Meet Ubirajara jubatus, a newly discovered Brazilian Dinosaur with a mane

[DinoToyForum]

@dinotoyforum , I mostly agree with you.  I agree that co-authors of a paper should also be experienced so that they add value to the research.  My only issue is in that if that nation's professionals aren't really qualified, they should be brought in as an educational opportunity so that they can become the future specialists to be capable of tackling further findings.  We, in the sciences, should be trying to expand our sphere of influence, rather than trying to make it an exclusive club.  Not that I'm saying you are doing that, but we all tend to exhibit clique behavior.

Whether or not collaborators are experienced is kind of irrelevant, the point is rather that all scientists choose who they collaborate with. To a certain extent every research paper ever consists of a clique (of one or more co-authors) to the exclusion of everyone else who isn't a co-author. This isn't unique to palaeontology, or even science, and it shouldn't be characterised as a bad thing, an exclusive club. When I talk to scientists in other fields they are often surprised how much international collaboration and courtesy authorship goes on in palaeontology. Other sciences are much more competitive and 'cliquey', with research groups and individuals highly protective of their intellectual property and rushing to pip each other to the publishing post. It is somewhat regretful that universities (and museums) are run as businesses, but they are. They engage in community outreach and cross-university collaborations and so on, of course, but there is nearly always a quid-pro-quo involved.

[Martwad]

Whether or not collaborators are experienced is kind of irrelevant, the point is rather that all scientists choose who they collaborate with. To a certain extent every research paper ever consists of a clique (of one or more co-authors) to the exclusion of everyone else who isn't a co-author. This isn't unique to palaeontology, or even science, and it shouldn't be characterised as a bad thing, an exclusive club. When I talk to scientists in other fields they are often surprised how much international collaboration and courtesy authorship goes on in palaeontology. Other sciences are much more competitive and 'cliquey', with research groups and individuals highly protective of their intellectual property and rushing to pip each other to the publishing post. It is somewhat regretful that universities (and museums) are run as businesses, but they are. They engage in community outreach and cross-university collaborations and so on, of course, but there is nearly always a quid-pro-quo involved.

@dinotoyforum , the question then becomes, how much information becomes lost when nations, in this case Brazil, decide to forbid future exploration, because some entities decided the rules do not apply to them?

[DinoToyForum]

Whether or not collaborators are experienced is kind of irrelevant, the point is rather that all scientists choose who they collaborate with. To a certain extent every research paper ever consists of a clique (of one or more co-authors) to the exclusion of everyone else who isn't a co-author. This isn't unique to palaeontology, or even science, and it shouldn't be characterised as a bad thing, an exclusive club. When I talk to scientists in other fields they are often surprised how much international collaboration and courtesy authorship goes on in palaeontology. Other sciences are much more competitive and 'cliquey', with research groups and individuals highly protective of their intellectual property and rushing to pip each other to the publishing post. It is somewhat regretful that universities (and museums) are run as businesses, but they are. They engage in community outreach and cross-university collaborations and so on, of course, but there is nearly always a quid-pro-quo involved.

@dinotoyforum , the question then becomes, how much information becomes lost when nations, in this case Brazil, decide to forbid future exploration, because some entities decided the rules do not apply to them?

I think that question has to be considered in the broader context of the pros vs cons of fossil trading laws. Here's what Martill himself has to say on that topic (he's characteristically blunt):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrJ5k7HAlnw

I honestly can't decide what to conclude other than it's complicated.

[DinoToyForum]

Here's an article in ScienceMag covering the ethics surrounding this specimen: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/chicken-size-dino-furlike-mane-stirs-ethics-debate

It suggests that the State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe is looking at options for eventually returning the specimen to its country of origin.

[Ikessauro]

Was this specimen really "illegally smuggled out of Brazil"? The paper states:

"It was obtained from a stone quarry...[in]...Brazil and brought to Germany along with scientific samples in 1995 in accordance with the decree law No. 4146 from the 4th of March 1942. Authorisation for specimen export was granted on 1st February 1995 by an agent of the Crato office of the DNPM (Departamento Nacional de Produçao Mineral). The specimen is housed in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Erbprinzenstrabe 13, D-76133 Karlsruhe, Germany (SMNK), and is available on request."

Which sounds legit. But is it more complicated than that?

