-269-

GEOLOGICAL CURATORS’ GROUP - December 2006

THE GEOLOGICAL CURATOR

VOLUME 8, NO. 6

CONTENTS

EDITORIAL: THE BICYCLE AND THE MAILMANby P.N. Wyse Jackson.............................................................................................................................................270

A PLIOSAUR TRAVELS: THE PACKAGING OF A UNIQUE CRETACEOUS MARINE REPTILE,AND ITS TRANSPORT FROM COLOMBIA TO THE UNITED KINGDOM

by L.F. Noè, R. Gómez-Cruz, M. Gómez-Pérez and P. Patarroyo..............................................................................271

ERRATA: ENSOM (2006) FIGURES 12–17.............................................................................................................281

GEOLOGICAL CURATORS’ GROUP: 31ST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.................................................282

PRESENTATION OF THE A.G. BRIGHTON MEDAL TO HUGH S. TORRENS—CITATION..........................287

GEOLOGICAL CURATORS’ GROUP: 32ND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.................................................289

2007 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL/APPLICATION FORM.....................................................................................294

-270-

Fourteen years ago Paul Ensom, then Chairman ofthe Geological Curators' Group, wrote to me and toldme that Peter Crowther, the Edtor of The GeologicalCurator was stepping down. I knew what was comingnext: would I take over as Editor? Although I knewthat this would entail a lot of work, I really had nodecent excuse to refuse, and so was installed at thenext AGM.

Twenty-six issues later the time has come for me topass on the role to Matthew Parkes. I know he will doa splendid job, and take the journal to greater heights.

Being your editor has been a pleasure (most of thetime). I have been privileged to have been able toread your research in typescript form and to make itavailable to the GCG members. The Group owes itscontributing authors a debt of gratitude for theirresearch efforts.

Throughout my time as Editor I have continuallyasked members for research papers, notes, bookreviews, really anything, which could be published inour journal. It has at times been a struggle to get copyof the journal. In 2006 I received only ONE paper forconsideration for publication. As I lay down mygreen editorial pen I would ask all the members of theGCG to take up their pens and start writing again.Why do we as curators do less writing and collectionsresearch? I blame managers and those who want usto account for our whereabouts and time use. I maybe wrong in pointing the finger, but there has been atrend leading to fewer submissions in recent years.

The digital age has brought advances in desk-toppublishing, and in line with this the journal haspoured from my computers. either at home or inwork. Gone are the days of cutting and pasting copy,but it has come at a price, in that it is too easy toreplicate text and publish incorrect text or grainyimages. One paper appeared with the incorrect

THE BICYCLE AND THE MAILMAN

abstract that had appeared in the previous issue, andthe annual accounts were similarily replicated in twosuccessive AGM reports. Subsequently the Treasurerfailed to notice this, and only became aware of theproblem when it was pointed out to him (perhaps Ishould have kept quiet!).

I am grateful to Simon Knell, John Nudds, and StephenDonovan for their work as guest editors for issues6(2), 7(6), 8(5) on fossil excavation, ethics and fossilcollecting, and trace fossils in the museumrespectively.

During my tenure The Geological Curator has beenprinted in Dublin, first by ColourBooks of Baldoyleand then by Betaprint of Bluebell. Both printersproduced journals of an excellent quality at a mostreasonable price. I thank all their staff and in particularDeirdre Dunne and Adrienne Foran my contacts inthese companies. Matthew Parkes frequently actedas a proof reader and I hope that I can reciprocate.

Being Editor has not always been a bed of roses.Packing and mailing the issues twice a year has beena tedious part of the job, to say nothing of stapling theoffprints together! My mail office in TCD hasaccepted without question numerous boxes of journalsfor mailing and I am most grateful to my institutionfor this support. One time it was suggested that Icould enter a barter system whereby I traded my oldRaleigh Roadster bicycle for mailing credits! I stillhave the bicycle and the journal was mailed in anycase.

Finally I must thank my wife and two young daughterswho have sometimes been roped into helping afixaddress labels to envelopes, and have wondered whatit was all for.

Patrick Wyse Jackson 18th December 2006

The Geological Curator 8(6), 270 [2006]

-271-

Noè, L.F, Gómez-Cruz, R., Gómez-Pérez, M. and Patarroyo, P. 2006. A pliosaur travels:the packaging of a unique Cretaceous marine reptile, and its transport from Colombia tothe United Kingdom. The Geological Curator 8(6): 271–280.

As a result of a collaborative research effort between the Universidad Nacional deColombia and the Sedgwick Museum (UK) the acid prepared skull and rock encasedpostcranial skeleton of a new Cretaceous marine reptile (a pliosaur) has been transportedfrom Bogotá to the University of Cambridge. This contribution details the procedurefrom agreeing the loan, planning the transport, obtaining the funds, through the challengeof paperwork, innovative packing and labelling, to planning and managing the media,and the successful arrival of the specimen.

Leslie F. Noè, The Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences,The University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, e-mail:lnoe01@esc.cam.ac.uk; Rigoberto Gómez-Cruz, Departamento de Química, Universidadde Los Andes, Carrera 1ª este No. 18A 10, Bogotá D.C., Colombia, e-mail:rgomez@uniandes.edu.co; Marcela Gómez-Pérez, Department of Earth Sciences, TheUniversity of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, e-mail:mper04@esc.cam.ac.uk; and Pedro Patarroyo, Departamento de Geociencias,Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ciudad Universitaria, Edificio Manuel Ancizar,Bogotá D.C., Colombia, e-mail: pcpatarroyog@unal.edu.co. Received 24th January2006.

Introduction

Following twelve months of demanding negotiations,challenging paperwork and intense discussionregarding the most suitable method of packaging,two wooden crates containing a large South AmericanCretaceous marine vertebrate travelled across theAtlantic Ocean early in 2004. The transport of thisscientifically important vertebrate fossil was the resultof collaborative research in vertebrate palaeontologybetween the Universidad Nacional de Colombia(Bogotá, Colombia) and the Sedgwick Museum(University of Cambridge, United Kingdom). As allfossils are considered Colombian National Heritage,and because this was the first time the UniversidadNacional de Colombia had lent a large vertebratefossil for preparation, research and study outsideColombia, all policies and regulations, modes oftransport, documentation, and methods of packaginghad to be considered. It was clear from the outset thatthis ambitious project would be an “odyssey” fromthe very beginning. The purpose of this contributionis therefore to bring to a wider audience the trials andtribulations of bringing a large vertebrate fossil from

A PLIOSAUR TRAVELS: THE PACKAGING OF A UNIQUECRETACEOUS MARINE REPTILE, AND ITS TRANSPORT FROM

COLOMBIA TO THE UNITED KINGDOM

by Leslie F. Noè, Rigoberto Gómez-Cruz, Marcela Gómez-Pérez and Pedro Patarroyo

South America to Europe, whilst adhering to allnational and international regulations and laws, andensuring this important specimen arrived in the U.K.in the best possible condition for detailed study.

The fossil

In 1967 a fossil was discovered by Frenchhydrogeologists (‘Cooperación Técnica Francesa’),near the Santo Ecce Homo Convent, close to thevillage of Villa de Leyva, north-east of Bogotá,Colombia (Acosta-A. 1979). The bones were encasedin a very large (> 3 metres in length) calcareousconcretion and covered in bituminous shale. Thespecimen was initially donated to the Instituto deCiencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional deColombia, Bogotá, but was later transferred to thepalaeontological collections of the Departamento deGeociencias (UN-DG) where it remained in storage,and unstudied for more than 30 years (ETAYO-SERNA pers. comm. 1999). There are no records ofthe original fieldwork, or the date of, or reason for,the subsequent departmental transfer within theUniversidad Nacional de Colombia.

-272-

In 1999 the fossil (registered as UN-DG-R-1000,formerly catalogued as UN-DG-R-287 in errore)was rediscovered. The specimen was in a number ofblocks; presumably the original concretion had beenbroken up at the time of collection to aid recovery.Preliminary examination of the concretion indicatedit contained a large vertebrate, including a skull,vertebral column, pectoral and pelvic girdles, ribs,and parts of two limbs (Figure 1), but its taxonomicaffinities were unclear. The skull and anterior cervicalvertebrae were selected for preparation, which wasundertaken in the laboratories of the Museo GeológicoJosé Royo y Gómez of INGEOMINAS (theColombian Geological Survey), using standardmechanical and chemical techniques (Rutzky et al.1994) modified to suit local conditions. During thiswork it became clear the animal was a pliosaur, aderived sauropterygian marine reptile.

