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

RE: Illustrations as research tools (was Re: Archaeoraptor et al.)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Andrew A. Farke
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:33 AM
To: dino.hunter@cox.net; dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Illustrations as research tools (was Re: Archaeoraptor et al.)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@cox.net>
To: "Dinonet (E-mail)" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: Illustrations as research tools (was Re: Archaeoraptor et al.)

> I do my best to accurately depict skulls and skeletons (and that is hard
> times and just plain guess work others). Sometimes looking at the drawings
> or photographs will stir something and we can go from there.

No doubt on that. . .I think that in most cases, the problem does not lie
with the illustrator. Problems occur when someone else looks at the paper,
misreads the caption, takes the drawing at face value, and codes a
phylogenetic analysis based upon their observations of the drawing. Or, as
you mentioned, incorrect drawings are duplicated over and over and over
again. Another example sprung to mind last night--the skull of
Dromiceiomimus. The drawing (which I've seen reproduced in popular and
scientific works, including The Dinosauria") is based upon an extremely
crushed and distorted skull (a ROM specimen, whose number I don't
immediately have at hand). In Parks' original paper, he clearly noted that
his ink-rendered illustration of the specimen was highly speculative. Ah
well, such is paleo-publication. . .


Another one comes to mind, Anatotitan. It's dorsal/ventrally crushed and it
keeps being illustrated two short.

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074