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

Re: M. Anton illustrations (was Re: BRITISH DINOSAURS SEMINAR)

     I don't know Ian jenkins, so I don't want to come be too caustic, but I 
don't think he is a very good appraiser of anatomical accuracy.  I conider 
myself to be reasonably well aquainted with mammal functinal anatomy, and Mr. 
Anton's work is very good (especially his pencil work).  I have specifically 
worked over some of his ungulate skeletals when working on the hadrosaur neck 
problem and found them to be excellent.  Criticisms like "big animals aren't 
bulky enough" sound like 'old guard' remarks by those who are used to the 
overly bulky (read: inaccurate) restorations of yester-year and cannot let go.
     I am not claiming that Anton is without fault; his life restoration of  
_Entelodon_ is too bulky (ironic. no?), and is not consistent with his very 
accurate skeletal restoration of the same.  So I cannot rule out that some life 
restorations of skulls are not spot on, but the illustrations I've checked over 
have otherwise been right.
      Jenkin's peripheral criticism of GP hardly bears responding to.  I will 
point out that twice I've 'retired' skeletal drawings I've done because they 
were so similar to those done independently (and without my knowledge) by GP as 
to be useless.  In fact, when restoring new specimens of well known dinosaurs, 
I have to resist the temptation to over emphasize variations that would 
differentiate my skeletal restorations.

Wish I could make the excellent sounding UK seminar.