What do you think?
Rate this book
Dinosaurs
Explains what fossils can tell us about dinosaurs, describes different species, and speculates on how dinosaurs raised their young, kept warm, ate their food, defended themselves, and why they became extinct
64 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 1995
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
August 29, 2020
Surprisingly bad ( www.amazon.com/review/RJC08JRY6J57L/r... ): 2/5
For as long as there has been "Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books)" (henceforth DD), there have been wannabes. As much as I love DD, I understand why readers would want an alternative ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3512191187 ). However, as far as I know, Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" is the only good alternative. Creagh's "Dinosaurs (Nature Company Discoveries Libraries)" (henceforth DN), while not the worst alternative, is still very bad (which is surprising given Milner's involvement). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is, besides the confusingly-messy organization.*
1) DN is annoyingly redundant & vague in terms of writing: In reference to "redundant", this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts"; 8 of the 14 questions had already been answered earlier in DN; In reference to "vague", this is especially apparent in "Why Did They Vanish?"; Notice that the Creagh quotes don't explain how dinos went extinct, but just list causes.
2) DN is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. Again, this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts": 1st, it's claimed that dinos "could not fly", contradicting the earlier claim that Archaeopteryx was "a small, flesh-eating dinosaur[...that...]could fly"; Then, it's claimed that "about 800 species[...]have been described", contradicting the earlier claim that "we know of at least 1,000".
3) Unlike DD's life reconstructions, DN's are mostly not-so-good: Those by Kirshner are as good as it gets (E.g. See the Baryonyx in this link: https://web.archive.org/web/202605130... ); The others are shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. Many of them, especially those by End, are shameless rip-offs of Sibbick's), just plain outdated/abominable (E.g. See Eriksson's very dark & elephantine Styracosaurus on the cover), or some combination of both (E.g. Newman/Thornton's Maiasaura is a shameless rip-off of Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor "with a finely polished finish reminiscent of a 4x4 vehicle purchased by a money-crazed, wantonly aggressive businessperson").**
*At least DD has an Introduction. DN just begins with a section about pre-dinos & continues with no logical transitions or flow between the sections & chapters.
**See "Vintage Dinosaur Art: A natural history of Dinosaurs – Part 1" for Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor ( https://chasmosaurs.com/2019/04/02/vi... ) & "Vintage Dinosaur Art: Dinosaurs! The 1987 Childcraft Annual - Part 1" for "a finely polished finish" ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2015... ).
Quoting Creagh: "BIG BANG
According to one theory, several volcanic eruptions produced climatic changes that wiped out the dinosaurs."
Quoting Creagh: "METEORITE HITS
Perhaps a giant meteorite hit the Earth, causing dust clouds, acid rain, storms and huge waves."
For as long as there has been "Dinosaur (DK Eyewitness Books)" (henceforth DD), there have been wannabes. As much as I love DD, I understand why readers would want an alternative ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3512191187 ). However, as far as I know, Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" is the only good alternative. Creagh's "Dinosaurs (Nature Company Discoveries Libraries)" (henceforth DN), while not the worst alternative, is still very bad (which is surprising given Milner's involvement). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why I think that is, besides the confusingly-messy organization.*
1) DN is annoyingly redundant & vague in terms of writing: In reference to "redundant", this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts"; 8 of the 14 questions had already been answered earlier in DN; In reference to "vague", this is especially apparent in "Why Did They Vanish?"; Notice that the Creagh quotes don't explain how dinos went extinct, but just list causes.
2) DN is hit-&-miss in terms of getting the facts straight. Again, this is especially apparent in "Dinosaur Facts": 1st, it's claimed that dinos "could not fly", contradicting the earlier claim that Archaeopteryx was "a small, flesh-eating dinosaur[...that...]could fly"; Then, it's claimed that "about 800 species[...]have been described", contradicting the earlier claim that "we know of at least 1,000".
3) Unlike DD's life reconstructions, DN's are mostly not-so-good: Those by Kirshner are as good as it gets (E.g. See the Baryonyx in this link: https://web.archive.org/web/202605130... ); The others are shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions (E.g. Many of them, especially those by End, are shameless rip-offs of Sibbick's), just plain outdated/abominable (E.g. See Eriksson's very dark & elephantine Styracosaurus on the cover), or some combination of both (E.g. Newman/Thornton's Maiasaura is a shameless rip-off of Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor "with a finely polished finish reminiscent of a 4x4 vehicle purchased by a money-crazed, wantonly aggressive businessperson").**
*At least DD has an Introduction. DN just begins with a section about pre-dinos & continues with no logical transitions or flow between the sections & chapters.
**See "Vintage Dinosaur Art: A natural history of Dinosaurs – Part 1" for Crosby-Smith's Velociraptor ( https://chasmosaurs.com/2019/04/02/vi... ) & "Vintage Dinosaur Art: Dinosaurs! The 1987 Childcraft Annual - Part 1" for "a finely polished finish" ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2015... ).
Quoting Creagh: "BIG BANG
According to one theory, several volcanic eruptions produced climatic changes that wiped out the dinosaurs."
Quoting Creagh: "METEORITE HITS
Perhaps a giant meteorite hit the Earth, causing dust clouds, acid rain, storms and huge waves."
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review