@dinotoyforum Let me clarify that. It is not legit as it may sound. Brazilian law states that since 1942 no fossils from Brazilian origin can be sold within the country nor exported, in any way or form. In case a fossil needs to be sent out of the country for study it must be a loan, with the proper paperwork. After that it must return to the country.

There is no real document authorizing the export of the specimen in 1995, because such a document would be agains the law in the first place.  The "document" shown by the authors state that Frey was allowed to transport one or two crates, not specifying what fossils they contain. Also, the person who signed the paper authorizing the transport of fossils was later convicted as a corrupt agent who frequently help smuglers to break the law, not only for fossils but gemstones too.

That document has no value, it's a single piece of paper signed by a corrupt government employee that had no authority to overule a law. Simple as that. No single employee of the back then Departamento Nacional de Produçao Mineral had the authority to allow permanent export of fossils.

It's not just about not including Brazilian researchers in the paper. Martill has been more than vocal several times, in a really unpolite (to say the least) manner toward Brazilian researchers and institutions. Also he completely disregarded Brazilian law several times in taking fossils out of the country, which were never returned.

[Ikessauro]

Amongst other things, Brazilian law seems to indicate that whenever a type specimen from Brazil is formally erected as a new species, a Brazilian paleontologist must be involved in writing the paper. On Twitter many Brazilian palaeontologists have cited the law, as well as other legal requirements. There are many other things I could say, but since many people here are personally acquainted with the authors just to avoid ill feelings I will forbear

That is not fully accurate. There is no rule or law stating that a Brazilian paleontologist MUST be involved in papers on Brazilian fossils. What is suggested is that instead of coming down here, taking all the best fossils and going away with them, it would be best if the foreign researchers supported Brazilian institutions, respected them and in a partnership collected fossils for study. If in the end if they need to take the fossil out of the country for study, they could arrange for a loan permission to be granted. After the study is concluded, they could return the fossils to Brazil. It not obligatory to have a Brazilian scientist in the paper.

[Ikessauro]

Whether or not collaborators are experienced is kind of irrelevant, the point is rather that all scientists choose who they collaborate with. To a certain extent every research paper ever consists of a clique (of one or more co-authors) to the exclusion of everyone else who isn't a co-author. This isn't unique to palaeontology, or even science, and it shouldn't be characterised as a bad thing, an exclusive club. When I talk to scientists in other fields they are often surprised how much international collaboration and courtesy authorship goes on in palaeontology. Other sciences are much more competitive and 'cliquey', with research groups and individuals highly protective of their intellectual property and rushing to pip each other to the publishing post. It is somewhat regretful that universities (and museums) are run as businesses, but they are. They engage in community outreach and cross-university collaborations and so on, of course, but there is nearly always a quid-pro-quo involved.

@dinotoyforum , the question then becomes, how much information becomes lost when nations, in this case Brazil, decide to forbid future exploration, because some entities decided the rules do not apply to them?

Brazil is not completely forbbidding fossil exploration. It just needs to be done within the law. Why is that so hard to understand. Brazilian paleontologists and institutions would be more than happy to receive foreign researchers to collaborate in field work, research. We just ask that in the end the fossils stay in Brazil, so the people can see them, learn from them, get educated about the fossil treasures from our home land. We are also alowed to appreciate them, are we not? Or is it a privilege of "first world countries"?

[Ikessauro]

[I'm probably experiencing this from a position of privilege and not seeing the full picture, but my feeling is that the ethics of this is all a little messier and less clear-cut than the commentary on Twitter makes out.

I agree with you on that. You are seeing it from a privileged position. People have been collecting fossils in your country for a lot longer than here. Uk was the birth place of paleontology, it had a chance to build incredible museums, collections and do scientific research way before that would happen in Brazil. Also, nowadays English is the standard Scientific language globaly, so you grew up speaking that you are already ahead in the competition.
You come from a country with a lot more tradition in the field, you invented it afterall, you guys had better resources, financially and also in influence, to curate impressive collections and do wonderful research.

So when you are born in a country like that, you can go to museums and see impressive skeletons of hundreds of dinosaurs, marine reptiles and so many more just a few hours away from you home. Do you think Brazilians have the same opportunity? I am an obcessive person regarding paleontology and the first time I saw a dinosaur skeleton mounted in a museum I was already 23 years old or so. And it was not a real fossil, just a sculpted replica. After that I never again visited a museum.

