Letter to the Smithsonian - spoof

Email received

>"The story behind the letter below is that there is this guy in

> Newport, Vermont named Scott Williams who digs things out of his back

> yard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute,

> labeling them with scientific names, insisting that they are actual

> archaeological finds. Anyway...here's the (alleged) response from the Smithsonian

> Institution.

True on otherwise, bear this in mind next time you think you are challenged in your duty

to respond to a difficult situation in writing."

____________________________________________________


Smithsonian Institute

207 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20078



Dear Mr. Williams:


Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled

"93211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post...Hominid skull."

We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and

regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it

represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in
Charleston

County two million years ago. Rather, it appears that what you have

found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety that one of our

staff, who has small children, believes to be "Malibu Barbie." It is

evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of

this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are

familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to

contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a

number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped

you off to its modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are

typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic

centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified

proto-homonids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent

with the common domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous

man-eating Pliocene clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during

that time.


This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing

hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution,

but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without

going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has

chewed on.

B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your

request to have the specimen carbon-dated. This is partially due to

the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly

due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent

geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were

produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce

wildly inaccurate results.

Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National

Science Foundation Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning

your specimen the scientific name Australopithecus spiff-arino.

Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the

acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down

because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't

really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this

fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a

Hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of

the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly.

You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his

own office for the display of the specimens you have previously

submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on

what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have

discovered in your Newport back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip

to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and

several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are

particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories

surrounding the trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a

structural matrix that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex

femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a

rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.


Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe

Chief Curator- Antiquities



[This story is spoof]







---