What do you think?
Rate this book
A Child's Introduction to Natural History: The Story of Our Living Earth–From Amazing Animals and Plants to Fascinating Fossils and Gems
In the tradition of Black Dog's best-selling Child's Introduction books, which include The Story of the Orchestra and A Child's Introduction to the Night Sky, A Child's Introduction to Natural History introduces readers ages 8 to 12 to the fascinating wonders of our natural world. Highlighting every kingdom of life--plants, bacteria, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, rocks and minerals--the book is also full of charming and witty illustrations by Meredith Hamilton plus 30 photographs throughout. The book delves into topics like geology; prehistoric times, including fossils and dinosaurs; how animals move and fly; evolution; biomes; and more. Sidebars throughout offer biographies of naturalists like Charles Darwin, Mary Anning, and Charles Henry Turner.
Also includes fun, hands-on projects for kids to do on their own or with adults and 5 origami patterns to create your own paper fox, whale, penguin, and more. Beautifully illustrated and designed, this is an entertaining and educational look at our natural history.
Also includes fun, hands-on projects for kids to do on their own or with adults and 5 origami patterns to create your own paper fox, whale, penguin, and more. Beautifully illustrated and designed, this is an entertaining and educational look at our natural history.
96 pages, Hardcover
First published June 14, 2016
53 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 26, 2017
Not too shabby a book all in all. Lots of good stuff you can go research on your own in greater depth.
My only memorable complaint is that there were no pronunciation keys for any scientific words that were used in the book. Not that is was needed terribly often, but it would have come in handy more than infrequently.
Actually, there was a second complaint. At the end of the book there was a couple of pages that blamed all the problems facing the animal kingdom on humans...a philosophy not so much in line with my thinking. Certainly we as a species haven't been the best stewards of the land, but let us all remember that dinosaurs became extinct without the assistance of any humans. We may be to blame in part, but not in entirety. But I've digressed. Because it wasn't a philosophy that was sprinkled throughout the book, and was altered easily enough while I was reading aloud to my students, I'd use it again.
My only memorable complaint is that there were no pronunciation keys for any scientific words that were used in the book. Not that is was needed terribly often, but it would have come in handy more than infrequently.
Actually, there was a second complaint. At the end of the book there was a couple of pages that blamed all the problems facing the animal kingdom on humans...a philosophy not so much in line with my thinking. Certainly we as a species haven't been the best stewards of the land, but let us all remember that dinosaurs became extinct without the assistance of any humans. We may be to blame in part, but not in entirety. But I've digressed. Because it wasn't a philosophy that was sprinkled throughout the book, and was altered easily enough while I was reading aloud to my students, I'd use it again.
September 10, 2024
This shouldn't be anyone's intro ( www.amazon.com/review/R18JAUMD9S7UY5/... ): 1/5
Short version: If you want the best family-friendly intro to natural history that features non-bird dinos, get DK's "Natural History (Smithsonian)". It's everything that kind of book should be & MUCH more. Alexander's "A Child's Introduction to Natural History: The Story of Our Living Earth–From Amazing Animals and Plants to Fascinating Fossils and Gems" (henceforth AC) is the exact opposite of that in every way.
Long version: Read on.
As far as I know, there aren't many family-friendly intros to natural history that feature non-bird dinos. If you want the best 1, get DK's book. If DK's book is the "Sonic Sat AM" of its genre, then AC is "The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog" ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvTn8Qp8FAU ). Yes, I already used that analogy in my Life review ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3517518136 ), but that's how bad AC is. There are 4 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) It's very poorly-illustrated; 2) It's very poorly-organized; 3) It's very non-authoritative; 4) It fails to cover many natural history-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, it's just plain wrong). In this review, I list what I think are the best examples of said reasons.
1) Unlike DK's book (which is "The Ultimate Visual Guide to Everything on Earth"), AC is illustrated with Hamilton's childish drawings & Shutterstock's cheap-looking stock photos.* Hamilton's naturalist & dino drawings are especially bad: For 1, her Charles Darwin/Steve Irwin/Jane Goodall look like a baby doll/female clown/male Whig, respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC88... ); For another, her Velociraptor & Deinonychus are shameless rip-offs of Terakoshi's Deinonychus (which she didn't even fully feather) & Martyniuk's Velociraptor (which she didn't even finish), respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC88... ).
2) Unlike DK's chapters & their contents (which, as indicated by the 1st DK quote, are insanely well-organized), AC's are scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason. This is especially apparent in the reptile & dino chapters: Not only is the former preceded & followed by the freshwater & desert chapters, respectively, but it's divided into snake/turtle & lizard/croc sections despite the fact that snake/lizard & turtle/croc sections would've made MUCH more sense for obvious reasons;** Not only is the latter divided into plant eater, meat eater, & non-dino sections without any other context, but it isn't even consistent (I.e. The plant eater & meat eater sections discuss meat eaters & plant eaters, respectively).
3) Unlike DK's book (which, as indicated by the 2nd DK quote, is insanely authoritative), AC is authored by a non-expert who, in this case, neither collaborated with experts nor did enough up-to-date personal research. As indicated by my You review ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3515814498 ), there's no excuse for that.
4A) In reference to "It fails", this is especially apparent in the invertebrate & dino chapters: For 1, using DK's book as a guide, AC covers every major vertebrate group, but only 3 major invertebrate groups, completely ignoring the other 4; For another, using Holtz's "Dinosaurs" as a guide, AC only covers 8 genera representing 7 major groups, while DK's book covers 21 genera representing 16 major groups.
4B) In reference to "Sometimes," this is especially apparent in the Ice Age chapter (E.g. See the Alexander quote).
4C) In reference to "Other times," this is especially apparent in the dino chapter. Even if you only read the bolded sentences, you'll see that there's at least 8 factual inaccuracies in those 3 pages. The worst ones are the claims that 1) "Paleontology is the study of dinosaurs", & 2) "No true dinosaur flew". Besides being blatantly false, they're contradicted by the earlier claims that 1) "fossils aren't only about dinosaurs", & 2) "some even flew."
*In reference to "childish drawings", they look like those of a kid learning to draw by copying photos badly.
**It's also worth mentioning that unlike DK's book (which has a 4-page "tree of life", showing how all living things are related), AC has no cladograms.
Quoting DK: "Natural History begins with a general introduction to life on Earth: the geological foundations of life, the evolution of life forms, and how organisms are classified. The next five chapters form an extensive and accessible catalog of species and specimens[...]from mineral to mammals[...]interspersed with fact-filled introductions to each group and in-depth feature profiles."
Quoting DK: "Featuring more than 5,000 illustrations of everything on Earth[...]from rocks to redwoods, microbes to mammals[...]this is the most spectacular survey of our planet's treasures ever made. Compiled by a team of professional wildlife experts working with the world-renowned Smithsonian Institution, NATURAL HISTORY is the ultimate celebration of the world's extraordinary diversity of life."
Quoting Alexander: "The ground sloth was an extra-large relative of a modern-day sloth. How large? Most were the size of an ox. Unlike today's sloths that spend their days up in the trees, some ground sloths stayed on the ground. They ate plants and stood on their hind legs to reach the tops of trees."
Short version: If you want the best family-friendly intro to natural history that features non-bird dinos, get DK's "Natural History (Smithsonian)". It's everything that kind of book should be & MUCH more. Alexander's "A Child's Introduction to Natural History: The Story of Our Living Earth–From Amazing Animals and Plants to Fascinating Fossils and Gems" (henceforth AC) is the exact opposite of that in every way.
Long version: Read on.
As far as I know, there aren't many family-friendly intros to natural history that feature non-bird dinos. If you want the best 1, get DK's book. If DK's book is the "Sonic Sat AM" of its genre, then AC is "The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog" ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvTn8Qp8FAU ). Yes, I already used that analogy in my Life review ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3517518136 ), but that's how bad AC is. There are 4 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) It's very poorly-illustrated; 2) It's very poorly-organized; 3) It's very non-authoritative; 4) It fails to cover many natural history-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, it simplifies things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, it's just plain wrong). In this review, I list what I think are the best examples of said reasons.
1) Unlike DK's book (which is "The Ultimate Visual Guide to Everything on Earth"), AC is illustrated with Hamilton's childish drawings & Shutterstock's cheap-looking stock photos.* Hamilton's naturalist & dino drawings are especially bad: For 1, her Charles Darwin/Steve Irwin/Jane Goodall look like a baby doll/female clown/male Whig, respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC88... ); For another, her Velociraptor & Deinonychus are shameless rip-offs of Terakoshi's Deinonychus (which she didn't even fully feather) & Martyniuk's Velociraptor (which she didn't even finish), respectively ( www.chinasprout.com/store/media/BLC88... ).
2) Unlike DK's chapters & their contents (which, as indicated by the 1st DK quote, are insanely well-organized), AC's are scattered all over with no apparent rhyme or reason. This is especially apparent in the reptile & dino chapters: Not only is the former preceded & followed by the freshwater & desert chapters, respectively, but it's divided into snake/turtle & lizard/croc sections despite the fact that snake/lizard & turtle/croc sections would've made MUCH more sense for obvious reasons;** Not only is the latter divided into plant eater, meat eater, & non-dino sections without any other context, but it isn't even consistent (I.e. The plant eater & meat eater sections discuss meat eaters & plant eaters, respectively).
3) Unlike DK's book (which, as indicated by the 2nd DK quote, is insanely authoritative), AC is authored by a non-expert who, in this case, neither collaborated with experts nor did enough up-to-date personal research. As indicated by my You review ( www.goodreads.com/review/show/3515814498 ), there's no excuse for that.
4A) In reference to "It fails", this is especially apparent in the invertebrate & dino chapters: For 1, using DK's book as a guide, AC covers every major vertebrate group, but only 3 major invertebrate groups, completely ignoring the other 4; For another, using Holtz's "Dinosaurs" as a guide, AC only covers 8 genera representing 7 major groups, while DK's book covers 21 genera representing 16 major groups.
4B) In reference to "Sometimes," this is especially apparent in the Ice Age chapter (E.g. See the Alexander quote).
4C) In reference to "Other times," this is especially apparent in the dino chapter. Even if you only read the bolded sentences, you'll see that there's at least 8 factual inaccuracies in those 3 pages. The worst ones are the claims that 1) "Paleontology is the study of dinosaurs", & 2) "No true dinosaur flew". Besides being blatantly false, they're contradicted by the earlier claims that 1) "fossils aren't only about dinosaurs", & 2) "some even flew."
*In reference to "childish drawings", they look like those of a kid learning to draw by copying photos badly.
**It's also worth mentioning that unlike DK's book (which has a 4-page "tree of life", showing how all living things are related), AC has no cladograms.
Quoting DK: "Natural History begins with a general introduction to life on Earth: the geological foundations of life, the evolution of life forms, and how organisms are classified. The next five chapters form an extensive and accessible catalog of species and specimens[...]from mineral to mammals[...]interspersed with fact-filled introductions to each group and in-depth feature profiles."
Quoting DK: "Featuring more than 5,000 illustrations of everything on Earth[...]from rocks to redwoods, microbes to mammals[...]this is the most spectacular survey of our planet's treasures ever made. Compiled by a team of professional wildlife experts working with the world-renowned Smithsonian Institution, NATURAL HISTORY is the ultimate celebration of the world's extraordinary diversity of life."
Quoting Alexander: "The ground sloth was an extra-large relative of a modern-day sloth. How large? Most were the size of an ox. Unlike today's sloths that spend their days up in the trees, some ground sloths stayed on the ground. They ate plants and stood on their hind legs to reach the tops of trees."
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews