HD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

[HD-man]

My 76th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Mostly good, part 3 ( www.amazon.com/review/R235XQVGYIP0I3/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Short version: Is DK's Where on Earth? Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Life (henceforth Earth) mostly good? Yes. Is it mostly good enough for me to recommend reading it on its own? No. That said, I do recommend reading it, but in conjunction with Molina-Pérez/Larramendi's Dinosaur Facts and Figures series.

Long version: Read on.

Earth is mostly good, especially when it comes to having good bird's-eye views of where each species lived in its natural environment. I say that because, unlike most of my positive reviews, this 1 is mostly about the not-so-good aspects of Earth.

1) The introductory & concluding chapters (I.e. "Rise of the dinosaurs" & "After the dinosaurs", respectively):
-While the middle chapters are mostly well-written & accurate, "Rise of the dinosaurs" has a surprisingly large amount of weird writing (E.g. See the Barker/Naish quote, which uses the word "structure" in 2 very different ways with no explanation) & contradictory text (E.g. On page 9, it's claimed that "the first forms of life evolve[d]" in the Archean Eon; Also on page 9 as well as page 10, it's claimed that they evolved in the Hadean Eon).
-As you may remember, it's annoyingly common for dino books to pointlessly feature "a few random mammoths" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3524252165 ). This is especially apparent in "After the dinosaurs". I get what Earth is trying to do, but there are better ways of doing it (E.g. 3 2-page spreads titled "Paleogene/Neogene/Quaternary world", similar to "Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous world" in "Rise of the dinosaurs", which would make space for more dinos to flesh out "the stories about them").*

2) The organization: Like most other dino atlases, each of the middle chapters focuses on a different continent; Also like most other dino atlases, said chapters are arranged in no particular order.

3) The paleoart, which is mostly that of Kuether & Pixel-shack:
-The main problem with Kuether's paleoart is that it looks too video gamey. Heck, the actual video game Saurian looks more like actual paleoart than most of Kuether's paleoart. Put another way, to quote Babbletrish (in reference to Clash of the Dinosaurs), the latter looks like it was made with "Sub-Playstation-1 CGI". This is especially apparent in his better-lit &/or more action-packed work, including all of his Earth work: "Better-lit" because, like the Jurassic World dinos, Kuether's look better in darker settings; "More action-packed" because his action poses look more like those of stiff action figures than those of real animals. That said, you can tell that he's at least trying to make his dinos look like real animals. I can't say the same about Pixel-shack's dinos.
-Remember what I said about Pixel-shack's DD work (See reason #3: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3632782229 )? The same goes for Pixel-shack's Earth work. This is especially apparent in the large, front-facing nightmare image of Pixel-shack's Psittacosaurus on page 108 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20240219093223/https://www.geokniga.org/bookfiles/geokniga-wereonearthdinosaursandotherprehistoriclife.pdf ) & the small, down-facing image of their Ankylosaurus on pages 5/9/19/38: Not only is the former a shameless rip-off of Bob Nicholls' model, but its abominable smile looks like Mitch McConnell's; Not only does the latter have too many digits & claws, but it's also inconsistently armored & jawed compared to the large, up-facing image on page 39 (See pages 38-39: https://web.archive.org/web/20240219093223/https://www.geokniga.org/bookfiles/geokniga-wereonearthdinosaursandotherprehistoriclife.pdf ); Compare that to PNSO's Sede, a more accurate Ankylosaurus from around the same time ( www.amazon.com/PNSO-Prehistoric-Animal-Models-Ankylosaurus/dp/B07RDW8KZL ).
-2 more things of note: 1) Both Kuether & Pixel-shack are really bad at feathers; In fact, to paraphrase Zuko, their feathered dinos "look like a boarcupine! [Feathers are] not that spiky!"; 2) The skeletal reconstructions in "Fossil finds" look more based on wooden skeleton puzzles than actual skeletons.

*Speaking of stories, the African ones are the least fleshed out: Only 2 of the 4 profiles are for dinos, the Late Jurassic Giraffatitan & the Late Cretaceous Spinosaurus; In other words, Africa's many Triassic & Early Jurassic dinos are almost completely ignored.

Quoting Barker/Naish:

Dinosaurs evolved from small reptiles about 235 million years ago. Based on the shape and structure of bones in the skull, neck, arm, hip, and ankle, this family tree shows the dinosaur groups. However, with exciting discoveries continually being made, this structure may change over time.

[HD-man]

My 77th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Like The Magic School Bus, but better ( www.amazon.com/review/R17ZWNPWDUKZWI/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

I was originally planning on reviewing Howard's Dinosaur Empire! (Earth Before Us #1): Journey through the Mesozoic Era (henceforth DE) the way I usually review good dino books. However, I then remembered that Witton's DE review is so perfect (especially when it comes to outlining "why the Earth Before Us books are so terrific": https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2019/12/interview-with-abby-howard-author-and.html ) that I can't possibly top it, so I won't even try. Instead, in this review, I'll point you to Witton's DE review & add my own thoughts as well:
-DE reminds me of Cole's The Magic School Bus books in 2 major ways: 1) Ronnie/Ms. Lernin's dynamic is similar to that of Arnold/Ms. Frizzle, but better (I.e. There are no other characters to distract from the story); 2) DE's "smart narrative device" is similar to that of Cole's books, but better (I.e. It's less theatrical & more direct). As you may remember, the characters & story are major reasons why Cole's books are so much better than the "Magic School Bus" show (See reasons #1 & 3: www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-8-Repost-1098450873 ).
-To add to the Magic School Bus analogy, DE's "Learning Centre" reminds me of the reports in Cole's books. More specifically, both "explain a major concept of biology or palaeontology, but otherwise [the characters] move through time and space with pace and fluidity."
-In reference to "the interpretations [Howard presents being] accurate to modern science", it's worth mentioning that there are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Deinocheirus is referred to as a herbivore) & paleoart (E.g. Tsintaosaurus is depicted with the outdated phallic crest). Otherwise, Witton's right.
-It's also worth mentioning that DE fills a very important role as a great natural history of dinos for older kids. There have been several great natural histories of dinos for younger kids & adults in recent years (E.g. Chuang/Yang's THEM: Age Of Dinosaurs & Norell's The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour, respectively: www.goodreads.com/review/show/4820220402 ), but nothing great for older kids since the 1990s.

[HD-man]

My 78th review for this thread is a negative 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Here we go again ( www.amazon.com/review/RZZ4R6IK9VL5N/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want a good Magic School Bus dino book, get Cole's The Magic School Bus in the Time of the Dinosaurs & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs).* All other Magic School Bus dino books should be avoided, especially Stamper's Dinosaur Detectives (The Magic School Bus Science Chapter Book #9) (henceforth DD).

Long version: Read on.

I wasn't expecting DD to be even worse than Schwabacher's The Magic School Bus Flies with the Dinosaurs ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3492121242 ), especially given Holtz's involvement, but in some ways, it is. In this review, I list those ways.

1) DD is even worse in terms of the characters & story. At least with Schwabacher's book, one could argue that 1) the characters act more like they do in Cole's book than they do in the show, & 2) the story is short. Unfortunately, DD is basically a worse version of the show:
-In reference to the characters, this is especially apparent in Ms. Frizzle (who acts more like a normal teacher than the wacky, zany character I know/love), Liz (who acts more like a normal pet than the humanly-sentient character I know/love), Arnold (who acts more like a Flanderized version of the relatable character I know/love, so basically, himself in The Magic School Bus Rides Again), & Ralphie: Like each episode of the show, each of Stamper's books focuses on 1 character; In DD, that's Ralphie, who acts more like Carlos does in the show than he does in the show (I.e. He tells more bad jokes & laughs at more of Carlos' bad jokes); See reasons #1 & 3 in my review of the show for why The Magic School Bus should never focus on Carlos-type characters ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-8-Repost-1098450873 ).
-In reference to the story, this is especially apparent in 2 major ways: 1) It's more character-driven in DD than it is in Cole's book (which is bad because the characters range from bland to awful); 2) It's filled with so much dialogue that DD reads more like a script than a book (which is bad because the dialogue is poorly written).

2) DD is similarly hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in the sidebars because the misses stick out more with less text (E.g. See all 3 Stamper quotes, especially the 1st one; Dino eggs didn't just hold the baby & a yolk, "big plant eaters" didn't lay the biggest eggs, & sauropods typically didn't lay eggs of that shape & size).

3) DD is even worse in terms of writing (which is saying a lot):
-It's annoyingly cobbled together from different parts of Cole's book (E.g. See the 1st & 2nd Stamper quotes).
-It's annoyingly redundant (E.g. 1st, in the main text, D.A. says, "They're extinct. That means not one member of their species is still alive"; Then, in her report on the same page, she says, "Dinosaurs are extinct. Not one of their kind is still alive").
-It's annoyingly simplified (E.g. 1st, see the 2nd Stamper quote; Then, see reason #1 in my review of Schwabacher's book).
-It's annoyingly weird (E.g. See the 3rd Stamper quote; Why "a" Plateosaurus?; & why did it stand "long"?; Why the "also"?).

4) DD is even worse in terms of art (which, again, is saying a lot):
-It's annoyingly contradictory with the text (E.g. According to the text, the baby Diplodocus are green; According to the cover art, they're not).
-It's annoyingly contradictory with itself (I.e. Some of the life reconstructions are based on those in the show, others are tracings of those in Cole's book, & still others are original).
-It's annoyingly outdated/abominable: In reference to outdated, this is especially apparent in the unfeathered Troodon (Quoting Holtz: "Depicting a Troodon or a Velociraptor without feathers[...]would simply be antiscientific"); In reference to abominable, this is especially apparent in Enik's multi-species scenes (which, stylistically, look like they're from "A Sloppy Art Coloring Book"); Worse still, they're inconsistently abominable (I.e. The same dinos look more realistic in some scenes & more cartoony in others); In reference to both, this is especially apparent when comparing Enik's baby Diplodocus on the cover of DD to Mick Ellison's mostly-accurate baby Diplodocus from around the same time ( https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/07/day-1-at-svp/ ).

*For an even better version of Cole's book, see Howard's Dinosaur Empire! (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/4095195260 ).

Quoting Stamper (who cobbled this together from Amanda Jane's "WHAT WERE SAUROPODS?" & Molly's "HOW BIG WERE DINOSAUR EGGS?"):

Dinosaurs Laid Eggs by Wanda
Baby dinosaurs hatched from eggs. Dinosaur eggs held the baby animal and a yolk. The yolk was the animal's food until it hatched.
Big plant eaters laid the biggest eggs. Sauropods were heavy, long-necked plant eaters, and they laid football-shaped eggs. Their eggs were 1 foot long and 10 inches wide!

Quoting Stamper (who cobbled this together from the main text & Carmen's "HOW A DEAD DINOSAUR COULD BECOME A FOSSIL"):

How Fossils Form by Tim
A fossil is created when an animal or plant dies and is buried in the ground. Over time, the hard parts of the animal, such as bones and teeth, are preserved by surrounding minerals. These hard parts turn into rock and become a fossil.

Quoting Stamper:

Dino Data File
A Plateosaurus was one of the first long-necked plant eaters in the Triassic Period. It stood 27 feet long and weighed 1,500 pounds. It could also rear up and use its hands to pull leaves off trees.
Fun Fact: Plateosaurus had weak teeth. These weren't much help against large predators. Its large thumb claw was its best defense!

[HD-man]

My 79th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

This makes a better book than doc ( www.amazon.com/review/R3GXLAGLI9FLDJ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Short version: If you have to choose between the Planet Dinosaur doc (henceforth PD #1) & Scott's Planet Dinosaur: The Next Generation of Killer Giants (henceforth PD #2), I recommend reading PD #2 in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long version: Read on.

PD #1 (which is decent in its own right) was billed as the new Walking With Dinosaurs (which is the 1st natural history doc about dinos). It didn't pan out that way. As a result, people seem to forget how good PD #2 is. More specifically, PD #2 isn't just a very good companion book, but also a very good stand-alone book that tells the story of dinos MUCH better than PD #1. In fact, PD #2 is an even better stand-alone natural history of dinos than most of the WWD books, especially Haines' Walking with Dinosaurs: A Natural History (which it's most often compared to). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think PD #2 is that good.

1) Most natural histories of dinos have a chronological or day-in-the-life format. This makes sense given that they're the easiest & best ways to tell the story of dinos, respectively. However, unlike the chronological format that makes WWD feel so epic in both book form & doc form, the day-in-the-life format of PD works MUCH better in book form than doc form. This is because, to paraphrase Ben ( https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/01/14/framing-fossil-exhibits-a-walk-through-time/ ), "audiences are predisposed to understand the forward progression of time, so little[...backstory...]is needed." Meanwhile, day-in-the-life requires a lot more backstory to set up the events of the main story & tie them all together. Without said backstory, the main story doesn't make much sense. Part of the problem with PD #1 is that it only has a few sentences of backstory at the beginning of each episode (See the Hurt quote). PD #2 solves this problem with 4 pages of backstory in the Introduction. Also, PD #2 switches up the order of "The New Giants" & "Taking Flight" (I.e. PD #1's "New Giants" & "Feathered Dragons", respectively), making the main story as a whole flow better.*

2) Unlike WWD in general & Haines' book in particular, PD "made the point of showing/stating which bits of evidence have allowed scientists to come to the palaeobiological conclusions that they have" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20191222044229/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/vertebrate-palaeontology-at-lyme-regis/ ). Furthermore, while Darren Naish was only involved in PD #1 "on an at-the-end-of-the-phone basis", he "had full, unconditional control" to tweak the technical stuff in PD #2 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20151105233917/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/happy-6th-birthday-tetrapod-zoology-part-ii/ ). Thus, PD #2 is more complete, in-depth, & accurate. This is especially apparent in the following ways:
-To paraphrase Albertonykus ( https://albertonykus.blogspot.com/2011/11/planet-dinosaur-great-survivors.html ), "One of the less desirable characteristics of [PD #1] is that it's very theropod centric[...]Planet Dinosaur probably should have been called "Planet Theropod"." PD #2 solves this problem with profiles of almost every featured sauropodomorph & ornithiscian (I.e. Argentinosaurus, Paralititan, Ouranosaurus, Chasmosaurus, Edmontosaurus, Camptosaurus, & Stegosaurus).
-In PD #1, Microraptor & Sinornithosaurus are depicted as being splay-legged & venomous, respectively. Surprise surprise, said depictions are based on debunked BANDit claims (BAND = Birds Are Not Dinosaurs). Anyway, PD #2 solves this problem with critiques of said depictions, concluding that 1) "it was simply impossible for Microraptor to adopt this posture", & 2) "the idea that Sinornithosaurus might have delivered a venomous bite was never well supported and the majority of dinosaur experts regarded it as poorly founded right from the start". For more info about conclusion #1, google "TESTING FLIGHT IN MICRORAPTOR". For more info about conclusion #2, google "Sinornithosaurus Probably Wasn't Venomous After All".

3) Unlike WWD (which has CG dinos on real backgrounds), PD has CG dinos within CG backgrounds. To quote Dinosaur Guy ( https://whendinosaursruledthemind.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/when-dinosaurs-ruled-the-mind-50-top-10-best-and-worst-dinosaur-documentaries/ ), "You may think this would make the series look cheap, but I think it benefits from this in several ways. First of all, this allows many more species of dinosaurs to be featured[...]Secondly, this allows them to create period accurate dinosaur landscapes. Any modern area they would like to film in would never be 100% accurate to the actual Mesozoic (the Mesozoic had very little to no grass, yet you would never know from most dino docs, which feature vast grasslands all the time). Thirdly, this allows the dinosaurs to flow seamlessly in their environment. In most dinosaur documentaries, you can tell where the camera footage begins and where the CG  begins, and can be distracting to some. But here, the dinosaurs actually look like they belong to the environment." 1 of my only problems is that some of the CG is a bit off (E.g. To quote Naish, "the animals didn't run well, they sometimes looked a bit... well, rubbery, and temporal fenestrae and so on often looked way too 'hollow'").**

*"The New Giants" is 1st. Thus, the main story begins with non-bird dinos being born & ends with them dying. Also, "Taking Flight" is penultimate. Thus, its short story of 2 Gigantoraptor mating leads more directly into the last chapter's short story of them nesting.

**My other problem is some inaccurate/contradictory text (E.g. On page 42, it's claimed that 40 ft = 12.2 m in the sidebar & 10m in the main text) & weird/inconsistent writing (E.g. Not all of the profiles list the species epithet; Of those that do, not all of them translate it).

Quoting Hurt (who narrated PD #1):

We're living through THE golden age of dinosaur discoveries. All over the world, a whole new generation of dinosaurs has been revealed. From the biggest giants...and the deadliest killers...to the weird and wonderful. From the Arctic to Africa. From South America to Asia. In just the last few years, we have uncovered the most extraordinary fossils, exquisitely preserved and tantalisingly intact. Combined with the latest imaging technology, we have been able to probe deeper and reveal more than ever before. It gives us our first truly global view of these incredible animals.

[HD-man]

My 80th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

2 halves of a whole natural history ( www.amazon.com/review/R1IW2MGUI49TB0/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

As you may remember, I've always wanted a sequel issue to Wexo's Zoobooks - Dinosaurs (henceforth ZD: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3495398242 ). I've since realized that ZD has had an unofficial sequel since 1989, Wexo's Dinosaurs (Prehistoric zoobooks) (henceforth DP). If I didn't know better, I'd say ZD & DP were made to be read together because of how well they complete each other (hence the title of this review):
-On the 1 hand, ZD is very authoritative (I.e. It's consulted by Colbert, Ostrom, & Olshevsky), but poorly-organized. Furthermore, it covers MUCH more about the human significance of dinos, the dino family tree, & the evolution of small dinos into birds than DP.
-On the other hand, DP is very well-organized (I.e. It has a roughly chronological format, beginning 225 MYA & ending 65 MYA), but not authoritative. Furthermore, it covers MUCH more about the evolution of dinos from earlier reptiles, biology/ecology/behavior, & the geological timescale than ZD.

I recommend reading ZD & DP both together & in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Howard's Dinosaur Empire! (Earth Before Us #1): Journey through the Mesozoic Era).

[HD-man]

My 81st review for this thread is a positive 1 for Stout's The New Dinosaurs. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Wild dinos Stout has known ( www.amazon.com/review/R163RH76269WJS/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: Stout's The New Dinosaurs (henceforth ND)/The Dinosaurs: A Fantastic New View of a Lost Era has been 1 of the best natural histories of dinos for adults since 1981. I recommend reading it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long Version: Read on.

ND from 2000 is the revised edition of The Dinosaurs: A Fantastic New View of a Lost Era from 1981. While not as recent as Naish/Barrett's book, ND still deserves to be listed as 1 of the best natural histories of dinos for adults. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons for why I think that is.

1) ND is the closest thing we have to a completely dinosaurian version of Seton's Wild Animals I Have Known (I.e. After the introductory sections, it consists of a collection of short stories about the lives of dinos & other Mesozoic animals). In fact, in some ways, it's even better than Seton's book: For 1, ND tells many more stories representing many more species (48 representing 71 vs. 8 representing 7, respectively); For another, ND's stories are MUCH more varied, ranging from moments in time (E.g. The 1st 1 is about a hatchling Camarasaurus) to entire life histories (E.g. The last 1 is about an elderly Centrosaurus) & everything in between; Some of my favorites are almost essay-like (E.g. "Bathroom Habits", which features the pooping Riojasaurus in Vincent's ND review); For yet another, many of ND's stories flow into each other; This is especially apparent in the "Daily Life" section (I.e. There are 3 back-to-back stories about hadrosaurs from Late Cretaceous N.America mating/nesting/eating & growing, respectively).

2) To paraphrase Robot Chicken ( www.adultswim.com/videos/robot-chicken/1776 ), Stout's comic book-style paleoart "ain't[...100%...]accurate, but it'll blow your [f***ing] mind". Vincent's ND review ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2013/02/vintage-dinosaur-art-dinosaurs.html ) sums up what I mean. However, I still wanna add to that:
-Just saying "comic book-style" doesn't do Stout's paleoart justice. To quote Kirkus Reviews (in reference to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: Lost Chronicles), "The detailed and colorful artwork varies from hyper-realistic to cartoonish and everywhere in between." I wouldn't describe any of Stout's paleoart as "hyper-realistic" per se, but there IS a lot of stylistic variety. This is especially apparent when you compare different illustrations of the same species (E.g. The T. rex ones in Vincent's review).
-Like Vincent, I too was originally turned off by Stout's "very skeletal" vision of dinos. However, while Vincent came around to Stout's paleoart despite said vision, I came around because of what said vision represents. To paraphrase Vincent, Stout "wanted [his dinos] to be really alive - fighting[...]with disease as well as each other, growing up in a hostile world". In other words, Stout's ND work isn't just "a product of the Dinosaur Renaissance," but the most extreme product. Therefore, said vision works well in the context of ND.

3) ND updated the 1981 edition for a new generation, combining classic day-in-the-life stories with "32 added pages of new pictures and information" (& thus, putting said stories in the context of then-current dino science: www.amazon.com/review/RAISBDJ8IU17X/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ).* This is especially apparent in the maniraptorans: For 1, compare the appearance of Stout's 1981 Deinonychus (See Vincent's review) to that of his 2000 Oviraptor ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200219043127/https://scontent.fnyc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/p1080x2048/82956543_213096809726929_2317876639993692160_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=eUsL1rM3SJMAX-J0ETi&_nc_ht=scontent.fnyc1-1.fna&oh=4675e1291571451a220a773374251bd3&oe=5E977D71 ); For another, compare the more lizard-like parental behavior described in the 1981 quote to the more bird-like parental behavior described in the 2000 quote.

*1 Amazon Reviewer apparently missed that fact when they gave their "Very Different Opinion" on ND (which is partly why I wrote this review, to help set the record straight).

From 1981:

When breeding season came again, they mated after an entanglement of hooks and bloodless clash of jaws. The ensuing clutch of eggs they guarded diligently enough to drive off marauders until the eggs hatched, whereupon they left the young to their own devices.

From 2000:

Recent discoveries of fossil Oviraptor skeletons lying directly on top of nests of Oviraptor eggs, with arms outspread, reveal hitherto hidden aspects of theropod nesting behavior. Imagine the winglike arms, with feathers extended to shade or shield the eggs, and you get exactly the pose the skeletons are found in. Is this what the mother (or father?) Oviraptor was doing when deadly disaster struck?

[HD-man]

My 82nd review for this thread is a negative 1 for Brusha et al.'s Discovery Channel's Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Predators. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

1 of the worst I've ever reviewed ( www.amazon.com/review/RUDUVTOQRKLDV/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best collection of day-in-the-life dino stories, get Stout's The New Dinosaurs & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved). If you want the best educational graphic novel about dinos, get Howard's Dinosaur Empire! & read it in conjunction with other, more adult books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's book). Brusha et al.'s Discovery Channel's Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Predators (henceforth DC) fails at being either of these or even just decent in its own right. In fact, in some ways, it fails more than any other dino book I've ever reviewed.

Long version: Read on.

While I can't say that any 1 dino book is the worst ever, I can say that DC is 1 of the worst I've ever reviewed. Everything about DC feels like the ultimate cheap cash-in. Put another way, imagine what it'd be like if Dingo Pictures ( https://phelous.com/tag/dingo-pictures/ ) had made The Christmas Tree ( https://phelous.com/2016/12/21/phelous/and-the-movies/the-christmas-tree/ ). DC is equivalent to that. In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why I think that is, besides the lack of expert consulting.*

1) Let me walk you through how bad DC's paleoart is: 1st, as a basis for comparison, see the mostly-accurate T. rex on the cover of Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs from around the same time; Then, see the shameless rip-off of the Jurassic Park T. rex on DC's cover; If you're anything like me when I 1st saw DC, you're probably thinking something like, "At least it looks good...Maybe it's worth a look inside"; However, I soon realized it isn't when I saw that the introductory T. rex are both shameless rip-offs of the JP T. rex & extremely outdated/abominable ones at that (I.e. 3-fingered bunny hands, big blocky scales, etc: http://is4.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple/v4/e4/0f/1f/e40f1f83-00cd-7092-3c46-47ebbce02eaf/source/480x351bb.jpg ); Worse still, they're inconsistently abominable (I.e. Their shapes/proportions/colors vary from panel to panel) & depicted in what looks like an inappropriately-modern environment that's been painted over with CG (E.g. Grass, grass everywhere).

2) DC may have the most annoyingly-inconsistent writing. This is especially apparent in the Fact Files: Some list both common & scientific names (I.e. Genus & Genus+species, respectively) while others only list common names; Some incorrectly capitalize the species part of scientific names while others don't; Some translate common names while others translate scientific names; Some put the translation in quotes while others don't; Some list orders or suborders under "Dinosaur type" (E.g. "Theropoda" for Allosaurus) while others list families (E.g. "Dromaeosaurids" for Velociraptor) & still others list neither (E.g. "Armored" for Ankylosaurus); Some include "Period" after "Jurassic" or "Cretaceous" while others don't; Some list continents under "Fossils Found" while others list countries & still others list states. The main text writing is also annoyingly inconsistent in terms of bolding & punctuation as well as annoyingly hyperbolic & all-caps (E.g. See the 1st Brusha et al. quote; The originally-bolded words are in curly brackets; However, I refuse to type the quote out in all-caps, hence why it's all lowercase).

3) DC may be the most hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in the Fact Files because the misses stick out more with less text.** However, as bad as the "FACT FILE" misses are, the main text misses may be even worse in degree (E.g. See the 1st Brusha et al. quote; In actuality, Velociraptor was beaver-sized & lived in a desert environment).

4) Despite only accounting for 0.5/5 stars, organization may be the worst aspect of DC in terms of what it implies: For 1, the introductory & concluding chapters consist of a few sparsely & vaguely-written paragraphs/sentences; This is especially apparent in "TIMELINE" (E.g. See the 2nd Brusha et al. quote, which represents 2 back-to-back paragraphs about the Cretaceous; Notice that nothing is explained & there is no logical transition or flow); This implies that DC was just thrown together; For another, the stories themselves are arranged alphabetically, beginning with Allosaurus & ending with Velociraptor; This works in alphabet books (which are for younger kids) & certain reference works, but that's about it; This implies that the creators of DC don't think highly of their older kid audience.

*Not that the Discovery Channel was doing a good job consulting with experts at the time, even when it had experts to consult with ( https://svpow.com/2009/12/15/lies-damned-lies-and-clash-of-the-dinosaurs/ ).

**Even if you only read the Fact Files, you'll see that there's an average of at least 3 or 4 factual errors per page in DC, a 120 page book (E.g. Velociraptor =/= Russian obligate pack hunter; Also, the "Late Cretaceous Period" is NOT an "Era", hence the "Period").

Quoting Brusha et al.:

80 million years ago a predator not much larger than our modern day lion terrorized the forests and plains of the late cretaceous period[...]the velociraptor was armed with a more impressive array of {weapons} than a lion, or any {other} predator that walks the earth today.

Quoting Brusha et al.:

The cretaceous period is the most explosive period as dinosaur, animal, and fish diversity grew in scope. Pangea's component parts split further, a harbinger of more dramatic changes that would eventually doom the dinosaurs. The dinosaur began to evolve into species that not only ate plants but meat[...]The non-avian dinosaurs struggled to find food and their populations declined. The long-necked beasts that thrived on plants were gone. The cretaceous-tertiary extinction events remain a mystery but the results were clear: The day of the dinosaur has ended.

[HD-man]

My 83rd review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

A decade of standing out ( www.amazon.com/review/R3IRL42USNECN7/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

As of this review, I've reviewed 6 children's Natural Histories of Dinos from the 1980s (which, like NHDs in general, are mostly very good to great).* However, 1 book stands out not only amongst those books, but amongst children's NHDs in general: Sattler's Dinosaurs of North America (henceforth DN). In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why I think that is.

1) DN is very well-illustrated: To quote Mr. Enter (in reference to "Land Before Swine"), "this isn't along the lines of someone doing something so incredibly well that'll be remembered forever. It's more along the lines of that guy who said that maybe washing our hands before surgery might just be a good idea"; Likewise, Rao's DN work isn't along the lines of Hallett's & GSPaul's 1980s work, but more along the lines of Conway's All Yesterdays work (See the Taylor quote).

2) DN is very well-organized: After the Introduction by Ostrom, the chapters are arranged chronologically, beginning with the Triassic Period & ending with "The Mystery of Dinosaur Extinction"; Furthermore, the dinos in each chapter are arranged phylogenetically (I.e. 1st coelurosaurs & carnosaurs, then sauropodomorphs, & then ornithischians), which is cleverly foreshadowed by the cladogram on page 7.

3) DN is very complete & in-depth: Not only does it cover every North American non-bird dino genus then known, but also everything then known about them; That's 73 genera in total, most of which have multiple pages of text (E.g. Allosaurus, Nodosaurus, & Corythosaurus each have 3 pages of text). It helps that Sattler is 1) very well-read, as indicated by the Sattler quote, & 2) a collaborator with experts, as also indicated by the Sattler quote.

4) DN comes with a decade worth of supplementary info in the form of The Illustrated Dinosaur Dictionary (1983) & The New Illustrated Dinosaur Dictionary (1990).

*The 1st 5 are Waldrop/Loomis' Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3495390225 ), Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3519227469 ), Peter Zallinger's Dinosaurs and Other Archosaurs ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3534407873 ), Dixon's The Big Book of Dinosaurs: A Natural History of the Prehistoric World ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3748558779 ), & Wexo's Dinosaurs (Prehistoric zoobooks) ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4223164253 ).

Quoting Taylor ( https://svpow.com/2012/11/29/review-all-yesterdays-conway-koseman-and-naish/ ):

There are some superb palaeoartists working in the field at the moment — it's never been more dynamic and, in the best sense, competitive. But while the work even of some excellent practitioners is rather interchangeable, Conway's work is always instantly recognisable because he is an artist first and a palaeoartist second. Others may be more accomplished or have better technique, but for my money Conway's palaeoart has an evocative and even poignant quality that is very rare, maybe unique.

Quoting Sattler:

I would like to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to John H. Ostrom, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, for reading the completed manuscript and adding many valuable comments and criticisms, and for checking the drawings for accuracy.
I also extend thanks to James H. Madsen, Jr., Wann Langston, Jr., James Jensen, Glen J. Ungerman, Denny Davies, and Lynn Loetterle for their contributions by way of conversations or correspondence. To the following authors for information gleaned from their papers published in scientific journals: R. M. Alexander, Robert T. Bakker, M. K. Bret-Surman, Adrian J. Desmond, Peter M. Galton, Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Hagood, John Horner, Wann Langston, Jr., James H. Madsen, Jr., John S. McIntosh, Ralph Molnar, William J. Morris, John H. Ostrom, Dale A. Russell, William Lee Stokes, John E. Storer, R. A. Thulborn, and Samuel P. Welles. To Robert Sattler, Carol Winfield, and Judith Furlong for their tireless assistance in finding reference material, to Alice Gilbreath for checking for grammatical errors, and to Peter Sattler, who inspired me to write this book.

[HD-man]

My 84th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Wenzel's Giant Dinosaurs of the Jurassic. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Unique ( www.amazon.com/review/R32D5ISEXQHGCA/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Wenzel's Giant Dinosaurs of the Jurassic (henceforth GD) is unique among day-in-the-life dino books. The Engelfried quote sums up why. Put another way, Giant is basically a "Vignette Episode" (I.e. "The episode is a series of interconnected stories, all held together by [a] common theme") with the common theme of "the dry season of the Jurassic year". As you may remember, 1 of the major problems I have with many day-in-the-life dino books is that they concentrate on the story with only limited emphasis on the science (which doesn't make sense to me given how much science there is behind a given story). However, when I originally said that, I was specifically referring to day-in-the-life dino books with individual stories. By using a series of interconnected stories, each story can concentrate on a few different aspects of the science, allowing the series as a whole to cover the broader aspects of the science.

At this point, you may be wondering why only 4/5 stars? For 1, there are several technical inaccuracies throughout GD (I.e. Sauropods with high nostrils & theropods with pronated hands). For another, there are several wrong sizes throughout GD (E.g. Ceratosaurus =/= 9 m). Otherwise, GD is very good for a less "typical" day-in-the-life dino book. I recommend reading GD in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs in general & Chapter 40 in particular).

Quoting Engelfried (See "Editorial Reviews"):

Grade 3-5–After introducing the Morrison Formation in the American West as an amazingly rich source of dinosaur specimens, Wenzel jumps back 150 million years to show what a typical day might have been like near an ancient lake in prehistoric Colorado. More than a dozen dinosaur species (not all of them "giant") are described. The author smoothly weaves specific species data into the text without disrupting the flow. For example, he describes how an Ornitholestes searches a dry carcass for small prey. A few sentences note its group classification and key physical characteristics. The small dinosaur's actions are interrupted by a Stegosaurus, and the text provides a similar mixture of fact and narrative about this animal. This approach allows children to see how species interacted, shared environments, and responded to natural forces. Eye-catching acrylic paintings illustrate each spread, while a smaller vignette neatly highlights one particular action. Without getting overly dramatic, Wenzel involves youngsters in each scene, while providing just the right amount of information. The conclusion describes how fossils form and the on-going paleontology work in the Morrison quarries. The unique approach makes this book a good complement to more typical titles that describe isolated species, and gives it broad appeal.–

[HD-man]

My 85th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

A REALLY great natural history ( www.amazon.com/review/R2JTBGQ68Z5STT/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Gaffney's Dinosaurs: A Fully Illustrated, Authoritative and Easy-to-Use Guide (henceforth DA) is great in ways that are hard for me to describe. In some ways, it reminds me of Howard's Dinosaur Empire!. In other ways, it reminds me of Norell's The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour. In this review, I list those ways, besides the fact that all 3 books are natural histories of dinos.*

1) In terms of subject coverage & writing, DA reminds me of Howard's book. The Dino Dad Reviews quote sums up what I mean. Put another way: In reference to subject coverage, it covers "such subjects as evolution, locomotion, and feeding"; This is especially apparent in the introductory chapters (I.e. The 1st 41 pages, 8 of which show how the "characteristics of dinosaurs" evolved from those of earlier vertebrates), but also in the breaks between major dino groups; In reference to writing, remember what I said about Gaffney's DD work ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3476348912 )?; The same goes for his DA work, but MUCH more so. This makes sense given DA's older kid audience. My only related gripe is that there are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. It's claimed that the Triassic began 250 MYA on page 12 & 225 MYA on page 13).

2) In terms of illustrations & organization, DA reminds me of Norell's book: For 1 (in reference to organization), it's a collection of 36 profiles with a phylogenetic format; Furthermore, it doesn't profile just any dinos, but "the best-known [dinos], those most likely to be encountered in North American museums"; For another (in reference to illustrations), remember what I said about Dawson's Ranger work (See reason #3: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3495390225 )?; The same goes for his DA work, but with MUCH more variety (I.e. Some of it IS very action-packed, but some of it is also very peaceful: https://chasmosaurs.com/2023/09/19/vintage-dinosaur-art-dinosaurs-st-martins-press-part-1/ ); Furthermore, almost every profile includes both skeletal & life reconstructions.** This makes sense given DA's association with the American Museum of Natural History. My only related gripe is that some of Dawson's DA dinos have too many claws &/or a look that's derivative of Sibbick's "Normanpedia" dinos.

*Speaking of which, it's worth mentioning that 7 of the 13 popular dino books listed in the "More Information" chapter are natural histories of dinos, 4 of which I've reviewed: 1) Waldrop/Loomis' Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book; 2) Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3519227469 ); 3) Stout's The New Dinosaurs/The Dinosaurs: A Fantastic New View of a Lost Era ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4323522932 ); 4) Sattler's Dinosaurs of North America ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4476970573 ).

**Coincidentally, the Ornitholestes life reconstructions are my favorites in both books.

Quoting Dino Dad Reviews ( https://dinodadreviews.com/2019/02/25/dinosaur-empire-earth-before-us-1/ ):

The pair stops off first at The Learning Center, located in a pleasant green field that reminds me of nothing so much as C.S. Lewis's "Wood Between the Worlds" in The Magician's Nephew. Ronnie and Ms. Lernin often return here throughout the book when they need a break from their adventures, and to explain some of the more complicated concepts necessary to put the things they see in their proper context. Howard manages to pace these interstitials just right so that they never feels like excessive info-dumps, and since they occur at natural breaks in the story, they don't feel like they interrupt the action too much either[...]Howard does a fantastic job explaining various concepts, even including outdated and/or alternate hypotheses about some of the creatures and ideas presented. Many of these concepts have a strong potential to bog down more casual readers in a lot of technical jargon, but as noted before, Howard deftly avoids ever giving the reader the sensation of being the victim of an excessive info-dump, managing to break the big ideas down into an easy-to-understand but never pandering format. It helps that the book maintains a very light-hearted and humorous tone throughout its run. It somehow accomplishes the feat of making a serious effort to do right by its subject material, while at the same time not taking the whole setup too seriously as a narrative.

[HD-man]

My 86th review for this thread is a negative 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Definitely NOT great ( www.amazon.com/review/R2KGCM3FQHNT8K/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

To quote Mr. Rogers, "I feel so strongly that deep and simple is far more essential than shallow and complex." Guiberson's The Greatest Dinosaur Ever (henceforth GD) seems like the definition of "shallow and complex."* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) GD is annoyingly inconsistent & generic in terms of writing: In reference to inconsistent, this is especially apparent in "Dinosaurs of the World" (E.g. For size, the non-bird profiles list length & height, just length, length & weight, or just weight); In reference to generic, many of the dino self-descriptions can apply to a number of other dinos (E.g. See the 1st Guiberson quote); Furthermore, instead of discussing the idea of dinos as superlative/"fearfully great" reptiles, GD just begins with "Who was the greatest dinosaur that ever lived?" & ends with the 2nd Guiberson quote; This reminds me of a "Mary Poppins Returns" review (I.e. "Some of the[...]ideas are a good start[...]But those ideas are never fleshed out and are instead replaced with a lazy, lazy, lazy script").

2) GD is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in "Dinosaurs of the World" because the misses stick out more with less text.** However, the main text misses may be worse in degree (E.g. Contra GD, Sauroposeidon & Microraptor were NOT the largest & smallest non-bird dinos, respectively).

3) GD is a hot mess in terms of paleoart. This is especially apparent in the T. rex section (See the cover): Not only is the T. rex very questionable (E.g. 3-fingered bunny hands, wrinkly elephant skin, etc), but also very ugly; More specifically, its body parts are so misshapen & disproportionate that it looks like a Picasso painting (which isn't good when you're trying to depict something accurately), but MUCH grainier; Furthermore, it's attacking a Kentrosaurus (which lived in Africa ~150 MYA, not in N.America ~67 MYA like T. rex). It's also worth mentioning that at least some of the reconstructions are shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. Jason Brougham's Microraptor model).

*If you want a truly deep & simple book that introduces younger kids to most of the same dinos, get Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3526058137 ).

**There's at least 18 factual errors in those 2 pages alone (E.g. Contra GD, neither Therizinosaurus nor Oviraptor are known from China).

Quoting Guiberson (in reference to Ankylosaurus, though all ankylosaurids "had the best armor"):

I was the greatest. I had the best armor. My body was covered with bony plates, spikes, and horns. There was a club on my tail that could swing like a whip. I even had armored eyelids to protect my eyes.

Quoting Guiberson:

So which dinosaur was the greatest? Was it the tallest, the biggest, the strongest, the smartest, the weirdest, the fastest, or the smallest? Or was it the oldest bird, the best parent, the one with the best night vision, the best armor, or the longest tail spikes? Or could it be a dinosaur still waiting for discovery[...]the greatest dinosaur ever? You decide!

[HD-man]

My 87th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

More dino field guides like this please! ( www.amazon.com/review/R2YZX033VMS8SY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

I had been thinking about reviewing Wallace's Familiar Dinosaurs (henceforth FD) for a while before Naish's "RIP Brian Franczak (1955-2020)". It's very nice, but doesn't mention FD at all, which is surprising for 2 main reasons: 1) In terms of paleoart, FD is basically Franczak's book; 2) In terms of overall quality, FD is the best dino field guide for casual readers. In this review, I elaborate on those reasons.

1) Similar to how dinos dominated life on land during the Mesozoic, Franczak's paleoart dominates FD in both quantity & quality: For 1 (in reference to quantity), 45 of FD's 78 paintings are by Franczak; For another (in reference to quality), Grant Harding put it best when he said, "I often thought of [Franczak] as combining Greg Paul's animals with Doug Henderson's environments." The Triceratops painting on FD's cover is an especially good indication of that. Braginetz, Henderson, & Rothman also make some great contributions. My only related gripe is that Cole, Heck, & Ippolito make some not-so-good contributions.

2) Similar to how Jurassic Park is still the best dino/JP movie even after everything that's happened since 1993, FD (which also came out in 1993) is still the best dino field guide for casual readers:
-Not only is it a field guide, but also a natural history of dinos & thus the best kind of non-encyclopedic dino book. Furthermore, it has a day-in-the-life format, which is the best way to write natural history ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Top-4-natural-histories-of-dinos-758236511 ).
-Not only is it consulted by Dingus & Currie, but also published by Audubon (which is synonymous with the conservation of living dinos & thus makes FD extra authoritative).
-Its dino profiles are arranged alphabetically & thus easy to find when encountering dinos "in North American museums" (especially compared to other, similar books from around the same time: www.amazon.com/review/R2JTBGQ68Z5STT/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ).*
-Its dino profiles are very complete & concise (See the Wallace quote). My only related gripe is that there are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Somehow, both Carnotaurus & Ceratosaurus itself are listed under Carnosauria instead of Ceratosauria).

*Besides Gaffney's book (which is slightly less great than FD), there's also Kricher's Peterson First Guide to Dinosaurs (which is not-so-good), both of which have a phylogenetic format.

Quoting Wallace:

This section contains 78 color paintings of dinosaurs, arranged alphabetically. These illustrations are artists' interpretations of many of the best-known dinosaur genera along with some of the lesser known, rarest, strangest, and most intriguing. Facing each illustration is a description of the genus's important physical characteristics, along with information about the areas of its fossil finds and its geologic period. The introductory paragraph reveals what paleontologists have discovered (or surmised) about the dinosaur's behavior, its feeding and breeding habits, and its close relatives. A skeletal drawing accompanies each account, to help you categorize the dinosaur.

[HD-man]

My 88th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Better in some ways, but not others ( www.amazon.com/review/R1OH8T8KHLCFEF/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

As you may remember, Brusatte's The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs is good, but has some problems that keep it from being great ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3522479251 ). When I 1st heard about The Age of Dinosaurs (henceforth Age) being a junior edition of Rise, I was hopeful that Rise's problems wouldn't be Age's problems.* Age IS better in some ways, but not in others. In this review, I list those ways.

The following things make Age better in some ways:
-Age is MUCH easier & more visually appealing to read: For 1, it's broken up into more & shorter chapters; For another, there are more illustrations to support & break up the text; For yet another, Brusatte's long field stories are contained in breakout boxes (as opposed to the main text). I especially like the inclusion of said boxes. Said stories are very interesting & relevant, but not necessary to understanding the main text. In fact, they remind me of Epic Rap Battles of History when George R.R. Martin says to J.R.R. Tolkien, "You went too deep, Professor Tweed-pants! We don't need the backstory on every f***ing tree branch!"
-Brusatte seems to have learned from many of his text & writing mistakes in Rise. This is especially apparent in the facts that 1) more of Age's animal size comparisons work than do Rise's (3/4 vs. 2/3, respectively), & 2) there are only 2 equine size comparisons in Age, neither of which work (which is unfortunate, but also proves my point).

The following things keep Age from being better in other ways:
-Remember what I said about breakout boxes earlier? Unfortunately, Brusatte uses them not just for his long field stories, but also for some of the contextually-important parts of Rise (E.g. Rise's discussion of Allosaurus as "the Butcher of the Jurassic"). Furthermore, others are left out of Age entirely (E.g. There's no equivalent to Rise's discussion of the other Morrison Formation theropods in Age). Point is, Age might be a bit too easy to read, more like a Cliff Notes version of Rise than a junior edition.
-Remember The Lost World: Jurassic Park when Hammond is like, "Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again", & Malcolm is like, "No, you're making all new ones"? Unfortunately, Brusatte does a little bit of both in Age: In reference to "making the same mistakes again", this is especially apparent when he repeats Austroposeidon's size overestimates (Quoting Molina-Pérez/Larramendi: "It is mistakenly believed to be the largest sauropod in Brazil");** In reference to "making all new ones", this is especially apparent when he incorrectly pluralizes "T. rex" as "T. rexes".

In short, I recommend reading Age in conjunction with Howard's Dinosaur Empire! &/or Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved, depending on your preferences. 1 more thing of note: This is more of a nit-pick, but Age's full title is very WTF. In fact, it reminds me of a Rifftrax joke about Dragon Wars: D-War ("I dunno boys[...]They're both amazing titles. I can't pick. Hey, let's use both! Go get some boba tea drinks!").

*This was mostly because Brusatte had acknowledged the wrongness of his claim that T. rex "had mammal-like levels of intelligence" ( https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24374 ).

**See Dinosaur Facts and Figures: The Sauropods and Other Sauropodomorphs. It's 1 of the books I use for fact-checking.

[HD-man]

My 89th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

The most beautiful Natural History of Dinos ( www.amazon.com/review/R1JA1ASNYXD7W6/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

As you may remember, I referred to Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs as "the best children's natural history of dinos" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3526058137 ). However, that was before I read Chuang/Yang's Age of Dinosaurs (henceforth Age, originally published as THEM: Age Of Dinosaurs: www.amazon.com/PNSO-THEM-Dinosaurs-Book-Chuang/dp/7116094911 ). I can't say that either book is definitely better overall, but I can say that Age is probably the most beautiful NHD for kids or adults (hence the title of this review). In fact, in some ways, it's basically a more beautiful version of Bakker's book + a more beautiful version of Stout's The New Dinosaurs/The Dinosaurs: A Fantastic New View of a Lost Era ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4323522932 ): Bakker's book because it has a safari vibe, a chronological format (I.e. It begins with a pre-Age Of Dinos story & ends with a post-Age Of Dinos story), & LOTS of technicolor dinos; Stout's book because of the reasons listed below.

1) Remember what I said about Stout's stories (See reason #1 in that review)? The same goes for Yang's, but even more so: For 1, Age tells even more stories representing even more species (105 representing 96); For another, Age's stories are even more varied, ranging from Aesop-esque fables to Wind in the Willows-esque vignettes & everything in between;* Some of my favorite examples of the former & latter are the Megalosaurus story ("The Megalosaurus would later learn that to be a good hunter, it had to abandon its arrogance and act more cautiously") & the Qianzhousaurus/Nankangia stories (which tell the same story from different POVs), respectively; For yet another, even more of Age's stories flow into each other; This is especially apparent in "The Lonesome Triassic Period" (I.e. Each story also represents a step in the dinos' gradual rise to dominance).

2) Remember what I said about Stout's illustrations (See reason #2 in that review)? The same goes for Chuang's, but even more so:
-I wouldn't describe Chuang's paleoart as "cartoonish" per se, but there IS a lot of stylistic variety. Don't take my word for it, though. Google "Them: Age of Dinosaurs" & see for yourself.
-Similar to how Stout's 1981 work is the most extreme product of the Dinosaur Renaissance, Chuang's Age work may be the most extreme product of the Dinosaur Enlightenment. In fact, to quote Conway ( https://archive.ph/lBLFE ), "when a new Jurassic Park film[...]comes along, we might hope that it will be like the first one. Up-to-date, challenging people's old notions, and leaving a fresh impression of what the word 'dinosaur' actually means. Not perfect[...]but an authentically enthusiastic look at what we know about these strange animals." Put another way, I like to think that the Jurassic World dinos would look like Chuang's if JW's creators cared about dinos as real animals (as opposed to movie monsters).

*Just to clarify, there is some anthropomorphism, but no more than you'd expect in Disney's True-Life Adventures. The Anchiornis story is as anthropomorphic (& adorable) as Age gets: "The Anchiornis excitedly woke up its lover, and both headed toward the forest, which by now was covered in sunshine[...]"Slow down! I can't catch up with you!" its lover called gently. It turned around and smiled softly, "Take your time, I am running ahead of you to make sure that the path is safe."" That said, there is 1 story that stands out as weird. It's about a lonely Velociraptor that "never once laid eyes on its parents", but was determined to find them, yet there's no explanation of how it survived "for many years" without them. Speaking of weird, there's also several weird examples of misediting throughout Age (E.g. "Anchiornis belonged to the Troodontidae family of the Coeluridae group"; Should read: "Coelurosauria group").

[HD-man]

My 90th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

A pretty good 1st book for Norell ( www.amazon.com/review/R1WG99MWEV6BLZ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

If you're anything like me (I.e. A life-long dino fan born in 1987 USA), you probably grew up with at least some of Norell's work. This was especially true for me in 2000, when both Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated was published ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3476348912 ) & the "Fighting Dinos" exhibition opened. I was too young for Norell's 1st book, All You Need to Know About Dinosaurs (henceforth AY), when it was published in 1991, which is partly why I wrote this review. The other part is to help set the record straight. There isn't much info online about AY other than Cathryn A. Camper's overly-critical review (See "Editorial Reviews"). AY is basically an older, more junior version of The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3528027045 ), not as good, but better than Camper gives it credit for in 3 major ways:
-1) Camper's claim that "most readers will probably be able to come up with at least a couple of questions not answered in these pages" seems to miss the point: AY is "all you NEED to know about" dinos circa 1991, not necessarily "all you WANT to know"; As indicated by the 1st Norell quote, this is made pretty clear from the beginning.
-2) Camper claims "the writing style is so lackluster it's likely to draw yawns from even the most attentive readers."* As someone who isn't the most attentive reader, I disagree. That said, Norell's AY paragraphs ARE pretty long & dense compared to those of other, similar books. Fortunately, his paragraphs have since gotten relatively shorter & snappier. This is especially apparent when you compare the 2nd & 3rd Norell quotes (which serve analogous roles in their respective books). My only other writing-related gripe is several misspelled animal names throughout AY (E.g. Aragosaurus/Chondrosteosaurus/Opisthocoelicaudia/Euhelopus are misspelled as Aragosaurs/Chondrostosaurus/Opisthocoelidea/Euhelops, respectively).
-3) Camper claims that the "illustrations are fairly standard; some are good, but [Knight's] are so old they've been updated with captions in order to agree with the text." Again, she seems to miss the point: To quote William Simpson ( http://web.archive.org/web/20210623072617/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-04-28-0504280160-story.html ), Knight's interpretations "aren't always perfect, but to an amazing degree, given all the new knowledge we have gleaned about dinosaurs since then, his paintings hold up extremely well"; This is especially apparent in AY (E.g. "The Tyrannosaurus, in the foreground, the largest carnivore ever to walk on land, is shown correctly according to new research, with its tail held off the ground almost horizontally"), though I do think the inclusion of more & newer paintings would've helped support & break up the text.

*This criticism is especially weird given that she recommends Benton's Dinosaur and Other Prehistoric Animal Factfinder in another review (See "Editorial Reviews": www.amazon.com/Looking-At-Ceratosaurus-Dinosaur-Collection/dp/0836811380 ). As you may remember, Benton's popular writing is infamous for, among other things, its "plain toast-dryness" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3490240441 ).

Quoting Norell:

Paleontologists, like other scientists, require that their theories are based on observations and evidence. Unfortunately, the only evidence we have is fossil bones, plus our knowledge of geology and living animals. Fantasy, therefore, has little role in science, and even though it may be fun to think about herds of sauropods being attacked by packs of hungry theropods, such ideas are not scientific and should not be portrayed as such. Think about this as you read what follows and when evaluating the claims of paleontologists in the newspapers, movies and on television.

Quoting Norell:

In the next two chapters we will take a look at the two great dinosaur groups and examine some of the features common to each. In a few cases we will explore how clues discovered in the fossil bones can give us a deeper understanding of dinosaurs in general, and what other information—like trackways and fossil stomach contents—might tell us about dinosaur biology. Finally, we will compare some dinosaurs with living animals. This last comparison gives us our best idea about what dinosaurs were like and the factors leading to their success.

Quoting Norell (See The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour):

To recap, Dinosauria (despite recent challenges) is divided into two groups, Saurischia and Ornithischia. Here we will lay out the ground plan for the genealogy of the animals that we will explore in more detail in later chapters.

[HD-man]

My 91st review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Dino-Renaissance-Pedia ( www.amazon.com/review/R2CVSWQO7RN0QK/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Naish's Dinopedia: A Brief Compendium of Dinosaur Lore (henceforth DA) is technically an encyclopedia, but not like most other dino encyclopedias (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs & Weishampel et al.'s The Dinosauria): For 1, while most dino encyclopedias are targeted at either kids or specialists, DA is targeted at adult casual readers; For another, see the Dictionary.com quote; While most dino encyclopedias cover "all branches of[...dino-related...]knowledge", DA covers "all aspects of one[...dino-related...]subject" (I.e. Dinos & their cultural impact since the 1970s). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think DA is the best of its kind.*

1) Remember what I said about Norell et al.'s writing in Discovering Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Lessons of Prehistory, Expanded and Updated ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3476348912 )? The same goes for DA. This makes sense given Naish's focus on quality over quantity, especially when it comes to science writing (See "ON BEING A SCIENCE WRITER": https://darrennaish.wordpress.com/publications/ ).

2) I've always liked Naish's paleoart for what it is. It's not especially flashy or life-like, but it doesn't need to be.** The best way I can describe it is the life reconstruction equivalent of good skeletals (I.e. Dependably accurate & distinctive in style: www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2012/01/great-skeletal-repose-of-2011_20.html ). This makes it perfect for comparative anatomy, cladistics, etc. It also helps that Naish's soft lines & subtle gray textures are easy on the eyes.

3) Remember what I said about Stan/Jan's BB work (I.e. "It feels like[...]the creatures in the mind of a concerned parent whose only knowledge of [dinos] comes from the films of the 30s and the 50s": www.goodreads.com/review/show/3510432213 )? As indicated by Ross et al.'s "The Posture of Tyrannosaurus rex: Why Do Student Views Lag Behind the Science?", not much has changed since then, which is why DA is perfect for adult casual readers. Put another way, see the Naish quote.

*I hope that DA will be updated every few years (& thus, always up-to-date). If so, it'll definitely be the best of its kind, similar to how Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved is the best natural history of dinos for adult casual readers.

**For especially flashy & life-like paleoart, see that of Luis V. Rey & Robert Nicholls, respectively.

Quoting Dictionary.com:

a book, set of books, optical disc, mobile device, or online informational resource containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.

Quoting Naish ( https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/how-did-we-get-to-here-dinopedia-and-the-dinosaur-renaissance ):

Today, things in dinosaur science are so fast-paced, so dynamic that most scientists active in the field see little reason to look back on, or talk about, those events of decades past. We've moved so far ahead of them that we should perhaps discuss being in a post-Renaissance phase, or even an Enlightenment phase in which the impacts of the Renaissance have been essentially absorbed and largely accepted. With that in mind, there's a need more than ever to review the history of dinosaur research again, to look at events with a critical and more nuanced eye, and to help compile a narrative that's fairer and truer to what seems to have actually happened. It's this and more that I aimed to include in Dinopedia, and I hope I succeeded.

[HD-man]

My 92nd review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

I love raptors! ( www.amazon.com/review/R31DUDVR9BXOSV/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

As you may remember, day-in-the-life dino books in general & Bakker's "Step-into-Reading" books in particular are my favorite non-Natural History of Dinos books ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3484884728 ). As you may have noticed, dromaeosaurs are my favorite dinos ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3478213840 ), especially eudromaeosaurs like Deinonychus. For those reasons & Skrepnick's illustrations (See the Parker quote), Raptor Pack is 1 of my favorite non-NHD books. The only reason I didn't officially review it before is because Science-minded's review is so perfect that I can't possibly top it ( www.amazon.com/review/R304EAF2WZLH1I/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). Reviewing Naish's Dinopedia: A Brief Compendium of Dinosaur Lore made me decide to officially review RP now: For 1, it's my other favorite non-NHD book; For another, see the Naish quote, which is a near-perfect summation of what we've learned about Deinonychus since RP.

Quoting Parker ( http://linesandcolors.com/2006/03/22/michael-skrepnick/ ):

Working in graphite or pen and ink for monochromatic works and in acrylic for paintings, Skrepnick portrays prehistoric animals with a clear, sharp and detailed style that reinforces their connection with the real world and recognizable environments and makes their strangeness even more palpable. His dinosaurs are bathed in sunlight, strongly modeled and connected to the ground and the world around them.

Quoting Naish (I added the brackets for more info):

Ostrom's views on the behavior and lifestyle of this dinosaur have also undergone revision. Sickle-shaped claws aren't, it turns out, built for slicing or slashing at giant animals, but for gripping or pinning small ones[...E.g. See Fowler et al. 2011...]Ostrom's view that Deinonychus was a pack-hunter has been the source of considerable debate. Some experts have outright stated that group hunting wasn't likely for these animals (it's more of a mammalian habit than a reptilian one, so the argument goes), nor is it well supported by geological data, since the individuals Ostrom regarded as members of a social group more likely came together by accident (they were washed together by floodwater, say). But none of this appears exactly right; social behavior is reasonably well supported in these animals and can't be easily explained away[...E.g. See Maxwell & Ostrom 1995...]Deinonychus isn't the only dromaeosaurid where several individuals have been discovered in association[...E.g. See Li et al. 2007...]and the diversity of group-hunting strategies present in modern lizards and birds shows that cooperation and group living are far from "mammal-only" behaviors[...E.g. See Ellis et al. 1993...]It's plausible that Deinonychus sometimes hunted alone, but it's also likely that individuals stalked and foraged in bands, cooperated in the flushing and pursuing of prey like small ornithischians, and slept and nested in groups.

[HD-man]

My 93rd review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Good high standards for older kids ( www.amazon.com/review/R375KCMV2MZOFM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8
): 5/5

As you may have noticed, I refer to "SD: Holtz's A Dinosaur Lover's Bookshelf" in many of my reviews (Most recently: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3877062213 ). This is because Holtz's 2005 article is still a mostly good guide to what to look for in educational dino books.* Of all the recommendations in said article, the Holmes's Dinosaur Library (henceforth DL) series for older kids stands out to me the most. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is while using Meat-Eating Dinosaurs: The Theropods (henceforth Meat) as an example.**

1) Each DL book begins with a day-in-the-life story. In Meat's case, the story is about an old T. rex attacking a small Edmontosaurus herd: It reminds me of the T. rex/Edmontosaurus scene in Dinosaur! (Hosted by Christopher Reeve), but more refreshing; For 1, it's from the T. rex's POV, showing the effect of killing for a living on the T. rex; For another, the ornithopods use their numbers to fight back against the theropod the way mammalian herbivores do against mammalian predators, something rarely depicted in dino media. I especially like the "Author's Note" at the end of each story, which shows where exactly to find more info about certain aspects of the story (See the Holmes quote). My only related gripe is that the story is in italics, making it needlessly harder on the eyes.

2) Each DL book continues with chapters explaining the science behind the story. In Meat's case, they show how we know what we know about T. rex in particular & theropods in general. Furthermore, the early chapters in each book begin with the same background info (E.g. Chapter 1 with "What are dinosaurs?"), a good way to make sure that everyone starts with the same basic understanding of dinos. My only related gripe is some name-editing errors in Chapters 5-9 (E.g. On page 82 & 96, the Holmes say "Torvosaurus" & "Saurornitholestes", but mean "Torosaurus" & "Saurornithoides", respectively).

3) Each DL book ends with a list of all known examples of a given dino-related subject (E.g. In Meat's case, all "currently known and scientifically accepted" theropod genera) + "Chapter Notes", among other things. I especially like the notes because, unlike most children's dino books (which lack notes), not only are the sources used listed chapter by chapter, but also numbered & cited in the text.

I recommend reading the DL series in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish's Dinopedia: A Brief Compendium of Dinosaur Lore if you're a casual reader; Molina-pérez/Larramendi's "Dinosaur Facts and Figures books if you're an enthusiast).

*I say "mostly" because, unfortunately, there aren't any definitely-good recommendations for adult casual readers: For 1, Gee/Rey's A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic is a mixed bag, especially in terms of text & writing; For another, Mash's How to Keep Dinosaurs is just plain terrible ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3481749012 ).

**Another reason is Skrepnick's illustrations ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4968650005 ).

Quoting the Holmes:

The preceding dinosaur story is fiction but is based on scientific evidence and ideas suggested by paleontologists. You will find explanations to support these ideas in the chapters that follow. Use the following guide to find these references

[HD-man]

My 94th review for this thread is a negative 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Should've been better ( www.amazon.com/review/R2PILB4K7HUQLD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 2/5

Short version: If you want good day-in-the-life books with Allosaurus stories that are mostly accurate by modern standards, get White's Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3524237829 ) & Chuang/Yang's Age Of Dinosaurs (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/4820220402 ). Unfortunately, Cole's Allosaurus: The Life and Death of Big Al (henceforth Life) wasn't even good for its time.

Long version: Read on.

Life is a book adaptation of the dino doc & WWD sequel, The Ballad of Big Al (henceforth TB). Both Life & TB could've & should've been better, but especially Life: Unlike TB (which 1st tells a day-in-the-life story of an Allosaurus "nicknamed Big Al" & then explains the science behind the story), Life is basically all story with Q&A sidebars for the science; Thus, as a book adaptation, Life could've & should've been more complete, in-depth, & accurate, similar to Scott's Planet Dinosaur: The Next Generation of Killer Giants (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/4223109975 ). In this review, I list 3 major ways in which Life fails to live up to its potential.

1) A lot of the writing is too simple & condescending. This is apparent throughout Life (E.g. On page 47 of the "Fact File" section, T. rex is defined as "one of the most aggressive dinosaurs that ever walked the Earth, with teeth the size of bananas!"), but especially when you compare the Q&As to their TB counterparts (E.g. 1st, see the Cole quote; Then, compare it to "How Dinosaurs Ate | Walking with Dinosaurs: Ballad of Big Al": www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-3zfBn2JcM ). With all due respect to Cole, he's no Kate Bartlett & Michael Olmert.

2) A lot of the text is misleading or wrong.* This is apparent throughout Life (E.g. The Brachiosaurus pictured on pages 40-41 are referred to as Apatosaurus in the main text), but especially in the Q&As, not surprising given the consultant's history of bad Q&As.** The following examples are especially egregious:
-On page 9, it's claimed that "fossils of young dinosaur carnivores have little peglike teeth, very different from the pointed teeth used by grown-ups to slice through meat. These tiny teeth were used to grind up insects": For 1, those "young dinosaur carnivores" aren't Allosaurus; To quote Bakker from a 1997 paper, "the over-all tooth crown shape in the tiniest allosaur [is] identical to that of the adult[...]Thus it appears that hatchlings were feeding on prey tissue of the same general texture and consistency as that fed upon by adults"; For another, even if the makers of Life & TB didn't know about Bakker 1997, they should've at least known about Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence (See the Martill/Naish quote).
-On page 28, it's claimed that "female adult Allosaurus" were probably bigger than males because "among modern reptiles, female crocodiles and turtles are usually bigger than males": For 1, the Allosaurus part may be true, but NOT for that reason (See the Holmes quote, which is from around the same time, for the real reason); For another, the croc part is definitely NOT true (Quoting Grigg/Gans: "Males grow larger and often more rapidly than females").

3) A lot of the paleoart is not-so-good-looking/-accurate: In reference to "good-looking", this is especially apparent when you compare images made specifically for Life to images re-used from TB (E.g. 1st, google "Ornitholestes attacks one of the baby Allosaurus", made specifically for Life; Then, compare it to Life's cover, re-used from TB's DVD cover); In reference to "accurate", this is especially apparent in the digital Allosaurus hatchlings (which, unlike either the practical ones or any of the other WWD/TB Allosaurus, have pronated hands); The "good-looking" examples are especially egregious because, while some of them are inherited from TB (E.g. Why is Big Al's digital head so misshapen compared to his practical head?), many others are Life's own (E.g. In both Life & TB, a young Big Al eats a lizard; However, while a real lizard is used for TB, a poorly-photoshopped lizard/tuatara hybrid is made specifically for Life).

*Even if you only read the "Fact File" section, you'll see that there's an average of at least 4 or 5 factual errors per page in Life, a 48 page book.

**I'm specifically referring to Benton's Walking With Dinosaurs: Fascinating Facts ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3483392689 ) & Dixon's If Dinosaurs Were Alive Today ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3748603187 ).

Quoting Cole:

How clever were Allosaurus?
Not very. Examination of a fossilized Allosaurus brain through medical scanners shows it to be very similar to a crocodile's brain. A crocodile has a strong sense of smell, but not much brainpower. If something smells tasty, a crocodile will go for it and eat it, whatever it is, without thinking. An Allosaurus would probably have behaved in just the same way.

Quoting Martill/Naish:

Was Allosaurus a caring parent?
An intriguing site in Wyoming reveals a possible insight into the parental care strategies of Allosaurus. Described in [1997] by Dr Robert Bakker, the site contains sauropod bones, the complete skeleton of an adult Allosaurus, and numerous tiny teeth that, Bakker argues, belong to baby Allosaurus specimens. The sauropod bones have miniature score marks that match exactly the size and shape of the baby Allosaurus teeth from the same site.
Bakker suggests that adult allosaurs brought back pieces of meat for their babies, and that the babies stayed together in a protected den. On this occasion, one of the parents died, explaining the adult skeleton found at the site, but the absence of juvenile skeletons suggests that they survived until the time when they left the den. This discovery suggests that parental care in large predatory dinosaurs was well developed.

Quoting the Holmes (See Meat-Eating Dinosaurs: The Theropods, which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/5085862684 ):

Syntarsus and Coelophysis are two small theropods that are similar in many ways. Each has been found in a bed of bones that included specimens of many individual adults. In each case, the paleontologist noticed that the adults seemed to have come in two basic forms. One was more strongly built and had such features as a larger skull, longer neck, more muscle scars around the elbow and hip, and stronger limbs. But scientists do not always agree on how to tell the males from the females. In the case of Coelophysis, the scientist concluded that the larger, stronger individuals were males. In the case of Syntarsus, another scientist proposed just the opposite: that the females were the stronger individuals, a variation that can be observed in modern predatory birds.19
Differences have also been noticed in specimens of Tyrannosaurus. T. rex seems to come in two versions, one being more slender and slightly smaller than the other. Like the case of Syntarsus, it has been suggested that the larger specimens of T. rex are female. The key to this conclusion involves egg laying. In the larger T. rex specimens, the back end of the hipbone is more downward pointing , providing a more ample path for the passage of eggs during egg laying.20 This same anatomical clue has been observed in modern crocodiles.

[HD-man]

My 95th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Lovely lovely lovely! ( www.amazon.com/review/R1OS92FMVQC0TY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: I highly recommend Willoughby's Drawing and Painting Dinosaurs: Using Art and Science to Bring the Past to Life (henceforth DP) to any adult who 1) grew up wanting to make dino art, 2) has kids who wanna make dino art, or 3) just loves great dino art (especially of feathered dinos).

Long version: Read on.

When I 1st saw DP, I thought something like, "Lovely lovely lovely!". In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is, 1 for each lovely 😉

1) DP is a near-perfect continuation of Cooley/Wilson's Make-a-saurus: My Life with Raptors and Other Dinosaurs ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3508814538 ) in 3 major ways:
-1) Remember how life-like Cooley's 2000 work was? To paraphrase Naish circa 2016, Willoughby's "artwork[...]includes some of the best, most cutting-edge content produced by anyone." This is even more true now, & especially apparent in the Bob Kuhn-inspired cover art as well as the Deino-centric interior art (More on that below).
-2) Remember how much background info Cooley provided? Not only do DP chapters 1-2 explain the importance of paleoart to paleontology & vice versa, but also show readers how they can go well beyond & do their own paleo research (E.g. "We overview different types of research papers in paleontology[...]with a focus on the need to gather resources and the importance of scientific accuracy").
-3) Remember how well Cooley explained/showed the paleoartistic process? Not only do most DP chapters "include step-by-step explorations in a variety of media", but several also "include a simplified step-by-step process to drawing the basic body plan of well-known dinosaurs from basic shapes". This is especially apparent in chapters 3-4, which not only explain "how to use fossils, skeletons and other resources for[...]placing dinosaurs in context", but also include a step-by-step showing the process of "painting from a model".

2) As you may remember, Long/Schouten's Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds is 1 of my serious dino books ( www.goodreads.com/list/show/198241.My_Serious_Dino_Books_Please_don_t_vote_or_add_books_ ). However, I'll probably never review it, as it's too middle-of-the-road for me to recommend either getting or avoiding ( http://web.archive.org/web/20120930020036/https://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/11/10/long-schoutens-feathered-dinos ). I bring this up because DP is a great alternative to Long/Schouten's book. More specifically, chapters 5/6/8 "apply the principles covered in the first half in an exploration of[...]broad categories of dinosaurs" (I.e. Deinonychosaurs/tyrannosauroids/other coelurosaurs, respectively). Furthermore, "each genus of dinosaur that is covered in any amount of depth[...is...]accompanied by a side box with basic statistics" (I.e. 26 genera, 19 of which are coelurosaurs).

3) As you may remember, eudromaeosaurs like Deinonychus are my favorite dinos ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4968650005 ). They're basically "terrestrial hawks" in terms of ecology/behavior (& thus, both the most awesome & the easiest to imagine as living animals: https://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/dromaeosaurs-are-terrestrial-hawks/ ). I bring this up because DP is basically a love letter to Deinonychus. As indicated by the 1st Willoughby quote, this is made pretty clear from the beginning. My favorite example is "Deinonychus and Zephyrosaurus" ( https://emilywilloughby.com/art/gallery/paleoart/deinonychus-and-zephyrosaurus ): For 1, artistically, it reminds me of "Manfred Schatz — Wildlife in Action"; For another, ecologically, it reminds me of those African wildlife docs I grew up watching; For yet another, behaviorally, it reminds me of how some hawks use the long middle toe (in this case, the long middle finger) to hook onto swift prey.

If I could, I'd give DP a 4.5/5. My only problem is some of the writing: For 1, "discovered" & "described" are sometimes synonymous (E.g. "Discovered by: John Ostrom (1969)[...]This mid-sized dromaeosaur, described by John Ostrom in 1969[...]"), & other times not (E.g. "Dromaeosaurus was discovered in a 1914 expedition and described in 1922"); For another, there are times when the wording/phrasing is unclear (E.g. See the 2nd & 3rd Willoughby quotes). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5.

Quoting Willoughby:

The importance of Deinonychus in reshaping our modern scientific understanding of dinosaurs cannot be overstated. Its discovery by John Ostrom launched a minor scientific revolution that led to the firm conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, to an understanding of dinosaurs as warm-blooded and behaviourally complex, and to the rebranding of dinosaurs in the minds of the public through cultural phenomena like Jurassic Park. And, as far as I'm concerned, Deinonychus may well have been the most beautiful animal that ever lived. This wolf-sized, birdlike carnivore was a pure embodiment of predatory grace, from its long, sleek skull to the enormous, scythe-like 'terrible claw' for which it was named. There could be no better emblem for the scientific progress represented by palaeontology and palaeoart.
For these reasons, Deinonychus is by far the dinosaur I have the most experience illustrating, and it will serve as the poster dinosaur for many of the principles and concepts that are demonstrated throughout the book.

Quoting Willoughby:

The discovery of the feathered tyrannosauroids Dilong and especially the 9m Yutyrannus led to an ongoing debate about the possibility of feathers in large tyrannosaurs. While this is certainly possible for many taxa, particularly those basal to Tyrannosauridae, the presence of feathers is plausible.

Quoting Willoughby:

Step 2: I begin the painting by blocking out the basic planes of colour, shadow and light with a large, rough brush over the lines of the sketch.