[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
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.)