----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Mary, this post appeared recently on the music librarians' list-serv.
I thought it might be interesting and amusing to art librarians as well.
Suzy Frechette
St. Louis Public Lib.
*****************************************************************

I am forwarding the following letter from the Smithsonian Institution
as an example of how they graciously acknowledged an unwanted gift. I
send it to the list because in our profession we also get unwanted
items. It may also be good for a laugh.     Bill Shank  CUNY Grad Scl
(ret)

The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball who
 digs things out of his back yard and sends the stuff he finds to the
 Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting
 that they are actual archaeological finds. This guy really exists and
 does this in his spare time! Anyway... here's the actual response from
 the Smithsonian Institute. Bear this in mind next time you think you
 are challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult situation in
 writing.
 _________________________________________________________________
> Smithsonian Institute
> 207 Pennsylvania Avenue
> Washington, DC 20078
> Dear Sir:
> Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled
> "93211-D,layer seven, next to the clothesline post, Hominid skull."
> We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination,
 and regret
> to
> inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents conclusive
> proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years
> ago.
> Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll,
> of
> the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be
> "Malibu
> Barbie."
> 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 contradiction with
> 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 modern
> origin:
> 1. The material is moulded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically
> fossilized bone.
> 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
> centimetres, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified
> proto-homonids.
> 3. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent with 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
> us say that:
> 1. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has
> chewed on.
> 2. Clams don't have teeth.
> It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request
> to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load
> our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon
> dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the
> best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and
> carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.
> Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science
> Foundation Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen
> the
> scientific name Australopithecus spiff-arino. Speaking personally, I, for
> one,
> fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was
> ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated,
> and
> didn't really sound like it might be Latin in origin.
> However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating
> specimen
> to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a Hominid fossil, it is,
> nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you
> seem to
> accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has
> reserved
> a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have
> previously submitted to the Institute, and the entire staff speculates
> daily on
> what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered
> in
> your back yard.
> We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed
> in
> your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for
> it. We
> are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories
> surrounding
> the trans-positating illifitation 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 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive
> crescent wrench.
> Yours in Science,
> Harvey Rowe
> Curator, Antiquities
>