1) Horn Bone Cones Found In A New Zealand Cave In 1850

[michaelhere]

Before people leave message please check previous posts, there are many sites that confirm New Zealand did in fact have dinosaurs with horns.. Anything found in a cave will be well preserved..The natural history museum in London are also investigating these horn cones as they say they are special..

[michaelhere]

There is a very rare type of mammoth tusk on yahoo images it is exactly the same as the tusks i have, yahoo tusk is not complete but a large fragment, looks exactly like my 2 horn cones or whatever they are.

I will list them on Ebay .co.uk next week as i do not want them..

[Auspex]

...there are many sites that confirm New Zealand did in fact have dinosaurs with horns...

Certainly you do not mean to say that these horns are from a dinosaur?

[Kosmoceras]

There is a very rare type of mammoth tusk on yahoo images it is exactly the same as the tusks i have, yahoo tusk is not complete but a large fragment, looks exactly like my 2 horn cones or whatever they are.

Tusk/ivory does not have the grainy internal structure your specimens have.

[michaelhere]

I don't know what these are, if you look at the ones i'm talking about on Yahoo images you will see the exact same details on that one that are on my 2 horns or whatever they are.. i will try and find that photo i am talking about and upload it to this site, it's off a very rare mammoth or mammal, i've even been told that these thing i have are ancient Walrus tusks, been told so many different things it's driving me nuts, i will just list them on Ebay next week, the winner can investigate what they exactly are

[michaelhere]

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDodvK4NVRyWAA6DBNBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Drare%2Bmammoth%2Btusk%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26y%3DSearch%26fr%3Dcrmas%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D263&w=640&h=480&imgurl=home.earthlink.net%2F~caseyscurios%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderpictures%2FWooleyMammothTusk.JPG&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F~caseyscurios%2Fid1.html&size=73.3KB&name=FOSSILIZED+WOOLEY+%3Cb%3EMAMMOTH+TUSK+%3C%2Fb%3ESECTION%2C+SIBERIA&p=rare+mammoth+tusk&oid=1c81819e00eadec0ef5470db15eecd33&fr2=&fr=crmas&tt=FOSSILIZED+WOOLEY+%3Cb%3EMAMMOTH+TUSK+%3C%2Fb%3ESECTION%2C+SIBERIA&b=241∋=112&no=263&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11gupj460&sigb=13mm3d7is&sigi=12tbj7d0o&.crumb=IwjizdLNsYA&fr=crmas

[Auspex]

It would be interesting to know who has "informed" you that those are Neolithic... and on what basis. If they were Neolithic (I sincerely doubt it) then they certainly didn't originate in New Zealand.

"Yes there were indeed animals of that period in NZ which had horns"?????? Where does that come from? Which animals?

Hi

The guy who told me is the following:

This is to acknowledge yours, which I will follow up in the next few days.

Yours sincerely

Ewan Fordyce

R. Ewan Fordyce

Professor, Department of Geology University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, NZ

tel 3-479-7510, paleo lab 3-479-4575, cell 021-037-3964, fax 3-479-7527

web: http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/people/fordyce/index.html

Research Associate, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution; Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum; Michigan State University Museum.

I submit that Dr. Fordyce told you no such thing. I cannot sit idly by and allow such inference to go unchallenged; to do so is to be complicit in a falsehood that could be damaging to his reputation.

Believe whatever you wish about your family heirloom (that you cannot wait to sell), but this Forum will not stand for blatantly untrue statements whose only purpose is to bolster your position, no matter who they may harm.

[painshill]

So:

An unnamed guy who runs a fossil business tells you they’re dinosaur (they aren’t) or bison (they aren’t if from a New Zealand animal).

You form your own opinion that they are dinosaur based on misinterpretation of a Wiki entry (without any real understanding of the rarity or limited range of dinosaurs NZ had, the morphology of their horns or the way in which material older than 65 million years would fossilize – cave find or not).

You then assert they are from the Neolithic period (NZ didn’t have a Neolithic period as such since it had no inhabitants at the time) and that there were animals of that period in NZ which had horns (that’s patently false, and you have not mentioned any such animals – because there were none).

When asked who provided that last gem of information, you cite Professor Fordyce at the University of Otago in Dunedin, NZ. That’s also false. I asked professor Fordyce (and also provided him with a link to your post.) He replied as follows (quoted with his kind permission):

“If the horns are from NZ, the simplest explanation is that they are cattle, and post-date European settlement. It is possible but unlikely that they could come from some other ungulate, also post-European. No such species are indigenous to NZ; all have been introduced. The photos that I have seen of surface detail suggest that the horns are relatively unaltered and thus young in terms of human history - decades to possibly more than a hundred years. It would be easy to test the origin by genetic fingerprinting but equally a direct match with some known reference material would do. Note that archaeological material is not my field; I merely offer comments based on broad involvement with paleontology. Meanwhile, any exceptional claims about such material would need to be backed up by exceptional and clearly verifiable scientific evidence.

Regards

Ewan Fordyce”

I think the reply speaks for itself – in contrast to the inference you made about a Neolithic date and the presence of horned animals in NZ at the time.

Later, you suggest they are a particularly rare kind of mammoth tusk (they aren’t and of course NZ never had any mammoths of any kind at any time).

Then you suggest that the NHM in London has said that they are “special”. Again, I would ask who at the NHM has said that and in what way are they regarded as special? Special cow horns?

You’re barking up the wrong tree, but I guess that doesn’t matter if all you want to do is sell them. They’ll find their own price on ebay whether you misrepresent them or not.

[Boesse]

This morning I exchanged an email or two with Ewan, and he indicated to Michaelhere in email correspondence that they are are almost certainly domestic cattle horns, or possibly from another ungulate (albeit unlikely); furthermore they are certainly no older than 19th century.

Some additional food for thought:

1) As previously mentioned, it apparently needs to be reiterated that the only native terrestrial mammal to NZ prior to Maori arrival is a bat.

2) There are no (zero, zip, nada) horned dinosaurs known from the southern hemisphere. They are strictly Laurasian in distribution. Ceratopsians are known from Europe, central Asia, and North America. Period. If you doubt me, check out this helpful page which succinctly summarizes the pitifully small dinosaur assemblage from New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_of_New_Zealand

3) Wooly mammoths are also definitely not a candidate. Proboscideans never crossed the "Lydekker line"; some crossed the Wallace Line and made it into central Indonesia, but not "Sahul"/Australinea or New Zealand.

Bobby

[RichW9090]

I figured it wouldn't be long until Bobby asked Ewan. There was no doubt in my mind that Ewan never identified them as New Zealand "neolithic", and in fact the email "michaelhere" quoted provided no such information at all, it was merely a polite aknowledgement.

It is bad enough when people show up here asking for help with an ID, and then argue that we are all wrong, and they KNOW what it is. Then they make three or four clearly incorrect statements. All of that is bad enough; but when they then make up a story about what a well known professional said, and attribute statements to him that he did not make, that borders on criminal behaviour (slander/libel) and is dishonest and unethical at the very least.

Such people, when identified, should be removed from the Forum, in my opinion.

Rich

Edited July 5, 2013 by RichW9090

[wibrown]

Being that it was said to be "fossilized", I questioned it from the very beginning solely because of the cleanly sawed of ends.

Edited July 5, 2013 by wibrown

[garyc]

I'm hoping that "michaelhere" is merely operating from the mindset that lots of us amateurs have. We come across something we think is unique in some way and want confirmation that it is special. Even if, as Rich pointed out, the intention in this case is dishonest/unethical; I just want to say that I still learned something by reading this thread and following the logic that some of you used in determining what these horns could or could not be. Thanks to all who took the time to respond to "michaelhere".

[JohnJ]

I figured it wouldn't be long until Bobby asked Ewan. There was no doubt in my mind that Ewan never identified them as New Zealand "neolithic", and in fact the email "michaelhere" quoted provided no such information at all, it was merely a polite aknowledgement.

It is bad enough when people show up here asking for help with an ID, and then argue that we are all wrong, and they KNOW what it is. Then they make three or four clearly incorrect statements. All of that is bad enough; but when they then make up a story about what a well known professional said, and attribute statements to him that he did not make, that borders on criminal behaviour (slander/libel) and is dishonest and unethical at the very least.

Such people, when identified, should be removed from the Forum, in my opinion.

Rich

I have a particular distaste for those that engage in the online misrepresentation of others. Michael is not here any more.

[auximenes]

:clap:

Buh-bye.

Edited July 5, 2013 by auximenes

[Dave pom Allen]

I have a particular distaste for those that engage in the online misrepresentation of others. Michael is not here any more.

good job.John.

we do find nice fossils here in NZ i have a few horn corals

[Auspex]

...I still learned something by reading this thread and following the logic that some of you used in determining what these horns could or could not be...

Hence the decision to let it run, until the misrepresentations started. There are hidden uses to adversity.

[JohnJ]

Hence the decision to let it run, until the misrepresentations started. There are hidden uses to adversity.

Well said, Chas.

We work to create an environment with a wide latitude for learning, but some lines cannot be crossed.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

we should all strive to thwart propagation of misinformation, setting aside personal bias or agenda. twisting the words of a professional does an egregious disservice to both sides of paleo, and makes professionals less willing to communicate with amateurs and hobbyists. i'm comfortable letting the results of this exchange fall squarely on the reputation of "michaelhere".

[Scylla]

Am I the only one stuck by the irony that "michaelhere" is no longer (here)?

[truceburner]

I'll be interested to see how the hat rack is listed on ebay.co.uk.

[painshill]

I'll be interested to see how the hat rack is listed on ebay.co.uk.

How about: "... a pristine pair of unicorn corns from Middle-Earth" or maybe: "... a substantial portion of a Viking war helmet from the hitherto unrecognised Nordic excursions to the Antipodes"?

[siteseer]

Who knows how many times the story changed from fathers to sons across over 150 years. It changed so much just in the last week.

[Auspex]

A cautionary story about lack of physical documentation.

[ckmerlin]

How about: "... a pristine pair of unicorn corns from Middle-Earth" or maybe: "... a substantial portion of a Viking war helmet from the hitherto unrecognised Nordic excursions to the Antipodes"?

thats so funny !! thanks painshill for cheering me up

[mikeymig]

Even a child would find this story very hard to believe. After reading all the post on these horns it becomes clear to me that his sole purpose was to sell these horns and to test the waters before listing them. If he can convince just one person here or at the very least leave just a small shadow of doubt then anything goes. He should have picked somewhere else then NZ to start his story.

mikey