The Princeton Field Guides to Pterosaurs and Mesozoic Sea Reptiles

[HD-man]

Tyrannosaurus is in one picture with Triceratops and Quetzalcoatlus and it has no feathers, in contrast to the Tyrannosaurus in Paul's second dinosaur guide.  So I guess he thinks Tyrannosaurus was most likely featherless now.

That's probably b/c of Bell et al. 2017. GSPaul's 2nd edition came out ~1 year earlier.

[Sim]

@DinoToyForum, in his sea reptiles book Gregory Paul illustrates two specimens which he labels the same species, but I think this might be an error. From the description given, I guess the lone skull in the photo below is of Stenorhynchosaurus (a genus I hadn't heard of before reading this book). Can you tell what the skeletal in the second photo below is of?

[Sim]

It just occurred to me that the lone skull might be a juvenile Stenorhynchosaurus, while the skeletal might be an adult of the same species?

[DinoToyForum]

It just occurred to me that the lone skull might be a juvenile Stenorhynchosaurus, while the skeletal might be an adult of the same species?

I think you're right, but the other way around. The skull seems to be based on MP050310-1 (regarded as an adult), while the skeletal appears to be based on the holotype (regarded as a juvenile). The captions should really clarify this. I have a lot of problems with this book.

[Sim]

Thanks Dr Admin!  It's interesting the teeth change like that during growth.  I agree that it should specify the growth stage to avoid being unclear since there's more than one skeletal of this species.  Gregory Paul usually does specify it, I guess he just forgot to do so in this case.

[DinoToyForum]

Thanks Dr Admin!  It's interesting the teeth change like that during growth. I agree that it should specify the growth stage to avoid being unclear since there's more than one skeletal of this species.  Gregory Paul usually does specify it, I guess he just forgot to do so in this case.

Just because Paul depicts it that way, doesn't mean it's true. According to the original papers the dentitions are much more similar (based mainly on just the alveoli in the type specimen). For example, Páramo-Fonseca et al. (2019, p.13) said: "the tooth counts and morphology do not show differences between the juvenile and adult stages in S. munozi."

I can't emphasise enough how important it is to take this book with heavy portions of salt. It isn't the academic thesis it may appear to be.

I was particularly disappointed how he treated the rhomaleosaurid Thaumatodracon.

[Sim]

Thanks for the info!  Which dentition showed in Paul's book is correct for Stenorhynchosaurus then?  Even with errors I still find Paul's guides useful, particularly due to their location information which define hard-to-find information such as which level of the Morrison specific species were found in, which is helpful as the Morrison spans a very long time and different species within it might be cases of anagenetic evolution.  I haven't been able to find Thaumatodracon in the book, can you say more about what disappointed you regarding it?

[DinoToyForum]

Thanks for the info!  Which dentition showed in Paul's book is correct for Stenorhynchosaurus then?

Neither look right to me!

Even with errors I still find Paul's guides useful, particularly due to their location information which define hard-to-find information such as which level of the Morrison specific species were found in, which is helpful as the Morrison spans a very long time and different species within it might be cases of anagenetic evolution.

If you trust it. I suppose they are a helpful starting point, but not much more

I haven't been able to find Thaumatodracon in the book, can you say more about what disappointed you regarding it?

Told you it was disappointing!  

[Halichoeres]

I haven't been able to find Thaumatodracon in the book, can you say more about what disappointed you regarding it?

Told you it was disappointing!  

   10/10 setup

[DinoToyForum]

I haven't been able to find Thaumatodracon in the book, can you say more about what disappointed you regarding it?

Told you it was disappointing!  

   10/10 setup

I coudn't resist. 

Of course I'm going to notice if a taxon I co-described and named is missing, but it makes me immediately wonder what other omissions there may be.

On the topic of Stenorhynchosaurus, another mistake that stood out to me is there are only four digits depicted in the limbs. This is no small error, presumably made from copying the figures without reading the paper. The forelimbs in Stenorhynchosaurus certainly had five digits because a section of five digits from the left forelimb is preserved. But Paul has copied the right forelimb, which has one of the digits missing. A single (left) hindlimb in the specimen contains only four preserved digits, so this mistake is a bit more understandable, but the authors say "this is probably the result of incomplete preservation", just as in the right forelimb.

There are issues like this across the board.

[Sim]

I find it can be hard to predict what Paul will include or leave out.  For example in at least the last two editions of his field guide to dinosaurs and his most recent predatory dinosaurs guide, there's no skeletal for Saurornithoides mongoliensis, despite its skull being quite complete and its historical importance as the first troodontid specimen known, I'm not including teeth.  Yet Oviraptor gets a skeletal of its skull despite it notoriously being crushed and having an unknown crest area.  Paul does however include three different life illustrations of Saurornithoides mongoliensis in between his two most recent guides, as far as I'm aware he doesn't illustrate any other species he doesn't include a skeletal of.  So why no skeletal of S. mongoliensis?

[DinoToyForum]

I find it can be hard to predict what Paul will include or leave out.  For example in at least the last two editions of his field guide to dinosaurs and his most recent predatory dinosaurs guide, there's no skeletal for Saurornithoides mongoliensis, despite its skull being quite complete and its historical importance as the first troodontid specimen known, I'm not including teeth.  Yet Oviraptor gets a skeletal of its skull despite it notoriously being crushed and having an unknown crest area.  Paul does however include three different life illustrations of Saurornithoides mongoliensis in between his two most recent guides, as far as I'm aware he doesn't illustrate any other species he doesn't include a skeletal of.  So why no skeletal of S. mongoliensis?

In the case of Thaumatodracon, I could understand if he missed out a skeletal or skull, you can't illustrate every taxon. But to miss it out from the book completely? He must not have been aware of it. Which is odd, because it's not exactly obscure. I've written about it (e.g. https://plesiosauria.com/thaumatodracon-the-wonder-dragon/), the PDF is open access (on my site at least: https://plesiosauria.com/pdf/smith&araujo_2017_thaumatodracon.pdf), and it has a Wikipedia page, and it is well cited in the academic literature.

[HD-man]

Does anyone here know what's the deal w/this GSPaul artwork (I.e. What exactly does it depict? Where has it been published?)? I've only ever seen it on his website's homepage, hence this screenshot ( https://web.archive.org/web/20090506095346/http://gspauldino.com/ ):