Transcribe
Translate
Variant, v. 1, issue 2, whole no. 2, May 1947
Page 8
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
May 1947 VARIANT Page 8 as all are aware, is utterly unknown in the deliberations of our Society. However, to our lasting shame, the member who presented the paper, and whose integrity and judgement are beyond question, was challenged. It is even rumored that the term fraud was employed, although this I cannot believe. The subject of this paper (to which I have not at the moment, access, for which reason I must ask the reader to bear with certain indecisions herein which will later appear) was the reputed discovery some years ago of the dorsal molar of a species of something described as the Duo-finned Narcissiclinch. Presented along with the paper were certain exhibits, including the so-called dorsal molar. I had little opportunity, unfortunately, to examine this evidence. However the term dorsal molar raises certain peculiar considerations. A dorsal molar presupposes a ventral molar, and the conception of a creature bearing a molar on its spine, and another in the vicinity of the umbilicus, is rather staggering. How, then, would this animal masticate? Would it be hinged in the manner of a vast jaw, somewhere in the vicinity of the coccyx? This seems incredible. I offer an alternative explanation. I suggest that the discoverer of this relic, or fossil, was mistaken! There is not here intended the least shadow of implication of duplicity, but of simple error, and famous and historic comparatives will occur instantly to the most innocent reader. Let me very briefly remind the reader of Eoanthopus dawsonii, and any number of similar unsolved problems will spring instantly to mind. It is in this great group of supremely important and enigmatic survivals of the planet's past that I place these remains. The authority responsible for the identification of this object as the dorsal molar of Duo-finned Narcissilinch was, unless I am mistaken (which I may very well be) Herr Professor (Henric?) von Umlaut of Rue des Azul Hermanos. The identification was made in 1912. This is important, since at that time information on these more obscure paleontological finds was very slight. Too, I believe Professor von Umlaut to be the author of (to translate) Solar and Fresh Water Effects on Littoral Variable Stirps Considered in Relation to a New Approach to Mendelian Genetics. The Professor, unfortunately, was consumed by a very intricate theory of his own, and I feel sure that his judgement as an anatomist was affected. Now, I have described this fascinating exhibit (including the coprolite) to an extremely well-informed friend of mine -- D. K. Smith, associate member of the Haverstown Archeological Society -- who entertains a very deep interest in obscure zoological and paleontological phenomena. The entire conversation took place over the telephone, and results were not satisfactory. However, I understood Mr. Smith to be extremely disappointed that the remains had not been photographed in situ -- an omission also much regretted in the case of the Piltdown finds, it will be remembered. From my very scanty description of the fossil bone Mr. Smith received very little intelligence of the object, and refused to venture anything further than a very tentative opinion, or "guess" as Mr. Smith termed it. He agreed with me on the improbability of the object being a fossil molar of any description, and suggested it much more resembled a articulation of the lumbar region -- possibly that of an animal he termed torndaddle, a species with which I am not at all familiar; probably it is extremely rare. I was unable to ascertain over the telephone the specific name of this creature, of which torndaddle, is very likely the native appellation. On a subsequent visit to Mr. Smith's residence, or to a meeting of the Haverstown Archeological Society, I hope to discuss this find at more length, and will be glad to report any further conclusions which may be reached. I was very much interested in the "Ho! Him do!" inscription, although I cannot believe it to be in fact associated with the fossil find. It presents itself to me as belonging to a much more recent period -- much. And the reputed reproductive processes of the Duo-finned Narcissilinch (supposing this find to be in fact remains of that interesting species) I found extremely unusual -- unique, in fact, in all biological functions. Finally, I should like to express the hope that the fossil may eventually be successfully identified. Aiwa inta Valley -- if that is correct (and it will be very odd if it is, for Aiwa Inta is the Arabic for "Yes, you'll" -- certainly deserves further and much more detailed exploration. Alexander M. Phillips
Saving...
prev
next
May 1947 VARIANT Page 8 as all are aware, is utterly unknown in the deliberations of our Society. However, to our lasting shame, the member who presented the paper, and whose integrity and judgement are beyond question, was challenged. It is even rumored that the term fraud was employed, although this I cannot believe. The subject of this paper (to which I have not at the moment, access, for which reason I must ask the reader to bear with certain indecisions herein which will later appear) was the reputed discovery some years ago of the dorsal molar of a species of something described as the Duo-finned Narcissiclinch. Presented along with the paper were certain exhibits, including the so-called dorsal molar. I had little opportunity, unfortunately, to examine this evidence. However the term dorsal molar raises certain peculiar considerations. A dorsal molar presupposes a ventral molar, and the conception of a creature bearing a molar on its spine, and another in the vicinity of the umbilicus, is rather staggering. How, then, would this animal masticate? Would it be hinged in the manner of a vast jaw, somewhere in the vicinity of the coccyx? This seems incredible. I offer an alternative explanation. I suggest that the discoverer of this relic, or fossil, was mistaken! There is not here intended the least shadow of implication of duplicity, but of simple error, and famous and historic comparatives will occur instantly to the most innocent reader. Let me very briefly remind the reader of Eoanthopus dawsonii, and any number of similar unsolved problems will spring instantly to mind. It is in this great group of supremely important and enigmatic survivals of the planet's past that I place these remains. The authority responsible for the identification of this object as the dorsal molar of Duo-finned Narcissilinch was, unless I am mistaken (which I may very well be) Herr Professor (Henric?) von Umlaut of Rue des Azul Hermanos. The identification was made in 1912. This is important, since at that time information on these more obscure paleontological finds was very slight. Too, I believe Professor von Umlaut to be the author of (to translate) Solar and Fresh Water Effects on Littoral Variable Stirps Considered in Relation to a New Approach to Mendelian Genetics. The Professor, unfortunately, was consumed by a very intricate theory of his own, and I feel sure that his judgement as an anatomist was affected. Now, I have described this fascinating exhibit (including the coprolite) to an extremely well-informed friend of mine -- D. K. Smith, associate member of the Haverstown Archeological Society -- who entertains a very deep interest in obscure zoological and paleontological phenomena. The entire conversation took place over the telephone, and results were not satisfactory. However, I understood Mr. Smith to be extremely disappointed that the remains had not been photographed in situ -- an omission also much regretted in the case of the Piltdown finds, it will be remembered. From my very scanty description of the fossil bone Mr. Smith received very little intelligence of the object, and refused to venture anything further than a very tentative opinion, or "guess" as Mr. Smith termed it. He agreed with me on the improbability of the object being a fossil molar of any description, and suggested it much more resembled a articulation of the lumbar region -- possibly that of an animal he termed torndaddle, a species with which I am not at all familiar; probably it is extremely rare. I was unable to ascertain over the telephone the specific name of this creature, of which torndaddle, is very likely the native appellation. On a subsequent visit to Mr. Smith's residence, or to a meeting of the Haverstown Archeological Society, I hope to discuss this find at more length, and will be glad to report any further conclusions which may be reached. I was very much interested in the "Ho! Him do!" inscription, although I cannot believe it to be in fact associated with the fossil find. It presents itself to me as belonging to a much more recent period -- much. And the reputed reproductive processes of the Duo-finned Narcissilinch (supposing this find to be in fact remains of that interesting species) I found extremely unusual -- unique, in fact, in all biological functions. Finally, I should like to express the hope that the fossil may eventually be successfully identified. Aiwa inta Valley -- if that is correct (and it will be very odd if it is, for Aiwa Inta is the Arabic for "Yes, you'll" -- certainly deserves further and much more detailed exploration. Alexander M. Phillips
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
