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

[HD-man]

@MLMjp

So is E. annectens not known from any adult specimens?

[Sim]

On the next page I posted there's a skeletal of E. annectens plus a smaller skull of it that's labelled immature.  So I think the larger specimen is the adult, and the reason Paul says the adult size of this species is uncertain is due to not having found giant specimens, which may be due to insufficient smapling as he says on the last page I posted.

[Sim]

I've finally got the opportunity to share more of my thoughts on the third edition of The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs.

First of all, I like the illustration of the 100/42 oviraptorid with Saurornithoides, it's nice to see them get attention, even though the Saurornithoides lacks rectrices.  Which brings me to my second point.  I find it frustrating how Paul generally doesn't restore pennaraptorans with rectrices unless there's direct evidence for them.  Yet he gives many dinosaurs wattles when there's no evidence for them.

Similarly frustrating is Paul considering Sinraptor hepingensis a growth stage of Yangchuanosaurus.  He calls it the adult, although in the text he says it's a juvenile which must be a mistake, but the adult Yangchuanosaurus "magnus" looks different to it and shows S. hepingensis isn't the same species as Yangchuanosaurus.

I'm surprised Paul keeps Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan and Meraxes in different genera.

Someone needs to inform Paul that the species that there is disagreement on whether it's an allosauroid or tyrannosauroid, is Megaraptor, not Neovenator.

The PNSO Gorgosaurus actually looks like it has an adult's skull to me, based on Gregory Paul's skeletals of this species and the holotype skull on Paleofile.

Paul thinks Yi is the adult of Scansoriopteryx...

Paul accepts Zhenyuanlong is a synonym of Tianyuraptor..

I find it strange that Paul thinks therizinosaurians and oviraptorosaurs are descended from Jeholornis and Sapeornis respectively.  The tail of Sapeornis would have had to undergo extreme transformation to become an oviraptorosaur tail.  Paul's idea that oviraptorosaurs are more closely related to birds than dromaeosaurids and troodontids are is also strange.  Oviraptorosaurs retain the reptilian tail linked to legs, while dromaeosaurids have the tail separated from the legs like in birds.

Paul considers the 100/42 oviraptorid the adult of Citipati osmolskae and the other specimens of the latter juveniles, but the latter are in fact as large as the 100/42 oviraptorid and are adults that were preserved protecting their eggs on their nests...

Paul considers a tall-crested oviraptorid specimen the adult of Conchoraptor, but doesn't specify where it comes from.  I haven't seen anything else about a tall-crested Conchoraptor specimen.

I intend to say more later!  I noticed Paul's new field guide to predatory dinosaurs has more on juvenile "Tyrannosaurus", I'll comment on that when I get to it!

Edit: Scott Hartman doesn't think Sapeornis is an oviraptorosaur as well: https://www.deviantart.com/drscotthartman/art/Sapeornis-a-weird-Early-Cretaceous-non-oviraptor-433088131

[Halichoeres]

Wow, that's pretty messy. I'd considered buying it, but I think I won't if it's this riddled with weird speculations.

[Cretaceous Crab]

Is GSP even a paleontologist? I have also noticed he likes to throw his own opinions out there if he doesn't happen to agree with the taxonomy. I mainly just get his books for the skeletals.

[Sim]

Wow, that's pretty messy. I'd considered buying it, but I think I won't if it's this riddled with weird speculations.

Despite what I posted I still recommend the book, it has a lot of interesting and useful details such as a species' location, stratigraphic position, environment when it was alive...

Is GSP even a paleontologist?

Yes, he is.

[Sim]

So, continuing from where I left off...

I was surprised to read Paul say that Camarasaurus lewisi is the sauropod best adapted for walking bipedally!  I guess diplodocids were capable of bipedal walking since their centre of gravity was over their hips, but this is the first time I hear about it in a sauropod that isn't a diplodocid.

Paul splitting Stegosaurus ungulatus into its own genus seems unnecessary and I doubt it will become popular.

I find it funny that some palaeontologists have named new species of Tarchia and assigned well-preserved skulls to them, arguing that Saichania is different to them, but Paul just synonymises all of them as different species of Saichania.

I find the way Paul deals with the "Euoplocephalus-complex" very interesting.
I've read the story of splitting Euoplocephalus from its start with Coombs synonymising a load of ankylosaurids with Euoplocephalus because they overlooked their differences, to the gradual splitting of specimens back to their original genus (Dyoplosaurus, Anodontosaurus, Scolosaurus), to Arbour producing a very helpful visual to differentiating the four species, to Penkalski's disagreement with Arbour, rearranging which specimens belong to which genus and naming a bunch more ankylosaurids from Euoplocephalus material (Oohkotokia, Platypelta, Scolosaurus thronus, Anodontosaurus inceptus), and now we arrive at another palaeontologists view: Paul's.
First of all, he considers Scolosaurus to be a species of Euoplocephalus (as Euoplocephalus cutleri), so I guess if you want the Haolonggood figure of this species to be Euoplocephalus, you can (note though that it differs from the type species, Euoplocephalus tutus).  He goes with Penkalski's opinion on which skull belongs to cutleri (it's the one the Haolonggood Euoplocephalus has), and considers Dyoplosaurus and Platypelta to potentially be specimens of Scolosaurus/Euoplocephalus cutleri.  He also considers that this species may be the ancestor of Euoplocephalus tutus.
For Euoplocephalus tutus, he considers Anodontosaurus inceptus and Scolosaurus thronus to possibly be synonyms of it.
He retains Oohkotokia horneri as valid, same for Anodontosaurus lambei.
I find Paul's opinion on these ankylosaurids the most convincing, Penkalski recognises a whopping eight species from Euoplocephalus remains!  To summarise, the species Paul supports are Euoplocephalus tutus, Scolosaurus/Euoplocephalus cutleri, Anodontosaurus lambei and Oohkotokia horneri.

[Cretaceous Crab]

Is GSP even a paleontologist?

Yes, he is.

I know he works within the paleontology field. But specifically, does he have a degree in paleontology. I've never seen the abbreviation "Dr." before his name.

[Sim]

As far as I'm aware he doesn't, and neither does Horner.

[suspsy]

Paul does not have any formal schooling in paleontology, but to his credit, he has never claimed to be an actual paleontologist. All of his books describe him as a "dinosaur researcher and illustrator," which is correct.

[Sim]

More thoughts on the Princeton field guide to dinosaurs third edition:

Ceratosuchops and Riparovenator are nowhere to be found.  I guess if they were included Paul would at some level synonymise them with Baryonyx, as he does with Suchomimus.

Paul illustrates lots of Psittacosaurus species, but I wish he done so for P. mazongshanensis, I can't find an image of it anywhere!

...  I think Paul illustrates Maiasaura with a pair of horns...  And looking online at Maiasaura skulls, I'm actually not sure what is correct for this species anymore.  Below is one from the Maiasaura Wikipedia page which seems to show the crest projecting into a point on each side.



I just checked @suspsy's review of the Haolonggood Maiasaura and he says Maiasaura is known to have a horn above each eye... as well as a crest which the Haolonggood model appears to lack.  But maybe the crest is just under the skin?  I'm wondering if the Haolonggood Maiasaura isn't too inaccurate.  It seems Haolonggood did more research for it than it first appeared.  @Concavenator, you might be interested in this?

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Hopefully I can elucidate Maiasaura a bit. It did indeed have a single crest, not horns. The image on Wikipedia is a mount that is somewhat outdated in that regard. We knew it to have a crest from the beginning, but unfortunately it was only figured from the side and people misinterpreted it as horns.

[HD-man]

Is GSP even a paleontologist?

Yes, he is.

I know he works within the paleontology field. But specifically, does he have a degree in paleontology. I've never seen the abbreviation "Dr." before his name.

Just in case you're interested, here's his autobiography: http://www.gspauldino.com/fullautobiography.html

[Concavenator]

@Sim Thank you for the heads-up! @DefinitelyNOTDilo is right. That Maiasaura mount must be wrong, as Dilo said, the presence of a crest was known from the get-go. From the description:

In Maiasaura...the caudal nasals form a transversely oriented crest located dorsal to the orbit...the frontal makes a significant contribution to the crest.

So HLG's Maiasaura is wrong on that regard. Would've gotten it had they depicted a crest instead of hornlets. Or in case they modified the existing figure, just like they did with the Ouranosaurus, though not holding my breath for that to happen (speaking of which, the change that would need to be done is fairly minor).

[Sim]

So now, looking at The Princeton field guide to predatory dinosaurs...

I'm surprised Paul keeps illustrating Dilophosaurus with outdated crests that don't reach the nostrils...  I'm surprised Scott Hartman hasn't updated his own Dilophosaurus skeletal to the modern crest shapes too..

I'm pleased to see Paul has removed the incorrect info about Neovenator possibly being a tyrannosauroid, as it was still present in his field guide to dinosaurs 3rd edition.

Paul places the megaraptorans in Tyrannosauroidea, noting that some think Megaraptor is an allosauroid.

Paul recognises four species based on specimens often thought to be juvenile Tyrannosaurus, as shown in the images below.



Also, I have to say I am finding Paul's work on there being at least three species of Tyrannosaurus, T. rex, T. regina and T. imperator, convincing.  There are consistent differences between specimens of these three species and other dinosaur genera have more than one species concurrently in the same ecosystems.

If the specimens usually considered juvenile Tyrannosaurus are indeed juvenile Tyrannosaurus, it is remarkable that they differ so much to juvenile Tarbosaurus, the latter species being very closely related to Tyrannosaurus!

Paul considers Acheroraptor to possibly be the juvenile of Dakotaraptor.

[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/ ):