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

[DinoToyForum]

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.

In Brazil, does this law absolutely apply to all fossils, even unimportant and extremely common ones, as you say? And fossiliferous rocks? Fossil fuel? Is there a definition?

When you say "MUST be donated to study", do you mean that literally? Or do you mean that fossils MUST NOT be sold or privately owned. In other words, can fossils be legally left in the ground or destroyed? (I'm not saying that's what happens, I'm just trying to understand the law).

I find this so very interesting, and difficult to wrap my head around, because it is rather different to the situation in the UK. Part of what fostered my passion for palaeontology as a child was when my dad took me fossil hunting. I pestered him to take me to places like Lyme Regis, and Wren's Nest, where fossils are so abundant you are guaranteed to find something. But every one we founds is special, and I neatly curated my collection at home. I still have it. As a teenager, in 1996, I wrote a report on my collection and submitted it to a national competition organised by the Geological Society. I received a runner up prize and much encouragement to follow my passion for fossils as a career. And here we are now, I'm a palaeontologist and a curator.

I collected fossils primarily to learn, secondarily to own (we're all collectors here, we understand that mentality!), but certainly not to make money. I never found an 'important' fossil. Personally, I would have donated such a discovery to a museum. I realise not every private collector would.

Now, I try to imagine if owning fossils in the UK was completely illegal. I clearly wouldn't have collected fossils as a child, so would my passion for palaeontology have been discouraged or quashed at an early age, replaced by something else that my dad could support with without breaking the law? What about all the other children like me and their trajectories into palaeontology? And how would this impact on the field of palaeontology nationally? Not just the number of people entering into it, but what about all those fossils, mostly unimportant, but also important ones, that remained uncollected in the ground or cliff face, rolled out to sea or eroded? If the purpose of a blanket ban is to protect a country's natural heritage then such a strict policy might risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater? If there's a rationale behind it maybe you can help me to understand.

I'm just talking about domestic policy here. I think we're all in agreement now about international trade.

( @Ikessauro Sorry, I accidentally clicked modify instead of reply to one of your posts above. I think I fixed it but sorry if I mucked anything up.) 

[DinoToyForum]

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.

There are many many more fossils than palaeontologists have the capacity to work on. This is the overriding reason why fossils, even significant ones, often remain in museum collections, sometimes unlooked at, for decades prior to publication. Also, the research and publication process is necessarily slooooow, especially if we want to do a good job.

[Ikessauro]

In Brazil, does this law absolutely apply to all fossils, even unimportant and extremely common ones, as you say? And fossiliferous rocks? Fossil fuel? Is there a definition?

When you say "MUST be donated to study", do you mean that literally? Or do you mean that fossils MUST NOT be sold or privately owned. In other words, can fossils be legally left in the ground or destroyed? (I'm not saying that's what happens, I'm just trying to understand the law).

I'm just talking about domestic policy here. I think we're all in agreement now about international trade.

( @Ikessauro Sorry, I accidentally clicked modify instead of reply to one of your posts above. I think I fixed it but sorry if I mucked anything up.)

Yes, even the most common fossils can't be sold here. But doesn't mean the government is actively throwing every person that posesses a fossil in jail or charging them fines. The government simply doesn't pay that much attention. It's a large country after all. So lots of people who live near fossil rich rocks end up having fossils at home. But if you want to get technical, even the most common Dastilbe fish from the crato formation couldn't be sold legally. Even though lots of museums overseas offer them as souveniers in their gift shops.

There are paleontologists here that debate wether or not we should come up with a new law, allowing controlled commerce of fossils, but given how much socioeconomic problems we have, eventually the ideia seems to risky for a big number of reasons.

First of all, if we allow commerce, no research institution here will ever be able to study anything significant. Universities and Museums don't have the kind of cash people want for high quality fossils. How much would a fossil like Ubirajara be sold for? Maybe a few hundred thousand dollars? Who knows. But in the end that would make important fossils unavailable to study. 

Also, commerce would probably make people more inclined to collect fossils fast to sell it, leading to people break important fossils in the process due to the lack of propper training in collecting.

Also this encourages fakery, like what happened to Irritator. People will want more money, so they will try to make fossils look better whoever they can, be either sculpting parts of it, painting fake structures or even glueing parts of different animals together.

Anyway, there are more things to consider, it is a very complex situation.

Regarding the fossils being left in the ground or destroyed. As long as the fossil has not been discovered, there is no law saying they must be extracted and saved. But once someone finds it, they should be properly collected. But that doesn't mean they always are.

Sometimes fossils are left to erode, either because no expert on the subject ever found them. Common people might know of their existance, but not realize their importance, and just leave them there. That happened to the Caiuajara site in the seventies. The man who noticed the fossils and recognized their importance tried to tell someone, a researcher, but he was a simple man, with not many resources to reach a paleontologist. He did his best, but unfortunatelly he didn't succeed. The site was not recognized untill 2012, when someone with the proper knowledge saw the fossils. But once the discovery was made, everything has been done to guarantee the correct collection and study of the fossils.

The only cases I am aware of fossils being "legally destroyed" here is of an oil plant from Petrobrás. Near from where I live there is a rich oil shale deposit dated from the permian. Usually fossils of mesosaurs are found in these rocks. The rocks are extracted and ground up to extract the oil in them, and I am pretty sure many fossils are destroyed in the process.

But since the rocks are very soft, brittle and decompose fast if exposed to oxygen, the fossils found there do not last long if they are not subject of some treatment to preserve them. This makes it hard keeping them for research and since so many mesosaur fossils are known, I guess the don't care if they are destroying them because of their abundance.

I do not agree with the idea of grinding up fossils to extract oil, but I don't see that changing unless oil becomes an absolete form or energy.

Also, in the crato region people use the calcareous limestone as floor tiles, to pave sidewalks, backyards or whatever they feel like. It's treated as an ornamental stone. That is why there are so many extraction sites. But it is not common for large and impressive fossils to be destroyed in this industry, as far as I know, only some small dastilbe fish end up in sidewalks or up a wall.

[DinoToyForum]

In Brazil, does this law absolutely apply to all fossils, even unimportant and extremely common ones, as you say? And fossiliferous rocks? Fossil fuel? Is there a definition?

When you say "MUST be donated to study", do you mean that literally? Or do you mean that fossils MUST NOT be sold or privately owned. In other words, can fossils be legally left in the ground or destroyed? (I'm not saying that's what happens, I'm just trying to understand the law).

I'm just talking about domestic policy here. I think we're all in agreement now about international trade.

( @Ikessauro Sorry, I accidentally clicked modify instead of reply to one of your posts above. I think I fixed it but sorry if I mucked anything up.)

Yes, even the most common fossils can't be sold here. But doesn't mean the government is actively throwing every person that posesses a fossil in jail or charging them fines. The government simply doesn't pay that much attention. It's a large country after all. So lots of people who live near fossil rich rocks end up having fossils at home. But if you want to get technical, even the most common Dastilbe fish from the crato formation couldn't be sold legally. Even though lots of museums overseas offer them as souveniers in their gift shops.

There are paleontologists here that debate wether or not we should come up with a new law, allowing controlled commerce of fossils, but given how much socioeconomic problems we have, eventually the ideia seems to risky for a big number of reasons.

First of all, if we allow commerce, no research institution here will ever be able to study anything significant. Universities and Museums don't have the kind of cash people want for high quality fossils. How much would a fossil like Ubirajara be sold for? Maybe a few hundred thousand dollars? Who knows. But in the end that would make important fossils unavailable to study. 

Also, commerce would probably make people more inclined to collect fossils fast to sell it, leading to people break important fossils in the process due to the lack of propper training in collecting.

Also this encourages fakery, like what happened to Irritator. People will want more money, so they will try to make fossils look better whoever they can, be either sculpting parts of it, painting fake structures or even glueing parts of different animals together.

Anyway, there are more things to consider, it is a very complex situation.

Regarding the fossils being left in the ground or destroyed. As long as the fossil has not been discovered, there is no law saying they must be extracted and saved. But once someone finds it, they should be properly collected. But that doesn't mean they always are.

Sometimes fossils are left to erode, either because no expert on the subject ever found them. Common people might know of their existance, but not realize their importance, and just leave them there. That happened to the Caiuajara site in the seventies. The man who noticed the fossils and recognized their importance tried to tell someone, a researcher, but he was a simple man, with not many resources to reach a paleontologist. He did his best, but unfortunatelly he didn't succeed. The site was not recognized untill 2012, when someone with the proper knowledge saw the fossils. But once the discovery was made, everything has been done to guarantee the correct collection and study of the fossils.

