![]() ![]() ![]() The "FIELD NOTES" part of each chapter reminds me of the Holtz quote below. In it, 2 Early Jurassic North American Dilophosaurus stalk a Middle Jurassic English Cetiosaurus.* This is especially apparent in the "EARLY-MIDDLE JURASSIC" chapter. The paleoart is also annoyingly anachronistic. This is especially apparent in the shrink-wrapped heads of 1) the sauropods like Cetiosaurus because they're also depicted with fat & shapeless bodies (See the front cover), & 2) the ornithischians like Triceratops because, despite their beaks & cheeks, even they're depicted with big exposed teeth. The paleoart is also annoyingly outdated/abominable. ![]() Ceratosaurus has relatively-long limbs sometimes, but more normally-proportioned limbs other times). Sometimes, the ground is a darker color than the sky or the water Other times, it's a lighter color Still other times, they're so similar in color that it's hard to tell which is which) 2) The appearance of a given species (E.g. ![]() The paleoart is annoyingly inconsistent in 2 major ways: 1) The appearance of a given environment (I.e. Instead, in this review, I'll point you to Kirkus's DD review & add my own thoughts as well: ) that I can't possibly top it, so I won't even try. However, I then remembered that Kirkus's DD review is so perfect (especially when it comes to criticizing the paleoart & writing. I was originally planning on reviewing Brusatte's "Day of the Dinosaurs: Step into a spectacular prehistoric world" (henceforth DD) the way I usually review bad dino books. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |