reply to post by smyleegrl
The article says that the creatures fossilised remains were "ground down" and examined after each layer has been removed, in order to virtually
display the creatures features accurately.
Although I am impressed by our ability to perform this task, I have a concern. If the remains were actually ground down, and therefore destroyed,
that means that the creature is no longer intact, and that is a bloody awful shame. It may only have been point four of an inch long, but under a
microscope, or with a high zoom HD camera, that would have been a wonderful thing to directly observe.
I remember when our local museum set up a JVC high powered video camera, with a microscope lens, and then placed minerals of various types beneath
it. The result was a stunningly detailed look at the mineral rocks that were in the display. It was fascinating to behold the complexity of thier
composition under such scrutiny.
I can only imagine how impressive this small creature would have looked under that equipment. But if the description of the process used to create
this image has been correctly described, it would mean that the little thing cannot be put on display to the public, and that is sad. Natural history
is one of the most interesting subjects that one can delve into, the stunning plethora of lifeforms on this planet even NOW is staggering, and the
diversity we see in nature now, can be directly linked back to the amazing animals that used to populate our planet millions of years ago.
Those who study these things should remember that the most important thing about what they discover, is not what they themselves can learn from thier
labours fruits, but also what they can teach the ordinary citizen, the casual observer, and crucially, the very young people of the land, about these
creatures and the lives they lived. It is they, after all, who will be the next intrepid discoverers, they who will continue the work in time to come,
and they require interaction with these things in order to foster within themselves the need to know more, the desire to set forth on the path of
The destruction of this tiny creature is sad for another reason, and this one might be considered a bit wet, a little illogical perhaps. This little
fellow died and got fossilised four hundred and twenty five million years ago, and the bosom of the earth kept it in its embrace for all that time,
safe, with all its features intact,as preserved by a force of nature, as it was killed by one. And now, having dug it up to observe it, to record it,
which is all fair and fine, we destroy it? Have we no better way to perform an observation? Does our gaze now automatically destroy the subject of our
investigation? Have we fallen so far that just by examining something it must be destroyed?
If I have misread the article, I apologise for the waste of page space, but I really think that they mean the sample has been destroyed, and if so, I
can hardly agree with them, that the production of the virtual image was worth that sacrifice.