Oppose Dry lifeless museum specimen divorced from its natural context. It gives no indication of e.g. where it was found (collection locality), the situation it was found in, whether it is one, or part of a clutch, what sort of nest it would be in, etc., etc. -- MPF (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you bother to read the legend that egg is thoroughly documented. We even know where it came from. For eggs, whether threatened species (this is the case here) or not at risk it is strongly recommended not to give accurate information on harvest sites. Dissociation from its natural context is intentional. You read carefully the article on oology. He will tell you about the usefulness of this science, you do not know. You will learn that there are in the world of large collections of eggs, and legislation that goes with them. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any collection location data, not even a vague one like 'South Africa, 1880' (or whatever it actually is!). All I see is the location of the museum, not the place where the egg was laid. And yes, while a threatened species now, I doubt that exact location data for an object as old as this would endanger the species. - MPF (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rest assured, any scientist who requests it has access to all information, which are actually collected for each egg. This is one of the functions of a museum. To harvest the eggs (which is a particularly important problem, and you take laughing) no one is above the law. We must be impeccable and give exempe. A template is being developed to remind that point on egg pictures. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
