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

[HD-man]

My 39th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" 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 "Yes" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

My NEW favorite serious dino book ( www.amazon.com/review/R3VQ7TMT8EFOC7/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

As you may remember, Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs WAS my favorite serious dino book ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3474599046 ). However, Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved (henceforth DH) is my NEW favorite. Thus, DH is now my go-to natural history of dinos. There are 2 main reasons for why that is: 1) DH is very comprehensive; This is especially apparent in Chapters 5-6 (which not only cover "the origin of birds" like Chapter 10 of Gardom/Milner's book, but also birds "beyond the Cretaceous"); 2) DH is very well-illustrated; In addition to Sibbick (who illustrated Gardom/Milner's book), DH is illustrated by Bonadonna, Conway, Csotonyi, Knüppe, Nicholls, Willoughby, & Witton. My only nit-picks are the cover art (which, while not the worst, neither reflects the interior art nor compares to the cover art of Gardom/Milner's book) & the lack of emphasis on the museum website (although the museum logo should be enough to show readers where to go for more info). Otherwise, these 2 books are very similar (E.g. Compare the quotes at the end of this review). 1 more thing of note: Contra what Publishers Weekly says, the "chapter on dinosaur cladistics" is 1 of the highlights of DH; Each section reads like a mini-story of how that sub-group evolved.

"For 160 million years, dinosaurs were the most successful and diverse creatures to dominate the Earth. This book is based on the world-famous fossil collections and permanent "Dinosaurs" exhibition at London's Natural History Museum. Written by two experts from one of the world's leading Paleontology departments, this book features hundreds of color photos and illustrations that reveal the astonishing variety of life that proliferated in the Mesozoic Era—the Age of Dinosaurs. Tim Gardom has researched several major exhibitions, including The Natural History Museum's acclaimed "Dinosaurs." Angela Milner is Head of Fossil Vertebrates at The Natural History Museum" ( www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ).

"From the Victorian golden age of dinosaur discovery to the cutting edge of twenty-first century fossil forensics 'Dinosaurs' unravels the mysteries of the most spectacular group of animals our planet has ever seen. Despite facing drastic climatic conditions including violent volcanic activity, searing temperatures and rising and plunging sea levels, the dinosaurs formed an evolutionary dynasty that ruled the Earth for more than 150 million years. Darren Naish and Paul Barrett reveal the latest scientific findings about dinosaur anatomy, behaviour, and evolution. They also demonstrate how dinosaurs survived the great extinction at the end of the Cretaceous Period and continued to evolve and thrive alongside us, existing today as an incredibly diverse array of birds that are the direct descendants of theropods. 'Dinosaurs' is lavishly illustrated with specimens from the Natural History Museum's own collections, along with explanatory diagrams and charts and full-colour artistic reconstructions of dinosaur behaviour" ( www.amazon.co.uk/Dinosaurs-They-Lived-Evolved-2016/dp/0565093118 ).

[HD-man]

My 40th review for this thread is a negative 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" 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 "Yes" 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.

The worst dino museum in book form ( www.amazon.com/review/R1EIPWIOLMYAWT/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best dino museum book for older kids, get Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs. If you want the best dino museum books for younger kids, get Aliki's dino books & read them in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs).* Green's The Dinosaur Museum: An Unforgettable, Interactive Virtual Tour Through Dinosaur History (henceforth Tour) may be the worst children's dino museum book I've ever read.

Long version: Read on.

TripAdvisor Reviewers say that The Dinosaur Museum in Dorchester (henceforth TD) is "the worst dinosaur museum", & based on their reviews & photos, I'm inclined to agree ( www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g186263-d268146-r137214416-The_Dinosaur_Museum-Dorchester_Dorset_England.html ). In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why Tour is similarly bad or worse while using "The Meat-Eaters" as the main example (See the back cover).

1) Like TD, Tour is lacking in real fossils & full of bad reconstructions: In reference to fossils, each chapter has 1 or 2 at most & only some of them are real (E.g. "The Meat-Eaters" has a replica Velociraptor claw & a real T. rex tooth); In reference to reconstructions, each chapter has at least 3 or 4 & they're shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. The Iguanodon on the front cover is a shameless rip-off of the Walking With Dinosaurs Iguanodon), just plain outdated/abominable (E.g. The T. rex has pronated hands; Both of the Giganotosaurus are unrecognizable as such), or some combination of both (E.g. The Velociraptor is a shameless rip-off of the Jurassic Park Velociraptor with pronated hands & feathers that look more like yellow grass).

2) Like TD's text, Tour's is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. In "The Meat-Eaters", it's claimed that Velociraptor "charged after prey at up to 40 miles[...]per hour" (More like 24 mph), T. rex's "tiny front limbs may have helped it to stand up after lying down" (They didn't), "T. rex teeth had serrated[...]edges that could cut through flesh like steak knives" (They couldn't), & Giganotosaurus was 3 m high (More like 4 m high).

3) Like TD's writing, Tour's is annoyingly vague. In fact, Tour's is even worse in that it's also annoyingly hyperbolic (E.g. See the Green quote for both vagueness & hyperbole) & repetitive (E.g. The word "terrify" is used 3 times in "The Meat-Eaters" alone).

4) Like TD, Tour is poorly-organized. Not only are the dino chapters scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason, but so are the dinos within each chapter. This is especially apparent in "The Meat-Eaters" (which features Velociraptor, Giganotosaurus, & T. rex) & "Small but Deadly" (which features Oviraptor, Troodon, Deinonychus, Coelophysis, & Compsognathus). Not only are the theropod chapters separated by ornithischian & sauropod chapters, but the theropods within each chapter are almost completely random. In other words, nothing in Tour makes any chronological/phylogenetic/ecological/etc sense.**

*In reference to "Aliki's dino books": https://paleoaerie.org/tag/aliki/

**In reference to "chronological/phylogenetic/ecological/etc", see "Framing Fossil Exhibits": https://extinctmonsters.net/history-of-fossil-mounts/

Quoting Green:

Giganotosaurus
Monster-size Giganotosaurus was probably even larger than T. rex. Its enormous jaws opened more than wide-enough to swallow you! Most likely it lunged at victims and took great bites of flesh with its sharp teeth. One twist of its sturdy neck could have ripped its victim limb from limb.

[HD-man]

My 41st review for this thread is a positive 1 for Bonner's Dining With Dinosaurs: A Tasty Guide to Mesozoic Munching. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" 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 "Yes" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Dino ecology yay! ( www.amazon.com/review/RP5K90YL2VODH/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Bonner's Dining With Dinosaurs: A Tasty Guide to Mesozoic Munching (henceforth Guide) is basically a cross between Chapter 5 of Sampson's Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life (I.e. "Solar Eating") & the "Dinosaur Block Party" episode of Dinosaur Train, but better. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why I think that is.

1) Like "Solar Eating", Guide examines the different trophic levels of Mesozoic ecosystems, beginning with "mega carnivores" (E.g. T. rex) & ending with "trashivores" (I.e. Detritivores & decomposers). Also like "Solar Eating", Guide explains how food webs & photosynthesis work. In fact, Guide does the latter even better: For 1, instead of using a trophic pyramid to explain food webs, Guide uses a trophic layer cake (To paraphrase Gaffigan, "[Pyramids] can't compete with cake"); For another, instead of explaining photosynthesis in a paragraph of text, Guide explains it in a recipe with step-by-step directions & pictures showing how to create "SUGAR FROM SUNSHINE".

2) Like "Dinosaur Block Party", Guide is hosted by a human & a dino (I.e. Bonner & "her Microraptor pal"), who compare the features of different organisms in each trophic level. Also like "Dinosaur Block Party", Guide reconstructs entire Mesozoic ecosystems (E.g. That of the Jehol Group) & interviews experts about the science behind said reconstructions (I.e. "Ask a Scientist"). In fact, Guide does the latter even better: For 1, Guide's reconstructions are similarly cartoony, but MUCH more accurate; "The insectivores" is an especially good example of that ( https://hannahbonnerblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/featured-slider-dinning-2.jpg?w=768 ); For another, Guide's interviews don't just tell about said science, but also show it; "Mini carnivores and omnivores" is an especially good example of that ( https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SgRrZOyjLms/WBFpnyKYTwI/AAAAAAAAHLg/lrNewyoVoT0Pt5drkbOWZk3GJZoq_c_TQCLcB/s1600/dining%2Bwith%2Bdinosaurs%2BDSC01790.JPG ).