Chemical preparation revealed an exceptionally well-preserved, wonderfully three-dimensional, andsubstantially complete skull (Figure 2), highlightingthe importance of this exciting new specimen. UN-DG-R-1000 is a new genus and species of pliosaurand a full osteological description of the specimenwill appear elsewhere. Extensive investigation,including new fieldwork at the original find site(Gómez Pérez 2001), indicated the specimenoriginated from the Lower Cretaceous (Barremianstage), Paja Formation (Etayo-Serna 1979), and canbe dated at approximately 130 million years old(Gradstein et al. 2004). Barremian sauropterygianfossils are exceptionally rare worldwide (Persson1963, Bardet 1995, Noè 2001); the new pliosaur is animportant addition to global sauropterygianpalaeontology, and an extremely valuable addition tothe vertebrate palaeontological heritage of Colombia.

Preliminaries

The loan

Preliminary results from study of the new Colombianpliosaur were presented at the 50th Symposium ofVertebrate Palaeontology and Comparative Anatomy(SVPCA) held in Cambridge in September 2002.This led, in January 2003, to a research visit from theUK to establish links with the Colombianpalaeontological community and see some of the richvertebrate fossil fauna of Colombia. A series ofvertebrate palaeontology seminars were presented invarious academic institutions in Bogotá, which led tocontact with Heads of Department, faculty membersand interested students, as well as private collectorsand members of the public. During this visit, thepossibility of undertaking collaborative research onUN-DG-R-1000 was proposed, leading to a formal

Figure 1. The concretion containing the skull of UN-DG-R-1000 prior to preparation.

Figure 2. The acid prepared cranium of UN-DG-R-1000viewed obliquely from the front; note the three-dimensionalpreservation.

-273-

loan request for the pliosaur from the Director of theSedgwick Museum to the Head of the Departamentode Geociencias in the Universidad Nacional deColombia.

Following exchange of correspondence, an outlinecooperative agreement was made between the headsof department of the two universities; by the end ofFebruary, the conditions and length of the loan hadbeen agreed and the responsibilities of each partnerclarified. A formal loan document was issued in mid-March, which included the following points:

1. The loan period was to be three (3) years, withthe possibility of extension by mutualagreement;

2. The Sedgwick Museum would guarantee thereturn of UN-DG-R-1000 according to theUNESCO (1970) and Unidroit (1995)conventions on the ownership of CulturalHeritage (see also Brodie et al. 2000);

3. All Colombian and U.K. laws and regulationsrelating to the export and import of fossilswould be followed;

4. The Sedgwick Museum would pay the fullreturn cost of the transport;

5. Preparation work was permitted, provided itwas undertaken in the Sedgwick Museum’sconservation and preparation facilities, but thespecimen had to be left robust enough for safereturn to, and display in, Colombia.

It was important that UN-DG-R-1000 was lent to aninstitution and not an individual researcher, to ensurereturn of the specimen, even if staff at the twoinstitutions changed during the loan period. It wasmade clear that the Sedgwick Museum fully abidedby all laws and regulations regarding the ownershipof cultural heritage thereby ensuring return of thefossil. Although not part of the formal loan agreement,both sides recognised the importance of involvingnationals of both countries at all stages of the projectin order to share expertise, and transfer skills andknowledge in vertebrate palaeontological techniquesbetween the institutions. This included an informalarrangement that all results would be published jointlybetween Colombian and U.K. colleagues, and thatapplications for funding for a PhD studentship topermit a suitably qualified Colombian student tostudy the fossil would be made. With the loan andother agreements in place, organisation of thetransportation and packaging could begin, and theongoing search for funds was given additionalimpetus.

Planning the transportion of the material

When the idea of transporting the pliosaur arose,there was no funding in place and there was no clear

understanding of the procedures that would need tobe followed. Preliminary investigations indicatedthat there were no laws in Colombia explicitly relatingto the export of palaeontological material for study,however there were laws covering all archaeologicalartefacts that could potentially relate to fossil finds.In addition there were two fundamental questionsthat needed to be answered in order to proceed: Howcould the pliosaur be transported? And how muchwould it cost? As the full cost of the project was notknown, this caused problems for finding sources offunds. However, in order to obtain an estimate for thecost of transport we needed to know the weight of thefossil and the possible transport routes.

The fossil consisted of two distinct sets of elements:the acid prepared skull and anterior cervical vertebraewere delicate, needed careful packing but wererelatively light; and the postcranial skeleton whichwas still encased in 24 blocks of rock, relativelyrobust, but heavy. The skull was weighed in itsexisting storage container and was around 30 kg. Thepostcranial blocks had to be weighed individuallygiving an estimated weight of 200 kg, withoutpackaging. We considered the most suitable way totransport the fossil and decided that a direct flightfrom Bogotá to the UK would minimise possiblecomplications caused by passing though severalairports in different countries, reduce handling andthe number of customs inspections required, andthereby decrease the potential for damage. We alsoconsidered sending the fragile skull by a differentroute from the postcrania, but ultimately decided tosend the fossil in two crates, but as a singleconsignment. Initially we approached theinternational couriers FedEx and DHL who offeredtransport rates of 13.30 US dollars (USD) and 8.11USD per kg respectively: the total price using theseservices would have been in the order of 2000-3000USD. However we had concerns about the amount ofhandling, the routes offered and the price seemedrelatively high. Therefore a number of other optionsfor transporting the fossil were considered.

Advice was sought from a wide range of individualsand companies in order to find transport direct to theUnited Kingdom, and this included asking at theBritish Embassy in Bogotá. British Airways Cargowas consulted, and they offered a transport rate of1.78 USD per kg including fuel, which would amountto around 450 USD. However, British AirwaysCargo were unable to negotiate directly with us asindividuals or with the Universidad Nacional deColombia because of the export laws and regulationsin Colombia, although they suggested the names ofthree government authorised cargo agencies(Panalpina, DHL-Danzas, and Kuehne-Nagel) that

-274-

could help. All three were contacted, but the mosthelpful, interested and speedy response was receivedfrom Panalpina who offered a service which includedcollection from the Universidad Nacional de Colombiain Bogotá, a direct flight to London, and delivery toCambridge. Panalpina were also able to deal with allthe relevant taxes and handling fees (to give anestimated total cost of around 1200 USD), and wereable to advise on the paperwork required.

Having chosen the transport company, and with anidea of the cost of moving the fossil, the next task wasto obtain the funding. Various avenues were pursued,and in April the “Friends of the Sedgwick Museum”,an organisation set up to support the work of theMuseum, offered the possibility of funding for discreteresearch projects. A ‘redevelopment fair’ took placein mid-June with numerous projects proposed and themembership asked to vote on the schemes theyconsidered most suitable for funding. The resultswere collated and the Friends committee made thefinal decision in late July, which included part funding(of approximately 1600 USD) towards the costs ofpackaging and transportation of the Colombia fossil.Additional funding was obtained by undertakingexternal consultancy work in the Sedgwick MuseumConservation Laboratory, and full funding was finallyin place by August 2003. Meanwhile numerousapplications for funding of the scientific work werecompleted and submitted.

The paper trail

In early September, and with the funding confirmed,the Sedgwick Museum contacted Panalpina whoinformed us where in Colombia all the requireddocuments for the export of the fossil could beobtained; they also agreed to take care of all thenecessary arrangements for transport from door-to-door between the Universities. They sent a checklistof the documents necessary for the transport toproceed:

1. A letter of agreement between the UniversidadNacional de Colombia and the SedgwickMuseum giving the originating and deliveryaddresses, a description of the items to betransported, the number of pieces the itemconsisted of, the insurance value in USD, thetype of packaging, and the approximate weight;

2. The Universidad Nacional de Colombia officialexport codes required for airport clearance;

3. A letter for the ‘Dirección de Impuestos yAduanas Nacionales’ (DIAN, the ColombianCustoms) explaining the purpose of the export,indicating the commercial value of theshipment, the length of the loan, and anagreement that the fossil would be returned to

Colombia;4. A letter to the airport police guaranteeing that

no dangerous materials or illegal substanceswere to be exported.

In Colombia, much time was spent attempting tosecure the necessary paperwork. Initially, definingscientific value in commercial terms was problematic,and it proved extremely difficult to obtain a numberof the details required by the cargo company, such asthe official Universidad Nacional de Colombia exportcodes. At this point Panalpina advised us that theUniversidad Nacional de Colombia had an ‘Oficinade Comercio Exterior’, effectively a trading office,that deals with exports and imports. The Oficina deComercio Exterior agreed to use their expertise toobtain the necessary paperwork, although they hadnever had to export a large vertebrate fossil before.By early October 2003 all the documents listed above,plus some additional letters required by the cargocompany, had been obtained and an order for theshipment was sent from Cambridge. However, due toa lack of experience with transportingpalaeontological material, and to ensure all legalrequirements were being fulfilled, the Oficina deComercio Exterior considered it necessary to consulta lawyer. It transpired that the legal advice indicatedspecial permission was needed from the InstitutoColombiano de Antropología (ICAN), the bodyresponsible for the protection of Colombianarchaeological National Heritage. This provedproblematic, as it was not clear if the laws relating toarchaeological artefacts also covered fossilisedremains; however, ICAN agreed that the fossil couldlegally be exported for study, providing return wasguaranteed. In addition, Universidad Nacional deColombia regulations required the approval of theRector (the Head of the University), which due to hishigh workload, took a great deal of time to be approvedand signed. These clarifications and permissionsdelayed the transport by a further two months, andmeant that two of the earlier documents (for DIANand the airport police) were now out of date and, onceagain, we had to wait for these to arrive; fortunatelythis took just three weeks. It was now the end ofNovember 2003, and it had taken almost five monthsto amass all the necessary documents to allow thepliosaur to travel.

Press Release

Early in our negotiations we realised there wasconsiderable potential for publicity regarding thetransport of this exceptional fossil. At the same timeit was realised that should an event of national orglobal significance occur on the day the pliosaurarrived, any idea of media coverage would be in vain.

-275-

Preparation of the press release was started as soon asit was clear the pliosaur would travel, which gave usplenty of time to prepare, as we wanted as many of theinterested parties as possible to have the opportunityto comment on a draft. The press release was intendedto do a number of things:

1. To inform the media that the animal was due toarrive;

2. To give some idea of what a pliosaur was (andif possible make it clear it was not a ‘dinosaur’);

3. To make it clear the specimen was on loan fromColombia, that the work was collaborativebetween the Colombian and UK institutions,and that future work would involve nationalsfrom both countries;

4. To acknowledge all those who had helped.

In addition, the press release had to make the storyappealing to editors and news desk staff, to conformto the University of Cambridge Press and PublicationsOffice house style, and be acceptable to the SedgwickMuseum, the Department of Earth Sciences, theUniversidad Nacional de Colombia, and the Friendsof the Sedgwick Museum. Early versions of the pressrelease were circulated within the Museum, beforebeing sent out to all interested parties early in October.The draft was modified in the light of the commentsreceived, and agreed with the University Press andPublicity Office. Final details, such as the date ofarrival and who would be able to attend on the day thefossil was due to arrive, were left open as long aspossible.

In addition to the press release, we decided a modelof the pliosaur would assist the media visualise theanimal. As this was a totally new genus and speciesof pliosaur, no existing model would be suitable.Draft drawings of the head of the new animal wereprepared and one of the Friends of the SedgwickMuseum kindly agreed to construct a model. To ouramazement and delight two models were produced,one of which one was a life sized representation of thehead of the living animal, and the other a smallerversion of the skull.

Packing

Between September and November, whilst thetransport arrangements were being organised,considerable discussion took place to agree the bestmethod of packing the pliosaur. The critical factor atall times was the safety of the specimen: it isexceptionally important and there had to be no damageduring transit. This meant ensuring the packagingwas robust enough to guarantee no movement orcontact between the fossil elements (especially thedelicate cranial material), but equally it must be

packed in such a way that the customs and police inBogotá and London Airports could inspect it withoutdifficulty. The fossil was assessed and possibledamage considered: the most fragile elements werethe acid prepared cranium, and early on it was decidedto pack this separately from the rest of the rock-encased postcranial skeleton. However, it was alsoagreed that the most fragile parts of the specimen,such as the braincase elements, otic capsules andsclerotic plates (bones from within the eyes), wouldbe carried by hand for safety.

Two timber crates were needed to transport the fossil:one crate already existed, which held the concretionscontaining the postcranial skeleton with internaldimensions (length: width: height) of 860 x 560 x 485mm; and a new crate was constructed for the skull(internal dimensions 650 x 600 x 920 mm). In orderto protect the skull, each bone was wrapped in threelayers of bubble wrap, to act as a separator and shockabsorber, and fixed with wide clear adhesive tape.One layer of bubble wrap was considered sufficientfor the concretions, to protect the small pieces ofbone visible within the matrix. Various options forpacking the wrapped elements in the crates wereconsidered, as plastazote and other museum gradematerials commonly used in Europe were not availableand importing such materials into Colombia wouldhave led to considerable delays. Other solutionsconsidered were: jacketing the specimen in plaster ofParis, using expanded polystyrene chips, or cuttingup large sheets of flexible polyurethane foam. Plasterof Paris was rejected as it would have been too heavy,with insufficient ability to absorb shock and toodifficult for customs officials to check. Expandedpolystyrene chips, similar to those used for packingelectrical equipment, were not readily available inColombia, and although large sheets of polyurethanefoam were available, cutting these to shape provedproblematic, and the ability of the material to absorbsufficient shock was questionable.

At this point we sought the advice of one the foremostChemistry laboratories in Colombia - theDepartamento de Química of the Universidad de LosAndes. The head of the laboratory inspected thefossil and suggested using a rigid, expandedpolyurethane foam formed from two liquidcomponents. Polyurethane is a polymer (a plastic)produced when a polyol (an alcohol) reacts with anisocyanate. Polyurethane is not a spontaneously‘foamy’ material, but as the chemical reaction isexothermic (heat producing), the energy liberatedduring the reaction can be used to evaporate a solventwith a low boiling point, which then acts as a ‘blowingagent’. By carefully dosing the solvent, and the

-276-

quantities of the reactants, it is possible to controlbubble production and thus both the degree of porosityand the rigidity within the resulting polymer. Theresult of this reaction, under controlled conditions,can produce a spongy yet rigid material with an opencell structure. Thus, by carefully modifying therelative proportions of the two reactants and theamount of solvent, it is possible to develop a foamwith material properties ideal for the purposes werequired, which included: a low density, the ability toadapt to the shape of the bones and act as an infillingmaterial, with a high capacity to absorb impacts, anda low curing temperature.

However, in order to ensure the polyurethane foamwas completely suitable for our purposes, a series ofexperiments were undertaken. Different proportionsof the two reactants were assessed in order to find themost suitable mixture to protect the bones. Thereactants (polyol and isocyanate) were mixed in thefollowing proportions: 1:1, 1:2 and 2:1. A proportionof 1:1 did not to generate sufficient heat to evaporatethe solvent or produce the desired foamy material;proportions of 1:2, produced a vigorous reaction, butthe blowing agent escaped from the foam, and theresulting polymer sagged under its own weight priorto setting, leaving a material with insufficient porespaces; at 2:1 the foam produced a moderate reactionexpanding to approximately five times the originalvolume of the reactants – ideal for our purposes.Once the desired proportions of reactants wereestablished, the resulting polyurethane foam mixture

was tested on delicate chemistry glass-wear to ensurethe foam would not create so much heat, or internalpressure as to damage the bones. The glass-wear waswrapped in the same manner as proposed for thefossil, but in addition the manufacturers of the foamadvised coating all items with a layer of very thinplastic sheet to avoid direct contact with the foam.Cutting the resultant foam also indicated good poredispersal throughout the material, which providedsufficient support and shock absorbency.

The expanded polyurethane foam was perfect.However, completely encasing the bones would havemeant that the fossil would not be easily available forinspection by customs authorities. Thus, each cratewas lined with a thin plastic sheet and the polyurethanefoam poured into the base. Prior to setting, the firstlayer of bones was gently placed onto the expandingfoam. Further polyurethane was generated and brokeninto large pieces and tightly packed around the fossil.A thick cardboard separator layer was used to coverthis first level of bones and foam, and subsequentlevels were packed using large pieces of the brokenpolyurethane foam (Figure 3). To seal the crates, itwas originally planned to use plastic or metal straps,but these proved difficult to obtain, and would nothave been easy for customs to open. Eventually thecrates were simply nailed shut for ease of opening inthe airport. However, once checked in Bogotá, thecustoms tied the crates with 13 mm wide metalsecurity straps that remained in place throughouttransit.

Figure 3. Packing UN-DG-R-1000.Left: illustration of the crate showingthe fossils (hatched), foam (stippled)and cardboard separators (wavylines). Right: photographs of threestages of packing; (top): the boneslaid out as they are to be placed inthe crate; (middle): covered in threelayers of bubble wrap; (bottom): thelowermost layer laid in thepolyurethane foam.

-277-

Labels

Another aspect of the packaging that requiredconsiderable thought was the labelling to be attachedto the outside of the crates. There were no labelsavailable from the cargo agency or the University, soour own labels had to be designed and printed. Wewanted them to be in both Spanish and English, andneeded to give the originating and receiving addresses,the fragile condition of the material, and the orientation(way up) of the crates. The labels needed to be easilyidentifiable and ideally internationally recognisedsymbols. In addition, we wanted one of the labels tomake it clear that the material was an importantfossil, and that a palaeontologist should be present, ifpossible, should the crates be opened. We decidedthe most recognisable way to do this was to use animage of a dinosaur (Figure 4). All the labels werecreated ourselves, printed in colour, and attached tothe crates with a complete covering of wide, clearadhesive tape for protection.

The crates could not be finally packed and sealeduntil all the paper work was completed, andrepresentatives of both the Oficina de ComercioExterior and Panalpina had inspected the specimens.The Panalpina security representative suggested thatthe airport police would undoubtedly break open thepackaging, and estimated there was a 50% chancethat the bones would be broken beyond recognition.Our immediate reaction was not to send the specimenat all, but following advice from various sources

within the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, wedecided the recommendation from Panalpina wasexaggerated, as other delicate materials had previouslybeen successfully transported. The crates were finallysealed on the 25th November and the fossil remained‘on hold’ in the University. We were informed thatthe likely date of collection was the first week ofDecember, allowing one of us (M.G.) to travel to theUK in order to assist with the unpacking, and toattend the Palaeontological Association (PalAss)annual conference in Leicester in December. With adate for the transport agreed, insurance was arrangedthrough the University of Cambridge.

Transportation

Departure from Bogotá was originally booked for the9th December, and we were told by Panalpina inColombia that one of us might need to travel toLondon airport to oversee incoming customs clearancetwo days later. However, due to the proximity ofChristmas, there was no space available on flights toEurope that day, as perishable goods such as flowersand fruit had priority. The two crates were finallypicked up from the Universidad Nacional de Colombiaon the 11th December and the fossil was seen throughcustoms (by P.P.) at Bogotá airport immediately aftera student viva in the University, and a hurried journeythrough the capital city’s traffic. The two crates, withtheir valuable consignment were now in the hands ofthe cargo company awaiting x-ray prior to transit.

Figure 4. Three examples of thelabels used on the crates, and(bottom-right) the packed crates inthe Universidad Nacional deColombia in Bogotá awaitingtransport.

-278-

The week following collection of the fossil in Bogotáwas frustrating due to further delays and a lack ofcommunication with the cargo company. The Londonoffice of Panalpina did not know whether the cargohad travelled or not, and the situation was worse thefollowing week during the PalAss conference. Whilstaway from Cambridge, news of arrival the crates waseagerly awaited, and lack of information caused us agreat deal of concern. There was uncertainty as towhether it would be necessary to rush down to Londonfor customs clearance at a moments notice (althoughultimately it transpired that Panalpina had a customsbonded warehouse rendering this unnecessary). Thedelays also meant our insurance lapsed and had to beextended. Finally the crates flew on 17th Decemberand were unloaded in Amsterdam! Quite why theshipment went to Amsterdam, and was not booked ona flight direct to London as originally agreed, remainsunclear.

Having been unloaded from the aircraft in Amsterdam,the crates were transported to London by lorry. Thiscaused us considerable concern, as the specimen hadnot been packed with such a long road (and sea)journey in mind. Also the road transport tookadditional time, so the crates did not arrive in Londonuntil the 19th December. By this time Christmas waslooming and many of the staff required to receive thecrates in Cambridge had commenced their Christmasholidays. Also, the advice of the University PressOffice was to wait until the New Year to announce thefossil’s arrival, as this is usually a time with littlenews, and would therefore increase our chances ofwide publicity. We discussed the options. The

specimen could have been delivered immediately,but we now had no staff to unload it safely.Alternatively the crates could remain in a Panalpinabonded warehouse over the festive period, and,although we were assured the crates would be safe,we had no idea of the environmental conditions(temperature, relative humidity, etc.) under whichthey would be stored. After much discussion, andwith no other real alternative, we agreed to fix thedelivery date to Cambridge for the 6th January 2004.

The arrival

After the Christmas and New Year break it wasnecessary to confirm with Panalpina that the deliverywas still due for the morning of the 6th January 2004,although they were unable to give us a definite timeof arrival. We had to arrange with the variousMuseum staff, technicians, and representatives of theFriends of the Sedgwick Museum, to be available.The press release had the final details added and wascirculated by the University Press and PublicationsOffice the day before the planned arrival, using theirexisting network of contacts. In addition, directcontact was made with the local media to ensure theyknew about the story, and this elicited a veryenthusiastic response, including a preliminarytelevision interview the evening before the specimenarrived. Preparations were also made to ensure theconservation laboratory was ready and additionalitems such as the models of the pliosaur were inplace. By late in the evening everything was readyfor the next day.

Figure 5. Unpacking the Colombianpliosaur in the Sedgwick Museumconservation laboratory whilst thetelevision cameras looked on.

-279-

Early in the morning of the 6th January we hadinterviews on the local radio, and Museum andtechnical staff were mobilised. Despite not knowingexactly what time the pliosaur would arrive, the firstof the media, a BBC television crew, managed to turnup just five minutes prior to the lorry containing thepliosaur, and proceeded to film the unloading. Thetwo crates were inspected for obvious external damage(none was apparent), although customs had drilledholes into the crates. The first crate was opened,whilst the television cameras rolled, and with greattrepidation we lifted the lid and began to unpack thefossil (Figure 5). The specimen had travelledperfectly. The unpacking, much of which had to beundertaken multiple time for the cameras, wasconsiderably facilitated by the person who had packedthe specimen in Colombia (M.G.) being present.

Museum staff had a busy time as more photographersand another television crew arrived (requiring lots ofcups of tea with biscuits!), whilst simultaneouslyattempting to keep a photographic record for theMuseum archives. Ultimately two television crews,photographers from local and national newspapers,and an international news agency wereaccommodated, although, the arcane workings ofinformation exchange between the various elementsof the media remains a mystery. This number of busy

journalists required some careful time managementto ensure that all the various media deadlines weremet. The day culminated with a live outside broadcastfor the local Independent Television News. Thepress release had done a fantastic job of informing themedia, and was well worth the effort, however severalsources requested a line drawing or colourreconstruction of what the animal may have lookedlike in life. We tried to ensure that everybody wasequally represented in the medial coverage, butultimately we didn’t have any say in how theinformation we provided was used (Figure 6). Themedia picked up on the important points we wantedto make, although each of them had their own slant onthe story, and we considered it a considerable successthat the pliosaur was at no time referred to as a‘dinosaur’ during the press coverage.

Conclusions

The transport of the Colombian pliosaur was acomplete success. This project has established abenchmark for future work in palaeontology betweenColombia and the UK. It is anticipated this willbecome the first step in the development of a widercollaboration between the individuals and institutionsinvolved. In summary, we conclude:

Figure 6. Examples of the printed and digital publicity generated; for the BBC news story see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3373633.stm (accessed 05 October 2005).

-280-

- The project was possible and was a completesuccess;

- Despite being a long-winded and sometimesfrustrating process, it is essential to respect allnational and international laws and regulations;

- The success of the project lay in the trulycollaborative nature of the work, which wouldnot have been possible without the directinvolvement of colleagues in both countries,and at all stages of the project;

- Finding and using all existing sources ofinformation and expertise can save considerabletime and effort;

- Excellent results are possible by working aspart of a creative multidisciplinary team;

- New techniques can be developed usingavailable materials and with suitable research;

- Planning for and managing the media isessential.

A Ph.D. studentship has subsequently been obtained.Work has commenced on the long process of preparingthe postcranial skeleton, and the scientific study ofthe specimen is underway. Now, the hard work reallybegins.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to the many people whose assistancemade this project possible. Universidad Nacional deColombia: Manuel Moreno (Director delDepartamento de Geociencias) for agreeing to, andfacilitating the loan of UN-DG-R-1000; AlejandroLozano (Director, Oficina de Comercio Exterior).Universidad de Los Andes: Laboratorio de AnálisisQuímico, Departamento de Química for advice andmaterials testing. The University of Cambridge:Ekhard Salje (Head of Department, Earth Sciences);David Norman (Director) and all staff of TheSedgwick Museum; Simon Crowhurst (models);Andrew Pluck (forklift); Karen Dean and NickChampion (Press and Publications Office). TheFriends of the Sedgwick Museum: especially PeterFuchs and Peter Friend for funding and support.Additionally M.G. thanks Fernando Etayo-Serna andMaría Páramo for supervision; INGEOMINAS MuseoGeológico José Royo y Gómez for preparationfacilities; the Universidad EAFIT, Medellín,Colombia for funding; and Carlos Padilla, Director,Fundación Colombiana de Geobiología for supportand funding. This paper is dedicated to the memoryof Muriel Agnes Arber (1913-2004; Friend 2004),Honorary Life President of the Friends of theSedgwick Museum who died during preparation ofthis manuscript. This paper was first presented at the14th Symposium of Palaeontological Preparators and

Conservators (SPPC) 2005, held at the Natural HistoryMuseum, London.

References

ACOSTA-A., C.E. 1979. Noticia preliminar sobre elhallazgo de un presunto Kronosaurus (Reptilia:Dolichrorhynchopidae) en el Aptiano Superior deVilla de Leiva, Colombia. Lozania (Acta ZoologicaColombiana) 28, 1–7.

BARDET, N. 1995. Evolution et extinction des reptilesmarins au cours du Mesozoique. PalaeoVertebrata24, 177–283.

BRODIE, N., BOOLE, J. and WATSON, P. 2000.Stealing history: the illicit trade in culturalmaterial. Cambridge. The McDonald Institute forArchaelological Research. Available at http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/IARC/iarc/illicit_trade.pdf (accessed 5th October 2005).

ETAYO-SERNA, F. 1979. Zonation of the Cretaceousof central Colombia by ammonites. GeológicasEspeciales del Ingeominas 2, 1–186.

FRIEND, P. 2004. Muriel Agnes Arber (1913–2004)The Geological Curator 8 (2), 47–48.

GRADSTEIN, F., OGG, J. and SMITH, A. 2004. Ageologic time scale 2004. Cambridge UniversityPress.

GÓMEZ PÉREZ, M. 2001. Estudio Morfológico ytaxonómico del cráneo de un reptil marinoproveniente de capas de la Formación Paja, quebradaPavachoque, Municipio de Sutamarchán. Facultad deCiencias, Departamento de Geociencias.Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá.

NOÈ, L.F. 2001. A taxomomic and functional study ofthe Callovian (Middle Jurassic) Pliosauroidea(Reptilia, Sauropterygia). School of Environmentaland Applied Sciences. University of Derby, Derby.

PERSSON, P.O. 1963. A revision of the classificationof the Plesiosauria with a synopsis of thestratigraphical and geographical distribution of thegroup. Lunds Unveristets Arsskrift 59, 1–60.

UNESCO 1970 and Unidroit 1995 conventions: http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/IARC/Conventions/german.htm; http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/IARC/Conventions/english.htm; http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/IARC/Conventions/french.htm; or http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/IARC/Conventions/spanish.htm (accessed 5thOctober 2005).

RUTZKY, I.S., ELVERS, W.B., MAISEY, J.G. andKELLNER, A.W.A. 1994. Chemical preparationtechniques. In LEGGI, P. and MAY, P. (eds).Vertebrate paleontological techniques, 155–186.Cambridge University Press.

-281-

ERRATA: P.C. Ensom (2006). Figures 12–16 of Paul Ensom’s paper appeared highly pixillated.A replacement set of images is reproduced below. I apologise to Paul and to Steve Donovan(Guest Editor) of the Trace Fossils in the Museum thematic set for this problem.

Figure 12. In the foreground, volunteers are marking the blocks and the fractures onto a plan and the pavement atTownsend Road, to allow reassembly.

Figure 13. Sheila Gowers and Rodney Alcock lifting part of the limestone pavement.Figure 14. Two superimposed tridactyl track casts from the shore at Worbarrow Tout (DORCM G 11374).Figure 15. Fluorescent tubes throw a wash of light across the reassembled pavement.Figure 16. A fallen block of limestone with tracks in Durlston Bay, Swanage, Dorset.Figure 17. Overburden is removed at Sunnydown Farm Quarry, autumn 1986.

-282-

18th January 2005 at the Hancock Museum,Newcastle-upon-Tyne

1. Apologies for absence.

C. Buttler, R. Clements, P. Crowther, S. Howe, R.Gourgey, G. Miller, J. Radley, A. Ross.

2. Acceptance of minutes for the 30th AGM.

Agreed by those present.

3. Matters Arising.

No matters arising.

4. Chairman’s report.

Circulated at the meeting. Read by Patrick WyseJackson.

This year I spent six months in Carlisle, Pennsylvania,USA, but have been engaging in outreach on behalfof the Group. I attended the Geological Society ofAmerica in Denver in November and discussed thepossibility of having a session of next years GSAmeeting devoted to collections at risk. This wasaccepted and will take place when the GSA meets inPhiladelphia in 2007. While in Denver I was able tosolicit some papers for Geological Curator.

I expressed concern in Coprolite about how to widenmembership of the Group. Following e-mails fromEuropean members and discussions with Committeeit has been decided to try and appoint some Regionalrepresentatives who could act as local Treasurers andPRO’s in their own regions. They should be asked toidentify potential individual and institutional membersand recruit them.

GCG is hosting a session at the SPNCH meeting inJuly 2005, and Giles Miller is thanked for all his workin arranging this on behalf of the Group. We lookforward to launching the new State and Status reportthat Helen Fothergill has been working on.

NatSCA came to Dublin in April 2004 for their AGMand seminar and I was able to welcome them to myhome city on behalf of GCG. We remain in closecontact with SPNCH through Steve Thompson whois on the GCG committee.

In May 2004 I made a submission to the MuseumsAssociation regarding their Collections Project andargued that either the GCG or NatSCA should be

represented on the MA working group, although theMA rejected this.

The Committee met with Phil Manning who told usabout the status of geology at Manchester Museumand for this I was grateful.

I wrote to the Chairman of the Royal CornwallGeological Society concerning the status of thegeological holdings at Penzance. I offered the helpand advice of the Group. Since then matters havebeen taken up by Sara Chambers on behalf of theCommittee.

I am about to tackle the authors approached tocontribute to Guidelines 2. The Geological Society ishoping that the typescript will be submitted in thenext 6 months.

The GCG was saddened to learn of the deaths ofMuriel Arber, Paul Shilston and Colin Sparrow. Totheir families and friends I extend the warmestsympathy on behalf of the Group.

I am very grateful to all the members of the Committeewho have put up with me for the last three years. Ihave enjoyed working with you all, and thank you forall your efforts on behalf of the Group.

Report accepted.

5. Secretary’s Report.

Circulated at the meeting. Read by the Chairman.

The Committee met four times in 2004, twice at theoffices of the Geological Society, once at the NaturalHistory Museum in London, and once at the YorkshireMuseum.

This year we co-opted Dale Johnston onto theCommittee as a non-attending member so that hecould attend meetings of the Earth Science EducationForum (ESEF) on our behalf. This group has closelinks with the House of Commons All-PartyParliamentary Group for Earth Sciences and we havesubmitted a request through ESEF that a futuremeeting of the All Party group be addressed towardsmuseum collections. I would like to thank Dale for allthe hard work he has put in this year correspondingwith ESEF.

As Secretary I received approximately 550 GCGrelated e-mails. It is a testament to the electronic agethat we are much more contactable now. Some of theenquiries I posted on the GCG e-mail list or

GEOLOGICAL CURATORS’ GROUP

31st Annual General Meeting

-283-

encouraged others to do so. It is a very easy way ofgetting information out quickly and 102 people arecurrently subscribed to it, just under half of our totalnumber of individual members. I encourage allmembers to join the list if they are on e-mail. Thewebsite also provides a good link with both membersand prospective members. The large number of queriescoming to me via the website is a testament to thework of Camilla Nichol, who has also aided greatlywith maintaining the membership database, and alongwith Ros Gourgey and Sara Chambers helped greatlyto ease the burden of collecting subscriptions.

GCG membership summary for 2004.

Category. Number of members.

UK

Personal 167

Institutional 71

Overseas

Personal 22

Institutional 21

New 2

Honorary 12

Cancelled 10

Total 305

I have continued to act as a focal point for all themembership paperwork and Gift Aid documentationin particular. This year I submitted a claim to coverthree financial years spanning 2001-2004, for whichwe received a total of £1245.38 from the InlandRevenue. I would like to encourage all members tofill out a Gift Aid form if they have not already doneso.

Toward the end of last year we submitted a grantproposal under the MLA Subject Specialist Networksexploratory grant application round. Many thanks toHelen Fothergill for coordinating the application.The grant would help us to follow up some of therecommendations of the State and Status review ofUK Geological collections, which we hope to publishin time for the SPNHC meeting in June 2005.

Report accepted.

6. Treasurer’s report.

Report circulated at the meeting.

Hand-over of the GCG accounts to the new Treasurertook place on January 23rd 2004 and thanks shouldgo to Tom Sharpe who, in assuming the role of Acting

Treasurer, undertook a substantial amount of work tobring the accounts into order prior to hand-over.

Reserves have increased by £1362.70, largely as aresult of receiving three substantial Gift Aid payments.The Geological Curator’s Group has benefited to thetune of £1246.38 (retrospective payments for theyears 2001/02, 2202/03 and 2003/04) and we aregrateful to all members who are UK taxpayers whohave completed Gift Aid forms. Huge thanks are dueto Giles Miller for co-ordinating the Gift Aid claimsprocedure.

