Discussion: FEATHERS, FAKES, AND FOSSIL DEALERS: HOW THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF FOSSILS ERODES SCIENCE AND EDUCATION Kevin Padian

To send comments, contact:

Stefan Bengtson
Editorials Editor

stefan.bengtson@nrm.se

22 November, 2000

I read with interest Kevin Padian’s editorial in the last issue of Palaeontologia Electronica, which addresses not a local but a truly global problem, as he clearly states.

I am currently the President of the Argentine Palaeontological Association (APA). Most of our efforts are dedicated to the editing and publishing of our quarterly journal Ameghiniana, but the matter of fossil protection has long been one of our main concerns.

Argentina has a set of National and Provincial Laws, all of which clearly forbid the commercialization of fossils from our country. Nevertheless, material from Argentina does reach a number of fossil dealers both home and abroad. Everybody should be aware that all fossil material from Argentina on sale abroad has somehow been illegally smuggled out of the country. We are greatly concerned about the increase in such trade, which is openly carried out mainly in countries that have a legal trade of their own fossils. This encourages criminal practices involving illegal collecting, marketing, theft, smuggling and eventually permanent loss of a significant part of our national fossil heritage. We think it is indeed high time that those countries cooperate strongly to stop such practices, which are also beginning to damage local scientific and educational interests in many ways, as described by Padian.

Our country has a strong professional palaeontological community, several well-curated museums, and a rich and long tradition of research on fossils of all ages, in many instances involving fruitful team work with foreign institutions. We believe that we are thus entitled to demand that our palaeontological heritage not be lost or destroyed. The Argentine Palaeontological Association will try all possible ways to convey to the public (and especially to those directly concerned) the need to enforce local laws and international agreements in this matter.

I take the opportunity to congratulate you and the Palaeontologia Electronica team for such a wonderful enterprise.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Susana E. Damborenea
Departamento Paleontología Invertebrados
Museo de Ciencias Naturales La Plata
Paseo del Bosque s/n
1900 La Plata
Argentina
Tel./fax +54-221 472 1676
E-mail sdambore@museo.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar, susanad@mmance.cyt.edu.ar

Asociación Paleontológica Argentina
Maipú 645, 1 piso
C1006ACG Buenos Aires
Argentina
Tel./fax +54-11 4326 7463
E-mail secretar@apa.inv.org.ar

28 November, 2000

Kevin Padian’s essay leaves more than a few punch cards scattered around the floor of the lab. Some of his positions are so outrageous they cannot go unchallenged.

The organizers of the Dinosaur—Bird symposium held this past spring at the Graves Museum should be applauded for their inclusive approach to the event. The spirit of fellowship among the participants was only briefly spoiled by the inappropriate and inflammatory comments made from the podium by Kevin Padian in his unabashed dislike of the independent commercial collector.

The "infomercial" that I gave on the new North American oviraptor was an initial report; an opportunity to introduce anyone interested — including members of the scientific community — to a pair of very exciting, very birdlike dinosaurs, which indeed had everything to do with the conference. (Does a large posteriorly directed distal pubic cup interest you?) The presentation was not intended to be a thorough scientific analysis of the specimens. That is reserved for the purchaser, the intricacies of which I will address below. The restored skull and arm on display were the result of several months of communication with six of the best minds in paleontology. The presentation was a simple PowerPoint one. You could actually read the slides. I did not try to impress anyone with fancy graphs that no one could see or understand. No claims were made beyond the facts. The story of the discovery and the thrilling and important work on the specimens was an integral part of the announcement, which I was delighted to share with scientist and dinosaur enthusiast alike. If that makes it an "infomercial", that’s OK with me.

The skeletons were discovered by a private, professional collector on leased private land. We got involved with them on a cooperative basis to assist in the collection, mapping, documentation, preparation, molding, casting, and rearticulation of the skeletons, and ultimately the marketing of the specimens. Site maps were carefully kept. Matrix samples and collateral fossils were collected. Once we have completed geologic sections in the vicinity of each specimen, our basic fieldwork will be done. The purchaser will have complete access to the site for whatever remaining collecting, sampling, or documentation they choose to do. Sixteen months after the first scrap of float was collected, the first prototype cast skeleton is now standing in my lab.

Kevin bemoans the lack of published articles by commercial collectors, but there are two good reasons such publications are rare. First, we are only the temporary stewards of these fossils, and even if we wanted to publish, we would have difficulty doing so until the specimen is placed in a permanent repository. Second, for those of us who choose not to publish, the point is moot. We believe it is the privilege of the acquiring institution to publish on the specimen. Furthermore, if they choose to publish exact locality data, that is their prerogative.

Kevin is absolutely correct in stating that "... most museums could not afford to buy them." That means that some museums could! Not all museums are equally talented in the arena of garnering corporate support or cultivating patrons.

Kevin says: "Their prices restrict access to valuable fossils to the few who can afford them." No, Kevin is always welcome to come to our lab and study the specimens under our temporary curation, as is any other scientist. Once an institution or an individual acquires a specimen, it is their policies which will determine who will be allowed access.

