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

[HD-man]

My 56th 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.

This shouldn't be anyone's intro ( www.amazon.com/review/R18JAUMD9S7UY5/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best family-friendly intro to natural history that features non-bird dinos, get DK's Natural History (Smithsonian). It's everything that kind of book should be & MUCH more. Alexander's A Child's Introduction to Natural History: The Story of Our Living Earth–From Amazing Animals and Plants to Fascinating Fossils and Gems (henceforth AC) is the exact opposite of that in every way.

Long version: Read on.

As far as I know, there aren't many family-friendly intros to natural history that feature non-bird dinos. If you want the best 1, get DK's book. If DK's book is the Sonic Sat AM of its genre, then AC is The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvTn8Qp8FAU ). Yes, I already used that analogy in my Life review ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3517518136 ), but that's how bad AC is. There are 4 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) It's very poorly-illustrated; 2) It's very poorly-organized; 3) It's very non-authoritative; 4) It fails to cover many natural history-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, it's just plain wrong). In this review, I list what I think are the best examples of said reasons.

1) Unlike DK's book (which is "The Ultimate Visual Guide to Everything on Earth"), AC is illustrated with Hamilton's childish drawings & Shutterstock's cheap-looking stock photos.* Hamilton's naturalist & dino drawings are especially bad: For 1, her Charles Darwin/Steve Irwin/Jane Goodall look like a baby doll/female clown/male Whig, respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC885L05.jpg ); For another, her Velociraptor & Deinonychus are shameless rip-offs of Terakoshi's Deinonychus (which she didn't even fully feather) & Martyniuk's Velociraptor (which she didn't even finish), respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC885L07.jpg ).

2) Unlike DK's chapters & their contents (which, as indicated by the 1st DK quote, are insanely well-organized), AC's are scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason. This is especially apparent in the reptile & dino chapters: Not only is the former preceded & followed by the freshwater & desert chapters, respectively, but it's divided into snake/turtle & lizard/croc sections despite the fact that snake/lizard & turtle/croc sections would've made MUCH more sense for obvious reasons;** Not only is the latter divided into plant eater, meat eater, & non-dino sections without any other context, but it isn't even consistent (I.e. The plant eater & meat eater sections discuss meat eaters & plant eaters, respectively).

3) Unlike DK's book (which, as indicated by the 2nd DK quote, is insanely authoritative), AC is authored by a non-expert who, in this case, neither collaborated with experts nor did enough up-to-date personal research. As indicated by my You review ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3515814498 ), there's no excuse for that.

4A) In reference to "It fails", this is especially apparent in the invertebrate & dino chapters: For 1, using DK's book as a guide, AC covers every major vertebrate group, but only 3 major invertebrate groups, completely ignoring the other 4; For another, using Holtz's Dinosaurs as a guide, AC only covers 8 genera representing 7 major groups, while DK's book covers 21 genera representing 16 major groups.

4B) In reference to "Sometimes," this is especially apparent in the Ice Age chapter (E.g. See the Alexander quote).

4C) In reference to "Other times," this is especially apparent in the dino chapter. Even if you only read the bolded sentences, you'll see that there's at least 8 factual inaccuracies in those 3 pages. The worst ones are the claims that 1) "Paleontology is the study of dinosaurs", & 2) "No true dinosaur flew". Besides being blatantly false, they're contradicted by the earlier claims that 1) "fossils aren't only about dinosaurs", & 2) "some even flew."

*In reference to "childish drawings", they look like those of a kid learning to draw by copying photos badly.

**It's also worth mentioning that unlike DK's book (which has a 4-page "tree of life", showing how all living things are related), AC has no cladograms.

Quoting DK:

Natural History begins with a general introduction to life on Earth: the geological foundations of life, the evolution of life forms, and how organisms are classified. The next five chapters form an extensive and accessible catalog of species and specimens[...]from mineral to mammals[...]interspersed with fact-filled introductions to each group and in-depth feature profiles.

Quoting DK:

Featuring more than 5,000 illustrations of everything on Earth[...]from rocks to redwoods, microbes to mammals[...]this is the most spectacular survey of our planet's treasures ever made. Compiled by a team of professional wildlife experts working with the world-renowned Smithsonian Institution, NATURAL HISTORY is the ultimate celebration of the world's extraordinary diversity of life.

Quoting Alexander:

The ground sloth was an extra-large relative of a modern-day sloth. How large? Most were the size of an ox. Unlike today's sloths that spend their days up in the trees, some ground sloths stayed on the ground. They ate plants and stood on their hind legs to reach the tops of trees.

[HD-man]

My 57th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Michard's The Reign of the 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.

A REALLY concise natural history ( www.amazon.com/review/R1XKIJYJI2F8YU/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

The best way I can describe Michard's The Reign of the Dinosaurs (henceforth Reign) is as a cross between the 1st edition of DK's Dinosaur (Eyewitness) & the 1st edition of Gardom/Milner's The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) Like Gardom/Milner's book, Reign is very well-organized. More specifically, both books have a day-in-the-life format (I.e. The 1st part introduces the dinos & their world; The 2nd part shows how the dinos lived & evolved in their world); This makes sense given that, according to Ernest Thompson Seton, day-in-the-life stories are the best way to write natural history (See "Note to the Reader": https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wild_Animals_I_Have_Known ).

2) Like DK's book, Reign is very concise. This is especially apparent in Chapter 2 (I.e. "In search of an identity"), which is basically equivalent to the 1st 14 pages of Gardom/Milner's Chapter 8 (I.e. "Dinosaurs and people"), covering all of the same ground in ~1/2 as many pages (corrected for size).

3) Reign is very well-illustrated. Vincent's Reign review ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/01/vintage-dinosaur-art-reign-of-dinosaurs.html ) sums up most everything you need to know about that. However, I'll add my own thoughts as well:
-I'm surprised that Vincent doesn't mention the great photos & drawings of fossils, especially the historical ones in Chapter 2.
-I'm also surprised that Vincent doesn't mention Hallett's "The River" (which I really like not only because it shows a good bird's-eye view of that environment, but also because it shows where the dinos lived in that environment: https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/dinosaur-national-monument-panorama-mark-hallett.jpg ).
-Like DK's book, Reign features a lot of "well-worn art". Reign puts some of it into historical context, but not all of it (E.g. Most of Burian's 1956 work). There are a few other weird bits of art & text throughout Reign.* Otherwise, Reign is great & I recommend reading it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

*E.g. In reference to art, the Styracosaurus on page 80 is a shameless & abominable rip-off of Zallinger's Styracosaurus. In reference to text, it's claimed on page 33 that "the consensus among many specialists is that [T. rex] was probably more of a scavenger than a predator."

[HD-man]

My 58th review for this thread is a negative 1 for Creagh's Dinosaurs (Nature Company Discoveries Libraries). 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.

Surprisingly bad ( www.amazon.com/review/RJC08JRY6J57L/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 2/5

For as long as there has been Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books) (henceforth DD), there have been wannabes. As much as I love DD, I understand why readers would want an alternative ( www.amazon.com/review/RZ0S3CGZFRCPL/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ). However, as far as I know, Abramson et al.'s Inside Dinosaurs is the only good alternative. Creagh's Dinosaurs (Nature Company Discoveries Libraries) (henceforth DN), while not the worst alternative, is still very bad (which is surprising given Milner's involvement). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is, besides the confusingly-messy organization.*

1) DN is annoyingly redundant/vague in terms of writing: In reference to redundant, this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts"; 8 of the 14 questions had already been answered earlier in DN; In reference to vague, this is especially apparent in "Why Did They Vanish?"; Notice that the Creagh quotes don't explain how dinos went extinct, but just list causes.

2) DN is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. Again, this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts": 1st, it's claimed that dinos "could not fly", contradicting the earlier claim that Archaeopteryx was "a small, flesh-eating dinosaur[...that...]could fly"; Then, it's claimed that "about 800 species[...]have been described", contradicting the earlier claim that "we know of at least 1,000".

3) Unlike DD's life reconstructions, DN's are mostly not-so-good: Those by Kirshner are as good as it gets (E.g. See the Baryonyx on the cover of Long's Dinosaurs (Little Guides)); The others are shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. Many of them are shameless rip-offs of Sibbick's "Normanpedia" reconstructions), just plain outdated/abominable (E.g. See Eriksson's very dark & elephantine Styracosaurus on the cover), or some combination of both (E.g. Newman/Thornton's Maiasaura is a shameless rip-off of Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor with "a finely polished finish reminiscent of a 4x4 vehicle purchased by a money-crazed, wantonly aggressive businessperson").**

*At least DD has an Introduction. DN just begins with a section about pre-dinos & continues with no logical transitions or flow between the sections & chapters.

**Google "Vintage Dinosaur Art: A natural history of Dinosaurs – Part 1" & "Vintage Dinosaur Art: Dinosaurs! The 1987 Childcraft Annual - Part 1" for Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor & "a finely polished finish", respectively.

Quoting Creagh:

BIG BANG
According to one theory, several volcanic eruptions produced climatic changes that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Quoting Creagh:

METEORITE HITS
Perhaps a giant meteorite hit the Earth, causing dust clouds, acid rain, storms and huge waves.

[HD-man]

My 59th 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.

It's complicated ( www.amazon.com/review/R1H5PAIZYRT2B/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Short version: Is Brusatte's The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World (henceforth Rise) 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 Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved.

Long version: Read on.

This review's title refers to the fact that, as indicated by the Brusatte quote, Rise is trying to be what are usually 2 different kinds of dino book: 1) A dino field journal (E.g. Novacek's Dinosaurs of the Flaming Cliffs); 2) A natural history of dinos (E.g. Naish/Barrett's book). The most similar book I can think of is Sampson's Dinosaur Odyssey: Fossil Threads in the Web of Life in which his short field stories are sprinkled throughout. Brusatte's field stories are MUCH longer. This works in some ways, but not in others. In this review, I list those ways.

The following things make Rise good:
-For what it is, Rise is very well-organized: After the Prologue, the chapters are arranged chronologically, beginning with the end-Permian extinction & ending the end-Cretaceous extinction; Furthermore, each chapter is like a mini-day-in-the-life story (I.e. The 1st part sets the scene/scenario/characters; The 2nd part describes how we know what we know about the scene/scenario/characters), which might not work as well if Brusatte's field stories weren't so long.
-For what it is, Rise is very well-illustrated: To quote Chris Kratt (See "Tazzy Chris"), "it's black and white, but sharp as a tack"; Furthermore, Marshall's Rise work is mostly accurate & very good-looking in a "gritty realism" kind of way, similar to Sibbick's 1985 work ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3519227469 ).

The following things keep Rise from being great:
-Because Brusatte's field stories take up so much space, there are only 12 life reconstructions in Rise (9 dinos, 2 proto-dinos, & 1 mammal) & none of them are of the animal in its natural environment. This is especially problematic for a natural history (which, to quote Geils/Vogler, "is a description of one kind of organism in its natural environment"). Also, Marshall's life reconstructions are a bit shrink-wrapped. This is especially apparent in his new Velociraptor on the cover ( https://archive.ph/HLGJv ) & his new Archaeopteryx in Chapter 8 ( https://archive.ph/4BwEe ): In reference to the former, compare it to his old Velociraptor ( www.livescience.com/23922-velociraptor-facts.html ); In reference to the latter, compare it to Nicholls' Archaeopteryx in Naish/Barrett's book ( https://archive.ph/FH8bd ).
-There are several weird bits of text & writing throughout Rise: In reference to text, the most infamous example is the claim that T. rex were similarly intelligent to chimps because both have a 2.0 EQ; However, reptile EQ & mammal EQ are measured on different scales; It'd be like claiming that 2 students did equally well on their tests because both scored 9 even though 1 is 9/10 & the other is 9/100;* In reference to writing, the most annoying-to-read example is the incorrectly pluralized dino names (E.g. "Triceratopses, Edmontosauruses, and other prey"); In reference to both, the best example is the equine size comparisons (I.e. ~1/3 of the animal size comparisons); While most of the other animal size comparisons work, most the equine ones don't, some because the comparison is WAY off (E.g. Ornithomimus is referred to as horse-sized even though it's max. weight estimate is 180 kg & horses mostly range from 454-907 kg), & others because the weight range is so broad that it's almost meaningless (E.g. Several dinos ranging from beaver-to-grizzly-sized are referred to as mule-sized; Technically correct, but still weird).

1 more thing of note: It's weird to see a popular Brusatte book with so many negative reviews, especially given how much better Rise is than its predecessors. Where were all these reviewers when Brusatte's terrible Pixel-shack books were published (Dinosaurs: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3480073458 ) (Field Guide to Dinosaurs: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3488486276 )?

*Based on relative cerebrum size, T. rex were probably similarly intelligent to crocs ( www.researchgate.net/publication/256536375_Hurlburt_G_R_R_C_Ridgely_and_L_M_Witmer_In_press_Relative_size_of_brain_and_cerebrum_in_Tyrannosaurus_rex_an_analysis_using_brain-endocast_quantitative_relationships_in_extant_alligators_pp_134-154_in ).

Quoting Brusatte:

That is the tale I am going to tell in this book[...]the epic account of where dinosaurs came from, how they rose to dominance, how some of them became colossal and others developed feathers and wings and turned into birds, and then how the rest of them disappeared, ultimately paving the way for the modern world, and for us. In doing so, I want to convey how we've pieced together this story using the fossil clues that we have, and give some sense of what it's like to be a paleontologist whose job it is to hunt for dinosaurs.

[HD-man]

My 60th 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.

You know what, you just made the list! ( www.amazon.com/review/R33MKMXA6PR2MR/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 2/5

Like Stewart's other dino book ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3500348586 ), I really wanted to like Pinocchio Rex and Other Tyrannosaurs (henceforth Rex), especially given Csotonyi's paleoart. However, also like Stewart's other dino book, Rex is very bad (hence this review's title, which is what I thought when I 1st realized how bad Rex is).* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is.

1) You'd think the tyrannosaurs would be arranged in order of when they lived or when they were discovered (More on that below), but nope. They're just scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason.

2) Not only does Rex avoid using the word "evolution", but it synonymizes "developed" with "evolved" ( www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html ).

3) Rex fails to cover many tyrannosaur-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner:** Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless (E.g. See the 1st Stewart quote, which describes ALL meat-eating dinos); Other times, it's just plain wrong (E.g. See the 2nd Stewart quote, the 1st half of which contradicts the 2nd half).

Rex could've been a good natural history of tyrannosaurs, similar to Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs, or a good history of tyrannosaur research, similar to Naish's The Great Dinosaur Discoveries, for younger kids. Instead, Rex is basically just a well-illustrated pageant of tyrannosaurs, similar to "fossil exhibits[...]in the early days". To quote Ben ( https://extinctmonsters.net/2014/06/28/fossilexhibittypes/ ), "people could marvel at the great size of the animals, but there was very little to be learned besides the names of the species in question."

*If you don't get the reference, google "the list of Jericho".

**This is especially apparent in the Kileskus section. Based on Brusatte's The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3522479251 ), A LOT more could've been said about how Kileskus lived &/or how it was discovered.

Quoting Stewart:

Tyrannosaurs[...]A group of meat-eating dinosaurs that walked on two legs.

Quoting Stewart:

Dinosaurs[...]A group of animals that lived mostly on land between 230 and 66 million years ago. They walked upright and had big arm muscles. The birds alive today developed from dinosaurs.

[HD-man]

My 61st 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.

1 of the best dino field guides ( www.amazon.com/review/R2DH2U4T7MNS0N/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

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 (henceforth DH) in conjunction with other, more educational books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long version: Read on.

As far as I know, there are 2 kinds of dino field guide: 1) Those that are written like a traditional reference work (E.g. Holtz/Brett-Surman's Jurassic World Dinosaur Field Guide); 2) Those that are written like a speculative fiction book (E.g. Gee/Rey's A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why DH is the best of the 2nd kind, besides the paleoart.*

1) The Introduction summarizes everything you need to do before going on Mesozoic safaris. My favorite parts are "So, what happens now?" & "If I pass the training/acclimatization?": For 1, said parts emphasize the extreme danger of hunting in the Mesozoic, making it clear that it's only meant for true hunters like Theodore Roosevelt & not for "shooters" like Walter Palmer ( www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/27/theres-no-sport-in-that-trophy-hunters-and-the-masters-of-the-universe ); For another, said parts emphasize the extreme importance of altitude acclimatization & breathing equipment, making it clear that (to paraphrase Boromir) "one does not simply walk into [the Mesozoic]". This reminds me of the "Dinosaur Safari" part of the Introduction in GSPaul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs.

2) After the Introduction, DH consists of 5 chapters, each of which focuses on a different Mesozoic site (1 Late Triassic, 1 Late Jurassic, 3 Late Cretaceous). The 1st part of each chapter describes the site's natural history, beginning with "Conditions"/"Geography and environment", continuing with "Licensed targets" (I.e. Top predators), & ending with "Other fauna" (I.e. Mesopredators & prey). Thus, DH is similarly in-depth to Lessem's Dinosaur Worlds (See reason #3: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3478204607 ). Also similarly to Lessem's book, DH is very complete: Using Holtz's Dinosaurs as a guide, the least speciose site in DH features representatives of 9 different dino groups; Compare that to the 6 different dino groups of the most speciose site in Gee/Rey's book.

3) The 2nd part of each chapter tells a day-in-the-life story of 2 previous hunters, 1 of whom gets killed or maimed. I originally wasn't expecting to like the stories as much as I did, mostly because I thought they'd all be the same. In actuality, each story depicts a different combination of personalities & circumstances. Also, each story is written in a way that reminds me of Elder/Finch's The Norton Book of Nature Writing. This is especially apparent in Chapter 4's story (I.e. "The Hide"; 1st, see the Nicci Holmes quote, which is from said story; Then, compare it to the Matthiessen quote, which is from Elder/Finch's book).

If I could, I'd give DH a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the writing (E.g. "T-rexes") & a lack of maps/landscapes (which would've made it MUCH easier to understand the geographic/environmental info). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5. 2 more things of note: 1) I'm not a fan of the Papo T. rex (which is a shameless rip-off of the Jurassic Park T. rex) on the cover; 2) As much as I like the Bahariya Formation (which reminds me of the Everglades), DH would've been even better if Chapter 3 focused on the Cedar Mountain Formation; For 1, none of the chapters focus on Early Cretaceous or dromaeosaur-dominated sites; For another, all but Chapter 3 focus on N.American sites; In other words, Chapter 3 could've both been uniquely interesting & helped tell a more complete/cohesive story.

*Remember what I said about Sibbick's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth work ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3519227469 )? The same goes for White's DH work, but even more so because of White's mostly-accurate comic book-style paleoart.

Quoting Nicci Holmes:

The colony now looked like the remains of a Napoleonic battlefield, covered in adult bodies that looked like blasted fortifications, skeletons like wheel spokes, and bodies everywhere, while overhead, scavenging birds circled remorselessly. Our first day at the hide, we'd worn the rebreathers. It helped with the smell. It was the stench not just of rotten flesh but of rotten vegetation and rotten eggs. We had sat thunderstruck while trying not to puke when the wind shifted and blew the fug into the hide. Through binoculars we watched raptors, so beautiful as they went about their ugly business, wrestling baby Ceratopsians almost as large as they were out of their nests. The cries of the baby would sometimes bring an adult charging in but as it was invariably not their own nest, once the raptors had scattered it would leave and the hunters would return and continue on. These calves died slowly, the raptors lacking the killing power to put an end to the suffering with any speed. And usually one became two became three became more. These were not packs but mobs.

Quoting Matthiessen:

A mile and a half east of the den, the pack cut off a herd of zebra and ran it in tight circles. There were foals in this herd, but the dogs had singled out a pregnant mare. When the herd scattered, they closed in, streaming along in the early light, and almost immediately she fell behind and then gave up, standing motionless as one dog seized her nose and others ripped at her pregnant belly and others piled up under her tail to get at her entrails at the anus, surging at her with such force that the flesh of her uplifted quarters quaked in the striped skin. Perhaps in shock, their quarry shares the detachment of the dogs, which attack it peaceably, ears forward, with no slightest sign of snapping or snarling. The mare seemed entirely docile, unafraid, as if she had run as she had been hunted, out of instinct, and without emotion: only rarely will a herd animal attempt to defend itself with the hooves and teeth used so effectively in battles with its own kind, though such resistance might well spare its life. The zebra still stood a full half-minute after her guts had been snatched out, then sagged down dead. Her unborn colt was dragged into the clear and snapped apart off to one side.

[HD-man]

My 62nd 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.

Krasovskiy deserves better ( www.amazon.com/review/R2J9L4TSUN4V1G/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

While not as terrible as Moody's Dinofile: Profiles of 120 Amazing, Terrifying and Bizarre Beasts (which I'd give 0/5 stars if I could: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3503926051 ), Strauss' A Field Guide to the Dinosaurs of North America: and Prehistoric Megafauna (henceforth FG) is still pretty terrible. The FG reviews of RaptorRex ( http://raptorrexdinosauria.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-dinosaur-field-guide.html ) & Chronomorphosis ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/2530364999?book_show_action=true ) sum up why. In this review, I point you to said reviews & add my own thoughts as well:
-In reference to seeing for yourselves "how much credibility [About.com] establishes Strauss", don't bother.* I've already seen it for myself & it's more-or-less the same info as on FG's back cover.
-If you want Krasovskiy's best work, get White's Dinosaur Art II (which even features his "Torvosaurus gurneyi" on the front cover). It's a bit shrink-wrapped, but otherwise very good to great. Unfortunately, FG only features his older work (which still looks good, but is outdated to varying degrees). You can see what I mean by comparing his older & newer work at his DeviantArt ( www.deviantart.com/atrox1 ).
-Speaking of DeviantArt, Krasovskiy's "featherless raptor with green scales" (I.e. "deinonychus (retro)") is there too. I'm surprised it isn't featured or linked to in RaptorRex's FG review.
-In reference to FG pointlessly featuring "a few random mammoths", I'm glad RaptorRex criticized it. It's an annoyingly-common problem in dino books, even good ones like DK's Where on Earth? Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Life.
-Speaking of annoyingly-common problems in dino books, I'm glad Chronomorphosis criticized Strauss' "constant insistence on the lack of intelligence of long-extinct animals". Non-maniraptoran dinos were at least as intelligent as living reptiles (which are MUCH more intelligent than people like Strauss give them credit for).** 2 more noteworthy examples of FG's annoyingly-repetitive writing & inaccurate text are 1) the phrase "The fact is that[...]" (which is used 6 times in the introductory sections alone), & 2) the claims that Albertosaurus & Stegosaurus lived together (as opposed to 78+ million years apart).
-As you may remember, there are 2 kinds of dino field guide ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3524237829 ). FG can't decide which kind it is (E.g. Compare the Strauss quotes, which are from back-to-back sections). Either way, both Holtz/Brett-Surman 2015 & White 2015 are MUCH better books than FG (which is like reading Creepypastas: https://phelous.com/category/phelous/oldmanreads/ ).

*What used to be "About.com" is now "ThoughtCo.com".

**Don't take my word for it, though. Google "Reptile and Amphibian Intelligence: How Smart Are They?" & see for yourself. As for non-bird maniraptorans, they & Archaeopteryx were 1) similarly intelligent to each other ( www.academia.edu/1061233/Directions_in_Palaeoneurology ), & 2) similarly intelligent to chickens ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.583.8968&rep=rep1&type=pdf ). Furthermore, chickens 1) "probably fall about mid-range on the intelligence scale of birds" ( https://archive.ph/lkqhg ), & 2) "are intelligent animals, outperforming dogs and cats on many tests of advanced cognition. As just one example, in a study by the Silsoe Research Institute in England, researchers showed that chickens have the ability to make a conscious choice to delay gratification" ( https://issuu.com/grantjustinflowers/docs/annual_report_book ). Said study is Abeyesinghe et al. 2005 ( www.silsoeresearch.org.uk/animal-welfare/siobhan/scarticle.pdf ).

Quoting Strauss:

Why have we gone into such excruciating detail about dinosaur eggs? Because there's a particular subculture of dinosaur-watchers[...]and you may know one yourself[...]who aren't much interested in watching a live pack of Coelophysis but can while away an entire afternoon happily humming to themselves as they arrange and rearrange the Anchisaurus eggs on their mantelpiece.

Quoting Strauss:

One problem with establishing the herd behavior of dinosaurs is that there can be multiple explanations for why multiple fossil specimens happen to be discovered in the same location.

[HD-man]

My 63rd review for this thread is a positive 1 for Bakker's The Big Golden 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 for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

The best children's natural history of dinos ( www.amazon.com/review/R2INIHTO7ANTSM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (henceforth BG) is the best children's natural history of dinos. There are 2 main reasons for why I think that is, besides the fact that BG is an updated version of a childhood classic:* 1) It's the best at emphasizing the safari aspect of natural history; This makes sense given that it's authored by Bakker ( www.hmns.org/exhibits/permanent-exhibitions/the-morian-hall-of-paleontology
); 2) It's the best at reminding readers that "the dinosaur story is our story, too"; Put another way, to quote Barton ( https://foundationbeyondbelief.org/news/humanist-perspectives-connecting-children-to-nature/ ), "we're part of the natural world along with every creature great and small, plant, rock, wave, and breeze[...]We must care for our planet not just for ourselves to remain, but for all of our extended family". 1 more thing of note: My only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. "Dimetrodon and his kin" are referred to as "one-hole reptiles") & paleoart (E.g. To quote Vincent, "the cover brachiosaur[...]looks like it's had some of the skin peeled away from its face").**

*To paraphrase Paleoaerie ( https://paleoaerie.org/2013/11/26/its-big-its-golden-and-its-dinosaurs/ ), BG is the "totally updated edition" of "the classic book that most people old enough to be parents grew up on". Thus, to quote Earl Sinclair ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXiwXVrjYHc ), BG "works on two levels!"

**In reference to paleoart, google "It's a great big beautiful Golden Book of Dinosaurs".

[HD-man]

My 64th 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.

Annoyingly bad ( www.amazon.com/review/R3ONMHUZP9NE6O/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

I was originally planning on reviewing Brusatte's Day of the Dinosaurs: Step into a spectacular prehistoric world (henceforth DD) the way I usually review bad dino books. However, I then remembered that Kirkus's DD review is so perfect (especially when it comes to criticizing the paleoart & writing: www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/steve-brusatte/day-of-the-dinosaurs ) that I can't possibly top it, so I won't even try. Instead, in this review, I'll point you to Kirkus's DD review & add my own thoughts as well:
-The paleoart is annoyingly inconsistent in 2 major ways: 1) The appearance of a given environment (I.e. Sometimes, the ground is a darker color than the sky or the water; Other times, it's a lighter color; Still other times, they're so similar in color that it's hard to tell which is which); 2) The appearance of a given species (E.g. Ceratosaurus has relatively-long limbs sometimes, but more normally-proportioned limbs other times).
-The paleoart is also annoyingly outdated/abominable. This is especially apparent in the shrink-wrapped heads of 1) the sauropods like Cetiosaurus because they're also depicted with fat & shapeless bodies (See the front cover), & 2) the ornithischians like Triceratops because, despite their beaks & cheeks, even they're depicted with big exposed teeth.
-The paleoart is also annoyingly anachronistic. This is especially apparent in the "EARLY-MIDDLE JURASSIC" chapter. In it, 2 Early Jurassic North American Dilophosaurus stalk a Middle Jurassic English Cetiosaurus.*
-The "FIELD NOTES" part of each chapter reminds me of the Holtz quote below. More specifically, showing accurate skeletal reconstructions & inaccurate life reconstructions side-by-side shows how much they conflict with each other.
-In reference to the annoyingly "forced value judgements", the worst 1 is about Dorygnathus (1st, see the Brusatte quote below; Then, google "Dorygnathus tweets its way through development" for why it's the worst).
-The text is annoyingly hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight: Sometimes, it's contradicted by the paleoart (E.g. "Heterodontosaurus[...]is fluffy, covered with what look like long hairs all over its body"); Other times, it's just plain wrong (E.g. The Brusatte quote about Velociraptor; Google "The Predatory Ecology of Deinonychus" for more info).
-If you want a good alternative to DD, get Bakker's The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3526058137 ).

*Even if they did live together (which they didn't), Dilophosaurus was a predator of relatively-small prey.

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 Brusatte:

You turn your head in disgust as you put down your binoculars. There is no other way to put it: the flying animal you have seen is ugly. It kind of looks like a big furry bat. This is Dorygnathus, a type of pterosaur.

[HD-man]

My 65th 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 phylogenetic format at its best ( www.amazon.com/review/R3R6KZA4VWB8E6/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

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, a few have a phylogenetic format, including Norell's The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour (henceforth TW). The most similar example to TW I can think of is Barrett's National Geographic Dinosaurs: For 1, they're both for casual readers; For another, they're both collections of ~50 dino profiles. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why TW is so much better than most of the other examples.*

1) TW was published by 1 of the best natural history museums, the American Museum of Natural History (& thus, is extra high-quality/authoritative). I can't overstate the importance of books like TW (in conjunction with museum websites) to people like me (who can't visit those museums in person).

2) TW is more well-illustrated: Not only is TW full of great photos & drawings of fossils, but also great life reconstructions based on said fossils; Those by Mick Ellison & PNSO are especially note-worthy for obvious reasons (E.g. See Chuang/Yang's THEM: Age Of Dinosaurs, another great natural history of dinos for casual readers); 1 of my only gripes is that some of the life reconstructions are a bit shrink-wrapped &/or have too many claws (E.g. The Mononykus on the front cover & the Styracosaurus on the back cover, respectively).**

3) TW's dino profiles are more complete & in-depth: For 1, TW doesn't profile just any dinos, but ~50 of the AMNH's most well-represented dinos; For another, not only are the dinos arranged in order of when their sub-groups evolved (E.g. "Theropoda" begins with Coelophysis, a primitive meat-eater, & ends with Gastornis, a modern-style bird), but each dino is put in perspective ecologically & with its relatives (E.g. See the Norell quote); In other words, TW puts the AMNH's dinos into an evolutionary & ecological context, making it feel both personal & broad at the same time.

*Only Fastovsky/Weishampel's textbook is similarly great or better: https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Top-4-natural-histories-of-dinos-758236511

**My other gripe is a few weird bits in the writing (E.g. "These include[...]very un-crocodile-looking primitive crocodiles"). Otherwise, TW is very well-written, as you can see in the Norell quote.

Quoting Norell:

The specimen consists of a Velociraptor mongoliensis entangled with a Protoceratops andrewsi specimen. Protoceratops (see p.190) is an herbivorous dinosaur, and as an adult would have been about the size of a large pig. It was probably the ecological equivalent of the sheep that are predated on by wolves in Mongolia's rural ecosystem today. Because of the nature of preservation in these beds (see Citipati, p.100), there is strong evidence that they were buried alive. What is preserved in this instance is an adult Velociraptor seemingly in combat with a Protoceratops. The large raptorial claw is embedded in an area that would have covered the important blood vessels feeding the head of Protoceratops. Velociraptor's right arm is in its mouth, and the hand with its sharp talons is tearing the face while the forearm is being crushed. Without doubt this is the smoking gun of a predation event that happened about 80 million years ago.
Velociraptor has several characteristics that provide evidence of its close affinity to birds. It has a wishbone (see p.227), large hollow air sinuses in its skull, a swivel wrist, an S-shaped neck, and three primary toes on the foot that all face forward.

[HD-man]

My 66th 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 2 ( www.amazon.com/review/R2Z26TGSD6GSZP/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 4/5

Short version: Is Lach's I Am NOT a Dinosaur! (henceforth NOT) 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 Howard's Earth Before Us series.

Long version: Read on.

1stly, let's get this reference out of the way: "I am NOT an animal...oh wait, I guess I am...I am NOT a dinosaur!"

2ndly, NOT is mostly good, especially when it comes to having good rhymes & paper collages. I say that because, unlike most of my positive reviews, this 1 is mostly about the not-so-good aspects of NOT.

1) NOT's dinos, while mostly accurate, are a bit problematic ( https://dinodadreviews.com/2018/12/05/i-am-not-a-dinosaur/ ): For 1, the T. rex's pose is a shameless rip-off of the Jurassic World T. rex's poses ( https://wallpapersafari.com/w/Gqo62u ); For another, the Triceratops & Stegosaurus are a bit derivative of the Papo toys (which are themselves shameless rip-offs of the Jurassic Park dinos); For yet another, the parakeet is represented by 2 very different species commonly referred to as parakeets, a paper collage Psittacula krameri & a live action Melopsittacus undulatus; Also, there are 3 representative theropods & no sauropodomorphs; Why couldn't the AMNH's Brontosaurus have been featured instead of (or in addition to) their T. rex?

2) NOT's timeline is a bit too abbreviated for my liking (I.e. It begins with the Devonian Period & ends with the Pleistocene Epoch/Present Day, but skips the Carboniferous/Triassic/Paleogene Periods & the Pliocene Epoch). I think this is because the paragraphs about when the featured animals live(d) take up so much space. If so, then why not have those paragraphs in "About the creatures in this book" where they belong? Also, replace the Miocene/Pleistocene Epochs & Present Day with the Paleogene/Neogene/Quaternary Periods.*

3) NOT is annoyingly & confusingly inconsistent in terms of animal names & descriptions: In reference to names, see the Dino Dad Reviews quote; I think each animal should be referred to by both its scientific name & its common name (E.g. I am Lestodon armatus [pronunciation], a kind of ground sloth, which is a kind of mammal; More on this below); In reference to descriptions, some include size or timeline info; Others include both; Still others include neither.

4) There are no cladograms in NOT: My Guide review shows why it's important to not just tell about the science, but also show it (See reason #2: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3507230419 ); From my experience, this is especially true when it comes to what is/isn't a dino & why ( https://www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Ben-s-Phylogenetics-is-Moon-Man-Talk-654612768 ); In this case, NOT is good at telling about the science, but not-so-good at showing it given the lack of cladograms; This is especially apparent when it comes to Dimetrodon ("Although it looks like a reptile, the Dimetrodon[...]was an early relative of mammals") & Pteranodon ("Pterosaurs[...]are flying reptiles, close cousins of dinosaurs but on a separate branch of the reptile family tree").

*Neogene = Miocene + Pliocene. Quaternary = Pleistocene + Present Day.

Quoting Dino Dad Reviews ( https://dinodadreviews.com/2018/12/05/i-am-not-a-dinosaur/ ):

In some instances it refers to the featured animal by its scientific name, while referring to others by their specific popular names, while in still other instances merely applies the name of an entire taxonomic family to the individual species shown on the page. I found this inconsistency a bit confusing. For instance, why not simply refer to "Lestodon" as a giant sloth? If you've got an illustration of Glyptodon itself, why refer to it by the general family name of "glyptodont"?

[HD-man]

My 67th 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.

Bakker/Rey should remake this book ( www.amazon.com/review/R2KNMVQKGS4Q9R/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: If you want 1 of the best natural histories of dinos for older kids, get Peter Zallinger's Dinosaurs and Other Archosaurs (henceforth DO) & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved). If you want an even better version of DO, ask Bakker/Rey to remake it.

Long version: Read on.

Bakker/Rey seem to have a thing for remaking Zallinger books: 1st, they unofficially remade P.Zallinger's Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Animals (I.e. Dinosaurs! & Prehistoric Monsters!, respectively); Then, they officially remade Rudolph Zallinger's Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Reptiles (I.e. The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs). Now, I think Bakker/Rey should remake DO, partly because it's a great book that deserves more attention, & partly because they can improve upon the original. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) DO is very well-organized: After the Forward by Ostrom (who mentored Bakker) & the Introduction, the chapters are arranged chronologically, beginning with the Triassic Period & ending with the Cenozoic Era; Furthermore, the archosaurs in each chapter are arranged phylogenetically (I.e. 1st thecodonts, then saurischians [including birds] & ornithischians, & then pterosaurs & crocs).

2) DO is very complete & concise: For 1 (in reference to complete), it doesn't just cover the Mesozoic Era, but also the Cenozoic; For another (in reference to concise), it covers everything Waldrop/Loomis' Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book does plus the Cenozoic in the exact same number of pages. My only related gripes are some inconsistent/inaccurate conversions (E.g. On page 67, 40 ft is converted to 12 m in 1 paragraph & 12.4 m in another) & some inconsistent/missing descriptions (E.g. Those of Triassic theropods don't include size info; Those of Cenozoic crocs aren't included at all). If Bakker/Rey remake DO, said gripes won't be gripes: For 1, to quote Bryner ( https://news.yahoo.com/paleo-artists-breathe-life-color-dinosaurs-114332358.html ), Bakker "transformed dinosaur paleontology and reconstruction, calling it a Dinosaur Renaissance"; For another, to paraphrase Switek ( https://web.archive.org/web/20150417031258/http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/07/paleontological-profiles-rober/ ), Bakker isn't only "a working paleontologist", but also 1 of the most "effective popularizers of science".

3) DO is very well-illustrated. I can't overstate how much I like looking at P.Zallinger's DO work. The best way I can describe it is as a cross between R.Zallinger & GSPaul. My only related nit-picks are that 1) most of the terrestrial archosaurs have more-or-less the same color scheme (I.e. Orange/yellow/green stripes; This is especially apparent on the Hardcover's cover), & 2) with the exception of the multi-species scenes at the beginning of each chapter, most of the terrestrial animals look more like they're "posing for the artist" than going about their business. If Bakker/Rey remake DO, said nit-picks won't be nit-picks: For 1, Rey "is known for very colorful dinosaurs with close attention to anatomical detail" ( https://paleoaerie.org/2013/08/19/dinosaurs-the-most-complete-up-to-date-encyclopedia-for-dinosaur-lovers-of-all-ages/ ); For another, Rey's reconstructions are more realistic than P.Zallinger's (I.e. To paraphrase Switek, "[Rey's] animals run, swim, breach, flap, chomp, skitter, and lope through the landscapes, giving the viewer the impression that they're really watching a prehistoric scene rather than an obedient dinosaur posing for the artist").

[HD-man]

My 68th 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.goodreads.com/book/show/2662424-big-golden-book-of-dinosaurs ). Many thanks in advance.

The GINO of dino books ( www.amazon.com/review/R152NTPSAWTGUX/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

You know how the Godzilla of the 1998 movie "is commonly called G.I.N.O. (Godzilla In Name Only)[...]to distinguish it from the "real" Godzilla" ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/Godzilla1998 )? Despite its title, Jenkins' Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs (henceforth BG) is nothing like Watson's childhood classic or the remakes by Elting (which is decent) & Bakker (which is the best natural history of dinos for kids: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3526058137 ). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why BG is the GINO of dino books.

1) While the Watson, Elting, & Bakker books are all natural histories of dinos with a chronological format, BG is basically just another Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books) wannabe: For 1, there are many sidebars scattered all over each chapter with no apparent rhyme or reason; For another, there are many 2-page chapters scattered all over BG with no apparent rhyme or reason.

2) Remember what I said about Schwabacher's The Magic School Bus Flies with the Dinosaurs (See reason #1: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3492121242 )? The same mostly goes for BG in terms of text & writing. In fact, "How fossils form" on page 6 of BG is basically just a wordier version of "THE STORY OF FOSSILS". Furthermore, not only does BG avoid using the word "evolution", but it synonymizes "developed" with "evolved" ( www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_02.html ).

3) Remember what I said about Theodorou's I Wonder Why Triceratops Had Horns ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3493788414 )? The same mostly goes for BG in terms of paleoart. In reference to BG's "more realistic reconstructions", this is especially apparent in the abominable T. rex & the outdated Brachiosaurus on the alternative cover. The former is so abominable, in fact, that there was a "Caption Competition" making fun of it as such ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/03/caption-competition.html ).

[HD-man]

My 69th 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.

1 beautiful dromaeosaurid! ( www.amazon.com/review/R30VGMGZ7WL3V4/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short Version: At the time of publication, Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs (henceforth ED) was the best summary of the most extreme dino discoveries. Now, Rey's Extreme Dinosaurs! Part 2: The Projects (henceforth ED2) is the best. I recommend reading ED2 in conjunction with ED (which shows how far dino science & art has come in just 18 years) as well as "Luis V. Rey Blog" (which provides more info about most of Rey's ED2 work).

Long version: Read on.

As you may remember, I reviewed ED ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3513902917 ). ED2 is both a sequel & a reboot, similar to Mary Poppins Returns, but actually good. In fact, in some ways, ED2 is even better than ED. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is.

1) ED's Introduction begins with Rey's backstory ("Dinosaurs haunted my childhood") & ends with a description of ED's organization (See the 1st Rey quote). ED2's Introduction is very similar, but also very different: 1st, it not only continues where ED left off ("Ever since Extreme Dinosaurs was published almost 20 years ago, I have been intermittently involved in many publications"), but also adds to it ("When I was 10 years old, my main ambition in life was striving to live one day in my museum where people could come and discuss and enjoy science... and art!"); Then, it describes ED2's organization as a series of "more specifically themed concepts" along the line leading to "Dinosaurios Hechos En México" (See the 2nd Rey quote), similar to walking through a series of more exclusive clades along the line leading to modern animals. The differences make ED2 even better than ED: For 1, the extra backstory helps to explain ED2's organization; For another, it also adds depth to the main story without slowing it down; For yet another, to paraphrase Ben ( https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/02/26/framing-fossil-exhibits-phylogeny/ ), I'd argue that ED2's organization is "an attempt to train [readers] to look at [dinos] the way [Rey does]".

2) ED2 is more complete & in-depth than ED. In reference to "in-depth", this is especially apparent in "Project one. Dinosaur rEvolution. Secrets of survival": Rey "divided the project into two main tiers: two groups[...theropods vs. ornithischians...]and subgroups[...tyrannosaurs & "clawed enigmas" vs. thyreophorans & marginocephalians, respectively...]with different strategic paths that would encounter and battle each other all along the way"; Most of ED's chapters only briefly describe the most extreme dinos on a given continent. In reference to "complete", this is especially apparent in "Project four. Mexican Dinosaurs": Not only does it feature multiple photos of fossils like all of the other projects (including a very nice close-up of a "fossil muzzle"), but also skeletal drawings for 15 Mexican dinos (which are very incompletely known, but I digress); ED is full of great life reconstructions, but only features 2 photos & no drawings of the fossils on which they're based.

3) I couldn't say much about Rey's digital paleoart before ED2 other than that it was 1) overall not as good as his traditional paleoart, & 2) still some of the best paleoart around (See reason #1: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3486621331 ). Now that I've seen it fully progress from Dinosaurs! in 2005 to ED2 in 2019, I can say that it's just as good as his traditional paleoart. While I'll always prefer the aesthetics of the latter, the former makes up for it in the following ways, among others (Again, see reason #1):
-To quote Witton ( https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-daleks-xenomorphs-and-slasher.html ), "Completely flat, horizontal ground stretching way off into the distance seem to occur in the overwhelming majority of palaeoart scenes[...]Sure, there may be some highlands and forests as a far-off backdrops and even sometimes in the middle distance, but the animals themselves keep to flat stages without inclination or slope. What's more[...]said animals often occupy patches of bare earth without vegetation." The same goes for many of Rey's traditional paleoart scenes, but not his digital ones. This is especially apparent when you compare ED2 T. rex scenes ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/the-next-bone-of-contention/ ) to ED ones ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/svpca-in-edinburgh-most-spectacular-of-settings/ ).
-Remember "Customising a life-size Velociraptor" from ED? Not only has Rey customized even more dino models since then, but he's also blended photos of them into his paeloart scenes. Put another way, to quote Holly Stuart Hughes (in reference to "Behind the Walls by Paolo Ventura"), Rey "continues to stretch not only his imagination but the techniques he uses to bring his imagined worlds to life." This is especially apparent in "Velociraptor attacks Avimimus" ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/sneak-preview-dinosaur-revolution-embarks-in-its-first-tour/ ) as well as when comparing ED2's cover to ED's (hence the title of this review).

2 more things of note: 1) Officially, my only gripes are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Saichania is referred to as "North American" & Tarchia as its "Mongolian relative" even though both are Mongolian) & writing (E.g. "T. rex" is incorrectly pluralized as "T. rexes"); 2) Unofficially, there are MANY missing/wrong words & punctuations throughout ED2; However, I can't hold those against Rey as they're not his fault; "Since [ED2] is a very personal book that no publishing house has been able to take on board, I decided that to preserve the original concept and intention, the only way it would have been properly published is by yours truly. With your support this might become a reality" ( https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/extreme-dinosaurs-ii-the-projects/ ); The Kickstarter campaign didn't pan out, so he had to edit ED2 himself despite being neither a professional editor nor an English native speaker.

Quoting Rey:

More bizarre dinosaurs are being found all the time, all over the world. The first dinosaurs were found in Europe, the United States, and Canada. But today, China, Mongolia, Africa, and South America have become the dinosaur hunters' paradise. Let's circle the globe and see some of the most weird and wonderful creatures ever.

Quoting Rey:

The "Extreme Dinosaurs II, The Projects" chapters are not by chronological order, but by their evolutionary significance. I start with the wide-scope Dinosaur rEvolution, which is in itself my interpretation of the new evidence on dinosaur external appearance and their relationship with birds. This has been an age-old personal struggle that also was pretty evident in the original "Extreme Dinosaurs". The rEvolution is followed by more specifically themed concepts, like the Maniraptora Family Tree in "Dinosaurs Take Wing"; next is dinosaurs as living, breathing animals represented by their family behaviour in "Hatching The Past"... and finally a monograph of a rare specific fauna in one part of the world, that not only has been virtually overlooked, it has special significance to me since I grew up there: "Dinosaurios Hechos En México". And that completes the circle.

[HD-man]

My 70th 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.

1 ugly troodontid! ( www.amazon.com/review/R1D8TOUY7AACOJ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

If you want the best children's book about dino diets, get Bonner's Dining With Dinosaurs: A Tasty Guide to Mesozoic Munching (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3507230419 ). Davis' Dinosaur Dinners (henceforth DD), while not the worst, is still pretty terrible. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is, besides the confusingly-messy organization.*

1) DD is annoyingly weird & generic in terms of writing: In reference to weird, the dino self-descriptions are written like rhyming couplets, yet they don't rhyme at all (E.g. See the Davis quotes); In reference to generic, said descriptions can apply to any number of dinos (E.g. See the Davis quotes).

2) DD is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. This is especially apparent in "Meat Eaters": For 1, 37 ft/6 ft/52 ft =/= 12 m/2 m/16 m, respectively; For another, Troodon didn't just eat "small animals", but also plants; For yet another, Spinosaurus didn't have "powerful jaws". While Dr. Angela Milner is listed as the scientific consultant, that probably only applies to the 1st edition given that her own books get the same facts straight (E.g. Quoting Gardom/Milner from a 2006 book: "The course, spiky edges of troodont teeth were suited to slashing or shredding flesh, or possibly plant material").

3) DD is illustrated partly by Centaur Studios (whose models are outdated to varying degrees), but mostly by Pixel-shack: 1 thing that annoys me about their digital paleoart is that even as it gets less inaccurate, it still looks weird, but not in the same way as it used to; While their older work looks like they mashed animal images together in Ganbreeder, their newer work looks like they mashed up piles of moist modeling clay ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200923125918/www.discountschoolsupply.com/arts-crafts/dough-clay/dough-foam-dough/moist-modeling-clay-25-lbs-/p/1217 ); This is especially apparent with the large, front-facing nightmare image of Pixel-shack's Troodon on pages 6-7 ( https://archive.ph/oLIx1 ); Compare that to GSPaul's Troodon from 1988 (which is shrink-wrapped by modern standards, but otherwise accurate: https://archive.ph/jGTib ); Put another way, to paraphrase Mike Wazowski, "If you're gonna [scare kids], do it properly."

*I think DD was meant to be arranged by diet (1st carnivores, then herbivores, & then omnivores), but there are so many inconsistently-used dinos & features that it's hard to tell what the editors were going for.

Quoting Davis (in reference to Troodon, though many theropods had good eyesight):

I am a dinosaur ready for my breakfast[...]I can see you, wherever you are.

Quoting Davis (in reference to Herrerasaurus, though many theropods were fast runners):

I am a dinosaur ready for my lunch[...]I can catch you, even if you run.

[HD-man]

My 71st 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.

Dixon's best dino book ( www.amazon.com/review/R2PUKOSQNJNGTF/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: Dixon's The Big Book of Dinosaurs: A Natural History of the Prehistoric World (henceforth BB) is definitely his best (& maybe only very-good-to-great) dino book. I recommend reading BB in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long version: Read on.

Based on what I've read, Dixon is a nice guy ( https://matthewbonnan.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/now-the-circle-is-complete-or-a-belated-dinosaur-christmas-gift/ ), but a bad source of dino info. In fact, to quote GSPaul ( http://gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf ), "Dixon has a superficial understanding of dinosaur and pterosaur biology, and of their actual evolutionary patterns- i. e. he is not familiar with the technical literature, a necessity since the popular literature remains incomplete and sometimes obsolete[...]In addition, he wants to make archosaurs more mammalian than is appropriate". With that in mind, I was both worried & surprised by BB: Worried that it'd be terrible, that it'd give natural histories of dinos a bad name, & that I'd have to review it as such; Surprised that I didn't know about it sooner, that it's as great as it is, & that it's so underrated. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think BB is as great as it is.

1) BB is very well-organized: 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, as far as I know, BB is the only natural history of dinos with an ecological format; After the introductory chapters (which summarize how ecology works & how dinos evolved), BB consists of 12 chapters, each of which focuses on a different trophic group (high browsers, low browsers & grazers, big-game hunters, small-game hunters, egg-eaters, scavengers, fish-eaters, marine reptiles, flying reptiles, birds & mammals) plus unsolved mysteries & the reconstruction process. I especially like how BB's organization reminds me of some natural histories of modern animals (E.g. Attenborough's The Life of Mammals). With that in mind, you'd think it'd be a more common way to put dinos into an evolutionary & ecological context, but I digress.

2) BB was mostly accurate at the time of publication. This is especially apparent in its T. rex-related text: 1st, see the Dixon quote; Then, compare it to the T. rex-related text in "Vintage Dinosaur Art: The Age of Dinosaurs: A Photographic Record" & "Vintage Dinosaur Art: Dinosaurs: Questions & Answers", which are reviews of Dixon dino books published shortly before & after BB, respectively; As you may remember, even some expert-authored books from around the same time got the same info wrong ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3520821385 ). I say "mostly" because there are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. Ankylosaurus =/= 35 ft), but that's still pretty impressive for a Dixon dino book.

3) BB is very well-illustrated. Remember what I said about Sibbick's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth work compared to his later work (See reason #1: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3519227469 )? The same mostly goes for Kirk's BB work compared to his later work. However, Kirk's 1989 work was even more accurate for its time than Sibbick's 1985 work was for its time. Also, while I wouldn't describe the former as gritty, I would describe it as atmospheric, so much so that it reminds me of Douglas Henderson's paleoart. Kirk's Stenonychosaurus is an especially good example of that, partly because it's standing against a beautiful sunset, & partly because it has that look that birds have when they know they're being watched. Kirk's head-butting Pachycephalosaurus are another good example, partly because of how they're colored (I.e. Green & blue like Henderson's Saurolophus), & partly because of how they're wincing from the impact (as opposed to being wide-eyed like other, similar life reconstructions). You can see both dinos in Vincent's BB review ( https://chasmosaurs.com/tag/big-book-of-dinosaurs/ ). 1 more thing of note: As mentioned by Vincent, Kirk's life reconstructions are "nicely complimented by [David Nicholls's] pretty modern-looking" skeletal reconstructions.

Quoting Dixon:

The accolade of the biggest and most ferocious hunter that ever lived has always been given to the enormous tyrannosaurid Tyrannosaurus. Some 40 feet[...]long it was, towering almost 20 feet[...]high and weighing 7 tons. The skull was 4 feet[...]long and bore teeth like steak knives. The bones of the skull were quite loosely articulated, so that the skull could flex and allow the animal to swallow huge chunks of meat. Yet in the 1960s some research was done that suggested that this beast could not have been as active and ferocious as it appeared. The shape of the hips seems to show that it could have taken only very short steps and must have moved at a speed of only about 3 miles[...]per hour. The teeth seem to have been more adapted to slashing up dead meat that to killing live animals. All this suggests that mighty Tyrannosaurus was actually a scavenger, not a hunter.
On the other hand, the eyes of Tyrannosaurus were positioned so that they could focus forward. Only hunting animals have eyes like this, since this arrangement gives a three-dimensional image and allows distances to be judged accurately. The skull and neck were very robust, suggesting that they were built to withstand the shock of delivering killing blows.
All in all, it looks as if Tyrannosaurus was a hunter after all. It may have hidden in undergrowth and ambushed duckbills, killing them with a blow of its wide-open mouth. However, an old Tyrannosaurus may have been too slow and heavy for this kind of action and lived as a scavenger, feeding on the corpses of animals that were already dead.
Tyrannosaurus had ridiculously small arms, with only two fingers. They could not possibly have been used in any killing or eating function. They were probably used to help the huge animal to get to its feet after resting on its belly. A massive foot on the end of the pubis bone in its hips and a set of extra ribs along the belly suggest that it spent much of its time lying on the ground. This may have been its customary eating position. When it rose to its feet it would have done so by straightening its huge hind legs. The little arms would have prevented it from sliding along onto its face while it did so.

[HD-man]

My 72nd 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.

Maybe Dixon's worst dino book ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3748603187 ): 1/5

Dixon's If Dinosaurs Were Alive Today (henceforth ID) may be his worst dino book. The ID reviews of Vincent ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2011/11/not-vintage-dinosaur-art-if-dinosaurs.html ) and Babbletrish ( https://babbletrish.blogspot.com/2012/05 ) sum up why. In this review, I point you to said reviews and add my own thoughts as well:
-Not only is ID full of "eye-bleedingly awful CGI and Photoshoppery", but also shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions. These include the Walking With Dinosaurs Plateosaurus, Seismosaurus (= Diplodocus), T. rex, Coelophysis, Liopleurodon, Cryptoclidus, and Quetzalcoatlus (which is quite coincidental, given that Benton consulted both WWD and ID).*
-Speaking of WWD's Liopleurodon, ID didn't just rip off its appearance, but also its impossibly-large (25 m) size. To quote Martill/Naish (See Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence), "this size created much debate in palaeontological circles following the first airing of the programme, as no palaeontologist thinks Liopleurodon really got this big. Although several complete skeletons have been discovered, these are individuals of between 5 and 10 metres in length." Google "Liopleurodon - Plesiosaur Directory" for everything else we currently know about Liopleurodon.
-In reference to "the probably unintentional underlying theme of [ID]: modern day mammals are just better at everything", Dinosaurs! magazine did something similar, but at least then some thought went into the kind of environment and interspecies interactions ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2012/01/vintage-dinosaur-art-yet-more-dinosaurs.html ). As far as I can tell, no such thought went into ID. This is especially apparent in the Archaeopteryx & Baryonyx sections: For one, Archaeopteryx was a poor flier compared to most modern birds; It might as well be a flock of chickens mobbing that eagle; and don't get me started on that poorly-photoshopped lizard; For another, Baryonyx was subtropical, yet is depicted in a temperate zone; It'd be like finding coconuts in Mercia (See Monty Python and the Holy Grail).
-As expected for a Dixon dino book, ID is both textually and visually inaccurate. Even if you only read the fact files, you'll see that there's an average of at least 5 factual errors per page in ID, a 96 page book. This is especially apparent in the T. rex fact file.**
-As you may remember, I generally dislike the dino Q&A genre for 3 main reasons: 1) Redundant questions; 2) Vague answers; 3) Bad Q&As (I.e. Stupid or misleading questions and misleading or wrong answers). ID does all that & MUCH more (See "No. Unless You Count Birds." in Babbletrish's ID review).

*To quote Naish ( http://web.archive.org/web/20160917075952/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/great-dinosaur-art-event-of-2012/ ), "there are good consultants, but there are downright useless consultants". Benton may be a good consultant for technical works, but not for popular ones (E.g. Johnson's Dino Wars: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3484890895 ), which is especially apparent in ID.

**It's claimed that "about 20 [T. rex] specimens have been found in total" (More like 45), that T. rex lived 74 MYA (It didn't), that the earliest tyrannosaurids lived "during the Jurassic period" (They didn't), and that the earliest tyrannosaurids were turkey-sized (More like horse-sized). Also, under "Fossil Finds", Dixon ignores Saskatchewan, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.

[HD-man]

My 73rd 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.

Precursors of awesomeness ( www.amazon.com/review/R3202MZFDBNRQL/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: If you want the best day-in-the-life dino books, get Bakker's "Step-into-Reading" books ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3484884728 ) & read them in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs). If you want the precursors of said books, get Lessem's Special Dinosaurs series, especially Ornithomimids: The Fastest Dinosaur (henceforth OT), & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's book, especially Chapter 18).

Long version: Read on.

As you may remember, I reviewed the best of Lessem's pre-2000 work ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3478204607 ) & the worst of his post-2000 work ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3478213840 ). I could review more of Lessem's post-2000 work (E.g. His Meet the Dinosaurs series, which is basically a poorly-organized & oversimplified version of his Special Dinosaurs series), but I'd rather review more of his pre-2000 work. More specifically, I'd rather review Lessem's Special Dinosaurs series in general & OT in particular, which remind me of Bakker's "Step-into-Reading" books.* In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is.

1) Like the 1st parts of Bakker's books, those of Lessem's are very well-written. The only major difference is that Lessem's stories are more moment-in-timey than day-in-the-lifey like Bakker's. Of the 3 I've read, OT's story is the longest & most fleshed out at 2 pages of text.

2) Like the 2nd parts of Bakker's books, those of Lessem's are very good at concentrating on the science behind the stories. The only major difference is that Lessem's explanations aren't divided into chapters like Bakker's. Of the 3 I've read, OT's explanations are the least weird in terms of text & writing.**

3) Like Bakker's books, Lessem's are very well-illustrated. I can't overstate how much I like looking at Braginetz's paleoart in general & her OT work in particular. My favorite examples are as follows:
-The Gallimimus on OT's cover, especially the 1 looking towards the reader. To paraphrase Vincent ( https://chasmosaurs.com/2020/08/04/vintage-dinosaur-art-dinosaurs-and-other-archosaurs-part-2/ ), "the suitably staring, glassy eye conveys a great deal of character – in fact, [Braginetz] does seem to be especially good at eyes, an oft-overlooked aspect in making an extinct creature really appear alive."
-The multi-species scene on page 6 (which illustrates OT's story: http://web.archive.org/web/20200830071845/https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/118518297_1570032616536680_3830359226894007046_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=1orUmsDW3SUAX9tDWqB&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=0aeb7722376483ea29eab276c35b4afe&oe=5F6F6758 ). To paraphrase Vincent (Google "Vintage Dinosaur Art: Album of Dinosaurs - Part 1"), it's "dominated by looming vegetation that dwarfs the tiny[...mammal...], drawing attention to the animal while also giving the foliage plenty of space in which to show off. This is also a wonderful piece for presenting the animal as part of a much larger ecosystem".
-The ornithomimid family portrait on pages 18-19 ( https://assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/800x/14272/image.jpg ). To paraphrase Naish ( http://web.archive.org/web/20150618001836/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/great-dinosaur-art-event-of-2012/ ), "the astonishing details and thoughtful patterns and hues applied to the animals look great and pleasingly naturalistic. I especially like the [bovid]-inspired skin patterns on [her Struthiomimus.]"

*The other books in said series are Seismosaurus: The Longest Dinosaur, Troodon: The Smartest Dinosaur, & Utahraptor: The Deadliest Dinosaur. I picked OT partly because it's the best of the 3 I've read, & partly because ornithomimids don't get as much love as deinonychosaurs (which is reflected in the number of OT reviews vs. Troodon or Utahraptor reviews).

**1 weird bit in all 3 is the lack of evolution (I.e. They use the word "evolution" multiple times, but don't define it). Otherwise, OT's only weird bit is the concluding paragraph (See the Lessem quote, which contradicts what Lessem says throughout about ornithomimids only eating small animals & plants).

Quoting Lessem:

We may never know how fast Ornithomimus and its close cousins were. But if you are somehow transported back to dinosaur times, you had better hope that Ornithomimus isn't on the scene. If the dinosaur is there, hope that it doesn't look at you as lunch. Because even if you were as fast as the fastest human in the world, chances are you could never outrun an ornithomimid, the fastest dinosaur of all.

[HD-man]

My 74th 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.

More of the same old Blasing ( www.amazon.com/review/R27SC99ROOM98I/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 1/5

Short version: Remember what I said about Dixon ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3748558779 )? The same goes for Blasing. However, even Dixon's worst dino book (I.e. If Dinosaurs Were Alive Today) isn't as terrible as Blasing's Dinosaurs! My First Book About Carnivores (henceforth DM) & Dinosaurs! My First Book About Herbivores. If you want a good children's dino book with a lot of diversity & an emphasis on diet, get Bonner's Dining With Dinosaurs: A Tasty Guide to Mesozoic Munching (which I reviewed: www.goodreads.com/review/show/3507230419 ).

Long version: Read on.

Based on what I've read, Blasing is a nice guy ( http://empyricaltales.blogspot.com/2013/11/interview-with-dinosaur-george-blasing.html ), but a bad source of dino info. As you may remember, I reviewed Dinosaur George and the Paleonauts: Raptor Island ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3508825433 ) &, before that, compared another terrible book to Jurassic Fight Club ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3484890895 ). The Paleonauts series never went anywhere after 2013, so I thought Blasing gave up writing books. Unfortunately, he didn't. In this review, I list the 4 major problems with DM.

1) As expected for a Blasing book, DM's writing is annoyingly hyperbolic (E.g. See the Blasing quote) & repetitive (E.g. The fact that most tetanurans had 3 fingers/claws per hand &/or stiff tails is stated in 9 out of 25 tetanuran profiles). It's also annoyingly generic, partly because of the repetition, & partly because of the lack of diversity, especially among maniraptorans: All 4 are eudromaeosaurs &, despite "a fair degree of anatomical variation" ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2020/03/realistic-raptors-pop-culture.html ), mostly described as small, fast, bird-like pack-hunters with curved foot claws, stiff tails, & feathers; Microraptorians, unenlagiines, halzskaraptorines, troodonts, oviraptorosaurs, & alvarezsaurs are completely ignored. The repetition & genericness could've been avoided with a good glossary or cladogram that clearly defines the major theropod groups.

2) As expected for a Blasing book, DM is very hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight.* There's an average of at least 4 or 5 factual errors per page in DM, a 68 page book. This is especially apparent in the Deinonychus profile. More specifically, it's claimed that Deinonychus "used the deadly curved claws on its feet to slice open its prey" (It didn't, as indicated by Fowler et al. 2011), that "its jaws were not very strong, so it used its hands to tear off pieces of meat" (They were & it didn't, as indicated by Gignac et al. 2010 & Fowler et al. 2011), that "its tail was so stiff, it couldn't even wiggle it" (It wasn't, as indicated by Persons & Currie 2012), that it ate plant-eating dinos "of all sizes" (As a mid-size predator, it obviously didn't), & that it lived in Utah (It didn't as far as we currently know) while ignoring Montana, Oklahoma, & Wyoming.

3) As expected for a Blasing book, DM is very poorly-illustrated. I can't overstate how much I dislike looking at the Durantes' paleoart. It's 2003 Pixel-shack bad ( https://web.archive.org/web/20130521090221/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/01/02/how-not-to-keep-dinosaurs/ ), which is especially apparent in the following ways:
-1st, see the Holtz quote. Then, compare the preview pics featuring T. rex, Eoraptor, Compsognathus, Cryolophosaurus, Gallimimus, & Baryonyx to Hartman's skeletals ( www.skeletaldrawing.com/skeletal-index ).
-The scaly-skinned Compsognathus & Gallimimus alone should disqualify DM from being recommended as an educational book. Put another way, to paraphrase Holtz, "depicting a [non-tyrannosaurid coelurosaur] without feathers[...]would simply be antiscientific."**
-To quote Witton ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2019/11/book-review-luis-v-reys-dinosaurs.html ), "although other illustrators have copied Luis' once signature style of hyper-foreshortened dinosaurs, these imitators lack the flair and boldness of true Reyian foreshortening. Any artist can give you a faceful of gaping theropod, but only Luis will combine this with inflated air sacs, saturated colour schemes and some sort of crazy-complex integument." In this case, the Durantes are "these imitators". Don't take my word for it, though. Compare the front cover T. rex to any of Rey's foreshortened tyrannosaurids & see for yourself.
-The Durantes aren't just bad at anatomy & foreshortening, but also coloring (I.e. Google "Vibrance VS Saturation", which might as well be, "Rey's colors VS the Durantes' colors").
-It's also worth mentioning that at least some of the Durantes' dinos are shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. Raul Martin's Concavenator).

4) Despite Blasing's many claims to the contrary, including on page 64 & the back cover of DM, he is NOT a paleontologist ( https://svpow.com/2010/11/12/tutorial-10-how-to-become-a-palaeontologist/ ). To quote Jura ( https://reptilis.net/2008/09/14/jfc-lockjaw/ ), "qualifications are not what bug me about Mr. Blasing. It's the fact that he presents himself as being equivalent to the scientists he interviews[...]So when Mr. Blasing spouts off something patently wrong like "dromaeosaurs could breathe through their bones," or "megalodon was the size of a jumbo jet," the audience at home will come away accepting that as a fact[...]he is impersonating a professional in the field, and in the process, he is misleading the public when he talks so matter of factly about some of his subjects." In other words, DM is authored by a non-expert who, in this case, neither collaborated with experts nor did enough up-to-date personal research. As indicated by my You review ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3515814498 ), there's no excuse for that.

*Thank goodness for Molina-Pérez/Larramendi's Dinosaur Facts and Figures: The Theropods and Other Dinosauriformes. You'd think it had been made specifically for fact-checking DM. 1 of my only non-editing gripes is that not every species comes with specific info about when they lived (E.g. Some come with "lower Maastrichtian, ca. 72.1–69 Ma", while others from the same time only come with "lUC" [late Upper Cretaceous]).

**I brought this up twice when questioning/commenting on Jurassic Jabber's DM recommendation, only for it to be ignored ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Why-I-can-t-take-Jurassic-Jabber-seriously-869779717 ).

Quoting Blasing:

Ceratosaurus and Allosaurus were two deadly giant carnivores. Ceratosaurus had a blade on its nose, a horn over each eye, and long, thin upper teeth that were perfect for slicing into prey.

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.

[HD-man]

My 75th 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.

Best atLASS! Best atLASS! Thank Naish almighty...the best atLASS! ( www.amazon.com/review/R2DMUWYZ8ZXSD6/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8 ): 5/5

Short version: Davidson et al.'s World Atlas of Dinosaurs (henceforth AD) does for dino atlases what Holtz's Dinosaurs does for dino encyclopedias. I recommend reading AD in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's book).

Long version: Read on.

For as long as I can remember, I've never liked dino atlases as they've always seemed like novelty books (as opposed to real actual reference works). Then, I found out about DK's Where on Earth? Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Life (which is co-authored by Naish) & decided to give dino atlases another chance. I'm glad I did because it led me to AD (which is co-consulted by Naish). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think AD is the best dino atlas (hence the title of this review).*

1) AD is very complete & in-depth. This is especially apparent in the introductory & concluding chapters. Not only do said chapters cover much of the same background info as the introductory & concluding chapters in Holtz's book (E.g. There's a "Dinosaur guide", which is similar to Holtz's "Dinosaur Genus List"), but also go well beyond (E.g. There's a "Dinosaur quiz"; I wish more dino books tested my knowledge like that). Furthermore, almost every 2-page spread from pages 6-115 (excluding the title pages) contains a description of a website "where you can find out more about [dinos] and the places where they have been found." All of the links are at the Usborne Quicklinks Website (which is similar to Holtz's "Supplementary Information for Holtz's Dinosaurs").

2) AD is very well-organized: Like most other dino atlases, each of the middle chapters (I.e. "Dinosaurs by continent") focuses on a different continent; Unlike most other dino atlases, said chapters are actually arranged in a particular order, beginning with more Triassic/Jurassic sites & ending with more Cretaceous sites.

3) AD is very well-illustrated. This is thanks to Luis Rey & Todd Marshall. I especially like Rey's multi-species scenes on pages 32-37 (I.e. "Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous world": https://archive.ph/Ooz89 ) & Marshall's color schemes: In reference to the former, they're MUCH less crowded & more atmospheric than other, similar life reconstructions; In reference to the latter, they're a nice compromise between the more gaudy & the more subdued color schemes of other paleoartists; Marshall's "Shunosaurus and Yangchuanosaurus" on page 80 is an especially good example (See pages 80-81 in the above link); The theropod's warm colors help it "blend into the lower branches and leaf litter at the forest edges" ( www.lazoo.org/explore-your-zoo/our-animals/reptiles/green-tree-python/ ) & the sauropod's warning colors help it stand out.

If I could, I'd give AD a 4.5/5. My only gripes are that 1) some of the paleoart (I.e. That of Barry Croucher, Glen Bird, & Ian Jackson) is not-so-good (including shameless & abominable rip-offs of Rey's dinos on pages 8-9: https://archive.ph/oj2RO ), & 2) some of the writing is simplified to the point of being meaningless (E.g. See the Davidson et al. quotes; 1 of them is not like the others). Fortunately, they only make up ~1 third of the paleoart & writing in AD, respectively.

*If you don't get the reference, google "Pearls Before Swine by Stephan Pastis for June 15, 2008".

Quoting Davidson et al.:

adaptation The way a plant or animal species develops over time to suit its environment.

Quoting Davidson et al.:

evolution The development of a species over time as it adapts to its environment. The development takes place very gradually through a series of small changes.

Quoting Davidson et al.:

species A type of plant, animal or other living thing.