, many thanks for posting in this thread.

2ndly, that's why I'm not sure how much help he'll be as "the new paleo advisor for" JWD. I've reviewed 5 of his popular dino books so far (3 above & 2 below) & only 1 of them is any good.

Dinosaurs: https://www.amazon.com/review/R3J1R5BYAZABGZ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

Field Guide to Dinosaurs: https://www.amazon.com/review/R1BHCV2E970BGY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

JD-man wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Sorry to hear you didnt like this one dude, esp because Brusatte is the new paleo advisor for the upcoming movie.

1stly, many thanks for posting in this thread.

2ndly, that's why I'm not sure how much help he'll be as "the new paleo advisor for" JWD. I've reviewed 5 of his popular dino books so far (3 above & 2 below) & only 1 of them is any good.

Dinosaurs: https://www.amazon.com/review/R3J1R5BYAZABGZ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

Field Guide to Dinosaurs: https://www.amazon.com/review/R1BHCV2E970BGY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

Alright I get what you mean, its like its writing but more for these casual audiences so he's not too pressed about accuracy as other authors might be? Yeah Ive heard some 'popular' people tend to lean towards that.

My 65th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Norell's The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

The phylogenetic format at its best ( www.amazon.com/review/R3R6KZA4VWB8E6/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Most natural histories of dinos have a chronological or day-in-the-life format. This makes sense given that they're the easiest & best ways to tell the story of dinos, respectively. However, a few have a phylogenetic format, including Norell's The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour (henceforth TW). The most similar example to TW I can think of is Barrett's National Geographic Dinosaurs: For 1, they're both for casual readers; For another, they're both collections of ~50 dino profiles. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why TW is so much better than most of the other examples.*

1) TW was published by 1 of the best natural history museums, the American Museum of Natural History (& thus, is extra high-quality/authoritative). I can't overstate the importance of books like TW (in conjunction with museum websites) to people like me (who can't visit those museums in person).

2) TW is more well-illustrated: Not only is TW full of great photos & drawings of fossils, but also great life reconstructions based on said fossils; Those by Mick Ellison & PNSO are especially note-worthy for obvious reasons (E.g. See Chuang/Yang's THEM: Age Of Dinosaurs, another great natural history of dinos for casual readers); 1 of my only gripes is that some of the life reconstructions are a bit shrink-wrapped &/or have too many claws (E.g. The Mononykus on the front cover & the Styracosaurus on the back cover, respectively).**

3) TW's dino profiles are more complete & in-depth: For 1, TW doesn't profile just any dinos, but ~50 of the AMNH's most well-represented dinos; For another, not only are the dinos arranged in order of when their sub-groups evolved (E.g. "Theropoda" begins with Coelophysis, a primitive meat-eater, & ends with Gastornis, a modern-style bird), but each dino is put in perspective ecologically & with its relatives (E.g. See the Norell quote); In other words, TW puts the AMNH's dinos into an evolutionary & ecological context, making it feel both personal & broad at the same time.

*Only Fastovsky/Weishampel's textbook is similarly great or better.

**My other gripe is a few weird bits in the writing (E.g. "These include[...]very un-crocodile-looking primitive crocodiles"). Otherwise, TW is very well-written, as you can see in the Norell quote.

Quoting Norell:

Quote :

The specimen consists of a Velociraptor mongoliensis entangled with a Protoceratops andrewsi specimen. Protoceratops (see p.190) is an herbivorous dinosaur, and as an adult would have been about the size of a large pig. It was probably the ecological equivalent of the sheep that are predated on by wolves in Mongolia's rural ecosystem today. Because of the nature of preservation in these beds (see Citipati, p.100), there is strong evidence that they were buried alive. What is preserved in this instance is an adult Velociraptor seemingly in combat with a Protoceratops. The large raptorial claw is embedded in an area that would have covered the important blood vessels feeding the head of Protoceratops. Velociraptor's right arm is in its mouth, and the hand with its sharp talons is tearing the face while the forearm is being crushed. Without doubt this is the smoking gun of a predation event that happened about 80 million years ago.
Velociraptor has several characteristics that provide evidence of its close affinity to birds. It has a wishbone (see p.227), large hollow air sinuses in its skull, a swivel wrist, an S-shaped neck, and three primary toes on the foot that all face forward.

My 66th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Lach's I Am NOT a Dinosaur!. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a mostly good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Mostly good, part 2 ( www.amazon.com/review/R2Z26TGSD6GSZP/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Short version: Is Lach's I Am NOT a Dinosaur! (henceforth NOT) mostly good? Yes. Is it mostly good enough for me to recommend reading it on its own? No. That said, I do recommend reading it, but in conjunction with Howard's Earth Before Us series.

Long version: Read on.

1stly, let's get this reference out of the way: "I am NOT an animal...oh wait, I guess I am...I am NOT a dinosaur!"

2ndly, NOT is mostly good, especially when it comes to having good rhymes & paper collages. I say that because, unlike most of my positive reviews, this 1 is mostly about the not-so-good aspects of NOT.

1) NOT's dinos, while mostly accurate, are a bit problematic ( https://dinodadreviews.com/2018/12/05/i-am-not-a-dinosaur/ ): For 1, the T. rex's pose is a shameless rip-off of the Jurassic World T. rex's poses ( https://wallpapersafari.com/w/Gqo62u ); For another, the Triceratops & Stegosaurus are a bit derivative of the Papo toys (which are themselves shameless rip-offs of the Jurassic Park dinos); For yet another, the parakeet is represented by 2 very different species commonly referred to as parakeets, a paper collage Psittacula krameri & a live action Melopsittacus undulatus; Also, there are 3 representative theropods & no sauropodomorphs; Why couldn't the AMNH's Brontosaurus have been featured instead of (or in addition to) their T. rex?

2) NOT's timeline is a bit too abbreviated for my liking (I.e. It begins with the Devonian Period & ends with the Pleistocene Epoch/Present Day, but skips the Carboniferous/Triassic/Paleogene Periods & the Pliocene Epoch). I think this is because the paragraphs about when the featured animals live(d) take up so much space. If so, then why not have those paragraphs in "About the creatures in this book" where they belong? Also, replace the Miocene/Pleistocene Epochs & Present Day with the Paleogene/Neogene/Quaternary Periods.*

3) NOT is annoyingly & confusingly inconsistent in terms of animal names & descriptions: In reference to names, see the Dino Dad Reviews quote; I think each animal should be referred to by both its scientific name & its common name (E.g. I am Lestodon armatus [pronunciation], a kind of ground sloth, which is a kind of mammal; More on this below); In reference to descriptions, some include size or timeline info; Others include both; Still others include neither.

4) There are no cladograms in NOT: My Guide review shows why it's important to not just tell about the science, but also show it (See reason #2: www.amazon.com/review/RP5K90YL2VODH/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ); From my experience, this is especially true when it comes to what is/isn't a dino & why ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Ben-s-Phylogenetics-is-Moon-Man-Talk-654612768 ); In this case, NOT is good at telling about the science, but not-so-good at showing it given the lack of cladograms; This is especially apparent when it comes to Dimetrodon ("Although it looks like a reptile, the Dimetrodon[...]was an early relative of mammals") & Pteranodon ("Pterosaurs[...]are flying reptiles, close cousins of dinosaurs but on a separate branch of the reptile family tree").

*Neogene = Miocene + Pliocene. Quaternary = Pleistocene + Present Day.

Quoting Dino Dad Reviews ( https://dinodadreviews.com/2018/12/05/i-am-not-a-dinosaur/ ):

Quote :

In some instances it refers to the featured animal by its scientific name, while referring to others by their specific popular names, while in still other instances merely applies the name of an entire taxonomic family to the individual species shown on the page. I found this inconsistency a bit confusing. For instance, why not simply refer to “Lestodon” as a giant sloth? If you’ve got an illustration of Glyptodon itself, why refer to it by the general family name of “glyptodont”?

I have an old Dino book idk if you've read, An Odyssey in Time: The Dinosaurs of North America, by Dale Russel? Idk, I think as a kid I used to just look at the pictures but looking over it again i realize i never read it. The reviews on amazon look good though.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

I have an old Dino book idk if you've read, An Odyssey in Time: The Dinosaurs of North America, by Dale Russel? Idk, I think as a kid I used to just look at the pictures but looking over it again i realize i never read it. The reviews on amazon look good though.

1stly, sorry for the delayed response.

2ndly, I tried reading it, but never finished it. To paraphrase Peter Croskery ( https://www.umanitoba.ca/cm//cmarchive/vol18no1/odyssey.html ), "the content is very complex and hard to follow, partly because of the detail presented...[I found] the language and vocabulary to be a struggle."

My 67th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Peter Zallinger's Dinosaurs and Other Archosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Bakker/Rey should remake this book ( www.amazon.com/review/R2KNMVQKGS4Q9R/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: If you want 1 of the best natural histories of dinos for older kids, get Peter Zallinger's Dinosaurs and Other Archosaurs (henceforth DO) & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved). If you want an even better version of DO, ask Bakker/Rey to remake it.

Long version: Read on.

Bakker/Rey seem to have a thing for remaking Zallinger books: 1st, they unofficially remade P.Zallinger's Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Animals (I.e. Dinosaurs! & Prehistoric Monsters!, respectively); Then, they officially remade Rudolph Zallinger's Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Reptiles (I.e. The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs). Now, I think Bakker/Rey should remake DO, partly because it's a great book that deserves more attention, & partly because they can improve upon the original. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) DO is very well-organized: After the Forward by Ostrom (who mentored Bakker) & the Introduction, the chapters are arranged chronologically, beginning with the Triassic Period & ending with the Cenozoic Era; Furthermore, the archosaurs in each chapter are arranged phylogenetically (I.e. 1st thecodonts, then saurischians [including birds] & ornithischians, & then pterosaurs & crocs).

2) DO is very complete & concise: For 1 (in reference to complete), it doesn't just cover the Mesozoic Era, but also the Cenozoic; For another (in reference to concise), it covers everything Waldrop/Loomis' Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book does plus the Cenozoic in the exact same number of pages. My only related gripes are some inconsistent/inaccurate conversions (E.g. On page 67, 40ft is converted to 12m in 1 paragraph & 12.4m in another) & some inconsistent/missing descriptions (E.g. Those of Triassic theropods don't include size info; Those of Cenozoic crocs aren't included at all). If Bakker/Rey remake DO, said gripes won't be gripes: For 1, to quote Bryner ( https://news.yahoo.com/paleo-artists-breathe-life-color-dinosaurs-114332358.html ), Bakker "transformed dinosaur paleontology and reconstruction, calling it a Dinosaur Renaissance"; For another, to paraphrase Switek ( https://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/07/paleontological-profiles-rober ), Bakker isn't only "a working paleontologist", but also 1 of the most "effective popularizers of science".

3) DO is very well-illustrated. I can't overstate how much I like looking at P.Zallinger's DO work. The best way I can describe it is as a cross between R.Zallinger & GSPaul. My only related nit-picks are that 1) most of the terrestrial archosaurs have more-or-less the same color scheme (I.e. Orange/yellow/green stripes; This is especially apparent on the Hardcover's cover), & 2) with the exception of the multi-species scenes at the beginning of each chapter, most of the terrestrial animals look more like they're "posing for the artist" than going about their business (As you may remember, the same goes for P.Zallinger's other work). If Bakker/Rey remake DO, said nit-picks won't be nit-picks: For 1, Rey "is known for very colorful dinosaurs with close attention to anatomical detail" (As you can see, his hadrosaurs are an especially good example of that: https://paleoaerie.org/2013/08/19/dinosaurs-the-most-complete-up-to-date-encyclopedia-for-dinosaur-lovers-of-all-ages/ ); For another, Rey's reconstructions are more realistic than P.Zallinger's (I.e. To paraphrase Switek, "[Rey's] animals run, swim, breach, flap, chomp, skitter, and lope through the landscapes, giving the viewer the impression that they're really watching a prehistoric scene rather than an obedient dinosaur posing for the artist").

