Dinosaurland, Lyme Regis

Back in February (remember that?), Nicole and I (remember her?) decided to pay a visit to Devon and Dorset, which are counties in the South West of England, should you not be familiar with British geography. I'm sure the lack of Hordes O' Tourists made up for the cold and the bitter wind. In any case, we stayed close to, and thus spent a fair amount of time in and around, Lyme Regis (which is just about in Dorset), home of the endlessly charming Dinosaurland Fossil Museum. It not only boasts stacks of fossils collected locally, but also a collection of late '80s model dinos fit to slap a smile on the face of any plastic saurian aficionado. And a Dinosauroid. More on that later.

Lyme Regis is the perfect setting for such a museum. The town is famous for the fossil-rich local coastline (it's on the Jurassic Coast), and was home to palaeontological pioneer Mary Anning. In fact, the largest part of the museum is formed of the former church in which she was baptised. Dinosaurland is owned and run by palaeontologist Steve Davies and his wife, Jenny. Having already been to any of the several fossil shops in Lyme Regis, you'd be quite prepared to see a huge collection of ammonites (as in the photo above), but Dinosaurland is full of wonderful surprises - not least a huge room packed to the rafters with...taxidermy.

Taxidermy in a fossil museum? It can only be a bonus. There's some great stuffed stuff in here too, like this fox atop a pike.

Of course, we're really here for the slightly dated plastic models of prehistoric animals. Dinosaurland doesn't disappoint.

This plesiosaur, surrounded by fish fossils, has sat on its rock in classically Burianesque style (beached Nessie) for decades now, as the below photo (taken in 2002 and featuring a fellow who knows a thing or two about plesiosaurs) will testify.

"Plesiosaurs/and their biiiscuits..."
 I love its speckliness, although that head isn't half peculiar. Other marine reptile models include...

...this ichthyosaur, a lovingly home-made diorama (by Steve) tucked away in a dark corner.

The museum features a number of real ichthyosaur specimens (and casts) of course, including this beast. Mary Anning would be delighted. It had a wonderful story behind its discovery, too, although I managed to lose it down the back of my hard drive somewhere. If anyone's able to fill me in, I'll update this post accordingly.

Some of the other life models hanging around weren't actually created by Steve, but were purchased from a museum in Gloucester that went under. They include this very homebrew Baryonyx, sculpted (I believe) out of polystyrene. It's pretty damn hideous, but hey - at least they got the single crest on the snout right.

There's also this herbivorous...thing (below). I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be, if it is meant to be anything in particular. It resembles a basal ornithopod with a periscope neck.

Mounted on the wall next to a Megalosaurus skeleton (which has popped up in a few museums here and there) is this half-a-Rexy-head. He's very cross with you.

The Megalosaurus mount is positioned superbly so that interesting angles are visible unexpectedly as one explores the museum, and especially the first floor balcony. As can be seen below, it's surrounded by the odd disembodied head and '70s retro Scelidosaurus model.

The main attraction in terms of plastic dinosaurs (andotherprehistoricanimals) is the Time Tunnel, located up on the first floor balcony. It depicts the history of life on Earth through a series of very charming home-made dioramas, most of which were apparently installed in the late '80s to early '90s. Beginning with a load of rubbish marine animals, the first tetrapod on the scene is Ichthyostega, looking very happy and toothy as usual. Glorious googly eyes.

Proceedings soon move on to the Permian, where this rather boxy Dimetrodon is also depicted devouring some hapless, smaller creature. Life: it's all brutal dismemberment and Donald Trump. I think I'll have another beer.

The Triassic diorama sees, naturally enough, the dinosaurs making their grand entrance in the form of these alarming spindly creatures, presumably a group of Coelophysis because they're lanky and lithe and that. This is one of the more vegetation-packed scenes, and all the better for it.

I do like the smiley fellow in the bottom right. Reminds me of a hollow Chinasaur from the bargain bin. And Blackgang Chine.

Of course, by far the best creature in the lineup is this magnificent, none-more-'80s dromaeosaur, which (although beautifully painted) hasn't aged at all well. It's a glorious hodgepodge of period details, right down to the incongruously tiny hands and peculiar periscope neck (I sense something of a trend here). It also bears a passing resemblance to the Dino Riders Deinonychus toy, which was reincarnated in the early '90s as part of a dinosaur toy range endorsed by the Smithsonian.

Incidentally, Steve is well aware of how dated this lovely ugly bunch are, and has considered replacing them with something a little more up-to-date. I will continue to strongly discourage him from doing so. These models put a smile on my perma-frowning face of misery, and I'm sure they'll do the same for plenty of other visitors, too.

And so the Age of Dinosaurs (and with it, the Time Tunnel) ends. Or does it? What if...the dinosaurs had survived? And don't be silly and suggest that birds are, effectively, dinosaurs living today. It's 1989 and a number of prominent palaeontologists wouldn't approve. No...what if the troodonts had survived? And went on to evolve into goggle-eyed reptilo-men as envisioned in a surreal dream one night by Dale Russell after eating a vast quantity of strong cheese? Well...here's another model saved from that defunct museum in Gloucester.

Yes, it's a Dinosauroid! Or 'Saurian', as the signage would have it. This one, rather unusually, is equipped with a thumb not so much opposable as completely reversed, like the hallux on a perching bird. A gloriously bizarre little relic from another time. See below for a photo with a human to indicate scale.

As usual, I'm doing the museum a great disservice with this post - it's absolutely not all about the model dinosaurs, which are really just a delightful bonus. At its heart is a carefully curated - not to mention enormous - fossil collection, all arranged neatly and labelled up by Steve himself. As I'm a Chasmogoon, though, it was of course the plastic creatures that caught my attention. It's a wonderful museum, and I'd like to thank Steve for taking the time to chat with me and putting up with my...unusual questions. If you're ever in Lyme Regis, please do drop by!

Makeup Updates on TUBB

*Post originally written by Olivia J on The Unknown Beauty Blog. No affiliate links. No PR samples. And no smoke blowing up my ass!*

I haven't abandoned makeup completely, in fact, I have learned more about it.  Mostly about color and pigment.  In doing so, this has caused me to use my brain severely which meant abandoning the virtual world at times.  I actually had to create space in my brain for productive purposes.

I beg you, click to read more »

The Only Education Worthy of a Student

[As a former educator I like to read about education, commencement addresses and the like.  Inasmuch as this blog is in part at least about “living philosophies” of life, I am pleased to share with you a brief but insightful description of a “liberal education” and marry my interest in education and philosophy.  Happy thinking.]


Let’s be historical for a moment.  When you came here, you came voluntarily. There was no state law compelling you to go to college as there was when you were a pupil. Your pupil days were over when you became a student–a person ready and willing to learn in the true spirit of liberal education, regardless of whatever professional program you followed or plan to pursue. Now an education that is liberal is the only education worthy of a student because its goal is to enhance and enrich the freedom of choice that the student exercised by coming to college in the first place. The word liberal comes from the Latin word libera, from which we derive words like liberty and liberate and so forth.
But libera is in turn derived from the Latin word for book–liber.  The Romans apparently saw a relationship between books and liberty–words and freedom.
In brief, they believed that books put minds in motion, and, once in motion, this permitted thinking men and women to go to the right sources, to reach their own conclusions, to make up their own minds and to be free in the only way that finally matters–intellectually free.
Knowledge derived from books together with other forms of knowledge that came to you from personal experience or from sudden inspirations or insights over the past four years constitute a collective gift. And thus has given you a grounding in culture, which is the very foundation of any progressive human society. And the great educator and author Jacques Barzun has reminded us that the word culture is in turn derived from the word agriculture, which is the science of making raw land better and richer without changing its nature. This is exactly what liberal education does to students.

It enriches them from the time of matriculation until the time of commencement and hopefully makes them better than they were when they started without changing their natures. We use another agricultural term–cultivated–to describe people we consider cultured.

Samuel Hazo, “The Only Way to Be: Your Words Must Contain Justice,” address at Carlow University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 9 May 2009, in Vital Speeches of the Day 75, no. 7 (July 2009): 329-30, emphasis in original.

Let’s think together again soon.

A Latter-day Saint View of the Resurrection©

Danel W. Bachman

[On Easter Sunday, 27 March 2016, my wife and I were invited to give Easter sermons in our sacrament meeting.  We were given twenty-five minutes.  She decided she wanted 10.  Below is the fifteen minute sermon which I gave.]

Good morning brothers and sisters. On this Easter Sunday I come in the attitude of celebration and joy. However, the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ may have been a nice spring day in the Holy Land, but for the fledgling Church everything was dark. Though Jesus repeatedly told his little flock and their leaders that he would rise again after he was killed, that idea was so unique that they could not grasp it. Discouragement and gloom settled over the Christian community in Jerusalem. For the disciples it must have seemed that everything ended in tragedy. Two disciples on the road to Emmaus encountered the resurrected Jesus, but did not recognize him. He asked them “What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another , as ye walk, and are sad.” They explained to the stranger about the crucifixion of Christ and one said, “But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel....”(1) The clear implication is that their trust was misplaced and their hopes dashed. Death was the only reality these people knew and it was grim. For the first four thousand years of earth’s history, every man, woman, child, animal and plant that died remained dead. Nobody could conceive of the physical body coming back to life again

Witnesses Ancient and Modern

Not surprisingly then, even with the early witnesses it was difficult to believe.  We all know about “doubting” Thomas. But we also have in the New Testament thirteen different verses, a few collected from each of the four Gospels, which speak about the doubt of the other disciples.(2) For example, even after Jesus visited them several times in Jerusalem, when the Twelve gathered in Galilee as instructed, Matthew 28:17 reports that when the eleven saw Jesus on the mountain in Galilee: “they worshipped him: but some doubted.” The doubt was serious enough that Mark and Luke record instances where Jesus upbraided them for their disbelief. Mark 16:14 says that after he appeared  unto  the eleven as they sat at meat he, “upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

Nevertheless, there were eventually many witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection.  One well regarded minister observed that Jesus’ “resurrection was not only the greatest and most important of his miracles, but the most abundantly and variously attested.”(3) If we read the four gospels carefully we discover that there is no detailed description of the Resurrection. Rather the records are given over to personal accounts of eye witnesses of his appearances following the resurrection.

Those appearances changed the primitive Church. They put fire in the bones of the early leaders. The primary record which we have of their early preaching is the book of Acts and it reveals something very interesting. The earliest sermons of the apostles recounted therein were almost entirely concerned with Christ’s resurrection. 

But these accounts have been challenged.With the Restoration of the Gospel, however, come new and contemporary witnesses. After the “First Vision” Joseph Smith saw Jesus a number of other times. One of the most powerful is the oft repeated statement in D&C 76 which my wife has already read to you. I would add that this account was written together with Sidney Rigdon, his companion witness.  Mormonism, as far as I know, stands unique with the New Testament and Book of Mormon, where there were often one or more witnesses to Joseph Smith’s visions. We can multiply such testimonies in this dispensation. Here are two which are representative of a 54-page collection I have compiled during my life time:

In 1835, young elder Wilford Woodruff then on a mission in Tennessee was visited by an angel and shown the resurrection in vision. He did not see the First Resurrection take place, but he saw those who were in that resurrection and they were all clothed in white robes. The second resurrection, however was different.  He said, 
Vast fields of graves were before me, and the Spirit of God rested upon the earth like a shower of gentle rain, and when that fell upon the graves they were opened, and an immense host of human beings came forth. They were just as diversified in their dress as we are here, or as they were laid down. This personage taught me with regard to these things.”(4)  
He concluded: “What does this mean? It was a testimony of the resurrection of the dead. I had a testimony. I believe in the resurrection of the dead, and I know it is a true principle.”(5)

In 1980, Elder Ezra Taft Benson said to the youth of the Church: “As one of those called as special witnesses, I add my testimony to those of fellow Apostles: He lives! He lives with resurrected body. There is no truth or fact of which I am more assured, or know better by personal experience, than the truth of the literal resurrection of our Lord.”(6)

Each of us must decide for ourselves to accept or reject the evidence these ancient and modern testimonies provide.(7) Faith is always a choice–because in mortality the evidence never has and never will overwhelm man’s reason and force him to believe.(8) Only at judgment will every knee bow and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ.

