"Creationist Cryptozoology": Dinosaurs by Design Pt. 2

     And we're back with Part 2 of my review of 1992's Dinosaurs by Design, authored by Duane Gish and illustrated by Earl & Bonita Snellenberger (click here for Part 1). For this post, I selected for review all the illustrations that fall under a sort of cryptozoological theme. After the fairly straightforward illustrations of my last post, this one should be quite the wild ride!
     Speaking of wild rides, our first illustration depicts a pair of cowboys getting buzzed by a truly monstrous pterosaur, big as a plane, with a terrifying toothy gape! The illustration accompanies an apocryphal story of some Texas cowboys who supposedly shot an enormous, leathery winged flying creature, though there's no evidence the story ever actually occurred. The text supposes that the cowboys killed the last surviving Quetzalcoatlus, a giant pterodactyl which lived in the area in prehistoric times. While this beast did indeed stand as tall as a giraffe and have a wingspan the size of a small plane, this image unfortunately depicts nothing like that animal. In fact, the creature in the picture is quite obviously simply an up-scaled Rhamphorynchus, a small German pterosaur. As in the picture, Rhamphorynchus possessed a long beak lined with long, sharp teeth, a crestless head, and a long, robust tail. Given the image reproduced here and in the "family portrait" picture from my last post, it's quite apparent that the artists did no research on this animal other than "it's like, super big!"

Interestingly, Mark Witton has illustrated a similar scene more than once.

     The mighty Behemoth from the Book of Job makes an obligatory appearance in every creationist dinosaur book, inevitably identified as a long-necked sauropod dinosaur. The key verse cited in every case mentions the creature's tail which "sways like a cedar". The creationists take to task any who would suggest the elephant as the creature described, as its tail looks in no way like a mighty tree. To drive the point home, many books include a side-by-side comparison between an elephant and a dinosaur, and that's just what our illustrators do here.

Gratuitous butt shot

     This one isn't strictly cryptozoological, but it does depict dinosaurs alongside humans, so I figured it was close enough. Here we see a depiction of the consequences of the Fall of Man: rampant death and sin, carnivory, and hideous birth defects like spinal deformation. It's okay, Quasimodoraptor. You'll always be special to me.

     I really like this picture overall; it has a good energy to it, and a good sense of motion, at least on the part of the horse and rider. Nearly as common as the behemoth trope, most creationist books will also have some variant of the "knight in shining armor" story, suggesting that dragon-slaying stories in general have their origins in cultural memories of encounters with dinosaurs. Many creationist books get even more specific, not only retelling the story of St. George and the Dragon, but also mentioning Baryonyx as a particularly dragonish looking dinosaur. Here the illustrators go a little to far, giving the poor creature overly short hindlegs and a quadrupedal posture, though since a good amount of illustrators were portraying Baryonyx as a quadruped at this time, this is perhaps an understandable mistake. They make a decent reconstruction otherwise, with the eponymous "heavy claws" on the hands and the small crest on its crocodile-like snout.

     FLAME-THROWING HADROSAURS!!! Here we have probably the most entertaining picture in the whole book. The biblical Leviathan (also from the Book of Job) makes regular appearances in creationist literature as well, invariably portrayed as another late surviving prehistoric beast. Gish & Co. take this fire-breathing beast at face value, and assume there must have existed some flame spewing dinosaur to match it. Now, since fancy hadrosaur head crests have been imagined as everything from scuba tanks to boom boxes, the author apparently decided they were fair game and threw his own wacky hat into the ring of wild speculation. Taking a cue from the bombardier beetle, the author suggests that hadrosaurs such as Parasaurolophus stored caustic chemicals in its long winding nasal passages, which would ignite upon shooting forth into the air. While certainly a provocative theory, this doesn't hold up to the creature's skull anatomy, as one can see from the very illustration the artists so helpfully provide. The nasal passages are just that: long winding nostrils. There are no hidden chambers in which to store volatile materials without blocking the poor dinosaur's airway and choking it to death. It does make for a fun picture though. The hadrosaur itself looks reasonably accurate, though it should have more of a humpback like a bison. On the left we have a poor, scorched Ceratosaurus, which we can confidently identify on the basis of its nasal horn and four fingers, despite a rather shapeless, vaguely humanoid body. (Incidentally, I find theropods like Ceratosaurus to be slightly more plausible candidates if we do want to speculate on fiery breath. They could have hitherto-unrecognized storage pouches in the neck or something, and since their nasal passages are nice and short, they don''t risk choking on the chemicals quite as much. I still find the whole idea rather silly, however. The fiery breath was probably just poetic language, guys.)

BURNINATION!

     Finally, we come to the last image in this cryptozoological series. And what a note to go out on! The text recounts the story of a German U-boat that torpedoed an enemy ship in WWI, which promptly exploded. To their amazement, a giant, crocodilian-shaped creature was thrown from the water, and quickly sank, apparently dead. Now, for some reason, I always had it in my head that the creature in this illustration was meant to represent a Geosaurus, or some similar member of the prehistoric marine crocodile family. However, the author actually suggests that the U-boat accidentally torpedoed a Mosasaurus (a marine monitor lizard), so I'm not sure where I got that idea from. Looking at the illustration, the creature does more closely resemble one of the marine crocodiles, so maybe I simply corrected the author in my head.

Damn the metriorhynchids! Full speed ahead!

     Well, that's all for now. I hope you enjoyed this look at Dinosaurs by Design (especially the sillier parts) and the uniquely creationist paleoart found therein. Look up the rest of my articles in this series, and let me know what you think!

Vintage Creationist Dinosaur Art: Dinosaurs by Design Pt. 1

     Hey, it's still Dinovember! How about another creationist dinosaur book review? Continuing chronologically, we come to the next book in my collection: Dinosaurs by Design, authored in 1992 by Duane Gish and illustrated by Earl & Bonita Snellenberger. This is one of those books that seems to sheepishly know that the Dinosaur Renaissance was going on at the time of its release, and yet obstinately ignores all the important points. You can see what I mean right on the cover. There's a strong suggestion of dynamic activity, but the dinosaurs are all still drawn exaggeratedly reptilian monsters. That T-rex is in a tripod pose for cryin' out loud! (For the record, plenty of non-creationist books pulled this stunt as well.)

     The first section of the book gives its space to a brief discussion on the history and nature of paleontology. The author tells the story of Gideon Mantell's discovery of Iguanodon after his wife Mary Ann brought home an odd fossil tooth, sparking his interest. The story is accompanied by a picture of the couple, which despite not having any dinosaurs for me to evaluate, I thought was kinda cute, so I included it here.

     In the section detailing the methods of paleontology, the artists include a group of scientists mounting a dinosaur skeleton for a museum display. I always thought there was something odd about this skeleton, as it looked sort of like a Psittacosaurus but was ten times too big. As it turns out, I had reason to be confused, since it's clearly based on Joseph Leidy's original reconstruction of Hadrosaurus, commissioned before much of the skeleton (including the skull) became known. (Click here for a comparison picture.) Without the skull, Leidy didn't know to give it the classic hadrosaur "duckbill", and so just gave it a generically beaky appearance. If the text and used this to talk about the history of paleontology, that would've been cool, but the text (and the costumes of the scientists in the picture) clearly mean for this to represent current science, so points off for obsolete information. Also, I'm kinda creeped out by the overly humanoid appearance of that dinosaur's rib cage.

Leidy's Hadrosaurus mount

     The interesting thing about this book is that it seems to essentially be a reboot of 1977's Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. Both books have very similar structure, and nearly identical choice in species. For example, the only difference in their treatment of "lightweight" dinosaurs is the omission of Ornithomimus. The paintings are of course much better in this volume. Unlike the previous book, the difference between each is obvious, and most of the dinosaurs now at least balance with their tails off the ground. Oddly, Podokesaurus is portrayed as a beaky, hyspilophondont looking thing, despite the fact that it was much more similar to Compsagnathus (portrayed on the left). I'd be interested to know what led to the inclusion of Podokesaurus in both this and the 1977 book in the first place, considering that the species is based on a single specimen discovered in 1911 and destroyed in a fire a few years later. If they were simply looking for something to fill out there roster, there were plenty of better known small dinosaur to choose from. Saltopus for example was a very popular presence in dinosaur books of the 70s and 80s. Of course every single one of these dinosaurs should have prominent feathers, but we won't fault a creationist book from the early 90s for that. At least Oviraptor has a properly crested head!

     After the "lightweight dinosaurs" section, the book discusses the various armoured dinosaurs (stegosaurs, ceratopsians, and ankylosaurs), as well as sauropods. I didn't want to drag out this post longer than I had to, so I decided not to include them, as there wasn't anything particularly interesting to say about them. I would like to note the inclusion of Monoclonius, Ultrasaurus, and Supersaurus, all very common stars of 1980s dinosaur books.
     I'm including this next picture for one reason only: the appearance of Freud the Tsintaosaurus! Forgive me for being juvenile, but I think the appearance of this phallic meme in this particular book is just too humorous not to take note of. The first discovery of Tsintaosaurus included a nearly complete skull that lacked only a large portion of its crest. Most paleontologists didn't recognize this however, and restored the animal with a unicorn-style spike on its head. At the same time, scientists had also realized that the duck-billed dinosaurs with large, hollow crests used them to produce loud, booming sounds, and many suggested that the crestless species had soft-tissue air sacs on their faces to fulfill the same function. Now, since Tsintaosaurus did not have a hollow crest, many suggested it should have air sacs on its face like the other crestless species. Hilariously, Tsintaosaurus seems to have been one of the only duck-bills ever illustrated with this speculative feature. There's no reason to think this had to be an actual feature of the animal, however. Indeed, many chose to illustrate it without the inappropriately suggestive sacs, so I find it particularly odd that a book which devoted several introductory pages to blaming evolution for the rise in sexual immorality (among various other sins) would chase this trope. Draw whatever Freudian implications you will.

Penis.

     Another bizarre hold-over from the 1977 book is the treatment of pachycephalosaurs and psittacosaurs as a single group. Scientists knew Psittacosaurus was a ceratopsian pretty early on, so there is no reason why it shouldn't have appeared with Triceratops and kin several pages earlier. Perhaps, given Psittacosaurus' bipedality, Gish felt a ceratopsian identity would promote evolution somehow? Who knows. It's not the best looking psittacosaur anyway; it should have much more prominent cheekbones, which incidentally would make its family affinity a little more obvious. At least it seems roughly in scale with the dueling Pachycephalosaurus pair.

     Here's probably the best example of the "we know it's the Dinosaur Renaissance but we don't like it!" attitude. The artists clearly paid close attention to the details of Allosaurus' skull, rendering a very commendable reconstruction... aaand then they have the tail dragging obstinately on the ground in the dreaded killer kangaroo pose. Come on guys! You must have referenced much more up to date material for your inspiration for that head! Is it too much to ask for a properly balanced theropod? Probably, since that would mean reading material by people who believe birds evolved from dinosaurs. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So close, yet so far.

     Of course Tyrannosaurus rex fares no better himself, as the King of the Dinosaurs pulls off his best impression of Godzilla, the King of Monsters. Bonus points though for trotting out the classic "Here's the actual size of T. rex's STEAK KNIFE teeth!!!" trope.

     Poor Tenontosaurus. You just can't ever get rid of those pesky Deinonychus packs, clinging to you in every book you appear in. It's okay; I appreciate you for what really makes you special, like your unusually long tail which the artists completely ignored because they were too busy with the murder-death-kill raptors. You have my sympathies. As do the Deinonychus for their weird bug-eyed frog-faced birth defects. That Velociraptor seems nice and happy though! Look at him, dancing a little jig over there!

     These pterosaurs are... something else. On the one hand, yay! They have furry bodies! That automatically makes them more up-to-date than the vast majority of pterodactyl depictions ever produced. On the other hand, what on earth did they do to Quetzalcoatlus?!? Enormous scales from ears to snout, and giant protruding fangs! I'm pretty sure nobody ever suggested that Quetzalcoatlus had teeth, so who knows where they got that idea from. Pterosaurs are also know to have lacked large scales, being clad only in either smooth skin or fine furry pycnofibers. Both the quetzal and the Pteranodon run afoul in the scale department. The Rhamphorynchus is okay, though.

Leathery Winged Monstrosities

     Th part of the book dealing with the supposed evolution of birds from dinosaurs genuinely angers me these days, representing a act of blatant misdirection. The artists portray a Struthiomimus ("ostrich mimic")and an Ankylosaurus alongside a modern ostrich, with the Struthiomimus obviously meant to represent the closer relative of the two. The author then makes much of the fact that Struthimimus is a saurischian ("lizard-hipped") dinosaur, rather than an ornithschian ("bird-hipped") dinosaur, treating this as a definitive blow against evolutionary theory. Except his example is invalid. Remember the raptors from earlier? Those are what birds are actually supposed to have evolved from. And guess what? Despite belonging to the saurischian lineage of dinosaurs, they actually have bird-like hips! In fact, the discovery of Deinonychus was what kicked off the whole "birds are dinosaurs" thing in the first place, which the author has to have been aware of. To not mention this fact is essentially a lie of omission, and one that tempts the fates of those this book is aimed at. What happens to the kids that read this and then find out about Deinonychus? Obfuscating the truth does you no favors.