If you want to become a paleontologist and study fossils, you not only can study lots of british fossils near you, but you can do it in a neighbour country like Germany (which is close). Having more financial resources (both personal and from your research institution) makes travelling to study a lot easier.

Now, think about someone in Brazil, dreaming of becoming a paleontologist. Finding out that despite the huge size of our country, you can't find many museums or institutions to work on. How do you fix that? Having way worse financial power we have to go all the way across the world to see a Brazilian fossil. Not all manage to do it. Few are the ones that succeed in the journey of becoming an acomplished paleontologist here.

Is that because Brazilians are incompetent? I don't think so. Brazilians, despite their difficulties, are doing top quality studies. Even with way less resources than American and European researchers. You have to do that to justify asking for research financing from the government.

Will the government invest in a brand new Natural History Museum to store a few scraps of bone? That would be a hard conversation, trying to convince politicians to allow such expense.

But when the museum actually has good quality fossils, that atract attention, it creates tourism opportunities, generates income for people around the museum (hotel owners, restaurants, etc) and bring positive attention to research institutions. Then it becomes much easier to get funds for reasearch when we have Brazilian fossils to take care of and research on.

Foreign researchers would be more than welcome to come visit and study them.  But that doesn't happen.

Because all the best fossils are smuggled out of the country to be curated in a huge museums in Europe, Asia or North America.

[DinoToyForum]

[I'm probably experiencing this from a position of privilege and not seeing the full picture, but my feeling is that the ethics of this is all a little messier and less clear-cut than the commentary on Twitter makes out.

I agree with you on that. You are seeing it from a privileged position. People have been collecting fossils in your country for a lot longer than here. Uk was the birth place of paleontology, it had a chance to build incredible museums, collections and do scientific research way before that would happen in Brazil. Also, nowadays English is the standard Scientific language globaly, so you grew up speaking that you are already ahead in the competition.
You come from a country with a lot more tradition in the field, you invented it afterall, you guys had better resources, financially and also in influence, to curate impressive collections and do wonderful research.

So when you are born in a country like that, you can go to museums and see impressive skeletons of hundreds of dinosaurs, marine reptiles and so many more just a few hours away from you home. Do you think Brazilians have the same opportunity? I am an obcessive person regarding paleontology and the first time I saw a dinosaur skeleton mounted in a museum I was already 23 years old or so. And it was not a real fossil, just a sculpted replica. After that I never again visited a museum.

If you want to become a paleontologist and study fossils, you not only can study lots of british fossils near you, but you can do it in a neighbour country like Germany (which is close). Having more financial resources (both personal and from your research institution) makes travelling to study a lot easier.

Now, think about someone in Brazil, dreaming of becoming a paleontologist. Finding out that despite the huge size of our country, you can't find many museums or institutions to work on. How do you fix that? Having way worse financial power we have to go all the way across the world to see a Brazilian fossil. Not all manage to do it. Few are the ones that succeed in the journey of becoming an acomplished paleontologist here.

Is that because Brazilians are incompetent? I don't think so. Brazilians, despite their difficulties, are doing top quality studies. Even with way less resources than American and European researchers. You have to do that to justify asking for research financing from the government.

Will the government invest in a brand new Natural History Museum to store a few scraps of bone? That would be a hard conversation, trying to convince politicians to allow such expense.

But when the museum actually has good quality fossils, that atract attention, it creates tourism opportunities, generates income for people around the museum (hotel owners, restaurants, etc) and bring positive attention to research institutions. Then it becomes much easier to get funds for reasearch when we have Brazilian fossils to take care of and research on.

Foreign researchers would be more than welcome to come visit and study them.  But that doesn't happen.

Because all the best fossils are smuggled out of the country to be curated in a huge museums in Europe, Asia or North America.

Thanks for spelling it out and helping me to understand. 

[Martwad]

Whether or not collaborators are experienced is kind of irrelevant, the point is rather that all scientists choose who they collaborate with. To a certain extent every research paper ever consists of a clique (of one or more co-authors) to the exclusion of everyone else who isn't a co-author. This isn't unique to palaeontology, or even science, and it shouldn't be characterised as a bad thing, an exclusive club. When I talk to scientists in other fields they are often surprised how much international collaboration and courtesy authorship goes on in palaeontology. Other sciences are much more competitive and 'cliquey', with research groups and individuals highly protective of their intellectual property and rushing to pip each other to the publishing post. It is somewhat regretful that universities (and museums) are run as businesses, but they are. They engage in community outreach and cross-university collaborations and so on, of course, but there is nearly always a quid-pro-quo involved.

@dinotoyforum , the question then becomes, how much information becomes lost when nations, in this case Brazil, decide to forbid future exploration, because some entities decided the rules do not apply to them?

Brazil is not completely forbbidding fossil exploration. It just needs to be done within the law. Why is that so hard to understand. Brazilian paleontologists and institutions would be more than happy to receive foreign researchers to collaborate in field work, research. We just ask that in the end the fossils stay in Brazil, so the people can see them, learn from them, get educated about the fossil treasures from our home land. We are also alowed to appreciate them, are we not? Or is it a privilege of "first world countries"?

@Ikessauro , my statement wasn't to say that Brazil forbids paleontological research entirely.  I was stating that the unethical actions of one individual has consequences that reach beyond that individual.  Obviously, a person is not going to be invited back to do it again, after they have already skirted a nation's laws and exploited their resources, but that also can make a nation leery of allowing others to come if they believe those entities are going have the same lack of care regarding their laws.

[DinoToyForum]

Was this specimen really "illegally smuggled out of Brazil"? The paper states:

"It was obtained from a stone quarry...[in]...Brazil and brought to Germany along with scientific samples in 1995 in accordance with the decree law No. 4146 from the 4th of March 1942. Authorisation for specimen export was granted on 1st February 1995 by an agent of the Crato office of the DNPM (Departamento Nacional de Produçao Mineral). The specimen is housed in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Erbprinzenstrabe 13, D-76133 Karlsruhe, Germany (SMNK), and is available on request."

Which sounds legit. But is it more complicated than that?

@dinotoyforum Let me clarify that. It is not legit as it may sound. Brazilian law states that since 1942 no fossils from Brazilian origin can be sold within the country nor exported, in any way or form. In case a fossil needs to be sent out of the country for study it must be a loan, with the proper paperwork. After that it must return to the country.

There is no real document authorizing the export of the specimen in 1995, because such a document would be agains the law in the first place.  The "document" shown by the authors state that Frey was allowed to transport one or two crates, not specifying what fossils they contain. Also, the person who signed the paper authorizing the transport of fossils was later convicted as a corrupt agent who frequently help smuglers to break the law, not only for fossils but gemstones too.

That document has no value, it's a single piece of paper signed by a corrupt government employee that had no authority to overule a law. Simple as that. No single employee of the back then Departamento Nacional de Produçao Mineral had the authority to allow permanent export of fossils.

It's not just about not including Brazilian researchers in the paper. Martill has been more than vocal several times, in a really unpolite (to say the least) manner toward Brazilian researchers and institutions. Also he completely disregarded Brazilian law several times in taking fossils out of the country, which were never returned.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case the quoted part of the paper is misleading. Even if the specimen was brought to Germany legitimately (which it wasn't), the authors are conflating the legality of the specimen leaving Brazil temporarily for study, with the legality of the specimen being purchased for permanent repository outside of Brazil.

[DinoToyForum]

Amongst other things, Brazilian law seems to indicate that whenever a type specimen from Brazil is formally erected as a new species, a Brazilian paleontologist must be involved in writing the paper. On Twitter many Brazilian palaeontologists have cited the law, as well as other legal requirements. There are many other things I could say, but since many people here are personally acquainted with the authors just to avoid ill feelings I will forbear

That is not fully accurate. There is no rule or law stating that a Brazilian paleontologist MUST be involved in papers on Brazilian fossils. What is suggested is that instead of coming down here, taking all the best fossils and going away with them, it would be best if the foreign researchers supported Brazilian institutions, respected them and in a partnership collected fossils for study. If in the end if they need to take the fossil out of the country for study, they could arrange for a loan permission to be granted. After the study is concluded, they could return the fossils to Brazil. It not obligatory to have a Brazilian scientist in the paper.

That's unquestionably and entirely reasonable. And I'm not surprised the claim that a Brazilian co-author must be included is false.

