According to this new article (and another) the University of Wyoming Geological Museum will be reopening....sort of. Private funding will allow for the hiring of a part-time security guard to allow the museum exhibits to be open to the public...part-time. This appears to be a ploy on the part of university administration to attempt to placate the large public and professional outcry resulting from the initial decision to close the museum and lay off all staff including the curator.
Museums are places of learning and the curatorial position is an integral part of the learning process. Essentially the curator is a specialist who interacts with the public and the professional community promoting understanding of the resources under their care. Without this specialist interaction the museum exhibits are essentially nothing but curiosities and visitors will gain little regarding understanding and appreciation of these fossils and their significance. The university administration should realize that a part-time security guard cannot serve this purpose and eventually they will have to hire a specialist to run the museum. In the meantime their short-sightedness has cost the fine specialist they already had his job and cheated future visitors his knowledge and passion of the fossils of Wyoming.
Nice try UW, but again you have missed the point and as a result education and outreach suffers.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Sorry Kids, the Dinosaur Museum is Closed...
Today for the first time in decades the University of Wyoming Geological Museum will not open to the public. To save a measly $80,000 a year the university decided to shutter the only place in the area where local children can experience the wonders of the dinosaur paleontology for which the state of Wyoming is famous. Ignoring public outcry, the bureaucrats who should be holding education, research, and outreach, the core values of any learning institution, in esteem have decided to follow through with these cuts, yet the university's sports programs stay pretty much intact? You can read about it more here at ReBecca Hunt-Foster's site.
I also could not help but notice the comment that while the Geological Museum is being closed, the anthropology museum will reopen soon. I have noted repeatedly that geology and paleontology often get the short end of the stick to archaeology and anthropology, and I feel that this may simply be due to the fact that geology and paleontology are fairly foreign topics to the majority of the public. Indeed, as all paleontologists and archaeologists know there is often much confusion between the roles of the two disciplines. Tell someone you are a paleontologist and they will mention all of the arrowheads they have found; mention you are an archaeologist and people will start asking you about dinosaurs. When I entered college expressing a desire to study fossils I was promptly referred to archaeology classes by the councilors and registrars.
Most people (presumably because they are human) seem to have a have a rudimentary knowledge, understanding, and interest in anthropology and archaeology; however, many of these same people do not even know what the study of geology even entails. Much of this I think is a result of the sad state of science education in the United States. I'm not saying that archaeology is lesser to geology and paleontology (I've done all three), I am just trying to understand why this dichotomy exists. Did you know that despite being responsible for some of the greatest geological wonders in the world (Grand Canyon, Zion, Arches, Yellowstone, etc...) there are more archaeologists employed at the Grand Canyon alone than there are geologists and paleontologists (total) in the entire National Park Service? This is mainly because of the need to satisfy law and policy; however, sometimes I wonder if often there is simply a misunderstanding of the fundamental differences between the two disciplines.
I've experienced leadership in institutions that were established for their paleontological resources who not only have little knowledge or interest in paleontology, but cannot even pronounce the word! I often "joke" with my students that because of the plethora of students and lack of positions in paleontology, many of them should train to become administrators and thus provide universities and museums with leadership who understand and appreciate the science. Of course, it is not really a joke, we desperately need this for the good of the profession; however, how many students will want to be a martyr to protect a job that they badly desire but will never get to have?
There are probably more jobs in paleontology now than ever before, mostly because of the wave of interest stemming from a book and movie now rapidly approaching their two decade anniversary. Paleontologists are challenged with keeping our science fresh and engaging and judging by the media we still get regarding new finds, the interest is for the most part still there. Let's hope that events such as what happened in Wyoming aren't indicators of a future trend.
I also could not help but notice the comment that while the Geological Museum is being closed, the anthropology museum will reopen soon. I have noted repeatedly that geology and paleontology often get the short end of the stick to archaeology and anthropology, and I feel that this may simply be due to the fact that geology and paleontology are fairly foreign topics to the majority of the public. Indeed, as all paleontologists and archaeologists know there is often much confusion between the roles of the two disciplines. Tell someone you are a paleontologist and they will mention all of the arrowheads they have found; mention you are an archaeologist and people will start asking you about dinosaurs. When I entered college expressing a desire to study fossils I was promptly referred to archaeology classes by the councilors and registrars.
