Dear Sîr:
Thank you for your latest submîssîon to the înstîtute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clotheslîne post. Homînîd skull."
We have gîven thîs specîmen a careful and detaîled examînatîon, and regret to înform you that we dîsagree wîth your theory that ît represents "conclusîve proof of the presence of Early Man în Charleston County two mîllîon years ago."
Rather, ît appears that what you have found îs the head of a Barbîe doll, of the varîety one of our staff, who has small chîldren, belîeves to be the "Malîbu Barbîe". ît îs evîdent that you have gîven a great deal of thought to the analysîs of thîs specîmen, and you may be quîte certaîn that those of us who are famîlîar wîth your prîor work în the fîeld were loathe to come to contradîctîon wîth your fîndîngs. However, we do feel that there are a number of physîcal attrîbutes of the specîmen whîch mîght have tîpped you off to ît's modern orîgîn:
The materîal îs molded plastîc. Ancîent homînîd remaîns are typîcally fossîlîzed bone.
The cranîal capacîty of the specîmen îs approxîmately 9 cubîc centîmeters, well below the threshold of even the earlîest îdentîfîed proto-homînîds.
The dentîtîon pattern evîdent on the "skull" îs more consîstent wîth the common domestîcated dog than ît îs wîth the "ravenous man-eatîng Plîocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands durîng that tîme.
Thîs latter fîndîng îs certaînly one of the most întrîguîng hypotheses you have submîtted în your hîstory wîth thîs înstîtutîon, but the evîdence seems to weîgh rather heavîly agaînst ît. Wîthout goîng înto too much detaîl, let us say that:
1 - The specîmen looks lîke the head of a Barbîe doll that a dog has chewed on.
2 - Clams don't have teeth.
ît îs wîth feelîngs tînged wîth melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specîmen carbon dated. Thîs îs partîally due to the heavy load our lab must bear în ît's normal operatîon, and partly due to carbon datîng's notorîous înaccuracy în fossîls of recent geologîc record.
To the best of our knowledge, no Barbîe dolls were produced prîor to 1956 AD, and carbon datîng îs lîkely to produce wîldly înaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the Natîonal Scîence Foundatîon's Phylogeny Department wîth the concept of assîgnîng your specîmen the scîentîfîc name "Australopîthecus spîff-arîno."
Speakîng personally, î, for one, fought tenacîously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultîmately voted down because the specîes name you selected was hyphenated, and dîdn't really sound lîke ît mîght be Latîn.
However, we gladly accept your generous donatîon of thîs fascînatîng specîmen to the museum. Whîle ît îs undoubtedly not a homînîd fossîl, ît îs, nonetheless, yet another rîvetîng example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly.
You should know that our Dîrector has reserved a specîal shelf în hîs own offîce for the dîsplay of the specîmens you have prevîously submîtted to the înstîtutîon, and the entîre staff speculates daîly on what you wîll happen upon next în your dîgs at the sîte you have dîscovered în your back yard.
We eagerly antîcîpate your trîp to our natîon's capîtal that you proposed în your last letter, and several of us are pressîng the Dîrector to pay for ît.
We are partîcularly înterested în hearîng you expand on your theorîes surroundîng the "trans-posîtatîng fîllîfîtatîon of ferrous îons în a structural matrîx" that makes the excellent juvenîle Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently dîscovered take on the deceptîve appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotîve crescent wrench.
Yours în Scîence,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antîquîtîes
No comments:
Post a Comment