[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bambiraptor (comment on Brochu's comments)
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "chris brochu" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 7:12 PM
>Subject: Re: Bambiraptor
>> A couple of responses here, folks. Sorry if I'm beginning to sound
>> >It seems that some PhDs
>> >would rather see some fossils rot than to have the "wrong" people dig
>> >them up.
>> In fact, having them end up in disreputable hands is no different from
>> having them rot in the field.
>Please forgive me, but I must again mount the soap box.
>I disagree with Chris Brochu's seemingly rash statement. First of all, I
>would ask how we are to determine who is disreputable?
Those who collect information with the fossils are not disreputable. (To
be clear, I was using an alternative form of "wrong," which is what Eric
Lurio said). A disreputable person is one who collects fossils as
commodities and not as scientific resources, and who will not consider the
needs of the scientific community when important material comes to light.
In short, we are to determine who is disreputable by actions.
Are all private
>individuals who have personal collections of fossils disreputable?
No. In fact, I know the person who owns the pterosaur you are working on,
and saw his collection over the summer. Although I disagree with his
political orientations, he is not disreputable - he works hard to keep the
information with the fossils. Although I disagree with the concept of
publishing on fossils in private hands (I would rather see this person
donate and/or sell the fossil to a museum before you work on it, and you
are limiting the number of possible publication venues by working on it
prior to curation), this is clearly a specimen worthy of description, not
only because of its informative content, but because the important
contextual information was preserved.
>Secondly, I would ask Chris to consider a hypothetical situation in which a
>new specimen of a crocodilian comes to his attention. This crocodilian
>provides sufficient information to overturn all the phylogenies of Clark,
>Norell, and Brochu [sorry if I've left anyone out--I'm not as up on
>crocodilian phylogeny as I might be].
Willis, Salisbury, Langston.
Unfortunately, the specimen was
>collected by a commercial collector, has only the vaguest locality data,
>uncertain stratigraphic position, and is in the hands of a private
>individual, perhaps even a disreputable private individual. So I ask you
>Chris, would we be better off if the specimen had never been collected and
>had been allowed to weather away to dust?
Not "better off" - that was certainly never my point. My point is that
such a fossil is no different than if it had not been collected. So we are
in the same shape as before.
Perhaps so, but I don't think so.
>I think that specimen died and spent tens of millions of years imprisoned in
>a rocky limbo so that it could come to us and whisper in our ears of its
>world and relations.
Too bad under the conditions you describe the important points it whispers
were never transcribed.
Who are we to ignore its whisperings just because it
>had the misfortune to come to us with an incomplete story?
Yes, it would be
>nice to have accurate locality data; yes, it would be nice to have accurate
>stratigraphic data; yes, it would be nice to know the circumstances
>surrounding its deposition; yes, it would be nice to have it in our museum;
>but despite all those shortcomings, it is a scientifically informative
>specimen and we are better off for knowing about it.
Not nice - _necessary_. And if we cannot say where it comes from, we are
not better off for knowing about it.
In point of fact, I've actually seen fossils that might overturn parts of
my work. The locality/temporal information was so bad that I could not, in
good conscience, include it. Remember, parts of my work include
stratigraphic and biogeographic congruence - if I don't have that
information, it does very little (if anything) to move us forward.
>Chris Brochu is clearly concerned about the problems arising from commercial
>collection of fossils--I, too, am concerned, but I do not think that the
>problems necessarily outweigh the benefits.
I don't either, but we seem to disagree on the solutions.
Christopher A. Brochu
Department of Geology
1400 S. Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60605