Grasping at straw men

     Ugh. I'm in need of a palate cleanser before we finish up. How about we end things with this Sparkleraptor Archaeopteryx? The feathers are very nicely done, if a little more of a gaudy blue than I would expect to see on the real animal, and while the primary feathers don't quite attach to the hands in the right way, at least the fingers aren't sticking forward off the wings like Sidewinder missiles. The songbird perching feet are more of an issue; the first (rear-facing) toe was higher up the ankle and not long enough to reach the ground, much less be capable of grasping anything. There's some evidence it may have had a raptor-style retractable claw on the second toe, but people have gone back and forth on this point, so it's not an issue. The head would have been completely covered with feathers, with no scaly skin. This last point is a bit odd, considering the creative team was so willing to bend the facts with the last image. One would think that if Archaeopteryx was really "just a bird", the artists would jump at any chance to distance this animal from any supposed reptilian forebears. I suppose this just goes to show that the artists were more inclined to go chasing after common paleoart tropes rather than actually evaluate the evidence for themselves, despite the fact that it might've supported their point.

The epitome of Dinosaurs by Design

     Well, that's all for now. While I'm omitting some images for the sake of brevity, there are however a special batch of images from this book that I think deserve their own blog post. What might those be you ask? Two words: Creationist Cryptozoology! See you next time as we continue to evaluate the paleoart of Dinosaurs by Design!

Obligatory Dinovember Post

     I may be nearly two weeks late, but I figured I'd jump on the Dinovember bandwagon and use it as an excuse to throw a little of my own paleoart out there on the interwebs. Here's my rendition of Archaeopteryx lithographica, a small dromaeosaur best known as "das Urvogel", AKA "the First Bird." Known primarily from quarries in the Solnhofen Limestone of Bavaria in Southern Germany, this prehistoric bird is known from what I consider to be the most beautiful fossils in the world. Take a look at the Berlin Specimen, and tell me that it is not a gorgeous bit of natural beauty! I should mention that I heavily referenced Nick Longrich's interpretation of the animal in my drawing, using his feathers as a guide and lifting the color scheme nearly wholesale. I mostly changed the pose and some particulars of the tail. I hope you like it!

Archaeopteryx lithographica

Alaska Museum of Nature and Science (Museum Reviews Teaser)

     Hello there! I've recently returned from a trip to Alaska with Jacy and the baby to visit my sister-in-law in Anchorage. Being the dino-nut I am, I of course wanted more than anything else to visit the local natural history museum once I learned of its existence. I had trouble finding out much about the place before actually visiting however, giving me the bright idea to review the establishment on my blog once I'd taken a few photos for reference.

     In my excitement, I may have taken more pictures than most people would consider reasonable. While I intend to give the facilities a more thorough treatment sometime soon, I have no idea how to organize what I have at the moment, but I don't want this project to languish whilst I figure out my system either. So, for the time being, I'll simply throw up a few teaser pics, more to goad myself into hurrying up with the rest, if I'm being honest. Enjoy!

Front Entrance

Continuation of the mural around the left side of the building

     The museum prominently features the artwork of James Havens, who created the mural which wraps around the building, as well as several pieces depicting prehistoric Alaskan critters inside. Now, I'm not entirely sure about the legality of posting pictures I took of pictures, but to at least ease my conscience somewhat, why don't you take a look at his website? He's a pretty talented artist. As long as we're looking at the exterior, I would like to point out just how small this place is. It's even more apparent on the inside. I don't mean that as a knock against the museum, either; on the contrary, it lends the place a cozier, more inviting feel than you might get with a larger institution. This small-time charm manifested in a really entertaining way, but that's for my next blog post. Just a few more images, and we'll be done for now.

Pachyrhinosaur pair

     Another lovely James Havens in the main entryway directly across from the cash register. This piece depicts Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum, a distant relative of Triceratops which traded in the horns typical of its relatives for large, bony "bosses", opting for battering rams instead of spears. This particular species was endemic to Alaska, which, while somewhat warmer at the time, was still plenty snowy in the winter. Really kinda shakes up your view of the Age of Dinosaurs, doesn't it?

The centerpiece of the museum! Plus a pterodactyl!

     Without a doubt the most impressive item on display in the museum, and the first object to draw the visitor's eye, is the enormous "Denali Pterosaur". James Havens also created this life-sized model, representing an as-yet-unnamed azhdarchid pterodactyloid closely related to that other, more famous giant pterosaur, Quetzalcoatlus. Yours truly up there stands below the frankly terrifying beak to provide a sense of scale.

Gratuitous butt shot.

     This unfortunately represents my best attempt to get as much of the Denali Pterosaur into frame at once. Note that my back was just about against the wall when I took this. This room represents at least 1/3, maybe even 1/2 of the total floor space in the museum. You can see what I mean about cozy quarters, though it does make it difficult to truly take in the full visage of that winged beast. Note the tyrannosaur painting below the left wing: another James Havens piece.
 

     One final copyright-baiting Havens picture, but only because I complained about getting a full view of the Denali Pterosaur life model. This piece depicts the creature in flight over a prehistoric Alaskan river. Try mentally adding me into that painting there, and then take a moment to appreciate the craziness of an animal that massive actually taking to the air.

It's your dinosaurs, Marty! Something's got to be done about your dinosaurs!

     Lastly, one final painting to round out this paleoart-themed post: it's that mainstay of 1980s dinosaur kids' books, the Dinosauroid! For those not in the know, the Dinosauroid was a rather (in)famous thought experiment that postulated that if the dinosaurs had survived to the present day, then not only might they have developed human-like intelligence, but they might have also adopted an upright stance and human-like form to boot! The whole thing is now considered to be an embarrassing 80s fad (much like most things from the 80s), but it's always entertaining to see where it pops up. Interstingly, according to the signature at the bottom (which like a chump, I forgot to make note of), this particular piece was produced in the early 2000s. Not sure who was still so into this idea at that point to hang this directly in front of the bathrooms, but whatever. Maybe they were trying to scare the poop out of you. Mostly it's just confusing if you have no prior knowledge of this

     Well, that's all for now. Next time we'll get to reviewing the actual exhibits and presentations, but till then, aufviedersehen!

Please visit:
http://www.alaskamuseum.org/

http://www.havensstudio.com/The_Havens_Studio_%26_Gallery/Welcome_.html

Vintage Creationist Dinosaur Art: The Amazing Story of Creation

     Tonight's top story: babies are a lot of work! I've been wanting to blog more regularly, if only to get into the habit of writing, but small humans tend to take up a lot of a new father's time, and so my blog generally just gathers dust in the meantime. In other news, I've managed to at least crank out my latest review of old creationist paleoart! Up for review today: The Amazing Story of Creation, by Duane T. Gish. As usual, I don't wish to delve into the merits of creationism vs evolution, but rather to critique the illustrations (of extinct animals) as fairly as possible in light of what modern paleontology tells us of their life appearance.

Click to enlarge

     We get quite a collage of critters in the "blueprint" design of the front cover. I'm no trilobite expert, but that little guy at the bottom looks good enough to me, at least for the resolution of this image. I'm not going to bother discussing the "apemen" in the center. I think the two creatures on either side of the skull are meant to represent differing interpretations of the same fossils, but any discussion on hominins in a creationist book leads down a rabbit hole that could keep us running in circles all day. Take it away, Akbar.
     I do however feel relatively qualified to talk about the rest of the prehistoric beasts on the cover. First and mostly famously we have the obligatory Tyrannosaurus. The artist portrays it in the usual "I know the Dinosaur Renaissance is happening but I don't wanna!" style that was typical of your average dinosaur kids book of the time period. Sexy Rexy has his tail lifted off the ground, but only barely, allowing him to safely maintain the old kangaroo-style pose. His head shows no particular regard for the skull: just a generic "carnosaur" head with teeth going all the way back to the gullet.
     Standing directly in front of the T. rex, and certainly not to scale if my identification is correct, stands a classic "dawn horse", likely meant to be Eohippus itself. It has proper multi-toed feet with appropriately small hooves, and a generally deer-like body and coloration. I personally would have emphasized the relationship with modern horses a little more, perhaps by adding a mane or something, but hey, a pretty decent effort overall. Just in case you're wondering, I spliced the front and back covers together on my computer after scanning them separately, and unfortunately poor Eohippus lost its snout in the process. It looks fine on the physical book, I swear!
     The front cover is graced by a classically retro Brontosaurus, of a decidedly 70's-80's style. It at least looks rather more alert and active than Burian or Zallinger would have painted it, especially with its proudly at-attention stance, but its tail drags behind it, and claws protrude from the front legs. Its general appearance is rather boring and nondescript: evidently the artist took cues from Elk (1972). Eloquent though she may be, Anne Elk is NOT the final word on long-necked dinosaurs.
     Finally, we save the best for last. Wonderbread Adam and Eve have with them a rather pretty Archaeopteryx, perched on Adam's hand. I commend the artist for the rather well-rendered plumage; the larger feathers seem to more or less correspond to the actual fossil, and he even resists the urge to give the poor bird an ugly, scaly head, a temptation to which even creationist artists (with a vested interest in downplaying any reptilian connections) seem to succumb, despite the fossil evidence. Unfortunately, our little feathered friend does not receive a perfect score, as he sadly falls victim to "Wings... But With Hands!!!" syndrome. For any budding illustrators out there, the flight feathers attached to the second finger, not the wrist. Imagine if large talons suddenly erupted out of the backs of your palms, and you'll see the problem with this picture.

