What do you think?
Rate this book
Dinosaurs
An exploration of the dinosaur age from the Triassic period to their extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period studies the physical appearance, evolution, size, diet, and lifestyle of over sixty types of dinosaurs.
360 pages, Paperback
Published August 1, 2007
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 13, 2024
A condensed natural history ( www.amazon.com/review/RYNJFTCGBFUHK/r... ): 4/5
Holtz's "The Little Giant Book of Dinosaurs" (henceforth TL) is better than one might think based on the cover (which originally turned me off). In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why I think that is.
1) In my very 1st review, I describe Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" as "the "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries" exhibition in book form" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3474599046 ). Similarly, I'd describe TL as Holtz's "GEOL 104 Dinosaurs: A Natural History" course (fall semester 2000) in children's book form. More specifically, TL covers all the same subjects (albeit MUCH more condensed) in almost exactly the same order.
2) In reference to "almost exactly", the only major differences are that TL 1) profiles ~60 dinos, & 2) mostly covers biology/ecology/behavior in the profiles. In other words, TL reminds me of Norell's "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3528027045 ), especially in terms of putting each dino in perspective ecologically & with its relatives (E.g. See the Holtz quotes).
At this point, you may be wondering why only 4/5 stars? For 1, there are several examples of misediting throughout TL (E.g. "All dinosaurs[...]are descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Iguanodon or Megalosaurus"; Should read: "Iguanodon and Megalosaurus"). For another, most of the ornithischians & some of the theropods are depicted with wonky anatomy &/or a derivative look (E.g. The Gastonia reminds me of Sibbick's "Normanpedia" Euoplocephalus & even has an ankylosaurid head). Otherwise, TL is very good & I recommend reading it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved").
Quoting Holtz: "The first and most primitive known armored dinosaur, Scutellosaurus, was small, had a small head and short arms, and walked on its hind legs. It had hundreds of small armor plates or scutes covering its back and tail. If a small predator tried to attack it, the plant eater could curl up with its armored tail wrapped around its body. If the small predator tried to bite into its back or tail, it probably couldn’t cut through the armor and might even break a tooth trying. All these small armor plates probably made Scutellosaurus slower than the other plant eaters that lived at the same time. The scutes would help against a small attacker, but if a bigger meat eater attacked, its much larger teeth and claws could probably get through. Something else would be needed to defend against these bigger predators."
Quoting Holtz: "Descended from Scutellosaurus or a similar dinosaur, Scelidosaurus represents the next stage in the history of the armored dinosaurs. Because little armored dinosaurs could not defend against larger predators, they had two possible ways to go. Either they could become faster or they could become larger and more heavily armored. Scelidosaurus is much larger than Scutellosaurus, and has much larger armor plates. Very few predators of its time could have pierced its thick scutes. Such armor came at a cost, however. A big animal with lots of armor plates was too heavy to run very fast. In fact, Scelidosaurus had so much armor that it probably had to walk on all fours all the time, rather than run around on its hind legs like Scutellosaurus.
From Scelidosaurus or its close relations came the two main branches of advanced armored dinosaurs: the stegosaurs and the ankylosaurs. The stegosaurs became more mobile, with a more active defense; the ankylosaurs became walking tanks."
Holtz's "The Little Giant Book of Dinosaurs" (henceforth TL) is better than one might think based on the cover (which originally turned me off). In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why I think that is.
1) In my very 1st review, I describe Gardom/Milner's "The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs" as "the "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries" exhibition in book form" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3474599046 ). Similarly, I'd describe TL as Holtz's "GEOL 104 Dinosaurs: A Natural History" course (fall semester 2000) in children's book form. More specifically, TL covers all the same subjects (albeit MUCH more condensed) in almost exactly the same order.
2) In reference to "almost exactly", the only major differences are that TL 1) profiles ~60 dinos, & 2) mostly covers biology/ecology/behavior in the profiles. In other words, TL reminds me of Norell's "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour" ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3528027045 ), especially in terms of putting each dino in perspective ecologically & with its relatives (E.g. See the Holtz quotes).
At this point, you may be wondering why only 4/5 stars? For 1, there are several examples of misediting throughout TL (E.g. "All dinosaurs[...]are descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Iguanodon or Megalosaurus"; Should read: "Iguanodon and Megalosaurus"). For another, most of the ornithischians & some of the theropods are depicted with wonky anatomy &/or a derivative look (E.g. The Gastonia reminds me of Sibbick's "Normanpedia" Euoplocephalus & even has an ankylosaurid head). Otherwise, TL is very good & I recommend reading it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's "Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved").
Quoting Holtz: "The first and most primitive known armored dinosaur, Scutellosaurus, was small, had a small head and short arms, and walked on its hind legs. It had hundreds of small armor plates or scutes covering its back and tail. If a small predator tried to attack it, the plant eater could curl up with its armored tail wrapped around its body. If the small predator tried to bite into its back or tail, it probably couldn’t cut through the armor and might even break a tooth trying. All these small armor plates probably made Scutellosaurus slower than the other plant eaters that lived at the same time. The scutes would help against a small attacker, but if a bigger meat eater attacked, its much larger teeth and claws could probably get through. Something else would be needed to defend against these bigger predators."
Quoting Holtz: "Descended from Scutellosaurus or a similar dinosaur, Scelidosaurus represents the next stage in the history of the armored dinosaurs. Because little armored dinosaurs could not defend against larger predators, they had two possible ways to go. Either they could become faster or they could become larger and more heavily armored. Scelidosaurus is much larger than Scutellosaurus, and has much larger armor plates. Very few predators of its time could have pierced its thick scutes. Such armor came at a cost, however. A big animal with lots of armor plates was too heavy to run very fast. In fact, Scelidosaurus had so much armor that it probably had to walk on all fours all the time, rather than run around on its hind legs like Scutellosaurus.
From Scelidosaurus or its close relations came the two main branches of advanced armored dinosaurs: the stegosaurs and the ankylosaurs. The stegosaurs became more mobile, with a more active defense; the ankylosaurs became walking tanks."
December 3, 2012
The explanation by Dr.Holtz and Terry's Illustration!
amazing...
amazing...
April 16, 2024
This is greatest book purchase that I have ever made and has influenced me since I was a child. Thanks Dad.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews