Who Cares About "Dinosaurs"?

Question: Who cares about dinosaurs?

Short Answer: Marketing departments and monster movie fans.

Above: Not what most people think of when you say "dinosaur."
(Ashdown Maniraptoran by Matt Martyniuk, all rights reserved).

Long Answer:
This is a philosophical issue that's been on my mind for a while now, inspired by some recent and heated debates over the content of the Dinosaur article at Wikipedia. It also seems to be simmering in the background of a lot of discussions about the recent suggestion that Jurassic Park 4 will not feature modern, scientifically accurate dinosaurians.

No Feathers

As many of you know by now, Jurassic Park 4 director Colin Trevorrow has (basically) announced via tweet that JP4 would not feature feathered dinosaurs but would stick to the 1980s designs of the original film.

Lots of opinions are flying around paleo blogs and they all raise good points. Andrea Cau has been one of the few to defend the decision by noting that changing the dinosaurs would upset the continuity of the films, such as it is (it's not like we're talking about Lord of the Rings style mythology here). Brian Switek has countered that each previous film has completely re-designed the "raptors" anyway with no in-universe explanation. This has even been jarring in the films themselves. At the beginning of the third film, Sam Neil's character Alan Grant has a dream about a raptor, but it's one of the new raptors (with a totally different skull featuring lachrymal horns, new color scheme, and those bizarre psittacosaur-like quills on the neck), not the raptors he or the audience should remember from JP1.

Anyway, it's obvious the producers don't give a hoot about continuity and are trying to appease the JP fans who love the classic dinosaur designs. That's understandable, but it should also be understandable why a significant portion of the fan base is upset. JP is what got many of us into paleontology in the first place, and the first film went out of its way to emphasize the latest science. Steven Spielberg could have gone with dinosaurs the audience expected in 1993: tripodal, tail-dragging, sluggish reptilian beasts. Instead, he made JP the coming out party for the Dinosaur Renaissance, introducing active, bird-like, Bakkerian dinosaurs to a mass audience for the first time in defiance of expectations (dialogue from the film quickly addresses the inaccuracy of the then-classic dinosaurs as well, like noting that the brachiosaur is warm-blooded and doesn't live in swamps).

So it's a bit sad that JP has eaten its own tail and become the self-perpetuating font of inaccurate science the original film was designed to destroy. The franchise is now a slave to its own cannon and the expectations of its audience, rather than having the guts to challenge those expectations. It will inevitably have to rely more and more on cheap built-in loopholes like frog DNA to briefly explain why the dinosaurs are monstrous relics of a bygone era of science less accurate than the CGI characters on a popular children's show.

As Cau noted in his comments, the only thing that could revitalize the series is a reboot. Here's hoping!

Double Dewlap! What Does It Mean?

My new book A Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs is now available! The book can be purchased via Amazon or CreateSpace. A PDF version is available via Lulu (for those of you reading this via RSS, click through to the Web article for handy links on the right side of the post!).

A lot has been made recently about the "new era" dawning in paleoart (or paleontography, or whatever your preferred term is). A move away from the shrink-wrapped and hyper-anatomical artwork that characterized much of the Dinosaur Renaissance. While attention to this new movement has focused mainly on the artwork in the fantastic new book All Yesterdays, Andrea Cau rightfully pointed out on his blog that other artwork has been appearing in this same vein for a while now (though perhaps lacking the publicity it deserves). Cau highlighted the amazing paleo paintings of artist Emiliano Troco, including the rather audacious reconstruction of an Apatosaurus with double dewlap-like structures on the neck.

Apatosaurus by Emiliano Troco.

I guess it's an argument for either the collective consciousness, or that there are in fact a limited number of outlandish yet plausible things you can do when restoring sauropod necks, that I came up with a very similar idea many years ago! My execution of the double dewlap sauropod was somewhat... lacking in technical skill compared to Troco's, but you have to admit it is kind of funny that two people independently came up with such a bizarre idea. After a bit of searching I managed to find a really bad scan of my old sketch, presented below or your amusement!

My 2002 drawing of an Isisaurus (Titanosaurus colberti at the time) with double dewlaps. Based on a skeletal by Jaime Headden.

Field Guide Rejects: Arctic Troodont

My new book A Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs is now available! The book can be purchased via Amazon or CreateSpace. A PDF version is available via Lulu (for those of you reading this via RSS, click through to the Web article for handy links on the right side of the post!).

