Book Choice Help

[verinnius]

     I'm looking for a general reference/encyclopedia dinosaur book.  I've loooked through the recommendation thread, and I think I've narrowed it down to The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs and Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia.
    The issue is, I can't make up my mind; is one book particularly better than the other?  I'm leaning towards the Dinosaurs:  The most Complete book by Holtz.  Any reason to choose the Princeton Guide instead or something totally different?

Thanks!

[tyrantqueen]

Get both, they're both excellent in their own ways.

Holtz's book has the lively Luis Rey illustrations, focusing on the dinosaurs when they were alive and depicting them in their natural habitat and surroundings, and the text is more accessible. It doesn't discuss individual species in great depth, however, just certain groups of dinosaurs (such as spinosaurids, ceratopsians etc).

GSP's book is bit more on the scientific side, with lots of skeletal drawings and less fleshed out stuff. It breaks down each individual dinosaur species and genus. My only criticism is his weird taxonomy, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt.

Does that help at all?

[postsaurischian]

I'd recommend the Princeton Field Guide for its correctness, the illustrations, the structure, straightforwardness and design.
I wouldn't call Gregory S. Paul's taxonomy weird. It's different. And it's not so hard to get into it. I personally think it's good for scientific improvement to have different opinions. Some of Paul's thoughts (e.g. Ceratopsian taxonomy) make sense to me. No one knows the pure truth anyway ... (yet ).
Besides the taxonomy, one thing's for sure: The Field Guide is about facts and you won't find too much hypothetical, which I think is good as a basic book (an encyclopaedia). This is the book for correct measurements. I find it very inspiring.

If you prefer a slice of fantasy the Holtz / Rey book is more like that.

[postsaurischian]

I also have both books .
But if you'd ask me the 'Lone Island' question and which of these books I would take with me I'd choose the Field Guide.


....... yes, "speculative" might be the better word ....... and "Drama" .


edit: Oops, the post I was answering is gone!

[Takama]

I personally, like Holtzs Book better then the Princeton Guide. But maybe that's because its easier for me to read.

[HD-man]

I'm looking for a general reference/encyclopedia dinosaur book.  I've loooked through the recommendation thread, and I think I've narrowed it down to The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs and Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia.
    The issue is, I can't make up my mind; is one book particularly better than the other?  I'm leaning towards the Dinosaurs:  The most Complete book by Holtz.  Any reason to choose the Princeton Guide instead or something totally different?

As "a general reference/encyclopedia dinosaur book", Holtz's book is the better choice for reasons discussed elsewhere (See my 1st post: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=177.80 ). GSPaul's book is a mixed bag. Naish's "Holtz and Rey 2007, the prophecy revealed" ( http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/09/24/holtz-rey-2007-dinosaurs-book/ ) & "Greg Paul's Dinosaurs: A Field Guide" ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/02/21/greg-pauls-dinosaurs-a-field-guide/ ) sum up what I mean.

[HD-man]

I'd recommend the Princeton Field Guide for its correctness, the illustrations, the structure, straightforwardness and design.
I wouldn't call Gregory S. Paul's taxonomy weird. It's different. And it's not so hard to get into it. I personally think it's good for scientific improvement to have different opinions. Some of Paul's thoughts (e.g. Ceratopsian taxonomy) make sense to me. No one knows the pure truth anyway ... (yet ).
Besides the taxonomy, one thing's for sure: The Field Guide is about facts and you won't find too much hypothetical, which I think is good as a basic book (an encyclopaedia). This is the book for correct measurements. I find it very inspiring.

If you prefer a slice of fantasy the Holtz / Rey book is more like that.

No offense, but how did you come to that conclusion? I ask b/c, based on what I've read (E.g. See my previous post & the sources therein), it's the other way around (E.g. GSPaul's book is more speculative, Holtz's book is more factual, etc).

[tyrantqueen]

I'd recommend the Princeton Field Guide for its correctness, the illustrations, the structure, straightforwardness and design.
I wouldn't call Gregory S. Paul's taxonomy weird. It's different. And it's not so hard to get into it. I personally think it's good for scientific improvement to have different opinions. Some of Paul's thoughts (e.g. Ceratopsian taxonomy) make sense to me. No one knows the pure truth anyway ... (yet ).
Besides the taxonomy, one thing's for sure: The Field Guide is about facts and you won't find too much hypothetical, which I think is good as a basic book (an encyclopaedia). This is the book for correct measurements. I find it very inspiring.