Subscription income was £3909.00 (£399.17 downon the previous year). Publication costs have beenreduced. Greatest expenditure apart from that relatingto publications remains travel cost for membersattending Committee meetings.

Grateful thanks are due to Camilla Nichol and GilesMiller who handle the majority of membership andsubscription related enquiries and therefore ease thejob of the Treasurer. I am also grateful to our AuditorsC. Buttler and S Howe for their examination of theaccounts.

Report accepted.

7. Programme Secretary’s Report.

Circulated at the meeting.

Thanks go to all speakers and organisers of ourevents over the past year.

Summary of programme 2004.

17-18 May 2004. GCG Seminar and Field Trip: IsCollecting Dead?

North Lincolnshire Museum, Scunthorpe.

June 2004. GCG Training: Trilobites. NationalMuseum of Wales, Cardiff.

Cancelled due to lack of interest. This training sessionhas been re-scheduled for 2005.

21 October 2004. GCG Seminar: Geology inPartnership. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

28 Oct - 1Nov 2004. GCG Study Visit: Prague.

9 December 2004. GCG Workshop: Meteorites,Impactites and Tektites. Liverpool Museum.

In addition to the AGM in Newcastle, there is a fullprogrammes of events planned for 2005.

Let Steve McLean know if you have any suggestionsfor future meetings.

The Chairman thanked Steve McLean for his hardwork in organising all of these events.

-284-

Report accepted.

8. Journal Editor’s report.

Circulated at the meeting. Read by Patrick WyseJackson

Two issues of The Geological Curator appeared in2004: Volume 8, Numbers 1 and 2.

I am grateful to those authors who submitted papers,to Mathew Parkes who proofread 8 (1), and AdrienneForan of Colour Books of Dublin who continue to doan excellent job printing the journal. I thank inparticular Maura Morgan of the Department ofGeology of trinity College who packed and mailedIssue 8 (2). I am also most grateful to all those of youwho reviewed papers for the journal. Peer review isvaluable and allows us to strive towards producingand maintaining a journal of high standards.

I do continue to worry about the lack of copy. I havethree papers in hand for the next issue, and althoughthe Committee and I continue to badger speakers atGCG seminars for papers few ever appear in print.Please submit papers.

Report accepted.

9. Newsletter Editor’s report.

Circulated at the meeting.

2004 saw the completion of the 15th year ofpublication of Coprolite, even though it was originallyplanned as an interim publication. Three issues(Numbers 43, 44 and 45) were published totalling 40pages. The number of pages was fewer than in previousyears, partly explained by only two short meetingreports being published this year, but mainly in anattempt to reduce our expenditure on the newsletter.Printing and distribution of Coprolite in 2004 cost£1348.00, compared with £1741.00 in 2003 and£1664.00 in 2002.

Remember that Coprolite is your newsletter, for youto tell everyone else what you’ve been up to. Anynews of events, meetings, exhibitions, newacquisitions, publications, staff changes and jobmoves, or anything at all related to geology inmuseums would be more than welcome.

Thanks are due to Barnes Print Group of Nottinghamwho print and distribute Coprolite, and to ClintonBurhouse of Burhouse Ltd of Huddersfield for hiscontinuing generous support.

Report accepted.

10. Recorder’s report.

Circulated at the meeting.

Helen Fothergill has continued the work of the new“State and Status” report started by Glenys Wass.The number of questionnaires returned numbered248, and all the data has now been entered on to anAccess database. Some analysis has begun, but nocomparisons have yet been drawn with the originalDoughty Report. However a number of generalimpressions can be gained already:

- Many museums holding nationally importantcollections have few, if any, specialist curatorialstaff.

- Very few museums have benefited from grantsto work directly with the collections within thelast 10 years.

- Resources (time and money) are felt to be thebiggest threats to the collections in the future.

- Taking average numbers from the ranges de-scribed in the survey, national collections standin the region of 6 million specimens. However, asa number of significant institutions failed to re-turn the surveys, and no “top estimate” was askedfor from the larger institutions this would beexpected to be dramatically higher.

- Many collections are not being actively addedto.

- Taking average numbers, approximately 60,000specimens were added to museum collectionsthroughout the UK in the last year, implying anincrease in size by just over 1%. This does nottake into account collections relocated from insti-tutions that have closed during that period. Thesemay be listed as increases for individual muse-ums, but the total size of the geological commu-nities collections would be unaffected.

- One unfortunate impression gained from the“condition” questions is that where no specialistcurators are employed the collections are in a“good” state, and where specialists are employedthe collections are generally in a worse state (dueto specialists being aware of the problems associ-ated with collections?).

Apologies for the delay to the expected delivery ofthe 2001 State and Status Report. Difficulties arose atthe collation stage, principally due to the lack ofresponse mentioned above. However, we are now ina position to draw reasonable conclusions from theaccumulated data and make comparisons to theDoughty Report of 1981. Full publication is plannedfor April 2005.

Report accepted.

-285-

The Chairman noted that this will be a very valuablepublication, and that it needs a wide distribution sothat people are made aware of the issues raised by thereport.

Points raised:

Hugh Torrens noted that few geological collectionshave benefited from funding compared to artcollections. Would it be possible for GCG to set up afund or donation scheme to help address thisimbalance, perhaps to encourage publication work?

Steve Thompson replied that some of this work couldbe done through regional networks.

Helen Fothergill noted that case histories of rescuedcollections would be a good topic to cover, as thiswould highlight some of the work done to safeguardcollections.

11. Election of Officers and Committee for2005.

All current Officers and co-opted members, with theexception of the Chairman whose term on Committeeends with this AGM, have agreed to continue foranother year.

Amanda Edwards has agreed to take over theChairman’s post. No other nominations have beenreceived.

Agreed by the meeting.

12. Election of Auditors.

Still in discussion. Members will be informed in duecourse.

13. Any other business.

a. Steve Thompson. Due to recent grant applicationsfor the Subject Specialist Networks, the MA andMLA are now more aware of the work of GCG.

b. The incoming Chairman thanked Patrick WyseJackson for all his work as Chairman. She thenintroduced herself to the Group, in particular to thosewho may not know her. She has previously been GCGSecretary. Please do not hesitate to get in touch ifthere are any issues you think should be raised byGCG.

14. Date and venue of next meeting.

5th December 2005. University College Worcester.

Meeting ended at 17.25.

-286-

Annual Accounts for the period 11th November 2003 to 21st December 2004

2004 2003 2004 2003Expenditure

The Geological Curator2 1229.57 3011.75Coprolite 1348.00 1741.00Seminars and workshops 428.15 245.26Committee expenses 718.19 690.00Website domain name 10.58Brighton Medal engraving 14.50Refund of overpaid subs4 432.00Bank charges (Euro conversion) 34.19

£4215.18

Balance on 21.12.04 £8362.27

£12577.45

IncomeSubscriptions1 3909.00 4308.17Seminar and workshop fees 417.50 658.00Gift Aid3 1246.38Donations 5.00Interest5 -- 84.69C. Burhouse sponsorship -- 500.00

£5577.88Balance on 10.11.03 £6999.57

12883.36

Notes1 Includes £120.00 overpaid subs, £10 subs '02; £117.77subs '03; £51 subs '052 Excludes £973.65 credit carried over from 2003; thisbrings the true cost for the publication of The GeologicalCurator to £2203.223 Breaks down: £251.56 (2001/2); £424.71 (2002/3);£570.11 (2003/4)4 Includes refund of overpayments made in 2003 and 20045 Interest is no longer payable on charitable society/clubaccounts as of Oct '03

S. Chambers GCG Treasurer C.J. Buttler and C. Howells Auditors

21st December 2004

-287-

PRESENTATION OF THE A.G. BRIGHTON MEDALTO HUGH S. TORRENS

Address by Patrick Wyse Jackson,Chairman of the GCG at the GCG AGM,Hancock Museum, 18th January 2005

While serving as Chairman of the GCG has beenenormously enjoyable for most of the three-yearperiod, there are two events that make it even moreso, and both take place today. The first, but not in anyparticular order, will occur later today when I handover the reigns to my successor. The second is theawarding of the Brighton Medal, and I am delightedthat we have the medallist here today.

The Brighton Medal was established in 1992, and isusually awarded every three years at a time thatcoincides with the end of a Chairman’s period ofoffice. The regulations as published indicate that thismedal is awarded to those who have “devoted asignificant part of their working lives to the actualcare of geological specimens, or who have introducedinnovations which have led to significantimprovements in the care of geological specimens orwho, through their example or by teaching (including

writing), have inspired others to the better care ofgeological specimens. It might also be awarded tothose who have fostered an increased awareness ofthe value of geological collections, e.g. throughcollections research.” (see The Geological Curator5(8) [1994], pp. 331-332.

This year’s medallist is Hugh Simon Torrens. I thinkthat you will agree that Hugh is a most worthyrecipient on account of his work on collectionsresearch.

Hugh spent his youth on the south coast where hisfather (a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin) practicedas a dentist and later pioneered facial reconstruction;his mother was a librarian, and so Hugh was instilledfrom an early age with a love of books. His interestin geology was aroused at the age of eleven when hefound a chalk echinoid at Wick, Hampshire, and wasfostered at school by a retired cleric. An ammonitefind four years later bamboozled the great W.J. Arkellwho believed that the unit from which the fossil wasclaimed to have come was barren. Hugh proved

-288-

otherwise and received a gracious apology. He wentto Oxford and then to Leicester where he studiedunder Peter Sylvester-Bradley gaining his Ph.D. in1966 while working on a Post-Doc. on SicilianMesozoic limestones begun the previous year.

In 1967 he was appointed a lecturer at Keele andspent all his academic career there with the exceptionof a number of sabbatical periods abroad.

His interest in the history of geology and technologydates from his student days, and was probably sparkedby the bug of book collecting. I have not seen Hugh’slibrary but can imagine what treasures it holds.

Hugh is a past President of the British Society for theHistory of Science, of INHIGEO, and served on theCouncil of the Society for the History of NaturalHistory. He has received several awards for his workin the history of geology.

I must admit that after Hugh was named in Coproliteas the Brighton Medallist I met someone whoquestioned the choice—after all Hugh has not curatedmany specimens in his career. True, but his worktowards the advancement and promotion of geologyin museums far outweigh his lack of specimencuration. Hugh has served the Geological Curators’Group as a member of the original committee in1974, and as Chairman in 1977-1980, and he editedan issue of the journal in 1980. With Brian Page heestablished the Newsletter (now The GeologicalCurator); in fact he authored the first paper publishedby the GCG—that on Lichfield Museum. Anyonewho wishes to quantify his contribution to museumgeology can examine the Lost and Found columns aswell as his numerous articles published in our journal.The former contain information that he has ferretedout on the most obscure of individuals, their lives andmost importantly their collections. Hugh has shownthat Collections Research to be an essential componentof museum work, and I believe that this is probablyhis most important contribution to museum geology.

He is a walking encyclopaedia on geologists and theircollections. I recently looked up the entry for ThomasWeaver in the recently published Oxford Dictionaryof National Biography and there towards the end ofthe article was written:

“Prior to his death he had given many fossils andminerals to the Geological Society and theYorkshire Philosophical Society. What remainedof his large collection was sold at auction thatmonth; the unsold residue is reported to haveformed the hard core for a urinal at Bewdley,Worcestershire.”

Then and only then did I realize that only HughTorrens could have written the article. Hugh alsocontributed over 40 biographies to the Dictionary.

Hugh is refreshing in that when he sees a cause,injustice or simply bad practice he is willing to stickhis neck out and say what needs to be said. He willlambaste museums and libraries for their treatment oftheir holdings and I know was deeply unhappy withthe sale of the Turner Collection of rare books by hisown institution as well as the disposal of collectionsfrom other libraries and museums. These librariesand museums need to be seen as a resource forresearch and not simply as a source of funds to bediverted into trendy hip research fields.

Another facet of his character is that he is willing togive of his time to help others in their research,whereas others might be more selfish in this respect.Recently while in America I was writing aboutGrenville Cole, a diminutive tricycling geologist andrecalled from the chaotic filing cabinet that is mybrain that S.S. Buckman was a fanatical cyclist.Following a quick note to Hugh he sent me his recentpaper on Buckman that filled in gaps in my knowledge,and I helped improve my own article. Hugh’s name isfrequently found named in the acknowledgements ofpapers published on the history of British geology.He is also a frequent lecturer on historical andtechnological topics and in doing so has done muchto promote geology in museums.

Hugh, in appreciation for all your work for the GCGand for your tireless promotion of the history ofgeology and in particular your championing ofcollections research I am delighted to award you theBrighton Medal of the Geological Curators’ Group.

Acknowledgement

For this citation I have drawn extensively on apublished interview with Hugh by Richard Howarthpublished in the Newsletter of the InternationalCommission on the History of Geological Sciences33 (2001), 34–37.

__________________________________________________

The previous recipients of the A.G. Brighton Medal:

1992: Edith Brighton & the late David Price

1992: Charles Waterston

1995: Bob King

1998: Roy Clements

2001: Philip Powell

-289-

GEOLOGICAL CURATORS’ GROUP

32nd Annual General Meeting

9th December at the University ofWorcester, 5th December 2005

1. Apologies for absence

Patrick Wyse Jackson, Helen Fothergill, CamillaNichol, Steve Howe, Steve Tunnicliffe.

2. Acceptance of Minutes of the 31st AnnualGeneral Meeting held at the HancockMuseum

Agreed, with the following amendments:

Chairman’s’ Report. Paragraph 4. Amend SPNHC toNatSCA.

3. Matters arising.

None.

4. Chairman’s Report.

Circulated.

In 2005 GCG published “The State and Status ofgeological Collections in UK Museums: 2001” asGeological Curator Volume 8 No3. The reportcontains a snapshot of information relating to; thesize and nature of geological collections, staffinglevels, documentation, storage, environmentalconditions, condition of collections and servicesprovided. This is a valuable resource to draw upon, tosupport our everyday work and our championing ofgeological collections. In 2006 the aim of the groupwill be to take the findings of this report and topublicise them to a wider audience.

This year GCG has been in contact with a number ofinstitutions concerning the wellbeing of theircollections; the Department of geology at theUniversity of Leicester, the Geological Museum ofLisbon and the Fersman Museum in St Petersburg.

GCG Study Tours are still seen as a good way to learnabout the range of material that geological collectionscontain. In 2006 GCG have decided to concentrate onUK collections and our first study trip will take placein October, jointly visiting the collections at Liverpooland Manchester. May I urge as many members aspossible to attend?

The relaunch of the GCG web pages is seen as apriority for the coming year. The appearance and

content will be improved. Camilla Nichol and DaveGelsthorpe will be involved in this.

Publications remain important to the group, and weshould thank Patrick Wyse Jackson for his continuedexpertise in editing The Geological Curator. I wouldlike to encourage everyone to think of material theymay wish to include in future issues of the journal.

The abstracts of the June meeting of SPNHC areavailable free from Giles Miller at the NHM.

Back copies of The Geological Curator are housed inthe Manchester Museum. All issues are available forpurchase.

I would like to thank the following people who willbe standing down from their positions on committee:

Giles Miller who has served as Secretary for threeyears.

Sara Chambers who has served as Treasurer for twoyears, despite the challenges of travelling fromCornwall.

Our thanks go to Andrew Ross who has completed histerm on Committee, and to Phil Doughty who hasbeen our representative on the BGS CollectionsAdvisory Committee.

Report accepted.

5. Secretary’s Report.

Circulated.

Much of this year’s correspondence seems to relate tomissing copies of Geological Curator or Coprolite,duplicated standing orders and requests to disseminateinformation regarding curatorial matters. Many ofthe latter have been forwarded via the GCG listserver. I would like to make my annual plea formembers to join and contribute to the e-mail listserver. Details of how to join are available on theGCG website.

I would like to thank Dale Johnson who is co-opted torepresent GCG at the Earth Science EducationalForum (ESEF). It is a good idea for GCG to continueto be involved with this group as they have a greatdeal of lobbying power, and have good links with theAll Party Parliamentary Group on Earth Sciences atthe House of Commons. We should look in the futureto hold a collections related session of this group andto contribute to the annual meeting of ESEF.

-290-

Most work this year has been centred on the Societyfor the Preservation of Natural History Collections(SPNHC) annual conference. This was held at theNatural History Museum in July 2005. Over 200delegates attended. The first day of the conferenceincluded a day trip to the Oxford University Museumof Natural History that was organised by me, with theOxford arrangements handled by Paul Jeffery. Aspart of the main conference we also had a half daysession dedicated to Geological talks. Six speakerstook part, including two members of Committee. Iwould like to thank Helen Fothergill and PatrickWyse Jackson for getting the State and Status reportready for release at the meeting and for presentingtalks.

I am editing the conference volume, which will includefour geological papers. All GCG members thatattended will receive a copy of this volume. Abstractsare also available.

Report accepted.

6. Treasurer’s report.

Circulated, with accounts summary.

GCG reserves have decreased by £1467.67. This ispartly attributable to a slight increase in subscriptions,outstanding income due from workshops and anincrease in expenditure on publication of GeologicalCurator and Coprolite.

Additional incomes from the SPNHC meeting andGift Aid have not yet been received and so do notshow in the current accounts.

Our greatest expenditure apart from publicationsremains Committee expenses. There is a smalldecrease on last year, which is unlikely to continue asfewer “parent” institutions remain willing or areunable to financially support attendance at committeemeetings.

