New Princeton Field Guides

[triceratops83]

He doesn't buy into the new reconstructions of Spinosaurus, instead he claims it incorporates material from other spinosaurs. Although he does not rule out Spinosaurus having short legs.

[ZoPteryx]

Thought I'd give this thread a little update.

I was excited when I read the first post but less so once I saw the cover of the Mammal Book. I have been wanting a book like that for years but that cover art makes it look like a childrens' book. I looked at her site and I sure hope the Harlan's Ground Sloth isn't an example of what to expect. 3/4 views are useless for scaling. Why wouldn't they go with an artist like Mauricio Anton, his skeletals and his restorations are excellent. Or Mark Hallett who Prothero used to a small extent for his After the Dinosaurs. I'll get the Paul 2nd edition and I'll probably get the Mammal book as well due to the dearth of similar books.

I had the exact same feeling--I treasure my Anton books (especially the one he signed) as the pinnacle of paleo mammal illustration.

Unfortunately, I have found that that many of Prothero's books on mammals have been quite lacking in the illustrations, often just re-using existing images (I'm assuming with permissions, etc). At least unique new illustration is a good step, but hopefully it is more realistic than that cover appears.

Your concerns are fair, to say the least.  tl;dr:  buy it for the info on mammalian evolution at the family level, not the art or species accounts

Having just finished the book, I can say that it is an excellent up-to-date review of mammal evolution, if a little a little brief in some parts.  With so few good books on the subject, for that reason alone it deserves a place on any paleo-fan's bookshelf.  However, the "field guide" aspect of the book, as advertised in the title, is sorely lacking.  This is not a field guide.  It's a summary, an overview, an adventure through the progression of mammalian evolution, but definitely not a field guide.  Even well known taxa rarely get more than a sentence to themselves, each section is more focused on the "big picture" rather than specific cases.  Don't get me wrong, what text is there is very good, but if you're hoping for a detailed GSP-esque review of ancient mammals, even only well known genera, you will be disappointed.  The old NatGeo book on Prehistoric Mammals is far more a field guide than this is, and it has the bonus of being illustrated by Maricio Anton!

That brings us to the art.  As you suspected, SBell, much of it is from other sources.  Some from Wikipedia, lots from technical literature, and many sub-par photos of mounted skeletons from unknown sources.  There are probably less than a dozen actual skeletal diagrams in the whole book.  I do appreciate the high number of cladograms though.  The book's advertised artist clearly isn't very comfortable drawing living animals.  Most sections open with a "family portrait" of some taxa from the group overlapping each other as the hover around a human silhouette.  It's quite selective on who gets how many illustration, all of marsupials get one group shot with about six taxa in it.  And you didn't want to see bears, cats, or whales did you? They didn't even get one.  These illustrations often look pretty awkward, probably because some look like they're traced over skeletal mounts.  And speaking of skeletal, they all also look a bit shrink-wrapped to me, or at least the lack of detailing isn't doing them any favors.  There are only about four full paintings like the one on the cover, and that's including the cover.  They are all equally awkward.  It could be worse though, the mammals fared far better than their reptilian ancestors in the introduction.  Someone give those things a sandwich!

Sorry to ramble, just thought interested parties should know. 


And regarding GSP's new dino guide.  Worth the buy.  His taxonomy is still... non-standard*... and I agree he seems to be slipping in his artistic prowess, that full page Anchironis painting is painfully 2D looking.  That said, it's still a great quick reference with only a few errors here or there (Paul, rhabdodonts are still not from North America!).  Btw, the intro mentions his shrink-wrapped minimally feathered style, claims it's to prevent readers from mistakenly thinking such soft tissues are known with certainty.    There is also a new section in the anatomy portion where he argues against thick coatings of neck feathers in maniraptors because dinosaurs did not have flexible enough necks to retract them into an "aeroshell" for flight.  Unfortunately for him, there is direct fossil evidence that shows the opposite.

*although I did notice he actually admits this, even if only subtely, in a few places

[DinoLord]

Btw, the intro mentions his shrink-wrapped minimally feathered style, claims it's to prevent readers from mistakenly thinking such soft tissues are known with certainty.    There is also a new section in the anatomy portion where he argues against thick coatings of neck feathers in maniraptors because dinosaurs did not have flexible enough necks to retract them into an "aeroshell" for flight.  Unfortunately for him, there is direct fossil evidence that shows the opposite.

Interesting. In Predatory Dinosaurs he explains the shrinkwrapping as his depicting animals in a 'lean' state indicative of a wild animal not well-fed.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Is there a list of which new dinosaurs were added to the 2nd edition? I'm still using the first and unless it's something really new i might as well wait on the 3rd or 4th.

