Fossils for Sale - SVP 2019

[Ptychodus04]

I don't have a strong opinion on this topic seeing as I kind of walk the yellow line in the middle of the road. I collect fossils to sell but would never think of holding onto a scientifically significant find for something as trivial as money. When my friend Joe and I decided to donate the fish that would eventually be named Pentanogmius fritschi (after Joe), I had people berating me for not selling it because it was worth a fair amount of money. It never even crossed our minds to sell it because we knew it provided valuable information about Late Cretaceous fish in our area.

 

That being said, I have no qualms about selling most of the fish I dug up in Wyoming seeing as there have been literally (in the most literal sense of the word) millions of fossil fish dug from the area. Commercial diggers have collected and sold to museums since people have been digging for fossils. It's unfortunate that the market has so terribly passed the museums' ability to procure valuable specimens. I think this points to a flaw in society where we pay so very little for the occupations and groups that benefit "us" the most and we pay so much to the people and occupations who benefit "us" the very least.

 

Either way, this is a great topic of discussion and kudos to the members for keeping this virtual powder keg so very civil. This is what sets us apart from other online groups.

[Auspex]

4 hours ago, JohnJ said:

 

As you are probably aware, The Fossil Forum has and still does change attitudes between professional, amateur, and commercial members.  For well over a decade, TFF members have emphasized the importance of the science and encouraged collaboration with professionals.  I would like to think that the interactions on this Forum have helped all kinds of people, interested in fossils, better understand each other.

We don't just talk about building bridges, we build bridges. Lasting ones. I am very proud of our accomplishments at fostering cooperation.

[Scylla]

Please don't end this topic because of me. I have some very strongly held beliefs, but will try to express them with moderate language. I know a lot of scientists. I have met and talked with a couple of Nobel Prize winners and been in the room with at least a dozen. (Not at the same time) I am married to a former scientist, and we met in a scientific laboratory that I had worked in.  I ran my own lab for a time and received grant funding and have published papers to my name. One of my children is even named Grant since my wife wrote so many of them during the pregnancy. So, I care strongly about and for this human endeavor called science. 

 

Science, at its heart, is a method for finding truth. To deny or ignore the existence of data (read fossils) because you do not control it (to reproduce studies ) defiles the very essence of truth and science. Marine scientists don't demand that all commercial fishing stop so only they can study the fish. Geologists don't demand that all commercial mining cease and mineral collectors stop so they can have the whole of earth's crust to themselves for study. Imagine if you told those scientists that only papers where the specimens studied were in a repository could be published? The concept that only the anointed few academics should be allowed to collect fossils is just as ridiculous. Responsible amatures should educate themselves and preserve data, fossils and sites. Responsible professionals must understand that dogmatic adherence to ad hoc criteria detracts more from discovery than the loss of a handful of shark teeth from a beach. 

[Ptychodus04]

Well said @Scylla. There’s no malice in having strongly held beliefs and you expressed them very eloquently.

 

I would differ on one point. To paraphrase Indiana Jones, science “...is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.” 

[Scylla]

27 minutes ago, Ptychodus04 said:

Well said @Scylla. There’s no malice in having strongly held beliefs and you expressed them very eloquently.

 

I would differ on one point. To paraphrase Indiana Jones, science “...is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.” 

Ya, but that Dr. Jones doesn't even like snakes.

[Ptychodus04]

33 minutes ago, Scylla said:

Ya, but that Dr. Jones doesn't even like snakes.

[Wrangellian]

I'm still left wondering why some museums/researchers are given pause by fossils that were bought.

Is it because they don't want to set a precedent (which apparently has already been set), fearing that soon no one will donate pro bono anymore and the institutions will not be able afford the asking prices, or is it because they aren't as confident of the location/etc data that has come with the fossil, and how is this different from the info that comes with something donated pro bono by an amateur collector like me?

Or a little of both?

[FossilDAWG]

11 hours ago, Scylla said:

...To deny or ignore the existence of data (read fossils) because you do not control it (to reproduce studies ) defiles the very essence of truth and science. ...