Power of the Resurrection
The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob and the Apostle Paul both speak of the “power of the resurrection.”(9) What is that power? A detailed study of this phrase would produce many different and important ideas, but the most significant relationship of the” power of the resurrection” is to the Atonement. The resurrection derives its power from the Atonement.(10) Moreover, the Resurrection is one of the crowning results of, primary witness to, and evidence for the infinite Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection confirms, ratifies, and seals the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

When you think about it, resurrection and procreation are companion processes.  They are similar in that they unite the spirit and the body to create a soul.(11) The first is temporary, the second is eternal. In procreation a physical body is created and prepared for habitation by the spirit.(12) Death is the separation of those two. The Atonement is the power of the resurrection which stands in opposition to the power of death.(13) The scriptures speak of the “redemption of the soul.”(14) The redemption of the soul is the resurrection. The spirit and body are reunited through the power of resurrection, “never to be divided,” again. They are “homogenized” if you will.(15) This redemption of the soul, the scriptures tell us, makes it possible to have a fulness of joy.(16)

Our Article of Faith number 2 tells us that we are not punished for Adam’s transgression. Yet, as descendants of Adam and Eve, we suffer it’s two major effects: physical and spiritual death. Thankfully, the resurrection reverses all the effects of the Fall. It overcomes physical death, but it also overcomes the first spiritual death which we experienced when we came out of the presence of God when were born into morality. Samuel the Lamanite taught that Christ died,
To bring to pass the resurrection of the dead ...  and redeemeth all mankind from the first death–that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.  But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.(17)
All mankind will be brought back into the presence of the Lord to be judged.  But why do we need our body in order to be judged? The answer is not well understood by us as a people, and it is almost never taught to our youth. The fact is that our body is not ours! It belongs to God. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.(18)
Our bodies are on loan, which means nothing will be ours permanently until after the resurrection. It means our bodies are a “stewardship” and the owner [God] will hold the steward accountable for what he does with and to the body. This doctrine must be so to make the judgment just. If our bodies are ours, we could argue that we can do with them what we please and it is nobody’s business including God.  This is a popular belief in the world today, even among some Latter-day Saints.  However, if it is true that our bodies are his he can and does give us instructions for its care and the proper use of its powers. The divine laws of the Word of Wisdom and of chastity are clear examples of this doctrine. I testify that our bodies are a stewardship for which we will one day render an account to God.

An interesting corollary to this idea is that nobody can do anything permanent to your body but you. The foibles of genetics and nature,  or  accidents, or intentional harm and disfigurement may appear to permanently mar, impair, or disable the body, but those things are only temporary. They will be overcome in the resurrection. We all enjoy and find hope in this wonderful statement from Alma: [He uses the word “soul” here as a synonym for the spirit.]
The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.(19)
However, the perfection of the physical body in the resurrection may not be absolute for some, nor does it imply the perfection of the soul for all. Joseph Smith also saw the resurrection in vision. He left this wonderful and thought-provoking summary: “All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it.”(20) Why did he add the provision, “provided you continue faithful”? For one, later revelations to him concerning the sequence of the resurrection explain, much as did Paul, that resurrected bodies will come forth with a certain degree of divine glory. One of the powers of the resurrection will be to add glory upon the physical body. But the glory given to the body will depend upon the law one chooses to live while in mortality. If we live a telestial law, our body will radiate a telestial glory, akin to the light of the stars. Those who live a terrestrial law will have glory like the light of the moon, and those who live the celestial law–the fulness of the law of the Gospel–will have bodies quickened by celestial glory which is akin to the light of the sun.(21) There will be another limitation to some resurrected bodies. Those who are not exalted in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom will remain “separate and single,” that is they will not be married for eternity and thus will not be privileged to exercise their procreative powers in eternity.(22) So, we see the necessity of the proper care and use of our body in order to enjoy the full blessings of the resurrection.

In conclusion, I love this quotation from Truman Madsen. He said the resurrection 
Clearly, ... is the principle presupposed in all other [gospel] principles. And it is the ordinance foreshadowed in all other [gospel] ordinances, each a stage of progressive birth and higher nourishment, each the symbol and conferral of vitalizing powers through the fundamental elements of His ...  infusing life, light, and spirit.... (23)
The resurrection is one of the greatest evidences of God’s love for we his children. The resurrection is the “sign of Jonas” given to the Jews as the ultimate seal of the legitimacy and truth of his mission and message. The resurrection was to give hope to a fallen and troubled and death-filled world. And ultimately it was intended to bring his children a “fulness of joy.” I rejoice in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and in the hope it gives of our personal resurrection. I celebrate these things on this sacred and holy day, and testify of their truthfulness in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Let’s think together again, soon.


1.   Lk. 24: 17, 21.
2.   Mt. 28:17
    Mk. 16:11, 13, 14
    Lk. 24:11, 25,
    Jn. 20:8, 25, 27, 29, 30-31
3. Charles Petit McIlvaine, “The Resurrection of Christ,” in William M. Smith, ed., Great Sermons on the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. 1-Volume Edition.  (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 3: 20. 
4. Wilford Woodruff, discourse at the Weber Stake Conference, Ogden, Utah, 19 October 1896, Deseret Weekly, 7 November 1896, pp. 642-43.
5.   Wilford Woodruff, JD 22:332-33, discourse of 8 October 1881.
6.   Ezra Taft Benson, "Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ," New Era 10 (December 1980), p. 48, emphasis added.
7. On the importance of testimony as evidence, see: Romans 10:13-17; Acts 10:34-43; Moroni 7:29-32.
8.   Ether 12:6.    
9.   2 Ne. 9:6, 12; Phil. 3:10.  Mormon also uses the same phrase in  Moroni 7:41.
10.  Regarding the power of the atonement being the power of resurrection Jacob taught: “Know ye not that if ye will do these things, that the power of the redemption and the resurrection, which is in Christ, will bring you to stand with shame and awful guilt before the bar of God.” (Jac. 6:9) By speaking of both the power of redemption and resurrection, this context seems to make it clear that the power spoken of is the Atonement, which is “in” Christ.  The redemption was possible as a result of the atonement.  For Jacob the resurrection came by the same power.
11.   D&C 88:15.
12.   D&C 49:15-17.
13. 2 Ne. 9:6; Jn. 10:18; Ps. 49:15; Heb. 2:14.
14.   D&C 88:16, 26, Al. 41:2, 12-13.
15.   Al. 11:45; D&C 138:17.
16.   D&C 93:33. 
17.   Helaman 14:15-17.  See also Alma 42:23 among others in the Book of Mormon.
18.   1 Cor. 6:19-20.
19.   Alma 40:23.  See also D&C 138:17.
20. Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), p. 296.
21.   D&C 88:18-31.
22. See D&C 131:1-4 and Joseph’s commentary thereon in Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), pp. 300-301.  

Orson Pratt held the view that the single in the hereafter were limited in their ability to procreate as God’s way of interdicting production of additional disobedient children.  He said:
Could wicked and malicious beings, who have eradicated every feeling of love from their bosoms, be permitted to propagate their species, the offspring would partake of all the evil, wicked, and malicious nature of their parents.  It is for this reason that God will not permit the fallen angels to multiply; it is for this reason that God has ordained marriages for the righteous only; it is for this reason that God will put a final stop to the multiplication of the wicked after this life: it is for this reason that none but those who have kept the celestial law will be permitted to multiply after the resurrection...for they alone are prepared to beget and bring forth such offspring.”  Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 156-57. 
23. Truman G. Madsen, “Of the Garden Tomb,” New Era (April 1971): 6.

Practical Beauty Tools and Accessories from an Unconventional Mind

*Post originally written by Olivia J on The Unknown Beauty Blog If you read this post elsewhere, it has been stolen. No affiliate links. Just linked for your convenience.*

Nowadays, there are many accessories and gadgets aimed just for the beauty junkie.  I find nothing wrong with them.  I just find they are a bit too late to enter my life. 

