The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs

The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs garnered positive reviews upon its release. Reviews published by Wired and the National Audubon Society, for instance, praised the book's extensive coverage of dinosaurs and its many illustrations, though noted that it may be written in a too technical manner to appeal to children and "casual dinosaur fans".^[7][8]

This article may contain an excessive number of citations. Please help improve it by removing low-quality or irrelevant citations. (April 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The illustrations of The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs were generally applauded by paleontologists. The British paleontologist Darren Naish praised the artwork, particularly that the book included depictions of several dinosaurs only rarely (and in some cases never) illustrated prior, though he also found the illustrations to be "shrink-wrapped" (reconstructed with too little soft tissue). Naish also thought that the book's value could have been improved with specimen numbers and scale bars next to the reconstructions.^[1][2] The American paleontologist Stephen L. Brusatte praised the book as an "artistic treasure", noting that "no other dinosaur book features such an extensive catalogue of artistic reconstructions" and applauding it for including many newly described species for the first time in a popular science book.^[5] Jaime Headden and Mickey Mortimer also praised the artworks in the book, but noted that many skeletal reconstructions didn't make clear what parts had been found and what were reconstructed.^[9][10][11]

Several paleontologists, including Naish,^[1][2] Brusatte,^[5] Headden,^[12][9][13] Mortimer,^{[14][15][10][11][16][17]} Riley Black,^[6] Andrea Cau^[18] and Christopher R. Noto, criticized Paul's approach to dinosaur taxonomy.^[19] All seven noted that Paul in several cases chose to synonymize different genera that most paleontologists still regard as distinct;^{[1][2][5][18][12][9][13][15][10][11][16][17][19]} the book for instance treats the ceratopsids Centrosaurus, Styracosaurus, Einiosaurus, Achelousaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus as all belonging to the same genus (Centrosaurus).^[5][6][17] Both Naish and Brusatte, as well as Cau, Headden and Mortimer particularly criticized Paul's lack of explanations and justifications for his reclassifications in the text.^{[1][2][5][18][12][9][13][15][10][11][16][17]} Some other taxonomic choices, such as the assignment of some genera to specific groups and the use of original clades (such as "minmids" and "paxceratopsians") also received some criticism.^{[1][2][9][17]}

Brusatte further criticized Paul's lack of references. Although admitting that including references would not be standard for a field guide, he found the book's lack of references to make it "useless as a piece of scientific literature". Brusatte also questioned some statements in the book as verging too far into speculation, such as Paul's writings on dinosaur behavior.^[5]

• A Field Guide to Dinosaurs