Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 1: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.

Hi everybody,

This post was inspired by Holtz's "A Dinosaur Lover's Bookshelf" ( https://archive.org/details/naturalhistory11404unse/page/62 ). It's nothing formal, just a list of what I (as a non-expert dino fan) think are especially notable dino sources (for better or worse) & why. Even still, I hope that at least some of you will get something out of it. 2 more things of note: 1) Just in case you were wondering, the sources aren't listed in any particular order; 2) If you don't know what I mean by "casual readers"/"the enthusiast"/"the specialist", see Miller's "Paleo Reading List" ( http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

Good

Holtz's "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages" ( http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Complete-Up---Date-Encyclopedia/dp/0375824197 ) & Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" ( http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ) are the best encyclopedic & non-encyclopedic dino books, respectively, for casual readers. Taylor's review of the former ( http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/books/index.html#hr2007 ) & Amazon's synopsis of the latter ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ) sum up most of the reasons why, but not the most important reason: Holtz & the NHM keep updates on "Supplementary Information for Holtz's Dinosaurs" ( http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/ ) & "The Dino Directory" ( http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/dino-directory/index.html ), respectively, when parts of said books become outdated.

Hone ("David Hone": http://www.davehone.co.uk ) reminds me of a young Holtz in both research ( http://www.davehone.co.uk/academic/research-profile/ ) & outreach ( http://www.davehone.co.uk/outreach/ ). I hope he writes dino books like Holtz too, someday. Until then, see his technical papers (for free) under "Academic" & his blogs ("Lost Worlds"/"Archosaur Musings" for casual readers/the enthusiast, respectively) under "Outreach".

You could say Conway et al. ("All Yesterdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals": http://www.amazon.com/All-Yesterdays-Speculative-Dinosaurs-Prehistoric/dp/1291177124 ) are the A-Team of paleoart: Naish does the paleontology ("Darren Naish | palaeozoological researcher, consultant, author, lecturer": http://darrennaish.wordpress.com/ );* Conway does the art ("John Conway's Art": http://johnconway.co/ ); Kosemen drives the van ("C. M. Kosemen": http://cmkosemen.com ).

*Naish's popular dino books (excluding "All Yesterdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals", which is for the enthusiast)/blogs are for casual readers/the enthusiast, respectively.

Semi-good

Cau ("AndreaCau": https://sites.google.com/site/cautheropoda/ ) is a consistently good source of phylogenetic info for the enthusiast (See "5. Blog, articoli/recensioni giornalistiche e pagine web dedicate alle mie ricerche")/the specialist (See "3. Pubblicazioni / Publications"). However, he's also a consistently hit-&-miss source of other biological info for the enthusiast/the specialist.*

Celeskey's "Coelophysis - New Mexico's State Fossil" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20121029074649/http://nmstatefossil.org/ ) is basically Colbert's "The Little Dinosaurs of Ghost Ranch" ( http://www.amazon.com/Little-Dinosaurs-Ghost-Ranch/dp/0231082363 ) in website form, the former being for casual readers & the latter for the enthusiast. I have mixed feelings about single species accounts. Martin's "Book Reviews" ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222938800770211 ) sums up why. In any case, it's the ultimate source of Coelophysis info.

GSPaul ("The Official Website of Gregory S. Paul - Paleoartist, Author and Scientist": http://gspauldino.com/ ) is a mixed bag. Naish's "Greg Paul's Dinosaurs: A Field Guide" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160919203728/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/greg-pauls-dinosaurs-a-field-guide/ ) sums up what I mean. In any case, see his technical papers (for free) & books under "CURRICULUM VITAE" for interesting yet controversial dino art/science.**

*E.g. According to Cau (See "First, we start with": http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2010/04/billy-e-il-clonesauro-guida_06.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 ), "no Mesozoic dinosaur...has offspring inept" (See "Opposed hypotheses" under "Testing ideas and community analysis" for why that's wrong: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eggshell/eggshell_case1.php ). Also according to Cau (See "Just the fact that": http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2010/04/billy-e-il-clonesauro-guida_06.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 ), "the fact that the children had early leads us to think that the animal did not need particular parental care and that was autonomous in search of food" (See "Precocial" & "Semi-precocial" for why that's misleading: http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Precocial_and_Altricial.html ).

**"Predatory Dinosaurs of the World: A Complete Illustrated Guide" ( http://www.amazon.com/Predatory-Dinosaurs-World-Complete-Illustrated/dp/0671687336 )/"The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs" ( http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-American-Dinosaurs-Byron-Preiss/dp/B005SNHXQ8 )/"Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds" ( http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Air-Evolution-Flight-Birds/dp/0801867630 )/"The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" ( http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Field-Guide-Dinosaurs-Guides/dp/069113720X ) are for the enthusiast/casual readers/the specialist/the enthusiast, respectively.

Bad

Diane & Stephen Hunter ("Cladistic Existentialism") are BANDits (BAND = Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) & their website is basically a list of anti-cladistic writings (1 of which I reviewed: https://www.amazon.com/review/R47I7QPHDIHYD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). Their website's header ( http://ncsce.org/images/format/header.jpg ) sums up said writings in 2 major ways: 1) The depiction of non-bird dinos as "Jurassic Park" knock-offs (which is probably part of the reason why BANDits are compared to creationists: http://web.archive.org/web/20121115074704/http://dinoharpist.blogspot.com:80/2012/11/creation-crackhouse-in-kentucky-is.html ); 2) The statement about "determining the number of birds' fingers" (which, as indicated by the Naish quote, is blatantly hypocritical & misleading).

Peters ("Reptile Evolution") is a GSPaul wannabe & his website is basically a list of reasons why (according to him) he's great & everyone else is an idiot. Naish's "Why the world has to ignore ReptileEvolution.com" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20170319151511/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/ ) sums up what I mean.

There are 3 main reasons why Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney ("Pterosaurs to Modern Birds") & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa ("Gwawinapterus | Prehistoric esoterism") are bad sources of dino (or any other) info: 1) They're non-experts who act like they're experts; 2) They're infamous for trolling ( http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-moderation-policy-doug-dobney-is.html ) &/or cyberbullying ( https://www.deviantart.com/kajm/journal/Multiply-banned-Hatethiest-johnfaa-remanifests-335722111 ) people who don't think like them; 3) They're terrible at sourcing their work, never doing so unless it proves their point (They'll ignore any source that contradicts them).

Quoting Naish (See "All the fuss over those weird little hands": https://web.archive.org/web/20170226212405/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/19/limusaurus-is-awesome/ ): "As you'll surely know, embryologists have often (though not always) argued that birds exhibit BDR, such that their tridactyl hands represent digits II, III and IV rather than the I, II and III thought universal among coelurosaurian theropods. Those who contend that birds cannot be theropods have latched on to this as an integral bit of their case: Alan Feduccia in particular has repeatedly said that bird hands and theropod hands are fundamentally different, and that this degree of difference bars theropods from avian ancestry (Burke & Feduccia 1997, Feduccia 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, Feduccia & Nowicki 2002) [developing ostrich hands from Feduccia & Nowicki (2002) shown below]. Yeah, as if one feature - no matter how profound or major - can somehow outweigh tens of others: what excellent science. The hypothesis (note: hypothesis) that bird hands represent digits II-IV rests mostly on the fact that the primary axis of condensation (the first digit precursor to appear in the embryonic hand) corresponds to digit IV: because bird embryos grow two fingers medial to this axis, these two must be digits III and II (incidentally, this is contested by some embryologists and is not universally accepted. To keep things as simple as possible, we'll ignore that for now).
Despite what Feduccia and his `birds are not dinosaurs' colleagues state, the morphological evidence showing that birds really are theropod dinosaurs is overwhelmingly good, so if birds and other theropods really do have different digit patterns in the hand, something unusual must have occurred during evolution. One idea is that a frame shift occurred: that is, that the condensation axes that originally produced topographical digits II-IV became modified during later development, such that the digits that grew in these places came to resemble topographical digits I-III instead of II-IV (Wagner & Gauthier 1999). If the frame shift hypothesis is valid, then - somewhere in theropod evolution - the `true' digit I was lost, and `true' digit II became digit I. However, evidence from Hox genes indicates that the condensation axis for embryonic digit I receives a Hox signal normally associated with.... topographical digit I, thereby showing that the bird `thumb' really IS the thumb (Vargas & Fallon 2005, Vargas et al. 2008)."

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 2: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.

Hi everybody,

This journal entry is the 2nd part in the "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources" series. If you haven't read the 1st part ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ), I recommend reading it b/c it explains how said series works. If you have read the 1st part, I recommend re-reading it b/c I've since modified it to be more explanatory. 2 more things of note: 1) Some complained that some of the sources were miscategorized as semi-good/bad, so in addition to making the 1st part more explanatory, I reconsidered & recategorized 1 of its semi-good sources as good in this journal entry (Many thanks to Mike Keesey for that); 2) Some also complained that too much attention was given to the semi-good/bad sources & not enough to the good sources, so I made sure to reverse that trend in this journal entry.

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

Good

To paraphrase Switek ( http://web.archive.org/web/20150417031258/http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/07/paleontological-profiles-rober/ ), Bakker ("Robert T. Bakker, Ph.D. | Houston Museum Of Natural Science": http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/curators/robert-t-bakker-ph-d/ ) is not only "a working paleontologist" (He led/leads the Dinosaur Renaissance/HMNS paleontology field program, respectively), but also 1 of the most "effective popularizers of science": His older popular work "inspired many young paleontologists and spun off numerous artistic clones" ( http://openpaleo.blogspot.com/2010/11/book-review-princeton-field-guide-to.html ); His newer popular work includes "inspiring reads for students in the early grades of elementary school" ( http://www.parentingscience.com/paleontology-for-kids-reviews.html ); He also blogs ( https://blog.hmns.org/author/bbakker/ ), lectures ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHJMOgzbI3w ), curates exhibitions ( http://www.hmns.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=336&Itemid=371 ), & appears in documentaries ( http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secrets-of-the-dinosaur-mummy/ ).

