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] > >