Fw: minotaurosaurus

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

And because there are still no line breaks, which probably means that some 
list members and maybe even the archives won't receive a readable message, 
I'll send this valuable perspective a third time:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Williams, Scott" <Scott.Williams@burpee.org>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:34 PM
Subject: re: minotaurosaurus

> In my opinion, one of the big problems with the paper is its total lack of 
> locality information. The stratigraphic information or complete lack 
> thereof, is appalling. Quoting from the paper itself:
>
> "The only stratigraphic information that we have is the matrix around the 
> specimen. This indicates a location in the Gobi Desert of either Mongolia 
> or China."
>
> The paper attempts to construct a new genus of ankylosaur. It is more 
> difficult to make this case when you cannot pinpoint its stratigraphic 
> location. If it is found in a stratigraphic layer that is much younger or 
> older than where you typically find other Mongolian ankylosaurs, the 
> argument for a new taxon becomes stronger. As it stands we have no idea 
> where this thing comes from (might as well be the moon). Is it not 
> possible that it is an ontogenetic stage of or different variation of some 
> other already described taxon? Again good stratigraphic data could help 
> falsify something?!
>
> Ok..onto the issue of it possibly/likely being a hot specimen and whether 
> it should be published or not. I am an ex-cop and if this was a court of 
> law and this specimen was attempted to be entered as evidence, the judge 
> would throw it out before the jury could even see it. When evidence is 
> entered in a court of law it has to have a proper chain of evidence. A 
> police officer collects evidence at an arrest or crime scene. It is 
> bagged, sealed, initialed, dated, etc then turned over to the evidence 
> officer. The evidence officer repeats the process and places it in a 
> secure locker that only he/she has a key to. Then the evidence officer 
> removes the object and takes it to the State Crime lab. An officer at the 
> crime lab takes the evidence, signs for it, dates it, etc and then tests 
> it (fingerprints, drugs, DNA, or whatever). When the Crime lab officer is 
> done, he/she rebags the evidence, initials it, dates it, seals it, etc 
> then signs the report. The evidence officer picks up the
> evidence, repeating the process then takes it to the States Attorney who 
> is prosecuting the case, who in turn repeats the chain. Then the States 
> Attorney enters it into evidence for the court with a proper chain of 
> evidence, with the arresting officer, evidence officer, and crime lab 
> officer all testifying to its integrity. There is no taint of illegality 
> or doubt in this process.
>
> In my mind this is analogous to the real scientific process that should go 
> on for all peer reviewed articles. A legitimate, legal specimen with solid 
> locality data with no taint whatsoever.  Of course the scientific 
> community should demand that all specimens are legally obtained, because 
> the taint of illegal specimens raises doubt over the whole process. We 
> call it fruits of the poison tree in cop-land. Hope this puts it in 
> perspective.
>
> Scott Williams
> Burpee Museum