That is great. Googling for "Harvey Rowe" finds some humorous history on the origin of this letter.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:59 AM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: [FRIDAY] humour > > > Since it's Friday and I felt in need of a little light > relief, I looked > through my collection of old humour-spam and found this, which is so > good I thought you listers would appreciate me sharing it here. > > The story behind the letter below is that there is this > nutball who digs things out of his back yard and sends the > stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labelling them > with scientific names, insisting that they are actual > archaeological finds. This guy really exists and does this in > his spare time! This is the actual response from the > Smithsonian Institution. It is a masterful piece of > diplomacy. Bear this in mind next time you are trying to let > someone down gently. > > > > Smithsonian Institute > 207 Pennsylvania Avenue > Washington, DC 20078 > > Dear Sir: > Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, > labelled "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 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 moulded plastic. Ancient hominid remains > are typically fossilised bone. 2. The cranial capacity of the > specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimetres, 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 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 > Curator, Antiquities > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
