<<Second, I couldn't belive the gross
misinterpretations on the skeletal structure of the Smithsonian Triceratops.
Paul's version was much more accurate. What skeletal structure did they use, a
cow for the torso vertebrae?! Yes, the ribs are all wrong--someone trigger happy
on the cop and paste? And the way it walks is reminscent of "Destroy All
Monsters"! Is this an elephant with severe hip displacia? Anyone?!>>
Even if the new mount (at least the little skeleton I've seen ) looks pretty weird, i think it doesn't mean it's inaccurate;I'm no expert, sure, but if they've worked on it so long, i think it's reasonable to think they've done the best job possibile basing it on up-to-date skeletal evidence and computerized models.
Saying that they've just done an "horrificus" job(that's what, I think , you meant) may sound a bit offensive...
not to defend anyone, especially people who are on this list and can answer directly.
Comments made early this week about Sue mount ,for example,were based on interesting considerations and show only a high degree of wise ciriticism, but I don't think the last two comments about Hatcher have been equally reasoned on.
Expressing our own idea is always good , but doing it in such a way is a bit too much IMHO.
just my thought