Happy winter! Here's one more entry in my series of Field Guide illustrations too speculative to include in the book. It's now pretty widely known that remains attributed to the Campanian age genus Troodon have been found in the Maastrichtian age Prince Creek Formation of northern Alaska, which would have been above the arctic circle at the time. These animals have been featured in some recent TV documentaries such as March of the Dinosaurs. Though the remains are fragmentary and mostly undescribed, the fact that they are later in age than Troodon formosus, and in some cases twice the size of comparable T. formosus remains, it's a near certainty in my and others' opinions that these represent a new species if not genus of troodontid.

Restoration of hypothetical winter & summer plumage in the
unnamed Prince Creek troodontid species, by Matt Martyniuk.

A staple of field guides to modern birds is to illustrate seasonal differences in plumage, which are widespread in cold climates. Of course, we don't currently have any information on plumage variation in Mesozoic birds, but the fact that this is one of the few Mesozoic species that may have regularly encountered snow made it too hard to resist adding this additional layer of speculation.

Field Guide Rejects: Zapsalis

My new book A Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs is now available! The book can be purchased via Amazon or CreateSpace. A PDF version is available via Lulu (for those of you reading this via RSS, click through to the Web article for handy links on the right side of the post!).

The problem with writing and illustrating a book covering hundreds of feathered dinosaur species is that it's easy to get on a roll, then get lazy. Specifically, there were one or two instances during the making of the book where I got cocky and finished the bulk of an illustration off the top of my head, only checking it against research later. In all of these instances, I ended up having to modify or flat-out cut the illustration while writing the explanatory text. So much for the info sitting at the top of my head!

Luckily, in many cases I was able to salvage my work by tweaking the paintings in Photoshop to fit a different species, especially where the original was highly speculative to begin with. For example, I was really happy with my initial restoration of the tooth taxon Troodon asiamericanus, and with a few adjustments it now features proudly in the finished book as Linheraptor tani. I was so pleased with my restoration of the possible gigantic velociraptorine (err... itemirine) Itemirus that I chucked out my already-completed restoration of Achillobator (previously featured here), broadened the Itemirus snout, shortened the legs, and used that painting instead. However, there's one restoration I kinda liked a lot that didn't make it into the final book in any form.

Speculative restoration of Zapsalis abradens by Matt Martyniuk

My original plan was to include some of the Lancian-age aviremigian taxa known from very fragmentary remains in the Lance and Hell Creek Formations. I have sitting on my HD right now restorations of Pectinodon bakkeri, the unnamed Scollard formation avimimid, and every named species of Cimolopteryx. I hope one day to complete a field guide style book about the Lance formation, so I probably won't share these just yet (though one of the Cimolopteryx made it into a figure in the finished book along with a few other rejected avians). What I will share is a restoration of a bird I mistakenly thought was a member of this fauna when I painted it. Above is my illustration of Zapsalis abradens, a small (juvenile?) morph of eudromaeosaurs known only from a distinctive kind of tooth (inset). In my mind, I'd always associated this species with the Lance, and Zapsalis-like teeth have been reported from that formation. However, after finishing my painting (which I personally thought came out pretty adorable-looking), I went to do the writeup for it. Tooth taxa do require a bare minimum in the way of research before illustration after all, which is part of the reason why all of them ended up getting cut from the book as too speculative. Lo and behold, the holotype specimen, and indeed most specimens, of Z. abradens aren't from the Lance at all--they're from the Judith River/Dinosaur Park Formation!

So, Zapsalis had two reasons to be cut. One, it was obviously far too speculative to include in a book focusing on comparing externally visible traits. Two, I had to admit that even the name itself is a bit dubious if it's from the DPK. Unlike the Lancian fauna, where no eudromaeosaurs have ever been named and so nothing competes for priority, there are several eudromaesaurs from the DPK. Is Zapsalis a distinct species? Maybe, but if not, it could represent a different morph of either Saurornitholestes or Dromaeosaurus. It would take priority over either name, but without any way to currently tell which (if any) it is, it's kind of a "nomen dubium".

The Field Guide Rejects: Yixianosaurus

As announced in a few previous posts, Facebook, Twitter, the face of the moon and Geocities probably, my new book A Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs is now available! The dead tree version can be had through Amazon or CreateSpace and a PDF version is also available for people who prefer to keep their library online/on disk via Lulu (for those of you reading this via RSS, click through to the Web article for handy links on the right side of the post!).

In the interests of continued, shameless self-promotion, I thought I'd do a few blog posts highlighting a bit of the 'making of' the book; in this case, showcasing something that didn't quite make the cut and why.

