|NOTE: National Geographic, apparently still more arrogant than scientific, devoted less than four column-inches to confessing that ‘Archaeoraptor’ was a composite of a dinosaur’s tail and a bird’s body (March 2000), compared to the ten-page spread originally devoted to misinforming its readership (November 1999).
National Museum of
Washington, D. C. 20560
1 November 1999
OPEN LETTER TO:
Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036
I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed
below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are
certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.
With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by Christopher
P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time
low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But
at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal
Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas “will later name” the
specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no
longer any need for him to do so.
Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published
previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen
“accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters
that are purported to differentiate the taxon,” the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis
Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance
in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article
13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance
to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist.
Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain
Sloan’s article explicitly states that the specimen in question
is known to have been illegally exported and that “the Czerkases now plan to
return it to China.” In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants
at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution,
held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director
of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils
from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb
There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly
got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret
to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that
fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.
Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United
States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any
specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin.
The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material,
but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen
that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits
to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.
Prior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing”
in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s
article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs
of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At
that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative
viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually
became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other
than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and
consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes”
the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that
birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group
of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing.
This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of
embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.
More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated
in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven
to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that
has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike
structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense considering that protofeathers
exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one
is even more hypothetical.
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on
display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious
claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs
had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations
of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary
and has no place outside of science fiction.
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds
is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert
with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become
outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific
weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program,
which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the
paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo
of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be
taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been
fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable
role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Washington, DC 20560