[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


At 03:24 PM 12/14/96 -0500, Gothgrrl@aol.com wrote:
>This makes it sound like you're proposing the private ownership of holotypes.
>Private collections, being inherently less stable than public collections,
>should, generally, never be the focus of scientific publications, and
>especially not publications wherein new taxa are described.

   So if "Sinosauropteryx" was in a Japanese businessman's private
collection, analyses should not be published?  That's patently ridiculous.
I understand you don't think fossils should be privately owned, but going to
the point of obstructing scientific understanding while fossils are still
privately owned is nuts.

** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **