Various

[Ralph Chapman <MNHAD002@SIVM.SI.EDU>]

 RE: JP and Parasaurolophus. The Para's were in the opening scenes from
 when the paleontologists get in the park but not the opening scene of
 movie as noted. Nice to have another nice head. Would love to get a bunch
 of juveniles of various sizes, Parasaurolophus is sort of an allometricians
 dream, like pachys.

 The new issue of Dinosaurus is out with greatly colored stuff and a Bill
 Stout bent. Stout's got the best publicity machine of any illustrator
 outside the Czerkas'. Tom is right about the latter's book, by the way,
 they have the pachy's with the Thyreophora which is a very odd place for them
 considering that most everyone else puts them as the sister taxon to
 the ceratopsians (ceratopians? - the red-headed dinos - carrot-topsians),
 whatever.

 Back to Dinosaurus, it has an AMNH new exhibit article, which seems mandatory
 in every periodical (now there's a publicity machine!). Happily, I'm as
 batty for the AMNH's dinos as everyone else. There's also a piece of fiction,
as well as a short article on the Central Park (NY) Waterhouse Hawkin's
 dinos, and a Carnotaurus article. Dinosaurus is mostly youngun's oriented
 but interesting to us old fogey's. They have am e-mail address of
 DinoMag@aol.com.

 The section that disturbed me in Dinosaurus is the front section called
 Diggin' 'em up. There some breaking theories are discussed in little sections.
 In this issue, there's a note on anky tails used for thermal regulation,
 some discussion of ceratopsian horns as sexual dimorphic characters,
 an odd inclusion on the Virginia vultures that may or may not be hunting
 farm animals (OH God Where's Little Jeff???!!!!), some comments on pack
 hunting and parental interactions in Trexes, and finally a note on head
 butting in pachys, specifically tied to the new specimen, suggesting
 it had a neck articulation very different from that currently accepted
 from Galton's work and suggested no head butting. I would guess no other
 butting either.

 What disturbs me is that no individuals are cited as the source of the
 information which, in some cases, is critical. In the pachy's case
 is this a new reconstruction from Dale Russell or Ken, or does it
 come from an off-hand comment from someone involved and might be a
 taphonomic artifact and not a reasonable interpretation of life position?
 In the case of the Triceratops horns, the discussion is short but looks
 pretty balanced for the length. Still, I don't exactly feel comfortable
 with presenting to young people new stuff that has not gone under any
 critical evaluation. The Pachy one is especially decisive in its wording,
 which is too strong for material seen by only a few people and not
 at least presented for critical evaluation. This harkens back to the
 Bakker discussions where RB tends to present data to the public as fact
 when he hasn't, at times, gone to the trouble of trying to convince
 other professionals of his case. Usually because the data just don't
 happen to be there. If there something I'd change in the mag, this section
 would be it. At least cite the people who are proposing the theories,
 make sure they are listed as only possibilities at this stage, and
 cut the number down and discuss each more and in a balanced wasy.

 Now to artists, I've heard disparaging remarks on the art of both
 Stout and Ely Kish. For Stout, yes I've been put off in the past by
 what I saw as anorexic dinos with ribs sticking out. They seem to be
 getting fatter through time, though, and he can do some very nice and
 realistic reconstructions when he wants to. Most of its very pretty
 as well. I've talked with him a few times and he seems a nice guy as
 well.

 Ely Kish is the person who, in modern times, remade dinosaur art as
 art rather than just illustration. Her stuff has really set the stage
 for the stuff by Gurche, etc. since the 1980's. I frequently don't
 like the reconstructions as requested by Dale Russell, especially the
 vacu-formed sauropod necks, but that's Dale's choice. Ely is a true
 artist and, somehow, manages to be a great person. She was in residence
 here for a couple years doing a mural or two for Life in the Ancient
 Seas.

 Finally, the Dinosaurus article on pachys also had accompanying it
 a picture of the Dinamation Pachycephalosaurus which may be the ugliest
 dinosaur recreation this side of some awful Cuban dino stamps. Of
 course, a lot of the ugliness may be Pachycephalosaurian in nature.

 That's too much, sorry, Ralph Chapman, NMNH