I agree with the spirit of your post.  However, I would point out that systematics (or taxonomy if you prefer) differs from other sciences in that it involves (captain obvious voice) the description and naming of species and other taxa, though ultimately those taxa are founded on individual type species (/captain obvious voice).  The essence of science is reproducibility.  Every validly described species must have at least a holotype (a single specimen selected by the author of the species as the best [often the only] example of the species).  Every genus must have a designated type species (the species that best exemplifies the genus), which is of course based on a holotype specimen.  Every Family has a type genus, and so on.  At the end of the day, if taxonomy is to be a science then holotypes and, indeed, any specimen that is used to contribute to the understanding of the species must (must!) be available, forever, for re-examination, re-measurement, evaluation of characters not covered in the original description, etc.  If a specimen is in private hands there is no way to ensure that it will be available for re-examination tomorrow, next week, or 200 years in the future.  The insistence that material used for published research be deposited in a museum that can care for that material and ensure that it will be available to future researchers is not just a conceit or power grab on the part of greedy scientists, it is fundamental to the science.

 

On the other hand, I cannot defend the position that specimens discovered by commercial collectors (and perhaps even amateurs) must be rejected and ignored by scientists.  Many commercial collectors are well aware of the need to gather as much data as possible about the geological context and associated fauna and flora.  I think it is incumbent on the professional paleontologists to establish working relationships with commercial collectors and the amateur collector community, so that potentially important specimens are brought to the attention of the researchers who can turn a specimen in a drawer into published scientific knowledge.  It is also incumbent on the amateur community to educate themselves about the science, so they know what sort of information to record when they collect, and they know enough to avoid unrealistic expectations about how quickly their find will turn into a published paper.  

 

The Fossil Forum is filled with examples of amateurs and even commercial collectors interacting with professionals, to the benefit of all parties.

 

Don

[doushantuo]

-->>"It is also incumbent on the amateur community to educate themselves about the science.."

 

Second that emo.

Well said, Don.

[Welsh Wizard]

With the advancement of technologies, including hi resolution x-rays, CAT Scans, Laser scans and digital imaging technology, even particle accelerators, i think it is time for scientists to consider the creation of an I-Type or E-Type which would consist of digital data and not just limit themselves to holotypes and neotypes.

 

That way specimens in private hands can be studied and published, the digital data for a specimen is then held by a specific institute (like with a holotype) should others wish to study it. If the specimen is then donated in the future, it becomes the holotype if it’s a new species.

 

I think there are lots of ways of addressing these issues and the system needs overhauling as it’s outdated.

 

With that in mind, you can’t beat a real specimen in a real museum. 

 

N

[Scylla]

8 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

I agree with the spirit of your post.  However, I would point out that systematics (or taxonomy if you prefer) differs from other sciences in that it involves (captain obvious voice) the description and naming of species and other taxa, though ultimately those taxa are founded on individual type species (/captain obvious voice).  The essence of science is reproducibility.  Every validly described species must have at least a holotype (a single specimen selected by the author of the species as the best [often the only] example of the species).  Every genus must have a designated type species (the species that best exemplifies the genus), which is of course based on a holotype specimen.  Every Family has a type genus, and so on.  At the end of the day, if taxonomy is to be a science then holotypes and, indeed, any specimen that is used to contribute to the understanding of the species must (must!) be available, forever, for re-examination, re-measurement, evaluation of characters not covered in the original description, etc.  If a specimen is in private hands there is no way to ensure that it will be available for re-examination tomorrow, next week, or 200 years in the future.  The insistence that material used for published research be deposited in a museum that can care for that material and ensure that it will be available to future researchers is not just a conceit or power grab on the part of greedy scientists, it is fundamental to the science.

 

On the other hand, I cannot defend the position that specimens discovered by commercial collectors (and perhaps even amateurs) must be rejected and ignored by scientists.  Many commercial collectors are well aware of the need to gather as much data as possible about the geological context and associated fauna and flora.  I think it is incumbent on the professional paleontologists to establish working relationships with commercial collectors and the amateur collector community, so that potentially important specimens are brought to the attention of the researchers who can turn a specimen in a drawer into published scientific knowledge.  It is also incumbent on the amateur community to educate themselves about the science, so they know what sort of information to record when they collect, and they know enough to avoid unrealistic expectations about how quickly their find will turn into a published paper.  

 

The Fossil Forum is filled with examples of amateurs and even commercial collectors interacting with professionals, to the benefit of all parties.

 

Don

I totally get the concept of the type specimen in taxonomy. But a statistical study of predator/prey interaction in the Burgess Shale, for example, might involve thousands of samples.

 

Also the concept that museums house type specimens for centuries is a bit flawed. I agree a sample in my garage is at far more risk than if it was in the Smithsonian. However ask to see the type specimen of Bruhathkayosaurus, Spinosaurus, or Amphicoelias fragilis. (Go ahead and Google those) Museums loose samples too.

 

The study of taxonomy itself has multiple papers investigating the use of alternatives to type specimens from DNA snippets to photographic data. This started as an ethical problem if you might have to kill the last of a species to collect it. How about hi-resolution x-ray scans as Welsh Wizard suggested? I am not advocating these ideas as better than the fossil type specimen, just different forms of data that could enrich collections. If only the Brazilian museum had high resolution 3D scans and digitized photos of its collections!

 

 

[Wrangellian]

I don't have a problem with having to donate to a museum a specimen used for research, but I like the idea that the finder should get some credit (ie. a new thing gets named after him/her, if possible), for any new species they have discovered. It would serve as a good incentive to donate and work with the pro's, in lieu of money. I'm not sure if this is currently the practice, but it should be.

[Troodon]

12 hours ago, Scylla said:

Also the concept that museums house type specimens for centuries is a bit flawed. I agree a sample in my garage is at far more risk than if it was in the Smithsonian. However ask to see the type specimen of Bruhathkayosaurus, Spinosaurus, or Amphicoelias fragilis. (Go ahead and Google those) Museums loose samples too.

Interesting that you make that comment.  I provided a small dinosaur jaw to this major museum that had teeth in it with different morphologies.  Two of the morphs had each been described as different dinosaurs but were tooth taxons.  When they went to locate the holotype of one of them, not at that museum, it could not be found.  

 

To your other point..

The ROM provided me a replica of a maxilla jaw I loaned them to study.  Could not tell the difference between the real and replica both in appearence, weight and color.  They Could not write a paper since it was not in their VAULT.    That needs to change.

[Shamalama]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

To your other point..

The ROM provided me a replica of a maxilla jaw I loaned them to study.  Could not tell the difference between the real and replica both in appearence, weight and color.  They Could not write a paper since it was not in their VAULT.    That needs to change.

Wait.... Did they keep what you loaned them and return to you a replica instead?  Did you have a choice in the matter?

[Troodon]

12 minutes ago, Shamalama said:

Wait.... Did they keep what you loaned them and return to you a replica instead?  Did you have a choice in the matter?

No they returned the orginal and has a thank you provided me two replicas one painted 

[FossilDAWG]

It is true that museums are not perfect, specimens (even type specimens) can go missing.  Sometimes poor curation is at fault.  Sometimes theft is involved.  Sometimes wars are involved; many types were lost to bombing raids in WWII.  However there is no doubt that specimens are safer (if not perfectly safe) in a well curated museum than they are in someone's basement.  Even if you are open to having researchers visit to examine a type specimen, can you promise that your heirs will do the same?  How about their heirs?  Or will someone decide to put it up for sale, and the specimen will disappear?

 

Recall that type specimens are not only the foundation of species, they serve as the foundation of genera, families, orders, and so on.  A taxonomy based on specimens that disappear after they are published, is a house of cards.  The work of many researchers can be wiped out by such a loss.  The fire at the Brazilian museum was just such a disaster; the loss of the Entomology collections has left perhaps thousands of species, dozens or hundreds of genera, and several families without any foundation.  In that case disaster was invited by failing to adhere to the most basic safety requirements, a fault that does not apply to institutions such as the Smithsonian, American Museum of Natural History, the Royal Ontario Museum, and countless other museums.  At any rate the Brazilian disaster should make it even more obvious that we should not revert to a system that makes it even more certain that type specimens will be lost within a generation or two at most.

 

As to the argument that photos or scans are good enough, I respectfully disagree.  Such records are always limited to the technology available to the time.  Without the specimen in hand, new technologies that might reveal new information can never be applied.  An X-ray might have been "state of the art" at one point in time, but it can never substitue for a CT scan.  No imaging technique can reveal, as an example, oxygen isotope analysis that could reveal information about the environment in which an extinct species lived.

 

Another issue I have with scans substituting for specimens is that the technology used to store and retrieve such data is incredibly ephemeral.  My Master's thesis was recorded on reel-to-reel tape, which I discarded years ago as I have no devices that can read it.  Same for "floppy discs", or the rigid version of floppies.  For a while my lab recorded data on Zip discs, which are no longer readable.  Then came readable/writeable CDs and DVDs, but the latest generation of computers don't even read those, relying on flash drives and the cloud.  Imagine the situation confronting a researcher 100 years in the future, trying to "examine" a type specimen that exists only as bits and bytes without software or hardware to read it.

 

In short, the actual specimen contains all the information that might be accessed by future technologies, and the answers to questions future researchers might need to ask.  Photos, scans, and published descriptions are limited by the kind of information that can be accessed by the technology of the day, access to software and hardware, perishability of storage media, and the research priorities of past researchers. 

 

Don

 

[Troodon]

I agree with photos or scans but not replicas.   Several replicas that I have that have been made by museum are indistinguishable from the real thing.  It's an old way of thinking that they cannot be used for papers.  Not talking about those used as holotypes they should be real.  It's the museum's/paleontologists that have set the rules and its inhibiting science for those items that reside with collectors.  Collectors have lots of cool dinosaur material that could help research so isn't an exact replica better than nothing?

 

I like George Winters comments on FB not on the use of replicas but with those in collector collections

"I am fed up with a limited number of paleontologists spouting the same rhetoric time and time again that specimens are lost to science because they can't study specimens in private collections.  Truth is they won't study the specimens because "they choose not to study them".  They are responsible for the "loss to science", and should be held accountable."
 

[FossilDAWG]

I agree that those researchers choose not to study specimens in private collections.  How do you suggest they deal with the issue of reproducibility?  If an observation can be made only once, and never replicated, is that science?

 

To me, the essence of science is the ability to independently replicate observations and experiments.  When I publish (Entomology/molecular biology) I have to describe my methods in sufficient detail that any interested researcher can replicate my work.  To my mind, knowledge that is based on events that cannot be repeated is closer in nature to theology than science.

 

Just for the record, I have had the experience of donating prized specimens for research.  In two cases I was offered coauthorship, in one case I was acknowledged, and in others the specimens have not been published yet (after several years).  I was never offered a replica.  In one case, a coral, I was provided with a couple of actual thin sections which I value more than the original specimen.  The point is, when it comes to donation I have done that several times with few regrets.  Other people must make that decision for themselves.

 

Don

[Troodon]

It would be nice to be able to reproduce everything 100% of the time but I suggest that high quality replicas can get you there +80% of the time at least for dinosaur material.  Times have changed since museums are not the only place where research level material is located.   Look at all the science that is available in collector collections that is out of the reach of researchers with that type of thinking.  Its not perfect but that need to have total control provides NOTHING to science.  The world today is not ideal any more comprises have to be made or important information will be lost 

[Ptychodus04]

On 10/25/2019 at 9:16 PM, Wrangellian said:

I don't have a problem with having to donate to a museum a specimen used for research, but I like the idea that the finder should get some credit (ie. a new thing gets named after him/her, if possible), for any new species they have discovered. It would serve as a good incentive to donate and work with the pro's, in lieu of money. I'm not sure if this is currently the practice, but it should be.

The Perot has given me credit for everything I’ve donated to them over the years. There’s even a section of the storage units labeled “Kris Howe - Woodbine Formation” that houses one of my larger donated collection. My one new species was also named after me. 

[Wrangellian]

24 minutes ago, Ptychodus04 said:

The Perot has given me credit for everything I’ve donated to them over the years. There’s even a section of the storage units labeled “Kris Howe - Woodbine Formation” that houses one of my larger donated collection. My one new species was also named after me. 

That's good, but it still looks to me like there is no standard protocol for this to occur in all locations and all institutions that house specimens - it's at the total discretion of the researchers (and possibly the museum staff who curate your donated specimens). I hope I am wrong. When I donate something to the provincial museum up here, they ask if I want my name associated with the specimen, or for it to be anonymous. I say Yes, specifically with the hope that I will get something named after me someday if I happen to donate something new. Not that I'm a big egotist, looking for attention, but I do think I should get something for the work I put into collecting, considering that they put up a fuss about writing me a tax receipt for my donations (never mind paying me outright), and it would annoy me to no end if the scientist ended up naming my new specimen for their friend or their favorite rockstar or comicbook character.

[Ptychodus04]

7 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

there is no standard protocol

Agreed. I built a relationship with my local paleontologists and have brought in fossils to them for over 15 years. In the lack of standards, that is the best way to ensure your credit. When you’re a regular visitor, bearing interesting gifts, it’s harder to forget you. 

[jpc]

On 10/24/2019 at 11:20 PM, Wrangellian said:

I'm still left wondering why some museums/researchers are given pause by fossils that were bought.

Is it because they don't want to set a precedent (which apparently has already been set), fearing that soon no one will donate pro bono anymore and the institutions will not be able afford the asking prices, or is it because they aren't as confident of the location/etc data that has come with the fossil, and how is this different from the info that comes with something donated pro bono by an amateur collector like me?

Or a little of both?

I think it is a little of both.  And I agree... it really should not be such a black mark.  

As for the pro bono donation by a nice guy like you, I like to think that building a reputation as a careful avocational collector makes a guy like you (or me) a great candidate for a museum donor.

 

Edit:  seems ptych was typing up a very similar comment at the same time.  

[Wrangellian]

20 minutes ago, Ptychodus04 said:

Agreed. I built a relationship with my local paleontologists and have brought in fossils to them for over 15 years. In the lack of standards, that is the best way to ensure your credit. When you’re a regular visitor, bearing interesting gifts, it’s harder to forget you. 

I should not reveal too much, but I had a falling-out with one of the prominent museum volunteers who was also a prominent member of the local paleo society, causing me to quit my membership out of frustration and disgust. It was specifically the result of a disagreement over this issue of selling fossils. I fear that his presence there could jeopardize my chances....  The whole crowd there seems dead-set against the sale of ANY BC fossils, even common ones that do not get accepted into the museum's collection, and they had a lot of influence in the formation of BC's recent fossil management legislation. I was out of the loop and any input I might have given would have fallen on deaf ears anyway, I'm sure.

Also, the volunteer who received my donations has quit (for different reasons), so there goes any relationship I may have built with her!

Jim Haggart from the Geological Society in Vancouver has shown much more enthusiasm and interest in my specimens, and would gladly come over to my place to take them off my hands for the GSC, but I'm torn because that's over there in Vancouver and it would be much harder for me to go over there and visit my specimens should I want to in future, vs Victoria which is here on the Island, an hour's drive away. (And he can't write me a tax receipt like the RBCM can, though that's no big deal as long as the credit for finding a new species is more assured.)

[DPS Ammonite]

2 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

result of a disagreement over this issue of selling fossils. I fear that his presence there could jeopardize my chances....  The whole crowd there seems dead-set against the sale of ANY BC fossils, even common ones that do not get accepted into the museum's collection”

Are you saying that the disagreement was over individuals selling their own fossils or a museum selling fossils?