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

Re: Tonight show Zuniceratops



Brian, et al:

    When I said the brachiasaur was Charles Knight-ish, I was referring to
the pose (It does look very bloated).  And by saying the _Iguanodon_ was
slightly more modern, I meant - more modern than the Knight drawings -
certainly not even close to our current view of the animal today (or at
least my understanding of the current view - based on the Norman's work on
_Iguanodon_).  It's obvious that the Tonight Show went with old,
copyright-free, cost-free pictures -  like they can't afford a couple of
hundred bucks or so for using someone's modern pictures (or even buying them
outright)!

    Thanks for answering my question concerning the _Zuni_ drawing - it
seemed to me at the time that it was a more or less generic ceratopsian -
glad that Greg was able to put something together that looks at least
reasonably accurate (given the sketchiness of the original material).

    Allan Edels

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Franczak <franczak@ntplx.net>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Tonight show Zuniceratops


>Allan Edels wrote:
>
>> I saw the segment as well. Was the drawing of _Zuniceratops_? -
>> Or some other ceratopsian being passed off as _Zuni_?
>
>_Zuniceratops_ is not known from a lot of material, unfortunately, and
>Greg Wenzel's illustration is, admittedly, somewhat speculative. It
>should be known, however, that Greg based his illustration on a
>description of the type specimen supplied by Jim Kirkland. Given the
>rather sketchy nature of the _Zuniceratops_ material, Greg did, in fact,
>balk at painting it, but faced with the choice of either doing it
>himself or the possibility of a less-informed person supplying the
>illustration, he reluctantly took the job. If and when more of the skull
>(particularly the squamosal) of _Zuniceratops_ is found, our
>understanding the animal will change, as will our concept of its life
>appearance.
>
>> The brachiasaur was somewhat Charles Knight-ish, and the Iguanodon was
>> slightly more modern.
>
>Sorry to have to be contrary, Allan, but neither of these statements
>holds water. The "brachiosaur" was a bloated caricature that resembled
>nothing so much as a balloon from the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade;
>there was no similarity in either form or style to any work by Charles
>Knight. And as for the "Iguanodon" appearing "slightly more modern",
>even with the qualifier "slightly" I fail to see how you can say this,
>as it was depicted standing upright in the traditional (physically
>impossible) bent-tail Burian pose, a pose that went the way of the
>dinosaurs (pun intended) quite a number of years ago.
>
>Brian (franczak@ntplx.net)
>http://www.paleolife-art.com
>