[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: Glut's Encyclopedia
> Regarding Glut's work, I definitely do _not_ suggest that anyone
>buys his "Dinosaur Dictionary". My relatives bought this for me, thinking
>it would be a good addition to my little library. It was supposedly
>written in 1972, but there is such a lack of information, the reader
>feels like saying "To hell with this", and picking up a Golden Book on
>dinosaurs. There is no mention of Deinonychus (which was a sixties
>discovery), all the photos and diagrams are of the old plodders ( T rex
>even has three fingers ), and the entry on Velociraptor reads :
> A coelurosaur, with some megalosaurian features.
>Compared to a lot of other texts available at the time, this was a poor
>effort. I like his Transformers script "The Primitives" even better.
Despite what Marcus said above, I strongly suggest that people DO buy the
book, if they can afford it. Since it was written at the beginning of the
Dinosaur Renaissance, many of the new discoveries were not included. Yes,
by today's standards, it is very out of date, but it was still the first of
its kind. Remember, there weren't very many other good books out at this
As for some of you particular comments:
Deinonychus was first published in 1969, but did not recieve widespread
attention until the mid-1970s. (Remember, this was before the days when a
new dinosaur genus got on the front page fairly often). The text was
written before the Cloverly dinos received their final names. The discovery of
complete Velociraptors postdates the writing of the book, and Glut described
the critter just as Osborn and others had since the 1920s.
So, go easy on him. The new book will be MUCH better.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742