I'll tell you up front, I wasn't kidding when I said this was the most frustrating of all the books I've reviewed for Retro-Paleoart Month. There may be some foul language ahead. The awful, awful full title of the book in question is Raptors! The Nastiest Dinosaurs, and it's written by Don Lessem, published in 1996 by Little, Brown and Company.
What'd I tell ya?
For those wondering what the big deal is, the maniraptors throughout the book - and this is especially remarkable when you read the introduction and find that the whole impetus is "Jurassic Park" - are exhaustively researched and anatomically accurate. The book does not do the usual "F*** it; let's just copy 'Jurassic Park' again" approach, nor does it contain a single 80's HMNH style maniraptor (big and burly, huge head, skinny little kangaroo hands), like we've been seeing all month. This is unspeakably refreshing. My gosh, they have propatagia (that gross tendon-thing on the leading edge of the wing you're not sure whether you should eat or not). They have propatagia!!!
There's just one tiny little problem...
All of the Maniraptors are bare-ass naked.
And that's a damn shame. A big, damn shame. Because the art is really really good. The painter went all out in making his 'raptors as avian as possible, posing them like badass birds of prey. And then no feathers. Not a stitch (or filament, whatever.)
The "fun" begins right on the front cover. I mean, what do you even do with a book like this? What do you...
Hold the gorram phone. David Peters?!? David PETERS?!?!? Holy crap, David Peters! David Peters, you magnificent bastard!
And yes, it is THAT David Peters (as per a helpful comment in the Nemo Ramjet piece I am about to link to in a couple of paragraphs)! Hahaha, oh, WOW, David Peters...
Hoo. Okay. Some of you probably do not know who David Peters is; I will tell you.
David Peters was once a very accomplished dinosaur artist, but today he no longer paints much. He is now notorious for having some theories about pterosaur anatomy and biology that are... very different. Many would argue that they approach the "This no longer looks like an actual animal that could have actually existed on this planet" level of different. Interpretations of his theories can be seen here and here. Have a strong drink ready.
So now that we know who illustrated the book, that makes some of the maniraptor appearances... more confusing, really. See, Peters' rather controversial methods include interpreting every little mark or stain surrounding a fossil animal as *part* of the animal.
So why is Archaeopteryx naked? Archaeopteryx, the one feathered raptor even the scaly raptor fanboys can't deny. WHY IS SHE NAKED?!? Why why why?
OK, I can't bear to bang my head against the desk anymore, so lets just end here with the funniest illustration in the book:
"Aw! I just bit Marvin in the face!!!"
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: The PaleoKing has a major update relevant to this blog post and I will not ruin the fun by explaining any further. Go there now, dear reader! (And now I have more books to look for.)
ANOTHER UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: Oh Em Gee, just... just read the comments. ----
Sketch of the Day!
Well, older art. Since it needs to be emphasized:
Teal Deer: Naked 'raptors look stupid. They do. You B.A.N.D. types need to get over it. (Addendum: I love you, Pristichampsus.)
(Although looking at this piece, which I dashed off while in kind of an emotional state, I may have to do the George Lucas thing to it...)
----
Other Person's Art of the Day!
Phil Tippet has a YouTube Channel, and he has been sharing some of his early "Go Motion" work. One of his best-loved recent uploads is "Prehistoric Beast", which Tippet made to basically show off what he can do with metal, foam rubber, and plastic flowers. This is the first time I've seen this piece in it's entirety and... wow... WOW!
Additionally, some of the stop-motion work of the Chiodo brothers (they're best known for the all-too-brief analogue animated sequences in "Elf") has popped up on YouTube. This sequence is from an educational videotape called "Son of Dinosaur", and it is pretty much the cutest thing ever.
Squee! I want one!
----
Announcement: Boston Comicon is this weekend!
Yeah, I think I'm ready for it. I'm not sure when the next update will be, which is why the last few posts have been rather "meaty". Wish me luck!
And today, finally, 80's dinosaur goodness from that awkward era of paleoart immediately following the publication of Dinosaur Heresies. And I didn't realize this until just now, but knowing that Dougal Dixon had his hands in this book helps to explain certain... oddities in The New Dinosaurs. To wit, classification:
Let's zoom in a little:
Note that the little Theropods don't even appear to be related to the big Theropods at all (at least the arrow that leads "to Birds" is very definitely emerging out of those little theropods). Look close and you'll also see what can only be described as a "retro" Iguanadon and a couple of sauropods in the classic space-saving "neck curled back over body, tail curled forward beside body" pose (can anyone from SV-POW who may happen to read this let me know if that is even anatomically possible?)
Before the dinosaur section really gets rolling, we get these two skeletal drawings to explain Ornithischians and Saurischians. Oh gosh, those tails...
So here's our first group of, er, "Small Carnivorous Dinosaurs". Elaphrosaurus was thought to be some kind of early Ornithomimid back then.
And then, things get weird:
80's Maniraptors! I'm gonna say it. I'm gonna say it. Naked maniraptors look stupid. And note the improbably skinny little kangaroo hands on Deinonychus.
And WTF is Baryonyx doing there? Why is he on all fours? Man, no wonder people were surprisingly likely to confuse spinosaurs and pelycosaurs back then.
Except...
Except here's Spinosaurus, and he is apparently a close relative of Acrocanthosaurus. Because they both have big spines, you see. Also, it looks like they are both Tyrannosaurs, because they are large.
What?
Here's another big, burly Dilophosaurus, in among his fellow large Carnosaurs (including a really Kaiju-esque Ceratosaurus). Anyone know what the deal is with these burly Dilophosaurs?
A very 80's Allosaurus. Very, very different from what we're used to now, but every big theropod in this book looks essentially like this; no cool horn bosses or feather spikes or bright colors or anything.
That's not to say the whole dinosaur chapter is a gauntlet of Real is Brown. Now, normally the feathered maniraptors would be the only animals to be colorful. But since Birds is Birds, there's no potential for Sparkleraptor sightings.
Instead, we get Sparkleornithischians:
So pretty! I like the tie-dye patterns on the hadrosaurs. Also note that little "insert back of horn here" notch on Parasaurolophus.
There's nothing half as exciting as that in the rest of the chapter. This Triceratops looks a little odd to my eyes. Like a *just* borderline McLoughlin-ceratops.
You can almost hear her crying, "Oh for goodness sake, the readers know that!"
So basically, The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals is a good book for the time it was written. Oddly, the Encyclopedia was published again in 1999 under the title The Simon and Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures. And this new book contained several new illustrations... but only for newly included animals. Everyone got the same illustrations as in the older book and mostly the same text (Baryonyx is even still a "raptor"). Kind of a cheap move for a book that deserves a fully revised and updated edition.
----
Once again, I visited the local library. Once again, I came back home with some dinosaur books from the awkward age of paleontology maybe right before the dinosaur Renaissance was picking up speed.
Therefore, I declare April to be 80's (and some 90's) Paleoart Month! Each week, two posts will focus on one or more dinosaur books (or perhaps other things...) from this era, and the third will focus on something totally different having nothing to do with dinosaurs at all (ie, Monday's Disney short post; start taking bets on whether we'll see our first gardening post of the year this month). Because -can you believe it- not everyone is interested in old dinosaur art! Some people don't even care about dinosaurs at all! Can you imagine! This week's book is a seminal work called A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The First Complete Guide to Every Dinosaur Now Known. It's copyright 1983 by Diagram Visual Information, Ltd. and written by David Lambert. The book is illustrated by (hang on to your hats) Joe Robinson, Grahame Rosewarne, Sean Gilbert, Ashley Haddock, Brian Hewson, Richard Hummerstone, Janos Marffy, Eitetsu Nozawa, Max Rutherford, and Jerry Watkiss. There is, sadly, no indication whatsoever as to what artist drew what illustration. All the illustrations are pretty generic anyway, but there are some interesting sights to see indeed.
Please note that, as with many books you'll see this month, this is a very, very old library book that looked like it had been through a lot. I didn't want to risk "killing" it in my scanner so I relied on my camera instead. I apologize if some of the images are blurry. They're all at Flickr (contributed to the wonderful Vintage Dinosaur Art pool of course) so you can click them for larger versions.
I'm including the Table of Contents because they can stand as proof of a very weird old paleontological trend. You might remember back in my revisiting of Dougal Dixon's The New Dinosaurs, that it was pretty much taken as a given that all large theropods were thought to be related and all small theropods were thought to be related. But not to each-other, I mean; they were thought to be two completely separate groups of animals. (Imagine if house cats and foxes were considered to be closer relatives of each-other than to lions and wolves.) Now you see this strange trend in action. Also note that Herrerasaurus is classified as a Prosauropod?!
One of the "highlights" of this book is that you can make a drinking game out of every drawing that appears to have been traced off a more famous piece of paleoart. Yeah... say what you will about Greg Paul's recent tantrums, but when you look at art like this, you see the man has a point. This is the single most obvious rip-off. Than again, Charles R. Knight gets stolen from all the time.
John C. McLoughlin... not so much. It is kind of funny how his very weird, fringe-ish theory about Triceratops is even acknowledged though. And if I may tangent into speaking of weird theories...
I don't think this image of Stenonychosaurus (now known as Troodon, though friends call him Mr. Conductor XD ) is a rip off any particular piece, but only because this is basically the default 80s!Troodontid illustration.
But wait, what's that in the corner? Is that... Oh God dammit. Oh no...
Why? What the eff is this even doing in here? Stupid goddamn anthropocentric alien-thing, what the hell?
