Talk:Museum of Jurassic Technology

Accuracy of the article
It seems that this "museum" exhibits generally "freaky" stuff; but frankly, I'm very sceptical as to the factual accuracy. Just take the stink ant exhibit:


 * The scientific name of this "stink ant" is Megaponera foetens or, more commonly, Pachycondyla analis . They can't even get their spelling right on the museum website!
 * It is highly improbable that these ants can "cry", not having any vocal chords. They can produce sounds audible by humans by rubbing body parts together (like e.g. crickets can; this is called stridulation), but cry they don't.
 * There is abundant information about this species of ants available online, but I couldn't find any mention of the fungus story except on pages obviously copying the info given on the museum page.
 * While Tomentella is indeed a large genus of fungi, I couldn't find any mention whatsoever of this parasitic behavior with respect to ants.

Good overview of the ant at. Lupo 10:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, a reaction like that is exactly what the museum seems to be designed to create. It's frustrating, ain't it.  Crazy (but amazing) place. I was so unnerved when I visited it - it's so mostly wrong, but not all wrong.  JesseW 09:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first section of Mr. Wilson's Cabinet of Wonder concludes with the discovery that that pheonomenon is indeed true. Maybe not the crying or the genus and species, but the whole thing about the ant inhaling a spore then climbing a blade of grass and the spore turning into a spike is actually true. There's a picture of it in the book. Crazy place.
 * Drewcifer3000 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Drewcifer is right- the guy who wrote Mr. Wilson's Cabinet of Wonder devoted an unbelievable amountof time to researching every piece in the museum for any scrap of factual accuracy. (He didnt find many... come on, 'the horn of a Jewish woman' is one of the exhibits) The next time there's a question about the validity of certain exhibits you should consult the book, its an amazingly good resource Oroneko 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The mysterious parastic ant fungus refered to above is Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis, aka the zombie ant fungus. It is one a of a very few parasitic organisms that actually change the behavior of the host, another fascinating example being Toxoplasmosis.  It's real science, perhaps it should be linked from the page but I can't find any mention of the ant or fugus on the wiki page.  I'm not inclined to try to edit this page myself, but if someone else cares enough to add the link I think it would be enlightening. Rich.lewis (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong conceptual link between skepticism (of the Skeptical Inquirer type) and the MJT. I noticed when I was there that many of the contributors to the museum were famous magicians - Ricky Jay and Penn and Teller, for example. First and foremost the museum works on the level of satire, but as with much good satire, it has a point. How certain are you of the information you "know." Are authoritative sources to be trusted? Bear in mind that the Museum of Natural History had the wrong head on a "brontosaurus" for a century because of scientific politics. (It turns out there actually was no such creature as a brontosaurus - it was created from two different sets of remains by a famous paleontologist who systematically destroyed the reputation of a lesser-known scientist who [correctly] challenged him.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.142.202 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Conceptual Art
So many people rely on Wikipedia for their information that one feels dutybound to amplify the introductory paragraph of this article by moving the "conceptual art" description to the lead section. There are thousands of people all over the world who have no idea the "museum" is a sendup of the first magnitude.GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think overall the page is a good reflection of the Museum, but maybe should be clearer that it's somewhat of an art project and not intended as a factual educational museum. I am a longtime member and have taken many first time visitors there. Children really seem to enjoy it as they take it at face value instead of analyzing it and trying to figure out is it "real." So yes it's conceptual art, and yes it's a museum, says so right over the front door! Markxus25 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotations
I'm not sure why the "Quotations" section is in here. Unless somebody can provide a decent Wiki-acceptable reason, I propose to eliminate it on or after January 16. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Green daemon (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Museum of Jurassic Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929090911/http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142731/k.6679/Fellows_List__October_2001.htm to http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142731/k.6679/Fellows_List__October_2001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)