I beg you, click to read more »

Vintage Dinosaur Art: Dinosaurs - Living Monsters of the Past (Part 2)

It seems like an awful long time since the first half (it isn't really, I just moved home in the meantime), but here's Part 2 of my look at this Bentontastic book from 1993. As promised, I'll open with a more detailed look at the piece used on the cover, namely Vladimir Krb's fantastic Albertosaurus panorama produced for the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology.

This piece provides the stunning backdrop to a mounted Albertosaurusskeleton in a similar pose. I must be honest – my access to the internet is very limited at the moment, so I've had trouble determining how old this painting (and the mount) are. I'd guess 1980s, but if any readers are able to fill me in, please do so. In any case, the star tyrannosaur is restored with a 'modern' posture and, unlike many Dino Renaissance-era pieces, isn't unduly skinny (although the legs look a little puny). Quite apart from the wonderful painterly backdrop (the sky alone is quite lovely), I really like the speculative dewlap/gular pouch on the Albertosaurus, which gives its neck an intriguingly different profile to that usually seen. Period curiosities include the reversed hallux on a tyrannosaur (which seemed to pop up quite a lot back in the '70s-'80s) and the bizarre-looking wisp of a pterosaur in the top right. No matter – it's still an awesome work.

Appearing alongside the Albertosaurus in the book is this detail of two dromaeosaurs (adult and juvenile) scavenging a centrosaur carcass. It's presumably from the same panorama as the above, but, again, it's tricky for me to check just now. For obvious reasons pertaining to the Feathery Future, it hasn't aged too well; there's also the matter of the eyeball being in the wrong place, which gives these fellas a peculiarly lizardy look. There's something of the Bakkerian Deinonychus about these two, as well – it's probably the dewlap. Regardless, these are, again, beautifully painted, with superb patterning and an intriguing otherworldly quality about them.

Also from the Royal Tyrrell is this painting of nesting hadrosaurs, although unfortunately no artist is credited. The animals, which look well-proportioned if a little lean (typical of the era, really), are described in the book as 'Maiasaura', although I rather fancy that this is because Benton wanted to squeeze in a mention of the Good Mother Reptile – those head crests suggest a lambeosaurine. Nice work on the reflections in the puddles.

The work of a certain Greg Paul (for it is he) is featured here, too. His Avimimus (above) is notable for being remarkably prescient for 1993, a time when most artists were happy to copy Sibbick's Normanpedia version, which although feathered had a head straight out of the theropod spares bin. Of course, Paul did produce something similar himself, but the fact that he'd moved on to a small-headed, beaked restoration by 1993 just goes to show how he's often been ahead of the curve. The wattle on the neck is a great touch, too.

The two restorations underneath (skeletal & life) are just as remarkable, having been produced by Sergei Kurzanov, who described Avimumus in 1981. Kurzanov saw Avimimus as being even more birdlike than is now believed, and restored it as such, going so far as giving the animal hands like a modern bird and an extremely short tail. Of course, given how much feathers can obscure an animal's anatomy, it may well be that his life restoration isn't toofar off the mark after all.

Back to Paul, and here we have a seldom-seen restoration of Megalosaurus, the first dinosaur to get a (really unimaginative) name. [Gag about Owen removed from here because Buckland named it...not Owen. Not sure what I was thinking. Wasn't even drunk. Thanks Dave.]  We're in 'generic big theropod' territory here, which isn't Paul's fault, of course, and the artist livens things up with some natty stripiness and moody driving rain. Inclement weather isn't seen often enough in palaeoart. The curled-up pronated forearms are a Predatory Dinosaurs of the World-era Paul staple that the artist himself has since abandoned in the light of anatomical evidence, but which have proven difficult to kill off in palaeoart more broadly (much to the chagrin of hundreds of internet pedants - especially me).

