[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Hopefully not much more on Dragons

>I don't buy Tom Holtz' claim that the dragons of medieval literature don't
>really resemble dinosaurs.  Look at any good collection of medieval paintings
>of saints slaying dragons.  You'll note two different common body patterns,
> one of which is more-or-less therapod (with wings,  usually),  while the
>other is sauropod (either without wings or with very small wings.)  You won't
>see very many of the snake-like bodies in the European depictions.  --Merritt
>Clifton,  editor,  ANIMAL PEOPLE.

Let's put it this way - medieval illustrations do not resemble the
specimen-based, technical well-executed scientific restorations of such
people as Hallett, Paul, Carpenter, etc.  The medieval illustrations DO
resemble the poorly-drawn illustrations drawn by people (most of whom
apparently had no anatomical training) that populate most dinosaur books
prior to 1980 or there abouts.  However, the pre-1980 illustrations were
probably inspired by medieval dragon paintings (I remember an Anchisaurus
drawing in a children's book that was particularly draconic), and not the
medieval paintings based on dinosaur fossils.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.                                   
Vertebrate Paleontologist in Exile                  Phone:      703-648-5280
U.S. Geological Survey                                FAX:      703-648-5420
Branch of Paleontology & Stratigraphy
MS 970 National Center
Reston, VA  22092