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

Re: New Scientist and Popularization (ranting with a smile)

    Referring to the New Scientist article
 http://www.newscientist.com/nl/0923/here.html ) on dinosaurs. Jaime A.
Headden accurately observed and commented:

  >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.<

  Yes, and the inappropriate art (Decoration might me a more descriptive
word.), which I suspect to be the responsibility of, hopefully (unless it
was disingenuously intended as illustration), just an all-too-rushed editor,
is even more ironic when one views it in the context (unintended) of the
first sentence of the article's subtitle:

    "The icons of the dinosaur age are about to be knocked off their


    Ray Stanford

    Ray Stanford