Say “Ladybird dinosaur book” to someone, and they’ll very likely think of the book illustrated by Bernard Robinson that was reprinted a number of times and spanned the childhoods of multiple generations. (Well, at least two.) I reviewed it all the way back in 2011, so perhaps my review is now as nostalgic for some people as Ladybird books are for others. (Nah, just kidding. I’m not so deluded.) Robinson’s illustrations, while technically superb and highly memorable, were looking rather dated in the late ’80s; while the art was gorgeous, the reconstructions were resolutely old-school. How fortunate, then, that Ladybird saw fit to publish another book entitled Dinosaurs in 1987, as part of their ‘square books’ series. Does it help bring Ladybird dinosaurs into the Dinosaur Renaissance, or will it simply be a parade of Sibbick clones?
No prizes shall be awarded for correct guesses.
The square book of dinosaurs (measuring about 19x19cm) was written by David Hatley and illustrated by Phil Weare in glorious watercolour. Weare appears to be (based on hasty Google searches) an accomplished illustrator of natural history subjects, with some of his paintings of arthropods being especially lovely, but by no means a dinosaur specialist. As in so many cases, it’s obvious that the artist was referring to often quite badly dated works by others more au fait with the subject matter (and, y’know, fair enough – it was 1987). The cover gives a decent indication of what to expect, with an upright tyrannosaur looming anachronistically behind a rather malformed Stegosaurus, and a sauropod chilling out in a river at the back. The landscapes are all rather samey, with large, open, dusty areas and rather sparse foliage (with the exception of the forest on the cover, funnily enough). The minimal landscapes are definitely deliberate to an extent, but still, this is very much the sort of artwork that I remember from the early ’90s and that gave me the impression of dinosaurs all living in a cycad-peppered dustbowl.
In spite of the title, the book doesn’t open with dinosaurs, but rather the usual assortment of Palaeozoic beasties along with some Mesozoic non-dinosaurs. But that’s not what we’re here for, damn it! So, here are the first dinosaurs to appear (aside from a Polacanthus on the title page) – these rather sad-looking sauropods, straight out of the 1960s. Sibbick’s Normanpedia Apatosaurus was a tail-dragger, but it at least had a diplodocid head and something of a fat neck; this poor green fellow is still touting a mismatched camarasaur-looking noggin, puny neck and hunchback. Diplodocus inevitably fares better, but is still a rather unfortunate droopy thing. Come on now, the Invicta models had more vigour than this!
At least Stegosaurus has plenty of vigour as it fends off, er, Albertosaurus. That’s right – we have anachronisms, and plenty of them! The Albertosaurus is transparently based on Sibbick’s depiction in the Normanpedia, with the skin tone and angle of the head being pretty much identical. It differs in that it’s not tearing flesh from a carcass, but instead confronting Stego, which might also owe something to the Normanpedia version (it’s depicted from behind), but less obviously so. As I’ve said before, I do always enjoy ‘characters’ from specific, well-known palaeoart pieces having further adventures in other people’s work, as Albertosaurus is here; it’s like especially adorable fan fiction.
And did you know that depicting a fat tyrant lizard fighting a stegosaur is actually less realistic than depicting one running to be President of the United States, as the time difference is actually greater in the former case? So someone told me.
Rather than fight its plated contemporary, as is standard fare, Allosaurus has instead escaped to the Late Cretaceous and, er, Mongolia, and is hunting down Saurornithoides. (This isn’t explained at all.) Elements of the Allosaurus are taken from Sibbick (the posture of the arms, and the way the horn is smoothed into an eyebrow ridge), but it’s less blatant than with the Albertosaurus. It also has notably different colouration, with the dappled brown skin pattern actually being rather dashing. In fact, it might just be the best one here. I must award points for at least being daring with Saurornithoides, but…nah.
Normal service is resumed in a spread depicting Hypsilophodon and Iguanodon, which were actually contemporaries that lived in the same part of the world, although it’s a little ambiguous as to whether they’re inhabiting the same scene here. (Probably not, actually, given the horizon lines.) The Iguanodon, again, resembles Sibbick’s and has the ringed, Michelin Man look of many ’80s and ’90s Sibbick imitators, along with the classic flexed elbows, thumbs up posture. The Hypsilophodon illustration, though, is especially interesting as it depicts one clambering a short way up a tree. There isn’t any hint here that they might have been arboreal (as was put forward decades earlier), and the reconstructions are up-to-date for the time, making this an unusual (and quite pleasing) depiction of speculative behaviour. I really rather like it.
Polacanthus lived alongside Hypsilophodon and Iguanodon, but here it’s shown opposite Ankylosaurus. In this case, though, one could easily suppose that it’s to emphasise their relatedness, as in the Normanpedia. Speaking of which, while the Polacanthus could arguably be a mash-up of Sibbick’s Nodosaurus and Polacanthus, the Ankylosaurus is certainly based on his Pinacosaurus, albeit rotated a bit. That’s probably because there’s no life reconstruction of Ankylosaurus in the Normanpedia, although one wonders why the artist didn’t opt to copy Euoplocephalus instead, as so many did back in the day. Perhaps Pinacosaurus was a better fit for the ‘classic’, pre-2000s Ankylosaurus look.
Somewhat less interestingly, Protoceratops is here. Yay, Protoceratops. At least it isn’t blue – does anyone else remember that period in the late ’80s and early ’90s when Protoceratops simply had to be blue? I blame Sibbick, again. The individual on the left owes something to the Normanpedia version, but also possibly to Neave Parker, while the hatchlings definitely remind me of Parker. There is also, once again, a strange lack of the gooey mess that usually accompanies reptiles hatching from eggs. Don’t sanitise that stuff for the kids! The kids can take it. The kids love it.
You were all waiting for Rexy, and at long last, here he is. This Tyrannosaurus appears to be a portmanteau of different depictions from the ’80s and earlier, including the Sibbick Normanpedia version, although it somehow manages to look less strange than that one. It still has the tree-trunk legs and rather wide hips, mind you. The head reminds me of nothing so much as the old Airfix model and the life-sized version found at ROARR!!, a place that I’m sorry to say has banned adults from visiting unless they’re accompanied by children. Boo! Hiss!
In any case, the “king of lizards” (that’s not what Tyrannosaurus means, but does sound a bit like a Radiohead album) faces anachronistically off against Styracosaurus, which has a body that resembles a combination of Sibbick’s Euplocephalus and his Centrosaurus. Still, the frill is quite nicely done and the thing is actually scaly, rather than just being covered in concentric rings like a dinosaur toy straight from the bargain bucket. And look at the jugals! It could’ve been worse, John.
And finally…it’s the end of the Mesozoic as we know it, so here are two ceratopsians, only one of which lived right at the end (contrary to the text). They’re the same colour, perhaps, again, to emphasise their relatedness. (Or maybe the artist was out of ideas.) The Monoclonius looks familiar, but I’m having a hard time placing it; the Triceratops, meanwhile, resembles an old model that I believe is still on display in the NHM in London, possibly sculpted by Arthur Hayward. It also resembles certain (non-Normanpedia) Sibbick illustrations. I do really like the depiction of keratinous sheaths here, especially on the Triceratops‘ beak. It’s not strictly realistic, but gives a really good impression of something very tough, sharp, and built up in layers. It’s also very distinct from the animal’s skin textures, which helps draw attention to the differences in integument on the same creature.
Also, the shiny muscle tone on that Monoclonius is quite impressively painted, but perhaps that’s the Polish porter talking.
Next time: something completely different! I’ve finally got hold of a copy of the DK Encylopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life from 2001, so perhaps I’ll manage a multi-part post on that one. Do let me know if you’re interested.
1 Comment
Brad
January 28, 2025 at 6:03 pmI have several copies/versions of the older Ladybird book. I’ve never seen this one. Thanks for posting. It’s interesting how this version is identical to the original in terms of which dinosaurs are presented, except for the addition of the Albertosaurus (which replaces ‘Antrodemus’) and Sauronithoides. The positioning of the Monoclonius’ right forelimb reminds me of Burian’s Monoclonius.