     Our first chapter heading portrays a sampler platter of ancient and modern sea life, with lobsters and blue whales hanging out alongside trilobites and plesiosaurs. Sea life generally seems to be kind of hard to screw up for some reason, so most things here look okay to me. I have a few minor quibbles with the skulls of the sea reptiles (the plesiosaurs' should look more streamlined, and the Ichthyosaurus sports a sockeye salmon jawline), but otherwise, things seem more or less acceptable. The coelacanth doesn't quite conform to the modern species, but could easily represent an ancient form, so it gets a pass.

     The next chapter heading features an odd combination of Cenozoic mammals (ancient and modern) alongside some Mesozoic winged creatures. I'm not sure what organizational category this chapter was meant to cover, other than "not dinosaurs". In the foreground, the viewer can see a saber-toothed cat lying nearby a modern black bear. This cat most definitely does not represent a specimen of Smilodon, the most well-known type of saber-tooth, as its general body shape appears far too gracile, including the famous canine teeth. Indeed, if anything, it looks more like the illustrator stuck vampire teeth on a tiger, gave it spots instead of stripes, and called it a day. However, there are several less familiar felines that did wield extra long canines, so the possibility remains that the artist meant to represent one of them, though I consider it unlikely. In the background, the magnificent form of Paraceratherium towers above its closest modern analogues, an elephant and a giraffe. It looks generally correct in appearance, with tough, leathery skin and a hefty weight to it that ties it to its rhinoceros relatives. To my eyes, it might actually be a little too tall, but by such a small margin, it doesn't really matter. Up in the sky, we see a pair of Pteranodon, as well as another Archaeopteryx. I happen to think that up to a certain point, one really has to try to screw Pteranodon up. As long as the artist doesn't give it bat wings or teeth (its name means "toothless wing," for cryin' out loud), then they can pretty much just draw whatever they've absorbed from pop culture and hit pretty close to the mark. While the stripes on the wings were likely added simply for aesthetic purposes, they happen to correspond to tough fibers known to have stiffened the wing membranes of pterosaurs, so whether intentional or not, they improve the accuracy anyway. The Archaeopteryx does not fare as well however. Its odd hooked beak and overly fat tail drag it down plenty even if one ignores the recurring "wings... but with hands!" syndrome. 

     Finally, in the moment all the laypeople have been waiting for, we come to the Kingdom of the Dinosaurs! We find ourselves firmly in the awkward mid-Dinosaur-Renaissance art style of many popular books, with sporadic application of the ideas floating around at the time. The two creatures in the background remain resolutely retro in appearance, what with the brachiosaur's dragging tail and the iguanodont's shapeless kangaroo posture (you can really only tell it's an iguanodont by the spiky thumbs). The Tyrannosaurus jaunting about in the middle however, walks with his tail raised and head held high, bellowing forth the good news of the Renaissance as if he were the town crier.
     While rather misshapen and inaccurate, the nondescript ankylosaur next to the T-rex seems to display a vaguely Sibbick-ian influence to my eye (John Sibbick being of course one of the most highly copied paleoartists of this period), and so also indirectly alerts us to the era of the Dinosaur Renaissance. I assume the creature in the left corner represents the perennial obligatory "chicken-sized" Compsagnathus, happily nomming some berries. While also rather nondescript, Compsagnathus was itself a rather plain creature, so I guess this little guy is good enough.
     One feature of this painting really stands out, however, and serves to really narrow down the time frame of its production. Jack Horner's famed discovery of hundreds of nesting Maiasaura at so-called Egg Mountain was all the rage around the time of this book's production, and the mother Maiasaura feeding her babies in the bottom right corner dominates her half of the picture in a way that practically shouts "look how with the times we are!" And too be fair, so they are. The Maiasaura mother is very well-rendered, possessing more of a clipping beak than a duck-bill, as well as a large brow ridge with a small lump of pointed bone in the center. Her forelimbs may be a bit overly-hoofed, but I've seen scientists going back and forth on this point, so it's nothing to mark her down on. Rather than portray them as scaled-down adults, the artist portrays the babies with appropriately rounded heads and pointier beaks than their mother, just like the real deal. I'm not sure about the age range of the nest's inhabitants, but we can chock that up to artistic license if need be. Overall, the Maiasaura and her babies far outstrip any of their portrait-mates in terms of both prominence and accuracy.