My only nit-picks with Guide are the paleoart (which, while still good, is sketchier & less defined than Bonner's previous work) & the lack of explanatory/identifying text in some parts (which, while few & far between, is still weird for a book both by Bonner & for older kids).* With that in mind, I recommend reading Guide as 1) an introduction to dino ecology for younger kids, & 2) a transition to other, more adult books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved in general & Chapter 4 in particular) for older kids.

*In reference to the paleoart, don't take my word for it. Compare the cover of Guide to that of Bonner's When Dinos Dawned. In reference to the lack of explanatory/identifying text, I'm specifically referring to "The raptors: midsize predators" & "Who ate who"/"Who eats who today?": The former makes a "Raptor Prey Restraint" reference ("The raptors couldn't fly, but feathered arms may have been used[...]for keeping their balance during an attack"), but doesn't explain it; The latter are meant to draw parallels between Mesozoic & modern ecosystems, yet only "Who ate who" identifies the different organisms in its ecosystem.

[HD-man]

My 42nd review for this thread is a negative 1 for Hort's Did Dinosaurs Eat Pizza?: Mysteries Science Hasn't Solved. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" 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 "Yes" 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.

Where's the substance? ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R2D7VXPQ8H787T/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 2/5

If you want a substantial children's dino book about what we do & don't know, get Kudlinski's Boy, Were We Wrong About Dinosaurs! (henceforth Boy) & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs). It helps that Kudlinkski & Schindler are 1) very well-read, as indicated by the bibliography, & 2) collaborators with experts (I.e. Brinkman, Butler, & Norell). I can't say the same about Hort & O'Brien. As far as I know, Hort's Did Dinosaurs Eat Pizza?: Mysteries Science Hasn't Solved (henceforth Pizza) has neither a bibliography nor any expert collaboration & it shows in the lack of substance. In this review, I list the 3 main indications of that lack of substance.

1) Unlike Boy (which has a roughly chronological format, beginning with the discovery of Iguanodon & ending with the discovery of the Chinese feathered dinos), Pizza consists of a bunch of so-called "Mysteries Science Hasn't Solved" scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason. Each mystery is illustrated with dinos doing things we know they didn't do, so maybe Pizza's title was supposed to tie all the mysteries together. However, since Pizza's content has nothing to do with eating pizza, it's just a confusing mess.

2) Unlike Boy (which is illustrated with mostly-good cartoon dinos & page-by-page comparisons of what people used to think vs. what we think now), Pizza is illustrated with mostly-bad cartoon dinos (E.g. O'Brien's T. rex is basically a cartoon version of Solonevich's Antrodemus: https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2013/08/vintage-dinosaur-art-dinosaurs-and-more.html ). Not only are the dinos themselves bad, but they make a lot of the text misleading: It's claimed that "different scientists can disagree by as much as [20 or 30] tons in estimating weights"; While this is technically true when it comes to sauropods, it's illustrated with a Styracosaurus (which weighed between 1 & 4 tons) outweighing an entire family farm.

3) Unlike Boy (which has mostly-accurate text that uses multiple lines of evidence to show why we think what we think), Pizza has a lot of misleading or wrong text, partly because of the aforementioned illustrations, & partly because it refers to many non-mysteries as mysteries (hence the "so-called" in indication #1 above). This is especially apparent in the text about T. rex & birds (E.g. See the Hort quotes, which fail on many levels).*

*They fail to get the facts straight (E.g. Giganotosaurus & Spinosaurus were larger; To quote Hendrickson, "I feel very sure, as do 99 percent of all dinosaur paleontologists, that T. rex was a predator"); They fail to understand how ecology works (Quoting GSPaul: "The idea that animals as big as most theropods were true scavengers is ecologically unfeasible"); They fail to understand how evolution works (If "birds evolved from dinosaurs," then they ARE "considered dinosaurs"); They fail to understand that, "scientifically, traditions are an idiot thing" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7HmltUWXgs ); They fail to understand that, traditionally, "the word dinosaur" refers to non-bird dinos, not "extinct dinosaur species of the Mesozoic Era" (which include many bird species).

Quoting Hort:

Tyrannosaurus rex may have been the largest meat eater ever. But the jury is still out on whether T. rex mostly hunted for its food or mostly scavenged to find dinner that was already dead.

Quoting Hort:

Most scientists now agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and a convincing case can be made that, as long as birds survive, dinosaurs aren't really extinct. Since there is still some disagreement on whether birds should be considered dinosaurs, I have followed tradition in using the word dinosaur to refer only to extinct dinosaur species of the Mesozoic Era.

[HD-man]

My 43rd review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" 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 "Yes" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

How to REALLY build a dino ( www.amazon.com/review/R3PD2BYTU5ANKB/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: Cooley/Wilson's Make-a-saurus: My Life with Raptors and Other Dinosaurs (henceforth Life) may be the best children's dino book when it comes to showing kids how to build a dino. I recommend reading Life in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved in general & Chapter 3 in particular).

Long version: Read on.

This review's title is a reference to Horner/Gorman's How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn't Have to Be Forever (which, to paraphrase Kosemen, should've been called "[How to build a] sort of dinosaur look-alike retarded monstrosity").* Point is, to quote Willoughby ( https://emilywilloughby.com/about ), "paleontology is unique in that there is no equivalent method of using film to capture the reality of its natural subjects[...]we must paint, sculpt and draw to bring these animals to life." Life may be the best children's dino book when it comes to showing kids how to do that. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) As you may remember, Life was 1 of the books that got me into feathered dinos, along with Sloan's Feathered Dinosaurs. Cooley's life-like models of feathered dinos are 1 of the main reasons why that is (See reason #1: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3481738493 ).

2) Life provides a lot of background info. This is especially apparent in the introductory section: 1st, Currie explains why art is important to his science (See the Currie quote); Then, Cooley explains why science is important to his art (See the Cooley quote); Last, "The World of Sinornithosaurus" tells a day-in-the-life story of the Sinornithosaurus specimen Cooley's model is based on; More specifically, it tells a story of how said specimen lived, died, & became fossilized.

3) Similarly to Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs, Life uses a "popular approach[...that...]not only accurately mirrors the methods used by [paleoartists in creating] dinosaurs, but also satisfies the overwhelming curiosity of people to know what dinosaurs were like when alive" ( www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ). This is especially apparent in the main sections: 1st, Cooley explains the paleoartistic process without dumbing down; Then, Cooley shows readers how they can adapt said process using tools & materials around their house (E.g. Instead of beginning "with a welded steel armature," they can make an armature using "rolled-up newspaper, wire, foam and tape, even balloons"); Last, Cooley shows readers how they can go 1 step beyond & create dino environments (I.e. Dioramas, which are the best dino exhibits).

If I could, I'd give Life a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Dino scales, which are non-overlapping, are compared to lizard scales, which are mostly overlapping) & writing (E.g. Liaoning is misspelled as Laioning). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5.

*Google "Is it Possible to Re-Create a Dinosaur from a Chicken?"

Quoting Currie:

Even with all my training and experience, I still learn a lot when Brian asks me how the bones of a skeleton actually go together. Often we end up pulling bones out of the Museum's collections so we can consider how they fit together and how the muscles were attached. Most people can learn more by building models than by just looking at museum displays and books.

Quoting Cooley:

Life takes us in marvelous directions and, as luck would have it, the first job I found upon graduating from art school was sculpting a volcano for the Calgary Zoo's new Prehistoric Park. That led to making a dinosaur for a company in Vancouver. My wife, artist Mary Ann Wilson, worked on that dinosaur with me, and since then we have completed many dinosaurs together. While doing research for that project, Mary Ann and I met Dr. Philip J. Currie, who was soon to become one of the world's most prominent paleontologists. It was Dr. Currie whose enthusiasm and riveting stories about new discoveries and theories rekindled my passion for dinosaurs. Twenty years since that meeting, I'm still making dinosaurs

[HD-man]

My 44th review for this thread is a negative 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" 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 "Yes" 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.