[ZoPteryx]

Is there a list of which new dinosaurs were added to the 2nd edition? I'm still using the first and unless it's something really new i might as well wait on the 3rd or 4th.

I count about 115 new additions, including a few species he has split on his own accord (T. rex) and excluding a few he lumped into previous taxa (Yi qi).  An additional 10 or so new species are mentioned in the text of others, but didn't get their own sections presumably because they were too fragmentary (Zhuchengtyrannus).  About 1/3 of the art seems new or at least revised.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

I got the second edition for Christmas and I find it to be an incredible book.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Is there a list of which new dinosaurs were added to the 2nd edition? I'm still using the first and unless it's something really new i might as well wait on the 3rd or 4th.

I count about 115 new additions, including a few species he has split on his own accord (T. rex) and excluding a few he lumped into previous taxa (Yi qi).  An additional 10 or so new species are mentioned in the text of others, but didn't get their own sections presumably because they were too fragmentary (Zhuchengtyrannus).  About 1/3 of the art seems new or at least revised.

Thank you, very much appreciated!

[ZoPteryx]

Is there a list of which new dinosaurs were added to the 2nd edition? I'm still using the first and unless it's something really new i might as well wait on the 3rd or 4th.

I count about 115 new additions, including a few species he has split on his own accord (T. rex) and excluding a few he lumped into previous taxa (Yi qi).  An additional 10 or so new species are mentioned in the text of others, but didn't get their own sections presumably because they were too fragmentary (Zhuchengtyrannus).  About 1/3 of the art seems new or at least revised.

Thank you, very much appreciated!

You're very welcome!    I should mention that the new art includes about five or so new* full paintings.

*well, new to the book.  I suppose they could actually be older works.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

The information about Spinosaurus in the second edition really confused me. I thought Sigilmassosaurus was a junior synonym of S. aegyptiacus. Is Sigilmassasaurus really its own species and not a Spinosaurus?

[ZoPteryx]

The information about Spinosaurus in the second edition really confused me. I thought Sigilmassosaurus was a junior synonym of S. aegyptiacus. Is Sigilmassasaurus really its own species and not a Spinosaurus?

The latest work on Moroccan spinosaurid material has revealed that there is at least two, possibly three, taxa present in the Kem Kem formation.  A 2015 study comparing cervical vertebrae from the region found Sigilmassasaurus to be a valid taxon:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4614847/

Studies on teeth have also supported this multi-taxa view of the Kem Kem formation.  This means that spinosaurid remains from the region can't automatically be assigned to S. aegyptiacus (which is what Ibrahim et al. did in 2014), not unless they are found associated with material that can be compared to the holotypes of Spinosaurus and/or Sigilmassasaurus.

I suspect the only reason GSP didn't give Sigilmassasaurs its own entry in the field guide is because it's so fragmentary.  Ditto Oxalaia.

[Sim]

I bought The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs 2nd edition recently, and I've now had a read through it.  I like it!  It makes a good point for reference.  Gregory Paul is known for synonymising, but it's interesting that in this book he split some species that are normally not recognised.  This applies to Tyrannosaurus for which he suggests there are two unnamed species, Centrosaurus nasicornis, Plateosaurus longiceps, an unnamed species of Stenonychosaurus, and Dollodon.  There's also a number of unnamed genera/species in the book which I coudn't always identify due to Paul not mentioning any specimens of these unnamed animals.  I think he only mentioned specimens for the two unnamed Tyrannosaurus species.

As for Paul's synonymising, he lumps almost every ceratopsid into Centrosaurus or Chasmosaurus which is quite a sight.  According to Paul, Centrosaurus includes Coronosaurus, Spinops, Styracosaurus, Rubeosaurus, Einiosaurus, Brachyceratops, Achelousaurus, and all three species of Pachyrhinosaurus. Meanwhile Chasmosaurus includes Mojoceratops, Kosmoceratops, Vagaceratops, Agujaceratops, Utahceratops and Pentaceratops.  Paul mentions that Kosmoceratops could be valid and include Vagaceratops, and Pentaceratops could also be valid and include Agujaceratops and Utahceratops.  Diabloceratops is considered a species of Albertaceratops which made me notice how similar they are.  Triceratops is said to include Eotriceratops, Ojoceratops, Nedoceratops and Torosaurus.

[Sim]

I've noticed some more species Paul has kept separate including Prosaurolophus blackfeetensis (although he considers Prosaurolophus a species of Saurolophhus).  I find Paul's lumping and splitting thought-provoking.  I agree with some of it but not all of it.