Re: Hou, 2000

["Mickey_Mortimer11" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>]

Tracy L. Ford wrote-

> So, you have the book then? Mine's buried someplace, in some pile in my
room
> so I can't look at it right now. But if it's the book that I'm thinking
of,
> I thought the skeletal reconstructions were uniquely (not bad) done. It
also
> has photo's of the specimens, so I guess it isn't worth getting because of
> that right?

I have photocopies of the book (thanks Ben Creisler!).  The skeletal
reconstructions are just horribly inaccurate- they don't even match the bone
outlines.  The photos are of good quality, but you all know how hard it is
to see details in Yixian specimens.  The one really useful photo is
Eoenantiornis, because the original authors never described or illustrated
most of it.

> Boy, you'd think a Chinese book on Chinese fossils would be better, oh
well.

Well, it's based on the diagnoses in Hou (1997), which isn't very high
quality despite its great length.

> Like the rest of us don't use skeletal reconstructions? How many bad
> Archaeopteryx illustrations are there?

Of course!  I'm not faulting him for relying on the skeletal reconstructions
in the book, he had no other choice.  I'm just sad that the reconstructions
he had to rely on were of such low quality, so that he couldn't use his
talent to draw birds that were accurate, as well as aesthetically pleasing.

And David, don't worry about getting the book because it's the place where
Jibeinia is officially named.  Hou (1997) is a far more complete resource
for information on that bird (I'll have to update my Details on Jibeinia
segment sometime to reflect the new information available in it).

Mickey Mortimer