Bad dino doc + bad dino movie ( www.amazon.com/review/R1ANUT6L08H5CM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: As far as I know, most dino time travel books aren't meant to be educational. Of those that are, I recommend reading White's Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game in conjunction with other, more educational books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved). Miller/Blasing's Dinosaur George and the Paleonauts: Raptor Island (henceforth DG) fails at being either a decent educational book or a decent science fiction book.

Long version: Read on.

As you may remember, I said that Jurassic Fight Club is 1 of the worst dino docs ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3484890895 ). Despite this, I originally thought that DG was going to be better than JFC given that dino books are usually better than dino docs. Boy, was I wrong about DG! Not only is DG as bad as JFC in some ways, but also as bad as the movie The Lost World: Jurassic Park (henceforth JP2) in other ways. In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why I think that is, besides the annoyingly-repetitive writing.*

1) In DG, George is the only well-defined/developed character, & not in a good way: He's basically an 18-year-old male version of Sarah Harding from JP2 (I.e. A "naive, impulsive paleontologist[...]whose dumb decisions constantly put the team in greater danger");** This is especially apparent when he 1st compares the Saichania's poor eyesight to that of rhinos, but then makes a sudden move; Similarly, in JP2, Sarah 1st explains "the dangers of the bull rex tracking the group with its powerful olfactory sense, but[...then...]brings the jacket coated in the infant's blood with her as they flee."** The other Paleonauts are just character archetypes. More specifically, Vince Witmer is "The Lancer", Lloyd Lance is "The Big Guy", Parker Holtz is "The Smart Guy", & Sonya Currie is "The Chick".** There's also Professor Stone & Dr. Morgan, but they're only in Chapter 1.

2) In some ways, DG's dromaeosaurs are better than JFC's (E.g. They're more fully feathered, though not entirely). In other ways, DG's dromaeosaurs are worse than JFC's (E.g. They have whip-like tails). In still other ways, they're about the same (E.g. They're "super persistent" predators of "impossibly large prey").** This is especially apparent in Chapter 8, when a pack of 30 flightless, blue jay-sized "mini-raptors" attack George over & over again despite being blasted with a surge gun & attacked by a 20-ft constrictor, among other things. Put another way, Chapter 8 is basically an extreme version of JP2's "Compy Attack" scene.

3) I have 2 major problems with DG's story: 1) It's dependent on the reader caring about the characters; See reason #1 above for why that's a major problem; 2) As indicated by its sub-title, DG mostly takes place on/around Raptor Island in Southern Asia, presumably the Gobi region given that that's where all the dinos are from; The problem is that's near the center of the continent, & it's not like Asia ever had an inland sea like the Western Interior Sea of N.America; In other words, DG's story is dependent on a setting that could never have existed.

4) DG's text is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in "PaleoFacts" because the misses stick out more with less text.*** However, the main text misses may be worse in degree: Like JFC's misses, some of DG's are due to being very outdated (E.g. Compare the Miller/Blasing quote to the Naish/Barrett quote); Also like JFC's misses, some of DG's are due to being very nonsensical (E.g. "A creature, about the size of an owl, suddenly swooped down from its perch above and grabbed the lizard in midair. At first, George thought it must have been some sort of bird, but when it landed on the ground it quickly ran into the woods on only its back legs. It was no bird. It was a flying dinosaur!").

*E.g. The fact that George dislikes guns is stated 4 times in the span of 1 chapter, including twice in the same paragraph.

**Google "The Lost World: Jurassic Park (Film) - TV Tropes" & "Raptor Attack - TV Tropes" for reasons #1 & #2, respectively.

***In "PaleoFacts" alone, it's claimed that Nemegtosaurus was 7 m tall & 15.2 m long (More like 2.46 m tall & 12 m long), Saichania was 2.4 m tall (More like 1.3 m tall), Plesiosaurus was 7 m long & 3 tons (More like 3-5 m long & 150 kg), Plesiosaurus lived during the Late Cretaceous (It didn't), Bactrosaurus means "Bactrian lizard" (It doesn't), & Tylosaurus was 20 tons (More like 4.5 tons), among other things.

Quoting Miller/Blasing:

George knew this species. His uncle taught him a lot growing up. Because of that, he knew by the end of the Jurassic Period nearly all members of the Sauropod family had become extinct. A few species managed to survive all the way to the end of the late Cretaceous Period when they, along with all other non-avian dinosaurs, became extinct. The majority of the long necks that survived into late Cretaceous were from the Titanosaurus family. Although not as large as their earlier cousins, they were still massive dinosaurs and among the largest living things on earth by the end of the Cretaceous Period.

Quoting Naish/Barrett (See Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved):

As recently as the 1990s it was thought that sauropods were a mostly Jurassic event and that they had largely disappeared by the Cretaceous. We now know that this view was completely inaccurate, and that sauropods were a major presence on many continents throughout much of the Cretaceous. And, rather than being stagnant or static in evolutionary terms, they were constantly evolving new anatomical features and new ways of cropping plants.

[HD-man]

My 45th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Yes" 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 "Yes" votes it can get because it's for a mostly good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Mostly good, part 1 ( www.amazon.com/review/R1BGIKWL90PWZD/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Hone's The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs (henceforth TC) is mostly good, especially when it comes to describing key scientific concepts (E.g. Classification in Part 1). I say that because, unlike most of my positive reviews, this 1 is about TC's problems.

1) The paleoart is seriously lacking: For 1, most of the illustrations (I.e. Hartman's skeletal reconstructions) are great, but too small for good comparisons; For another, said illustrations are few & far between (I.e. Most of the chapters have only 1 illustration, 3 at most, & 5 of them have none); For yet another, there's only 1 life reconstruction in TC's entirety (I.e. Hartman's T. rex). This is especially problematic because, according to Hone, TC is meant for casual readers, yet it's laid out more like an enthusiast's book (I.e. Mostly black-&-white pages with a series of color plates). To put this in perspective, Sampson's Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life is an enthusiast's book of similar length & layout, yet it has at least 3 illustrations per chapter, more in most, including a multi-species scene by Skrepnick at the beginning of every chapter.

2) The "scaly Tyrannosaurus" & "larger females" hypotheses are very misrepresented. Depending on the context, I don't mind as much if 1 or 2 non-major hypotheses are misrepresented once or twice.* My Riddle review shows what happens when many major hypotheses are misrepresented on many levels ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3474612358 ). However, while not as major as "Birds Are Dinosaurs", "scaly Tyrannosaurus" & "larger females" do have major implications for tyrannosaur biology, among other things (See the Willoughby & Bakker quotes, respectively). In reference to the former, the evidence for it is "essentially" ignored, while "a liberal coating of feathers" is taken as a given. Yes, said evidence hadn't yet been described in detail, but it had been mentioned in the technical literature. In reference to the latter, the problem is more layered. See "Review update #45 (It's a big 1)!" for how: https://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/Review-update-45-It-s-a-big-1-743681263

In short, I recommend reading TC in conjunction with 1) GSPaul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs for larger skeletal reconstructions & more life reconstructions, & 2) the Neal & Peter Larson chapters in Larson/Carpenter's Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King for more pre-TC info about T. rex skin & sexual dimorphism.

*E.g. In Chapter 10, Hone claims that "Richard Owen[...]regarded dinosaurs as giant lizards" in terms of physiology. That's not right (Quoting Owen: "The Dinosaurs, having the same thoracic structure as the Crocodiles, may be concluded to have possessed a four-chambered heart; and, from their superior adaptation to terrestrial life, to have enjoyed the function of such a highly-organized centre of circulation to a degree more nearly approaching that which now characterizes the warm-blooded Vertebrata"). Also, in Chapter 14, Hone claims that "the discovery of multiple remains of the famous dromaeosaurid Deinonychus with bones of the ornithischian Tenontosaurus[...]is mostly the limit of the evidence in support of the[...pack hunting large prey...]hypothesis". Depending on what he means by "large prey", that's not right either (Google "Taphonomy and Paleobiological Implications of Tenontosaurus-Deinonychus Associations" & "Days of the Deinos" for the technical & popular versions, respectively).

Quoting Willoughby ( www.amazon.com/review/R4VJXNM6VVEIV/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ):

Kenneth Carpenter (1997) has pointed out evidence of Gorgosaurus scale imprints that have been known for at least twenty years, but have never been formally published. Research can of course take many years to publish for a myriad of reasons, but it seems highly likely that had these imprints been of feathers, they'd been published almost immediately. It seems like there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that more readily publishes research that is exciting and interesting because it conforms so smoothly with the dominant paradigm, when conflicting research that challenges some of these established lines of thinking might ultimately result in a more robust and less flawed theory overall.

Quoting Bakker (See Raptor Red):

Female dominance is a powerful piece of evidence that permits us to reconstruct the private lives of Cretaceous predatory dinosaurs. A family structure built around a large female is rare in meat-eating reptiles and mammals today, but it's the rule for one category of predatory species[...]carnivorous birds. Owls, hawks, and eagles have societies organized around female dominance, and we can think of tyrannosaurs and raptors as giant, ground-running eagles.

[HD-man]

My 46th 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.

Stop liking things! ( www.amazon.com/review/R37ELAMHP3KSEA/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

I was originally planning on reviewing Stan/Jan's The Berenstain Bears and the Dinosaurs (henceforth BB) the way I usually review bad dino books. However, I then remembered that Trish/Talcott's BB review for the Deep In Bear Country podcast is so perfect (especially when it comes to criticizing BB's art & message) that I can't possibly top it, so I won't even try. Instead, in this review, I'll point you to Trish/Talcott's BB review & add my own thoughts as well:
-The part around 13:00 reminds me of the I Love Dinosaurs series. I'm surprised said series isn't mentioned by name.
-The parts around 14:00 & 17:00 remind me of the Holtz quote below. More specifically, "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" (& thus, has "more in common with medieval bestiaries, conjured from rumor and imagination alone"). Furthermore, not only are said creatures inconsistent with "these [dino] skeletons on this page", but said skeletons are inconsistent with "the fossil skeletons on which [they're] based."
-The parts around 16:00 & 20:00 remind me of The Berenstain Bears' Nature Guide: Not only do the Berenstain Bears explore "the whole of nature" (including non-bird dinos), but 1) they do so with Actual Factual (who supplies "actual facts about nature"), & 2) "they're happy" to spend the day together doing so; Keep in mind that this book was published 9 years before BB.
-The part around 30-32:00 sums up part of the reason why The Berenstain Bears and the Bad Dream does BB's story better, the other part being that Mama & Papa don't "take advantage of Brother's fear to talk him out of[...]his new interest".
-The part around 31-33:00 reminds me of 1) Switek's "Paleontological Profiles: Robert Bakker" (To quote Bakker, "We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science"; This interview is especially good at showing both why an interest in dinos is good & why BB's message is bad), & 2) Waldrop/Loomis' Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book (which is 1 of the "better kids' books of the time": www.goodreads.com/review/show/3495390225 ).
-The part around 37:00 reminds me of Jan/Mike's The Berenstain Bears' Dinosaur Dig (which also does BB's story better).*
-At around 39:00, they recommend Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs & Holtz's Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, but forget the author & title, respectively (which surprises me given that [1] they mentioned The Dinosaur Heresies at around 9:00, & [2] Holtz's book has the best title ever).

*For 1, both Brother & Sister take an interest in dinos. For another, not only does Actual Factual encourage their interest, but he also takes them on a tour of a dino dig. For yet another, this book begins & ends with 2 important messages (See the Jan/Mike & Papa quotes, respectively).

Quoting Holtz ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Holtz-s-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ):

Paleoart is, admittedly, a difficult enterprise: after all, its subject matter is long dead, and science can never expect to know very much about the creaturers' external surfaces or, for that matter, any of their other perishable features. Nevertheless, there is one inviolate rule of dinosaur restoration: if the known fossil skeleton conflicts with the shape of the reconstruction, the reconstruction must be wrong. That rule gives the casual reader at least a fighting chance of separating the wheat from the chaff: distinguishing books that depict restorations consistent with fossil specimens from books that have more in common with medieval bestiaries, conjured from rumor and imagination alone. One reliable clue that a book belongs to the former group is the inclusion of drawings or photographs of the fossil skeletons on which the restorations are based.

Quoting Jan/Mike:

A special kind of beast lived very long ago.
Its different forms and names are very good to know.

Quoting Papa (in reference to sitting on Sister's Stegosaurus toy):

Sister[...]I'm delighted that you and Brother have this wonderful new interest. But[...]the Jurassic Age will just have to settle for the coffee table.

[Libraraptor]

Why the hell did I Never Open this thread so far? Now I see what I have been missing and have a lot to catch up to!

[HD-man]

Why the hell did I Never Open this thread so far? Now I see what I have been missing and have a lot to catch up to!

Many thanks for the kind words!

[HD-man]

My 47th 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.

The best edition ( www.amazon.com/review/RZ0S3CGZFRCPL/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

As far as I know, there are 5 editions of Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books) (henceforth DD 1989/2004/2008/2010/2014). As much as I love DD, it was never truly great: For 1, see the Ben quote; What Ben says about "the AMNH fossil halls" goes for DD; For another, DD is a mixed bag in terms of paleoart.* If you want the current best DD-style book, get Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs. If I were to recommend reading an edition of DD in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs), it'd be DD 2004. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why that is.

1) In reference to "For 1" (which mainly refers to DD 1989), DD 2004 partially solves this problem with "8 pages of new text", all of which are "distinctly color-coded". This is especially apparent in the "Find out more" & Glossary sections: The former lists some of the best dino museums in the U.S. & their websites (which is good because [1] it makes DD interactive, & [2] to quote Norman/Milner, "You can also take a virtual tour of many museums over the internet if you cannot visit them in person"); The latter clearly explains all technical terms. DD 2008 is almost exactly the same in content, the problem being that much of what was accurate in 2004 was inaccurate in 2008 (E.g. The records for "biggest dinosaur", "biggest meat-eater", & "shortest dinosaur name"). DD 2010/2014 have the opposite problem as DD 1989. While DD 1989 is too esoteric, DD 2010/2014 are too simple & condescending (E.g. "Hadrosaur" is defined 10 times throughout DD 2010, including twice on page 70). & if that's not bad enough, DD 2010/2014 are even more inaccurate for their time (probably because they're authored by a non-expert) & exclude said websites.

2) In reference to "For another", DD 2004 partially solves this problem with "stunning real-life photographs of dinosaur bones, skulls, teeth and more". This is especially apparent in the "and more" photos: Many of DD 1989's not-so-good life reconstructions, most of which were outdated even in 1989, were replaced in DD 2004 (E.g. Hill & Winterbotham's tail-dragging Mamenchisaurus & Diplodocus, respectively, were replaced by a herd of Graham High's Brachiosaurus); Many of those that weren't replaced got new captions (E.g. The new caption for Graham High's Deinonychus reads, "Most scientists now agree that, unlike the model shown here, Deinonychus was probably feathered"). Pixel-shack's bad life reconstructions started to replace DD's good ones in 2008 & almost completely took over in 2010/2014. Pixel-shack's "DK 2003" Velociraptor ( https://web.archive.org/web/20221122081546/https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/sauropedia/images/8/8b/Velociraptor1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110817011836 ) replacing the AMNH's "Fighting Dinos" Velociraptor ( https://web.archive.org/web/20221122105153/https://digitalcollections.amnh.org/Assets/V2/ChFBTjFTNTAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMhIDVFIxGihcVFIxXDMwXGNjXGVjXDkwXDhkXHYxX0FOMVxBTjEyMzU5MjAuanBnIgQIARAPQAE-~/2URM1T9XJV4K/5@La5NKVZa1gSRqP/AN1235920.jpg ) is an especially good example of that.

*I'm specifically referring to DD's life reconstructions, many of which are not-so-good (I.e. Those by various illustrators & Pixel-shack in the older & newer editions, respectively).

