Re: Glut's Encyclopedia

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 95-11-07 21:16:11 EST, egood@vax7.curtin.EDU.AU writes:

>       Regarding Glut's work, I definitely do _not_ suggest that anyone 
>buys his "Dinosaur Dictionary". My relatives bought this for me, thinking 
>it would be a good addition to my little library. It was supposedly 
>written in 1972, but there is such a lack of information, the reader 
>feels like saying "To hell with this", and picking up a Golden Book on 
>dinosaurs. There is no mention of Deinonychus (which was a sixties 
>discovery), all the photos and diagrams are of the old plodders ( T rex 
>even has three fingers ), and the entry on Velociraptor reads :
>       A coelurosaur, with some megalosaurian features.
>Compared to a lot of other texts available at the time, this was a poor 
>effort. I like his Transformers script "The Primitives" even better.
>                                       Marcus Good
>
>

The Encyclopedia will be better. For one thing, I and many professional
paleontologists helped him with it. And he assembled a humongous number of
specimen photos, which would make the book valuable just for that reason
alone. He's come a long way since his _Dinosaur Dictionary_ days. Of course,
we'll still have to wait and see what the publisher did with his text...