iffyosaurus
David Ramalho
========
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/001208/80/arhfx.html
Friday December 8, 5:21 AM
Prized exhibit turns out to be an "iffyosaurus"
LONDON (Reuters) - Staff at a Welsh museum have discovered that a prized
dinosaur skeleton on display for 116 years is an elaborate fake.
Staff at the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff renamed their ichthyosaurus
exhibit "iffyosaurus" after finding that it had been created from a motley
collection of bones, plaster and paint, newspapers reported on Friday.
It only came to light when the plaster holding the "skeleton" of the marine
creature together began to disintegrate.
"It was an amalgam of two different types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever
attempt at fake parts," museum curator Dr Caroline Buttler was quoted as
saying by the Mirror.
But the museum has managed to salvage something from the situation.
The "iffyosaurus" will be cleaned up and exhibited as a prime example of
Victorian fakery.
==========
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,408397,00.html
Iffyosaurus Dinosaur
skeleton exposed as fake
Tim Radford, science editor
Friday December 8, 2000
For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff
- the fossilised skeleton of a 200m-year-old predator that once cruised
the Jurassic seas.
It survived the scrutiny of scientists who had known Charles Darwin, and
Richard Owen, the Victorian scholar who coined the word dinosaur. It
survived revolutions in palaeontology, arguments over evolution and scandals
in the world of fossils.
Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore
ichthyosaurus needed a brush up - and realised that they had been taken in.
"When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate
forgery," said Caroline Buttler, a conservator. "It was an amalgam of two
types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts."
Ichthyosaurs were discovered by fossil collector Mary Anning on the Dorset
coast in about 1809. Cardiff's specimen was presented by a local businessman,
Samuel Allen, in 1884.
It will now go back on display as an example of a fake. Museum officials
have dubbed it "iffyosaurus".
Dwight E. Howell
David Ramalho wrote in message <3A339127...@home.com>...
Not a fake. A bad restoration. Most of the early exhibits were missing parts
and they stuck on what they thought belonged thus brontosaurs are no more
even though they may have been the best know dinosaurs in popular terms. It
was a very common practice and to some degree still is.
Darren Garrison
>
>Not a fake. A bad restoration. Most of the early exhibits were missing parts
>and they stuck on what they thought belonged thus brontosaurs are no more
>even though they may have been the best know dinosaurs in popular terms. It
>was a very common practice and to some degree still is.
>
I thought that "Brontosaurus" was "no more" simply because "Apatasaur" was used to name a specimen
first? And was it an Apatasaur that had been originally given the wrong head, that I remember
stories about?
T. Mike Keesey
> I thought that "Brontosaurus" was "no more" simply because "Apatasaur" was used to name a specimen
> first? And was it an Apatasaur that had been originally given the wrong head, that I remember
> stories about?
_Apatosaurus ajax_ was named by Marsh in 1877, _Brontosaurus excelsus_ by
Marsh in 1879. In 1916, Holland (the scientist, not the nation :) decided
that the two species were similar enough to belong in the same genus, and
renamed the 1879 species _Apatosaurus excelsus_. This move has not met
much opposition from scientists. (Bakker is, I think, alone so far in
opining that the two species do deserve their own genera.) But the public
has been very slow to catch on. Somewhat understandable, since
_Brontosaurus_ is a much cooler name, in both sound and meaning.
("Deceptive saurian" vs. "thunder saurian"? No contest.)
Incidentally, even if Bakker is wrong, the name _Brontosaurus_ is still
available as a (rather redundant) subgenus: _Apatosaurus
(Brontosaurus) excelsus_.
It was a specimen of _A. excelsus_ that originally had the head of a
_Camarasaurus_ mistakenly mounted on it.
_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <kee...@bigfoot.com> --> <t...@dinosauricon.com>
work, binary files <mke...@dcentgroup.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dino...@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>
Scott Elyard
<cyn...@greenville.infi.net> wrote:
> I thought that "Brontosaurus" was "no more" simply because "Apatasaur"
was used to name a specimen
> first?
Well, no. Brontosaurus never was, since "Brontosaurus" was an Apatasaur
with the head of Camarasaurus.
There is, however, an interesting note under the Apatasaurus entry in the
Dinosauricon:
http://dinosauricon.com/genera/apatosaurus.html
--
.oO=-"The picture of a faithful alligator boundin' into-=Oo.
| daddy's lap ain't one the public is ready for." |
| --Walt Kelly (Beauregard) |
| Comic: www.oscarquillandcoyle.org |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
T. Mike Keesey
> Well, no. Brontosaurus never was, since "Brontosaurus" was an Apatasaur
> with the head of Camarasaurus.
That mix-up is more incidental to the _Brontosaurus_/_Apatosaurus_ deal
than it is sometimes made out to be, IIRC.
Dwight E. Howell
Scott Elyard wrote in message ...
>In article <ma7b3tcq5jc4hlp12...@4ax.com>, Darren Garrison
><cyn...@greenville.infi.net> wrote:
>
>> I thought that "Brontosaurus" was "no more" simply because "Apatasaur"
>was used to name a specimen
>> first?
>
>
>Well, no. Brontosaurus never was, since "Brontosaurus" was an Apatasaur
>with the head of Camarasaurus.
>
>There is, however, an interesting note under the Apatasaurus entry in the
>Dinosauricon:
>
>http://dinosauricon.com/genera/apatosaurus.html
>
>--
I saw a beautiful restoration of a Gigantopithacus (sp) complete with long
red hair. It was life size. You want to know wat we know about this animal?
The lower jaw and some of the upper.
Donald L. Blanchard
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Darren Garrison wrote:
>
>> I thought that "Brontosaurus" was "no more" simply because "Apatasaur" was used to name a specimen
>> first? And was it an Apatasaur that had been originally given the wrong head, that I remember
>> stories about?
>
>_Apatosaurus ajax_ was named by Marsh in 1877, _Brontosaurus excelsus_ by
>Marsh in 1879. In 1916, Holland (the scientist, not the nation :) decided
>that the two species were similar enough to belong in the same genus, and
>renamed the 1879 species _Apatosaurus excelsus_. This move has not met
>much opposition from scientists. (Bakker is, I think, alone so far in
>opining that the two species do deserve their own genera.) But the public
>has been very slow to catch on. Somewhat understandable, since
>_Brontosaurus_ is a much cooler name, in both sound and meaning.
>("Deceptive saurian" vs. "thunder saurian"? No contest.)
>
Does anyone know in which quarries the type specimens of A. ajax and A.
excelsus were found? We have on exhibit some A. ajax material (forelimb of
a juvenile specimen) from Morrison from 1877, but we don't know that it is
from the type specimen. Morrison, Colorado, Como Bluff, Wyoming, and
Garden Park, Colorado, were all quarried in 1877 and material from each was
sent to Marsh. The field notes we've seen are disturbingly vague.
Donald L. Blanchard
Morrison Natural History Museum
Morrison, Colorado
http://town.morrison.co.us/mnhm/