My book collection- image intensive

[HD-man]

I'll get back to you about the copyright thing

Thanks. Also, to rephrase, are any listed anywhere in the book? I originally specified the Copyright page b/c that's where I usually (but not always) see experts listed as having helped.

BTW, more dino photos is always a good thing. 

[tyrantqueen]

Hey, sorry for the delay.
I took some photos were the contributors were listed







Sorry about the flash from the camera as well. If you are considering this book, I would highly recommend it. It has tons of vintage Sibbick artwork.

[HD-man]

Hey, sorry for the delay.
I took some photos were the contributors were listed

Many thanks for getting back to me. Just 1 little problem: Those are photos of Norman's "Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs". I actually have that 1 & I agree w/you. Thats why Sibbick's my favorite nostalgic dino artist.

Anyway, I was originally asking about Parker's "Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Creatures". If you have it, I was wondering which experts (if any) are listed as having helped.

[tyrantqueen]

Oops, I don't know why I used Norman's book..I must have been asleep or something when I read that message. How embarrassing I'll take another photo of the correct book.

[HD-man]

Oops, I don't know why I used Norman's book..I must have been asleep or something when I read that message. How embarrassing I'll take another photo of the correct book.

If you also have Parker's "The Encyclopedia of the Age of Dinosaurs", I was wondering the same thing about that book.

[HD-man]

Anyway, I was originally asking about Parker's "Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Creatures". If you have it, I was wondering which experts (if any) are listed as having helped.

Oops, I don't know why I used Norman's book..I must have been asleep or something when I read that message. How embarrassing I'll take another photo of the correct book.

If you also have Parker's "The Encyclopedia of the Age of Dinosaurs", I was wondering the same thing about that book.

Sorry about the double-post. Just making sure you didn't forget.

[tyrantqueen]

Anyway, I was originally asking about Parker's "Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Creatures". If you have it, I was wondering which experts (if any) are listed as having helped.

Oops, I don't know why I used Norman's book..I must have been asleep or something when I read that message. How embarrassing I'll take another photo of the correct book.

If you also have Parker's "The Encyclopedia of the Age of Dinosaurs", I was wondering the same thing about that book.

Sorry about the double-post. Just making sure you didn't forget.

No problem. Sorry about the wait, but I finally got around to your request. I checked the book from cover to cover, but couldn't find any experts listed. Sorry

I did a reorganisation of my book collection, here they are on the shelf



Out of all the books I have, here I are the ones I considered to be "keepers". There are a couple of non related books there (about animals and animal sculpting). Also, the big stack of magazines that my AAA tortoise is sitting on is my collection of Prehistoric Times

[tyrantqueen]

Hello
I obtained a new book today- A Field Guide to Dinosaurs by Henry Gee and Luis Rey. Basically, this book is a description of various dinosaur species (organised by time period) with some All Yesterdays styled speculation thrown in.

I actually really enjoyed this book. In particular, two dinosaur descriptions intrigued me. The first described Acrocanthosaurus as an unintelligent, bad smelling scavenger that gave birth to live babies  It is truly bizarre.

The second one was Psittacosaurus, which was described as having venomous tail quills, an idea that I had never really considered before.

Some photos, if you are curious.

[Gwangi]

It looks like an interesting book and the illustrations look good but I don't know how I feel about such wild speculation. I don't mind educated speculation but just stating something because it sounds good I'm not on board with. I assume a great deal of people will assume this book is educational and speculating that Psittacosaurus had venomous quills or Acrocanthosaurus gave birth to live young is a bit too liberal to my liking. Basically, as a fun read I could probably enjoy it but it does not look like a resource I would use in educating someone about these animals. Thanks for sharing though, I might have to pick it up just for the sake of curiosity.

[tyrantqueen]

It looks like an interesting book and the illustrations look good but I don't know how I feel about such wild speculation. I don't mind educated speculation but just stating something because it sounds good I'm not on board with. I assume a great deal of people will assume this book is educational and speculating that Psittacosaurus had venomous quills or Acrocanthosaurus gave birth to live young is a bit too liberal to my liking. Basically, as a fun read I could probably enjoy it but it does not look like a resource I would use in educating someone about these animals. Thanks for sharing though, I might have to pick it up just for the sake of curiosity.

Thanks for the comment. I see your point about the wild speculation, and I agree with it mostly. I think it's a hard balance to maintain. I don't think that it's possible to restore an extinct animal without a least some speculation, but it is definitely possible to go overboard and make claims that you can't substantiate.

What was your opinion on All Yesterdays, by the way?

I hope you pick it up actually, I would be interested in your thoughts.

[Gwangi]

I wish I could say but I have not yet gotten a copy of "All Yesterdays".  I have seen a good deal of the artwork from the book and most of it is thought provoking but still seems grounded in reality. Things like display structures, omnivorous ceratopsians and puff-ball Leaellynasaura all seem reasonable to me. Dinosaurs are related to birds and more distantly, other reptiles so it makes sense that they would have color vision and brilliant display structures or colors. Just look at the bony structures some dinosaurs had...plates, spikes, horns etc. They were clearly visual animals. I don't know if the book had any but the notion of ceratopsians eating meat I find interesting because lets face it...not all dinosaurs would have been pure herbivores or carnivores. Ceratopsians seem like a likely candidate for being an omnivore so that is a notion that intrigues me and gets me thinking. Leaellynasaura lived in a cold environment and we know many dinosaurs had feathers and fuzz, it does not seem unreasonable to think Leaellynasaura did too.

And that is what separates good, educated speculation from pure fantasy. There are no venomous archosaurs we're aware of and among living reptiles only snakes and a few lizards are venomous so why would we think dinosaurs were venomous? Sure, it is not impossible but there is zero evidence for it, it just looks good on paper. Something more realistic and interesting to me would be the notion that perhaps Psittacosaurus rubbed the juices of toxic plants or animals on its quills in order to make itself toxic? Maybe Psittacosaurus ate toxic fruit and therefore it was toxic itself? There are living birds and mammals for which these examples exist. At least make a reasonable argument for your speculation rather than just look at the quills and say "lets make those venomous". As for live birth, I see zero reason to speculate that any dinosaur gave birth to live young. Especially a genus so random as Acrocanthosaurus.

Good speculation makes you stop and think about what you thought you knew. It applies believable characteristics to animals based on clues in their anatomy or relatedness to living forms. Educated speculation and fantasy is a fine line to walk for sure but when done well it really makes you stop and think and although I have not read it I believe "All Yesterdays" probably achieves that.

[tyrantqueen]

Probably the most extreme examples I can think of from All Yesterdays are:

1. Stegosaurus mating with a sauropod, and a graphic depiction of its large, prehensile....um organ
2. Opisthocoelicaudia being aquatic and living in a swamp
3. Citipati having genitalia like a duck's.

And there are artists who have depicted sauropods and ankylosaurs with feathers, directly inspired by All Yesterdays

Sorry about the explicit words, I don't want to offend anyone, but that is what the book depicts

Btw, I found your criticism of this book rather insightful. I am glad that I have both books, so I can observe what is bad speculation, and what is good

[Gwangi]

Probably the most extreme examples I can think of from All Yesterdays are:

1. Stegosaurus mating with a sauropod, and a graphic depiction of its large, prehensile....um organ
2. Opisthocoelicaudia being aquatic and living in a swamp
3. Citipati having genitalia like a duck's.