     So that's all the chapter heading illustrations. On to the rest of the book! I'm going to post all the pictures of prehistoric creatures contained in these pages for completion's sake, regardless of whether I have much to say on them or not. (One exception: I won't bother with any of the hominids illustrated in this book, which are a big bag of meh.)

     This Ichthyosaurus is one of those illustrations I don't have much to say about. It's tail looks a little overly sharky or fishy, but otherwise looks pretty decent. The illustrator does well in making it look like it's own animal, not overly shark or dolphin-like (which ichthyosaurs are often compared to).

     Here we have once again a pair of Archaeopteryx displaying "wings... but with hands!" syndrome. Two other issues of note here: first off, if I remember correctly, Archaeopteryx was not quite capable of a songbird-like grasp with its feet as shown here. Its toes were instead probably more comparable to a ground bird like a chicken. Secondly, the artist portrays these birds not only without a beak, but with overly-scaled faces. This is entirely due to chasing paleoart conventions regarding this creature. Now, Archaeopteryx probably did not have a beak, but it certainly did not have a scaly face like that, either. Most people versed in the subject agree its feathers probably went all the way to the snout. Stepping back for a moment, I find it especially odd that a creationist artist of all people would chase this scaly-faced meme, especially since the text goes to great lengths to distance this creature as much as possible from dinosaurs and reptiles in general, repeatedly exclaiming that Archaeopteryx was nothing more than a bird with long wing claws.

     It's the dawn horse Eohippus again! This time it looks far better in comparison to its counterpart on the cover. The artist emphasizes a much clearer affinity to modern horses, what with the mane and long face, and its posture delightfully implies an active, horse-like lifestyle. The reader can clearly appreciate the numerous toes (4 in front, 3 in back) which set it apart from modern single-toed horses. Appropriately for this small, coyote-sized herbivore, the artist provides it with a pleasant striped brown and tan camouflage.

     I suspect the artist would have portrayed this brontosaur with a dragging tail in a more conventional pose, but seeing as it's dipping out of frame, we'll ignore it as a stylistic choice. The image mostly exists to demonstrate the difference between sauropod and elephant tails, anyway, as explained in the text. (The general gist is, the biblical Behemoth, which some suggest represents an elephant, is described as having a tail like a cedar tree. As elephants do not have such tails, the author suggests that the Book of Job refers instead to a sauropod dinosaur, hence the rear-end illustration here.)

     Sorry, I can't think of anything particularly interesting to say about this Triceratops. It's not bad looking. I was going to try to impress you, dear reader, by identifying the most likely model the artist used, but while I thought it might be the skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History, that doesn't seem to be the case. Oh well. Just pretend I said something smart here.

     Hey, speaking of recognizable models, I had several little plastic Stegosauruses that looked just like this when I was a kid! Seriously, go check out this link here: the resemblance is uncanny. Odd choices in life models aside, I like that this stegosaur looks somewhat less stupid than most pre-Renaissance incarnations of the creature, but it still drags its tail limply behind it like it Sinclair-esque forebears. Also of note, this particular stegosaur possesses paired back plates, while the real animal possessed alternating adornments instead.

     This Struthiomimus has no feathers, which is too bad, but, like the rest of the books I've reviewed so far, I can give it a pass since even the great paleoartists of this time period were still portraying their ornithomimids as naked ostriches. It's holding its tail clear and level off the ground, at least. I was about to accuse the artist of plagiarism, noting an odd similarity to this image from Dinotopia, until I realized that this book came out in 1990, while Dinotopia came out in 1992. I don't think James Gurney reads creationist children's books, so I doubt the reverse situation happened, either. Maybe both artists referenced a different piece of artwork? Very strange... (As long as we're making the comparison, though, I should note that our creationist artist actually portrayed this creature more accurately than the otherwise great Mr. Gurney, what with its skinnier neck and smaller head.)

