US Paleontologists Call For a Worldwide Halt To the Sale of Vertebrate Dinosaur Fossils (theguardian.com) 97
Leading US paleontologists are calling for a worldwide halt to the sale of vertebrate dinosaur fossils. The booming market for specimens, driven by their popularity with wealthy private collectors, including Hollywood stars, is pushing up prices and putting them out of reach of museums and scientists, they say. From a report: While the art market is organized around brand-name artists, dinosaur sales are all about celebrity species, with a tyrannosaurus rex skeleton fetching up to $10m, although the velociraptor is the most prized. The price tag for a triceratops's skull is $170,000 to $400,000, and a diplodocus is $570,000 to $1.1m. Last year a complete egg of an aepyornis maximus, otherwise known as an elephant bird, sold for $130,000 -- roughly five times what it would have gone for a decade earlier.
Last year the US Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology (SVP) called on the Parisian auction house Aguttes to cancel a sale inside the Eiffel tower that contained just one lot: a 29-foot-long dinosaur of a yet-to-be identified species. The winning bidder paid $2.3m for the piece. Executive members of the society drew attention to the claim that the winning bidder could name the species, calling that assertion "misleading because the naming of new species is governed by the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature." "The sale of all fossils is inappropriate," says Catherine Badgley, former president of the SVP, which represents more than 2,200 international palaeontologists. "Many, particularly vertebrate fossils, are rarely common, and it's certainly not the case for dinosaurs. The commodification is in principle inappropriate because it motivates unscrupulous people."
Last year the US Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology (SVP) called on the Parisian auction house Aguttes to cancel a sale inside the Eiffel tower that contained just one lot: a 29-foot-long dinosaur of a yet-to-be identified species. The winning bidder paid $2.3m for the piece. Executive members of the society drew attention to the claim that the winning bidder could name the species, calling that assertion "misleading because the naming of new species is governed by the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature." "The sale of all fossils is inappropriate," says Catherine Badgley, former president of the SVP, which represents more than 2,200 international palaeontologists. "Many, particularly vertebrate fossils, are rarely common, and it's certainly not the case for dinosaurs. The commodification is in principle inappropriate because it motivates unscrupulous people."
Re: (Score:2)
He's pretending (whether to himself or not, I don't know) that young earthers are a large percentage of the population.
And, he's probably implying that those who have problems with evolution are also young earthers. So, not true.
Work WITH collectors, not against them (Score:2)
It seems to me that bringing in vast dollar amounts for collecting fossils should be a good thing for paleontology. More money should mean more resources to dig them up, increasing the overall supply of fossils available to humans to study.
Rich folks are incented to protect their new (expensive) investments. Rich folks might want to donate them to museums for display in exchange for having their name next to the display. Sufficiently rich folks might want to create their own research center for paleontol
Re: Work WITH collectors, not against them (Score:2, Interesting)
Fantasy. Rich people want to own rare items for themselves, not on display. Private digs prevent proper time for study, identification and even proper removal practices. Worse, without the context of the nearby rocks, revelant knowledge about the ecosystem is made impossible.
Re: Work WITH collectors, not against them (Score:5, Insightful)
Fantasy. Rich people want to own rare items for themselves, not on display. Private digs prevent proper time for study, identification and even proper removal practices. Worse, without the context of the nearby rocks, revelant knowledge about the ecosystem is made impossible.
I doubt museums are primarily interested in these fossils for display; they want them for research purposes. If there was more collaboration then perhaps more paleontologists would be informed early enough in the dig process to gather the relevant information from the dig site. Or be involved in the dig in the first place.
Re: Work WITH collectors, not against them (Score:4, Interesting)
i.e. Require allowing access by paleontologists at their expense provided that they work with reasonable speed (don't slow walk the process deliberately, or starve it for workers). The trade off being the paleontologists do the extraction promptly in exchange for study access. Once the fossils have been studied their scientific value has been extracted. (presumably important examples would be 3d scanned so the originals aren't needed for future comparisons) Time limit the process so that the private owners aren't unduly deprived of the fossils. That way the private owner gets free quality preparation of the fossils in exchange for a reasonable delay so that there isn't incentive to avoid the process.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt you would even need to have requirements for this. Just use marketing to increase the cachet of a specimen having been used for research as part of its pedigree. Maybe even name collectors of particularly noteworthy specimens in papers making use of them.
I bet you'd have collectors jumping over themselves to carefully document (and annoyingly also sometimes forge) the provenance of any specimens and get them considered for scholarly work.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you ever been to an art museum? Rich people donate paintings all of the time to be on display in exchange for having their name next to it.
Re: (Score:1)
Paleontologists want to claim all fossils, everywhere.
In Montana, frigging intact dinosaur fossils occasionally erode out of government land, and paleontologists prefer to let them weather away to nothing than for someone to collect them who isn't part of their clique.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rich folks are incented to protect their new (expensive) investments. Rich folks might want to donate them to museums for display in exchange for having their name next to the display.
After Mr or Ms Wealthypants passes on, or earlier even, the dino is almost certain to be given or permanently loaned to a museum somewhere.
In the meantime, new species are still being "discovered" in the warehouses stocked with fossils dug up by Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh in the 1800's, like Tylosaurus kansasensis.
I'd suggest patience to the scientists. Dino has been sitting atound for millions of years, a few more decades won't matter too much.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop spitballing. Paleontology requires that fossils have their surrounding strata scientifically evaluated. The fossil also needs to be very carefully extracted so as not to damage it. Jethro going into them thar hills with a pick axe, hammer, and chisel is probably not going to end well for the fossil. Even Jed and Granny wouldn't be that stupid. Elie has better things to do.
They'll lose control (Score:1)
The scientists simply can't. If they do, they lose control of the narrative. We have found so many items that are just straight up weird, like giant people fossils, anachronistic gadgetry, and ancient egyptian artifacts. These things contradict the "offical" explanations about things. In Egypt alone, we know Zhai Hawass, the former head archaologist and Minister of Antiquities of Egypt has been caught in cover ups regarding items that would cause religious issues between muslims and christians and possi
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that bringing in vast dollar amounts for collecting fossils should be a good thing for paleontology. More money should mean more resources to dig them up, increasing the overall supply of fossils available to humans to study...
It's already happening. More fossils are available for study now, which is great, even if some go to private collections. However, it's creating some challenges for scientists to good information; and museums who want to display fossils for the public have more competition. NPR's Planet Money had a great podcast on the subject... https://www.npr.org/sections/m... [npr.org]
It's a 20 minute episode and well worth listening to [and RTFA] if anyone cares enough to comment here. Fossils have unique issues and without edu
Aren't Paleontologists Selling Them (Score:5, Insightful)
If Paleontologists cannot even govern members of their own profession, what hope do they have convincing a far larger audience to stop selling and buying dinosaur bones? How many non-Paleontologists are finding and extracting dinosaur bones for private sale?
Winner winner chicken dinner (Score:1)
We got a winner here. Simply look at the videos on youtube. You can find plenty of people that you can hire for pennies a day to take you wherever you want to go and get you all kinds of trinkets, at least in Egypt. No reason to think I couldn't do the same with the old Mayan or Incan areas either.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was true, the paleontologists in question here would just pay pennies a day and get all the fossils their hearts desire, rather than complain about high prices on the market.
invigilating the Indiana Jones oath of allegiance (Score:2)
Where in the article did it specify they aren't attempting to do all of the above?
Of course, it's entirely obvious that if you don't attempt to control the buy side, you'll not have much luck on the sell side, either. For example, if you don't squeeze equally hard on both sides, someone—likely someone such as yourself—will immedi
Museums aren't much better (Score:3)
Re:Museums aren't much better (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. for any given museum, what percentage is actually availble for public viewing vs what is in boxes in a warehouse somewhere?
Let the scientists do their work, create a plaster copy, and allow private ownership to fund additional research.
Re: (Score:1)
I mostly agree, but sometimes new discoveries require revisiting old fossils. Maybe rent them out rather than outright sell them so that they can be brought back to the museum or lab if some new discovery pops up.
Re: (Score:2)
why not have any potential purchaser sign some sort of agreement which specifies terms and conditions.
these could include limited access to examination under very specfic conditions. this protects the buyer and if the situation warrents, allows further access.
Re: (Score:1)
Very specific conditions? That seems limiting. It's difficult to forecast possible future scenarios, especially because technology changes often. Renting gives the renter more control without requiring a powerful crystal ball.
Re:Museums aren't much better (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind that many of these fossils sit in the archives of a museum lost and forgotten for years.
If they're sitting there, then they can be dug up (so to speak) later and research done on them. If they're in private collections, this is much harder, and they're more likely to be destroyed or damaged.
Re: (Score:3)
I heard recently that one of the biggest museums in my country have serious problems with storage of art pieces not currently on display, to the point that valuable paintings are literally ROTTING UP in the basement.
A private collector who just bought a rarity for over a million dollars is very likely going to take GOOD CARE of his rarity.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not equate high price = high care.
1M$ price might mean NOTHING to a private buyer who just wanted to show-off or has a temporary hobby/fad then gets bored with the purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor should you equate private = bad care, which is what the GP was doing.
Re:Museums aren't much better (Score:4, Informative)
About 20 million artifacts were destroyed just this past September when the National Museum of Brazil went up in flames. I expect even more have been decimated in the museums and historical displays targeted by ISIS. Unless it's a nuclear bunker, collecting everything you want to save in a single spot is not necessarily a great idea for preserving it all. Not to mention that, in general, museums have to deal with a lot of theft and vandalism. Many hugely significant artifacts have simply disappeared. Maybe just because of bad bookkeeping, maybe something more nefarious.
Packing artifacts in creates might be better than handing them out as souvenirs to passing tourists, but I don't think it's better than letting people who can afford state-of-the-art security and fire suppressant systems make them their prized possessions. The real risk to these artifacts is being insufficiently valued by society in general. That's when they will be disposed, put in insufficiently safe storage (government funded or not), or even ground up to make "medicine." Historical artifacts selling for millions may not match with the socially enlightened future imagined by Star Trek, but it's an awful lot better than many more likely alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
About 20 million artifacts were destroyed just this past September when the National Museum of Brazil went up in flames.
If you want to argue that third-world countries with massive corruption like Brazil aren't safe places, I will readily agree.
Top . . . men (Score:3)
They have top men researching these fossils.
Who?
Top . . . men.
Did they forget to propose another way? (Score:2)
Based on the article, it sounds like they want the fossils to go "scientists and museums", or generally to whomever will.make best use of them. There is no mention of how they propose to decide who gets them, though. I'm a citizen scientist, do I get one?
Apparently in order to get them I do *not* need to contribute toward the costs involved in finding and preserving them. I would also NOT need to show that I have a compelling reason to have one by putting my money where my mouth is. So what's the proposal?
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the article, it sounds like they want the fossils to go "scientists and museums", or generally to whomever will.make best use of them. There is no mention of how they propose to decide who gets them, though. I'm a citizen scientist, do I get one? Apparently in order to get them I do *not* need to contribute toward the costs involved in finding and preserving them. I would also NOT need to show that I have a compelling reason to have one by putting my money where my mouth is. So what's the proposal?
There could still be a bidding process to determine which scientists get to own the specimens, but restrict those who are licensed to participate in those sales. I'm not sure how the licensing body would get the authority to do any of this, but if they did find a way to restrict fossils to only scientists and museums it wouldn't be hard to find a mechanism for distribution.
So still sell them to the highest bidder? (Score:2)
So you're thinking still sell them to the highest bidder, the change would be you need a PhD to bid?
> it wouldn't be hard to find a mechanism for distribution.
Sure, you can distribute them by leaving them on the curb and someone will pick them up.
Distributing each one to the "most deserving" person, for somebody's opinion of most deserving, is a more interesting question. If one proposes to shut down the current distribution channels and replace it with one that is "better", I'd expect the person
They can keep the fossils (Score:4, Informative)
I just want the gemified/agatized bone. That shit is awesome looking when cut and polished.
lolz International Code of Nomenclature for Zoolog (Score:2)
No one has to abide by the International Code of Nomenclature, you or your church or community or your government can make up whatever names you like. They can do nothing about it... they're not the police
Re: (Score:2)
I actually do have credentials, but not in biology or paleontology.
You're missing the point, a person could buy a fossil and name it. A large group of people or a government can make a name too (and some have). However, I'm not suggesting ignoring the Nomenclature if one were to write scientific papers or reference books. Everyone else can, however. You'll find the locals around you have all kinds of common names for birds, bugs and other critters. It's the same thing, they don't have to listen to the
Re: (Score:3)
Do the opposite (Score:2)
Charge way more. 10X more. And then start discrediting all those sellers who are "not legit palenwhatologists" as selling fakes.
1. Palenwhatolgists/museums will get loads of money
2. They will control what gets sold
3. Idiots will have their money redistributed
Headline from the Future... (Score:2)
"US paleontologists upset at increase in fossil bed destruction"
Once the fossils have market value other than to palenotologists, non-palentologists will just ignore any that turn up during excavations.
How to stop dinosaur poachers (Score:2)
Let's just put them on the endangered species list.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's protect the bones by putting them on the endangered species list!
oh wait....
Lol that does keep people quiet (Score:2)
That's funny. The endangered species list definitely does a good of making sure people are quiet about finding any on their property. Just discreetly get rid of them and make sure nobody ever finds out they were there.
Are their Non-Vertebrate dinosaurs? (Score:2)
I though a Dinosaurs was a Reptile limbs are Aligned at 90 degrees. All Dinosaurs are Vertebrates.
Re: (Score:1)
I though a Dinosaurs was a Reptile limbs are Aligned at 90 degrees. All Dinosaurs are Vertebrates.
Vertebrates are distinguished by possession of a spinal column. Limb alignment is not relevant. But yes, all dinosaurs were vertebrates.
Re: (Score:1)
What, their classification changed because their flesh rotted? I don't think paleontology usually works that way. Classification is typically based on the specimen's physical characteristics while alive.
Therefore, it does look like "vertebrate" is redundant in the title, and perhaps confusing. It adds no useful info that I see, or at least is far more likely to confuse than enlight.
Now if somebody crossbred a slug with a T. rex, that could change things. Either it wo
Re: (Score:2)
I though a Dinosaurs was a Reptile [sic]
They could more accurately be classified as birds.
But then crocodiles are also more closely related to birds than they are to lizards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Don't worry. (Score:1)
Slippery slope ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard if you snorted ground-up dinosaur fossil, it was an aphrodisiac. All these scientists just want to keep the good stuff for themselves. Hurry up and buy your stash now, before it goes black market.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't use fancy words. 'Aphrodisiac.' Nah. They're Chinese Boner Pills. They grind up animal parts to make boner pills.
It is Worth... (Score:2)
What someone will pay for it.
THEY DON'T OWN IT!
Re: (Score:1)
Microelectronics in it's present form would not exist without the massive amount of Cold War defense spending that was allocated to develop the technology. By big governments. AT&T would be content with us having landlines and leasing telephone sets they own.
Apparently paleontologists never took economics. (Score:2)
They are complaining that the value of dino bones are rising because of wealthy collectors.
But what they don't realize is that if value increases, there will be a harder push for more supply (more digs are likely to be funded).
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but those digs would just sell straight to the collectors and the scientists see neither bones nor dollars
This is proposed periodically. (Score:2)
Re:This is proposed periodically. (Score:4, Interesting)
is particularly ironic. Paleontologists are themselves pretty unscrupulous people.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the 1800s. I suspect they've picked up some integrity since.
Data Point: (Score:4, Interesting)
I found it fascinating to learn that there are more, nearly an order of magnitude more, un-processed vertebrate fossils sitting wrapped in plaster and straw in wooden crates than there are cleaned and in the hands of collectors and museums.
Instead of choking the trade in these and driving it underground wouldn't it make more sense to work on the supply side issues?
No disrespect, but paleontologists are cheap. $200k for a skull will pay for a whole lot of science.
But ... but ... (Score:2)