If you prefer a slice of fantasy the Holtz / Rey book is more like that.

No offense, but how did you come to that conclusion? I ask b/c, based on what I've read (E.g. See my previous post & the sources therein), it's the other way around (E.g. GSPaul's book is more speculative, Holtz's book is more factual, etc).

This is probably a dumb question, but do you own either of the aforementioned books?

[verinnius]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

TQ and postsaurischian, thanks for the more in depth summaries.  The reviews on amazon were somewhat vague into the actual contents of the books.

HD-Man, thanks for the links, very informative. 

I think the best solution is to buy both books of course.  More is always better right?    But for the moment, I'm probably going to grab the field guide. In that it goes into more detail on specific dinosaurs.

Again, thank you to everyone for your input.

[HD-man]

This is probably a dumb question, but do you own either of the aforementioned books?

It's OK. I own GSPaul's book & I've read my local library's copy of Holtz's book.

[postsaurischian]

I'd recommend the Princeton Field Guide for its correctness, the illustrations, the structure, straightforwardness and design.
I wouldn't call Gregory S. Paul's taxonomy weird. It's different. And it's not so hard to get into it. I personally think it's good for scientific improvement to have different opinions. Some of Paul's thoughts (e.g. Ceratopsian taxonomy) make sense to me. No one knows the pure truth anyway ... (yet ).
Besides the taxonomy, one thing's for sure: The Field Guide is about facts and you won't find too much hypothetical, which I think is good as a basic book (an encyclopaedia). This is the book for correct measurements. I find it very inspiring.

If you prefer a slice of fantasy the Holtz / Rey book is more like that.

No offense, but how did you come to that conclusion? I ask b/c, based on what I've read (E.g. See my previous post & the sources therein), it's the other way around (E.g. GSPaul's book is more speculative, Holtz's book is more factual, etc).

I was excluding the taxonomy. The 'fantasy' comment was aimed at Rey's art - that would have been clearer if the post I was referring to hadn't been deleted.

I you refer to Darren Naish (who has a guest appearance in the Holtz book), I have to admit I'm not in the state to discuss paleontological themes with a professional like him and if I wanted to I surely would look for another forum where he is posting as well. He's a fan of Rey's art, I'm not. I could discuss this with him ... sorry, just joking.

One thing catched my eye - while he's not writing much about the Holtz book - besides how great it is and that it is good for children too (a bit too childish for my tastes) - he's picking the Field Guide apart to its finest details. I won't say he isn't right about his criticism, but besides the usual taxonomy wigging there's not much speculative he's calling into question (which is what I wrote: "....... you won't find too much hypothetical"). Just a few things.
There isn't much text anyway. Everything is described pretty factual and in perspective.

I still recommend it as a basic encyclopaedia. Forget the taxonomy (if you want) and use it for looking up individual species' basic data.

[HD-man]

I was excluding the taxonomy. The 'fantasy' comment was aimed at Rey's art - that would have been clearer if the post I was referring to hadn't been deleted.

Now I see what you mean.

One thing catched my eye - while he's not writing much about the Holtz book - besides how great it is and that it is good for children too

To be fair, I also referred to Taylor's review when I said that "Holtz's book is the better choice for reasons discussed elsewhere (See my 1st post: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=177.80 )."

he's picking the Field Guide apart to its finest details. I won't say he isn't right about his criticism, but besides the usual taxonomy wigging there's not much speculative he's calling into question

There's also GSPaul's skeletal reconstructions (which, according to "some researchers", are "problematic, with the underlying reconstructive process being subjective, prone to bias and misinterpretation, and far more artistic than Paul makes clear": http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/02/21/greg-pauls-dinosaurs-a-field-guide/ ).

Forget the taxonomy (if you want) and use it for looking up individual species' basic data.

Maybe not even that (See "Negative point 1: descriptive text" in the 2nd link above).

