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

Re: DinSoc Dinosaur Encyclopedia



   Does the DS really need to repeat work done elsewhere?    I realize
having all this in one place would sure 'nuff be convenient, but perhaps it
would be better to encourage books that already have what you list below do
revised editions, rather than have a single publisher go to the expense of
re-inventing the wheel?  Perhaps a package deal on the books, bundled
together like they sometimes do with books in a series, or movies like Star
Trek and its sequels and the three Star Wars movies.

At 05:28 PM 12/28/96 -0500, steve.cole@genie.com wrote:

>1. Break down the "lineage" parts a bit more. Order, sub-order,
>and family isn't enough subdivisions. At least two more are needed.

   How about drop that completely and use cladograms?

>2. List all of the species under each genus.

   _The Dinosauria_, _Mesozoic Meanderings_.

>3. Include another sentence in most entries on how much material
>is available. Something vague like "known from a few scattered
>bones" or "known from three partial skeletons, only one with a skull"
>or something of that sort. Some of the entries have this info,
>but about half do not.

  _The Dinosauria_, _Mesozoic Meanderings_.

>4. Include Archaeopteryx.
>
>5. Would it really kill them to take 4 pages and just list
>names and give one-sentence descriptions of all of the Pterosaurs?

   Available elsewhere, probably in _The Pterosauria_ and _The Illustrated
Encyclopedia of Prehistoric Flying Reptiles_ both by Wellnhofer.  For just
the genera, visit Dinosauria On-Line.

   And yes, it might just kill them.  They'd have to pay somebody for that
research.

>6. Include Archaeopteryx.

   Hmmmmmm, I'm detecting a pattern here.

>7. Would it really kill them to take 4 pages and just list
>names and give one sentence descriptions of all the marine reptiles?

   Don't have existing references for these, if there are any.  If you wait,
though, you will soon find a listing of marine reptile genera on Dinosauria
On-Line.

   And yes, it might just kill them.

>8. Include Archaeopteryx.

   I'm sure there's a pattern here, I just can't put my finger on it......

>9. Would it really kill them to take 4 pages and just list names
>and give one sentence descriptions of the Mesozoic Birds?

   Feduccia's new book probably does this, although I personally wouldn't
trust it unless he had collaborators and a damn good editor.  For just the
genera, visit Dinosauria On-Line.

   And yes, it might just kill them.

>10. Would it really kill them to take 4 pages and just list names
>and give one sentence descriptions of the Mesozoic Crocs?

   Don't have existing references for these, if there are any.  If you wait,
though, you will soon find a listing of mesozoic croc genera on Dinosauria
On-Line.

   And yes, it might just kill them.

>11. Include Archaeopteryx and Confusciusornis.

   There's just GOT to be a pattern here....

>12. Make it loose leaf and publish update packages.

   Damn fine idea, first arrived at by George Olshevsky and his _Dinosaur
Folios_ (if he'd just quit spending all his time reading the DML).  As a
popular book, though, I don't know how well it would go over.  Pages could
be easily lost and damaged.  How would the update packages be handled?  How
do you decide what to update?  How do you convince people to buy the
updates?  There are many issues which, as a publisher, I'm sure you're aware of.

** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **