Donated fossils

[fossilselachian]

Nice find. I wish you wouldn't have posted that web page, because it makes me kick myself. The large tooth plate on there that was found south of Belleville KS with the before and after cleaning is one I found and donated to the museum. It now resides in a drawer in the back of the museum. My hope is that one day it will be on display.

It's a shame but this seems to be the fate of many donated fossils - locked away from most observers for ever!

[Carl O'Cles]

It's a shame but this seems to be the fate of many donated fossils - locked away from most observers for ever!

It's a shame to say it but this is why i will never donate anything to a museum. I found a real nice paleocene turtle skull a while back and was interested in the museum looking at it. They didn't even want to look at it unless i was willing to donate it. I tried working something to where it would be on loan for five years with the stipulation it stayed at that museum and was on display at all times. They told me it was all or nothing so i decided i'd let them make a cast of it. They said once again that they would not touch it unless i donated it. They did put me in touch with someone whom would cast it for me for a crazy price. Man i was super ticked because all i was trying to do was advance science and all they did was throw up roadblocks.

[PaleoRon]

It's a shame to say it but this is why i will never donate anything to a museum. I found a real nice paleocene turtle skull a while back and was interested in the museum looking at it. They didn't even want to look at it unless i was willing to donate it. I tried working something to where it would be on loan for five years with the stipulation it stayed at that museum and was on display at all times. They told me it was all or nothing so i decided i'd let them make a cast of it. They said once again that they would not touch it unless i donated it. They did put me in touch with someone whom would cast it for me for a crazy price. Man i was super ticked because all i was trying to do was advance science and all they did was throw up roadblocks.

Givme-givme-givme. It makes no sense to me why they wouldn't jump at the chance to study a rare specimen. Maybe they think they can pressure people into giving up specimens. I've had some similar encounters with Smithsonian personnel in the past. Luckily they're not all like that.

About the only museum I deal with any more is the Calvert Marine Museum. They are more than happy to have specimens to study and don't play the all-or-nothing routine with me. I have several dozen specimens on loan to them right now.

[Carl O'Cles]

Here's some pic's. It's over 8" from snout to base of skull

[Guest bmorefossil]

its the same thing with my croc skull, i find it sad.

[sweeneyb]

I am currently interning at a museum and even though things are put away in cabinets they do eventually get studied by graduate students who are working on there thesis. Though the museum has very limited room to display many fantastic artifacts and fossils its not like they are forgotten about.

[Metopocetus]

Givme-givme-givme. It makes no sense to me why they wouldn't jump at the chance to study a rare specimen. Maybe they think they can pressure people into giving up specimens. I've had some similar encounters with Smithsonian personnel in the past. Luckily they're not all like that.

About the only museum I deal with any more is the Calvert Marine Museum. They are more than happy to have specimens to study and don't play the all-or-nothing routine with me. I have several dozen specimens on loan to them right now.

Yep, we love to just see the fossils, whether they are loaned, donated, or just shown. Stephen will never pressure anyone to donate anything, he usually won't even breach the subject and leaves it up the person to do as they wish. And you know I was kidding bmore! lol (What is the latest on Steve, haven't seen recent pics in a while)

[Carl O'Cles]

If the museum was truly interested in furthering science they would have been willing to study my specimen without me having to donate it, i didn't try and work out the on loan deal until they first refused to look at if not donated. I was fortunate enough to find someone willing to study it and write up a paper on it without wanting me to donate it, the museum should have been willing to do the same

[Carl O'Cles]

Now somebody correct me if I am wrong here. I was under the impression that for scientific papers, the specimen being described has to be in a museum/institution collection.

Not sure but the guy that did it for me is a well respected reptile guy and came highly recommended by some friends and old time collectors

[tracer]

Oh, they didn't even want to study it unless you donated it. I can understand the frustration there.

Now somebody correct me if I am wrong here. I was under the impression that for scientific papers, the specimen being described has to be in a museum/institution collection.

is that rule from the same people that did that "don't remove this tag under penalty of law" thing? i think we should begin flooding the internet with scientific papers we write on our collections. if nothing else, it might irritate those who get paid to call themselves scientists into giving free access instead of subscription access to their work so we can all learn more. it'd probably be best if somebody else who can throw the lingo around started off on this, but i'm going to work right now on a paper titled, "our friend, the mammoth". i'll make sure the paper weighs enough to be taken seriously and it'll be peer reviewed, at a minimum, by tj and his sister.

[Auspex]

Now somebody correct me if I am wrong here. I was under the impression that for scientific papers, the specimen being described has to be in a museum/institution collection.

Anyone can write a paper about anything they want; the peer review process formalizes it. If the specimen is to be the holotype of a new species, it has to be locked away for future reference like it was an international standard of weights and measures. There is understandable reluctance to put the time and effort into a formal description of a specimen that might disappear, thus invalidating the paper.

[MB]

QUOTE (atropicallondon @ Mar 15 2009, 10:52 PM)

Now somebody correct me if I am wrong here. I was under the impression that for scientific papers, the specimen being described has to be in a museum/institution collection.

Anyone can write a paper about anything they want; the peer review process formalizes it. If the specimen is to be the holotype of a new species, it has to be locked away for future reference like it was an international standard of weights and measures. There is understandable reluctance to put the time and effort into a formal description of a specimen that might disappear, thus invalidating the paper.

Usually it is like you said, the fossil not deposited in a Museum or Institution, not exists for the scientist.

Is not a drama dontating a fossil to the Museum, even if it never will be displayed.

The most important are that the fossil (holotype or paratype) could be studied by everybody forever, now or in 100 years, like a lot of paleontologist are making now with old Museum's collections.

[Hawkeye]

Oh, they didn't even want to study it unless you donated it. I can understand the frustration there.

Now somebody correct me if I am wrong here. I was under the impression that for scientific papers, the specimen being described has to be in a museum/institution collection.

If the specimen is good enough to study and write a paper, then it must be deposited somewhere for scientific integrity. If another scientist questioned the paper or desired to make a comparison to other examples, it would not be good enough to sat "We had it for 5 years but not it's at Carl's house". I'm in a totally different field but we have the same issues. Every time we publish we must sign a form from the publisher that says the materials will be made available to other scientists. In paleontology they can make casts but I can only assume, as it has already been stated, there are liability issues to making casts.

[Carl O'Cles]

If the specimen is good enough to study and write a paper, then it must be deposited somewhere for scientific integrity. If another scientist questioned the paper or desired to make a comparison to other examples, it would not be good enough to sat "We had it for 5 years but not it's at Carl's house". I'm in a totally different field but we have the same issues. Every time we publish we must sign a form from the publisher that says the materials will be made available to other scientists. In paleontology they can make casts but I can only assume, as it has already been stated, there are liability issues to making casts.

90% of the time what scientist study are casts since there is only one original. I would have been willing to take the risk of having the item cast. Working under the idea that an item must be donated in order to be included in science is why so many impressive and important specimens are never seen except in private collections and are lost to science. Let me ask this, if I'm not mistaken Dr. Gordon Hubble's collection is a private collection, does this mean that we can not use any of his specimens to advance science?

[Hawkeye]

If I'm not mistaken Dr. Gordon Hubble's collection is a private collection, does this mean that we can not use any of his specimens to advance science?

Please don't take this the wrong way because it's not meant to be an insult, but you're not Gordon Hubble.

I'm a scientist, I told it like it is, good or bad. I study bugs you can only see under the microscope but they fall under the same rules. If it's not going to be accessible, don't report it. I would never publish that I found a new species of yeast without being able to send it out to anybody who asks for it after publication. Same for fossils. Gordon Hubble makes his collection available. I doubt you want a bunch of scientists in your living room and I doubt they would be comfortable asking to come over to your house to see the skull.

The other thing to consider is that maybe it was not important enough for them to pursue and they just didn't want to come out and say it because of how understandably excited you were about your find.

Again, please do not take this as an attack on you, only as an opinion from a scientist's side of things.

[Carl O'Cles]

Kinda funny but they sought me out i didn't seek them out so obviously they were interested. I understand that gordon hubble is a well respected name but at what point do you draw the distinction you have to start somewhere right? You cannot say it's because he is a Dr. because i know several well respected people in the paleontology field that are not Dr.'s. I do however understand what you are saying but it is just so extremely frustrating. I know of so many scientifically important specimens out there that are completely lost to science because of this mind set. I guess my frustration will all be resolved when i retire twenty years from now and open my own museum, then i can write my own papers

[Hawkeye]

I guess my frustration will all be resolved when i retire twenty years from now and open my own museum, then i can write my own papers

I've wanted my own museum since the first time I remember going to one!

[micropterus101]

The more I hear about bad experiences between amateurs and profesionals along with my own problems the less I want to reach out when I find something that could be important. I know its not all profesionals but it sure seems like theres alot that are almost militant in respect to amateur collectors they want it all or nothing, they dont want amateurs to be allowed to collect, many dont give credit where credit is due, they will not free up information (I was in heaven with the boone journal screwup last week), they close localities, when they succeed fossils blow away in the wind and wash away with the rains.

Something has to change but with proposed legislation and attitudes it may be too late. Cooperation or not people will collect, find to keep, donate, or sell. Make it illegal to collect and donation will be off the table. Greed on both sides will cause what we know about our past to be limited.

[megateeth]

but it sure seems like theres alot that are almost militant in respect to amateur collectors they want it all or nothing, they dont want amateurs to be allowed to collect

This is a great topic. I never got into the academic side of fossils but always just assumed the reason that the academic community would not study private collections is they wanted to keep it all in house. The explanations by Hawkeye and some others do make sense. If you spend time writing a paper and someone wants to dispute or verify the findings they may not have access to the fossil or artifact. I guess I never was exposed to that point of view and always just assumed it was a kind of jealousy issue. On the other hand if not for amateur collectors almost nothing would ever be found so it is easy to understand Carl's frustration.

I lived in the Great Lakes area years ago and we found this in the shipwreck circles. Many of the academics did not want divers allowed on the wrecks at all. The problem was that many wrecks were sinking into the mud or falling apart. The States, Universities and museums did not have the resources or interest to explore them themselves. This meant if they had their way, the wrecks would just fall apart or sink under the mud with no one having a chance to experience the history that went along with it. None of their arguments ever made sense to me.

The city I lived in opened a Maritime museum. Over the years divers had collected a lot of loose items from around the wrecks like china and ingots that were cargo on the ship. A lot of us offered to donate these items to the museum so they would have artifacts not just pristine reproductions. The next thing we knew, the president of the museum called all of us pirates in the local newspaper. I went to the opening of the museum which was a bunch of videos and reconstructions and never returned. Every year I get a request for monetary donations but just throw it away. I feel a bit like Carl in that respect.

[siteseer]

Oh, they didn't even want to study it unless you donated it. I can understand the frustration there.

Now somebody correct me if I am wrong here. I was under the impression that for scientific papers, the specimen being described has to be in a museum/institution collection.

In the 1800's specimens in private collections were described with the holotypes left with collectors. Fast forward to the late 20th century, as various fossil fish researchers prepared their article (Purdy et al, 2001) for the third Lee Creek volume. At least one of the authors searched for a certain tooth from the type suite of "Isurus xiphodon" but only found a note saying that it was in a private collection, the note having been written in 1838. No one seems to know the collector's family now nor the whereabouts of the specimen so it is presumed lost. The tooth could have ended up with a family member or sold in an estate sale or destroyed in a fire with the label slipping free and itself destroyed or buried sometime along the way. It's probably lost forever because the collector wouldn't donate it. That's not to say a museum is totally secure either.

Years ago, I was invited to visit the collections at the LA County Museum by a paleontologist. I saw some great specimens that should have been out on display, but yeah, how do you choose what goes in the case and how often can a museum afford to switch stuff out? Then again, how expensive is it for someone to put out a few different specimens and put away some "dust collectors" from time to time? Anyway, some cabinets were locked because some specimens had "disappeared" before it was locked. Apparently, some paleontologists think they should be free to maintain a private collection as they work to find ways to keep amateurs from collecting anywhere.

I certainly sympathize with Mr. O'Cles. He found something of scientific interest which may also be one of his favorites of all the fossils he's ever found. Paleontologists who avoid collecting in the field don't understand the attachment a person can have to the fossils/artifacts he or she finds on the edge of (or miles off the beaten path of) civilization. If he donated it, he'd probably never see it again and the paper might not be written or published in his lifetime. I'm glad he seems to have found a middle ground between donating and keeping a great find. However, I hope the specimen ends up available for study in the 22nd century and beyond.

[Frank Menser]

It really is frustrating. The message being sent is you are not allowed to have an interest unless you are seeking or have a degree. In the old days a lot of discoveries were made by amateurs, and still, a lot of sites are found by the non professional with material collected by them that would have been lost forever to construction...etc.

I have donated to museums and had pieces disappear when one museum folded. I am regularly approached to loan some of my material for display as I have some rare (and showy) fossils, the excuse being whatever I loan will be covered under their insurrance. The thing is, if the item disapears or is damaged whatever money I might get can't repair or replace them. When you have a special find with a lot of good memories attached to it that hurts.

The scientific community needs to get it through their heads that they are not the owners of the knowledge they seek - or the material evidence that supports it. Perhaps then they might have more cooperation and appreciation of the amateur community who should be an ally in the quest for understanding our past.

[PaleoRon]

Not long ago, if the specimen was not in a museum or other "professional" collection it was probably not available for study. Now, along with digital photography and high quality latex casts, there are ways to study and record the specimen that are much better than the actual fossil itself unless it is something that has original DNA which is rare. X-rays, CT, and MRI scans can give more information than was ever possible in the "old days" when rare specimens were destroyed to investigate internal structure etc. For a person or institution to say a specimen isn't worth studying unless they can keep it seems ludicrous. I realise that the scans cost money, but if something is worth studying they may end up doing scans on it anyway. Once scans are made of the specimen they can be transmitted to any researcher who has internet access. In effect, hundreds of researchers could work on the same specimen simultaneously. At the very least specimens can be photographed electronically archived. I do think that holotype and paratype specimens belong in a museum, but to have researchers or institutions refuse to study a known species just because they can't keep it seems like an overly possesive and greedy child saying, "If I can't have it all I don't want it."

Luckily not all professional paleontologists are like that. The people who I deal with on a fairly regular basis are happy to study interesting specimens whether they get to keep them or not.