Ad: netjeff recommends
rShopping
app for Android, for your shopping list needs.
Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D,
layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given
this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform
you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive
proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million
years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of
a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children,
believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a
great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be
quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in
the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.
However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of
the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:
1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically
fossilized bone.
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified
proto-hominids.
3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with
the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating
Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time.
This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you
have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence
seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much
detail, let us say that:
A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has
chewed on.
B. Clams don't have teeth.
It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your
request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the
heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to
carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic
record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced
prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly
inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we
approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with
the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name
"Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought
tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was
ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was
hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.
However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating
specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it
is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work
you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our
Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display
of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and
the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in
your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard.
We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed
in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for
it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories
surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural
matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you
recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm
Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities
Humor collection