[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.