Comments on: Fate of Auctioned Tarbosaurus Yet to be Determined

By: Mark Carnall

Mark Carnall — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:30:10 +0000

To clarify, I meant to mention it, I am absolutely not in support of this auction but I feel that equating private collections with specimens disappearing into the ether isn’t fair.

Boesse- ‘Much of the material in private collections has zero provenance, and due to that, much of it is scientifically worthless.’

The same can be said of a lot of museum material and those boxes in the corner of your office you mean to get around to documenting too and let us not forget that many many of the world’s greatest palaeontological museums started off as private collections. In fact you could argue that if it wasn’t for private collectors we wouldn’t have the rich record of fossils that we currently study.

Boesse and Bob- I wouldn’t naively brush off the comparison with art history that quickly. A lot of art historical journals are a continuous back and forth between scholars attributing and re-attributing works through meticulous study of the fine details, including even signed works (there was a lot of copying, forgery and paintings from a studio signed by an artist but created by a student). Sound familiar? And I’m not talking about obscure artists either, this is the work of the so called ‘Masters’. Also, there isn’t an abundance of art works. With rare exception every historical major artist that springs to mind has a very limited range of works.

Bob- ‘A work of art in a private collection has most likely been examined and photographed at some point’

Yes, by the international community of art curators who embrace private collectors as part of the wider community of people interested material. Which leads us to ask why hasn’t this happened in palaeontology?

By: Don Lessem

Don Lessem — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:03:26 +0000

As someone involved in Mongolian dinosaur scientific exploration and publication for 25 years, (as well as creator of the Genghis Khan exhibition now next to T. rex at the Field Museum in Chicago with the help of Smithsonian scientists), I am convinced this dinosaur was smuggled from Mongolia.
In Ulaanbataar I was
once offered the best preserved leg of a Tarbosaur ever found, by a
guy who had it in a blanket in his back seat. He’d seen me in the
museum and followed me to my hotel. Asking price $20!0 I reported it to
museum but I don’t think he was caught.

I actually had something to do with figuring out who the seller was and convincing him not to go through with the auction. I gave the information to Robert Painter,the Houston lawyer for President of Mongolia.
Now I’m donating 10 million tugregs to start a Dinosaur Protection Fund to prevent more thievary by providing guards at big past dig
sites like Flaming Cliffs, and funding an investigator. All the best,

Don Lessem

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:13:51 +0000

Mark Carnall – Attempting to compare fossils to art in terms of research is quite absurd. A work of art in a private collection has most likely been examined and photographed at some point. Other works by the same artist may be publicly available. That dinosaur, as with many other fossils that end up in private collections, has probably never been utilized by scientists wishing to examine it and take samples. The potential discoveries that specimen could provide to the scientific community go well beyond simply looking at a picture of it while it sits in a private collection.

By: Boesse

Boesse — Thu, 31 May 2012 22:46:37 +0000

Mark – paleontology is not the art history world. One of the most serious problems is that of provenance – paintings have a signature somewhere on them, and can often be identified. However, with fossils – unless the collector documented where exactly the fossil was found – not only geographically, but stratigraphically – we just don’t have that great a handle on where its from or its age (part of the problem in the case of the stolen Tarbosaurus). Much of the material in private collections has zero provenance, and due to that, much of it is scientifically worthless. Secondly – in science, we need to be able to have repeatable experiments. If an experiment is not repeatable – it is not testable. We have clear rules in paleontology that we cannot publish upon specimens in private collections, because we don’t know if the fossil is going to get sold five years down the line after publication – maybe it will get sold to someone who won’t let anyone look at it. So, while tempting, we have to ignore these “gray zone” fossils until they end up in a museum, although tempting they may be.

Isaac – you’re right. There are some museums like that, but they are the minority. It’s a problem in places like China, but it’s generally a very rare problem, and one that most researchers don’t really run into.

By: Debi Linton

Debi Linton — Thu, 31 May 2012 19:45:30 +0000

If a country with rich paleo deposits was governed by creationists and adopted a policy of not letting scientists examine fossils discovered there… then I STILL would not support the smuggling of fossils out of that country.

There are countries right now that, through legal or bureaucratic means, make it difficult for foreign scientists to study their specimens. I wouldn’t support the theft of those specimens, either.

There are purposes for which the breaking of an unjust law is justified or even imperative. Vertebrate paleontology, as much as I love it, is not one of them.

By: Julian Schwarzenberg

Julian Schwarzenberg — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:04:54 +0000

Suppose a country with rich paleo deposits adopted a policy of not letting scientists examine fossils discovered there, or made it very hard for scientists to do so. Suppose further that the country was governed by creationists belonging to the fundamentalist branch of whichever religion you like least.

Would you support the smuggling of fossils out of that country?

Most reasonable people agree that this Tarbosaurus should be returned to Mongolia, as do I. But I don’t think it’s necessary to adopt the principle that fossils should ALWAYS be returned to their home country. At least not if scientific knowledge is what you are trying to maximize.

By: Isaac

Isaac — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:01:38 +0000

Private collectors will let who they want view the bones, and a museum only lets who they want view the bones. Is there really a difference.

By: Mark Carnall

Mark Carnall — Thu, 31 May 2012 15:43:17 +0000

“Too often, significant specimens disappear into private collections where they are rendered effectively useless to scientists”

Although I agree that objects like this in general should be kept publicly accessible to the general and scientific publics I don’t think it is necessarily true that they are rendered effectively useless to scientists. Art history researchers and art museums seem to manage just fine with a lot of very important works tied up in private collections.

It’s fair to say it makes life a lot more fiddly and there’s always the danger that a private collector will allow preferred access to some people over others but I think the science community needs to get more savvy with objects in private collections.