|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 3, 2009 12:53:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 3, 2009 14:48:37 GMT
A cast of the skull of Minotaurasaurus is exposed at the Sauriermuseum of Aathal (the one we visited last month,in Switzerland),here's the pic:  By the way,i still don't completely understand the "smuggling fossils" question...Is it bad just for "bureaucratic" reasons,or it really hurts TRUE paleontology?  |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Feb 3, 2009 15:44:07 GMT
Thats an awesome name!
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 3, 2009 16:48:01 GMT
A cast of the skull of Minotaurasaurus is exposed at the Sauriermuseum of Aathal (the one we visited last month,in Switzerland),here's the pic: By the way,i still don't completely understand the "smuggling fossils" question...Is it bad just for "bureaucratic" reasons,or it really hurts TRUE paleontology? The problem becomes, where is it from? Is it from the Flaming Cliffs, or another locality? Was there more, but a smuggler knows that the skull is pretty much the most valuable part (maybe claws too, but it's an ankylosaur)? Is it from a national park, where collecting is supposed to be highly restricted? Since Mongolia actually has very strict laws about fossils, how did it get out legally (same goes for Chinese fossils)? In other words, while the name is cool, and it is a nice skull, it is very much a big toy now, until more is known. My favourite part is that the owner will return it if they can prove where it came from (and that it left illegally). Fact is, when describing a fossil, especially a new species, where it came from is one of the most important pieces of information--the fact that they don't know for sure is a big red flag that fishy things are afoot. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 3, 2009 17:00:05 GMT
A cast of the skull of Minotaurasaurus is exposed at the Sauriermuseum of Aathal (the one we visited last month,in Switzerland),here's the pic: By the way,i still don't completely understand the "smuggling fossils" question...Is it bad just for "bureaucratic" reasons,or it really hurts TRUE paleontology? The problem becomes, where is it from? Is it from the Flaming Cliffs, or another locality? Was there more, but a smuggler knows that the skull is pretty much the most valuable part (maybe claws too, but it's an ankylosaur)? Is it from a national park, where collecting is supposed to be highly restricted? Since Mongolia actually has very strict laws about fossils, how did it get out legally (same goes for Chinese fossils)? In other words, while the name is cool, and it is a nice skull, it is very much a big toy now, until more is known. My favourite part is that the owner will return it if they can prove where it came from (and that it left illegally). Fact is, when describing a fossil, especially a new species, where it came from is one of the most important pieces of information--the fact that they don't know for sure is a big red flag that fishy things are afoot. The fact that there is a cast in Switzerland is fishy too. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 3, 2009 17:14:02 GMT
The problem becomes, where is it from? Is it from the Flaming Cliffs, or another locality? Was there more, but a smuggler knows that the skull is pretty much the most valuable part (maybe claws too, but it's an ankylosaur)? Is it from a national park, where collecting is supposed to be highly restricted? Since Mongolia actually has very strict laws about fossils, how did it get out legally (same goes for Chinese fossils)? In other words, while the name is cool, and it is a nice skull, it is very much a big toy now, until more is known. My favourite part is that the owner will return it if they can prove where it came from (and that it left illegally). Fact is, when describing a fossil, especially a new species, where it came from is one of the most important pieces of information--the fact that they don't know for sure is a big red flag that fishy things are afoot. The fact that there is a cast in Switzerland is fishy too. Well, yeah, can't trust those neutral mountain folk. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 3, 2009 17:25:34 GMT
So you suspect it could be a fake? |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 3, 2009 17:37:58 GMT
Not necessarily, just that the only information to be gleaned is anatomical, which on its own, isn't all that useful. All the taphonomic and provenance data is lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 3, 2009 19:00:08 GMT
Not necessarily, just that the only information to be gleaned is anatomical, which on its own, isn't all that useful. All the taphonomic and provenance data is lost. Ah,ok...Now i understand  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 3, 2009 19:23:14 GMT
Not necessarily, just that the only information to be gleaned is anatomical, which on its own, isn't all that useful. All the taphonomic and provenance data is lost. Ah,ok...Now i understand This is the usual problem with smuggled/questionable fossils. In general, dealers don't like to give away their localities--bad for business. Which means the fossils are not all that useful from a research point of view--even if they are very pretty specimens. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 4, 2009 2:30:04 GMT
I agree with theri, nice name for an armored dinosaur.
|
|