Paul also provides illustrations of a couple of dramatic confrontations between predator and prey. Here, the pin-headed sauropodomorph Massospondylusrears up to defend itself from Probably Coelophysis (aka Syntarsus, aka Megapnosaurus). I love the way the wispy clouds enhance the movement and drama here. The animals seem alarmingly thin even by Paulian standards, which suggests to me that this is an earlier piece by him. Close inspection reveals a crest of feather-like structures on the theropods (shades of Bakker) and those neck wattles again.

This illustration, depicting the tyrannosaur Tarbosaurus confronting the super-weirdo maniraptor Therizinosaurus, also appeared more recently in Paul's 2010 opus The (Princeton)  Field Guide to Dinosaurs. Unusually, it was completely unaltered for The Field Guide in spite of Paul's (commendably brave) tendency to update his work according to advances in dinosaur science. You wouldn't get away with scaly therizinosaurs these days, chuck. Of course, for its day this is pretty damn remarkable – subtract the hadrosaur-like crest, add some floof, and you're more-or-less up to 2016 standards. Miles better than a quadrupedal 'prosauropod' version, or just drawing a giant pair of arms surrounded by an army of floating question marks.

And finally...have a couple of bonus vintage photographs of the London Natural History Museum's dinosaur gallery as it was, back in the day (by which I mean, long before I was born). Being a little lazy (and without home internet at the moment), I put the question of the above photo's date to my friends on Facebook, who promptly established it as late '60s – early '70s, prior to Dippy and, er, Trikey's removal to the Main Hall (shan't use that new name). The Triceratops was of course then moved again to the current dinosaur gallery, along with the Iguanodon also shown here, although (unlike Dippy) they retain their original tail-dragging poses. But I digress. Look at how light and airy it was! Can't we have a little natural light shining in on the gallery again NHM, pretty please?

The book also features a photograph of this intriguing thing, being half a Tyrannosaurus rex composed of bits of some of the earliest T. rex specimens found, along with material cast from other, more complete specimens and a few sculpted parts. Happily, Darren Naish once wrote at length on this unusual mount during the days of Tet Zoo Mk2. The lower jaw (part original, part sculpt), having been in storage for years, can now be seen again as one approaches the robotic T. rex in the current gallery, while the skull was unearthed some years back and put on display as part of a temporary exhibition featuring a panoply of robosaurs. Presumably, the rest of this beast is buried somewhere deep within the NHM's mahoosive store rooms, being looked after by top. Men. It's a shame that it can no longer be seen, but at least the NHM now has a mount of a British dinosaur – Baryonyx– in the same spirit.

For my next post: I went to Dorset, and I found a Dinosauroid there.

A Special Post for My Cult Members - My True Meaning of Beauty

*Post originally written by Olivia J on The Unknown Beauty Blog. if you see this post elsewhere, it has been stolen.*

First, I am not looking for any sympathy whatsoever. I am just here to tell you my true feelings about my beauty space in this virtual world. 
I beg you, click to read more »

The Quality of Beauty - The Makeup Brushes

*Post originally written by Olivia J on The Unknown Beauty Blog. If you see this post elsewhere, it has been stolen.*

A recent post by Maria of If Makeup Could Talk about those fancy Artis brushes spurned me to write this post about the quality of makeup brushes and the downhill slope they seem to be riding.
I beg you, click to read more »

A Simple Lesson in Properly Attributing Quotations to General Authorities"©

There is an interesting quotation floating around the web attributed in blogs, editorials, and even in Book of Mormon commentaries to Elder David B. Haight.(1)  It reads:
Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years.People grow old by deserting their ideals, their faith.There is always the love of wonder, a childlike appetite for what is next, and the joy of your life. ou are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt; as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear or despair.
In the center of our heart is a recording chamber, and so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer, courage, and faith, so long are we young.
Recently I wanted to add this to my own commentary on the Book of Mormon but the reference was incomplete. Generally it is attributed to a talk by Elder Haight in the November 1983, Ensign, p. 25. Wanting the title of the talk I went to my collection of Ensigns and was surprised to find on page twenty-five a talk by Paul H. Dunn. Elder Haight’s talk was elsewhere, but did not contain the quotation in question. I did not examine Elder Dunn’s talk, thinking the reference was in error as to date. I Googled some phrases and found it again cited, this time in a talk by Elder Jacob de Jager, “Service and Happiness,” Ensign (October 1993), p. 32, but his reference was back to the same page number in the November 1983 Ensign. So, puzzled I went back to Elder Dunn’s talk and read it.  Sure enough it was there–mostly!  He said:
To those in their golden years, age should only be hateful if it means the cessation of growth, the withering of dreams, the silencing of feelings. And these qualities, after all, have nothing to do with chronology and everything to do with the heart. Douglas McArthur [sic] once observed, “Live with enthusiasm! Nobody grows old by deserting their ideals.  Years wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul. You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt, as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear, as young as your hope, as old as your despair.”
So, how did this quotation become associated with Elder Haight?  Read what Elder de Jager said in 1993:
Not long ago, I had the privilege of attending a mission presidents’ seminar in San Francisco with Elder David B. Haight of the Council of the Twelve. He shared with us some thoughts from an unknown author about growing old.
“Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old by deserting their ideals, their faith. There is always the love of wonder, a childlike appetite for what is next, and the joy of your life. You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt; as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear or despair.
“In the center of our heart is a recording chamber, and so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer, courage, and faith, so long are we young.  (Ensign, Nov. 1983, p. 25).”
Well now we know where Elder Haight enters in, but we have all kinds of other problems. Elder de Jager says the quotation was cited by Elder Haight, but gives reference to Elder Dunn’s talk, who attributed it to Douglas MacArthur. How did that happen? Moreover, the de Jager version has an additional paragraph of one sentence which is not in Elder Dunn’s talk. Did Elder Haight give Elder de Jager a copy of what he was sharing with the Mission Presidents which included the longer version? If so, why did Elder de Jager cite the Dunn talk when referring to it? Mystery! And Elder Haight apparently said he didn’t know where it came from, but Elder Dunn attributed it to MacArthur. What is the truth?

Well, it is common for people to attribute some version of this statement to MacArthur, but it isn’t his either. I have a trusty book in my collection of books of quotations.  It is entitled, “Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations from the Library of Congress.”(2) It is a compilation of quotations which congressmen and others wanted verified and the staff tracked them down.  It just so happens that this quotation is one of them. The basic story is this: A man named Samuel Ullman (1840-1924) wrote a poem entitled “Youth.” It was privately printed first, but published in 1934. The published version was longer than the private edition which did not have the “oft-quoted ‘you are as young as your faith...”(3) The book goes on to say:
General Douglas MacArthur quoted the entire poem without attribution on his seventy-fifth birthday, in a speech to the Los Angeles County Council, American Legion, Los Angeles, California, January 26, 1955.”(4)
So MacArthur quotes it but doesn’t say where he got it. Others copy, excerpt, and/or edit it and attribute it to MacArthur, such as Elder Dunn’s version. Elder Haight also used some version of it, but didn’t know where it came from. But in a comedy of slipshod errors, copying others without checking, etc., etc., etc., it is now attributed to Elder Haight himself. The entire item is cited in Respectfully Quoted, and most of the elements of the de Jager version are there, but it is a clip-and-paste edit of a longer statement.(5)

Lesson: I suppose there are many lessons to draw from this little foray into frequently cited literary quotations, especially when found on the Internet.  I would boil them down to one: do your own homework thoroughly and carefully, especially if your work will be published. What we all need is a staff like the one at the Library of Congress to track down the source of the quotations we want to use!

Let’s think together again, soon.


1.  K. Douglas Bassett, comp., Doctrinal Insights to the Book of Mormon: Volume Two: Jacob Through Alma (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2007), p. 40.  Apparently several other online Book of Mormon commentaries have copied Bassett without checking his accuracy.

There is a similar problem with the famous quotation "all putts don't drop" attributed to President Hinckley.  Actually he was quoting someone else.

2.  Suzy Platt, ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations from the Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1992).

3.  Platt, Respectfully Quoted, p. 393. 

4.  Platt, Respectfully Quoted, p. 393, emphasis added.

5.  You can read the entire excerpt from Platt’s book here: www.bartleby.com/73/2099/html