dear folks,
just another joke.

sincerily,

Adilson Rachid
----------
> From: K. Emmett-Sweetser <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: PRE-FRIDAY HUMOR:  Smithsonian
> Date: Terça-feira, 14 de Outubro de 1997 21:06
>
> Since I won't be here Friday, I'm sending this early.
> Like all stories of its kind, it is supposed to be true.
> ;-)
> Ok, off to the aeropuerto, read you-all next month.
>         Kata
>
>         [Begin Quoted Text]
>
> The story behind this is that there is this nutball who digs
> things out of 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.
> This guy really exists and does this in his spare time!
> Anyway... here's the actual response from the Smithsonian.
> Lest we think we have challenges in responding, at times,
> to our constituency [or clients, or colleagues], I send this
> to you all as an exemplar of a public servant's considerate
> and thoughtful response.
>
> ----------
> From:   Paleoanthropology Division
>         Smithsonian Institute
>         207 Pennsylvania Avenue
>         Washington, DC 20078
>
>  Dear Sir:
>
> 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 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 as 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 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 illifitation 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,
>
> Harvey Rowe
>
> Curator, Antiquities.
>
>         [End Quoted Text]
>
>