written by Geek Wife
Don't agree with me? At least my physicist husband does.
Scientist sometimes think they are THE SMARTEST creature by far (probably only 50% true, a drop out like Bill Gates who get to hire them probably much smarter), and their 'invention' or 'discovery' (whatever you call it) would save the world.
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled"211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid Skull."
We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County twomillion years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has smallchildren, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie."
It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.
1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubiccentimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with thec ommon domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Plioceneclams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latterfinding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses that you havesubmitted in your history with this Institution, but the evidence seems toweigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail let ussay that:
a. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog haschewed on.
b. Clams don't have teeth.
It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record.
However, we gladly accept your generous donation of the fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard.
We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in astructural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 3/8 inch Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
Yours in Science,Harvey RoweCurator, Antiquities
Don't agree with me? At least my physicist husband does.
Scientist sometimes think they are THE SMARTEST creature by far (probably only 50% true, a drop out like Bill Gates who get to hire them probably much smarter), and their 'invention' or 'discovery' (whatever you call it) would save the world.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh well.... someone sometimes get too carried away doing their job. ("I can't help it, I am doing this flagella motor for the past 13 years....What should I say if it is not motor after all?")
*********
Letter from the Smithsonian:
Paleonanthropology DivisionSmithsonian Institute207 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington, DC 20078
Paleonanthropology DivisionSmithsonian Institute207 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington, DC 20078
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled"211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid Skull."
We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County twomillion years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has smallchildren, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie."
It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.
However, we do feel that there are anumber of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped youoff to it's modern origin:
1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubiccentimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with thec ommon domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Plioceneclams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latterfinding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses that you havesubmitted in your history with this Institution, but the evidence seems toweigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail let ussay that:
a. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog haschewed on.
b. Clams don't have teeth.
It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record.
To thebest of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.
Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National ScienceFoundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning yourspecimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speakingpersonally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of yourproposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted-down because the species nameyou selected was hyphenated, and did not really sound like it might be Latin.
Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National ScienceFoundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning yourspecimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speakingpersonally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of yourproposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted-down because the species nameyou selected was hyphenated, and did not really sound like it might be Latin.
However, we gladly accept your generous donation of the fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard.
We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in astructural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 3/8 inch Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
Yours in Science,Harvey RoweCurator, Antiquities
No comments:
Post a Comment