THE CARNIVOROUS DINOSAURS

The Carnivorous Dinosaurs is a recent installment of the Life of the Past series from Indiana University Press. This volume consists of 18 technical papers (chapters) divided into three sections: (1) theropod taxonomy and morphology, (2) biomechanics, and (3) interaction as living animals. The production quality of the book is very good, the typeset and layout are clean and easy to read; the figures are mostly clear and interpretive drawings of photos are often included. None of the papers are what could be called “groundbreaking” but are rather along the lines of what I like to call “meat and potatoes” papers; offerings that may not be the flashy new finds desired by high profile journals but rather papers that provide essential information regarding taxa, specimens, and localities. Key examples include Carpenter and colleagues’ description of the postcranial skeletons of Ornitholestes and Coelurus, Kobayashi and Barsbold’s long-awaited redescription of Harpymimus okladnikovi, Allain’s taxonomic clarification and description of the enigmatic theropod Erectopus superbus, and Currie and colleagues’ documentation of a tyrannosaurid bonebed from Montana. Also notable is the lengthy but informative treatise by Therrien et al. on the biomechanics of the theropod jaw and its implications for feeding strategies. Unfortunately, several other papers come up short in content and methodology. A study of sexual dimorphism in Dilophosaurus by Gay is hampered by a lack of material to provide a firm statistical basis and is overshadowed by a more inclusive paper by Molnar in the same volume. Likewise, Stokosa’s study of the taxonomic utility of tooth enamel in theropods is eclipsed by a more thorough study by Hwang (2005). Carpenter and colleagues’ argument for evidence of predator-prey interaction between Stegosaurus and Allosaurus is of interest but still highly conjectural. Although braincase descriptions are important because this part of the skull is rarely preserved and often character rich, the description of the braincase of Nothronychus by Kirkland and colleagues would benefit by increased comparison with other material. Furthermore, I would argue that the close in-group relationship between Nothronychus and Erlicosaurus they hypothesize based on braincase morphology is premature because of the lack of comparative material and reflects a similarity in braincases within Therizinosauridae as a whole. The only new taxon named in this volume is the coelurosaur Tanycolagreus topwilsoni from the Jurassic of Wyoming. The description is thorough and the material well-figured; however, I would have preferred to see a phylogenetic analysis of the material to determine higher taxonomic affinities. Given the number of descriptive and systematic papers in this volume, one of the striking aspects of this volume is the lack of new phylogenetic analyses especially in this new “cladistic age” of vertebrate paleontology. Overall, this volume provides a relatively fair offering of diverse subject-matter pertaining to theropod dinosaurs. Several of these papers probably would not have made it into more mainstream paleontological journals; however this does not necessarily diminish the importance of the presented materials, but possibly reflects the necessity of publications such as The Carnivorous Dinosaurs. Nevertheless, the overall scientific impact of these thematic volumes is difficult to ascertain at present given the limited subject matter content and the dependence of these volumes on marketing to be widely distributed. In summary, I did not find The Carnivorous Dinosaurs to offer much of a synopsis of the Theropoda as a whole. Thus, the name of the volume is somewhat misleading. Even so, the volume does offers a few good solid papers and although The Carnivorous Dinosaurs will probably not be of much concern to non-theropod workers, those who refer to all Mesozoic non-theropod clades as ‘lunch’ will probably find this volume to be of interest.