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

Help with Maple White Land



Darren Naish asked me to forward this to the list.
You'd think he didn't have a dissertation to finish :-)

--

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:02:55 -0000
From: "darren uni" <darren.naish@port.ac.uk>
To: "Mike Taylor" <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>

If it's no trouble, please fwd the following to DML. After searching
for the required bit of information without success, I'm giving up and
asking for help - and I need the answer before Sunday (when I'm giving
the talk that, in theory, will use the information I'm searching for).

--------------

Dear DML members - I require assistance....

In _The Lost World_, Arthur Conan Doyle described Maple White Land, a
fictional plateau in S. America where dinosaurs, pterosaurs, ape-men
and assorted other fossil animals still survive. While some people
think that Maple White Land might have been inspired by the Brazilian
Araripe Plateau, Winslow and Meyer (1983) proposed that Maple White
Land might really have been a fictionalised version of the Weald of SE
England. They might not have been the first to propose this, but their
article was illustrated with a map of Maple White Land in which they
highlighted the purported similarities with the Weald. I have a
distinct recollection of seeing this figure reproduced in a
semi-popular or popular dinosaur book, and that's where I need help:
which book is this? I thought it was Farlow & Brett-Surman's _The
Complete Dinosaur_, but it isn't. If you know, please let me know
ASAP. Versions of this map are available on the internet, but I still
need to know which book contained this image. Many thanks for any
help.

For the record, Winslow and Meyer's (1983) idea was integral to their
thesis that Conan Doyle was the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax, an
idea more controversial than most claims made about Piltdown. Walsh
(1996) argued that the purported similarities between Maple White Land
and the Weald weren't really that strong, and this is a problem for
Winslow and Meyer because it was their trump card, a proposition
otherwise based entirely on supposition and flatly rejected by many
due to its impressive lack of evidence (Spencer 1990).

Refs - - 

Spencer, F. 1990. _Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery_. British Museum
(Natural History) (London) & Oxford University Press (Oxford),
pp. 272.

Walsh, J. E. 1997. _Unravelling Piltdown_. Random House (New York),
pp. 279.

Winslow, J. & Meyer, A. 1983. The perpetrator at Piltdown. _Science
83_ 4, 32-43.


--
Darren Naish
SEES, University of Portsmouth Uk
darren.naish@port.ac.uk

--------------