It's been around every 6 months or so....variations on the same theme
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan D. <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:28 PM
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