[DMG] Bakiribu situation update
160 views
Skip to first unread message
R. Pêgas
May 14, 2026, 6:41:17 PM (2 days ago) May 14
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for your concern regarding Bakiribu and the ongoing discussion. Scientific disagreement is both normal and necessary in paleontology, and unusual specimens should indeed be subjected to careful scrutiny and alternative interpretations. Our team is currently preparing a formal response to Unwin et al. (2026), but this requires time, as additional analyses are still underway. We thank you for your patience.
However, the broader context of this situation unfortunately involves more than scientific disagreement alone. It also involves ethical issues, which are the sole focus of this present communication. In recent weeks, public allegations have circulated suggesting that the Bakiribu material was being kept “under lock and key”, that access to the specimen had been denied, or that researchers would only be able to examine it after the current loan period, in the second semester of 2026. These claims are concerning because they are inaccurate.
The specimen is divided into two halves (MCC-1271.1-V and MPSC 7312), housed in two Brazilian public institutions: the Museu Câmara Cascudo (MCC) and the Museu de Paleontologia Plácido Cidade Nuvens (MPPCN), respectively. Specimen MCC-1271.1-V has never been loaned and has remained fully accessible throughout the entire period. As attested by the museum’s director, access to this specimen has never been requested so far (attached Document 1).
Specimen MPSC 7312 is currently on loan at MZUSP for ongoing analyses related to our reply to Unwin et al. (2026). After MPPCN was contacted by Kellner requesting access to the material (the only researcher to date who has requested access to it), our team actively invited him to examine the specimen at MZUSP. Kellner requested a specific date, but it was not logistically possible to arrange the visit at that specific date. A new visit date was proposed by our team, and we also informed him that we could provide high-quality photographs and that he could freely access the MCC specimen. However, Kellner declined all of these alternatives and did not demonstrate willingness to adjust to the proposed arrangements. These circumstances are likewise documented by the museum’s director (attached Document 2).
Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand why public statements continued to suggest that access had been denied when, in fact, (1) no request was ever made to examine the MCC specimen, and (2) opportunities to examine the MPPCN specimen at MZUSP were offered but declined.
I should also note that this broader situation has unfortunately included repeated public misgendering and deadnaming, despite prior knowledge of my correct name and gender identity. I understand that this issue is separate from the scientific debate itself, and suggestions that raising this issue somehow constitutes a “shield” against scientific criticism are deeply unfair and misrepresent what is actually being discussed. This issue is relevant to the professional and ethical context in which statements about me and my conduct (and of my colleagues also) have been made. Scientific disagreement cannot be used to justify conduct that compromises the dignity of researchers or creates a hostile professional environment.
The circumstances described above are thoroughly documented through email correspondence and institutional communications. In consequence, the Ciência Hoje editorial board decided to remove the piece, permanently discontinue the entire column, and grant us a right-of-response (https://web.archive.org/web/20260513195001/https://cienciahoje.org.br/direito-de-resposta/).
We are fully committed to addressing the scientific questions surrounding Bakiribu through evidence, anatomical analysis, and formal scientific publication. At the same time, I believe it is equally important that scientific disagreements be conducted with honesty, transparency, institutional responsibility, and mutual respect.
Regardless of whether Bakiribu ultimately proves to be a pterosaur or a fish, professional integrity and ethical conduct should never become collateral damage of scientific debate.
Best regards,
Thank you for your concern regarding Bakiribu and the ongoing discussion. Scientific disagreement is both normal and necessary in paleontology, and unusual specimens should indeed be subjected to careful scrutiny and alternative interpretations. Our team is currently preparing a formal response to Unwin et al. (2026), but this requires time, as additional analyses are still underway. We thank you for your patience.
However, the broader context of this situation unfortunately involves more than scientific disagreement alone. It also involves ethical issues, which are the sole focus of this present communication. In recent weeks, public allegations have circulated suggesting that the Bakiribu material was being kept “under lock and key”, that access to the specimen had been denied, or that researchers would only be able to examine it after the current loan period, in the second semester of 2026. These claims are concerning because they are inaccurate.
The specimen is divided into two halves (MCC-1271.1-V and MPSC 7312), housed in two Brazilian public institutions: the Museu Câmara Cascudo (MCC) and the Museu de Paleontologia Plácido Cidade Nuvens (MPPCN), respectively. Specimen MCC-1271.1-V has never been loaned and has remained fully accessible throughout the entire period. As attested by the museum’s director, access to this specimen has never been requested so far (attached Document 1).
Specimen MPSC 7312 is currently on loan at MZUSP for ongoing analyses related to our reply to Unwin et al. (2026). After MPPCN was contacted by Kellner requesting access to the material (the only researcher to date who has requested access to it), our team actively invited him to examine the specimen at MZUSP. Kellner requested a specific date, but it was not logistically possible to arrange the visit at that specific date. A new visit date was proposed by our team, and we also informed him that we could provide high-quality photographs and that he could freely access the MCC specimen. However, Kellner declined all of these alternatives and did not demonstrate willingness to adjust to the proposed arrangements. These circumstances are likewise documented by the museum’s director (attached Document 2).
Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand why public statements continued to suggest that access had been denied when, in fact, (1) no request was ever made to examine the MCC specimen, and (2) opportunities to examine the MPPCN specimen at MZUSP were offered but declined.
I should also note that this broader situation has unfortunately included repeated public misgendering and deadnaming, despite prior knowledge of my correct name and gender identity. I understand that this issue is separate from the scientific debate itself, and suggestions that raising this issue somehow constitutes a “shield” against scientific criticism are deeply unfair and misrepresent what is actually being discussed. This issue is relevant to the professional and ethical context in which statements about me and my conduct (and of my colleagues also) have been made. Scientific disagreement cannot be used to justify conduct that compromises the dignity of researchers or creates a hostile professional environment.
The circumstances described above are thoroughly documented through email correspondence and institutional communications. In consequence, the Ciência Hoje editorial board decided to remove the piece, permanently discontinue the entire column, and grant us a right-of-response (https://web.archive.org/web/20260513195001/https://cienciahoje.org.br/direito-de-resposta/).
We are fully committed to addressing the scientific questions surrounding Bakiribu through evidence, anatomical analysis, and formal scientific publication. At the same time, I believe it is equally important that scientific disagreements be conducted with honesty, transparency, institutional responsibility, and mutual respect.
Regardless of whether Bakiribu ultimately proves to be a pterosaur or a fish, professional integrity and ethical conduct should never become collateral damage of scientific debate.
Best regards,
Rubi V. Pêgas (she/her)
Visiting Professor
Universidade Federal do ABC
Jaime Headden
May 14, 2026, 10:28:15 PM (2 days ago) May 14
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
I'm going to add on to this a little, in order to address one issue that was raised: the apparent issue or ethics of holotypes having part and counterpart in separate institutions.
The first described specimen of Sinosauropteryx prima is preserved in two separate institutions, namely the Geological Museum of China and the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology. Both part (GMV 2123) and counterpart (NGIP 127586) comprise the singular holotype. The process in which the two halves were sold by a private farmer was perfectly legal, and at the time, had happened already to a large number of fossil birds now in the collections of various institutions in NE China.
I object to the moral question being raised in response as if the splitting of a type across institutions is somehow problematic other than being tedious, for the sake of preserving information should one institution incur a threat to its collections. Cast can only do so much. Furthermore, it seems curious that some who commented on this fact (for the current specimen of note) did not consider also various fossil avians and pre-avian theropods, when they should have. I would leave the other matters to logical deduction, since I do not wish to stir a hornet's nest.
Cheers,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAKTNOvCbUD1g4b0w2wSZXuFg%3DP43DXNucPWRHfnh76JvXFPG1Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff: http://qilong.wordpress.com/
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)
Mickey Mortimer
May 15, 2026, 5:44:01 AM (2 days ago) May 15
to Dinosaur Mailing Group
Besides Sinosauropteryx, other Mesozoic theropods with holotypes spread between institutions are- Xenotarsosaurus (initially), Neovenator, Shixinggia, Archaeopteryx (holotype feather) and Halimornis.
This isn't including cases like Imperobator, Variraptor, etc. where material discovered later was assigned to the type individual and placed in a different institution, or like Liaoxiornis/Lingyuanornis where parts of the type specimen were described as different taxa.
Mickey Mortimer
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages