[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Purposefully false restorations?

In the recent issue of Prehistoric Times, artist Mike Milbourne, without 
naming names, accuses the restorers of Giganotosaurus and 
Carcharodontosaurus of purposeful falsehood in the restoration of their 
respective finds in an effort to upstage Tyrannosaurus rex.  I'd heard 
this in the past from another prominent dinosaur artist (in a private 
conversation, so I won't say who), but not as strongly as put by 
Milbourne in PT.  

I'm providing some quotes from the article, entitled "Giganotosaurus: 
Not Rex Enough", to get listmember input on some of Milbourne's 
assertions.  Is he right?  Mike, if you're a member, please feel free to 
jump in (Mike Fredericks, could you forward to Milbourne if you have his 
e-mail address?  Thanks!)

(I've decided not to employ the standard convention of attributing 
grammatical errors to the original author/publication (that being 
'sic'), as this would clutter things up too much.)

"Right from the offset of these two discoveries, it seemed to me as if 
importance was never placed upon the proper collection and documentation 
of the fossil material.  It seemed as if the goal was for certain 
paleontologists to gain access to the "lime light", by claiming that 
they had found a meat eating dinosaur with a skull larger than that of 
Tyrannosaurus rex.  And what better way to draw attention to yourself 
than to make a claim like that.  With dollar signs in their eyes these 
paleontologists turned their backs on real professional scientific work.  
They could have cared less about presenting their fossil material in a 
scientific manner . . . ."

"The missing skull elements of both Giganotosaurus and 
Carcharodontosaurus were purposefully and falsely elongated and enlarged 
for the specific intent of coming up with a skull that was supposedly 
larger than the skull of Tyrannosaurus rex.  In the case of 
Carcharodontosaurus the premaxilla was extremely over exaggerated and 
extended to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to make the skull as 
long as possible.  The same is true with the Giganotosaurus skull, 
except this time the stretching was done at the back of the skull.  
There is certainly nothing wrong with trying to make money from a 
dinosaur discovery but not at the expense of accurate scientific data."

Melbourne then goes on to compare G. and T. at length, and provides some 
very handsome restorations, presumably in a uniform scale, of skulls (T. 
being the biggest, with G. and C. looking rather shrimpy by comparison).  



Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com