If Audubon had done digital artwork, I bet it would've looked something like that of either Martyniuk ("Matthew P. Martyniuk": http://mpm.panaves.com/ ) or Willoughby ("Emily Willoughby Art": http://emilywilloughby.com/ ), both of whom are paleoartists who 1) specialize in reconstructing feathered dinos, & 2) have a major internet presence: The "Raptor Attack" trope includes links to their websites ("For good examples of accurate deinonychosaur portrayals, see these websites": http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RaptorAttack ); Naish's "Historical ornithology 101, a Tet Zoo Guide" features their artwork front & center ("Birds are dinosaurs, and 'birdiness'...evolved in theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds": https://web.archive.org/web/20160301071930/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/historical-ornithology-101-a-tet-zoo-guide/ ); The latter is especially fitting b/c Martyniuk's "Anchiornis huxleyi" & Willoughby's "Mei long is Not Always Sleeping" remind me of Audubon's "Wild Turkey...Study for Havell pl. 1" ( https://emuseum.nyhistory.org/objects/27205/wild-turkey-meleagris-gallopavo-study-for-havell-pl-1 ) & "Wild Turkey...Study for Havell pl. 6" ( https://emuseum.nyhistory.org/objects/26727/wild-turkey-meleagris-gallopavo-study-for-havell-pl-6 ), respectively.

Like Cau, Mortimer ("The Theropod Database": http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/ ) is a consistently good source of phylogenetic info for the enthusiast (See "The Theropod Database Blog")/the specialist (See "Phylogeny of Theropoda" through "Evaluating Phylogenetic Analyses"). Unlike Cau, Mortimer doesn't consistently cover other biological info & thus doesn't have Cau's "hit-&-miss" problem (See "Semi-good" for what I mean: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ).

Sampson ("Scott D. Sampson": http://web.archive.org/web/20140429004316/http://www.scottsampson.net/ ) & Switek ("Brian Switek": http://web.archive.org/web/20140326034121/http://brianswitek.com/ ) are both paleontologists (professional & amateur, respectively) & popularizers of science who specialize in putting dinos into an evolutionary & ecological context. You could say that 1) Sampson is the new Carl Sagan w/"Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life" basically being a dino-centric version of "Cosmos" (See the Orr quote), & 2) Switek is the new John Noble Wilford w/"My Beloved Brontosaurus: On the Road with Old Bones, New Science, and Our Favorite Dinosaurs" basically being an updated version of "The Riddle of the Dinosaur" (See the Wilford quote).

WitmerLab ("Witmer's Lab and Research": https://people.ohio.edu/witmerl/lab.htm ) is the ultimate source of dino anatomy info. Liebendorfer's "Digital Dinosaurs: How do scientists reconstruct the anatomy of ancient beasts?" ( http://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/witmer.cfm ) sums up why.

Semi-good

Benton ("Professor Mike Benton - Earth Sciences": http://www.bristol.ac.uk/earthsciences/people/mike-j-benton/ ) & Brusatte ("Stephen Brusatte, Paleontology Research": https://sites.google.com/site/brusatte/ ) are consistently good sources for the specialist (E.g. "Dinosaur Paleobiology", which is "a great overview of the state of the art regarding dinosaurs and how they lived": https://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/review-of-brusatte-2012-dinosaur-paleobiology/ ). However, they're also consistently not-so-good sources for casual readers/the enthusiast (E.g. "Dinosaurs", which is a representation of "uninformed laziness": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RG0yLeJE_U ).

You could say Don Lessem ("Dino Don – Just another WordPress site": http://dinodon.com/ ) is the Don Bluth of dinos: Bluth's pre-1990 work is mostly good, while his post-1990 work is mostly not-so-good; The same goes for Lessem's pre- & post-2000 work, respectively. As you may remember, I reviewed the best of his pre-2000 work ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R1SLNBX289TA4K/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ) & the worst of his post-2000 work ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R3VAJM4MMKUN2D/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). Compared to the former, the latter fails to cover many dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, it's just plain wrong).*

*E.g. Compare the definition of "amphibians" in "Dinosaur Worlds" ("vertebrate animals...that lay their eggs in water but usually spend their adult life on land") to that of "AMPHIBIAN" in "The Ultimate Dinopedia: The Most Complete Dinosaur Reference Ever" ("animal that is able to live both on land and in water").

Bad

I hate to say it, but neither Blasing ("Dinosaur George Company") nor Dixon ("Welcome to Dougal Dixon's Website") can be taken seriously as "dinosaur experts": The problem w/Blasing "is that he is impersonating a professional in the field, and in the process, he is misleading the public when he talks so matter of factly about some of his subjects" ( http://reptilis.net/2008/09/14/jfc-lockjaw/ ); Similarly, "Dixon has a superfi-cial understanding of dinosaur and pterosaur biology, and of their actual evolutionary patterns- i. e. he is not familiar with the technical literature, a necessity since the popular literature re-mains incomplete and sometimes obsolete...In addition, he wants to make archosaurs more mammalian than is appropriate" ( http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf ). I say "I hate to say it" b/c, based on what I've read, both Blasing & Dixon are nice guys.* I can't say the same about the other bad sources (E.g. Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa are trolls &/or cyberbullies; See "Bad" for how: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ).

*Miller's "Interview with Dinosaur George Blasing" ( http://empyricaltales.blogspot.com/2013/11/interview-with-dinosaur-george-blasing.html#.UsUgIf1SE4Y ) & Bonnan's "Now the circle is complete -or- a belated dinosaur Christmas gift" ( https://matthewbonnan.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/now-the-circle-is-complete-or-a-belated-dinosaur-christmas-gift/ ), respectively, sum up what I mean.

Quoting Orr ( http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2010/02/dinosaur-odyssey-review.html ): "Sampson is clearly aiming for a Sagan-like position as a popularizer of science, and his prose owes a definite debt to the revered astronomer There are stylistic debts, such as the phrase "in a very real sense," the very real meaning of which I don't know. More importantly, he seems to have been influenced by Sagan's efforts to help his fellow Earthlings understand their precarious place in this huge universe. There is no Dawkinsish acidity here, no baiting of anti-science pundits. The image presented is positive and accessible, tying in with his job as host of the PBS kids cartoon Dinosaur Train. One of the great revelations in my life was that what's happening under my feet is as interesting as what's happening around me. Dinosaur Odyssey, with its easily understood illustrations of the networks that make ecosystems work, has the potential to open plenty of eyes to that reality. This book should be in schools."

Quoting Wilford ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/science/my-beloved-brontosaurus-millions-of-years-gone-but-still-evolving.html?_r=1&; ): "Other books have dealt with new dinosaur research, but like museum exhibits on the subject, they quickly become outdated. This may be the one book for catching up on what has become of the dinosaurs you thought you knew from grade school. Mr. Switek and his brontosaur spiritual sidekick take you to dig sites, museums and laboratories to experience the rapid changes in dinosaur paleontology. His account is spiced with history of bone wars in the American West, odd facts and asides. For example, there is no such thing as an intercostal clavicle, the bone Cary Grant is frantically searching for in "Bringing Up Baby.""

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 3: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.

Hi everybody,

This journal entry is the 3rd & last part in the "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources" series. If you haven't read the 1st ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ) or 2nd part ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 ), I recommend reading them b/c the former explains how said series works & the latter explains what's changed since the former.

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

Good

The AMNH ("The American Museum of Natural History": http://www.amnh.org ) is the best popular source of any dino museum next to the NHM (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ). AFAIK, the AMNH has published more/better popular dino books (2 of which I reviewed) & organized more/better dino exhibitions (3 of which I mentioned in reviews) than any other dino museum.*

Remember what I said about Martyniuk & Willoughby (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 )? The same goes for Brougham ("softdinosaurs | Jason Brougham Paleontological Art": http://jasonbrougham.com ). His species reconstructions in general & "Three dinosaur genera: Gallus, Zhongornis, Bambiraptor" in particular remind me of Audubon's Bird Guide ( https://www.audubon.org/field-guide ) & Norell's comments about quill knobs on Velociraptor ("The more that we learn about these animals the more we find that there is basically no difference between birds and their closely related dinosaur ancestors like velociraptor. Both have wishbones, brooded their nests, possess hollow bones, and were covered in feathers. If animals like velociraptor were alive today our first impression would be that they were just very unusual looking birds": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm ), respectively.

You could say that Csotonyi ("csotonyi.com": http://www.csotonyi.com ) & Hartman ("Scott Hartman's Skeletal Drawing.com": http://www.skeletaldrawing.com ) are the new & improved GSPauls (See "Semi-good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ): Csotonyi is "one of the world's most high profile and talented contemporary paleoartists" ( http://www.amazon.com/Paleoart-Julius-Csotonyi/dp/1781169128 ); Hartman is "a terrific resource for artists looking for reference material for illustrating dinosaurs" ( http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/06/this-thursday-learn-anatomy-from-scott.html ); Like GSPaul, both are scientists whose "scientific training has been instrumental in informing [their] artwork" ( http://www.scienceworld.ca/blog/love-science-and-art-julius-csotonyis-dinosaurs ); Unlike GSPaul, neither are "needlessly controversial" ( http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2012/01/great-skeletal-repose-of-2011_20.html ).

Remember what I said about Hone (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? He has since written a dino book like Holtz ("The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs", which is for casual readers: http://www.amazon.com/Tyrannosaur-Chronicles-Biology-Tyrant-Dinosaurs/dp/1472911253 ). Yay!

Whether they're called "Jersey Boys Hunt Dinosaurs" or "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" (henceforth PBOTW: http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/ ), DiPiazza & friend(s) are, to paraphrase Thomas Edison ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0 ), "so dope that [they] even make New Jersey look good". There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) To quote DiPiazza ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html ), "Never before has there been a site that revolved around paleontology that ALSO had a strong foothold in modern animal biology, particularly endangered species conservation"; Naish's "Tetrapod Zoology" is similar, but more for the enthusiast, while PBOTW is more for casual readers; Point is, very few sources are consistently good at combining paleontology & zoology;** 2) DiPiazza is "a published paleo-artist, having painted images of dinosaurs and other prehistoric life for displays in museums, books, magazines, scientific publications, and websites. His professional experience, working closely with and observing living animals, gives him an inspirational edge when creating paleo-art" ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/meet-team.html ); In other words, DiPiazza's paleoart is both the medium & the message of PBTOW's awesomeness; 3) DiPiazza & friend(s) remind me of a young Bakker in terms of background & outreach ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/p/media.html ); I hope they write/illustrate dino books like Bakker too, someday.

"Paleoaerie" ( http://paleoaerie.org/ ) is to AR what "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" is to NJ.

SV-POW! ("Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week": https://svpow.com/ ) is the ultimate source of sauropod anatomy info. Classicalguy's "Sauropod Vertebra Picture Adventure!" ( http://classicalguy.deviantart.com/art/Sauropod-Vertebra-Picture-Adventure-411152781 ) sums up why. Put another way, SV-POW! is basically a sauropod-centric version of Naish's "Tetrapod Zoology".

If Conway et al. are the A-Team of paleoart (See "Good": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ), then Witton is the Lone Ranger ("HOME - markwitton": http://www.markwitton.com/ ): Whenever there's trouble, he rides in on his giant pterosaur & saves the day; His Spinosaurus posts are an especially good example of that ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/search/label/Spinosaurus ).

*I'm specifically referring to Norell et al.'s "Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated" (which mentions the AMNH's "Hall of Dinosaurs": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Review-update-3-361770836 ) & Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" (which mentions the AMNH's "Hall of Dinosaurs", "Fighting Dinos", & "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Review-update-29-625351172 ) for casual readers.

**Some paleontologists have tried w/mixed results (E.g. Cau; See "Semi-good" for what I mean: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 ). Some zoologists have tried w/even worse results (E.g. Marven; See "Bad" below for what I mean).

Semi-good

Rey's "Re: Horner Talks" ( http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Jul/msg00306.html ) sums up why Horner ("John R. Horner - Faculty and Staff": http://www.montana.edu/wwwes/facstaff/horner.htm ) is a semi-good source of dino info.

Bad

Remember what I said about Peters, Dr. Pterosaur/Doug Dobney, & Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa (See "Bad": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? The same goes for Jackson ("sciencepolice2010 | Become a better scientist in under an hour! See 'Essential First Post'"), but worse b/c he's basically all 3 combined into 1 horrible being. Don't take my word for it, though. Compare Jackson's comments on Naish's "The 'Birds Come First' hypothesis of dinosaur evolution" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20180127071711/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/08/birds-come-first-hypothesis/ ) to Hone's "To those who would prove us wrong – a guide to scientific dialogue" (which is basically a list of how not to be Jackson: https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/to-those-who-would-prove-us-wrong-a-guide-to-scientific-dialogue/ ).

Zorak's "Nigel Marven is the Worst" ( http://www.anorbitalgrouse.com/video/nigel/ ) sums up why Marven ("Nigel Marven") is a bad source of dino info.

Remember what I said about Blasing & Dixon (See "Bad": http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 )? The same goes for Strauss ("Bob Strauss - ThoughtCo"). RaptorRex's "Another Dinosaur Field Guide!?" ( http://raptorrexdinosauria.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-dinosaur-field-guide.html ) sums up what I mean. I hate to say it b/c, based on what I've read, Strauss is a nice guy. Carr's 11/13/2013 tweet ( https://twitter.com/KarenCarr_Illus/statuses/400718813361999872 ) sums up what I mean.

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART (Part 4: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-Semi-good-and-Bad-Dino-Sources-4-800236863 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.

Hi everybody,

I was originally planning on "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources 3" being the last part in the series ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 ). However, I've since learned more about some of the already-listed sources & others.

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

Good

Remember what I said about the AMNH (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 )? The same goes for the Smithsonian ("Smithsonian Institution: Smithsonian Homepage": https://www.si.edu/ ). "The museum's new Deep Time Hall" ( http://dino-sours.tumblr.com/post/170584157882/10-things-im-excited-for-in-the-new-national ) & the book based on it ( https://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-Dinosaurs-Other-Amazing-Creatures-ebook/dp/B07H1XJTJB ) are especially good examples of that.

