i've been off the list for a while, so i appologize if this has already
circulated.  some may find it more interesting than the discussion of
museum salaries that flooded these electronic pages in july.  in fact,
some may find it answers the question of why we do what we do for so
little financial return.  how often do we get the chance to write a
response such as this?

>The story behind this... There's this nutball who digs things up in
>his back yard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian
>Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting that they
>are actual archeological finds. The really weird thing about these
>letters is that this guy really exists and does this in his spare
>time!  Anyway... here's a letter from the Smithsonian Institute from
when he sent them a Barbie doll head.
>
>*************************************************************
>
>
>
>Smithsonian Institute
>207 Pennsylvania Avenue
>Washington, 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 two  million 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 small children, 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 a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might
>have tipped you off 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 cubic
>centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest  identified
>proto-hominids.
>3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent
>with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous
>man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during
>that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing
>hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution,
>but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without
>going into too much detail, let us say that:
>
>A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll  that a dog has
>chewed 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 it's normal operation, and
>partly due to  carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of
>recent geologic  record. To the best 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
>Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of
>assigning your specimen  the scientific name "Australopithecus
>spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for
>the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted
>down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't
>really sound  like it might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your
>generous donation of this  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 a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile
>Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive
>appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
>
>Yours in Science,