CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Alwyn Marais <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:01:48 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (107 lines)
Dear List, although this is not totally shell related (there is one mention
of clams) it still was fun to read. Maybe the museum guys on the list have
similar stories to share with us. Enjoy.

Regards
Alwyn


 GOOD SCIENCE

 The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball in
Newport, named Scott Williams who digs things out of his backyard and sends
the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labelling them with
scientific names, insisting that they are actual archaeological finds. This
guy really
exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway...here's the actual response
from the Smithsonian Institute. Bear this in mind next time you think you
are challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult situation in
writing...


Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled
"93211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post...Hominid skull." We
have
given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to
inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents conclusive
proof
of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago.
Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of
the variety that one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be
"Malibu Barbie." It is evident that you have given a great deal of
thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that
those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe
to come to contradiction with your findings.

However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes
of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin:

1.   The material is moulded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are
typically fossilised bone.
2.   The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
centimetres, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified
proto-hominids.
3.   The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent
with the common domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous man-eating
Pliocene clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time.

This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing
hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the
evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too
much
detail, let us say that::

1.   The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog
has chewed on.
2.   Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your
request to have the specimen carbon-dated. This is partially due to the
heavy loadour lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to
carbon-dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic
record.

To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to
1956 AD, and carbon-dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.
Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the NationalScience
Foundation Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your
specimen the scientific name 'Australopithecus spiff-arino'.
Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the
acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because
the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like
it
might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this
fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a Hominid
fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body
of work
you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly.

You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in
his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously
submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what
you will
happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your
Newport back yard.

We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you
proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to
pay for it.

We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your
theories surrounding the trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a
structural matrix that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex
femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty
9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

                    Yours in Science,

                    Harvey Rowe
                    Chief Curator-Antiquities
                    Smithsonian Institute

ATOM RSS1 RSS2