[stargatedalek]

Amongst other things, Brazilian law seems to indicate that whenever a type specimen from Brazil is formally erected as a new species, a Brazilian paleontologist must be involved in writing the paper. On Twitter many Brazilian palaeontologists have cited the law, as well as other legal requirements. There are many other things I could say, but since many people here are personally acquainted with the authors just to avoid ill feelings I will forbear

While I am by no means a fan of Martill (see; the very nasty quote from him earlier in this thread, which I do recall reading before), this comes across as incredibly draconian to me.

Can you imagine Canada, China or the US doing this? With how many hadrosaur and ceratopsian fossils there are floating around shuffling species and genus names every other year it would be pandemonium to try and arrange for someone from a given place a fossil was originally from to absolutely be there for that fossil being reassigned as a new species. Think of the headaches Edmontosaurus et al alone would cause.

I'm all for proper credit and recognition being given to the peoples whose land the fossils were found on. This is something we've only just started doing for fossils from Native American land and it's something worth taking the time and effort to normalize and encourage. And a papers authors going out of their way to get a co-author who can represent the local peoples of the region a fossil is originally from is a great gesture, whether or not they add something to the research itself at all.

But for a government to go and mandate that someone from their country be there, to try and micromanage researchers in another country, frankly I think that's pretty shady.

There is a point where it's not productive anymore, where it just devolves into a shouting match. And it feels well past that point here to try and pick fights over a fossil that was removed decades ago and has only now been thoroughly studied and recognized as a new species*.

Besides, it's not like I've ever seen a Brazilian paper citing the native peoples whose land the fossils were found on. Clearly this is something we can all do better on.

*Frankly, can we be a little more angry about that? How long has this material gone without preparation that it could have been among the first feathered dinosaurs known and is only now getting published at all?



As for Ubirajara itself, I'm highly skeptical of this reconstruction and its various copy cats. For one, how do we know these strange feathers were used for display? They could have had a sensory function like whiskers, the placement on the body makes sense for it. And we don't have the animals head or feet preserved, it may well have been nocturnal or even hunted prey in burrows.

Assuming these were display structures, why stick with just these two on each side? Yes only two are preserved, but this body is pretty horribly mangled, and no one is drawing the poor thing without a head. It would be more realistic to include more of them as we see with similar structures in birds. But everyone is taking four plumes as absolute gospel.

[Crackington]

 Sorry @stargatedalek , but didn't @Ikessauro, who is from Brazil, state that it wasn't actually a law that a Brazilian palaeontologist had to be involved in describing fossils from that country?

I thought his earlier posts were very well written and got across how difficult things are in his country for paleontologists. It doesn't seem right if other countries "borrow" fossils but then never return them.

[stargatedalek]

Sorry @stargatedalek , but didn't @Ikessauro, who is from Brazil, state that it wasn't actually a law that a Brazilian palaeontologist had to be involved in describing fossils from that country?

I thought his earlier posts were very well written and got across how difficult things are in his country for paleontologists. It doesn't seem right if other countries "borrow" fossils but then never return them.

I was replying to the idea and sentiment that that would even be a law.

[Crackington]

Fair enough @stargatedalek ....

Agree with you too about the fossils being taken from indigenous peoples' land without acknowledgement. Now there's an area that laws do need to be tightened in the right way.

[Ikessauro]

Regarding the lack of recognition for the people in which the  fossils were found on, in Brazil paleontologists do recognize that. Where do you think all these names come from? Oxalaia, Tupandactylus, Tapejara, Caiuajara, Angaturama. Most of them come from Indigenous languages from people in Brazil. When a fossil is not found in indigenous land, but in private land, usually the land owner ends up getting honored in the naming of the animal. Fossils I worked on during my undergrad were from the pterosaur Caiuajara dobruskii. Named after the man who found them first and the name also somes from indigenous languages.

In Brazil when you buy land, you only own the surface land (not sure how that works on other countries). Whatever lies underground, belongs to the country, and can only be explored with further authorizations that involve taxes and such.
For example, if you own a farm, you can do whatever you like on it, as long it's in the surface. Agriculture, animal farming etc.

But, if you plan on open a mine to dig for gemstones, or extract oil from an underground deposit or whatever you can think of, you will need to "buy", or better yet, "rent" the underground from the governement. It's a concession, getting permissions to implement mining operations. Of course, there is money involved in this. You can't just get this for free, so you pay to have those permits.

This includes mining operations on fossil rich deposits. But since Brazilian fossils can't, by law, be private property here, in this case they MUST be donated to study, either to a museum or university or even the National Mining Agency, which will house the specimens for future research. So if a fossil site is located in a private property, the fossils must be colected safely, before the land owner can do anything in that place.

