Vintage Dinosaur Art: The Life and Death of the Dinosaurs

While John Sibbick Normanpedia knock-offs were pretty ubiquitous in the late ’80s and early ’90s, the illustrations in this book just might be unique in combining classic Sibbickisms with a more John McLoughlin-like, monochrome, stipply style. A rather obscure little volume very kindly sent over from the States by Herman Diaz, The Life and Death of the Dinosaurs was published in 1990 by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Audubon Society, written by Joseph K Slap (great name), and illustrated by Elaine Katzer. One should definitely also mention that it was printed by REPRO-TECH, inc of Little Falls, New Jersey – because it’s another great name, always written in uppercase, and they are “pleasant, helpful, competent people” according to Slap. You know, if they’re still in business. In any case, onward!

Tyrannosaurus is slapped on the cover because sexy theropods sell, obviously, although this very upright, seemingly tail-dragging, vacant-looking fellow is perhaps not the best mascot for a book that’s actually very up-to-the-minute in terms of its dinosaur science; Slap (a mathematician and physicist by training) states that he wishes to present “much of the latest thinking” on dinosaurs, and went to some lengths to obtain it at a time when one couldn’t simply hunt scientists down online. Aside from looking a little like it’s been consuming some dubious cannabinoids, this T. rex resembles a combination of Sibbick’s oddball reconstruction from the Normanpedia and an even more old-school, Neave Parkerish take. It’s far from the best of Katzer’s illustrations here, and perhaps not the best choice for the cover, but hey, T. rex sells.

The first dinosaur to be seen inside is the above Apatosaurus, which while not being a direct copy, clearly owes a lot to the Normanpedia version in terms of its overall form and, especially, cheerfully grinning visage. I do really like the stippling technique employed in all of these illustrations – there’s a great deal of skill in the minimal linework and judiciously employed tiny dots. As I mentioned earlier, it certainly makes what might have been a very run-of-the-mill series of early ’90s Sibbicky dinosaur illustrations much more interesting.

Another equally happy-looking saurian is the above Iguanodon, which just seems to be contentedly smiling to itself, rather than grinning toothily. The body is similar to the Normanpedia take, but the head has been flipped around so that the animal seems to be looking behind itself. You’ll note that tails are often contorted in a slightly unnatural-looking way so that the whole creature fits on the page. Everyone’s done it.

If Iguanodon‘s smiling contentedly, then Parasaurolophus seems a little bit too pleased with itself. Again, it’s very similar to Sibbick’s illustration, but with the head facing the other way. In this case, I’m particularly impressed by Katzer’s ability to give an impression of the animal’s tall-ish neural spines with a really quite small number of dots and a single curve. A couple of other thoughts did occur to me just now:

1. These would be very good in a colouring book.
2. Can we blame Sibbick for setting back the correct portrayal of hadrosaur hands by about 15 years, because so many illustrators copied his 1985 work? It would surely be unfair. I might blame him anyway.

Struthiomimus might be another stippled Sibbick-alike in a slightly different pose, but the cute cartoony snake is a nice little addition. What else to say about this one? Well, that all-black eye is rather unsettling. It’s deathly, empty and unearthly, like a Funko Pop.

Ankylosaurus! Wait, don’t you mean Euoplocephalus? (Or would that be Scolosaurus now?) This is one of the illustrations that’s the biggest departure from the Normanpedia version, in that the pose and angle are significantly different, although it’s certainly reminiscent of it in other ways. This might be a case of the artist combining two different sources (or perhaps even being a bit original – am I not giving Katzer enough credit?). The attention to detail is admirable, although the animal does seem to have a lip where it ought to have a beak. It’s the sort of thing that only annoying nerds care about. You know, the likes of me and the people who only leave a comment when they think I’ve got something wrong. You know who you are. (Just kidding. Please continue commenting. Please…)

As far as theropods go, Tyrannosaurus might be a bit spaced out and retro-looking, and Struthiomimus serviceable and Sibbicky, but poor old Deinonychus drew the short straw. Sporting a classically Bakkerian head and saggy neck along with upsetting Sibbickian aye-aye fingers, this is otherwise a very oddly posed and awkward-looking creation. What is going on with those legs? Which foot is in the foreground? If a retro, scaly, Dino Riders-like Deinonychus ever appeared in Ancient Egyptian friezes, it would probably look a little like this. One can imagine it standing opposite a jackal-headed deity in a scene depicting someone’s organs being stuffed into jars. (I hear they did that sort of thing.) I’m afraid that all the clever stippling in the world can’t save this one.

It’s worth noting at this point that it’s not all dinosaurs, all the time in this book – just the vast majority of the time. Dimetrodon also pops up, in the context of dinosaur metabolisms (comparisons are made with Ouranosaurus and its rather different sail). Katzer’s Dimetrodon isn’t terrible, but does suffer from a misshapen head, iffy hips and perhaps slightly under-detailed sail (those vertebrae weren’t that thin). Then again, there are such a ridiculous number of Dimetrodon species that there’s every chance that this represents D. cacocephalus, the one that looks like it’s based on the sort of iffy reference material you might have had access to before everyone had internet access.

And finally…Triceratops butt. Sadly, this isn’t right at the end of the book, following a chapter on the dinosaurs’ extinction, with the caption ‘The Livin’ End’. But I can dream. I’m not sure that Sibbick’s the source for this one – the head somewhat resembles that of the Normanpedia Triceratops, but it differs in key details, and the similarities could well just be down to them being illustrations of Triceratops from a similar sort of time. If you think you recognise the source for this one, please let me know. It’s also entirely possible that, again, I’m not giving Katzer enough credit. Shame on me! Have I mentioned how much I love the stippling…?