Most people (presumably because they are human) seem to have a have a rudimentary knowledge, understanding, and interest in anthropology and archaeology; however, many of these same people do not even know what the study of geology even entails. Much of this I think is a result of the sad state of science education in the United States. I'm not saying that archaeology is lesser to geology and paleontology (I've done all three), I am just trying to understand why this dichotomy exists. Did you know that despite being responsible for some of the greatest geological wonders in the world (Grand Canyon, Zion, Arches, Yellowstone, etc...) there are more archaeologists employed at the Grand Canyon alone than there are geologists and paleontologists (total) in the entire National Park Service? This is mainly because of the need to satisfy law and policy; however, sometimes I wonder if often there is simply a misunderstanding of the fundamental differences between the two disciplines.
I've experienced leadership in institutions that were established for their paleontological resources who not only have little knowledge or interest in paleontology, but cannot even pronounce the word! I often "joke" with my students that because of the plethora of students and lack of positions in paleontology, many of them should train to become administrators and thus provide universities and museums with leadership who understand and appreciate the science. Of course, it is not really a joke, we desperately need this for the good of the profession; however, how many students will want to be a martyr to protect a job that they badly desire but will never get to have?
There are probably more jobs in paleontology now than ever before, mostly because of the wave of interest stemming from a book and movie now rapidly approaching their two decade anniversary. Paleontologists are challenged with keeping our science fresh and engaging and judging by the media we still get regarding new finds, the interest is for the most part still there. Let's hope that events such as what happened in Wyoming aren't indicators of a future trend.
I just gotta say this....
Unlike my colleague Jeff Martz I am not drinking myself into a stupor tonight because of some horrible singer, but reading through a few papers over the last few days has finally pushed me to the edge as well...and like Jeff I need to talk about this.
There are two errors, which should not be, that persistently show up in the Triassic literature. One is relatively minor but annoying, whereas the other is not only annoying but does have implications.
1) For the last 13 years Long and Murry (1995) has likely been the most cited paper for Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology. Prior to this Phillip Murry published quite a few papers dating back to the early 1980s on Triassic paleontology and Geology. His name, although uncommon, has only five letters in it. Why, with a simple name and numerous citations do many people continue to misspell his name (as Murray) in many papers? And why do the reviewers not catch this either? Again, nothing major but just annoying seeing it in paper after paper.
2) Having done my graduate work and published several papers concerning the aetosaur Desmatosuchus, I have noticed and continue to notice that despite being known by good material for over 80 years people continue to incorrectly assign material to this genus. Historically, any robust spiked aetosaur has been assigned to his taxon and that has caused much confusion; however, since 1985 the genus has been diagnosed using in part the ornamentation of its dermal osteoderms. Desmatosuchus is the only aetosaur genus that combines an ornamentation of randomly placed pits and grooves (with no radial patterning at all), a depressed anterior lamina (a smooth area of the osteoderm that underlies the preceding plate), and a centrally placed dorsal boss. This has been repeated numerous times in the literature yet I constantly come across material with a strong radial pattern being assigned to the genus. Last year a major Triassic exhibit opened in a major U. S. natural history museum. In this exhibit (which is for the most part very well done) Desmatosuchus is represented by an osteoderm, which has an extreme radial patterning, a posteriorly placed boss, and a raised anterior bar, the exact reverse of the diagnosis of Desmatosuchus.
When I was visiting museum collections on a very limited budget as a graduate student it was extremely frustrating to travel to institutions and then find out that all of the Desmatosuchus material was misidentified. It is even more frustrating to see this continuing, and yes it does have implications. Periodically you will see papers come out where comparisons with Desmatosuchus are being made, yet it quickly becomes apparent (at least to me) that the comparisons are based on a misidentified specimen. Desmatosuchus also possibly has some biostratigraphic significance, but again many voucher specimens for purported occurrences are based on misidentifications. Finally, a misidentification of material as Desmatosuchus eventually placed me in one of the most frustrating and unfortunate situations I have every found myself in in my entire life.
I do realize that misidentifications happen all the time with lots of fossils, however, it is unfortunate when it is done over and over again. Below are some representative plates and drawings of Desmatosuchus spurensis. The photographed material is MNA V9300. The drawings are from Long and Ballew (1985).
OK...rant over. Thanks for reading and please ID your Desmatosuchus material correctly.
REFERENCE
Long, R. A., and K. L. Ballew. 1985. Aetosaur dermal armor from the Late Triassic of southwestern North America, with special reference to material from the Chinle Formation of Petrified Forest National Park. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 54:45-68.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)