The only cases I am aware of fossils being "legally destroyed" here is of an oil plant from Petrobrás. Near from where I live there is a rich oil shale deposit dated from the permian. Usually fossils of mesosaurs are found in these rocks. The rocks are extracted and ground up to extract the oil in them, and I am pretty sure many fossils are destroyed in the process.

But since the rocks are very soft, brittle and decompose fast if exposed to oxygen, the fossils found there do not last long if they are not subject of some treatment to preserve them. This makes it hard keeping them for research and since so many mesosaur fossils are known, I guess the don't care if they are destroying them because of their abundance.

I do not agree with the idea of grinding up fossils to extract oil, but I don't see that changing unless oil becomes an absolete form or energy.

Also, in the crato region people use the calcareous limestone as floor tiles, to pave sidewalks, backyards or whatever they feel like. It's treated as an ornamental stone. That is why there are so many extraction sites. But it is not common for large and impressive fossils to be destroyed in this industry, as far as I know, only some small dastilbe fish end up in sidewalks or up a wall.

Yes, it is a complex situation.

By the way, I wasn't thinking of fish when I mentioned common fossils! I was thinking more of fragments of corals, bits of brachiopods, scrappy plant remains, tiny forams and other microfossils. The sort of things that even the most committed fossil collector generally leaves behind because they are available in their millions and, in some cases, actually make up the main body of the rock anyway.

In China, my understanding is that the fossil law makes a distinction between vertebrates (no permanent trade whatsoever) and invertebrates (trade allowed). That's hugely simplified and by no means ideal, but at least there is some recognition of the principle that some fossils are more important than others.

You said: "How much would a fossil like Ubirajara be sold for? Maybe a few hundred thousand dollars? Who knows. But in the end that would make important fossils unavailable to study. "

It really depends who finds it. If fossil collecting was legal and easy within Brazil and you found a specimen like Ubirajara, what would you do with it? I think I know, because you're like me, passionate about dinosaurs. In the UK, great specimens get donated to museums all the time. Sure, many get sold, either to museums that can afford it, or go into private collections directly or by sale. That's regretful, but even taking that loss into account, the situation overall would seem to be a net win for museums and science.

"But it is not common for large and impressive fossils to be destroyed in this industry, as far as I know,"

I don't know, either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ubirajara-quality fossils were inadvertently destroyed every week. This is a global reality since most quarries are mechanised on a grand scale.

I want to be clear, I don't know what the best solution is, as you say it is very complex and there are so many factors to consider. And so many unknowns. So I'm really grateful to you for taking the time to talk about it.

[Faelrin]

I guess the issues raised during the discussion on this thread are getting mainstream attention now. Nat geo published an article about it:

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/2020/12/one-of-a-kind-dinosaur-removed-from-brazil-sparks-legal-investigation

[stargatedalek]

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.

There are many many more fossils than palaeontologists have the capacity to work on. This is the overriding reason why fossils, even significant ones, often remain in museum collections, sometimes unlooked at, for decades prior to publication. Also, the research and publication process is necessarily slooooow, especially if we want to do a good job.

And there are many more assistants, interns, grad students, or in the rare example it's already known to contain something noteworthy but the describing paleontologist doesn't have the time to prepare it, private professional preparators, that could at least be doing the bulk of matrix removal, cataloguing, photography, and early identification.

I'm not talking about fossils lying barely noticed in large sections of matrix in museum storage. I'm talking about "private" (though oftentimes still housed in museum property) warehouses (or wings of warehouses) full of typically already excavated fossils that the discoverer simply can't be bothered to publish or report on when they could instead be going out looking for more, and yet also refuses to let anyone else go public with the information, let alone publish. One prominent example is the man who only revealed events surrounding a certain aquatic large theropod after others made him, twice.

Basically I'm saying you-probably-know-who-by-this-point needs a ghost writer to publish his stuff so it actually becomes available to the public. And I would not be surprised to learn Martill was doing something similar that led to this fossil sitting around untouched for almost three decades. In no small part because, again, that quote.

[suspsy]

Christopher Brochu just posted an excellent statement on his Facebook:

Many countries put strict regulations on the collection and sale of fossils.  These vary from country to country, and may vary within a country among states/provinces.  In the US, collection of fossils on private land is more or less unregulated, except when property rights disputes arise.  On federal land, you need a permit, and you can't sell fossils collected from federal land if you have one.  Alberta has very strict laws, basically making it illegal to take vertebrate fossils (not sure if this applies to invertebrates) out of the province.

Other countries more or less prohibit the export of fossils from the country.  The fossils are seen as the country's patrimony, and they belong in the country where they were found.  Many such countries are in the developing world, where memories of what we Yanks might call "educated professionals of means" and the rest of the world would call "colonial powers" collected fossils from their overseas territories and sent them back to the mother country.  This is why, when I describe a new crocodile from East Africa, I'm going to spend almost as much time in London, Paris, and Berlin as I am in Nairobi, Kampala, or Arusha.  They no longer want the treasures of their lands looted.

There are all kinds of debates to be had about whether fossils should be sold on the open market, whether conditions in local museums are adequate for housing this material, and so on.  But the bottom line is this - if a country says you can't take fossils out, you don't take the fossils out.  Full stop.

I really, really don't get the notion that shipping fossils overseas is necessary for promoting research.  It would certainly be more convenient to me if crocodiles from the Lake Turkana Basin were kept at the Field Museum in Chicago, but (a) they're from Kenya, (b) they were collected largely by Kenyans, (c) collections facilities in Kenya are perfectly good for conserving the fossils and facilitating visitor research, (d) going there means I get to see some really cool parts of the world, and (e) it also means collaborating with some excellent people in these countries.

The same is true for Brazil, where the dinosaur at the center of this controversy was found.  Fossils collected in Brazil after a certain date are supposed to stay in Brazil, and papers describing them are supposed to include a Brazilian author.  This fossil was collected after that date, and none of the authors was Brazilian.  Even though there are perfectly good museums in Brazil and a growing community of excellent paleontologists.  (In fact, at this moment in time, the largest number of crocodyliform systematists in the world is to be found in Brazil; these are all very good friends who do amazing work.) 

I don't know what efforts were needed to get Cretaceous Research to pull the article down, but they did the right thing.

[Martwad]

Christopher Brochu just posted an excellent statement on his Facebook:

Many countries put strict regulations on the collection and sale of fossils.  These vary from country to country, and may vary within a country among states/provinces.  In the US, collection of fossils on private land is more or less unregulated, except when property rights disputes arise.  On federal land, you need a permit, and you can't sell fossils collected from federal land if you have one.  Alberta has very strict laws, basically making it illegal to take vertebrate fossils (not sure if this applies to invertebrates) out of the province.

Other countries more or less prohibit the export of fossils from the country.  The fossils are seen as the country's patrimony, and they belong in the country where they were found.  Many such countries are in the developing world, where memories of what we Yanks might call "educated professionals of means" and the rest of the world would call "colonial powers" collected fossils from their overseas territories and sent them back to the mother country.  This is why, when I describe a new crocodile from East Africa, I'm going to spend almost as much time in London, Paris, and Berlin as I am in Nairobi, Kampala, or Arusha.  They no longer want the treasures of their lands looted.

There are all kinds of debates to be had about whether fossils should be sold on the open market, whether conditions in local museums are adequate for housing this material, and so on.  But the bottom line is this - if a country says you can't take fossils out, you don't take the fossils out.  Full stop.

I really, really don't get the notion that shipping fossils overseas is necessary for promoting research.  It would certainly be more convenient to me if crocodiles from the Lake Turkana Basin were kept at the Field Museum in Chicago, but (a) they're from Kenya, (b) they were collected largely by Kenyans, (c) collections facilities in Kenya are perfectly good for conserving the fossils and facilitating visitor research, (d) going there means I get to see some really cool parts of the world, and (e) it also means collaborating with some excellent people in these countries.

The same is true for Brazil, where the dinosaur at the center of this controversy was found.  Fossils collected in Brazil after a certain date are supposed to stay in Brazil, and papers describing them are supposed to include a Brazilian author.  This fossil was collected after that date, and none of the authors was Brazilian.  Even though there are perfectly good museums in Brazil and a growing community of excellent paleontologists.  (In fact, at this moment in time, the largest number of crocodyliform systematists in the world is to be found in Brazil; these are all very good friends who do amazing work.) 

I don't know what efforts were needed to get Cretaceous Research to pull the article down, but they did the right thing.

@suspsy , I find it amazing the amount of people who are confused by this.

[Newt]

The remarks by @dinotoyforum regarding the importance of fossil collecting in the development of young paleontologists made me think of a few things.


Re: his observation on the impossibility of protecting every fossil. I think those who don't spend time looking for fossils may not realize how tremendously abundant they can be. My workplace sits on a hillside built up with fossiliferous limestone rubble - there are probably kilotons of brachiopod fossils in that fill. There are places I know where you can't take a step without treading on crinoid stems or horn corals. While digging in my garden I've turned up many bryozoans and other marine invertebrates. Should these materials receive the same legal protection as a unique skull of an ancient hominin? If so, how could it be implemented? If not, what are the tiers and what are the appropriate protections for each tier?


I would also point out how closely this parallels the situation with live animals. Virtually every wildlife biologist I know started off catching small animals in their backyard, and often keeping them as pets at least temporarily. Many governments now forbid such activities, for perfectly good conservation reasons - but I wonder if they have considered the potential cost to the field of biology. We may lose the new generations of passionate defenders of wildlife if kids grow up not being allowed to interact with wildlife. Another parallel is the inconsistency of this approach: I am not permitted to go into the woods and collect a salamander to keep in a terrarium at home, but it is perfectly legal for me to clearcut those same woods and destroy the entire salamander population - just as I could bulldoze or blast fossiliferous strata but couldn't (under Brazilian law) collect the fossils from those strata.


This all just thinking about what an ideal fossil-collection law might look like. It should in no way excuse the actions of Martill in disobeying the laws of Brazil. That sort of researcher entitlement is unacceptable (and counter-productive), and Brazil has not only the right but the responsibility to preserve its natural heritage for Brazilians.

[TethysaurusUK]

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

The vast majority of palaeontologists have probably published on specimens with a different 'nationality' to their own, without the involvement of someone with the same 'nationality' as the specimen. I'm not a prolific author but just off the top of my head I can think of an example from my own publishing record.

I (British) co-described with a French colleague the type specimen of Meyerasaurus (German) in a German museum. There was no German co-author. Does that make me unethical? Maybe it is different because the specimen is in a German museum. But what if Germany retrospectively introduced a law to stipulate a German person must be on the authorship of papers describing German type specimens? Would I be unethical then?

To be clear, I have no objection collaborating with anyone who adds value to a paper, but adding a co-author of a particular nationality because it is legally mandated, regardless of the value that person adds to the paper – I'm not sure I agree with that. Ironically, I'm not sure that's ethical.

The other major issue is that the specimen belongs in a Brazilian museum and I understand that. But even on this matter a personal example comes to mind: Thaumatodracon, a plesiosaur from Britain (Lyme Regis) that was collected by a German and sold to a German museum. When my co-author (Portugese) and I published the paper describing it we named it after the German collector. It never occurred to me that the specimen should be repatriated to my home country and I don't think it should be. Does anyone? I was involved in the study because I'm a plesiosaur specialist, not because I'm British, but had my Portugese colleague published on this specimen without me then would he be under fire? Ethically, wouldn't the situation be identical to the Brazil case?

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.

For the record, I'm personally aquainted with two of the authors of the Ubirajara paper, Martill (who was my lecturer at university - I learned a lot from him), and Rivera-Sylva (who is also a friend, we were in the same cohort at university).

As another student of Martill's and after discussing the issue with two former Martill-ian students, I come to the conclusion of egos against egos, sense against narrative. This issue presents complications, yes, but palaeontology is evolutionary progress of knowledge and this knowledge should not be rooted in our identifies and narratives. I've tried to express this as best as I can, but yeah I get it if you don't hahahaha

[DinoToyForum]

The holotype specimen of Ubirajara is being repatriated:

https://www.science.org/content/article/maned-dinosaur-fossil-will-head-back-to-brazil-after-controversy-over-import-to-germany

[ceratopsian]

So I wonder if it can in due course be published in a new study by a Brazilian team, given that the original paper was retracted?

[VD231991]

So I wonder if it can in due course be published in a new study by a Brazilian team, given that the original paper was retracted?

Dave Martill can ask his colleagues to resubmit the paper describing Ubirajara to the Cretaceous Research after the specimen arrives back in its rightful location in Brazil and is given a new catalog number, since he was one of the withdrawn paper's authors. The specimen will stil be named Ubirajara jubatus, period.

[Faelrin]

Good to see it is returning to its home land. Hopefully it can be given a new paper afterwards. After reading the article it looks like some other fossils may be joining it in being returned to Brazil.