Of course, the most egregious renaming of a genus in dinosaur history, and one which shows that scientific priority has FAR more to do with scientific ego than accuracy or aptness, is the horrendous renaming, shown on page 192: Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) excelsus, wherein the great Thunder Lizard of yore has been reduced to the wholly inapt Deceptive Lizard of now. These sorts of scientific stupidities rank alongside the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a….dwarf planet. Enough said. Of interest, though, is this, from the same page, under Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) parvus:
"NOTES Brontosaurus is the shorter, narrower-necked version of Apatosaurus from the lower and middle Morrison."
Does this mean that there was a difference between the two? Does that mean that Brontosaurus could re-emerge as a species of the genus Apatosaurus? As Apatosaurus bronto (or brontii)? If so, that would satisfy both the supporters of the egotistical scientific priority and those enthusiasts for nominal aptness and coolness. Unfortunately, the entry does nothing to answer this query, but it is one of a number of entries that provokes queries in a reader, as well as satisfying most other ones.
The Princeton Field Guide To Dinosaurs is not the boldest book on dinosaurs ever published, in terms of historical speculations and claims, and it’s not even the best in terms of sheer volume of illustrations, but, in terms of sheer compendial value plus illustrations, it’s an excellent book, one of the best ever, and one which I wish was around in my youth, when all I had were dense textbooks and the old How And Why Wonder Books. Not that they were bad, but they were not this, and this "new" old world is one which I, as a child, had no idea preceded me. Now I do. Any book that has that sort of revelatory power is one to read, and read again.
Article comments