Yesterday I received my review copy of Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science by Phillip Manning (supposedly all about the hadrosaur mummy "Dakota"), and while I usually try to keep quiet about my thoughts on a book until I've finished it I just can't keep my trap shut this time. I will write a full review very soon (I'm more than halfway through the book), but I am extremely disappointed with this piece. The book contains no index, no bibliography/references, and there are virtually no pictures of the dinosaur the book is supposed to focus on (save for a scan of a segment of tail). Aside from a small section in the middle of the book the title is practically devoid of illustrations, and I really have to wonder why this book was printed in such an incomplete fashion. Even though I am not finished with it I doubt if the book will mention what species Dakota is and I've already mentioned that there are essentially no photographs, reconstructions, or diagrams of the animal beside the art on the cover and one picture of the tail, and I can't imagine why this dinosaur was not described first in the scientific literature so fuller disclosure could be given in the book. I'm sure that Manning is so tight-lipped because the dinosaur has not made its "proper" appearance in the peer-reviewed literature yet, but while the story of the discovery/excavation of the dinosaur is interesting (even though such discussion doesn't start until more than 1/3 of the way into the book) I was hoping for a bit more detail about the fossil and its implications for paleobiology. Indeed, contra to my expectations the book seems more like a teaser or a promo for the National Geographic show "Dino Autopsy" and whatever upcoming papers there may be, and while the second half of the book may contain some content that mitigate my issues with the first half (including an abuse of the "survival of the fittest" concept) there really is no excuse for a popular science book not to have an index or contain a bibliography.
- Log in to post comments
Interesting, I'm glad you posted about this, I saw it while killing time in the campus bookstore last week and made a mental note to buy it after my next paycheck, now I may reconsider that, at least wait for the used/paperback price to get it and critique it myself...when I see you this weekend, remind me to tell you about a book I would love to see you review/dissect/demolish.
Here's a tip: Don't read a book (especially a popular one) about an animal that hasn't been formally described. I would not doubt that the book forms a "companion piece" to the Discovery Channel show. And how can there be few or no good illustrations of a freaking hadrosaur MUMMY? That boggles the mind. SHOW ME THE MUSCLE TISSUE!
I was similarly disappointed in the Web site for which a link was provided on one of the blogs talking about the hadrosaur. It just didn't seem to be very informative about the specimen.