What do you think?
Rate this book
Too Big to Walk: The New Science of Dinosaurs
Ever since Jurassic Park we thought we knew how dinosaurs lived their lives. In this remarkable new book, Brian J. Ford reveals that dinosaurs were, in fact, profoundly different from what we believe, and their environment was unlike anything we have previously thought.
In this meticulous and absorbing account, Ford reviews the latest scientific evidence to show that the popular accounts of dinosaurs’ lives contain ideas that are no more than convenient inventions: how dinosaurs mated, how they hunted and communicated, how they nursed their young, even how they moved. He uncovers many surprising details which challenge our most deeply-held beliefs – such as the revelation that an asteroid impact did not end the dinosaurs’ existence.
Professor Ford’s illuminating examination changes everything. As he unravels the history of the world, we discover that evolution was not Charles Darwin’s idea; there were many philosophers who published the theory before him. The concept of continental drift and plate tectonics did not begin with Alfred Wegener a century ago, but dates back to learned pioneers hundreds of years before his time. Ever since scientists first began to study dinosaurs, they have travelled with each other down the wrong path, and Ford now shows how this entire branch of science has to be rewritten.
A new dinosaur species is announced every ten days, and more and more information is currently being discovered about how they may have lived: locomotion, hunting, nesting behaviour, distribution, extinction. Ford brings together these amazing discoveries in this controversial new book which undoubtedly will ruffle a few feathers, or scales if you are an old-school dinosaur lover.
In this meticulous and absorbing account, Ford reviews the latest scientific evidence to show that the popular accounts of dinosaurs’ lives contain ideas that are no more than convenient inventions: how dinosaurs mated, how they hunted and communicated, how they nursed their young, even how they moved. He uncovers many surprising details which challenge our most deeply-held beliefs – such as the revelation that an asteroid impact did not end the dinosaurs’ existence.
Professor Ford’s illuminating examination changes everything. As he unravels the history of the world, we discover that evolution was not Charles Darwin’s idea; there were many philosophers who published the theory before him. The concept of continental drift and plate tectonics did not begin with Alfred Wegener a century ago, but dates back to learned pioneers hundreds of years before his time. Ever since scientists first began to study dinosaurs, they have travelled with each other down the wrong path, and Ford now shows how this entire branch of science has to be rewritten.
A new dinosaur species is announced every ten days, and more and more information is currently being discovered about how they may have lived: locomotion, hunting, nesting behaviour, distribution, extinction. Ford brings together these amazing discoveries in this controversial new book which undoubtedly will ruffle a few feathers, or scales if you are an old-school dinosaur lover.
528 pages, Hardcover
First published May 31, 2018
17 people are currently reading
255 people want to read
About the author
Brian J. Ford
42 books4 followersBrian J. Ford is a research biologist, author and lecturer, who is known for popular science publications and select works on TV.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
August 24, 2018
Clearly, Harper Collins does not care to do a basic check on the science, because palaeontologists for decades have proven that dinosaurs can and did walk on land.
Brian J Ford is NOT a palaeontologist. He is, at best, a microbiologist (although his wiki page titles him as an "independent research biologist" whatever that means.) He appears to be, if his behaviour to actual palaeontologists or his oh-so-humble self-comparison to Galileo is anything to go by, desperate to make a name for himself and get himself attention - at the cost of misleading and setting public perception of dinosaurs back nearly a hundred years. Its already hard enough to get people to accept that dinosaurs had feathers (thank you Jurassic World *grumble*) we didn't need HarperCollins to chuck out this book, misleading people that if it has a big publisher's stamp of approval then it must be true. I have an awful feeling that perhaps HarperCollins did know that the science was wrong, but they published it anyway because it'll stir up controversy. Fake News anyone?
I mean, come on! Not only are sauropods aquatic, but T-Rex spent ALL its time in the water? The cherry-picked evidence he is using is laughable when you compare to what Paleotoglogist have presented over the years and in response to this publication - and to common sense.
Although it breaks my heart when I see those little Waterstones review cards for this book say things like "what we have been led to believe about dinosaurs may not be true after all," at the very least this book sits on the shelf next to the recently published "The Rise and Fall of Dinosaurs" by Steve Brusatte. Please, go read that. Or at the very least "Dinosaurs: A Very Short Introduction" by David Norman. Guess what, both of those are actual palaeontologists!
Brian J Ford is NOT a palaeontologist. He is, at best, a microbiologist (although his wiki page titles him as an "independent research biologist" whatever that means.) He appears to be, if his behaviour to actual palaeontologists or his oh-so-humble self-comparison to Galileo is anything to go by, desperate to make a name for himself and get himself attention - at the cost of misleading and setting public perception of dinosaurs back nearly a hundred years. Its already hard enough to get people to accept that dinosaurs had feathers (thank you Jurassic World *grumble*) we didn't need HarperCollins to chuck out this book, misleading people that if it has a big publisher's stamp of approval then it must be true. I have an awful feeling that perhaps HarperCollins did know that the science was wrong, but they published it anyway because it'll stir up controversy. Fake News anyone?
I mean, come on! Not only are sauropods aquatic, but T-Rex spent ALL its time in the water? The cherry-picked evidence he is using is laughable when you compare to what Paleotoglogist have presented over the years and in response to this publication - and to common sense.
Although it breaks my heart when I see those little Waterstones review cards for this book say things like "what we have been led to believe about dinosaurs may not be true after all," at the very least this book sits on the shelf next to the recently published "The Rise and Fall of Dinosaurs" by Steve Brusatte. Please, go read that. Or at the very least "Dinosaurs: A Very Short Introduction" by David Norman. Guess what, both of those are actual palaeontologists!
October 17, 2022
I have no idea how this guy got a book deal. Yes, he is a published biologist, but his focus is microorganisms. On paleontology he's a complete amateur! The thesis of the book is that most dinosaurs, (including T-Rex and the hadrosaurs, not just the sauropods) were too heavy to support their own weight and spent most of their time in shallow water. There's about a million things wrong with this, as has been shown over and over again since the 1970s which is the last time anyone at all held such a silly idea. Ford is completely at odds with everyone who has ever studied the matter, and he thinks that's because of groupthink and scientific conspiracy or some such rubbish. Don't bother.
(I do want to say that sauropods were probably quite good at swimming. Elephants have been tracked swimming 24 miles, and quite far out to sea. That neck probably made for a great "snorkel". Therapod swim tracks have been found, too. It's just they had no trouble getting around on dry land.)
(I do want to say that sauropods were probably quite good at swimming. Elephants have been tracked swimming 24 miles, and quite far out to sea. That neck probably made for a great "snorkel". Therapod swim tracks have been found, too. It's just they had no trouble getting around on dry land.)
March 30, 2019
I've no idea whether the theory about semi aquatic dinosaurs in this book is really supported by hard evidence, but I very much enjoyed reading the author's case which is entertainingly put.
Having just watched Jurassic World, I found myself agreeing with him that there is no way a T-Rex could have turned a corner at speed. Having also seen horse races called off because of heavy ground - I also think there is no way something that size could run on good-soft land without sinking into the ground up to its knees and falling over.
Having just watched Jurassic World, I found myself agreeing with him that there is no way a T-Rex could have turned a corner at speed. Having also seen horse races called off because of heavy ground - I also think there is no way something that size could run on good-soft land without sinking into the ground up to its knees and falling over.
October 29, 2018
A book that mainly consists of assertion upon assertion without a coherent reason for its main argument loses a lot of its credibility when Mosasaurus and Lystrosaurus are marked down as dinosaurs, and a BBC programme on the end-Permian extinction is mistaken for the K-T event which heralded the end of the dinosaurs.
The author’s main (and in my view, only) argument about the standard view of dinosaurs being terrestrial animals amounts to “I don’t believe it!” - One Foot in the Grave indeed.
The author’s main (and in my view, only) argument about the standard view of dinosaurs being terrestrial animals amounts to “I don’t believe it!” - One Foot in the Grave indeed.
December 5, 2024
A one-sided and deluded exercise in conjecture and cherry-picking to try and revive a long-discredited idea. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2018...
July 28, 2018
Buy this book, my beloved said. You love dinosaur science, he said! It'll be great, he said.
I do love dinosaurs. I was intrigued by the ideas that Brian Ford presented. But I did not love this book. This book is at least three books, maybe more, in one. I'm not sure Ford realised that.
The blurb says that the book "reviews the latest scientific evidence" about dinosaurs to suggest that a lot of things palaeontologists are presenting "are no more than convent fictions." Whoo, way to go with the controversy. And I would have loved the heck out of a well-argued, well-presented, scientific book about that. In fact, I did love those 80 or 100 pages of this 450-odd page book. But that leaves another 350 or so pages.
In those pages, Ford is doing something completely different. For a start, he's presenting a history of how humans have interacted with dinosaurs - that is, a history of palaeontology, complete with the theories about some bones belonging to giant humans of the past and so on. Fascinating! but so totally irrelevant to a scientific book about dinosaurs that, to use an in-joke, it's not even wrong. And then there's the section on the discovery of continental drift and tectonic plates and so on. Also fascinating. In fact, I think I've read a book about that already. This time, not quite so irrelevant to a book about dinosaurs - Ford's theory is that dinosaurs lived by wading in shallow lakes, and they went extinct with Pangea breaking up and the climate changing and the lakes evaporating - but it didn't need 50 or so pages on the topic. It definitely didn't need the entire history lesson on the topic; just a page or two on the facts would have been quite sufficient.
Lastly, there's also an irritated article for a science journal lurking in here: one which details the ways in which Ford has been ignored and calumniated by the scientific world (in his view). I think that calling out established science, when you have a solid theory that fits the evidence, is a necessary and reasonable thing to do. Maybe it would even fit into a book about that new and exciting but controversial theory. (I'm no palaeontologist but Ford presents a compelling case that should surely actually be considered. But I don't think it's presented well here - in that I think it should have been more clearly separated out from a discussion of the science.
So. The theory is really interesting, and if what he says is true - like the astounding energy required to pump blood up to the head of one of those enormous herbivores with super long necks - then I'm not going to be surprised if in a couple decades it's the standard, or at least viable, way of talking about dinosaurs. But this book was incredibly frustrating because it just didn't know what it wanted to be.
I do love dinosaurs. I was intrigued by the ideas that Brian Ford presented. But I did not love this book. This book is at least three books, maybe more, in one. I'm not sure Ford realised that.
The blurb says that the book "reviews the latest scientific evidence" about dinosaurs to suggest that a lot of things palaeontologists are presenting "are no more than convent fictions." Whoo, way to go with the controversy. And I would have loved the heck out of a well-argued, well-presented, scientific book about that. In fact, I did love those 80 or 100 pages of this 450-odd page book. But that leaves another 350 or so pages.
In those pages, Ford is doing something completely different. For a start, he's presenting a history of how humans have interacted with dinosaurs - that is, a history of palaeontology, complete with the theories about some bones belonging to giant humans of the past and so on. Fascinating! but so totally irrelevant to a scientific book about dinosaurs that, to use an in-joke, it's not even wrong. And then there's the section on the discovery of continental drift and tectonic plates and so on. Also fascinating. In fact, I think I've read a book about that already. This time, not quite so irrelevant to a book about dinosaurs - Ford's theory is that dinosaurs lived by wading in shallow lakes, and they went extinct with Pangea breaking up and the climate changing and the lakes evaporating - but it didn't need 50 or so pages on the topic. It definitely didn't need the entire history lesson on the topic; just a page or two on the facts would have been quite sufficient.
Lastly, there's also an irritated article for a science journal lurking in here: one which details the ways in which Ford has been ignored and calumniated by the scientific world (in his view). I think that calling out established science, when you have a solid theory that fits the evidence, is a necessary and reasonable thing to do. Maybe it would even fit into a book about that new and exciting but controversial theory. (I'm no palaeontologist but Ford presents a compelling case that should surely actually be considered. But I don't think it's presented well here - in that I think it should have been more clearly separated out from a discussion of the science.
So. The theory is really interesting, and if what he says is true - like the astounding energy required to pump blood up to the head of one of those enormous herbivores with super long necks - then I'm not going to be surprised if in a couple decades it's the standard, or at least viable, way of talking about dinosaurs. But this book was incredibly frustrating because it just didn't know what it wanted to be.
November 3, 2019
I had no idea who this charlatan was when I bought this book. Now I regret having put money in his pocket by buying it. I thought I was after finding, at last, that major lack in non fiction books - a great book on dinosaurs for adults. But oh how wrong I was...
The book begins quite well and the first 1/3 is a very enjoyable history of the development of paleontology and fossil collecting. Then some odd statements begin to creep in. Statements you typically hear from crackpots who claim vaccines don't work, deny the reality of the ongoing climate disaster, and the like. About how he is a lone voice of reason and the scientific status quo is silencing him unfairly. And how his claims are right and would change the face of the field but the vested interests in science won't allow it. Total guff.
Here's the thing, I'm scientist and while extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, with said extraordinary evidence such claims will be and are accepted. But Ford's claims are ridiculous and present no real evidence. They aren't even novel. The same theories were proffered with better evidence at least thrice before and each time the fossil evidence has shown it to be wrong.
This is a stupid book. I regret having added to its circulation. Avoid it.
The book begins quite well and the first 1/3 is a very enjoyable history of the development of paleontology and fossil collecting. Then some odd statements begin to creep in. Statements you typically hear from crackpots who claim vaccines don't work, deny the reality of the ongoing climate disaster, and the like. About how he is a lone voice of reason and the scientific status quo is silencing him unfairly. And how his claims are right and would change the face of the field but the vested interests in science won't allow it. Total guff.
Here's the thing, I'm scientist and while extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, with said extraordinary evidence such claims will be and are accepted. But Ford's claims are ridiculous and present no real evidence. They aren't even novel. The same theories were proffered with better evidence at least thrice before and each time the fossil evidence has shown it to be wrong.
This is a stupid book. I regret having added to its circulation. Avoid it.
June 20, 2019
There is nothing new about this book. A rehash of old ideas to make them the authors own. The claim of new science is really new fantasy because of a lack of any evidence for the wild ruminations postulated in this fire starter.
April 19, 2020
This is at least two books in one, although it isn’t presented as such, split almost exactly down the middle. Despite the subtitle “The New Science of Dinosaurs” and the summary on the back cover promising “controversial new theories”, some 236 pages are actually taken up in a historical overview of paleontology; nothing approaching new gets a look-in until at least the halfway point.
Short version: Being only an interested bystander, as it were, and not a paleontologist or any sort of expert, I do not especially support or deny the central theories put forward by Ford in this book. I do however take issue with Ford’s frequent false humility, arrogance, and hypocrisy, which is what brings the rating down in my opinion. It is readable, certainly, and definitely accessible to the non-expert, but put forward in such an antagonistic way that I wonder if the aim was less to illuminate the actual theories and more to stir up as much controversy as he could manage for no other reason than because he quite enjoys the conflict.
Long version:
Part 1:
This part would probably be around 3 stars by itself, maybe a little more. It consists of an interesting and relatively comprehensive history of paleontology and fossil collecting. In it, Ford gives an overall description of how ideas about extinction, evolution, and dinosaurs specifically have changed over time, going back several thousand years and getting progressively more detailed when we enter the more familiar periods of fossil discovery and study in the 19th and 20th centuries. He provides mini biographies for many of the paleontologists and fossil collectors described, although he seems to show a recurring bias against anyone with official, or at least relevant, academic qualifications. He is clearly quite taken with the idea of rebellious, genius non-specialists. Just as clearly, he is extremely disparaging towards Charles Darwin for no particular reason I can identify. While this section certainly has its intriguing points, I am not sure of its relevance to the (apparent) subject of the book as a whole.
Part 2:
In this section, Ford finally presents the theories and arguments that the book is purportedly about, namely that dinosaurs all evolved and lived as primarily aquatic creatures. As I said, I am not a paleontologist (although to be fair neither is the author) and the purpose of this review is not to support or deny Ford’s claims, but I do take some issues with the way it is presented and I do have a few questions.
Firstly, a large part of this section can be summed up as Ford having an idea in a museum once and then becoming increasingly irate when professional paleontologists argue against his claims. Some of his suggestions are certainly interesting, but he presents them in such a sweeping and somewhat arrogant way that it is difficult to see past. He often refers to the idea of dinosaurs living on land as “terrestrial tyranny” (once as “territorial tyranny”, although I am assuming this is an error), and is quite insistent on the idea of some sort of global conspiracy to suppress any suggestions to the contrary.
Every piece of evidence presented against Ford produces the same treatment: outright dismissal, often without any particularly detailed argument about why. Many dinosaurs were extremely large; therefore, Ford suggests they would have been unable to survive on land and must have lived in the water. Ford does not respond to the established proposals for how they might, in fact, have coped on land except to say that any such assertion is clearly wrong and he is clearly right. I would have been really interested in even a single chapter where Ford lays out what the arguments for a terrestrial lifestyle are, and then dismantled them as he saw fit. Instead, he mostly ignores them. For example; there is a single line mentioning skeletal pneumaticity, quite near the end of the book. I got excited when I saw that – finally, a widespread feature of the giant dinosaurs – beyond the simple fact of their size – that we might get some detail on! An argument that has been used to support the terrestrial idea of dinosaurs, which we might get a well-constructed argument against! Nope. Ford briefly asserts that this would have aided buoyancy, then moves on. I would have liked more detail here, particularly regarding Ford’s interpretation of why skeletal pneumaticity in extant animals is more commonly seen in birds, and is not as far as I know particularly widespread in aquatic animals, including the crocodiles who have a lifestyle the most similar to what Ford is proposing for the dinosaurs.
A summary of other issues and queries:
• Ford mentions a passing reference to Galileo from an early interviewer a lot considering he professes profound embarrassment about it on more than one occasion.
• On that note, Ford repeats himself regularly. After proudly talking about satirizing long-winded scientific communication. In a book which is 464 pages long, not including notes and index, half of which is not even about the subject matter at hand.
• At one point Ford talks about writing a (different) book which “made the word 'expert' into a target for suspicion”. This does not seem to me to be something to boast about.
• A lot of the second half of the book seems to be reprints of previously published magazine and blog articles, several of them very similar to each other.
• When Ford quotes people other than himself, he is very quick to point out spelling or grammatical mistakes and similar minor errors, asserting that it is ‘not promising’ and implying or outright stating that such mistakes undermine the author’s credibility. This attitude would be just as unwarranted but slightly more excusable if he had never fallen prey to such errors himself. I can assure you after reading this book that he has done, more than once. (I am not suggesting such errors in and of themselves undermine his credibility; I am suggesting that his implications of this exact idea against others is hypocritical.)
• Ford had apparently had “his” aquatic theory for “decades” before deciding to publish it. When he finally did decide to publish, he was in such a rush that he openly states that he just didn’t have time for “conventional peer-review” (a process he is deeply suspicious of) and actively avoided it. I would have had more sympathy if he had attempted peer-review, been rejected (which he claims would be inevitable), and then published in an alternative source anyway. Avoiding scrutiny from the get-go does not seem to be a sign of someone interested in discussion, despite his claims to the contrary.
• Fossils of one particular dinosaur, Spinosaurus, have been found to show evidence of an aquatic lifestyle. Ford extrapolates from this that there is evidence that all dinosaurs were aquatic. I find this a questionable line of reasoning. You could just as well say that since whales are aquatic, so are all mammals. Evidence is needed from a wider range of species, surely? (Evidence other than, well they were really big.)
• Also relating to Spinosaurus: Ford repeatedly calls into question paleontologists’ views on this dinosaur due to the scarcity of fossils, then confidently asserts his own views on it as though they are utterly beyond reproach. Where he gets his own evidence from is not explained.
• I am genuinely interested in Ford’s theories relating to smaller dinosaurs. Most of his arguments are based on the difficulty the very largest dinosaurs would have had living on dry land. He does not go into any detail about smaller dinosaurs.
• Ford says that as paleontologists are not experienced zoologists, they can have very little idea how living animals move, behave, etc. It’s simply not their area of expertise, so their ideas are bound to be wrong. I would remind you here that Ford is not a zoologist either, or a paleontologist. This argument therefore comes across as fairly hypocritical to me.
• At one point when discussing a lecture he gave, Ford states that a paleontologist who was attending did not ask any questions, but instead “had his male friend” do it. Why, I must ask, does Ford find the gender of the friend relevant?
• Not an issue exactly, more just… wow, does Ford have it in for fictional representations of dinosaurs. Given his overall stance and ideas, I get his ire towards representations which are supposed to be factual/realistic, and which he disagrees with, but this isn’t even limited to things like Jurassic Park, let alone actual documentaries. He really, really does not like unrealistic cartoons. He makes several references to an unnamed Disney dinosaur which he takes particular issue with (I am assuming he means either Dinosaur or The Friendly Dinosaur) as being unrealistic, and just… It’s an animated kids’ film, dude. God help you if you ever watch A Bug’s Life.
In all, I am glad I read this book. Some of the ideas put forward were interesting to think about, whether or not they are correct, and certainly the first half was a decent history lesson. I’m not a paleontologist. I have my personal views, but I can’t reliably speak for how credible or otherwise any given theory is, I just find it interesting to know what they are. So, I don’t regret reading this, despite the low star rating.
The trouble is that Ford’s theories are presented in such a relentlessly self-aggrandising way that it is difficult to consider them objectively. At no point is evidence from the opposing view presented and argued against; the fact that there might even be evidence is simply roundly dismissed. Ford constantly accuses just about anyone who disagrees with him of bad science, and then seems to commit the exact same mistakes himself hardly a page later. A great deal of the second part of the book is taken up by extensively quoting himself and almost gleefully describing the various times other people have disagreed with him online. Despite his reported desire for a “balanced debate”, what Ford really seems to want is that everyone just drops everything and decides they agree with him, and laud him for the hero he clearly wants to be – and sees himself as. That being said, he also seems to genuinely enjoy it when other scientists disagree with him – the more vehemently the better – because then he has the opportunity to respond in kind. As such, I doubt he would be disappointed by this book’s average rating (at the time of writing this review, 2.40 stars).
Potentially interesting basis for discussion on different theories, very off-putting tone.
Short version: Being only an interested bystander, as it were, and not a paleontologist or any sort of expert, I do not especially support or deny the central theories put forward by Ford in this book. I do however take issue with Ford’s frequent false humility, arrogance, and hypocrisy, which is what brings the rating down in my opinion. It is readable, certainly, and definitely accessible to the non-expert, but put forward in such an antagonistic way that I wonder if the aim was less to illuminate the actual theories and more to stir up as much controversy as he could manage for no other reason than because he quite enjoys the conflict.
Long version:
Part 1:
This part would probably be around 3 stars by itself, maybe a little more. It consists of an interesting and relatively comprehensive history of paleontology and fossil collecting. In it, Ford gives an overall description of how ideas about extinction, evolution, and dinosaurs specifically have changed over time, going back several thousand years and getting progressively more detailed when we enter the more familiar periods of fossil discovery and study in the 19th and 20th centuries. He provides mini biographies for many of the paleontologists and fossil collectors described, although he seems to show a recurring bias against anyone with official, or at least relevant, academic qualifications. He is clearly quite taken with the idea of rebellious, genius non-specialists. Just as clearly, he is extremely disparaging towards Charles Darwin for no particular reason I can identify. While this section certainly has its intriguing points, I am not sure of its relevance to the (apparent) subject of the book as a whole.
Part 2:
In this section, Ford finally presents the theories and arguments that the book is purportedly about, namely that dinosaurs all evolved and lived as primarily aquatic creatures. As I said, I am not a paleontologist (although to be fair neither is the author) and the purpose of this review is not to support or deny Ford’s claims, but I do take some issues with the way it is presented and I do have a few questions.
Firstly, a large part of this section can be summed up as Ford having an idea in a museum once and then becoming increasingly irate when professional paleontologists argue against his claims. Some of his suggestions are certainly interesting, but he presents them in such a sweeping and somewhat arrogant way that it is difficult to see past. He often refers to the idea of dinosaurs living on land as “terrestrial tyranny” (once as “territorial tyranny”, although I am assuming this is an error), and is quite insistent on the idea of some sort of global conspiracy to suppress any suggestions to the contrary.
Every piece of evidence presented against Ford produces the same treatment: outright dismissal, often without any particularly detailed argument about why. Many dinosaurs were extremely large; therefore, Ford suggests they would have been unable to survive on land and must have lived in the water. Ford does not respond to the established proposals for how they might, in fact, have coped on land except to say that any such assertion is clearly wrong and he is clearly right. I would have been really interested in even a single chapter where Ford lays out what the arguments for a terrestrial lifestyle are, and then dismantled them as he saw fit. Instead, he mostly ignores them. For example; there is a single line mentioning skeletal pneumaticity, quite near the end of the book. I got excited when I saw that – finally, a widespread feature of the giant dinosaurs – beyond the simple fact of their size – that we might get some detail on! An argument that has been used to support the terrestrial idea of dinosaurs, which we might get a well-constructed argument against! Nope. Ford briefly asserts that this would have aided buoyancy, then moves on. I would have liked more detail here, particularly regarding Ford’s interpretation of why skeletal pneumaticity in extant animals is more commonly seen in birds, and is not as far as I know particularly widespread in aquatic animals, including the crocodiles who have a lifestyle the most similar to what Ford is proposing for the dinosaurs.
A summary of other issues and queries:
• Ford mentions a passing reference to Galileo from an early interviewer a lot considering he professes profound embarrassment about it on more than one occasion.
• On that note, Ford repeats himself regularly. After proudly talking about satirizing long-winded scientific communication. In a book which is 464 pages long, not including notes and index, half of which is not even about the subject matter at hand.
• At one point Ford talks about writing a (different) book which “made the word 'expert' into a target for suspicion”. This does not seem to me to be something to boast about.
• A lot of the second half of the book seems to be reprints of previously published magazine and blog articles, several of them very similar to each other.
• When Ford quotes people other than himself, he is very quick to point out spelling or grammatical mistakes and similar minor errors, asserting that it is ‘not promising’ and implying or outright stating that such mistakes undermine the author’s credibility. This attitude would be just as unwarranted but slightly more excusable if he had never fallen prey to such errors himself. I can assure you after reading this book that he has done, more than once. (I am not suggesting such errors in and of themselves undermine his credibility; I am suggesting that his implications of this exact idea against others is hypocritical.)
• Ford had apparently had “his” aquatic theory for “decades” before deciding to publish it. When he finally did decide to publish, he was in such a rush that he openly states that he just didn’t have time for “conventional peer-review” (a process he is deeply suspicious of) and actively avoided it. I would have had more sympathy if he had attempted peer-review, been rejected (which he claims would be inevitable), and then published in an alternative source anyway. Avoiding scrutiny from the get-go does not seem to be a sign of someone interested in discussion, despite his claims to the contrary.
• Fossils of one particular dinosaur, Spinosaurus, have been found to show evidence of an aquatic lifestyle. Ford extrapolates from this that there is evidence that all dinosaurs were aquatic. I find this a questionable line of reasoning. You could just as well say that since whales are aquatic, so are all mammals. Evidence is needed from a wider range of species, surely? (Evidence other than, well they were really big.)
• Also relating to Spinosaurus: Ford repeatedly calls into question paleontologists’ views on this dinosaur due to the scarcity of fossils, then confidently asserts his own views on it as though they are utterly beyond reproach. Where he gets his own evidence from is not explained.
• I am genuinely interested in Ford’s theories relating to smaller dinosaurs. Most of his arguments are based on the difficulty the very largest dinosaurs would have had living on dry land. He does not go into any detail about smaller dinosaurs.
• Ford says that as paleontologists are not experienced zoologists, they can have very little idea how living animals move, behave, etc. It’s simply not their area of expertise, so their ideas are bound to be wrong. I would remind you here that Ford is not a zoologist either, or a paleontologist. This argument therefore comes across as fairly hypocritical to me.
• At one point when discussing a lecture he gave, Ford states that a paleontologist who was attending did not ask any questions, but instead “had his male friend” do it. Why, I must ask, does Ford find the gender of the friend relevant?
• Not an issue exactly, more just… wow, does Ford have it in for fictional representations of dinosaurs. Given his overall stance and ideas, I get his ire towards representations which are supposed to be factual/realistic, and which he disagrees with, but this isn’t even limited to things like Jurassic Park, let alone actual documentaries. He really, really does not like unrealistic cartoons. He makes several references to an unnamed Disney dinosaur which he takes particular issue with (I am assuming he means either Dinosaur or The Friendly Dinosaur) as being unrealistic, and just… It’s an animated kids’ film, dude. God help you if you ever watch A Bug’s Life.
In all, I am glad I read this book. Some of the ideas put forward were interesting to think about, whether or not they are correct, and certainly the first half was a decent history lesson. I’m not a paleontologist. I have my personal views, but I can’t reliably speak for how credible or otherwise any given theory is, I just find it interesting to know what they are. So, I don’t regret reading this, despite the low star rating.
The trouble is that Ford’s theories are presented in such a relentlessly self-aggrandising way that it is difficult to consider them objectively. At no point is evidence from the opposing view presented and argued against; the fact that there might even be evidence is simply roundly dismissed. Ford constantly accuses just about anyone who disagrees with him of bad science, and then seems to commit the exact same mistakes himself hardly a page later. A great deal of the second part of the book is taken up by extensively quoting himself and almost gleefully describing the various times other people have disagreed with him online. Despite his reported desire for a “balanced debate”, what Ford really seems to want is that everyone just drops everything and decides they agree with him, and laud him for the hero he clearly wants to be – and sees himself as. That being said, he also seems to genuinely enjoy it when other scientists disagree with him – the more vehemently the better – because then he has the opportunity to respond in kind. As such, I doubt he would be disappointed by this book’s average rating (at the time of writing this review, 2.40 stars).
Potentially interesting basis for discussion on different theories, very off-putting tone.
February 24, 2019
Ok, I know, I know. I was sceptical at first too. Everything we think we know about the terrestrial dinosaurs is wrong? And on top of this, the proposer of the radical new theory isn't even a palaeontologist? What the hell does he know about it? I've actually been following Professor Ford for a few years now (he's actually an accomplished microbiologist), and I first came across his radical new theories on the dinosaurs back in 2012, and to be honest, didn't give it much thought at all. Like many other people, and perhaps the entire scientific community, I dismissed it as the premature conjectures of a scientist looking for attention in a field more popular than his own. I had seen the impressive exhibitions in the Natural History Museum, demonstrating compellingly the way their scientists believed dinosaurs were able to run, and fast. All the geologists agreed that the Cretaceous was a warm period for the planet, with little water on its continents, meaning that the natural habitat of the dinosaur was the dry, arid plain. So for a long time, despite my esteem for the professor, I simply ignored his contributions to the dinosaur debate.
Then along came baryonyx. It was clear since it was first discovered that it was at least capable of swimming - the flexible hip rotators and bones capable of supporting strong lateral muscles made this clear. But aside from this, palaeontologists simply assumed it must be land-dwelling. The only piece of evidence in favour of this being the placement of its nostrils. Then came a startling discovery. New findings indicated that its diet comprised almost entirely of fish. Why on earth would land-dwelling reptile adopt this diet? Then came the knock-down piece of evidence. Oxygen-isotope analysis indicated that the creature must have shared the same lifestyle as that of the modern crocodile - almost entirely submerged in water and coming to land almost only to lay eggs or move to another bit of water. This was quite a discovery. And it led me to read Professor Ford's book where he lays out his arguments that what we know about baryonyx can - and should - be applied to all the big terrestrial dinosaurs.
The book is comprised of two quite distinct sections. The first half is an excellent narrative account of the grand history of palaeontology. For those that strongly disagree with his theory, or aren't interested in the more academic debates in palaeontology, I would still strongly recommend this book for its compelling narrative of the history of palaeontology. He then proceeds to lay out his theory for the aquatic dinosaur. The more I read, at first, the more I was angered. Here was someone trying to tell me that the image that I had always held in my mind of the dinosaurs was actually completely wrong. How dare he! But every time he started considering a new species of dinosaur, the pattern was always the same. I began by almost snorting aloud as I read - how on earth could this species be aquatic? Then he started presenting the evidence, and quite quickly my surprise was replaced by astonishment. The theory genuinely makes sense. At least for some species. Baryonyx is clearly aquatic, as is tyrannosaurus and Diplodocus. However, the evidence is not quite as compelling for triceratops or stegosaurus.
