Another Slice of Mikey to Help Explain Him as if that were possible)- Story #18

Mikey, in his misguided youth used to frequently dig things out of his backyard and send it to McMaster University’s Anthropology Department, and label them with his own scientific names, insisting they are archeological finds. Here’s the response he got at age 13:

Dear Mikey,
I thank you for your recent submission to us, labeled “67-703-G, layer four, next to the clothesline post… Hominid Skeletal Rib Cage”. We have given this specimen a detailed and careful examination, and regret to inform you that we must disagree with you that it represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Toronto two million years ago. Rather it appears that what you have found is the casing of a Glastar grinder, of the variety that one of our staff, who does stained glass as a hobby, believes to be the Superstar model (slightly more powerful motor, extra ¼” head and straight edge guide attachment extra).

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 contradict 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 more modern origin.

1. The material it’s made of is brown molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
2. The dentition pattern evident on the submitted sample is more consistent with the teeth marks of 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’s just say that;

A. The specimen looks like a Glastar grinder case that a dog has chewed on
B. Clams don’t have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with deep melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon-dated. This is partially due to the heavy workload our lab must bear in its normal operation and partly due to the notorious inaccuracy of carbon-dating fossils of recent geological record.

To the best of our knowledge, no Glastar Superstar grinders were produced prior to 1983AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.

Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach Canada’s Science and Phylogeny Department with the idea of assigning your specimen the scientific name of Austrolopithicus Glastar-spiff- arinno. Speaking personally, I for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species you selected was hyphenated and didn’t really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of the fascinating specimen which comes at timely occasion with the Toronto Museum’s new wing about to open. While it is undoubtedly not a human fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate so effortlessly. You should know that our Dean of Anthropology has reserved a special shelf in her own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the university, and the entire staff enjoys speculating daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you work just outside your Dad’s stained glass studio.

Most excitedly, we await your promised visit to our university, where you might expand upon your theories surrounding the ‘trans-positioning 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 Toyo TC10B Glass Supercutter.

Yours Truly
Z. Chakowsky
Prof of Anthropology