Remember what I said about Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved" does everything Gardom/Milner's book does, but mostly bigger & better (See books #2 & #1 for what I mean: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Top-4-natural-histories-of-dinos-758236511 ).

Remember what I said about "Prehistoric Beast of the Week" & "Paleoaerie" (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 )? The same mostly goes for "Palaeos, la historia de la Vida en la Tierra" ( http://palaeos-blog.blogspot.com/ ). Put another way, the latter is more-or-less to Mexico what the former are to NJ & AR, respectively.

Remember what I said about Witton (See "Good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 )? Apparently, I didn't say enough. My bad. Given the combination of his paleoart influence ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-great-2017-palaeoart-survey-some.html ), his paleoart books ( https://iupress.org/9780253048110/life-through-the-ages-ii/ ), & his recent paleoart ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-mural-for-dippy-restoring-celebrity.html ), he's basically the modern day Charles R. Knight.

Semi-good

Remember what I said about Benton & Brusatte (See "Semi-good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-2-454991435 )? Norman ("Dr David Norman — Department of Earth Sciences": https://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/directory/david-norman ) is similar, but more layered:
-On the 1 hand, he's a consistently good source for the specialist. His ornithopod work is especially notable (E.g. To quote Witton, "For an easy to access, relatively up to date and inexpensive look at a bunch of iguanodonts, you could do a lot worse than checking out Dave Norman's chapter on ornithopods in English Wealden Fossils": http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2014/01/remembering-iguanodon.html ).*
-On the other hand, he's a not-so-consistent source for casual readers/the enthusiast. Yes, "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" & "Dinosaur!" are both great & I reviewed the former as such ( https://www.amazon.com/review/RJ6H99FGIW6CC/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). However, a lot of his other popular work is just OK for reasons discussed in said review AWA his overly-conservative attitude.
-1 especially good example of that is his "Ask the Expert" column in "Dinosaurs!" magazine ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/01/vintage-dinosaur-art-yet-more-dinosaurs.html ): For 1, compare his T.rex answer to "Mythical Match" (which is from the 1971 book, "Animal Ghosts": http://agathaumas.blogspot.com/2011/10/antropocentrismo-e-paleoillustrazione.html ); For another, compare his "feather theory" answer to the Gardom/Milner quote (which is from the 1993 edition of "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs").
-Another especially good example is his review of Bakker's "Raptor Red" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Red#Reception ) & how it reminds me of the "nature fakers controversy" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy ): On the 1 hand, I agree w/Burroughs about unverified claims being presented as facts; On the other hand, Burroughs comes off as blindly dismissive of the possibility that animals are more than just automatons; In reference to the latter, I think Seton was especially good at showing that "animals are creatures with wants and feelings differing in degree only from our own" ( http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=seton&book=wild&story=_front ); You could argue that Seton ultimately won the debate given that "his contributions to natural history included pioneering work in what would become the sciences of ecology and ethology" (which backed up a lot of what he said: https://books.google.com/books?id=RWQH8iSDQhEC&pg=PR7&dq=%22seton+may+be+best%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN_cXk7IjaAhUET98KHcSEAFUQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22seton%20may%20be%20best%22&f=false ). Similarly, Norman comes off as blindly dismissive of Bakker's book (which, contra what Norman says, helps kids demonstrate "an increased level of scientific literacy": https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/975/BrockbankB0811.pdf ).

*I'm specifically referring to his 1980s Iguanodon work (which reminds me of Dollo's 1880s Iguanodon work in terms of changing our views of how Iguanodon looked & behaved).

Quoting Gardom/Milner: "Why feathers? It is generally agreed that birds evolved from small meat-eating theropod dinosaurs. Obviously these dinosaurs did not sprout feathers overnight and become birds, so there must have been a long period when some of the small theropods were experimenting with feathers, which are only a different version of scales."

Bad

As you may remember from my Riddle review ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R47I7QPHDIHYD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ), BANDits are basically the paleo equivalent of creationists & global warming deniers ( https://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/banditry-creationism-and-global-warming-denial/ ). Similarly, Ford ("Brian J Ford scientific home page") is basically the paleo equivalent of a flat earther. Ford's dino work is so bad that 1) NHBS sold it w/a Surgeon General-esque warning ("The aquatic dinosaur hypothesis of Ford, who is not himself a palaeontologist, is considered controversial in palaeontological circles and generally not taken seriously, being at odds with a large body of evidence. Interested readers might also want to have a look at the pieces written by palaeontologists Brian Switek for Smithsonian.com, and Darren Naish for Scientific American": https://web.archive.org/web/20200414054944/https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32889419_2140433812638940_8186025074231345152_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=ca434c&_nc_ohc=IllaPB6vYTUAX9Pot_l&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=6e5c69eb39f38cdf049a3d4b1c42930a&oe=5EBC326E ), & 2) Naish has had to dissect it 3 separate times (which are as follows):
-"Palaeontology bites back...": https://darrennaish.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/naish-2012-labnews-response-to-ford-aquatic-dinosaurs.pdf
-"Brian J. Ford's Aquatic Dinosaurs, 2014 Edition": https://web.archive.org/web/20180422065207/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/brian-j-ford-s-aquatic-dinosaurs-2014-edition/
-"A Vast Quantity of Evidence Confirms That Non-Bird Dinosaurs Were Not Aquatic": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG50CGJJfUs