[wings]

These are the majorities of negatives on Paul's reconstruction by Naish (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/02/21/greg-pauls-dinosaurs-a-field-guide/)

•   plateosaurs could not pronate the manus (Bonnan & Senter 2007) and were thus likely incapable of quadrupedal walking or running.
•   'dorsal fin made of fuzz' depicted on the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus
•   Nemegtosaurus skull on the Opisthocoelicaudia body
•   raised tails present in some mamenchisaurid specimens might represent the actual life condition has so far proved unpopular
•   Styracosaurus albertensis (Centrosaurus albertensis of Paul's usage) is illustrated with an enormously long, tapering nasal horn, despite the fact that Ryan et al. (2007) showed the actual horn to be about half as long as the one reconstructed on mounted specimens.
•   cranial crest of Tsintaosaurus spinorhinus 

The problem with the "galloping" Plateosaurus is in both books. The one in Holtz's book by Rey (p.177) is almost a carbon copy of Paul's skeletal (p.167). Beipiaosaurus's "fin" does look odd, however even at this point we don't have the whole animal and no idea on the extend of its feather distribution. Birds have the ability to fluff out their feathers so maybe Beipiaosaurus can do the same; so is Paul wrong? Not sure since we have no way to tell one way or another. The combination of the Nemegtosaurus skull on the Opisthocoelicaudia body, it is understandable since Paul thinks that they are the same animal as there are no other titanosaurs found in the area. This would probably be coming down to the way he classifies his animal (he has the tendency to lump groups together); since we have no overlapping materials to proof the validity of this claim it would be hard to say it must be wrong. And he did make note to the reader that the head is from Nemegtosaurus and the the rest if from Opisthocoelicaudia. It's more about personal opinions right now. The raised tail on some mamenchisaurids seems again a personal opinion as you can see from Hartman's (http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Mamenchisaurus-youngi-skeletal-56372419) the tail base is also angled "up" which is very similar to Paul's (p.183) but we don't have enough of the rest of the tail to proof it one way or another (whether the tip is angled up as well). The nasal horn on Styracosaurus (Centrosaurus) from Paul's, to be fair the horn is very much the same length as the one illustrated in Holtz's (p. 34-37, 40). Like the Plateosaurus Rey's Styracosaurus is like a trace over of Paul's (I haven't try to overlap them so I can't be sure). Lastly the Tsintaosaurus, I'm not sure how this really would be Paul's issue if the paper on the topic is published in 2013 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082268 ) when Paul's book was out in 2010. You might argue that some of the studies were published after Holtz book, like the one on Plateosaurus arms but I did see Rey's "Dinosaur field guide" recently (2014 edition), Rey was still using the same illustration of the "bouncing" Plateosaurus skeletal. All in all if you are just looking at the imageries there really is not much of a different between the two (for the reason just listed), it's just which artists' art style you prefer the most.

[tyrantqueen]

I knew it wasn't perfect, but I didn't know it was that bad. Thanks for pointing out the errors.

It would be cool if Scott Hartman made his own "field guide", but I guess that is not going to happen. I'll just make my own by printing out his skeletals.

[wings]

I knew it wasn't perfect, but I didn't know it was that bad. Thanks for pointing out the errors.

These alleged errors were from Naish's article. In regards to the illustrations; both books suffer very similar issues (though Naish never really talked about these problems in his "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia" article). The choice to choose which book to buy depends on how you're going to use them. If you are a modeller and your sole purpose is to construct these animals then Paul's would be a better choice since you can extract the measurements/proportion easier from his skeletal diagrams (and probably a larger quantity as well) than Rey's. However if you would like to read about the (main stream view) taxonomy of these animals then Holtz would probably be a better option as Paul often develops his own phylogenetic analyses (criteria/data set for these analyses often unpublished and/or not well known).

[Yutyrannus]

I knew it wasn't perfect, but I didn't know it was that bad. Thanks for pointing out the errors.

It would be cool if Scott Hartman made his own "field guide", but I guess that is not going to happen. I'll just make my own by printing out his skeletals.

I agree, that would be very cool.

[HD-man]

I knew it wasn't perfect, but I didn't know it was that bad. Thanks for pointing out the errors.

Don't get me wrong as I'm not saying that it's bad, just that it's more speculative than Postsaurischian made it out to be & a mixed bag overall. Personally, I think the field guide part should've been more like the 2nd 1/2 of GSPaul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World: A Complete Illustrated Guide.

It would be cool if Scott Hartman made his own "field guide", but I guess that is not going to happen.

What makes you say that?

[verinnius]

I got the book in the mail a couple of days ago, and I love it!  The artwork and skeletons are fantastic. 

Although it's probably been about 20 years since I've picked up a book on dinosaurs, so I'm having to look up quite a few terms.

[HD-man]

Although it's probably been about 20 years since I've picked up a book on dinosaurs, so I'm having to look up quite a few terms.

All the more reason to get Holtz's book.