The first thing I did when switching gears from a guide to the complete ecology of a specific geologic formation to a broad overview of all known Mesozoic birds was decide which species to draw and which to relegate to the appendix. My original criterion, as suggested by John Conway (of All Yesterdays fame) was to include all "reconstructible" aviremigians. I suspect that by "reconstructible" he probably meant "known from a reasonably complete skeleton" but, stickler for completion that I am, I immediately broadened this to mean "anything that could be reasonably drawn based on phylogenetic bracketing." Perhaps understandably, this quickly got out of hand, forcing me to narrow the list down a bit, but not before I'd already painted (I kid you not) Dromaeosauroides and Troodon asiamericanus (the former complete with a tiny inset showing the single known tooth). While I liked the idea of including such never-before illustrated and highly speculative restorations, I thought that the spirit of the book demanded that I include mainly species that would have externally-visible distinguishing features. While there are still a few exceptions included, that is the criteria that produced the final book.

One interesting situation was the few species which did have some externally visible features but are otherwise so phylogenetically ambiguous that most of the reconstruction would be pure fantasy. An example is shown above: Yixianosaurus longimanus. The fact is, despite have a complete forelimb complete with vaned feathers, we don't really have any idea what kind of aviremigian Yixianosaurus is. It's sort of the Deinocheirus of the 21st century. I had restored it basically as I'd imagine a very primitive oviraptorosaur would look, sort of like a cross between Ornitholestes, Falcarius, and Protarchaeopteryx, and it was originally included among the basal caenagnathiformes for lack of a better spot in the book. I'd probably have kept it in if we had complete wing feathers--that would be useful to diagram, at least for artists. But even their length is a guess. So, despite being possibly the most basal known member of the Aviremigia, I had to give this guy the axe.

All Yesterdays: Paleoart Enters A New Era

For me, one of the biggest biggest paleoart revelations in recent memory was seeing John Conway's digital painting of Diplodocus longus. Its Charles Knight-like "retro" atmosphere, scaly, lizard-like hide, and drooping tail betrayed every piece of received wisdom from the modern paleoart era, which Darren Naish has dubbed the "Age of Paul." Conway himself wrote in the description that the painting represented a "betrayal of the dinosaur renaissance" -- a move away from the sleek, slim, hyperkinetic dinosaurs of Bob Bakker and Gregory S. Paul and back toward a more subdued, naturalistic interpretation of prehistoric life.

In some ways, the pendulum of the dinosaur revolution has swung too far in the hot-blooded direction. Certainly dinosaurs were not the cold-blooded swamp dwellers of the 19th Century, but guess what--many of them probably did live in swamps (including the swampy backwater environments preserved in the Jiufotang Formation) and I bet a lot of them relented to gravity and let their distal tails sag every once in a while; indeed, many of them may even have slept, and I'm not just talking about Mei long! While these statements may seem obvious, such scenarios are rarely portrayed in art.

Sleeping Tyrannosaurus rex by John Conway, from All Yesterdays

In their new book All Yesterdays, Conway, Naish, and C.M. Kosemen usher in a new age of paleoart, and solidify a paradigm shift that makes Paul's classic book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World look as, if not inaccurate, as outdated-seeming as 19th Century dinosaur artwork. The book points out that the anorexic zombie dinosaurs of the Paulian Age are not necessarily the most accurate portrayals of dinosaurs, and that depending on the vagaries of soft tissue preservation and the range of unusual and atypical behaviors found in modern animals, dinosaurs may have looked and acted quite differently from the way they've been shown for the past few decades.

I've long been a proponent of this kind of re-imagining myself. When I first published my recent recon of Archaeopteryx, for example, many of the comments centered on how bird-like it looked relative to most other reconstructions. Really though, I thought it was pretty conservative--all I'd done was give it a reasonable amount of feathering, in an attempt to move it away from the half-bird half-lizard chimeras we usually see. But the stunning artwork presented in All Yesterdays is where the real avant-garde action is, from the tree-climbing protoceratopsids of the cover to the now-infamous, stylized painting of a rutting stegosaur attempting to mount a sauropod!

The final section of the book is even more fascinating and often hilarious. Subtitled "All Todays," it imagines a world in which Quaternary period species are known only from fossils, and future paleoartists try to imagine what they would have looked like in life, mostly from a Paulian-style aesthetic of retaining skeletal outlines wherever possible with minimal soft tissue.

All in all, All Yesterdays is an absolute must-have for anyone interested in the life appearance of dinosaurs and in the cultural context/assumptions inherent in how we reconstruct the past. The book is conveniently available in both eBook and print formats. I personally used the ibooks version for this review, which looks really great, but will definitely be buying a dead tree version in the future, as I think the gorgeous artwork it contains demands a place on my coffee table in all its large-format glory.

All Yesterdays is available in paperback and eBook editions (the Kindle edition seems to come highly recommended on social media, and can be viewed with the Kindle app on iOS and desktop even if you don't have the e-reader).