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

[Shane]

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.

I'm assuming and hoping that his predatory dinos book will delve deeper into individual entries. The full dino book offers fairly sparse info on individual dino species, so this should be able to get more in depth.

[Shane]

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.

Very much also still a fan of physical media, including Blu Rays and vinyl records.

Wikipedia is an invaluable resource, especially since it's one of the few sources of info on the internet that's not financially motivated and over-run with AI-generated slop. But it can get pretty academic and as you said is "less fun" than going through a book and finding info.

I love going through my old books, even outdated ones. It's a nice snapshot of the thoughts of the time, and the illustrations are no less beautiful. I have an awesome book full of Brian Franczak paintings that I would never put aside just because a lot of them are out of date.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I do somewhat wish he released pdf versions of his books as the skeletals within would make for amazing references when 3d modeling!

[Gwangi]

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.

Very much also still a fan of physical media, including Blu Rays and vinyl records.

Wikipedia is an invaluable resource, especially since it's one of the few sources of info on the internet that's not financially motivated and over-run with AI-generated slop. But it can get pretty academic and as you said is "less fun" than going through a book and finding info.

I love going through my old books, even outdated ones. It's a nice snapshot of the thoughts of the time, and the illustrations are no less beautiful. I have an awesome book full of Brian Franczak paintings that I would never put aside just because a lot of them are out of date.

What book is the Brian Franczak one? I'm curious to know if it is one that I have. I definitely have a love for the lavishly illustrated dinosaur books of the 90's. A lot of nostalgia there.

[HD-man]

@DefinitelyNOTDilo

I do somewhat wish he released pdf versions of his books as the skeletals within would make for amazing references when 3d modeling!

If you're interested, send me a PM.

[Shane]

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.

Very much also still a fan of physical media, including Blu Rays and vinyl records.

Wikipedia is an invaluable resource, especially since it's one of the few sources of info on the internet that's not financially motivated and over-run with AI-generated slop. But it can get pretty academic and as you said is "less fun" than going through a book and finding info.

I love going through my old books, even outdated ones. It's a nice snapshot of the thoughts of the time, and the illustrations are no less beautiful. I have an awesome book full of Brian Franczak paintings that I would never put aside just because a lot of them are out of date.

What book is the Brian Franczak one? I'm curious to know if it is one that I have. I definitely have a love for the lavishly illustrated dinosaur books of the 90's. A lot of nostalgia there.

It's called "Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs" and can be seen about halfway down this memorial article for Brian: https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/8/29/brian-franczak-1955-2020

It's the one with the Corythosaurs in the water (painted by Ely Kish I believe).

[Gwangi]

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.

Very much also still a fan of physical media, including Blu Rays and vinyl records.

Wikipedia is an invaluable resource, especially since it's one of the few sources of info on the internet that's not financially motivated and over-run with AI-generated slop. But it can get pretty academic and as you said is "less fun" than going through a book and finding info.

I love going through my old books, even outdated ones. It's a nice snapshot of the thoughts of the time, and the illustrations are no less beautiful. I have an awesome book full of Brian Franczak paintings that I would never put aside just because a lot of them are out of date.

What book is the Brian Franczak one? I'm curious to know if it is one that I have. I definitely have a love for the lavishly illustrated dinosaur books of the 90's. A lot of nostalgia there.

It's called "Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs" and can be seen about halfway down this memorial article for Brian: https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/8/29/brian-franczak-1955-2020

It's the one with the Corythosaurs in the water (painted by Ely Kish I believe).

I thought that might be the one. I have it too. 

[Shane]

I thought that might be the one. I have it too. 

It's a classic. Lots of good Paul illustrations in that one too.

[triceratops83]

Got my copy the other day. Once again he lumps most centrosaurines under Centrosaurus, but then he splits Stegosaurus ungulatus from Stegosaurus! He's informally calling it Stegotitanus.

[VD231991]

Got my copy the other day. Once again he lumps most centrosaurines under Centrosaurus, but then he splits Stegosaurus ungulatus from Stegosaurus! He's informally calling it Stegotitanus.

I got a copy of the 3rd edition of Gregory Paul's dinosaur field guide which I pre-ordered last fall and I'm heartened that Paul changed his mind about Klamelisaurus being an adult of Bellusaurus after seeing a 2018 paper by Andrew Moore demonstrating that known specimens of Bellusaurus are morphologically distinct from Klamelisaurus despite being juveniles. However, Paul's assertion about Tuebingosaurus being a fully mature Plateosaurus contradicts the morphological evidence showing that Tuebingosaurus is a stem-sauropod and distinct from plateosaurids, and his decision to informally refer to Alamosaurus specimens from Texas and Utah as "Utetitan zellaguymondeweyae" echoes the opinion of a handful of sauropod experts that not all specimens referred to Alamosaurus sanjuanensis are the same species (an abstract presented at the SVP 2018 conference hints at one referred Alamosaurus specimen found in Texas being a distinct taxon from Alamosaurus specimen USNM 15660 from the North Horn Formation).

[Torvosaurus]

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.

Very much also still a fan of physical media, including Blu Rays and vinyl records.

Wikipedia is an invaluable resource, especially since it's one of the few sources of info on the internet that's not financially motivated and over-run with AI-generated slop. But it can get pretty academic and as you said is "less fun" than going through a book and finding info.

I love going through my old books, even outdated ones. It's a nice snapshot of the thoughts of the time, and the illustrations are no less beautiful. I have an awesome book full of Brian Franczak paintings that I would never put aside just because a lot of them are out of date.

What book is the Brian Franczak one? I'm curious to know if it is one that I have. I definitely have a love for the lavishly illustrated dinosaur books of the 90's. A lot of nostalgia there.

It's called "Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs" and can be seen about halfway down this memorial article for Brian: https://tetzoo.com/blog/2020/8/29/brian-franczak-1955-2020

It's the one with the Corythosaurs in the water (painted by Ely Kish I believe).

I thought that might be the one. I have it too. 

I have an Enyclopedia of Dinosaurs as well, full of Brian Franczak illustrations (about 75% are by him), but the cover is different.

Torvo

[Shane]

So I recently received the Princeton Field Guide to Predatory Dinosaurs. I haven't had time to give it more than a somewhat cursory look; it seems to delve a bit deeper into the dinosaurs than the general field guide, but one thing I did catch is that Paul still hates Spinosaurus.

He features no skeletals of S. aegypticus and his write up basically says none of the fossils other than the Stromer holotype should "count" and all other remains attributed to Spinosaurus by Ibrahim are chimeric and basically refuses to discuss them except to say that short legs and tail sail are "problematic".

[suspsy]

So I recently received the Princeton Field Guide to Predatory Dinosaurs. I haven't had time to give it more than a somewhat cursory look; it seems to delve a bit deeper into the dinosaurs than the general field guide, but one thing I did catch is that Paul still hates Spinosaurus.

He features no skeletals of S. aegypticus and his write up basically says none of the fossils other than the Stromer holotype should "count" and all other remains attributed to Spinosaurus by Ibrahim are chimeric and basically refuses to discuss them except to say that short legs and tail sail are "problematic".

So I recently received the Princeton Field Guide to Predatory Dinosaurs. I haven't had time to give it more than a somewhat cursory look; it seems to delve a bit deeper into the dinosaurs than the general field guide, but one thing I did catch is that Paul still hates Spinosaurus.

He features no skeletals of S. aegypticus and his write up basically says none of the fossils other than the Stromer holotype should "count" and all other remains attributed to Spinosaurus by Ibrahim are chimeric and basically refuses to discuss them except to say that short legs and tail sail are "problematic".

Paul is weird that way, isn't he? And as far I'm aware, he's never written and published a proper argument against the current reconstruction of Spinosaurus. Many paleontologists have tried their best to prove that Ibrahim's reconstruction was a chimera and they've all failed. I'd like to see Paul try to do better.

[Sim]

I've got thoughts regarding things in the new Princeton Field Guides, but for the most part it'll have to come later, sometime next month I think.  However, since I already commented on (and showed) Paul's Allosaurus skeletals in a Haolonggood thread, I can add that I find the possibility of one or two more Allosaurus species in addition to the four accepted ones interesting!  I will also add that Paul splits Edmontosaurus annectens in two, with reasoning!  I wonder how you feel about this @MLMjp?  And it might trigger some that Paul puts juvenile Tyrannosaurus into Nanotyrannus and Stygivenator!  But he keeps Torosaurus as a fully mature Triceratops horridus...

[MLMjp]

I've got thoughts regarding things in the new Princeton Field Guides, but for the most part it'll have to come later, sometime next month I think.  However, since I already commented on (and showed) Paul's Allosaurus skeletals in a Haolonggood thread, I can add that I find the possibility of one or two more Allosaurus species in addition to the four accepted ones interesting!  I will also add that Paul splits Edmontosaurus annectens in two, with reasoning!  I wonder how you feel about this @MLMjp?  And it might trigger some that Paul puts juvenile Tyrannosaurus into Nanotyrannus and Stygivenator!  But he keeps Torosaurus as a fully mature Triceratops horridus...

Ignore it. His "controversial" (to say the least) splits and lumps make it difficult to take his claims seriously these days...Now, if someone else were to publish a study/paper supporting the idea that would be another story.

Could you tell me more about this split, please?

[Sim]

Could you tell me more about this split, please?

I'll take photos of the relevant pages soon, when I next can as I don't have the book with me at the moment.  Sorry for the delay!

[Sim]

@MLMjp, below are the pages about Edmontosaurus. What do you think about it?

[MLMjp]

Thank you @Sim

So it is because the "adults" (long and flat skull) are not present in the same levels were the "subadults" and "juveniles" (not as long and flat skull) are...if I'm correct? Some of this stuff is complicated for me...But I kinda get it.

Reminds me of the situation with "Stygimoloch" possibly being a species of Pachycephalosaurus, P. spiniffer, instead of being part of P.wyomingensis due to being in different levels, (if I recall correctly) a theory that I actually support by the way...

It's a possibilty, but given the interrogation mark in the E. Copei name it seems not even Paul is 100% sure on this split.

[Sim]

Yes, I think you've got it exactly right @MLMjp.  This situation with the species from younger deposits showing differences to those in the older deposits is something I'm not 100% sure how I feel about yet.  There's also the gracile Tyrannosaurus only existing in the younger rocks, and Torosaurus only coexisting with Triceratops horridus, when Triceratops prorsus appears Torosaurus is absent.  I'm tentatively agreeing with the idea that the differences reflect species differences.. although for Edmontosaurus I'd prefer for it to be argued in a paper.

Related to this is that the climate was also different at different levels of Hell Creek.  The lower deposits of Hell Creek were from a cold environment, while the younger deposits are from a tropical environment.  It makes me wonder if the Tyrannosaurus from the cold ecosystem were feathered while the Tyrannosaurus from the warm one were featherless.

[Sim]

If I'm remembering right, the Tyrannosaurus specimen with scaly skin impressions is Wyrex and it comes from the warm younger deposits.