Sir

Your News story about an 'amateur' journal gives some of the reasons why details of privately held fossils should not be published (“Palaeontology journal will 'fuel black market'” Nature 445, 234–235; doi:10.1038/445234b 2007). I would add that fossils in private collections are not essential to science.

Some very naive students of palaeontology think that finding new fossils is the only way to make an advance in the field. However, palaeontology is only one of many sciences studying evolution. The meaning of fossils — as a whole and as individual specimens — is linked to the other sciences and changes with the progress made in them.

Fossils found in the time of Georges Cuvier, for example, are no longer interpreted in the way that this remarkable scientist interpreted them 200 years ago. They do not have the same meaning. But as long as they remain available, they can be studied anew in the light of new knowledge. Our knowledge of evolution has changed since Cuvier's time: the geological context is better understood, the discovery of other fossils allows a better understanding of their relationships and new techniques give rise to new observations. So the fossils found in his time can be studied productively time and time again.

Fossils are eternal, and this is the main reason why we have public museums. In these institutions, all fossil specimens must be available for research and presentation to the public. We do not need fossils kept in private collections and available only to a few favoured people.