[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Foreign vs. Local Dino Finds - WAS: Rauhut's Thesis
From: Edels <email@example.com>
Subject: Foreign vs. Local Dino Finds - WAS: Rauhut's Thesis
> Dan, Darryl, and the rest of the List:
> I'm afraid that some of the problem IS sponsorship.
> I know that Josh Smith et al, found some unusual sources for funding the
> Egyptian dig (among others: a film crew - who most likely would not have
> been interested if the dig was in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey).
And don't forget Carl Sagan! The main interest I got on this project is the
study of a _whole_ beautiful LK mangrove and the life of the dinosaurs in
it, and of course the artistic projet I have today - many thanks to all for
But I also hope T.R. Lipka's Arundel project will be successfull, it's a
very similar project I think.
As I wrote for The Dinosauricon, it's real fun for me to draw those
beautiful ecosystems, it seems like "lost paradises".
> I know that work is being done (probably even as I write this) in Montana
> at least one new sauropod, and maybe a juvenile allosaur - by some of the
> same people involved in the Egypt dig. I also know that the funding for
> Montana this year was very, very tight.
> It's just not as exciting to sponsor something in Montana, or Maryland as
> is to be able to say that "I sponsored a dinosaur expedition to the Gobi!"
> (or Africa, or Australia). Perhaps, for local (i.e. North American)
> expeditions, we should solicit sponsorship of German, Australian, or
> Japanese companies?
> Lest we forget, sometimes it is the people working on the project that
> the delay - for good reasons and for bad reasons. But they too may be
> motivated for the better sponsorships available for the more distant digs.
> Allan Edels
> In a message dated 7/6/01 1:07:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> . I know there are finds in museums in Montana, Alberta, Utah, New
> Saskatchewan, England, and others in places closer to museums than is,
> the Kem Kem. Yet we hear about these finds first and are still waiting
> descriptions of the bulldog faced dromaeosaur, the good MOR Troodon
> new Saurornitholestes material, an apatosaur graveyard for juveniles, and
What a pity!!
> I certainly don't think science should be compromised for the sake
> of publishing new names (like was done 100 odd years ago), but I get the
> impression that journals want the prestige of publishing new material from
> "way over there". Am I wrong?
No, you're not. It's a way to make "sensationnal".
> I hear you. I don't think the problem is with the journals as much
> how this work and subsequent funding is now generated by commercial
> entities/production companies. I think that the Dinosaur Society and its
> tie-in with Jurassic Park money really started this (although one could go
> back to Roy Chapman Andrews hyping Dodge trucks for the 1920's Gobi
> Expeditions). The film crews are always there and it has to look flashy.
> Downtown Edgemont, South Dakota just won't make for a flamboyant backround
> for a scientific expedition. Colorful natives and an element of danger
> for better TV than a couple of beer-gutted good ole boys (you rang?)
> staggering out of the local bistro in Glasgow, Montana. Film makers
> Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack knew this in the days before they made King
> and went to exotic locations all over the world for their
> films. The exotic sells. By the way, I'm not saying this is neccessarily a
> bad thing, but it is a growing phenomenon lately. DV
The exotic sells, you're perfectly right. But now, with the virtual
animations used for example in BBC's series or in the recent "When Dinosaurs
roamed America", it's possible to make "exotic" with all good prehistoric
Maybe it's a way to follow. Why not an animation film about nesting
_Troodon_ for example?
Luc J. "Aspidel" BAILLY.