My 68th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Jenkins' Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect: www.goodreads.com/book/show/2662424-big-golden-book-of-dinosaurs ). Many thanks in advance.

The GINO of dino books ( www.amazon.com/review/R152NTPSAWTGUX/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

You know how the Godzilla of the 1998 movie "is commonly called G.I.N.O. (Godzilla In Name Only)[...]to distinguish it from the "real" Godzilla" ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/Godzilla1998 )? Despite its title, Jenkins' Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (henceforth BG) is nothing like Watson's childhood classic or the remakes by Elting (which is decent) & Bakker (which is the best natural history of dinos for kids: www.amazon.com/review/R2INIHTO7ANTSM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why BG is the GINO of dino books.

1) While the Watson, Elting, & Bakker books are all natural histories of dinos with a chronological format, BG is basically just another Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books) wannabe: For 1, there are many sidebars scattered all over each chapter with no apparent rhyme or reason; For another, there are many 2-page chapters scattered all over BG with no apparent rhyme or reason.

2) Remember what I said about Schwabacher's The Magic School Bus Flies with the Dinosaurs (See reason #1: www.amazon.com/review/R1SNCFJECE6XS1/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 )? The same mostly goes for BG in terms of text & writing. In fact, "How fossils form" on page 6 of BG is basically just a wordier version of "THE STORY OF FOSSILS". Furthermore, not only does BG avoid using the word "evolution", but it synonymizes "developed" with "evolved" ( www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html ).

3) Remember what I said about Theodorou's I Wonder Why Triceratops Had Horns ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3493788414 )? The same mostly goes for BG in terms of paleoart. In reference to BG's "more realistic reconstructions", this is especially apparent in the abominable T. rex & the outdated Brachiosaurus on the alternative cover. The former is so abominable, in fact, that there was a "Caption Competition" making fun of it as such ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/03/caption-competition.html ).

My 69th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs! Part 2: The Projects. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

1 beautiful dromaeosaurid! ( www.amazon.com/review/R30VGMGZ7WL3V4/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short Version: At the time of publication, Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs (henceforth ED) was the best summary of the most extreme dino discoveries. Now, Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs! Part 2: The Projects (henceforth ED2) is the best. I recommend reading ED2 in conjunction with ED (which shows how far dino science & art has come in just 18 years) as well as "Luis V. Rey Blog" (which provides more info about most of Rey's ED2 work).

Long version: Read on.

As you may remember, I reviewed ED ( www.amazon.com/review/R1D5YN9OJS6MXU/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). ED2 is both a sequel & a reboot, similar to Mary Poppins Returns, but actually good. In fact, in some ways, ED2 is even better than ED. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) ED's Introduction begins with Rey's backstory ("Dinosaurs haunted my childhood") & ends with a description of ED's organization (See the 1st Rey quote). ED2's Introduction is very similar, but also very different: 1st, it not only continues where ED left off ("Ever since Extreme Dinosaurs was published almost 20 years ago, I have been intermittently involved in many publications"), but also adds to it ("When I was 10 years old, my main ambition in life was striving to live one day in my museum where people could come and discuss and enjoy science... and art!"); Then, it describes ED2's organization as a series of "more specifically themed concepts" along the line leading to "Dinosaurios Hechos En México" (See the 2nd Rey quote), similar to walking through a series of more exclusive clades along the line leading to modern animals. The differences make ED2 even better than ED: For 1, the extra backstory helps to explain ED2's organization; For another, it also adds depth to the main story without slowing it down; For yet another, to paraphrase Ben ( https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/02/26/framing-fossil-exhibits-phylogeny/ ), I'd argue that ED2's organization is "an attempt to train [readers] to look at [dinos] the way [Rey does]".

2) ED2 is more complete & in-depth than ED. In reference to "in-depth", this is especially apparent in "Project one. Dinosaur rEvolution. Secrets of survival": Rey "divided the project into two main tiers: two groups[...theropods vs. ornithischians...]and subgroups[...tyrannosaurs & "clawed enigmas" vs. thyreophorans & marginocephalians, respectively...]with different strategic paths that would encounter and battle each other all along the way"; Most of ED's chapters only briefly describe the most extreme dinos on a given continent. In reference to "complete", this is especially apparent in "Project four. Mexican Dinosaurs": Not only does it feature multiple photos of fossils like all of the other projects (including a very nice close-up of a "fossil muzzle"), but also skeletal drawings for 15 Mexican dinos (which are very incompletely known, but I digress); ED is full of great life reconstructions, but only features 2 photos & no drawings of the fossils on which they're based.

3) I couldn't say much about Rey's digital paleoart before ED2 other than that it was 1) overall not as good as his traditional paleoart, & 2) still some of the best paleoart around (See reason #1: www.amazon.com/review/RGGG87Q9W2PHE/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). Now that I've seen it fully progress from Dinosaurs! in 2005 to ED2 in 2019, I can say that it's just as good as his traditional paleoart. While I'll always prefer the aesthetics of the latter, the former makes up for it in the following ways, among others (Again, see reason #1):
-To quote Witton ( https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-daleks-xenomorphs-and-slasher.html ), "Completely flat, horizontal ground stretching way off into the distance seem to occur in the overwhelming majority of palaeoart scenes[...]Sure, there may be some highlands and forests as a far-off backdrops and even sometimes in the middle distance, but the animals themselves keep to flat stages without inclination or slope. What's more[...]said animals often occupy patches of bare earth without vegetation." The same goes for many of Rey's traditional paleoart scenes, but not his digital ones. This is especially apparent when you compare ED2 T. rex scenes ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/the-next-bone-of-contention/ ) to ED ones ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/svpca-in-edinburgh-most-spectacular-of-settings/ ).
-Remember "Customising a life-size Velociraptor" from ED? Not only has Rey customized even more dino models since then, but he's also blended photos of them into his paeloart scenes. Put another way, to quote Holly Stuart Hughes (in reference to "Behind the Walls by Paolo Ventura"), Rey "continues to stretch not only his imagination but the techniques he uses to bring his imagined worlds to life." This is especially apparent in "Velociraptor attacks Avimimus" ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/sneak-preview-dinosaur-revolution-embarks-in-its-first-tour/ ) as well as when comparing ED2's cover to ED's (hence the title of this review).

2 more things of note: 1) Officially, my only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Saichania is referred to as "North American" & Tarchia as its "Mongolian relative" even though both are Mongolian) & writing (E.g. "T. rex" is incorrectly pluralized as "T. rexes"); 2) Unofficially, there are MANY missing/wrong words & punctuations throughout ED2; However, I can't hold those against Rey as they're not his fault; "Since [ED2] is a very personal book that no publishing house has been able to take on board, I decided that to preserve the original concept and intention, the only way it would have been properly published is by yours truly. With your support this might become a reality" ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/extreme-dinosaurs-ii-the-projects/ ); The Kickstarter campaign didn't pan out, so he had to edit ED2 himself despite being neither a professional editor nor an English native speaker.

Quoting Rey:

Quote :

More bizarre dinosaurs are being found all the time, all over the world. The first dinosaurs were found in Europe, the United States, and Canada. But today, China, Mongolia, Africa, and South America have become the dinosaur hunters' paradise. Let's circle the globe and see some of the most weird and wonderful creatures ever.

Quoting Rey:

Quote :

The “Extreme Dinosaurs II, The Projects” chapters are not by chronological order, but by their evolutionary significance. I start with the wide-scope Dinosaur rEvolution, which is in itself my interpretation of the new evidence on dinosaur external appearance and their relationship with birds. This has been an age-old personal struggle that also was pretty evident in the original “Extreme Dinosaurs”. The rEvolution is followed by more specifically themed concepts, like the Maniraptora Family Tree in “Dinosaurs Take Wing”; next is dinosaurs as living, breathing animals represented by their family behaviour in “Hatching The Past”... and finally a monograph of a rare specific fauna in one part of the world, that not only has been virtually overlooked, it has special significance to me since I grew up there: “Dinosaurios Hechos En México”. And that completes the circle.

My 70th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Davis' Dinosaur Dinners. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

1 ugly troodontid! ( www.amazon.com/review/R1D8TOUY7AACOJ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

If you want the best children's book about dino diets, get Bonner's Dining With Dinosaurs: A Tasty Guide to Mesozoic Munching (which I reviewed: www.amazon.com/review/RP5K90YL2VODH/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). Davis' Dinosaur Dinners (henceforth DD), while not the worst, is still pretty terrible. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is, besides the confusingly-messy organization.*

1) DD is annoyingly weird & generic in terms of writing: In reference to weird, the dino self-descriptions are written like rhyming couplets, yet they don't rhyme at all (E.g. See the Davis quotes); In reference to generic, said descriptions can apply to any number of dinos (E.g. See the Davis quotes).

2) DD is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in "Meat Eaters": For 1, 37 ft/6 ft/52 ft =/= 12 m/2 m/16 m, respectively; For another, Troodon didn't just eat "small animals", but also plants; For yet another, Spinosaurus didn't have "powerful jaws". While Dr. Angela Milner is listed as the scientific consultant, that probably only applies to the 1st edition given that her own books get the same facts straight (E.g. Quoting Gardom/Milner from a 2006 book: "The course, spiky edges of troodont teeth were suited to slashing or shredding flesh, or possibly plant material").

3) DD is illustrated partly by Centaur Studios (whose models are outdated to varying degrees), but mostly by Pixel-shack: 1 thing that annoys me about their digital paleoart is that even as it gets less inaccurate, it still looks weird, but not in the same way as it used to; While their older work looks like they mashed animal images together in Ganbreeder, their newer work looks like they mashed up piles of moist modeling clay ( www.discountschoolsupply.com/arts-crafts/dough-clay/dough-foam-dough/moist-modeling-clay-25-lbs-/p/1217 ); This is especially apparent with the large, front-facing nightmare image of Pixel-shack's Troodon on pages 6-7 ( www.books4school.com/var/images/product/275.275/9780756675868-X2.jpg ); Compare that to GSPaul's Troodon from 1988 (which is shrink-wrapped by today's standards, but otherwise accurate: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5qgMVuea0bU/V1B_UVm1sII/AAAAAAAAFdQ/0W-XM_SwougiVHGYyJMEfH1xTEwfMapTQCLcB/s1600/Saurornithoides.jpg ); Put another way, to paraphrase Mike Wazowski, "If you're gonna [scare kids], do it properly."

*I think DD was meant to be arranged by diet (1st carnivores, then herbivores, & then omnivores), but there are so many inconsistently-used dinos & features that it's hard to tell what the editors were going for.

Quoting Davis (in reference to Troodon, though many theropods had good eyesight):

Quote :

I am a dinosaur ready for my breakfast[...]I can see you, wherever you are.

Quoting Davis (in reference to Herrerasaurus, though many theropods were fast runners):

Quote :

I am a dinosaur ready for my lunch[...]I can catch you, even if you run.