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

Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes

 So skeletons prepared by different artists are not actually
 comparable, even if in the same pose and equivalent in quality. In
 fact, their being in the same pose is a problem because it leads to
 the illusion of false comparability. Ergo, having different artists
 pose their skeletons in the same manner is not scientific and is

Like Heinrich, I see it the opposite way: if skeletal restorations are in the same pose, all differences between them must be due to different errors or different artistic styles -- they can't be unconsciously blamed on different poses and thus overlooked.

 Some have claimed my standard pose is not a de facto brand because it
 is supposedly based on Bakker’s running Deinonychus. I have
 explained elsewhere that is not really so. In any case RTB never used
 the pose on a regular basis, so it was not a characteristic of his

You haven't read the discussion on the SciAm blog, have you?

Yesterday I leafed through The Dinosaur Heresies.

Several life restorations (in particular the famous *Nanosaurus*) and many skeletal restorations are in the pose you use -- running at full speed, pushing off with the left foot. This includes quadrupedal, even graviportal, as well as bipedal animals.

Do not underestimate how influential The Dinosaur Heresies has been. I learned a lot of English from that book -- it still hadn't been translated, but I _had_ to read it in the mid-1990s.

Most skeletal restorations in that book are, BTW, in white on a black body silhouette.

 Bakker posed his dinosaurs’ legs lots of ways.

True, but the one we're talking about is the one he used by far most commonly in The Dinosaur Heresies. (I don't have anything else by him on hand, but, again, that's an extremely influential book.)