Clockwise from top left: Parasaurolophus, Corythosaurus, Lambeosaurus, and Anatosaurus w/ skull

     The Parasaurolophus and the Lambeosaurus look good enough, although the Corythosaurus has a somewhat derpy beak, and the crest shouldn't curve quite so far around the back of the head like that. That's small potatoes compared to the Anatosaurus, though (now known as Edmontosaurus). Not only does it have too short of a snout with an entirely un-duck-like beak, it doesn't even match the illustration of its perfectly accurate skull that's sitting right there beside it. Artists not inspired by Greg Paul often have trouble matching these beasts to their corresponding skeletons, but if you're going to go through the trouble of researching and correctly illustrating the skeletal elements, is it too much to ask that the fleshed out reconstructions match it?

     I can't think of anything particularly profound to say about this cute little creepy crawler, so I'll just sing a song about him instead. (Sing to the tune of this oldie...)

Trilobite, trilobite, oh, trilo-trilo-trilo

Trilobite, trilobite, oh, trilo-trilo-trilo-trilobite

Cuter than a bug shaped like a stick

Or Ediacara biota in lime(...stone)

If you're gonna prospect, take your pick

But trilobites... are mi-i-i-ine...

etc.

     Ahem. Yes. On to more serious matters.

Behold the Mer-cow!

     Alright, enough stalling. I wasn't originally sure I wanted to bother reviewing this book, since I didn't think I'd be able to scrounge up enough interesting things to say, but then I remembered this image and decided to do so anyway. It might seem odd putting the image I most wanted to review at the bottom of my blog post, but I wanted to give the book a fair chance and be positive where I could. This... thing... though, ruins most of the book for me. This illustration is meant to illustrate the ridiculousness of evolutionary theory by portraying a transitional form between whales and their supposed evolutionary fore-bears, the even-toed hoofed mammals. (The only living odd-toed hoofed mammals, incidentally, are rhinos, tapirs, and horses. All other hoofed mammals are even-toed.) Now, it's all well and good to criticize what you think may be flaws in evolutionary theory, but the artist and author cross a line in their attempt to belittle evolution by way of humor.
     Don't misunderstand me, it's not the scientists' feelings I'm concerned for, it's the book's target audience and the concept of rational discourse itself I have concerns for. No evolutionist has ever suggested that this is what a transitional whale would've looked like. Duane Gish writes as though evolutionists claim whales descend directly from cows or pigs, when in fact those are merely supposed to be their closest modern relatives. Evolutionists actually claim that whales arose from a completely different (and extinct) group of carnivorous even-toed hoofed mammals that looked something like doggish deers. (See here for an illustrated evolutionary sequence; and yes, fossils have been found for each one of these creatures.) While one can still argue that there are insurmountable evolutionary hurdles between this group and modern whales, one has to admit that this theory seems a lot more rational than a literal Mer-cow. To suggest otherwise would seem to anyone like a bald-faced lie, and risks turning anyone who believes such a lie completely against you should they ever find out what evolutionists truly believe. I know I was shaken when I had that realization.
     Again, I'm not saying you can't "fight the good fight", I'm simply saying please don't go beating on straw men. It makes you look ridiculous, and renders you woefully, pitifully inadequate for any real discourse you might stumble upon later down the road.
     Well, that's all for now. I hope you enjoyed this post and managed to get something out of it despite my rambling. I'm really excited for the next few books in my collection, for now we really start to get to some good, juicy paleoart memes unique to the world of creationism! It's gonna be fun!

Clean Slate

Just some housecleaning:

I've been blogging for a short while now, but I've already realized that I may need some rebranding. I titled my first blog "Project Influenza" in an obscure reference to a book nobody else I know has read, and I gradually came to the realization that rather than striking people with my profundity, I probably just sounded like a moody high schooler with pictures of gas masks plastered to his bedroom door. So, then, a name change is in order!

I've chosen "Stuckasaurus" this time, which I feel to be much more up front about what you're getting here: a whole lotta stuff about dinosaurs & such, and a whole lotta inane ramblings from a one Mr. Stuck (that's me!).

I was in the middle of a series on creationist paleoart on my old blog, which I intend to continue here until I've exhausted the supply of books I grew up with. If you wish to read my previous blog posts on the subject, I'll leave the links at the bottom of the page.

So that's all the back story for now. Hope you enjoy!
- Andrew Raymond Stuck


Vintage Creationist Art series:

Dinosaurs, Those Terrible Lizards

The Great Dinosaurs Mystery and the Bible, Part 1 and Part 2

Noah's Ark and the Lost World