From the article: “The dinosaur material originating from Tendaguru proved to be so rich and spectacular that the site remains one of the most important dinosau

From the article: “The dinosaur material originating from Tendaguru proved to be so rich and spectacular that the site remains one of the most important dinosaur localities in the world today. Of the dinosaur material from Tendaguru, 40 original packed and unopened bamboo corsets and six wooden crates with unprepared bones are still in the vertebrate collection of the MfN” Or, after removing a few words: “The dinosaur material originating from Tendaguru proved to be so rich and spectacular that […] 40 original packed and unopened bamboo corsets and six wooden crates with unprepared bones are still in the vertebrate collection of the MfN” That sums up a problem of this kind of science: it is easier to get more money for digging things up than for looking at what you dug upon depth. The “spectacular” likely was unpacked and studied, but spending money on “might be very interesting, but not spectacular” isn’t that popular. That also happens in biology (https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/want-to-find-a-new-species-start-in-a-museum/ https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/want-to-find-a-new-sp...: “discovering new species in the depths of museum archives is not so uncommon”) and in archaeology (builders often have to pay to have stuff that would be destroyed by their activity take out of the ground to be preserved, but not to study it)