tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500247109010734075.post8505994517818551462..comments2024-03-15T03:20:54.442-04:00Comments on Fossils and Other Living Things: Implications of Spare PartsTony Edgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11636818323982123697noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500247109010734075.post-86003652111090943272015-01-01T21:59:16.104-05:002015-01-01T21:59:16.104-05:00Thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking co...Thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking comment.<br /><br />You're right that there are certain attributes of vertebrates (particularly bilateral symmetry, which I should have mentioned in the post) that facilitate building a reasonably valid skeleton cast without having an overwhelming percentage of the original fossil bones of the specimen. I certainly wasn't challenging the validity of skeleton casts and I hope I didn't come across as doing so. Rather, I was appealing for a bit more context for such museum displays, even if the cost is a bit more complication in the story visitors have to deal with. Sure, it might muddy things for museum visitors to learn what portion of a skeleton cast is based on the original find, but my sense is that it's a relevant piece of information, particularly when a collector is identified for a cast (a collector means a specific find). What did he or she actually find? How much of what we have before us reflects what was found? Such complication might be preferable to visitors coming away from a skeleton cast assuming that the cast in its entirety reflects the fossils the collector found.<br /><br />Thanks again,<br />TonyTony Edgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11636818323982123697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5500247109010734075.post-30148054814645101302015-01-01T20:07:23.049-05:002015-01-01T20:07:23.049-05:00This is a really interesting problem, and one that...This is a really interesting problem, and one that seems to particularly horrify museum workers in fields outside paleontology. Thing is, one of the core principles of vertebrate paleo is that all chordates (well, tetrapods mostly) are built on the same body plan, and most bones and body parts are directly comparable. If we have a recognizably mammalian jaw, we know it came from an animal with four limbs, a tail, and fur, at the very least. <br /><br />But even though we can be pretty confident in reconstructions based on near relatives from a scientific standpoint, the display context adds an additional wrinkle. Displaying an illustration or model is one thing, since it's clearly a reproduction, but people tend to assume mounted bones are real (why else would you display a creepy walking skeleton?). I wouldn't say displaying a skeleton that consists of 70% sculpted/hypothetical material is deceptive, but explaining it to the uninitiated can be...complicated. <br /><br />It also varies from case to case. I have no doubt that the C. megalodon at the Calvert Marine Museum is a perfectly reasonable reconstruction, for example, but then you have things like this Spinosaurus in Japan: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131022140140/theropods/images/6/64/Spinosaurus_skeleton.jpg<br />It was pretty much entirely sculpted, and new fossils discovered in the past year show that it was pretty wide of the mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com