Re: Rauhut's Thesis

[Danvarner@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/6/01 1:07:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dinoguy@sympatico.ca writes:


.  I know there are finds in museums in Montana, Alberta, Utah, New Mexico,
Saskatchewan, England, and others in places closer to museums than is, say,
the Kem Kem.  Yet we hear about these finds first and are still waiting for
descriptions of the bulldog faced dromaeosaur, the good MOR Troodon skeleton,
new Saurornitholestes material, an apatosaur graveyard for juveniles, and
others.  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?



       I hear you. I don't think the problem is with the journals as much as
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 make
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 Merriam
Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack knew this in the days before they made King Kong
and went to exotic locations all over the world for their quasi-documentary
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