Quoting Ben ( https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/02/26/framing-fossil-exhibits-phylogeny/ ):

Within the actual fossil halls, interpretation remains stubbornly unapproachable. For example, the sign introducing proboscidians tells visitors that this group is defined primarily by eye sockets located near the snout. An observant visitor might wonder why scientists rely on such an obscure detail, as opposed to the obvious trunks and tusks. There's a good teaching moment there concerning why some characteristics might face more selection pressure (and thus change more radically) than others, but instead visitors are only offered esoteric statements. Relatedly, the exhibit does little to prioritize information. Most label text is quite small, and there's a lot of it. Compare this to Evolving Planet at the Field Museum, where there is a clear hierarchy of headings and sub-headings. Visitors can read the main point of a display without even stopping, and parents can quickly find relevant information to answer their charges' questions (rather than making something up).
Evolving Planet also compares favorably to the AMNH fossil halls in its informative aesthetics and spatial logic. At FMNH, walls and signs in each section are distinctly color-coded, making transitions obvious and intuitive. Likewise, consistent iconography – such as the mass extinction zones – helps visitors match recurring themes and topics throughout the exhibit. AMNH, in contrast, has a uniform glass and white-walled Apple Store aesthetic. It's visually appealing, but doesn't do much to help visitors navigate the space in a meaningful way.

[HD-man]

My 48th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Maynard's The Best Book of 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 outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Definitely NOT the best ( www.amazon.com/review/R797Y6F6B6JEW/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

In my experience, when a non-fiction dino book is given a superlative title, it's being set up for failure. As far as I know, only 1 such book lives up to its title & Maynard's The Best Book of Dinosaurs (henceforth BB) is definitely NOT it or even just decent in its own right.* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) BB's life reconstructions are mostly not-so-good. Those by Kirk are as good as it gets in BB, while those by Forsey are as bad as it gets: In reference to Kirk, the ornithischians & Barosaurus are depicted with too many claws; Otherwise, the dinos are mostly accurate for the time & completely awesome for all time (E.g. See the Deinonychus on the back cover, which have tiger stripes & a lightning storm background); In reference to Forsey, I've said all I have to say in my review of Theodorou's I Wonder Why Triceratops Had Horns ("Wonder's more realistic reconstructions" are by Forsey: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3493788414 ); Unfortunately, most of BB's life reconstructions are by Forsey. Those by Field fall somewhere in between, but more towards Forsey (E.g. See the Triceratops on the front cover, which have cartoonishly angry eyes & 4 clawed fingers per hand).

2) BB is a confusing mess in terms of organization. There isn't even an Introduction. BB just begins with a chapter about baby dinos & continues with no logical transitions or flow between the chapters.

3) BB fails to cover many dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner:** Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; This is especially apparent in the chapter about the dino extinction because 1) the main text explains nothing about the science behind the dino extinction story, & 2) the sidebar text needlessly re-tells said story; Other times, it's just plain wrong; This is especially apparent in said chapter because it's claimed that 1) the asteroid "hit Earth in Central America" (Last I checked, Mexico =/= Central America), & 2) only "some scientists think that dinosaurs were the ancestors of modern birds" (Quoting Witmer from a 1995 book: "There are so many derived similarities between birds and these Deinonychus-like theropod dinosaurs that most paleontologists today believe birds are theropod dinosaurs!").

*By "1 such book", I mean Holtz's Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages (Dinosaurs for short).

**By "many", I mean half of all the dino-related subjects a decent introduction to dinos would cover. Using Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs as a guide, BB fails to cover "The dinosaur world", "Getting about", "Living animals", "Dinosaurs and people", & "Dinosaurs and birds".

[HD-man]

My 49th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Rey's Extreme 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.

Extremely nostalgic ( https://www.amazon.com/review/R1D5YN9OJS6MXU/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

If there's 1 thing I'm nostalgic for, it's Rey's traditional paleoart (which is overall better than his digital paleoart). If there's 1 thing I'm definitely NOT nostalgic for, it's the extreme dino genre: At best, "extreme" is a buzzword; At worst, it's an excuse to make dinos as monstrous as possible. Not only is Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs (henceforth ED) the best extreme dino book, but also the best traditional Rey book.* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) Unlike other extreme dino books, "extreme" actually means something in ED. This is especially apparent in the 1st 2 chapters. Not only do said chapters define "extreme" (See the 1st Rey quote), but also use "the dinosaur-bird link" to reinforce that definition (See the 2nd Rey quote).

2) Unlike other extreme dino books, ED is very well-organized. More specifically, the middle chapters are arranged in both geographical & chronological order: In reference to "geographical", each chapter focuses on a different continent; In reference to "chronological", the chapters are arranged in order of their continent's 1st dino discovery, beginning with Europe & ending with Asia; Furthermore, the dinos in each chapter are described in order of their discovery (E.g. The Europe chapter begins with Iguanodon & ends with Scipionyx).

3) Unlike other extreme dino books, ED is very well-illustrated. The last chapter in particular features Rey's then-best/most bird-like dinos in terms of appearance & behavior. "Customising a life-size Velociraptor" (which, as far as I know, was the best Velociraptor model next to Kokoro's) & "RAPTOR RED:Snow games" (which, as far as I know, is still the best dino play behavior art) are especially good examples of the former & latter, respectively.

If I could, I'd give ED a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. The Berlin Archaeopteryx is referred to as "the first Archaeopteryx fossil that was found") & writing (E.g. Some hadrosaurs are referred to as 4-legged, while others are referred to as 2-legged). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5. I recommend reading ED in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs) as well as "Luis V. Rey's Dinosaurs and Paleontology Art Gallery" ( http://web.archive.org/web/20021016144903/http://www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk/html/gallery.htm ), which provides more info about most of Rey's ED work.

*Gee/Rey's A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic may be better in terms of paleoart (I.e. There's MUCH more of it), but definitely NOT in terms of text & writing.

Quoting Rey:

There has never been a more exciting time to study dinosaurs. The better we get to know them, the more weird and wonderful and extreme they seem. We know a lot more about dinosaurs than we did when I was a kid. We used to think that dinosaurs were sluggish, cold blooded and not very bright. Then in 1964, Yale paleontologist John Ostrom found the arms and claws of a two-legged meat-eater he named Deinonychus. Deinonychus had enormous sickle-shaped claws on its feet. This meant that in order to kill its prey, it had to be able to leap into the air, cling to the victim with its hand claws, and slash with its feet. Deinonychus must have been a real acrobat. Could it be that dinosaurs were much more active than we had thought? Other extraordinary discoveries followed.

Quoting Rey:

In 1988, my Deinonychus Pack was a controversial painting. Paleontologists who favored the idea of the dinosaur-bird link loved it. Others didn't. They thought dinosaur feathers were science fiction[...]they wanted to see scaly skin! Lots of evidence has piled up in favor of feathers since those days.

[HD-man]

My 50th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Mash's Extreme 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 outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

Extremely bad ( www.amazon.com/review/R10WWVQJN8L3MP/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

In my previous review, I referred to Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs as the best extreme dino book. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why Mash's Extreme Dinosaurs (henceforth ED) may be the worst extreme dino book.

1) Trish's ED review ( http://babbletrish.blogspot.com/2011/07/lets-read-another-eye-searingly-bad.html ) sums up most everything you need to know about Martin's paleoart in ED. However, I'll add my own thoughts as well:
-Martin's Brachiosaurus & Edmontosaurus are shameless rip-offs of Graham High's Brachiosaurus model & the NHM's Baryonyx model, respectively.
-Remember when "Nigel-the-Pelican-flies-into-a-window" in Finding Nemo ( https://ohmy.disney.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2014/06/Nigel-the-Pelican-flies-into-a-window.jpg )? Martin's Microraptor is basically a Mockbuster version of that.
-Remember the "All Yesterdays Cat" ( https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0073/83/1436510676473.jpg )? Martin's T. rex is basically a Shar-Pei version of that.

2) Martin's paleoart isn't the only "Eye-Searingly Bad" part of ED. There's also Mash's writing: For 1, it goes back & forth between uncomfortably large & uncomfortably small; For another, it goes back & forth between several different fonts; Taken together, it's extremely difficult just to look at it, let alone read the words. & if that's not bad enough, Mash's writing is also annoyingly repetitive (E.g. "First, they were used first to kill the prey, and then to slice the meat")/inconsistent (E.g. Some of the info boxes list length; Others list length & weight; Still others list length, weight, & height)/derivative (E.g. See the Mash quote, which shamelessly rips off Chapter 4 of Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs).

3) Mash's text is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in the info boxes because the misses stick out more with less text.* However, the other sidebar misses may be worse in degree: Some of them are due to being extremely outdated (E.g. Not only are pachycephalosaurs & heterodontosaurs claimed to be ornithopods, but ornithischians & saurischians are claimed to be no more closely related to each other than they are to crocs & pterosaurs); Others are due to being extremely nonsensical (E.g. The skeleton on pages 10-11 is "[seemingly] based on Marsh's 1880s "Brontosaurus" skeletal, complete with mismatched macronarian head", yet is referred to as that of Diplodocus).**

*Even if you only read the info boxes, you'll see that there's an average of at least 1 or 2 factual errors per page in ED, a 32 page book (E.g. Brachiosaurus =/= 150-140 MYA & "up to 90 tons").

**Google "Vintage Dinosaur Art: The evolution and ecology of the Dinosaurs: Part 2".

Quoting Mash:

It is estimated a human being could have been torn apart in less than thirty seconds by a pack of Velociraptors!

[HD-man]

My 51st 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 cladistics yay! ( www.amazon.com/review/RV35J07GNJZDT/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

To quote Grandmother Fish, clades "are central to a modern understanding of how we living things relate to each other." Before Holtz's Dinosaurs, Witmer's The Search for the Origin of Birds (henceforth Search) was the best children's dino book when it came to introducing older kids to cladistics as well as the best pre-Sinosauropteryx dino-bird book for older kids. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) Like Hedley's Dinosaurs and Their Living Relatives, Chapters 1-2 of Search cover cladistics & archosaurs. In fact, Search is even better: Not only does Search cover much of the same background info ("Homology versus convergence"), but also goes well beyond ("Primitive versus derived"); Thus, Search does more in 2 chapters than Hedley's book does in 4 chapters. 1 of my only gripes is that Search doesn't use the word "cladistics".*

2) Like Schlein's The Puzzle of the Dinosaur-bird: The Story of Archaeopteryx, Chapters 3-8 of Search cover the history of "the dinosaur-bird connection" from the 1860s to the 1970s, the Protoavis controversy, the "Time Problem", & "The Origin of Flight". In fact, Search is even better: While both books invite readers to "inspect the evidence [scientists] have found, and [follow the] debate over what the evidence means", only Search does so in the context of cladistics; This is especially apparent in Chapter 6 (E.g. See the 1st Witmer quote, which is especially good at showing why birds & dinos are too similar to be convergent).

3) Chapter 9 weighs the evidence & concludes that birds "evolved from a Triassic or Jurassic theropod dinosaur that resembled Deinonychus but was much smaller and, perhaps, spent a lot of time in the trees." However, because no such dinos were then known, the fringe group BAND (= Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) put forth the "Time Problem" & "The Origin of Flight" as arguments against said conclusion (I.e. Birds can't be dinos because [1] the earliest bird fossils are older than the most bird-like dino fossils, & [2] the earliest birds were small tree-climbers, but the most bird-like dinos were large ground-runners). The 2nd Witmer quote sums up why said conclusion is widely accepted & said arguments aren't. Put another way, said conclusion is based on mountains of hard evidence, while said arguments are from ignorance. It's also worth mentioning that many such dinos have since been found, including Anchiornis & Xiaotingia.

*My other gripe is the hit-&-miss paleoart: While some of the reconstructions are mostly accurate (Archaeopteryx, Compsognathus, Hypsilophodon, & Euparkeria), others are mostly not-so-accurate (Sphenosuchus, Deinonychus, & Troodon); The Holtz quote sums up everything wrong with the latter. I hate to say it because Mather's paleoart is nice to look at ( https://web.archive.org/web/20150808043317/http://thisisbozeman.com/discovering-first-montanans ).

Quoting Holtz ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Holtz-s-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ):

Paleoart is, admittedly, a difficult enterprise: after all, its subject matter is long dead, and science can never expect to know very much about the creaturers' external surfaces or, for that matter, any of their other perishable features. Nevertheless, there is one inviolate rule of dinosaur restoration: if the known fossil skeleton conflicts with the shape of the reconstruction, the reconstruction must be wrong. That rule gives the casual reader at least a fighting chance of separating the wheat from the chaff: distinguishing books that depict restorations consistent with fossil specimens from books that have more in common with medieval bestiaries, conjured from rumor and imagination alone. One reliable clue that a book belongs to the former group is the inclusion of drawings or photographs of the fossil skeletons on which the restorations are based.

Quoting Witmer:

Deinonychus is not all that similar to modern birds, but shows a number of close similarities to the Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx: the number and shapes of the openings in the snout, the positioning of the teeth in the skull, the number of fingers and the relative sizes of the finger bones, the unusual shapes of some of the wrist bones, the arrangement of the hip bones, a special kind of ankle structure, and a certain foot structure.
If we look closely at this list, we'll see that some characteristics give us more specific information about relationships than others. Some of these birdlike features (such as the ankle joint) are found in all dinosaurs, but in almost no other archosaurs. These specializations show that birds might be related to dinosaurs. Some of the features[...]the snout openings and foot structure[...]are specializations of a certain group of dinosaurs, the theropod saurischian dinosaurs. Some of the features[...]the positioning of the teeth, the hand and wrist structure[...]are found in only a few kinds of theropod dinosaurs. One feature[...]the hip bones[...]is found only in Deinonychus and its relatives.
These shared specializations that we see in Archaeopteryx, Deinonychus, and other dinosaurs suggest that birds indeed evolved from dinosaurs. But this idea is different from the old, original theory of dinosaur-bird relationships discussed in Chapter 3. The old version was very vague. It didn't show which group of dinosaurs might be closer to birds. This new theory not only says that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but also identifies a particular group of dinosaurs, the theropods. It even points to a small group of theropod dinosaurs that are most closely related to birds. There are so many derived similarities between birds and these Deinonychus-like theropod dinosaurs that most paleontologists today believe birds are theropod dinosaurs!

Quoting Witmer:

In searching for the origin of birds, we came across many conflicting clues:[...]How do we make sense of these clues that point us in different directions?[...]The clues from the ages of fossils are not fully trustworthy. It's possible that we may someday discover Deinonychus-like fossils in old-enough rocks. If that happened, the "time problem" would disappear[...]The clues from the theories on the origin of flight are even less reliable. We don't know much about how dinosaurs lived their lives. Maybe some of the Deinonychus-like theropods actually were small and spent a lot of time in trees[...]The most reliable clues are the ones that come from the structure of the bones themselves. They are more certain[...]we can look at them, measure them, hold them in our hands.

[HD-man]

My 52nd 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: www.charlesbridge.com/products/if-you-were-raised-by-a-dinosaur ). Many thanks in advance.

The worst popular baby dino book ( www.amazon.com/review/R2PBFKZ4BOZCNN/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best baby dino book for older kids, get Zoehfeld's Dinosaur Parents, Dinosaur Young: Uncovering the Mystery of Dinosaur Families & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs in general & Chapter 36 in particular). Brooklyn's If You Were Raised by a Dinosaur (henceforth You) may be the worst. It just goes to show what a difference some expert consulting & personal research can make.

Long version: Read on.

Many popular baby dino books are OK, but not great. There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) They're mixed bags in terms of paleoart (Quoting Miller: "I bought the book expecting a more technical discussion of the animals discussed therein[...]but was surprised to find beautiful paintings of questionably-restored dinosaurs"); 2) They're confusing messes in terms of organization; 3) They fail to cover many baby dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, they simplify things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, they're just plain wrong). In this review, I focus on reasons #1 & #3 & why I think they make You the worst popular baby dino book.

1) Not only is You's paleoart very questionable, but also very ugly. More specifically, it consists of cheap-looking paper collages of anachronistic assemblages of mostly gray/green/brown animals with wonky anatomy in inappropriate environments: In reference to "anachronistic assemblages", see the cover; There's a generic rhamphorhynchid pterosaur, a Massospondylus family, an Apatosaurus family, & a T. rex family; In reference to "wonky anatomy", see "Review update 52 (It's a big 1)!" for everything wrong with the cover in terms of anatomy ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585 ); In reference to "inappropriate environments", the cover depicts a grassland environment despite the fact that, to quote Holtz ( https://web.archive.org/web/20130420125422/https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104shadow.html ), "grasses seem to have been relatively rare in the Mesozoic, and did not form grasslands until much later. Ground cover in the later Mesozoic was a mixture of ferns and herbaceous angiosperms. So as far as we know, no dinosaur other than birds ever wandered in prairies or savannahs".

3A) In reference to "Sometimes", You's writing is overcomplicated (as opposed to oversimplified). More specifically, it's like "when Joey wrote a recommendation letter for Chandler and Monica to send to an adoption agency, but he used a thesaurus on every word to sound smart" ( www.buzzfeed.com/hopelasater/joey-friends-best-moments ). The Brooklyn quote in "Review update 52 (It's a big 1)!" is the best example of that ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-52-It-s-a-big-1-772428585 ): For 1, it's also the best example of incorrectly pluralized dino names (Seriously, "T. rexes"?); For another, it shamelessly rips off Chapter 17 of Holtz's Dinosaurs.

3B) In reference to "Other times", this is especially apparent in the Brooklyn quote below (which fails on so many levels that I need to quote the UCMP just to demonstrate): It fails to understand that Geist/Jones are 1) not dino experts, & 2) known for "publishing with a hidden agenda" ( http://web.archive.org/web/20171216234814/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/17/birds-cannot-be-dinosaurs/ ); It fails to understand "modern-day[...precocial...]birds and alligators", most of which DO need parental care, including most of those in Geist/Jones's study; It fails to understand Maiasaura (which, to paraphrase Anthony J. Martin, "is arguably the best understood of nesting dinosaurs, only rivaled by its neighbors in the same field area, [Troodon]"); It fails to understand that Geist/Jones's study was at least 9 years out of date at the time of You's publication.

1 more thing of note: To quote Dussart (See Biosciences on the Internet: A Student's Guide), "The speed and ease of email, plus its association with the web, mean that it is relatively easy to find and contact experts"; Thus, there's no excuse for You to not have expert consulting, especially given that some experts make a living from consultancy (E.g. Darren Naish: https://darrennaish.wordpress.com/ ); At the very least, having it would've helped prevent many of the textual fails (if not the visual ones too); In fact, said fails are so basic that they could've easily been avoided with up-to-date personal research; Unfortunately, there's very little of said research in You & it's mostly used incorrectly; In contrast, Sattler's Tyrannosaurus Rex and Its Kin: The Mesozoic Monsters shows how good a non-authoritative book can be with a lot of said research ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3488481224 ).

Quoting Brooklyn:

Not all scientists agree with the interpretation that Maiasaura babies needed parental care. Scientists Nicholas Geist and Terry Jones examined the hip and knee bones of different birds and alligators. They compared the hip bones and knee joints of Maiasaura to that of modern-day birds and alligators, which don't need parental care. The Maiasaura hips were at least as well developed as the birds', and the knee joints were no weaker than the birds' or alligators'. This might mean that Maiasaura babies did not need care from their parents as Horner believed.

Quoting the UCMP ( www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/eggshell/eggshell_case1.php ):

In their original description of embryonic remains from the Willow Creek Anticline, Horner and Weishampel (1988) cited degree of ossification of the leg bones of Maiasaura and Troodon (then thought to be Orodromeus) to indicate the level of mobility of young after hatching. Subsequently, Geist and Jones (1996) compared extant perinatal (the developmental stage immediately prior to and following hatching) birds and crocodilians to fossil dinosaur embryos and hatchlings. They found that the extent of hip bone development was more important than leg bone development for recognizing precocial versus altricial hatchlings, and that the leg bones of Maiasaura, Troodon, and other dinosaurs did not reliably indicate the mobility of a hatchling. Geist and Jones suggested that the hatchling dinosaurs studied were likely precocial upon birth, although this does not preclude the provision of extended parental care. Horner et al. (2001) countered Geist and Jones' (1996) argument after an extensive histological analysis of turtle, crocodilian, non-avian dinosaur, and bird embryonic and perinatal bones that compared bone developmental patterns and growth rates. The authors correlated ossification and growth rates with life-history strategies. Horner et al. (2001) concluded that developmental differences (including growth rates) in embryonic and perinatal dinosaur bones from the Willow Creek Anticline indicate a precocial lifestyle for Troodon and Orodromeus hatchlings and an altricial lifestyle for hadrosaur hatchlings that necessitated parental care; this work supported their original hypothesis (Horner and Weishampel 1988).

[HD-man]

My 53rd 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'm a sucker for dioramas ( www.amazon.com/review/R3F47215A3OEHY/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

There's a lot to like about Johnson/Stucky's Prehistoric Journey: A History of Life on Earth (henceforth PJ). My favorite aspects of PJ are as follows:
-Similarly to Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs, PJ was published by 1 of the best natural history museums, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science (& thus, is extra high-quality/authoritative). I can't overstate the importance of books like PJ (in conjunction with museum websites) to ppl like me (who can't visit those museums in person).
-Also similarly to Gardom/Milner's book, PJ has a "direct, clear written style, with all unfamiliar names and technical terms clearly explained" ( www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ), which is especially important for a "primer on the evolution of the planet's life forms".
-As indicated by this review's title, the real highlights of PJ are the prehistoric habitat dioramas, 1 at the beginning of each chapter. As you may remember, I said that dioramas "are the best dino exhibits" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3508814538 ), especially walk-through dioramas like PJ's.* The "diorama of a Cretaceous Creekbed" is my favorite ( www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.jsp?med_id=66391 ).

My only gripes & nit-picks are as follows:
-There are no cladograms in PJ despite it being a "primer on the evolution of the planet's life forms".
-There are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Deinonychus was discovered in Montana in 1964, not "Wyoming in 1966") & writing (E.g. "With the new herbivorous dinosaurs rose groups of new carnivorous animals, including[...]dromaeosaurs, troodontids, and velociraptors"; Technically correct, but still weird).
-Gurche's "Allosaurus and Stegosaurus" (which is based on the DMNS's "Fighting Dinosaurs") is on the cover, implying that the other 2D life reconstructions are of the same or similar quality. In actuality, they're watercolors by Greg Micheals (which are very easy on the eyes, but not on the level of Gurche's painting). This is like how some copies of The Last Dinosaur have Gurche's "Daspletosaurus and Styracosaurus" on the cover, implying that you're gonna get Jurassic Park-style dinos when you're actually getting Godzilla-style dinos.

*To quote Cosh ( https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/items/f5556128-1b03-4e37-b7d4-7266a5cd4cbc ), "A diorama is "a three dimensional, life-size simulated environment in which models or taxidermied animals are placed in order to depict a scene or an event" (Mortensen 2010:324). In a walk-through diorama, the visitor is brought inside the display space and becomes somewhat of a participant rather than merely a spectator; in this respect, a walk-through is a type of museum "immersion experience" (Mortensen 2010:324)."

[HD-man]

My 54th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Jenkins's Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution. 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.

Did you put any effort into this? ( www.amazon.com/review/R21LUEX1AD0VBE/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best children's book about both evolution & the history of life, get Kelly/Kissel's Evolving Planet: Four Billion Years of Life on Earth. It's everything that kind of book should be & MUCH more. Jenkins's Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution (henceforth Life) is the exact opposite of that in every way.

Long version: Read on.

As far as I know, there aren't many children's books about both evolution & the history of life. If you want the best 1, get Kelly/Kissel's book (which was published by 1 of the best natural history museums, the Field Museum of Natural History). If said book is the Sonic Sat AM of its genre, then Life is The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvTn8Qp8FAU ). In this review, I list the 4 main reasons why I think that is, besides the lack of expert consulting.

1) Life is very poorly-illustrated. This is especially apparent in the illustrations of non-bird dinos (E.g. The generic sauropod on the front cover has lizard feet & an ear hole on its neck; The generic tyrannosaur on the back cover has pronated hands & a vertical posture; Both have misshapen heads & dragging tails), but also applies to the illustrations of other things (E.g. The ostrich on the front cover has spaghetti legs with 3 long, clawed toes per foot). It doesn't help that "the illustrations are collages of cut and torn paper" & thus very cheap looking.

2) Life is very hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in the text about non-bird dinos (E.g. See the 1st Jenkins quote;* It's also worth mentioning that the aforementioned sauropod is referred to as Megalosaurus, a theropod), but also applies to the text about other things (E.g. What's clearly a Komodo dragon is referred to as Hylonomus, an early reptile). It's very telling that the only dino book listed under "For further reading" is from 1991.

3) Life is very poorly-written: For 1, it synonymizes "developed" with "evolved" ( www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html ); For another, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless (E.g. See the 2nd Jenkins quote; Notice that it fails to mention either DNA, which causes mutation, or variation, which is caused by mutation).

4) There are no cladograms in Life. This is despite the fact that, to quote Grandmother Fish, clades "are central to a modern understanding of how we living things relate to each other". Worse still, evolution is shown as a straight line. This is despite the fact that the 1993 edition of Gamlin's Evolution (DK Eyewitness Books), listed under "For further reading", debunks that "false picture" (See the Gamlin quote).

*In said quote alone, it's claimed that dinos are paraphyletic (They're not), that marine reptiles & pterosaurs are dinos (They're not), & that 230 - 160 = 65 (It doesn't).

Quoting Jenkins:

230 million years ago. One or more groups of reptiles evolve into dinosaurs. They range from bird-like animals a few inches tall to giants more than 90 feet long. They live in the sea, on the land, and in the air. Dinosaurs will be the dominant animals on the earth for the next 160 million years.

Quoting Jenkins:

Mutation. Sometimes when plants and animals reproduce, something unusual happens and completely new features, called mutations, appear in the next generation. Most mutations are harmful and cause the organism to die. Sometimes, though, they provide an advantage and are passed on.

Quoting Gamlin:

GALLOPING UP
The evolution of the horse is often shown by a diagram such as this (left). Although the fossils of all these ancestors have indeed been found, this "ladder" gives a false picture. Evolution does not go in straight lines, and it is not always a steady march of progress from small-and-simple to large-and-complicated. A more realistic image is a densely branching bush (below). There have been dozens of species, most of which have died out, leaving just wild horses, donkeys, and zebras.

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/Review-update-1-5-789276373 ).

Hi everybody!

"My Serious Dino Books" used to be an Amazon Listmania! List ( https://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/introducing-hadiazmy-1st-listmania-list.html ), but then Amazon stopped doing Listmania!, so now it's a Goodreads Listopia List ( https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/198241.My_Serious_Dino_Books_Please_don_t_vote_or_add_books_ ). I've since updated previous mentions of said list accordingly (E.g. Finally, my 1st journal entry!, hence the title of this journal entry). This journal entry is just in case you haven't already seen said updates. 3 more things of note:

-1) I've also since updated the requirements for said list. They're basically the same, but more streamlined.*

-2) I've also since completed said list (Amazon stopped doing Listmania! before I could add Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved", among others). I like to think of it as a near perfect reading list, partly b/c of its requirements (which, to quote Dino Dad Reviews, are for "separating the paleo-wheat from the cheap-cash-in-chaff"), & partly b/c it consists of 30 popular adult dino books spanning 30 years to the month (I.e. October 1986-October 2016).

-3) I've also since noticed that the 1st & last 6 books on said list are surprisingly similar (I.e. There's a great natural history of dinos w/a terrible cover, a book titled "Flying Dinosaurs", another natural history of dinos that accompanies a dino doc series, & a book authored & illustrated by GSPaul). Funny how that worked out.

*E.g. What used to be 2 requirements is now 1: For adult "casual readers"/"the enthusiast" ( http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/04/paleo-reading-list.html ).

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

2/20/24 UPDATE: I've since replaced my Amazon Idea List (which, like Listmania!, Amazon inexplicably stopped doing🙄) w/a Goodreads Listopia List (which, on the bright side, allowed me to include more backstory😉).

[HD-man]

My 55th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth. 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.

Surprisingly great/awesomebro ( www.amazon.com/review/RJ6H99FGIW6CC/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (henceforth Earth) is 1) his best/most awesomebro children's book, & 2) 1 of the then-best/most awesomebro children's natural histories of dinos (For what I mean by "awesomebro": https://archive.ph/BCoe4 ). I recommend reading Earth in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long version: Read on.

Many Norman books are OK, but not great. There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) They're mixed bags in terms of paleoart (Quoting Miller: "I bought the book expecting a more technical discussion of the animals discussed therein[...]but was surprised to find beautiful paintings of questionably-restored dinosaurs"); 2) They're confusing messes in terms of organization; 3) They're dry & esoteric in terms of writing.* Thus, Norman wasn't the 1st person who came to mind when I thought of great/awesomebro dino books, but he might be now that I've read Earth. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why that is.

1) Vincent's Earth review ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2014/11/vintage-dinosaur-art-when-dinosaurs.html ) sums up most everything you need to know about Sibbick's paleoart in Earth. However, I'll add my own thoughts as well:
-In reference to the cover art, Symbion pandora put it best when she said, "Great cover, or Greatest cover?? Fire, random volcanoes, the obligate pterosaur AND a T-rex viciously killing something-- what more could you ask from an '80's kids' dinosaur book?" ( http://symbion-pandora.blogspot.com/2011/03/book-hoarding-update.html ). Is there any dino book cover more awesomebro (& accurate for the time) than that?
-In reference to the interior art, Hartman put it best when he said, "I was also impressed with the gritty realism of John Sibbick's illustrations in David Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" ( http://prehistoricbeastoftheweek.blogspot.com/2013/02/interview-with-artist-and.html ). The keyword there is "gritty". All of Sibbick's paleoart is "hyper-realistic", but only his Earth work combines that hyper-realism with "gritty" awesomeness. This is especially apparent when you compare the large, green, front-facing ceratopsian in Earth (See the cover of Parker's The Complete Book of Dinosaurs: A Fascinating Insight to 500 Species from the Prehistoric Age) to those in the "Normanpedia" ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/06/vintage-dinosaur-art-illustrated.html ) & Creatures of Long Ago: Dinosaurs ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/12/vintage-dinosaur-art-creatures-of-long.html ).
-If Sibbick's Creatures of Long Ago: Dinosaurs work is mostly accurate for the time & his "Normanpedia" work is mostly not-so-accurate for the time, then his Earth work is semi-accurate for the time. My only other gripe is the "Dinosaur names" section (which includes non-dino names without clarifying that they're non-dino names).

2) Dry & esoteric writing works in technical books, but not in popular ones. Likewise, confusing organization doesn't work in any book. Fortunately, Earth doesn't have those problems. It helps that Earth is a natural history of dinos & thus the best kind of non-encyclopedic dino book. More specifically, Earth "is designed to be read from start to finish as the developing story of a remarkable group of animals[...in a...]direct, clear written style" ( www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-History-Museum-Book-Dinosaurs/dp/184442183X ).** This is especially apparent in the Introduction (See the Norman quote).

*In reference to "dry", not as plain-toast as many Benton books, but dry nonetheless. In reference to "esoteric", it doesn't help that they lack glossaries.

**Google "For Love of Stories" for why it's important that popular dino books are designed that way.

Quoting Norman:

Introduction
The last dinosaurs walked this Earth 64 million years ago[...]an almost unimaginably long time. They were members of a great group of reptiles that had dominated the Earth for 140 million years. Yet because the remains of these long-dead animals have been preserved as fossils it has proved possible, by painstaking work of excavation and scientific study, to learn much about their anatomy, way of life and evolutionary history[...]in fact to almost bring them back to life.
The purpose of this book is to introduce the enthusiast to most of the better-known dinosaurs. This is done by combining accurate life-like colour illustrations with careful discussion of what is presently known about dinosaur biology. In this way the reader should learn a great deal, not only about individual dinosaurs, but also of the world they inhabited and their position in the much greater history of life on Earth.