by Edward C. Theriot, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Arthur E. Bogan, Freshwater Molluscan Research, Sewell, New Jersey Earle E. Spamer, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
[This is an abbreviated version of the original article. The full text appears in AIR 1:1, January/February 1995.]
[School groups can hear and see a presentation based on this lecture. To arrange one, please telephone Edward Theriot or Earle Sapamer at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. The number is 215-299-1000.]
According to National Geographic, hominids evolved first on the African continent, radiating to occupy the other continents during the past tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Current opinions put forth by anthropologists indicate that several genera and species evolved, of which only Homo exists today. The only evidence on which these suppositions are based are skeletal remains, preserved mostly as fragments. Cladistic studies of the characteristics of the bone fragments have led scientists to derive the evolutionary relationships between these different hominid animals.
However, from field evidence and empirical observations, we have discovered a previously unrecognized form of hominid, alive today, which is presumably globally distributed. It is certainly found in North America, where we first observed it. Its external morphology is completely unlike hominid morphology, for which reason it has been until now overlooked. Its discovery has immediate and far-reaching implications on understanding hominid evolution.
To test the hypothesis that Barney is a reptile descended from the true dinosaurs, we went into the field in order to capture and study a living specimen. This we accomplished with remark-able ease, as Barney was advertised to be appearing at a local shopping mall. In a secure area, we established an observation post, which met the immediate need for controlled docu-mentation of Barneys external physical characteristics.
Additional instrumentation was required to determine the internal structure of Barney. We elected not to sacrifice the specimen, as we believed that this would have had a negative impact on the associated fauna (the juvenile specimens of Homo). Mostly non-invasive procedures were designed to obtain our data. A wide-field X-ray emitter was built to obtain images of the skeletal structure of Barney. Unexposed X-ray film plates were hung decora-tively on the wall near where Barney was expected to show itself; they were not noticed by any of the human subjects, nor by mall security. The X-ray emitter had only short exposure times, thus we believe that the human subjects in proximity to Barney were in no danger greater than were the residents of Chernoble.
This still does not explain the taxonomic relationship of Barney to other vertebrates. To examine this, we compared various physical characters of Barney with the characters of other mammals, reptiles, birds, and fish. We selected characters based on their affinities across the spectrum of vertebrates. We added or discarded characters until we achieved the results we believed, then stopped. Barney was compared to humans, whales, ornithischian and saurischian dinosaurs, and birds. In the cladistic diagrams our outgroups are live and dead salmon. We compared Barney to the outgroups of live and dead salmon. We correctly predicted that Barney was very unlike a live salmon, but we were very surprised to find that the tree comparing Barney to a dead salmon (Fig. 2) was more parsimonious even than the tree which grouped Barney with the dinosaurs.
The remarkable similarity of Barney to dead salmon emphasizes the distinctly non-reptilian characters. In each, the dermal covering is fuzz, a coelom is present, and an oral display character is present and independent from the dentition. This last character is of particular note. In Barney, the oral display (see Fig. 1) appears to serve no active function. There is no similar feature among the reptiles. This non-functional display is similar to the terminal sexual display character of the salmon. However, since Barney appears not to be in a reproductive mode, we have compared the oral display to one of territorial demarkation. We have observed similar means of territorial display in hominids (Fig. 3), which again reinforces Barneys affinity to the Hominidae rather than the Reptilia.
This poses significant questions to the interpretation of the fossil record. Non-skeletal materials are rarely preserved as fossils. It is therefore likely that the only part of the Barney animal to be found as a fossil is its skeleton, and we raise the question of misidentification of fossil remains. The criteria hitherto used to identify the skeletons of early humans and their precursors are non-indicative. If a skeleton of a proto-human cannot be distinguished from that of Barney, there is a likelihood that some of the skeletal specimens of early hominids"Lucy" for examplemay in fact be the skeleton of a Barney ancestor.
That Barney can be sighted today in numerous places is a sure indication of a widespread occurrence of the Barney animal, perhaps even coextensive with humans. Its certain identification may be complicated by morphological changes during its life cycle. It is possible that the development of the fuzzy epidermis, and the coelom separating it from the skeleton, are characters which form at sexual maturity. The juvenile stage may be exhibited solely by an immature hominid form, which presents very serious questions as to the correct identification of human children.
Copyright © 1995 The Annals of Improbable Research (AIR). All rights reserved.