The Princeton Field Guide to Mesozoic Sea Reptiles

Cover was dirty and ripped.

Paul's drawings are justly famous. The text is informative but deserves to be broken up into paragraphs with clear labels. As it is, it is very difficult to find the information you are looking for.

Most of the books focus on dinosaurs completely or largely ignoring other fascinating organisms that co existed with dinosaurs. This book focuses entirely on marine reptiles. We need more such books

Given that Gregory Paul has written field guides about non-avian dinosaur and published a field guide to pterosaurs last year, I didn't think he would publish a book about Mesozoic marine reptiles in October of last year because he's more interested in dinosaurs than any other group of Mesozoic diapsids. Nonetheless, Paul does an excellent job of providing species accounts for multitude of marine reptile species that lived during the Age of Dinosaurs, including plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, thalattosaurs, nothosaurs, placodonts, mosasaurs, thalattosuchians, marine turtles and snakes, and hupehsuchians. It's good that Greg Paul himself accepted the recent taxonomic scheme for teleosauroids adopted by Michela Johnson and colleagues, because the long temporal range created by several species once assigned to Steneosaurus indicated that putative synonyms of that genus were almost certainly distinct in their own right (the type species of Seldsienean, S. megistorhynchus, was erroneously regarded by a few authors as fulfilling the function of Steneosaurus type species because they noted that hypodigm for Steneosaurus rostromajor comprised two taxa, the snout belonging to a machimosaurid teleosauroid similar to Neosteneosaurus edwardsi and the skull fragment being metriorhynchid, but S. rostromajor still stands as the type species of Steneosaurus, and I'm glad that Michela Johnson and Mark Young recognized this fact given that Seldsienean is older than Steneosaurus and Neosteneosaurus). It's also noteworthy that this book follows Leslie Noe in treating the kronosaur specimens on display at Harvard University as its own genus and species, Eiectus longmani, and also separate from Kronosaurus queenslandicus (restricted to diagnostic material from the type horizon of K. queenslandicus from the Toolebuc Formation), because even though some people criticized Noe for not asking the ICZN to designate a neotype for Kronosaurus, the older age of Eiectus compared to the type horizon of the Kronosaurus queenslandicus holotype and referred specimens from that horizon mean that Kronosaurus is not going away, and Noe probably wanted to make the point that the treatment of diagnostic Kronosaurus remains from the type horizon of K. queenslandicus as the same species as Eiectus longmani is no longer tenable due to multiple pliosaurid species existing in the Paja Formation in Colombia. There are, however, a few taxonomic opinions expressed by Paul in this field guide that I disagree with:1. Although Palatodonta is known from a juvenile specimen, Paul's treatment of this genus as being an individual of Pararcus would mean that Palatodonta has priority, and the authors of the paper in which Pararcus is described indicate that the Pararcus holotype probably isn't an adult individual despite being of large size, and the truth of the matter is that Palatodonta and Pararcus are still basically distinct taxa no matter if the holotypes of these genera are non-adult (a similar situation happened with Bellusaurus and Klamelisaurus because Klamelisaurus was considered on occasions a probable adult Bellusaurus due to the small size of known Bellusaurus specimens, but research by Andrew Moore has demonstrated once and for all that Bellusaurus and Klamelisaurus are distinct sauropods because there are morphological differences between those two taxa that are non-ontogenetic).2. Paul's listing of Cymbospondylus species in this book as an unnamed genus is unwarranted and threatens the nomenclatural stability of the genus Cymbospondylus because that name has been widely used in the literature, and he overlooks the fact that Cymbospondylus piscosus is the type species of the genus and that Cymbospondylus nevadanus is the only Cymbospondylus specimen from the type locality of C. piscosus, in which case nevadanus could be a synonym of C. piscosus.3. Platypterygius platydactylus still stands as a valid taxon, no matter if its holotype was destroyed in WW2 and regardless of some Platypterygius species now being recognized as probably distinct genera (Paul himself elevates the subgenera Tenuirostria and Longirostria for Platypterygius americanus and P. australis to full genus rank in recognition of future study potentially confirming those species as generically distinct from P. platydactylus and P. hercynicus).If anyone's interested in Mesozoic marine reptiles, this book is a must read.

Quelques petites coquilles, sûrement corrigées sur la prochaine édition, mais c'est toujours clair, passionnant et on attend le quatrième !

Absolut geniales Buch. Zusammen mit Naishs "Ancient Sea Reptiles" für jeden Fan mariner Reptilien ein Genuss.

I wasn't able to open the document in the cloud reader (Ubuntu Linux)

Ein sehr tolles, oder sogar exellentes Buch. Viele hervorragende Informationen und Zeichnungen. Der Autor und Verlag sollten sich bitte überlegen, dieses Buch auch in deutscher Sprache herauszubringen. Solche derart exellente Literatur über diese Tiere gibt es leider nicht und das, obwohl auch in Deutschland einige Ichtyosaurier Fossilien gefunden wurden.

Positiv: Moderne, vollständige weltweite Übersicht zu fossilen Meeresreptilien von der Trias bis zur Kreide mit Kapiteln zur Datierung, Evolution, Biologie und Lebensweise, Systematik, in sich stratigraphisch geordnet (z.T. ohne Gattungsangabe, aber mit Artangabe (???, hä ?)), mit Verbreitungsabgaben, Lebendrekonstruktionen und schematischen Skelettdarstellungen.Negativ: Über den Stil der graphischen, künstlerischen Darstellung in den Konstruktionen ließe sich streiten (vermeidet so aber auch spekulative Darstellungen), die Skelette sind recht schematisch, wenig detailiert, aber exakt dargestellt. Dieses Exemplar war offensichtlich ein Ansichtsexemplar (nicht eingeschweißt, innen Stauchungsknicks an den Seiten 66 - 68 (unterer Bereich). Das halte ich nicht für so ganz anständig (...), tut der Qualität des Buches aber kein Abbruch.Alles in Allem: Eine moderne, sytematische, umfassende Übersicht, für eventuelle Bestimmungen von Funden wegen der Darstellung aber wenig geeignet. Für spezialisierte Amateurpaläontologen und Studenten der Paläontologie empfehlenswert, für Kinder oder reine Fossiliensammler eher weniger. Englischkenntnisse sind notwendig.

Einzige mir bekannte, solchermaßen umfassende Übersicht zu ausgestorbenen Meeresreptilien. Nette Lebenrekonstruktionen zu sehr vielen Arten. Als solches ein gutes Buch.Große Mängel sind aber:Nicht eine einzige Quellenangabe.Nicht eine einzige Abbildung eines tatsächlichen Fossils, weder ganz noch teilweise. Kein Zahn, kein Wirbel, gar nichts ("Field guide" erscheint mir daher als Titel irreführend).Dafür sehr schematische Skelettzeichnungen wie aus einem Kinderbuch.Der den Artbeschreibungen vorangestellte Text zu Evolution, Fundgeschichte und Biologie mesozoischer Meeresreptilien ist in einem etwas ausufernden, typisch amerikanischem Dokustil geschrieben. Vermittelt erfolgreich, dass der Autor Ahnung hat, zur Vermittlung des Wissens für Einsteiger aber weniger geeignet. Aber vermutlich ist das Geschmackssache.