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

New Scientist and Popularization

Bruce Shillinglaw reported:

<...article from New Scientist on the work of Sereno,
Coria, & others:

  Please note I do not hold Bruce in anyway
responsible for mistakes in the article.

  Reading this piece, "Here be monsters" by Graham
Lawton recapitulates my position on how even simple
popular transcription of scientific data can be
horrendously mutated into something not even vaguely
resembling the original form. No, it's not a review of
the neo-B movie "Carnosaur."

  I have very little problem with Lawton's piece, it's
surprisingly comprehensive ... it's the art.

  For instance, the "dinosaur" head in the first
figure has been obviously based on a crocodile's jaws,
and as such it can by context be taken as
*Suchomimus.* Problem ... the artist apparently never
saw the skull itself. Heard the phrase "crocodile-like
dinosaur" and _boing!_ out comes this monstrosity that
looks like a well-done set of jaws with a more
"dinosaur" head. And then there's the foot at the
bottom, an amalgam of crocodile plantigradal pes with
bird toes and some touching up to look "dinosaurian."
The art is just plain annoying, misleading, and
erroneous to inference.

  Rant over.

Jaime "James" A. Headden

  Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
  fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
  they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
  spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!

Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.