Grateful thanks are due to Camilla Nichol and GilesMiller who handle the majority of membership andsubscription related enquiries and so ease my jobconsiderably. I am also grateful to our auditorsCaroline Buttler and Cindy Howells for theirexamination of the accounts.

Questions from the floor.

Tom Sharpe asked about the level of Gift Aid expectedfor 2005.

The accounts figure of £1246.38 is for three years, soit is around £400 for the year. This has not yet beenclaimed.

Tom Sharpe commented that even with this included(Gift Aid) the current reserves will be the lowest fora number of years. GCG should look to recoup someincome by selling back-issues of publications, butalso think about raising subscriptions and trying toattract new members.

Giles Miller queried the figure of £127.50 for SPNHCsponsorship. This may increase due to expensesclaims.

Report agreed.

7. Programme Secretary’s Report.

Circulated.

Summary of programme for 2005.

18 -19 January 2005. GCG seminar, 31st AGM andfield trip. Planning for disaster, rescue and specimenrelocation.

Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

7 October 2005. GCG training workshop: Gemstoneidentification for Natural Science Curators.

Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

28 April 2005. GCG workshop: Identifying fossils 5,Trilobites. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.Cancelled.

16 June 2005. SPNHC conference: Realizingstandards. Natural History Museum, London.

Conference hosted by the NHM, in conjunction withThe Natural Sciences Collections Association, TheGeological Curators; Group and ICOM-CC WorkingGroup Natural History Collections.

October/November 2005. Overseas Study visit:Geological Museum, Copenhagen. Cancelled due tolack of bookings.

Forthcoming programme 2006.

26 April 2006. GCG workshop: The Curation andConservation of Rock Collections.

National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

18 - 19 May 2006. GCG seminar and field trip:Dangerous Collections. The Manchester Museum.

11 October 2006. GCG workshop: GeologicalArchives. World Museum Liverpool.

4-5 December 2006. GCG Seminar and 33rd AGM:Learning with Geology Collections. Plymouth CityMuseum and Art Gallery.

UK Study Visit - details and date to be confirmed.

-291-

There have been some attendance problems. Meetingshave been well attended, but workshops have not.Committee have agreed to publicise our programmemore widely to other groups in an attempt to boostnumbers. We are considering replacing the overseasstudy trip with one to a UK national museum. We willevaluate the success of this venture at a later date.

I would like to thank all the local organisers, speakersand workshop leaders for all their hard work.

As ever, please contact me if you have any ideas forseminar or workshop topics.

Report accepted.

8. Journal Editor’s Report.

Circulated.

Two issues of The Geological Curator were/or willbe published in 2005.

Volume 8(3) is devoted entirely to the report “TheState and Status of Geological Collections in UnitedKingdom Museums: 2001”.

Volume 8(4) should be printed in the next ten daysand contains several papers as well as a Lost andFound item, a book review and the minutes of the30th AGM.

I am grateful to Vincent Fitzpatrick and AdrienneForan of ColourBooks of Dublin who continue to doa professional job of printing The Geological Curator.I would also like to thank Matthew Parkes, mycolleagues on the GCG Committee and in TrinityCollege for their continuing support.

Mandy Edwards thanked Patrick on behalf of GCGfor his continuing work in editing The GeologicalCurator.

Report accepted.

9. Newsletter Editor’s Report.

Circulated.

2005 saw completion of the 16th year of publicationof Coprolite. Three issues were published (Numbers46, 47 and 48), in March, June and November.

Some copies posted to members have not beenreceived. I apologise if this has happened to you, andif you are missing any copies let me know. We hopethat the problem has been resolved.

For Coprolite to fulfil its roles as a newsletter, itneeds news. Any news of events, meetings,exhibitions, new acquisitions, publications, staff

changes, or anything related to geology in museumswould be very welcome.

Thanks are due to Barnes Print group in Nottinghamwho print and distribute Coprolite.

Report accepted.

10. Recorder’s Report.

State and Status Report: 2001 is now published andhas been circulated to GCG subscribers. A huge voteof thanks to Patrick Wyse Jackson for the arduoustask of reading and formatting the document to go toprint.

The abstract was been submitted to the SPNHCcommittee for the conference at the NHM in June2005 and a short presentation given about the report,its scope and its findings.

Thank you to all those who have given feedback(positive or otherwise!); without knowing what wasdone well or poorly, it is difficult to see a way ofmoving forward.

During the writing-up stage I began to realize that anumber of small museums in the South West were notincluded; presumably others across the UK weresimilarly missed. Whether they were originallycontacted or failed to respond is unknown. However,during the time when reminders were sent out, theywere certainly missed by me. This would notparticularly skew the results, but if future surveys areto be carried out, we do need to develop an up-databledatabase for museums holding geology.

I must also point out that the recommendations at theend of the report are all my own and may not besupported by GCG as an organization.

The report will now be circulated to a wider museumcommunity and further work is underway to developand implement some of the recommendations.

With the work Camilla et al are undertaking with theweb site, we plan to maintain a list of museumholding geological collections in the UK, withappropriate links to their websites.

Discussions have already started regarding the optionsavailable for the development of an online ‘specialism’database, to enable curators to make contact withresearchers working in a specific field, and forresearchers to contact museums that may hold materialof interest to them. The intention is that these‘specialists’ may be willing to visit museums forfree/for expenses/for a fee and work directly with thecurators on a small part of the collection. For examplea researcher/museum curator with expertise in the

-292-

identification of Mesozoic echinoderms may onlytake one day to work their way through one museum’sentire collection, but that would mean that theresearcher encounters material they might otherwisenever see and equally the museum can fully cataloguethose specific specimens with confidence.

Debate about this is welcome.

Report accepted.

11. Election of Officers and Committee.

The following nominations for Officers andCommittee have been received:

Nomination for Committee - Mike Howe, BritishGeological Survey.

Nomination for post of Secretary - Matthew Parkes,Geological Survey of Ireland. Proposed by GilesMiller, seconded by Tom Sharpe.

Nomination for post of Treasurer - Helen Kerbey,National Museum Wales. Proposed by Sara Chambers,seconded by Steve McLean.

All elected by those present.

12. Election of Auditors.

Current auditors are C. J. Buttler and C. Howells. Asthere has been a change of post holder it was suggestedthat the new Treasurer may wish to find othercandidates. Treasurer will report any change toCommittee at the next ordinary Committee meeting.

13. Any other business.

No matters raised.

14. Date and Venue of next AGM.

Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery. Monday 4thDecember 2006.

Meeting ended 17.15.

-293-

Annual Accounts for the period 21st December 2004 to 28th November 2005

2005 2004 2005 2004Expenditure

The Geological Curator 2671.36 2203.22Coprolite 1558.00 1348.00Seminars and workshops4 157.50 428.15Committee expenses 534.35 718.19SPNHC Sponsorship 127.50Refund of overpaid subs5 42.00Bank charges (Euro conversion) 44.55

5135.26Balance on 28.11.05 6894.60

12029.86

IncomeSubscriptions1 3504.59 4308.17Seminar and workshop fees 140.00 417.50Gift Aid3 -- 1246.38Donations 12.00Geological Curator back issues 11.00

3667.59Balance on 21.12.04 8362.27

12029.86

Notes1 Includes: £120 overpaid subscriptions yet to be refunded,£30 subs '03; £56 subs '04; £62 subs '062 Excludes SPNHC refund of £1000.00 due early 2006 andoutstanding income from Gem workshop (October)3 Gift Aid payment for 2004/5 not yet received4 Expenditure from Gem workshop (October)5 Represents partial refund of overpayments made in 2005

S. Chambers GCG Treasurer C.J. Buttler & C. Howells Auditors

28th November 2005

-294-

The Geological Curators’ Group

2007 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL/APPLICATION FORM

Please complete this form (or a photocopy of it) and return it with payment to:

John Nudds, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Manchester,Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, U.K. (e-mail: john.nudds@manchester.ac.uk)

Subscriptions from 2007:

- UK Personal Subscription £15 pounds per annum

- Overseas Personal Subscription £18/US$32/€25 per annum

- UK Institutional Subscription £20 per annum

- Overseas Institutional Subscription £22/US$40/€32 per annum

Please make all cheques and postal orders payable to the “Geological Curators'

Group”. US subscribers may remit in US $. Other overseas subscribers are asked

to make their payment in Sterling.

UK subscribers are reminded that subscriptions to The Geological Curator are tax

deductible.

Name:

Address:

Postcode:

Tel: Fax:

e-mail:

Position:

Organisation and address if different from above:

Where did you hear about us?

If you do not wish your details to be included inthis year’s membership list, please tick here

Please copy and fill in this form and return it with payment to the aboveaddress.

Thank you.