Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Replacing dead link
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
** ''Homo diluvii'', seen in bottom left picture in [[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/files/2012/11/All-Yesterdays-image-montage-John-Conway-Memo-Kosemen-Nov-2012-600-px-tiny.jpg this compilation of pictures]] from ''All Yesterdays''. It is humanoid [[MonstrousHumanoid in a rather disturbing way]].
to:
** ''Homo diluvii'', seen in bottom left picture in [[http://blogs.[[https://web.archive.org/web/20140314170946/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/files/2012/11/All-Yesterdays-image-montage-John-Conway-Memo-Kosemen-Nov-2012-600-px-tiny.jpg this compilation of pictures]] from ''All Yesterdays''. It is humanoid [[MonstrousHumanoid in a rather disturbing way]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* SpiritualSuccessor:
** The ''{{Literature/Cryptozoologicon}}'', by the same authors, a book on various legendary beasts such as BigfootSasquatchAndYeti and [[{{Chupacabra}} El Chupacabra]] where they speculate on what their biology and evolutionary history might be like if they were real.
** ''Series/PrehistoricPlanet'', which features Naish as a consultant, shows Mesozoic animals in colorful, mostly non-violent situations, sometimes with behaviors and soft tissues based on modern animals for which there is little evidence for but also no evidence against. In particular, the speculative ''Carnotaurus'' and ''Elasmosaurus'' mating rituals from the book are almost adapted straight into the show.
** The ''{{Literature/Cryptozoologicon}}'', by the same authors, a book on various legendary beasts such as BigfootSasquatchAndYeti and [[{{Chupacabra}} El Chupacabra]] where they speculate on what their biology and evolutionary history might be like if they were real.
** ''Series/PrehistoricPlanet'', which features Naish as a consultant, shows Mesozoic animals in colorful, mostly non-violent situations, sometimes with behaviors and soft tissues based on modern animals for which there is little evidence for but also no evidence against. In particular, the speculative ''Carnotaurus'' and ''Elasmosaurus'' mating rituals from the book are almost adapted straight into the show.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* GeniusBonus: The artwork contains a lot of paleoart references that ''aren't'' explicitly stated in the text. The scaly, shrink-wrapped face of the cat, for example, is a TakeThat to feathered dinosaurs commonly being portrayed with scaly heads, despite there being hardly any evidence to support this.
to:
* GeniusBonus: GeniusBonus:
** The artwork contains a lot of paleoart references that ''aren't'' explicitly stated in the text. The scaly, shrink-wrapped face of the cat, for example, is a TakeThat to feathered dinosaurs commonly being portrayed with scaly heads, despite there being hardly any evidence to supportthis.this.
** The restorations of hippopotamus and manatee respectively as a scary hunter and a furry, land-dwelling hervibore by future paleontologists working with their skulls only, are both references to ''Andrewsarchus'', a late Eocene mammal that is known from only one jawless skull found in 1923. Traditionally, ''Andrewsarchus'' was interpreted as the largest member of the mesonychids, a lineage of extinct carnivorous [[AscendedToCarnivorism ungulates]], and the largest land-dwelling carnivorous mammal that ever lived. Since 2009 (''All Yesterdays'' came out in 2012), it's been considered a basal relative of entelodonts and a distant relative of hippopotamuses and whales instead. As for the manatee, there was once a hypothesis (though informal and never published) that ''Andrewsarchus'' was an early whale similar to ''Ambulocetus'', but bigger and that lived in freshwater.
** The artwork contains a lot of paleoart references that ''aren't'' explicitly stated in the text. The scaly, shrink-wrapped face of the cat, for example, is a TakeThat to feathered dinosaurs commonly being portrayed with scaly heads, despite there being hardly any evidence to support
** The restorations of hippopotamus and manatee respectively as a scary hunter and a furry, land-dwelling hervibore by future paleontologists working with their skulls only, are both references to ''Andrewsarchus'', a late Eocene mammal that is known from only one jawless skull found in 1923. Traditionally, ''Andrewsarchus'' was interpreted as the largest member of the mesonychids, a lineage of extinct carnivorous [[AscendedToCarnivorism ungulates]], and the largest land-dwelling carnivorous mammal that ever lived. Since 2009 (''All Yesterdays'' came out in 2012), it's been considered a basal relative of entelodonts and a distant relative of hippopotamuses and whales instead. As for the manatee, there was once a hypothesis (though informal and never published) that ''Andrewsarchus'' was an early whale similar to ''Ambulocetus'', but bigger and that lived in freshwater.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* MisaimedFandom: As Mark Witton pointed out in ''The Palaeoartist's Handbook'', the purpose of ''All Yesterdays'' was to fill in missing gaps in the fossil record, be less conservative in paleoart, and look at common modern animal behavior to speculate similar behavior for extinct animals. However, many paleontology fans have taken the book's message to mean "anything goes", and thus depict extinct animals with all sorts of crazy features or behavior that is ill-supported at best and downright ''contradict'' both the fossil record and modern animal biology at worst.
to:
* MisaimedFandom: As Mark Witton pointed out in ''The Palaeoartist's Handbook'', the purpose of ''All Yesterdays'' was to fill in missing gaps in the fossil record, be less conservative in paleoart, and look at common modern animal behavior to speculate similar behavior for extinct animals. However, many paleontology fans have taken the book's message to mean "anything goes", and thus depict extinct animals with all sorts of crazy features or behavior that is ill-supported at best and downright ''contradict'' ''contradicts'' both the fossil record and modern animal biology at worst.