As for the fossil being in preparation for 25 years and not being recognized as a feathered dinosaur, do you actually believe that? Even the most clueless undergrad student given the opportunity to look at that fossil, would easily notice it is something unique and important.

Either that fossil came out of Brazil recently and the authors are pretending it came out of the country in 1995 or it actually was smugled back then and stored, not described earlier out of caution that it would indeed cause all this problem to the authors.

Considering that Martill doesn't give a c%&p  about what Brazilian paleontologists think about him, also being famous for defending fossil commerce from Brazil and everywhere else, not caring about laws, I think this fossil would have been published a lot earlier if it actually had been exported from Brazil in 95.

It probably is a illegal recent export. They just used that bogus document to justify publishing it, since it's the first feathered dino from gondwana.

[Piltdown 龍]

Wonderful. This is what I get for trying to clarify matters, ending up being a piñata for all sides to bash.   

[DinoToyForum]

Wonderful. This is what I get for trying to clarify matters, ending up being a piñata for all sides to bash.   

Nope, what you got from trying to clarify matters was further clarification leading to overwhelming agreement. It was important that you raised the ethical issue in the first place.

[stargatedalek]

Besides, it's not like I've ever seen a Brazilian paper citing the native peoples whose land the fossils were found on. Clearly this is something we can all do better on.

*Frankly, can we be a little more angry about that? How long has this material gone without preparation that it could have been among the first feathered dinosaurs known and is only now getting published at all?

Regarding the lack of recognition for the people in which the  fossils were found on, in Brazil paleontologists do recognize that. Where do you think all these names come from? Oxalaia, Tupandactylus, Tapejara, Caiuajara, Angaturama. Most of them come from Indigenous languages from people in Brazil. When a fossil is not found in indigenous land, but in private land, usually the land owner ends up getting honored in the naming of the animal. Fossils I worked on during my undergrad were from the pterosaur Caiuajara dobruskii. Named after the man who found them first and the name also somes from indigenous languages.

In Brazil when you buy land, you only own the surface land (not sure how that works on other countries). Whatever lies underground, belongs to the country, and can only be explored with further authorizations that involve taxes and such.
For example, if you own a farm, you can do whatever you like on it, as long it's in the surface. Agriculture, animal farming etc.

But, if you plan on open a mine to dig for gemstones, or extract oil from an underground deposit or whatever you can think of, you will need to "buy", or better yet, "rent" the underground from the governement. It's a concession, getting permissions to implement mining operations. Of course, there is money involved in this. You can't just get this for free, so you pay to have those permits.

This includes mining operations on fossil rich deposits. But since Brazilian fossils can't, by law, be private property here, in this case they MUST be donated to study, either to a museum or university or even the National Mining Agency, which will house the specimens for future research. So if a fossil site is located in a private property, the fossils must be colected safely, before the land owner can do anything in that place.

As for the fossil being in preparation for 25 years and not being recognized as a feathered dinosaur, do you actually believe that? Even the most clueless undergrad student given the opportunity to look at that fossil, would easily notice it is something unique and important.

Either that fossil came out of Brazil recently and the authors are pretending it came out of the country in 1995 or it actually was smugled back then and stored, not described earlier out of caution that it would indeed cause all this problem to the authors.

Considering that Martill doesn't give a c%&p  about what Brazilian paleontologists think about him, also being famous for defending fossil commerce from Brazil and everywhere else, not caring about laws, I think this fossil would have been published a lot earlier if it actually had been exported from Brazil in 95.

It probably is a illegal recent export. They just used that bogus document to justify publishing it, since it's the first feathered dino from gondwana.

I would argue incorporating words from local language or mythology is very different from explicitly crediting local peoples for the land the fossils were found on (and no, the Brazilian government saying they own the soil beneath the land is not relevant when we are talking about the land of people who were there thousands of years before the Portuguese let alone the founding of Brazil). But this is a topic of another form to enter in any more detail.

But as for the idea that it was stored all this time, I can name a few high profile paleontologists just off the top of my head who keep veritable warehouses full of fossils locked away for decades without sharing let alone publishing on them. Some of them are current rock stars of their industry. While it enrages me to no end it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that this would have been locked away completely regardless of the potential ethics surrounding it.