A Letter from the Smithsonian

[nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)]

Dear Dr. Dimitri Vulis, 
 
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-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 Queens 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 the
"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-hominids. 
 
3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the
    common domesticated canine (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's 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. 
 
Dr. Vulis, 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