Remember what I said about Gwawinapterus/Johnfaa (See "Bad": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? Apparently, I didn't say enough. My bad. For 1, his real name is Carlos Miguel Albuquerque & he has since moved his "Gwawinapterus | Prehistoric esoterism" content to "Ichthyoconodon – Prehistoric esoterism". For another, he's since been permabanned from both Wikipedia (as Falconfly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=868840663&fbclid=IwAR0cqwNa_ZkFJEDHs6VF71y9sd2DRJRxraMGwLk7az_8XeGUceUnaWi6Eo4#User:Falconfly ) & the Tetrapod Zoology group (See the Naish quote).

Quoting Naish ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/156954631577624/permalink/318195005453585/?comment_id=318639152075837&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D ): "Hi everyone. A load of drama has happened in my few days of absence from this group. I can't make any sense of what's happened nor do I understand what the source of argument is. But one person here has been accused of bullying, of sending vindictive personal messages, and of displaying an attitude that is very contrary to the group-minded, co-operative discussions I most want to see here. I have therefore decided to remove that person from the group and I would advise other parties involved not to engage further via DM or whatever."

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-More-Dino-Sources-and-Wishes-970376086 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.

Hi everybody,

I was originally planning on "Good, semi-good, and bad dino sources 4" ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-Semi-good-and-Bad-Dino-Sources-4-800236863 ) & "My dino media wishlist" ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-My-dino-media-wishlist-901438371 ) being the last of their respective kinds. However, I've since learned more about some of the already-listed sources/wishes & others. 1 more thing of note: The cover image is the Triassic scene from PNSO's "Children's Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs series", which I like aesthetically b/c it reminds me of the Foetodon scene from "King Kong 2005" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkc1v7tKFU ).

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

Good

As you may remember, "I love PNSO", which seems to be best known for their models (& for good reason: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-My-dino-media-wishlist-901438371 ). That said, I love them most for their books, which may be the best of their kinds, especially the natural histories ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Top-4-children-s-natural-histories-of-dinos-924726008 ). I seriously hope all their books are published in English, especially the "Children's Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs series" (As of this posting, Holtz's "Dinosaurs" still hasn't been updated & no other dino encyclopedia for kids comes close: http://www.pnso.org/?p=1464 ) & the "Dinosaur Museum series" (which, based on this interview, combines the best aspects of "Zoobooks" & "DK Eyewitness Books" w/Chuang's artistic & Yang's story-telling expertise: http://www.pnso.org/?p=1498 ). It's also worth mentioning their Youtube channel, which (in addition to Witton's "The Palaeoartist's Handbook: Recreating Prehistoric Animals in Art") is an especially good source for those who wanna learn to draw prehistoric animals ( https://www.youtube.com/@PNSO2010/playlists ).

Remember what I said about Hone ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-3-632615112 )? The same goes for Lomax ("Palaeontologist Dr Dean Lomax": https://www.deanrlomax.co.uk/ ), maybe even more so.* This is very impressive, given Lomax's less traditional path to academia (I.e. Hone got his B.S. in 1999 & published his 1st paper in 2004, while Lomax was self-taught until 2013, publishing his 1st paper in 2010).

From what I understand, "Eofauna | Scientific research" ( http://www.eofauna.com/ ) is similar to PNSO, but Spanish instead of Chinese.

*E.g. Compare Lomax's book list ( https://www.deanrlomax.co.uk/Books ) to Hone's ( https://www.davehone.co.uk/outreach/books/ ). On a related note, I've since reviewed Hone's 1st dino book for casual readers ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-45-It-s-a-big-1-743681263 ).

Semi-good

Remember what I said about Cau (See "Semi-good": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? Apparently, I didn't say enough. My bad. Since 2013, he's continued doing good phylogenetic work (E.g. A "lengthy paravian-themed paper[...]on the enigmatic and wonderful Romanian paravian Balaur bondoc": http://web.archive.org/web/20150623050531/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-romanian-dinosaur-balaur-seems-to-be-a-flightless-bird/ ). Unfortunately, he's also continued doing hit-&-miss non-phylogenetic work (E.g. His PhP ep2 review, which makes me wonder if he complains when real nature docs show pair-hunting accipitrids & scavenging Marabou storks 🙄 : https://theropoda.blogspot.com/2022/05/recensione-di-prehistoric-planet_25.html ). It doesn't help that he's basically a jerk to anyone who disagrees w/him. As indicated by the anonymous quotes, it's not just me, but his colleagues. The most egregious example I know of is discussed in this "Fun Halzskaraptor thread": https://twitter.com/Paleoartologist/status/1436853098920636416

Quoting an anonymous paleontologist (per. comm. about this thread: https://theropoda.blogspot.com/2017/09/perche-allosaurus-non-e-aquila.html#comment-form ): "Cau is being a dick in that thread. I haven't met him personally, but based on what I read on his blog, I wouldn't like him. I notice he doesn't hold himself to his own rule about offensiveness.
He flat out misrepresents the Reisz 2010 paper. The paper says nothing about whether the specimens were altricial or not. What Cau is referring to in the paper is their discussion about whether or or not they were close to hatching. The paper confirms that, while it is difficult to assess, every indication is that the "embryoes" were close to or ready to hatch. So yeah, they can be counted as hatchlings, especially since one of the eggs in the brood appears to have already hatched."

Quoting an anonymous enthusiast (per. comm. about this screenshot: http://web.archive.org/web/20221202064432/https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/284096977_707998870429400_6732298095296292044_n.png?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=WRqsZEFx6hUAX_2GFAL&tn=jhWNcBY9_9wdjyCH&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=03_AdT7qmkFrDkwL0m6uE04GDYpgqmLVtb3pE7fOEKfARX9fg&oe=63B10F0B ): "Back when Cau still had Twitter, when Trierarchuncus was published, Cau went to twitter to rant about how it's a dubious taxon that should not been named[...]Then Denver Fowler, who named the taxon, showed up on the tweet and directly called Cau out."

Bad

Remember what I said about the Hunters (See "Bad": https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-1-351589315 )? Apparently, I didn't say enough. My bad. I've known of the 2 major BANDit groups since my Riddle review, but have since learned that they have names (I.e. Feduccia et al. are "scientific BANDits", while the Hunters are "rat BANDits": https://archive.ph/JdX4w ). On a related note, Fe-douche-ia has since authored another nonsense book (which I had the displeasure of reviewing: https://www.amazon.com/review/R2EWZH9WUPG03A/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ).

Wishes

A "Camp Cretaceous" sequel series/movie that takes place post-S5/"Fallen Kingdom": This quote from Gizmodo's review sums up my biggest problem w/"Jurassic World: Dominion" ( https://gizmodo.com/jurassic-world-dominion-review-chris-pratt-laura-dern-j-1848883641 ): "The locust thing might even be okay if the whole movie was about it. But the film opens, and closes, with hints of what a unified world blending dinosaurs and humans could be. In fact, the last few shots of [JWD] are excellent and make the previous two-plus hours seem small by comparison. By shoving these ideas awkwardly into the film's bookends, Trevorrow seems to be admitting he knows that's the movie this could have been. But instead, he tricks you into thinking it's about that by starting and ending there. The whole structure feels awkwardly slapped together." Even w/my already low expectations, JWD ended w/me feeling very unfulfilled in a way that was hard to explain until I read said review. In contrast, S5 is a very satisfying conclusion to CC in particular & JP/JW in general, tying everything up & feeling complete, especially w/Yasammy ( https://it-fits-i-ships.tumblr.com/post/659914337944780800/updated-the-yasammy-video-clip-compilation-and ). W/that in mind, I won't be upset if we don't get said sequel, but I'd still love to see more of JW's best "characters in general" ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-My-favorite-aspects-of-Camp-Cretaceous-882741250 ), especially in said "unified world".

A WWD-style book for AppleTV+'s "Prehistoric Planet" ( https://tv.apple.com/us/show/prehistoric-planet/umc.cmc.4lh4bmztauvkooqz400akxav ) for the same reasons as "Dinosaurs in the Wild", but more so. More specifically, not only is PhP even more like WWD (I.e. They're both natural history series that focus on non-bird dinos), but also more recent & relevant (S1 came out 5/2022 right before JWD; S2 came out 5/2023 right before JP's 30-year anniversary). Plus, if the potentially-good-but-definitely-not-as-good Netflix series "Life on Our Planet" can get a companion book ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Our-Planet-Accompanies-Landmark/dp/1529144140 ), why not PhP?

A remake of Stout's "The New Dinosaurs"/"The Dinosaurs: A Fantastic New View of a Lost Era" by Darren Naish ( https://darrennaish.wordpress.com/ )/Steve White or Bakker/Rey: When I originally suggested Steve, I didn't have any one expert collaborator in mind. In retrospect, Darren is kinda the obvious choice, given his history of great dino books, including another of the best adult NHDs ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Top-4-natural-histories-of-dinos-758236511 ) & another art-heavy book involving Steve ( https://tetzoo.com/blog/2022/10/29/announcing-mesozoic-art ).