OK, seriously. It's surprising how often you see the Dinosauroid, Dale Russel's stupid stupid "thought experiment", appearing in otherwise fairly serious (if wildly outdated) 80's dinosaur books. Imagine seeing a random and not-elaborated-upon-at-all line drawing of an imagined steampunk airship (with maybe a tiny line about "this is what air travel COULD have been like") in an otherwise fairly serious guide to the history of flying vehicles and you have an idea of how jarring this is.
Dang, I need a drink... oh, hey! It's our old buddy Syntarsus! Oh, it's wonderful to see you again, ol' pal ol' friend ol' buddy ol' person we are on a first-name basis with! For the curious, the text simply says something about how some scientists think it had "feathery scales". Yeah. Also, they actually say that their drawing is "after Bakker". Huh.
This is getting a little lengthy, so I'll end this post with a Protoceratops that looks distinctively William Stout-ish...
And your favorite and mine, the amazing Kiss-guanodon! We'll continue exploring the Field Guide on Friday. If you can't stand the wait, hit the "Hilariously Outdated Paleoart" tag below. Additionally, and by a happy coincidence, Dinosaur Tracking has a series of posts on dinosaur comics from around this same time, and Art by Angie praises the beauty of Hadrosaurs.
I know next to nothing about early mammals. There, I was honest. I can lecture you into oblivion when it comes to the natural history of birds (thank you, Gregory S. Paul and your beautifully illustrated doorstopper), but when it comes to our furry little titty-sucking (record-scratch sound effect)
Concerned Parent: "OH MY GOD SHE DIDN'T JUST SAY THAT CHILDREN COVER YOUR EYES WAAAARRRGAAAARBLLLLZ!!!!!"
Yes I did just say that. Because we are going to be talking about mammals. And I know this is going to blow your mind if you are the kind of person who thinks the split-second sight of a breast is going to corrupt your children (even after they spent the better portion of their babyhood attached to one), but the one defining characteristic of mammals, the one thing that separates us from all other animals, it isn't the hair, it isn't the live-bearing of our young, it is the mammary glands. Deal with it.
Aaaaa-nyway, when it comes to our furry, titty-sucking forebears, I am totally clueless. This is not entirely for lack of trying: There are hardly any good books at all about "proto-mammals" (which I know is an old term, but a lot of people grew up with seeing it when this subject was ever brought up, so I'm only using it so more people will know WTF I'm talking about). Most people have only ever heard of Dimetrodon and the majority of them think that thing is a dinosaur anyway, because if your skeleton is on display at Harvard Museum of Natural History, you're a dinosaur, right? (No, really. I have overheard as much.)
Enter our old friend John C. McLoughlin, he of the unique and often very nice pen and ink illustrations and, err, equally unique ideas about the anatomy and behavior of prehistoric creatures. Published in 1980 by Viking, in the wake of the far, far better-known The Archosauria, The Synapsida is an attempt to tell the complete story of mammals. Turns out it's a very interesting story, though unfortunately I am unable to call B.S. or not on some of McLoughlin's claims (though it turns out that the "Walking With Whatever" writers weren't the first to come up with venomous synapsids).
But what we're really here for are the illustrations. And McLoughlin's draftsmanship is phenomenal, even when the animals he is drawing aren't the prettiest things:
Venyucovia here might give us a hint as to why you don't see scads of kid's books, stuffed animals, big Hollywood movies, and cartoons of questionable educational content about Synapsids. By now, we know how to make dinosaurs "cute", what the heck do you do with this thing?
Undaunted, McLoughlin introduces us to all the strange creatures at the base of our family tree. I mean it when I say ALL of them. His history of mammals starts with early Chordates and doesn't stop until we hit humans. And humans, by the way, are bastards.
Really, that's the strangest thing in the book. McLoughlin wears his politics right on his sleeve, and seems almost ashamed that the majestic beasts he chronicles in the book gave rise to us. Here's an example of how jarring this can get:
Subtlety is not one of McLoughlin's strong suites. There's another odd moment where he describes the fascinating story of the Pelycosaur, Cotylorhynchus, the world's first very large herbivorous four-legged animal. It was able to survive in a colder climate than any of the animals that could have preyed on it. The animal in question is a big, monstrously fat critter with a disproportionately tiny head and nothing at all to worry about. McLoughlin invites America to look at the horrors of our inevitably morbidly obese future when viewing his illustration of the unsuspecting beast.
Um... so, Dimetrodon!
Aww, look how ugly-cute he is! Here with Edaphosaurus who, it turns out, isn't a close relative at all (though they are both Pelycosaurs)! See, I never knew that because my childhood books couldn't be bothered to spend more than two pages on these guys.
Speaking of ugly-cute, here is a confusingly-named Dromosaur (not to be confused with those more famous guys with the fluffy feathers and the large talons). McLoughlin informs us that this little fellow has been discovered preserved in a sleeping position with his tail wrapped around his body. Given that McLoughlin was one of the first paleoartists to illustrate theropods with feathers, I'm honestly surprised he didn't give this guy a coat of fur.
Fact is, fur doesn't appear at all until late in the book. Even then, all we get are a few whiskers at first:
Again, I don't know very much about these animals. I have no idea if there have been any skin impressions found from them. I can't begin to guess where hair would have first appeared on mammal-like creatures in the fossil record. It seems this Thrinaxodon would be a good candidate for being furry, so it's very strange to see McLoughlin restore him naked.
Or... maybe that's just how McLoughlin renders fur; through stippling? Take a look at this... animal... we'll call him Generic Cenozoic Critter:
Yeah.
All in all, The Synapsida is not the strange ride that is The Archosauria, but it is definitely a worthwhile read. You will, at the very least, learn about some very fascinating animals you may have otherwise never heard of.
----
Feederwatch Friday! I forgot to do this last week, but I've been sick:
I sat down at the computer after setting up the TREE, covered in sap and bruises and scratches, when what to my wandering eye should appear but a Bad Santa Gallery! Numbers 7, 24, and 25 are my favorites. (Some NSFW ads.)
Here are doodles I drew while watching the Quincy Christmas Parade. And being violently sick (my sinuses are still painfully dry, but I am otherwise feeling much better).
John C. McLoughlin's epic popular biological science book, The Tree of Animal Life: A Tale of Changing Forms and Fortunes! Published in 1981 by Dodd, Mead, and Company. And it is indeed epic. In this book, McLoughlin is going to do no less than tell us the entire history of animal life on Earth.
Now, I'll admit I don't know enough about animals in general to call B. S. on some of McLoughlin's claims here. Then again, nothing stands out as particularly weird. As the title graphic implies, the book is heavy on the concept of Convergent Evolution. We also have a McLoughlin Butthead-ceratops right on the title page. There's another a little later on in the book:
A little different from the iconic Archosauria image, but still pretty weird.
Right off the bat, I like how McLoughlin writes out my Linneus Rant so I don't have to:
McLoughlin's own pointillism ink drawings are back. As in Archosauria, they are quite lovely, like this rather sprightly Rhamphorhynchus:
Certainly, McLoughlin spends a lot of time in the Mesozoic era. But he does take a while in ancient times as well. Here are some rather odd-looking Opabinas. (Read that again: Odd-looking Opabinas. For those who do not know what an Opabina is, it's essentially a real-life Starfish Alien. From Earth. They looked very weird, but a little different from this illustration.)
In Archosauria, I was unspeakably happy to see that nearly every small-ish theropod in the book was drawn with a fine coat of feathers. Strangely, even though this book is relatively more recent, McLoughlin ditches this trend entirely. And he gets Deinonychus and Deinocheirus confused:
You may need to click for big, but yes, he refers to the dromeosaurs in this drawing as Deinocheirus. To be fair, there was an odd time in the 80's where any dinosaur with large talons would be lumped in with the dromeosaurs. That's why your old copy of the used-to-be-seminal Simon and Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures (I will eventually get to that one) has Baryonyx in among the 'raptors.
And that's... that's not a Quetzalcoatlus. (But again, to be fair, there wasn't much good evidence of Azhdarchids back then. Some reconstructions could get... weird.)
Since McLoughlin was an early champion of feathered theropods, you may wonder what his take on Archaeopteryx would look like. Well, it looks like this:
With crazy hands and a bonus Syntarsus. I love blog posts where I come up with five or six other possible posting subjects while writing. The strange history of the critter called Syntarsus in paleoart might be one.
McLoughlin ends the book with the appearance of humans on the animal life playing field. And... it turns out he is an illustrator like myself who may do well to avoid drawing people altogether:
Then again, the look on the guy on the right. It's on the very border of hilarious and horrifying.
Last year, I did a brief post on forgotten Christmas specials and lamented that there was very little evidence online that Ralph Bakshi's "Christmas in Tattertown" ever existed. This year, a Google search turned up... slightly more information. I'm still hunting around for the complete special, but at least I can point to the clips in this montage of odd Christmas moments from specials (with possibly the greatest musical accompaniment imaginable) and say I wasn't making it up:
---- I have no idea if this is for real or not, but here is more evidence that George Lucas needs someone to tell him, "No." EDIT: And bullet dodged. Thank goodness there are lines he will not cross. (Now a really nice Christmas present would be some assurance that Robert Zemekes will not be allowed on the same continent as wherever "Who Discovered Roger Rabbit" is being made and that his motion capture remake of "Yellow Submarine" has sunk...) ----
Sketch of the Day! This kinda has to do with the content of this book:
