[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

fake fossil; northern, western, and southern vagrants



Hi Carolinabirders,

The many folks who attended last night's CHBC meeting featuring Alan 
Feduccia heard him refer to National Geographic's feature article last 
year on a fossil proclaimed as the missing link between birds and 
dinosaurs; it turned out to be a hoax. I found a post to an 
ornithological e-mail list below saying that the October 2000 National 
Geo has an in-depth article on the hoax and how NGS got sucked in; anyone 
who was interested in the talk might want to check out this article as 
well. The message about the article is pasted below.

Since there haven't been any Mango updates on this list since Sunday, I 
should mention that it was seen yesterday (Monday) by some birders from 
Virginia; they mentioned that a reporter and photographer from the 
Charlotte Observer were there, so birders in that area should watch that 
newspaper for an article or photo... Birders who live nearby should keep 
checking on the Mango, and keep posting whether it is there or not. Lots 
of folks in states to the north and south of us have not seen it yet, and 
are checking here for updates. There's more talk about it on BIRDCHAT 
than on Carolinabirds!

Out-of-state vagrant news: Texas has at least 11 reported Lewis' 
Woodpeckers this winter, an unprecedented number; home some stray 
further east! Florida presently is hosting an Ash-throated Flycatcher, a 
Groove-billed Ani, a Great Cormorant, the previously reported Heerman's 
Gull, and an unidentified Longspur (possibly Smith's). A 
Black-headed Grosbeak turned up at a feeder in Cairo, GA on Sunday; no 
further reports in yet. A Gyrfalcon (gray morph) is being seen in 
Massachusetts, as is the previously reported Tropical Kingbird. The Gray 
Kingbird in Virginia is still being seen as well.

What a weird season!

Hoping for another crack at the Vermilion,

Josh

Joshua S. Rose
Duke University
Department of Biology (Zoology, R.I.P.)

jsr6@acpub.duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jsr6/

----------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------

Subject: Feathered dinosaur fake
From: Byron Butler <byron.butler@yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:23:34 -0600

In the November 1999 issue of National Geographic magazine was an article 
titled, "Feathers for T. Rex," which announced the discovery of a new 
feathered fossil purported to be a missing link between dinosaurs and 
birds. That fossil, _Archaeoraptor liaoningensis_ Sloan, proved to be a 
fake. Now, a year later, in the October 2000 issue of the same magazine, 
in an effort to recover some of its lost credibility, is an article that 
outlines the entire history of this fossil "discovery" and the means by 
which it came to be first published in National Geographic.

The article, "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail," is written by an investigative 
reporter, Lewis M. Simons, assigned to recover the truth behind this 
story by National Geographic editor Bill Allen who was humiliated by the 
whole affair. Allen told the reporter to uncover all he could about what 
had happened and to "let the chips fall where they may." Thus, Simons had 
been given carte blanche to assign blame upon whomever it fell.

The resulting article is a well-written, fast-to-read story of how not to 
go about doing science, and one in which none of the participants emerges 
unblemished. Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of this episode, aside 
from the fact that the fossil is indeed a fake, is that by a series of 
errors the National Geographic magazine became the publication in which 
this (illegitimate) new species was described and named -- in a 
non-refereed article -- by Christopher P. Sloan, the magazine's art 
editor!

Needless to say, many in the paleontological community were outraged. The 
article discusses some of this outrage, but does not mention some of the 
members of the scientific community who sought out Bill Allen personally 
to register their objections.

Interested persons will find the October article by Simons a fascinating 
read. It contains a lot of information I have not mentioned. And, it 
names names.

The bottom line is that if you are to publish a scientific discovery be 
darn sure of what you have and that you have gone through the peer review 
process before you seek a high public profile. Otherwise, you risk 
winding up looking as bad as the scientists named in this article.

Byron