And there are artists who have depicted sauropods and ankylosaurs with feathers, directly inspired by All Yesterdays

Sorry about the sensitive comments, I don't want to offend anyone, but that is what the book depicts

Btw, I found your criticism of this book rather insightful. I am glad that I have both books, so I can observe what is bad speculation, and what is good

I have only seen the Stegosaurus picture out of those you mentioned and yeah...it is a bit out there. That said, attempted matings between species is not unheard of, nor is a large prehensile penis (though that one is particularly large). I'm not sure what the motivation was for creating that piece and it is a bit "in-your-face" about the whole thing. I think the concept is interesting but the execution a bit tasteless. I feel like it was created more to add shock value to the book than to attempt outside-the-box thinking. That said, I do applaud anyone willing to touch on such sensitive subject matters. William Stout did much the same back when he illustrated his book "The Dinosaurs" back in 1981. He had drawings of dinosaur matings and even one of a Plateosaurus I believe it was, defecating. In more recent times there is even a museum mount of two Tyrannosaurus mating. I like that stuff, not because I'm a pervert or anything but because it reminds us that dinosaurs were animals that did more than just eat and fight with each other.

I would be interested in seeing the other two pieces you mentioned, in particular the Citipati one (as I think about it I realize I may have seen it). As far as I know the reproductive system of ducks is pretty unique in the animal kingdom (correct me anyone if I'm wrong) and simply transplanting the genitals of one animal onto another seems like lazy speculation with an aim geared more towards shock value.

Swamp bound sauropods don't interest me, we still seem to have trouble getting rid of that meme. If you're going to do that I would hope the artist would at least have some justification for it. Almost seems like backwards thinking.

[tyrantqueen]

I won't post the Citipati pic here, but here is a link to it via another site http://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/citipati.jpg

To anyone reading this conversation- do NOT click if you're offended by animal genitalia. You have been warned.

I think the justification for the amphibious sauropod was something to do with its unorthodox anatomy....at least by sauropod standards.

[Gwangi]

Alright, I have seen that Citipati picture before. It looks exactly like the picture of the duck penis I've seen many times before. For that reason alone this piece looks uninspired. I'm not going to dismiss it as a bad piece but it looks like one of the weaker additions to the book. Basically that is what the illustrator has done, tack on a duck penis to a dinosaur. I mostly don't like it because I don't like it when artists try so hard to make an extinct animal look like a living one that they end up copying that animal all together. Be it a duck penis on a Citipati or a Velociraptor painted to look like a heron (Luis Rey). I like it when people take inspiration from living animals and apply it to extinct ones but not when they all out transfer the look of that animal. I can always tell what the source animal was and that ruins the image.

[tyrantqueen]

MOAR BEWKS





I finished reading through Sea Dragons a couple of days ago, and I really liked it. I am glad I picked it up, so thanks to Gwangi for the recommendation. I don't have Seas of Kansas yet, but if it is as good or better than Sea Dragons, I'll be a happy camper

If you would like to see inside any of these books, ask and ye shall receive

[Gwangi]

Great pick ups and I'm glad you liked "Sea Dragon". How is that Encylopedia? I've been eye balling that one for a long time.

[tyrantqueen]

Great pick ups and I'm glad you liked "Sea Dragon". How is that Encylopedia? I've been eye balling that one for a long time.

I haven't read through it much yet, but flicking through it, I like it. Some parts of it are technical (like the entries discussing osteology) but most of it is accessible.

The entries probably aren't as exhaustive as The Complete Dinosaur, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, since this book had to be condensed down for an encyclopedia like format.

Here's a peek at the inside (sorry about the camera glare):

[tyrantqueen]

I received Oceans of Kansas today. I have to say that my first impressions were that it looked pretty good. The paintings look amazing, particularly the one of Globidens. It looks like a photograph.

However, I still prefer Sea Dragons because it concentrates more on marine reptiles, and not ones limited to one geographical area (Kansas). Just personal preference, no disrespect the author or anyone else.

[tyrantqueen]

I have two new books. Maybe they're not 100% connected to dinosaurs, but are relevant in certain ways.



I bought Dogs because I am a big dog lover (and they're the only mammalian lineage that I'm interested in learning more about, I'm not a big mammal fan in general...) Scenery for Model Railroads, Dioramas & Miniatures I bought because I thought it would come in useful.