_The Science of Jurassic Park and the Lost World_

["Mickey P. Rowe" <mrowe@indiana.edu>]

Since it just came up here I thought people might like to know that
Peter Dodson reviewed the book (see my subject line) in the August 1st
issue of _Science_.  He reached pretty much the same conclusions as
our own Tom Holtz: good for molecular biology, not so good for
paleontology.

I will also have to recommend that Brian stay away from this review,
though.  Peter tries to take up some of the slack by complaining about
JP dinosaurs (though he takes great pains before that to point out
that he has no problems with the successes of either the books or
movies).  While doing so he notes "the conflation" of _Velociraptor_
and _Deinonychus_ and refers to the animal as a raptor.  Since he does
not use quotation marks around "raptor", it appears to me that he is
using the word to refer to _Deinonychus_ rather than to the whatever
you might imagine the things in the movie to have been.  You win some
you lose some...

--
Mickey Rowe     (mrowe@indiana.edu)