Famous fossil found to be a forgery

A remarkably complete fossil of a nearly 300 million year old reptile, Tridentinosaurus antiquus, had been purchased and displayed by the University of Padua since 1931. It has featured in many palaeontological articles and journals. But after all this time, a study led by University College Cork’s Valentina Rossi discovered that the specimen is more forgery than fossil...

Valentina - This fossil was supposed to be one of the best ever found fossil reptiles from the Alps, a fossil that doesn't only preserve the skeleton, but also preserves the soft tissues, meaning the skin, internal organs, and everything that comes with those tissues.

Will - And this had been brought into a museum and a university around about 1931, which puts it at about 93 years that no one had really noticed it was a forgery. What led you to discover it was?

Valentina - This fossil was found in a historical time. We sometimes say these are 'historical specimens' and those are key specimens because they have sometimes never been studied with very high tech methodology. This is because, in this particular case, we only have one of these species, and this is very difficult to study then because all the methods that you can use to study this type of fossil has to be non-destructive, because obviously the specimens are extremely valuable from a scientific point of view. This is why I think so far nobody has attempted to do a really detailed analysis because, honestly, before eight years ago, there wasn't the technology available to study fossils non-destructively. Now, with this project, we said, well, if this is really so important, we probably should study it.

Will - When you used your new array of microscopes and ways of looking at these fossils, when did you then realise that this fossil in particular wasn't all it was supposed to be?

Valentina - We scanned and photographed the specimen with a UV lamp. A UV lamp can help you figure out whether there are certain parts of the fossil that might have been retouched or if glues have been used and particular resins to glue parts together. But also there are certain inorganic pigments, manufactured pigments, that also glow under the UV lamp. With the UV lamp, we could see that the entirety of the fossil was glowing. I was like, hmm. Maybe there is some sort of resin on top? Then I decided to sample this material and I used scanning electron microscopy, which is a very powerful microscope, to see cell level details of tissues or fossils. Then, I did infrared spectroscopy. Matching these two techniques together was basically the holy grail because I couldn't see biological structures, I couldn't see a molecular signature typical of fossilised soft tissues, and then I figured out, okay, so the morphology of what I'm seeing and the chemistry is actually perfectly matching a carbon base, inorganic pigment. Then we figured out, okay, so this is just paint.

Will - It was just paint this whole time?

Valentina - Yes.

Will - Is it a complete forgery, then? Is any part of that fossil a fossil?

Valentina - The skin, it's complete forgery, but there are parts of the fossil that are real. For example, we found that for the femur and the tibias and fibulas, basically the hind limbs of the specimen, the bones are real. We also found very tiny bony scales. Those are called, technically, osteoderms, and they're very similar to the scales of a crocodile. So they're made of bones, they're very robust. In this case they're very tiny because the reptile was also pretty tiny. This is good because it means that it's not totally a fake.

Will - It is extraordinary that someone 90 odd years ago had a fragment of a fossil and went, I'm going to paint in the rest of it and pass it off as a complete species. Do you have any idea why this might have been done?

Valentina - This is a recurrent problem with fossils that have been partially forged or completely forged. There is a lack of documentation. This fossil was found 90 years ago. In between the discovery of the fossil and the official description of the fossil, there was World War II. It was obviously, historically, a very difficult time. Many documents during the time were basically lost because of the war. We don't know, maybe someone was just trying to find the rest of the skeleton, and it was by preparing the rock someone ended up carving the shape of a lizard. The use of paint of course didn't really help us, but maybe helped this person convince people that this was a real fossil, that certain parts were real. This is where we are at the moment, but unfortunately we have no records so anything is possible

Will - From this point onwards, it does really raise the question, the troubling question, of is anyone's favourite fossil actually real. Who knows? How pervasive do you think fossil forgery is in the palaeontological world?

Valentina - Fossil forgeries are definitely a problem. I think scientists are raising their voices, palaeontologists, fossil collectors and museums saying, we actually need to talk with governments about this because fossil material, it's seen most of the time as a very rare resource for many nations. Palaeontology somehow started this way. There were people collecting fossils on the beaches, on the mountains, and they were selling this to collectors. These collectors then became museum founders and they were still buying specimens. It's all well and good when it's regulated, but it also gave people an excuse to make up fossils to make money. There are many fossil shows in Europe, but also in the States, where there are so many fake fossils. And you think, if I buy a five euro fake trilobite for my collection, nothing's going to happen. Sure. But unfortunately this keeps adding money to the problem instead of actually solving it. There are many of us that are trying to work on this to protect fossil heritage because it's our past. Culturally it's also very important. It shouldn't be used this way.