Greg Paul's Field Guide to Dinosaurs - 3rd Edition

[Shane]

I know Gregory Paul is a somewhat controversial figure, but I'm still excited for his field guides. I grew up loving his illustrations, so even though I know he's not the be all end all authority on dinosaurs and paleontology, his new and updated field guides are always intriguing.

The 3rd edition of his Dinosaurs field guide just reached me, and there are some pretty interesting things included. In addition to conflating numerous genera together as he usually does (just about every ceratopid becomes either Centrosaurus or Triceratops), the book also includes his new "findings" on Tyrannosaurus including T. imperator and T. regina, as well as the speculation that even Nanuqsaurus may fall within the Tyrannosaurus genus. Surprisingly, he seems a bit noncommittal on where Nanotyrannus falls.

Probably the most surprising thing is how he completely punts on Spinosaurus. He lists its length at 35 feet (which is far below any other estimate I've seen) and says that basically all remains ascribed to Spinosaurus other than those destroyed in WW 2 are "problematic". There's no illustration and the only skeletal is a very outdated version included in a size chart that is fully bidepal and doesn't include the sailed tail.

What's interesting is that he doesn't appear to ascribe this additional material to any other Spinosaurid, at least in my perusal of the material. You'd think there'd be a bunch of "unnamed Spinosaurid" entries that would include all the recently updated material, but it seems like Paul is content to just pretend it's all nonexistent.

Did anyone else pick this up? Anyone have any thoughts?

[suspsy]

I haven't picked up the book myself yet, but Paul to me has long been one of the mysteries of the paleontology community. If he is harbouring doubts about the current restoration of Spinosaurus, then it is peculiar that he doesn't express them in further detail in this new edition, or in a research paper or even an article in The Prehistoric Times magazine (although I've stopped following it, so correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

[Carnoking]

This third edition just popped up in my Amazon recommended list. I think I've got the second edition squirreled away somewhere but I'm always interested in updated copies so I've got this on my list for future consideration.
That said, what you're saying is giving me a bit of pause. Sounds like there are a lot of unorthodox claims to be found in this book.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I haven't picked up the book myself yet, but Paul to me has long been one of the mysteries of the paleontology community. If he is harbouring doubts about the current restoration of Spinosaurus, then it is peculiar that he doesn't express them in further detail in this new edition, or in a research paper or even an article in The Prehistoric Times magazine (although I've stopped following it, so correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

The reason he doesn't address them in a paper is because he isn't actually a paleontologist. His reconstructions are all right but the info in his books are not to be trusted.

[Sim]

Gregory Paul is a palaeontologist.  He has named a few species, including the controversial Tyrannosaurus imperator and regina.  I intend to get this third edition book, although probably for Christmas.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Gregory Paul is a palaeontologist.  He has named a few species, including the controversial Tyrannosaurus imperator and regina.  I intend to get this third edition book, although probably for Christmas.

Oh he is? I don't recall him having any formal training.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Just checked, he does participate in research but he hasn't ever had any formal paleontological education. I wouldn't really trust his info regardless as he is well known for stating things as facts when really no other paleontologist agrees with him.

[Gwangi]

I still only have the first edition of the book (signed too, I might proudly add) but I really don't feel compelled to get a new version of the same book every time it is updated. I rarely open the first edition as it is and I still need to get his marine reptile and pterosaur books. Maybe I'll crack and get the 4th edition another couple of years from now.

[Shane]

I still only have the first edition of the book (signed too, I might proudly add) but I really don't feel compelled to get a new version of the same book every time it is updated. I rarely open the first edition as it is and I still need to get his marine reptile and pterosaur books. Maybe I'll crack and get the 4th edition another couple of years from now.

I think the updated editions are worth getting because of the wealth of new paleontological discoveries happening over a short period of time.

The first edition came out in 2010. Think of all the important discoveries made since then. As an example, Deinocheirus is still basically a mystery other than its arms in that edition. (It notably makes the cover of the second edition.)

I always like to see what's new, for instance the third edition features dinos like Stegouros, and Zuul (which Paul curiously links to Oohkotokia - part of the fun is seeing the connections Paul makes, even if they aren't exactly universally accepted in the field).

Interestingly, there's a pre-order on Amazon for another Paul field guide, this one focused exclusively on predatory dinosaurs. Maybe there will be some expansion on his thoughts on Spinosaurus in that book (which comes out in November).

[Shane]

This third edition just popped up in my Amazon recommended list. I think I've got the second edition squirreled away somewhere but I'm always interested in updated copies so I've got this on my list for future consideration.
That said, what you're saying is giving me a bit of pause. Sounds like there are a lot of unorthodox claims to be found in this book.

This is nothing new for Paul. Unorthodox claims are kinda his thing, and I can kind of appreciate his wild swings, even if they aren't fully convincing.

It just reminds me that all taxonomy is basically invented to fit into a human understanding, and should all be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to paleontology.

[Gwangi]

I still only have the first edition of the book (signed too, I might proudly add) but I really don't feel compelled to get a new version of the same book every time it is updated. I rarely open the first edition as it is and I still need to get his marine reptile and pterosaur books. Maybe I'll crack and get the 4th edition another couple of years from now.

I think the updated editions are worth getting because of the wealth of new paleontological discoveries happening over a short period of time.

The first edition came out in 2010. Think of all the important discoveries made since then. As an example, Deinocheirus is still basically a mystery other than its arms in that edition. (It notably makes the cover of the second edition.)

I always like to see what's new, for instance the third edition features dinos like Stegouros, and Zuul (which Paul curiously links to Oohkotokia - part of the fun is seeing the connections Paul makes, even if they aren't exactly universally accepted in the field).

Interestingly, there's a pre-order on Amazon for another Paul field guide, this one focused exclusively on predatory dinosaurs. Maybe there will be some expansion on his thoughts on Spinosaurus in that book (which comes out in November).

Yeah, I know, but there's also Wikipedia. That and it's unlikely that anything new will get past my radar with how involved I am in the online communities. I don't need Paul's updated book to know what Deinocheirus looked like.

[suspsy]

Just checked, he does participate in research but he hasn't ever had any formal paleontological education. I wouldn't really trust his info regardless as he is well known for stating things as facts when really no other paleontologist agrees with him.

Paul is by no means the only such self-taught person in paleontology. Jack Horner also has no formal education and the doctorate he did eventually receive is purely honorary.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Oh that's actually quite interesting, definitely gonna have to reconsider my stance a bit there, but I do still reccomend to at least take his suggestions with a grain of salt.

[Shane]

Yeah, I know, but there's also Wikipedia. That and it's unlikely that anything new will get past my radar with how involved I am in the online communities. I don't need Paul's updated book to know what Deinocheirus looked like.

That's completely fair. I definitely don't depend on a dinosaur field guide for up to date info, given that by its nature any printed publishing is going to be behind the times. I guess I just like having something in my hands. Beautifully illustrated dinosaur books were the hallmark of my childhood, so it's nice to have new ones out there for reference.

[postsaurischian]

....... I do still reccomend to at least take his suggestions with a grain of salt.

 Anybody's!       It's palaeontology.

[postsaurischian]

Interestingly, there's a pre-order on Amazon for another Paul field guide, this one focused exclusively on predatory dinosaurs. Maybe there will be some expansion on his thoughts on Spinosaurus in that book (which comes out in November).

Oh! Thanks for the info. I didn't know about this. It's gonna be a beautiful quartet:

         

... and I guess there will be some expansion on his thoughts on Spinosaurus. Amazon description says:
"This one-of-a-kind guide also discusses the controversies surrounding these marvelous creatures,
taking up such open questions as the form and habitats of the gigantic Spinosaurus and the number of Tyrannosaurus species that may have existed."

[Gwangi]

Yeah, I know, but there's also Wikipedia. That and it's unlikely that anything new will get past my radar with how involved I am in the online communities. I don't need Paul's updated book to know what Deinocheirus looked like.

That's completely fair. I definitely don't depend on a dinosaur field guide for up to date info, given that by its nature any printed publishing is going to be behind the times. I guess I just like having something in my hands. Beautifully illustrated dinosaur books were the hallmark of my childhood, so it's nice to have new ones out there for reference.

Same, so I still have an extensive library even if much of it could be considered obsolete. Sometimes it makes me sad that I don't REALLY need a lot of the books I have. In an effort to use my books more I've occasionally used them to do research for my blog reviews instead of Wikipedia, which just seems too easy sometimes and not as much fun. I'll always have a love for physical media (I also still use Blu-rays and vinyl records) but I have to be more selective these days. That stuff takes up space!

EDIT: I'm definitely going to need the Predatory Dinosaurs book to pair with his other Predatory Dinosaurs book. So between that one and the pterosaur and marine reptiles books that's three Paul books I need before buying an updated version of the one I have.

[Sim]

I'm pleased to hear Oohkotokia is supported as valid in Paul's new book, it would be interesting to see visual representations of the "Euoplocephalus-lumped" ankylosaurids.

Thanks for mentioning Paul's upcoming predatory dinosaurs guide, Shane, I didn't know about it!  It looks interesting and I find it intriguing to think about what will make it worth having in addition to Paul's 3rd edition dinosaur guide.  I examined the front cover of the upcoming predatory dinosaurs book, and I noticed a few things I'd like to comment on:
1. There's a hesperornithean and roadrunner on the cover, so it looks like this book will include birds!
2. There's an ornithomimid eating a plant, so maybe it's actually going to be a book on theropods in general (including plant-eating theropods and excluding meat-eating non-theropod dinosaurs e.g. Buriolestes, Liaoningosaurus).
3. I'm eager to find out what the troodontid skull on the front cover is!  Saurornithoides or Zanabazar is my guess.

[stargatedalek]

Liaoningosaurus being an omnivore let alone a carnivore is heavily contested. I think it's more likely the book will include species that are descended from primarily carnivorous species, or plausibly omnivorous species that are often associated with carnivorous groups. Either way it will be interesting to see what birds end up included.

Personally I could hardly care less whether someone has formal research or hobbyist research in a particular field.  Especially with regard to paleontology. Plenty of people with formal research would reconstruct a Velociraptor as bald and say Microraptor glided rather than flew. Formal training teaches methodologies, standards of practice, and an awful lot of geology. Relevant if you are working with fossils to make reconstructed skeletons, not at all relevant if you are working with reconstructed skeletons to make life reconstructions.

There is a reason Peter's is regarded a crackpot and Paul is generally well regarded even if his reconstructions tend to be very gaunt and he misrepresents the veracity of some theories. Because They are aiming for different parts of the field. Peters is attempting to do detailed identifying and preparatory work without proper tools, access to materials, or relevant training. Paul is Working on stuff where a hobbyist level awareness serves more than well enough.

[HD-man]

Heard about that a while ago, but didn't really believe it until now. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems weird & redundant to author/publish 2 books (presumably) covering much of the same ground in the same year.