The incalculable abundance of vertebrate fossils should inspire us all to take the high road and engage in the unencumbered exchange of specimens and information. Kevin talks of SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) and SAFE (Save America’s Fossils for Everyone) efforts to exclude all submissions of manuscripts on commercially collected specimens in private hands, while earlier in his essay he complains of the lack thereof. He complains about the skyrocketing value of fossils which I can say with absolute certainty have only barely kept up with inflation. Of course there are going to be market "bubbles", where prices for things like amber and T. rex teeth soar ... then promptly crash based on fashion and fad, but that is not the core of the independent fossil-collecting company’s business.

It is a bizarre twist of the facts when Kevin blames commercial collectors for the highest price ever paid for a fossil, when the collectors’ intent was to display the specimen permanently in their museum in South Dakota. You cannot disguise it: The Field Museum did a spectacular job of lining up the best corporate backing in the world and they were not going to be beaten. They did not have to participate, they chose to.

Kevin asks the question: "...at current collecting rates, how many years will it be before the available surface area of the American badlands is denuded of the vast majority of good fossil vertebrate specimens?" The answer is an emphatic "never"!

I’ve been working the same 6,500 acres of the Niobrara formation in Kansas for 18 years now: the same three ranches, the same ravines. As the years go by, we are discovering more and more complete specimens, because we now catch them just as they are beginning to become exposed rather than after 5 or 10 or 50 years of weathering. Indeed, Kevin’s statement can be stood on its head: The vast majority of good fossil vertebrate specimens will only be revealed to us if we are regularly engaged in the search for them. The current collecting rate is not adequate to stop the destruction of these fossils. Their supply will only stop when the formation no longer exists. At the current rate of erosion, how long will it take before the 750-foot thickness and thousands of square miles of the Niobrara formation are gone?

Eleven years ago, when I sought my first lease in the Hell Creek formation of South Dakota, the rancher told me that no scientist had ever asked to survey his land for fossils, and he had been operating his ranch for 30 years. In the years since, we have made many important discoveries on that ranch, sometimes on the second or third pass through an outcrop. Institutions have acquired all of the scientifically significant fossils. Private collectors have purchased many of those that are not. At least a dozen scientists have been our guests at the sites where these specimens were collected. By consistently scouting the exposures we are not "denuding" the land, but ensuring that the fossils are saved.

Sadly, all 470 million acres of federal lands west of the Mississippi are closed by policy to commercial companies like mine. As an academic paleontologist affiliated with an institution, Kevin Padian can apply for permits to collect on these lands. Most of these lands remain unsurveyed, their fossils not saved, and the knowledge and inspiration they would provide squandered. The kind of "protection" Kevin, SVP and SAFE advocate for these fossils only ensures their destruction. But while they would keep these lands shut off from the independent collector, they feed you pathetic anecdotal stories of private landowners who actually want compensation for what has been taken from them for so many years. Under current federal policy, private lands are private collectors’ only domain. We treat our landowners and the land with respect and dignity.

The poll that Kevin cites from the Dinosaur Report was done by the company owned by the President of the now defunct Dinosaur Society, publishers of the Dinosaur Report and in lock step with the policies of the SVP and SAFE. If you saw the polling questions, which I have, it would be self-evident that the entire survey was rigged for a predetermined outcome. That survey has the validity of a dimpled chad.

In a corruption of the concept of fossils as our natural heritage, Kevin incites provincialism by calling them our "national" heritage. He is also critical of commercial collectors who dare to postulate on the meaning of their discoveries, suggesting that while debating his theories is acceptable, debating our theories diminishes public education.

With regard to private ownership of unique fossils, it should be the responsibility of the collector/seller to insure to the extent possible, that the specimen has the best chance of eventually becoming part of a permanent collection. I have been faced with that scenario several times. For example, the oviraptors are being offered for sale to be purchased "by or for" an institution only. A private citizen could buy them, but the contract would stipulate that within a specified time they would become the property of an identified institution that would also be a party to the transaction. Those stipulations represent a free personal decision based on proper decorum for this particular transaction.

If a private citizen wanted a unique fossil for his private enjoyment, it would be appropriate to recommend a scientific review of the specimen before it was delivered. The purchaser, of course, should be encouraged to share the specimen with scientists and maybe even include it in his estate planning, but life has no guarantees, and we shouldn’t try to legislate them. I do not believe that any laws should be enacted to restrict fossil ownership of any kind. The individual should have the freedom to dispose of the specimen as he chooses. We hope that he uses good judgment and that his choices will satisfy most or all of the concerns of science.

That is why, as an organization, the American Association of Paleontological Suppliers (AAPS) has guidelines. Within the broad range of activities of a diverse group of people with at least one common interest, certain behaviors are appropriate and others are not. Should the penalty for acting outside of those recommendations be fines, perhaps incarceration? I don’t think so, because for all of us, our legacy is based on what we do, not on what we say. Anyone who consistently makes the wrong choices soon finds himself moving on to other pursuits.

It’s too bad Kevin Padian hasn’t attended more meetings like the Dinosaur—Bird symposium at the Graves Museum. Maybe if he spent more time working with us in the private sector instead of against us, he might eventually realize that the "surrealistic" impression he got from that experience was only a product of his limited perspective.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity.

Michael Triebold
Past President, American Association of Paleontological Suppliers
President, Triebold Paleontology, Inc.
1365 Kings Crown Road
Woodland Park, CO 80863
Tel. +1-719 686 1495
E-mail triebold@pcisys.net

RESPONSE
12 December, 2000

I expected a response like Mike Triebold’s, and I’m glad to have it. Readers of both our commentaries can easily see the difference in perspective between a scientist whose objective is to conserve fossils and a businessman whose objective is to sell them. Mike has indeed arranged for a number of valuable specimens to find homes in museums, for which he has been both commended and compensated. I’m sure he would not want to answer for or endorse all the activities and practices of every commercial collector, and we won’t hold him to it — any more than any single scientist should have to endorse all the findings, statements and views of his colleagues.

However, at the Florida meeting in April I listened in vain to both Mike’s presentation and the ones on "Bambiraptor" for information about how the skeletons lay in the ground, the sedimentological and taphonomic details, and the precise stratigraphic and general geographic information. To be sure, these are not always included in every scientist’s talk about a new find. But it is an important part of the scientific work that needs to be reported, whereas it is not important to the commercial aspect, and so that information is frequently lost. If Mike found my comments at the meeting, on which I based that part of my essay, inflammatory and inappropriate, the view was not apparently shared by most of the audience. Even Peter Larson, who excavated Tyrannosaurus "Sue" and was prosecuted for his pains, was kind enough to point out afterward — twice — that our views are not as different as people might think.

And frankly, no, the business about the oviraptorid pubic cup is not terribly interesting. As far as it can be precisely characterized, it’s a feature present in many derived theropods and basal birds. I would rather have known exactly what parts of the "Bambiraptor" skeleton were original and which were restored, but this could not be discerned from its monochromatic mounted skeleton, nor from its published description. This is why important specimens should be handled by scientists.

I believe Mike is conflating several issues regarding the publication of specimens that are not in public repositories, but this is a side issue. To focus more on what he does say, it seems that he defends the proposition that fossil prices should go as high as they can, and whatever museums can raise the money should do so. "God Bless America!" said the agent from Butterfield’s auction house, endorsing the marketing of the former AMNH holotype specimen of Icarosaurus. (Yes, I said holotype, and it’s still the only known specimen.)

I’m glad that Mike continues to find good Niobrara specimens — it’s a truism that the more you look, the faster you’ll find them — but I’ve got photos of the Petrified Forest in Arizona, taken by Charles Camp in 1920, and the hillsides and ravines maintain those precise silhouettes and surface features today. Not all exposures erode at the same rate. But that’s not the point. Check current gasoline prices, and then think about dependence on foreign oil. The first car manufacturers would have laughed at concerns about ever depleting national oil reserves, too. If not now, when should we start to become concerned about fossil depletion? Moreover, it’s not a question of when they all run out; it’s a question of losing important specimens that are excavated each year and sold to the highest bidder. By the way, does everyone agree that commercial collectors are the best ones to decide what is and is not a scientifically valuable fossil?

I think it’s laudable that some of the fossil skeletons that Mike sells are sold on condition that they are donated to a museum within a specified period of time. But this is clearly not the rule in the fossil trade. And how could it be? What mechanisms of ethics or self-regulation in the public interest could be applied to the trade? Again, if you’re a commercial collector and not a scientist, can we be assured that you know what specimens are important and why or why not? Scientists ask different questions than buyers and sellers of fossils do; a specimen not worth much on the auction block can provide a lot of valuable information to a scientist. It seems unreasonable to expect a commercial dealer to be able to take all these scientific questions into consideration without help.

Perhaps more eloquent than what Mike does say is what he does not say. He doesn’t address the issues of illegal export and sale of valuable fossils from around the world (at the same fossil shows where he displays his specimens). He doesn’t address the damage that these practices do to museums and science in other countries. He doesn’t seem concerned that important vertebrate fossils are lost each year to science and public education when they are commercially sold to individuals. He doesn’t seem to feel responsible for conservation, and doesn’t support it over a buyer’s right to do what he likes with any specimen. And he doesn’t propose any kind of solution to any of these problems. I did. I proposed that scientists and commercial collectors work together. But it comes at the cost of recognition that important specimens should be conserved, no matter where they’re found. I believe many commercial collectors would support such an idea, and I hope that Mike eventually will, too. (On this and related issues, I strongly recommend law professor Joseph Sax’s book, Playing Darts with a Rembrandt [University of Michigan Press, 1999].)

Dr. Damborenea’s letter drives home how important it is to consider these questions, and points out — as our Chinese colleagues have also done — that the removal of such specimens from their homelands is illegal. Please remember this next time you gaze at fossils in a "nature" store or browse the web for the latest "natural history auctions," not because there’s any real risk of being prosecuted if you buy them, but because buying them is wrong.

Kevin Padian
Museum of Paleontology and Department of Integrative Biology
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-4780
USA
E-mail kpadian@socrates.berkeley.edu

Copyright: Coquina Press
19 December 2000
http://paleo-electronica.org