Foreign vs. Local Dino Finds - WAS: Rauhut's Thesis

["Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>]

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).

I know that work is being done (probably even as I write this) in Montana on
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 it
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 cause
the delay - for good reasons and for bad reasons.  But they too may be more
motivated for the better sponsorships available for the more distant digs.


Allan Edels

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Danvarner@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 4:49 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Rauhut's Thesis


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