Re: Minotaurasaurus controversy

[Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>]

Quoting Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com>:

> But what if you saw a specimen described in a journal that you strongly 
> suspect was stolen from Riversleigh?  Alternatively, if you were asked 
> to review a manuscript  and you strongly suspected the specimen was 
> being described was stolen, would you recommend publication in spite of 
> the theft?  Combining the two, what if you were asked to review a 
> manuscript and the specimen was something you were pretty sure was 
> stolen from Riversleigh? Would that not be an issue in recommending its 
> publication?

Only if you think the people writing the description were directly involved in 
the theft. Which is 
unlikely, since fossil thieves and their cohorts tend not to want to advertise 
their involvement in 
illegal practices.

In fact, people might never become aware of such thefts at all if someone 
doesn't publish the 
material for all the world to see.

Isn't it better that stolen material finds it's way back to people who can 
properly describe it? If it 
ended up in private collections (or ground up for traditional medicines), then 
it's scientific 
importance would remain unrealised. The legality of a fossil's acquisition 
doesn't detract from any 
potential scientific importance.

-- 
___________________________________________________________________

Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist              http://geo_cities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia             http://heretichides.soffiles.com
___________________________________________________________________