[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
The Dinosauria, second edition... how outdated will it be?
The original edition of The Dinosauria mentions in its Foreward that the
editors began soliciting manuscripts in late 1984, received them all by
early 1987, had them peer-reviewed in mid-1987, and received final drafts in
early 1988. The original year of publication was in 1990 and an updated
paperback edition was released in 1992, when some of the chapters were 5-6
years old (at one point in the Sauropoda chapter, McIntosh anticipates Jaime
Powell publishing his thesis... which is dated 1986).
I was just wondering if that was going to be the case with the Second
Edition (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/2601001.html) as well. Will it
be The Dinosauria As Known In 2000? I know it takes a long time to get stuff
published (like the Sept 2004 Epachthosaurus paper in JVP which was
submitted in 1998!) but does anybody know if it will it be a similar length
of time as the original edition?
I only started wondering this as I was reading Wilson & Upchurch (2003) on
Titanosaurus. The paper briefly mentions nemegtosaurids as titanosaurs, but
then offers Upchurch (1999) and Upchurch et al (in press) as "a dissenting
view." Sure enough, in turns out that (in press) is the upcoming chapter in
The Dinosauria! Yet I had heard that they now agreed on the placement of
nemegtosaurs (on the list, of course, so maybe I should take it with a grain
of salt). Does this mean Upchurch changed his mind again, or that the
chapter (in press) is actually from 3-4 years ago? Or am I reading to much
Regardless of the age of its phylogenies and taxa lists, there's no doubt
this new edition will be as, or even more, comprehensively informative as
the original (which still is!). But it is nice to take into account when the
data was originally submitted.
Mike de Sosa
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®