I've always thought that palaeoartists who extend their reconstructions into the realm of 'things not actually supported by the evidence' were just bending the rules to make their art more interesting. But this quote made me stop and think:
Those who restore prehistoric life are limited by the evidence at hand, this is true, but “more conservative” does not mean “more accurate.”
Brian Switek, Dinosaur Tracking.
Our opinion on what ancient fauna looked liked and how they behaved is heavily biased by taphonomy (yes, I managed to work taphonomy into the argument again, buts it's true!). The way in which remains are preserved - what is present and what is lacking - dictates the limits of 'conservative' reconstruction. But are we missing out on a deeper understanding ancient animals by limiting ourselves in this way?
I suppose when I think of accuracy of prehistoric reconstructions, I think about representations of behaviour more than anatomy. The images in All Yesterdays that I've seen so far use what we know about modern vertebrate behaviour to illustrate possible ancient animal behaviour, instead of viewing these animals as static objects in an ancient environment, or for carnivorous non-avian dinosaurs in particular, as 'evil' eating machines.
I suppose when I think of accuracy of prehistoric reconstructions, I think about representations of behaviour more than anatomy. The images in All Yesterdays that I've seen so far use what we know about modern vertebrate behaviour to illustrate possible ancient animal behaviour, instead of viewing these animals as static objects in an ancient environment, or for carnivorous non-avian dinosaurs in particular, as 'evil' eating machines.
Interactions between carnivores and herbivores do not have to equal chaos and DEATH.
I'll order a copy of the book, or maybe receive one for Christmas (*wink* *nudge*, dear family), after which I'll talk about the behavioural and anatomical reconstructions represented therein. And the beautiful palaeoart too!
