>I don't buy Tom Holtz' claim that the dragons of medieval literature don't
>really resemble dinosaurs. Look at any good collection of medieval paintings
>of saints slaying dragons. You'll note two different common body patterns,
> one of which is more-or-less therapod (with wings, usually), while the
>other is sauropod (either without wings or with very small wings.) You won't
>see very many of the snake-like bodies in the European depictions. --Merritt
>Clifton, editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE.
Let's put it this way - medieval illustrations do not resemble the
specimen-based, technical well-executed scientific restorations of such
people as Hallett, Paul, Carpenter, etc. The medieval illustrations DO
resemble the poorly-drawn illustrations drawn by people (most of whom
apparently had no anatomical training) that populate most dinosaur books
prior to 1980 or there abouts. However, the pre-1980 illustrations were
probably inspired by medieval dragon paintings (I remember an Anchisaurus
drawing in a children's book that was particularly draconic), and not the
medieval paintings based on dinosaur fossils.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov
Vertebrate Paleontologist in Exile Phone: 703-648-5280
U.S. Geological Survey FAX: 703-648-5420
Branch of Paleontology & Stratigraphy
MS 970 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
U.S.A.