This was the first main flaw with the book. He presents all species as equally likely to be aquatic, even though his own argument lays out species that are far more likely than others to be aquatic. Professor Ford can be forgiven in some respects for this - the book, after all, is trying to present a radical new theory for the dinosaurs as a whole. Clearly the argument is more compelling when you don't have to keep using the phrase 'except for'. However, another flaw in the book, and one that I am afraid I cannot forgive him for, is his vitriolic attack on Charles Darwin. We all know that Darwin was not necessarily the first to come up with the broad idea of evolution. The idea, after all, was discussed by the Ancient Greeks. But Professor Ford, for a large chunk of his book, and in my mind, quite bewilderingly, almost tries to take away all credit for the idea from Darwin. To me, this is simply a distortion of the facts. Even if Darwin was not the first to come up with the idea, he was absolutely the first to set the notion down in a comprehensive and compelling manner. Professor Ford is simply wrong on this point.
Nevertheless, I would really recommend this book. It makes you challenge the assumptions we all hold in our minds about these majestic creatures, and actually does propose a compelling, and completely new, theory of the dinosaurs. For that in itself, it is worthy of regard. Furthermore, since the book's publication, new evidence has actually supported the hypothesis. Perhaps in a few years time, we really will look back on this book as the start of a new era of dinosaur understanding.
Then along came baryonyx. It was clear since it was first discovered that it was at least capable of swimming - the flexible hip rotators and bones capable of supporting strong lateral muscles made this clear. But aside from this, palaeontologists simply assumed it must be land-dwelling. The only piece of evidence in favour of this being the placement of its nostrils. Then came a startling discovery. New findings indicated that its diet comprised almost entirely of fish. Why on earth would land-dwelling reptile adopt this diet? Then came the knock-down piece of evidence. Oxygen-isotope analysis indicated that the creature must have shared the same lifestyle as that of the modern crocodile - almost entirely submerged in water and coming to land almost only to lay eggs or move to another bit of water. This was quite a discovery. And it led me to read Professor Ford's book where he lays out his arguments that what we know about baryonyx can - and should - be applied to all the big terrestrial dinosaurs.
The book is comprised of two quite distinct sections. The first half is an excellent narrative account of the grand history of palaeontology. For those that strongly disagree with his theory, or aren't interested in the more academic debates in palaeontology, I would still strongly recommend this book for its compelling narrative of the history of palaeontology. He then proceeds to lay out his theory for the aquatic dinosaur. The more I read, at first, the more I was angered. Here was someone trying to tell me that the image that I had always held in my mind of the dinosaurs was actually completely wrong. How dare he! But every time he started considering a new species of dinosaur, the pattern was always the same. I began by almost snorting aloud as I read - how on earth could this species be aquatic? Then he started presenting the evidence, and quite quickly my surprise was replaced by astonishment. The theory genuinely makes sense. At least for some species. Baryonyx is clearly aquatic, as is tyrannosaurus and Diplodocus. However, the evidence is not quite as compelling for triceratops or stegosaurus.
This was the first main flaw with the book. He presents all species as equally likely to be aquatic, even though his own argument lays out species that are far more likely than others to be aquatic. Professor Ford can be forgiven in some respects for this - the book, after all, is trying to present a radical new theory for the dinosaurs as a whole. Clearly the argument is more compelling when you don't have to keep using the phrase 'except for'. However, another flaw in the book, and one that I am afraid I cannot forgive him for, is his vitriolic attack on Charles Darwin. We all know that Darwin was not necessarily the first to come up with the broad idea of evolution. The idea, after all, was discussed by the Ancient Greeks. But Professor Ford, for a large chunk of his book, and in my mind, quite bewilderingly, almost tries to take away all credit for the idea from Darwin. To me, this is simply a distortion of the facts. Even if Darwin was not the first to come up with the idea, he was absolutely the first to set the notion down in a comprehensive and compelling manner. Professor Ford is simply wrong on this point.
Nevertheless, I would really recommend this book. It makes you challenge the assumptions we all hold in our minds about these majestic creatures, and actually does propose a compelling, and completely new, theory of the dinosaurs. For that in itself, it is worthy of regard. Furthermore, since the book's publication, new evidence has actually supported the hypothesis. Perhaps in a few years time, we really will look back on this book as the start of a new era of dinosaur understanding.
September 8, 2019
Let’s put it this way... there’s a reason it took me almost a month to get through this book.
That being the author really does love to cast himself as the victim and that get increasingly irritating to try and get through. There’s only so many times you can read the same article reworded about a theory that sounds only a little passable at best and utterly laughable for the most part.
That being the author really does love to cast himself as the victim and that get increasingly irritating to try and get through. There’s only so many times you can read the same article reworded about a theory that sounds only a little passable at best and utterly laughable for the most part.
May 25, 2020
Some interesting theories and a good history of palaeontology are marred by a lot of scientific name calling! Very readable but I’m not sure I believe him! More research needed I think.
January 23, 2025
It's like two books haphazardly smashed together, the second of which is an out of control whine about people telling the author he's wrong while he meanwhile hasn't put together so much as a scrap of actual evidence to back himself. So much hypocrisy (typos by others show lack of brain but typos by himself are everywhere), (broken t Rex arm shows ability to live without arm but broken t Rex leg shows nothing), everything in favor of the idea is taken as hard fact, other people making conclusions on tiny samples of bone are reaching but not the author he just knows things, page long tangents into pitching someone else's unrelated book. What a mess.
Read
August 12, 2024DNF - seemed like pseudoscience.
April 21, 2025
Super interesting, but the science has been debunked, it kinda makes it a waste of time. But the first 150-ish pages about the history of paleontology are a thrill non the less. Mixed feelings about this book, but a great example of how something with 100+ references to scientific articles can still be bullshit.
October 30, 2018
Firstly, I do believe the theories Brian Ford is putting forward in this book are at the very least plausible. I would however find it easier to buy into them if he could address some of the mega fauna that came after the dinosaurs, i.e. Paraceratherium.
Does his theory indicate that any mammals that were larger than an African elephant would have been too large to move around on land as well?
Secondly, the first two thirds of the book is a sort of history of paleontology, which is fine. However, then last third, is a fairly unstructured, often repetitive, sometimes petty sort of....proof. I think he has been dragged into playing that petty game of point scoring scientists sometimes play, which may be necessary if a theory is to eventually be accepted, but it is not pretty.
Aside from this, to read a book written by a scientist on the receiving end of the sort of abuse you would normally associate with flat earthers back in the infancy of science is fascinating. I gave it four stars mainly for this, and for the courage needed to evangelize a new theory, in such a territorial field.
Does his theory indicate that any mammals that were larger than an African elephant would have been too large to move around on land as well?
Secondly, the first two thirds of the book is a sort of history of paleontology, which is fine. However, then last third, is a fairly unstructured, often repetitive, sometimes petty sort of....proof. I think he has been dragged into playing that petty game of point scoring scientists sometimes play, which may be necessary if a theory is to eventually be accepted, but it is not pretty.
Aside from this, to read a book written by a scientist on the receiving end of the sort of abuse you would normally associate with flat earthers back in the infancy of science is fascinating. I gave it four stars mainly for this, and for the courage needed to evangelize a new theory, in such a territorial field.
November 10, 2018
TLDR: Theory of semi-aquatic dinosaurs and a temperate watery Cretaceous period.
The ideas have merit, this book does not. It would be preferable to read his scientific articles than go through this diatribe.
This was a rambling biography of everyone involved. There is a lot of conjecture about their personalities and motivations. The author gets too caught up with who is getting credit rather than the facts or discoveries.Though he repeatedly insists he just wants the truth out there. His venom at the paleontology community is undeniable when he says near the end of the book that "It is not a quest for new truths, so much as a race by rivals. Personal animosity is a greater stimulus to science than the contented spirit of enquiry can ever be".
Chill Brian Ford, your idea is out. Only time and further research will tell whether it holds water.
The ideas have merit, this book does not. It would be preferable to read his scientific articles than go through this diatribe.
This was a rambling biography of everyone involved. There is a lot of conjecture about their personalities and motivations. The author gets too caught up with who is getting credit rather than the facts or discoveries.Though he repeatedly insists he just wants the truth out there. His venom at the paleontology community is undeniable when he says near the end of the book that "It is not a quest for new truths, so much as a race by rivals. Personal animosity is a greater stimulus to science than the contented spirit of enquiry can ever be".
Chill Brian Ford, your idea is out. Only time and further research will tell whether it holds water.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 30, 2020
the author shows a shocking display of arrogance and seems to think that pointing out the spelling and grammar mistakes of others is appropriate scientific discussion. lacks some basic geological understanding.
the first half of the book was an interesting look at the development of palaeontology, but the second half was repetitive, written in a tone that was simply inappropriate.
the first half of the book was an interesting look at the development of palaeontology, but the second half was repetitive, written in a tone that was simply inappropriate.
July 16, 2021
A mediocre read at best, Ford is certainly in love with his own theories.
Ultimately while there are a few reasonable objections to "mainstream" Ford abandons those swiftly in favor of making some ridiculous claims with little to no support.
Additionally, several claims are made with promise of later explanation, but those explanations never come.
Ultimately while there are a few reasonable objections to "mainstream" Ford abandons those swiftly in favor of making some ridiculous claims with little to no support.
Additionally, several claims are made with promise of later explanation, but those explanations never come.
November 21, 2019
I was hoping for some sort of theory rather than 'here is a nice picture of a dinosaur on land, but it should be stood neck deep in water'. It didn't even make good toilet paper.
June 9, 2024
Ford is about as much of a writer as he is a paleontologist, which is to say, not at all, and I think he needs to stay in his lane.
This is a massive book about an honestly half-baked and unsubstantiated theory. I'm no paleontologist, and I certainly agree with what Ford says about the struggle to challenge orthodox views in science (or anywhere!). However, even for a layman like myself, it didn't feel that he presented anywhere near sufficient evidence to back up his claims. The evidence he provided was really more conjecture than anything research based or driven by scientific analysis. I really have no idea if Ford is wrong about aquatic dinosaurs, but after reading this book I am not convinced that his theory has any more backing than the terrestrial one, which either means he has terrible rhetoric skills or terrible scientific skills. I'm inclined to believe it's a bit of both.
Literarily speaking, I don't see why any reputable publishing company would want to be associated with this book. Quite literally half of the book, 200-250 pages in my copy at least, was a history of dinosaur paleontology. I wouldn't call it uninteresting, but it certainly had nothing to do with his theory, so I have to wonder why he would include it. Additionally, there's a time and place for personal anecdote, but basically the entirety of the explanation of his theory was within the story of how Ford developed this idea and brought it to the public eye, which felt unnecessary and came off as self centered. Not to mention, Ford continuously airs out personal grievances throughout this segment of the book. It gave me strong second hand embarassment, and he wasn't even in the wrong in these interpersonal conflicts. He also frequently pokes fun at spelling errors when quoting others, which is made more embarrassing by his own grammatical errors throughout the text.
Ford goes back and forth between the various lines of evidence (among other, random, things he chose to discuss about dinosaurs) jumping around really erratically. There's not much structure or organization, particularly in the latter half of the book. Considering that the first half is just chronological, his organizational skills as an author clearly leave a lot to be desired. Chapter divisions are completely random and do nothing to separate out parts of his book. He also repeatedly included the articles arguing his theory in the text, which were often pretty repetitive, and just restated the same lines of evidence that he discussed in the prose- a confusing choice.
I did, however, finish this book, so I guess that warrants at least some compliments. If it wasn't infuriatingly unrelated to his theories, I would have found the history component pretty interesting. Hell, if the book ended when that section did, I think I'd give it a solid 4/5. I can admit, a lot of people did seem to dismiss his theories without consideration, which I don't look at favorably. He brings up some good points, like that of yaw, isotope ratios, energy expenditures from large necks and tails, and footprint depth, among others, that I would like to see the advocates of, as he says, "terrestrial tyranny" refute. But, had I recognized these things, I would not be arrogant enough to claim without professional experience in this field that every expert is wrong and too stuck in convention to consider it.
A better paleontologist (and writer) than Ford could perhaps fill 400 some pages explaining to me why dinosaurs were aquatic. And yes, maybe if more scientists were willing to challenge convention, that book would exist. But Ford's book is all I have to go on, and it gives me very little faith in the aquatic theory, and even less faith that one needs 400 pages to prove the aquatic theory. I'd say he should stick to microbiology but this book makes me feel that retirement would be a better choice.
This is a massive book about an honestly half-baked and unsubstantiated theory. I'm no paleontologist, and I certainly agree with what Ford says about the struggle to challenge orthodox views in science (or anywhere!). However, even for a layman like myself, it didn't feel that he presented anywhere near sufficient evidence to back up his claims. The evidence he provided was really more conjecture than anything research based or driven by scientific analysis. I really have no idea if Ford is wrong about aquatic dinosaurs, but after reading this book I am not convinced that his theory has any more backing than the terrestrial one, which either means he has terrible rhetoric skills or terrible scientific skills. I'm inclined to believe it's a bit of both.
Literarily speaking, I don't see why any reputable publishing company would want to be associated with this book. Quite literally half of the book, 200-250 pages in my copy at least, was a history of dinosaur paleontology. I wouldn't call it uninteresting, but it certainly had nothing to do with his theory, so I have to wonder why he would include it. Additionally, there's a time and place for personal anecdote, but basically the entirety of the explanation of his theory was within the story of how Ford developed this idea and brought it to the public eye, which felt unnecessary and came off as self centered. Not to mention, Ford continuously airs out personal grievances throughout this segment of the book. It gave me strong second hand embarassment, and he wasn't even in the wrong in these interpersonal conflicts. He also frequently pokes fun at spelling errors when quoting others, which is made more embarrassing by his own grammatical errors throughout the text.
Ford goes back and forth between the various lines of evidence (among other, random, things he chose to discuss about dinosaurs) jumping around really erratically. There's not much structure or organization, particularly in the latter half of the book. Considering that the first half is just chronological, his organizational skills as an author clearly leave a lot to be desired. Chapter divisions are completely random and do nothing to separate out parts of his book. He also repeatedly included the articles arguing his theory in the text, which were often pretty repetitive, and just restated the same lines of evidence that he discussed in the prose- a confusing choice.
I did, however, finish this book, so I guess that warrants at least some compliments. If it wasn't infuriatingly unrelated to his theories, I would have found the history component pretty interesting. Hell, if the book ended when that section did, I think I'd give it a solid 4/5. I can admit, a lot of people did seem to dismiss his theories without consideration, which I don't look at favorably. He brings up some good points, like that of yaw, isotope ratios, energy expenditures from large necks and tails, and footprint depth, among others, that I would like to see the advocates of, as he says, "terrestrial tyranny" refute. But, had I recognized these things, I would not be arrogant enough to claim without professional experience in this field that every expert is wrong and too stuck in convention to consider it.
A better paleontologist (and writer) than Ford could perhaps fill 400 some pages explaining to me why dinosaurs were aquatic. And yes, maybe if more scientists were willing to challenge convention, that book would exist. But Ford's book is all I have to go on, and it gives me very little faith in the aquatic theory, and even less faith that one needs 400 pages to prove the aquatic theory. I'd say he should stick to microbiology but this book makes me feel that retirement would be a better choice.
September 15, 2020
Final review 2.5 stars
I wanted to like this book, albeit its controversy. I was prepared to at least learn another view on this discussion and place it in the grander context of paleontology but I couldn't ......
The first 50-60% of this book were quite well written and engaging. These parts on the history of paleontologists highlighted a lot of researchers I hadn't previously heard of and placed the discovery of many grand finds in a historical context that was very enlightening and entertaining.
Although in this part I didn't realize it yet, the author highlighted a lot of underdogs in this context, which is okay, but he went at great lengths to explain which underdog did which astronomical find and what their contribution was to the grander scheme of the science field. During the first chapters I personally didn't really found this irritating, yet later in this book he continuously referred to these underdog scientist and himself in the same grand scheme and yeah .... I did not like his tone at all.
The second half was okay, presenting his theory in an explanatory manner although during his explanation three things came up that made me have an irritated attitude towards this book.
First, through the latter half of the book, comprising about 200-250 pages or so, he repeated the same arguments over, and over, and over, and over until the point where he kept rehashing the same material. I felt like this latter half could have been shorter and concise to put down his arguments.
Furthermore, his attitude towards other scientist was despicable. True, they might have not wanted to publish his material in any reputable magazine, yet the report came from an expert in microbiology, not from a reputable contemporary scientist in the specific field. The author also kept repeating how unfair they treated him, citing scientific articles he wanted to publish but were ultimately not published or met with severe controversy and he kept doing this for surely 5 or 6 times until the point I questioned whether the point of this book was to put down an essay of valid and plausible arguments or if his point was simply to rifle up a controversy.
Thirdly, his matter of generalization bothered me. When talking about his new theory, he kept rehashing arguments about Spinosaurids being a valid argument for all dinosaurs, rather than treating it as an exception. Since the publication of this book, the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus came out as a prolific semi-aquatic to almost full aquatic animal with derived traits. Yet this does not mean all dinosaurs acted in the same manner as the Spinosaurus, as the author makes us believe. This is simply ridiculous. That's saying a elephant should lead the same lifestyle as an hippopotamus or as a Bactrian camel or as a moose or water ox. In such a varied world, not all animals could have lived in shallow lakes and simple using one or a small group of examples rather than looking individually at each example signifies a generalization.
Generalization
This book was definitely NOT for me, primarily because of the attitude of the write and the method at which he referred to the other scientists surrounding him. This makes the validity of his claims all the more unconvincing. Furthermore, the arguments he gave generalized the group of dinosaurs far too much, which made the book eventually unattractive. But still, putting personal arguments aside, this book's writing style was engaging but provocative, which didn't tickle my fancy particularly.
I wanted to like this book, albeit its controversy. I was prepared to at least learn another view on this discussion and place it in the grander context of paleontology but I couldn't ......
The first 50-60% of this book were quite well written and engaging. These parts on the history of paleontologists highlighted a lot of researchers I hadn't previously heard of and placed the discovery of many grand finds in a historical context that was very enlightening and entertaining.
Although in this part I didn't realize it yet, the author highlighted a lot of underdogs in this context, which is okay, but he went at great lengths to explain which underdog did which astronomical find and what their contribution was to the grander scheme of the science field. During the first chapters I personally didn't really found this irritating, yet later in this book he continuously referred to these underdog scientist and himself in the same grand scheme and yeah .... I did not like his tone at all.
The second half was okay, presenting his theory in an explanatory manner although during his explanation three things came up that made me have an irritated attitude towards this book.
First, through the latter half of the book, comprising about 200-250 pages or so, he repeated the same arguments over, and over, and over, and over until the point where he kept rehashing the same material. I felt like this latter half could have been shorter and concise to put down his arguments.
Furthermore, his attitude towards other scientist was despicable. True, they might have not wanted to publish his material in any reputable magazine, yet the report came from an expert in microbiology, not from a reputable contemporary scientist in the specific field. The author also kept repeating how unfair they treated him, citing scientific articles he wanted to publish but were ultimately not published or met with severe controversy and he kept doing this for surely 5 or 6 times until the point I questioned whether the point of this book was to put down an essay of valid and plausible arguments or if his point was simply to rifle up a controversy.
Thirdly, his matter of generalization bothered me. When talking about his new theory, he kept rehashing arguments about Spinosaurids being a valid argument for all dinosaurs, rather than treating it as an exception. Since the publication of this book, the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus came out as a prolific semi-aquatic to almost full aquatic animal with derived traits. Yet this does not mean all dinosaurs acted in the same manner as the Spinosaurus, as the author makes us believe. This is simply ridiculous. That's saying a elephant should lead the same lifestyle as an hippopotamus or as a Bactrian camel or as a moose or water ox. In such a varied world, not all animals could have lived in shallow lakes and simple using one or a small group of examples rather than looking individually at each example signifies a generalization.
Generalization
This book was definitely NOT for me, primarily because of the attitude of the write and the method at which he referred to the other scientists surrounding him. This makes the validity of his claims all the more unconvincing. Furthermore, the arguments he gave generalized the group of dinosaurs far too much, which made the book eventually unattractive. But still, putting personal arguments aside, this book's writing style was engaging but provocative, which didn't tickle my fancy particularly.
April 15, 2024
The reasons why this book has a low rating have been hashed and rehashed here in reviews.
My main gripes as someone with not quite the level of interest in palaeontology as other reviewers:
Arrangement of information.
This book has a very large chunk at the beginning, talking about the history of palaeontology. After an introduction hyping up how impressive his new theory will be, this is a bit of a slog. To direct readers to other books or texts about the field if they want historical context would be a better way of doing this (something I have seen done in other non-fiction that focuses on a specific sub-field or theory, and respect) at least personally.
Cherry picking.
You would certainly think that a book with such a large amount of historical context would have a lot less picking and choosing when it comes to information to support his argument, but unfortunately you would be wrong. Not just reptiles went extinct during the K-Pg event, so I am not sure why he said that crocodiles or snakes would not exist had the asteroid really been behind it. There is evidence to prove that Spinosauruses were semi aquatic, yes, but that is alongside dinosaurs that were almost definitely terrestrial. Crocodiles do have webbed feet (how did this get past your editor?)
General arrogance.
I'd rather not read something where the author consistently tries to put themselves on a martyr-like pedestal. Peer review is a lot like a scientific slap fight, which I assume is why he doesn't like it, but it is a part of science. You must argue with other people to prove your point, not just in palaeontology but in other fields. You are not a victim because a lot of people disagree with your opinion.
Edit: after watching Dr Naish's rebuttal of his J. Ford's claims (https://youtu.be/jG50CGJJfUs?si=ATyEA...), it would seem these aren't new claims either. If this was a backed up theory the field would already have had that incredible change he touts at the beginning.
My main gripes as someone with not quite the level of interest in palaeontology as other reviewers:
Arrangement of information.
This book has a very large chunk at the beginning, talking about the history of palaeontology. After an introduction hyping up how impressive his new theory will be, this is a bit of a slog. To direct readers to other books or texts about the field if they want historical context would be a better way of doing this (something I have seen done in other non-fiction that focuses on a specific sub-field or theory, and respect) at least personally.
Cherry picking.
You would certainly think that a book with such a large amount of historical context would have a lot less picking and choosing when it comes to information to support his argument, but unfortunately you would be wrong. Not just reptiles went extinct during the K-Pg event, so I am not sure why he said that crocodiles or snakes would not exist had the asteroid really been behind it. There is evidence to prove that Spinosauruses were semi aquatic, yes, but that is alongside dinosaurs that were almost definitely terrestrial. Crocodiles do have webbed feet (how did this get past your editor?)
General arrogance.
I'd rather not read something where the author consistently tries to put themselves on a martyr-like pedestal. Peer review is a lot like a scientific slap fight, which I assume is why he doesn't like it, but it is a part of science. You must argue with other people to prove your point, not just in palaeontology but in other fields. You are not a victim because a lot of people disagree with your opinion.
Edit: after watching Dr Naish's rebuttal of his J. Ford's claims (https://youtu.be/jG50CGJJfUs?si=ATyEA...), it would seem these aren't new claims either. If this was a backed up theory the field would already have had that incredible change he touts at the beginning.
March 8, 2025
The new ANTI-science of dinos ( www.amazon.com/review/RPB4CHUQPYV4O/r... ): 1/5
As you may remember from my Feduccia-related reviews ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/5252511712 ), BANDits are basically the paleo equivalent of creationists & global warming deniers ( https://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/... ). Similarly, Ford is basically the paleo equivalent of a flat earther. Ford's dino work in general & "Too Big to Walk" in particular is so bad that 1) NHBS only sold it with a Surgeon General-esque warning ( https://archive.ph/ZOv7u ), & 2) Naish has had to dissect it 4 separate times:
-"Palaeontology bites back…"
-"Brian J. Ford's Aquatic Dinosaurs, 2014 Edition".
-"A Vast Quantity of Evidence Confirms That Non-Bird Dinosaurs Were Not Aquatic".
-"The Response to and Rejection of Brian Ford’s Too Big to Walk, a 21st Century Effort to Reinstate the Aquatic Dinosaur Hypothesis".
1 more thing of note: I recently re-read Bakker's "The Dinosaur Heresies" (which includes proof "for a terrestrial habitat for sauropods": https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.... ). It's a long read for a popular work, but still a highly recommended one, especially in conjunction with Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved", another great Natural History of Dinos ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3505614509 ), & Naish's "Dinopedia", another great Dino Rennaissance-perspective book ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4960975366 ).
As you may remember from my Feduccia-related reviews ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/5252511712 ), BANDits are basically the paleo equivalent of creationists & global warming deniers ( https://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/... ). Similarly, Ford is basically the paleo equivalent of a flat earther. Ford's dino work in general & "Too Big to Walk" in particular is so bad that 1) NHBS only sold it with a Surgeon General-esque warning ( https://archive.ph/ZOv7u ), & 2) Naish has had to dissect it 4 separate times:
-"Palaeontology bites back…"
-"Brian J. Ford's Aquatic Dinosaurs, 2014 Edition".
-"A Vast Quantity of Evidence Confirms That Non-Bird Dinosaurs Were Not Aquatic".
-"The Response to and Rejection of Brian Ford’s Too Big to Walk, a 21st Century Effort to Reinstate the Aquatic Dinosaur Hypothesis".
1 more thing of note: I recently re-read Bakker's "The Dinosaur Heresies" (which includes proof "for a terrestrial habitat for sauropods": https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.... ). It's a long read for a popular work, but still a highly recommended one, especially in conjunction with Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved", another great Natural History of Dinos ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3505614509 ), & Naish's "Dinopedia", another great Dino Rennaissance-perspective book ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/4960975366 ).
November 26, 2024
Ford’s book is one of the most arrogant, hypocritical, self-indulgent, obnoxious pieces of writing I have ever had the displeasure of reading. I’d give it no stars if I could.
This guy is so unbelievably pretentious. I respect that he may disagree with theories put forward by other scientists and palaeontologists - after all, he’s quoted multiple scenarios where they have been disproven in the past. But the way he does it is just so unpleasant, the language he uses is so disparaging, and for what?
Not to mention he called “Giganotosaurus” the wrong name, in its full latin form as well, which is doubly embarrassing because of how up his own behind he is about correct taxonomy.
He is the epitome of an egotistical, white, male boomer; only he can be correct, anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, but also anyone else who refuses to consider alternative viewpoints is just stupid and probably infantile (read: not an old white man).
He’s made more than a few grammatical errors, which I’d forgive if he weren’t so self-righteous. And he’s dull! Painfully so. Half way through the book I had yet to come across a single one of his own ideas, instead it’s just filled with him saying that other people are wrong simply “because”.
This inconceivable piece of garbage is full of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and errors.
I went into this open minded, prepared to hear a theory that I hadn’t before, but I was not prepared for this Galileo-wannabe to fill it with so much unnecessary waffle.
This guy is so unbelievably pretentious. I respect that he may disagree with theories put forward by other scientists and palaeontologists - after all, he’s quoted multiple scenarios where they have been disproven in the past. But the way he does it is just so unpleasant, the language he uses is so disparaging, and for what?
Not to mention he called “Giganotosaurus” the wrong name, in its full latin form as well, which is doubly embarrassing because of how up his own behind he is about correct taxonomy.
He is the epitome of an egotistical, white, male boomer; only he can be correct, anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, but also anyone else who refuses to consider alternative viewpoints is just stupid and probably infantile (read: not an old white man).
He’s made more than a few grammatical errors, which I’d forgive if he weren’t so self-righteous. And he’s dull! Painfully so. Half way through the book I had yet to come across a single one of his own ideas, instead it’s just filled with him saying that other people are wrong simply “because”.
This inconceivable piece of garbage is full of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and errors.
I went into this open minded, prepared to hear a theory that I hadn’t before, but I was not prepared for this Galileo-wannabe to fill it with so much unnecessary waffle.
October 21, 2024
Firstly, Brian's theory does seem to deserve some merit and I do feel that a lot more research into it is needed. Some areas are very interesting and most definitely plausible.
However, it is not best displayed in this book. I thought that this would be a book on his theory. I would now describe the book as a book describing the journey of his theory.
The book could have been cut down by about 50 pages by getting rid of all the notes about who he is friends with and who he had been out to lunch with. Along with snide comments made by those who don't support him. Although I understand why he feels that way, it doesn't come across well in the book for me.
The first half of the book about the history of fossil hunting and the theories of dinosaurs was an interesting read, but I found it hard to follow in a lot of parts.
Basically, I would recommend that people read his theory but just not in this book.
However, it is not best displayed in this book. I thought that this would be a book on his theory. I would now describe the book as a book describing the journey of his theory.
The book could have been cut down by about 50 pages by getting rid of all the notes about who he is friends with and who he had been out to lunch with. Along with snide comments made by those who don't support him. Although I understand why he feels that way, it doesn't come across well in the book for me.
The first half of the book about the history of fossil hunting and the theories of dinosaurs was an interesting read, but I found it hard to follow in a lot of parts.
Basically, I would recommend that people read his theory but just not in this book.
January 6, 2025
I would be lying if I said I did not enjoy reading this book, mainly because 90% of it was just a retelling of paleontology history. But when it actually gets to the main aim of the book, the theory that dinosaurs could not have walked around with their massive bodies unless they were using a shallow body of water to support their weight, you were already 200 pages into the book. It felt like an afterthought to a book that is already pretty thick and lengthy.
After more research on the author of this book it became clear that he is no paleontologist and that his theory is nothing but a wild fantasy he wanted people to believe in based on nothing but speculation and baseless assumptions.
Overall, it is not a totally bad read. Like I said, I was actually pretty entertained while reading it because I loved learning about the history of paleontology but once the theory part of the book started it became too fantastical to be taken seriously.
After more research on the author of this book it became clear that he is no paleontologist and that his theory is nothing but a wild fantasy he wanted people to believe in based on nothing but speculation and baseless assumptions.
Overall, it is not a totally bad read. Like I said, I was actually pretty entertained while reading it because I loved learning about the history of paleontology but once the theory part of the book started it became too fantastical to be taken seriously.
January 5, 2020
I am dithering whether 3.5 or 4 stars. His arguments would be more effective if he had left out some of the petulant comments about the reception of his ideas. A good deal of the book is tracing the development of theories about dinosaurs; it turns out some of his were anticipated and then discarded. I can understand the petulancy given the statements by established paleontologists; something similar happened to Baker when he first mooted the idea of extremely active dinosaurs. And such receptions happen in other fields when ideas to the "received wisdom" are argued.
His theory of water borne/supported dinosaurs is certainly possible and his statements about the unfeasibility of 20 ton dinosaurs able to gambol about without breaking their legs (a matter of physics) have to be further investigated.
His theory of water borne/supported dinosaurs is certainly possible and his statements about the unfeasibility of 20 ton dinosaurs able to gambol about without breaking their legs (a matter of physics) have to be further investigated.
April 15, 2022
Brian's theory is completely unconvincing and clearly incorrect. For that reason I actually found this quite an interesting read, especially the sections covering the enormous backlash, derision and ridicule he received from the paelaentological community.
Obviously Brian doesn't go into any real detail about *why* the theory is universally regarded as incorrect, so naturally I was quickly off searching for details on the scientific proof we have against the theory. So - at least indirectly - I've expanded on my dinosaur knowledge via reading this book.
Obviously Brian doesn't go into any real detail about *why* the theory is universally regarded as incorrect, so naturally I was quickly off searching for details on the scientific proof we have against the theory. So - at least indirectly - I've expanded on my dinosaur knowledge via reading this book.
May 7, 2022
Long, rambling and lacking in structure. Events are told largely in chronological order, which is a very poor approach in a subject so vast. (Imagine telling WWII by the day instead of by the campaign!) The chapters are far too long and the chapter titles bear little relation to their contents.
However, it is valuable to know that both fossils and evolution were known to the ancients. The big contribution of the 19th century was to see that these ideas were linked.
The primary thesis, that dinosaurs must have been overwhelming aquatic, is neither original nor widely accepted today. Nevertheless, it might still be true.
However, it is valuable to know that both fossils and evolution were known to the ancients. The big contribution of the 19th century was to see that these ideas were linked.
The primary thesis, that dinosaurs must have been overwhelming aquatic, is neither original nor widely accepted today. Nevertheless, it might still be true.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews