Nor is that the correct street or zip.  Didn't we just get this a couple of
months ago?

----------
> From: Bob Oldham <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Curator Humor
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:29 PM
>
> Obviously fake, since the name is Smithsonian Institution.
> Bob Oldham
> Exhibit Maintenance Coordinator
> Science Museum of Virginia
>
> ----------
> From:   Susan D.[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:       Museum discussion list
> Sent:   Tuesday, April 28, 1998 12:46 PM
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:        Curator Humor
>
> I found this elsewhere on the net and thought I would pass it on.  If
> any of you know the curator in question, I would love to know if it is
> true.  Anyway, it made me laugh, and I thought many of you would enjoy
> it also.
>
> First, a little background:
>
> Supposedly, there is a man from Newport, RI, named Scott Williams who
> digs things out of his backyard and sends the stuff he finds to the
> Smithsonian, labeled with scientific names of his own invention.
> Williams insists that these artifacts are actual archaeological finds.
>
> The letter below is reputed to be an actual response to him from the
> Smithsonian.
>
>   __________________________________________________________________
>   Smithsonian Institute 207 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20078
>
>      Dear Mr. Williams:
>
>      Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled
> "93211-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 that one of our staff, who has small children,
> believes to be "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 its 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-homonids.
>
>      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 its 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 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 Newport 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 metal 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,
>      Harvey Rowe
>      Chief Curator-Antiquities