AndrewC: The reason it is in much better shape is, it is a replica.
It's in better shape because it's a replica? How accurate is that statement?
Main Entry: rep·li·ca
Pronunciation: 're-pli-k&
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian, repetition, from replicare to repeat,
from Late Latin, from Latin, to fold back --
more at REPLY
Date: 1824
1 : an exact reproduction (as of a painting)
executed by the original artist <a replica of this was
painted... this year -- Constance Strachey>
2 : a copy exact in all details <DNA makes a replica
of itself> <sailed a replica of the Viking ship>
broadly : COPY <this faithful, pathetic
replica of a Midwestern suburb -- G. F. Kennan>
synonym see REPRODUCTION
Now, originally I was telling gore3000, whose statements you seldom if ever parse for accuracy or intelligent content of any sort, that this skull
is in "better shape" (as in "more revealing of the original creature's head") than the skull of the Pakicetus (left) in this picture:
You chimed in to unequivocally state that the superior condition of skull A stems from its being an exact duplicate of an original.
Or did I just forget that you aren't interested in the accuracy of your own statements?