Re: Minotaurasaurus controversy

[dinoboygraphics@aol.com]

> > > The legality of a fossil's acquisition doesn't detract from any 
potential scientific importance.<<<

Sorry about the hair-splitting, but as others have pointed out there's 
a huge loss of contextual data when fossils are stolen, so its mode of 
acquisition most certainly detracted from its potential scientific 
importance.  That said, it doesn't totally destroy its scientific 
importance as there is still a lot of morphological data available.  
The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) whether or not the specimen is of 
scientific value...of course it is... but rather whether its scientific 
value outweighs potential the consequences of allowing researchers to 
publish on stolen specimens.

I'm not going to take a side here because A) I don't have the time 
today to write something with the nuance the subject deserves, and B) 
it would almost certainly bend the rules on discussion of commercial 
collecting (a line much of this discussion as been tiptoeing along) but 
we all need to be honest: This issue is a complicated cost-to-benefit 
analysis for the whole field that involves data acquisition, ethics, 
and how future behavior might be influenced by these publications (not 
least of all the economics of monetary inflation on specimens with 
perceived scientific value added from publication when they can still 
be sold).

No matter what side you find yourself on there are significant trade 
offs that are being made.


Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center
110 Carter Ranch Rd.
Thermopolis, WY 82443
(800) 455-3466 ext. 230
Cell: (307) 921-8333

www.skeletaldrawing.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: Minotaurasaurus controversy






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
___________________________________________________________________