Designation as cultural heritage best protects Brazilian fossils

Hermínio Ismael de Araújo-Júnior,Renato Pirani Ghilardi,Silane Aparecida Ferreira da Silva Caminha,Victor Rodrigues Ribeiro,Fernando Henrique de Souza Barbosa,Sandro Marcelo Scheffler,Ana Maria Ribeiro
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02397-6
IF: 19.1
2024-03-30
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Abstract:Kuhn et al. 1 write that in our recent Nature Ecology & Evolution publication 2 , we overlook Brazilian legislation that considers fossils as mineral or natural heritage in favour of legislation that considers fossils to be cultural heritage, and that fossils are more appropriately considered as mineral heritage. Given the constraints of format, we emphasize that the information in our Comment on Brazilian legislation was illustrative rather than exhaustive (a necessary condition given the complexity of Brazilian law on the subject of fossils). The laws that we discussed and presented in figure 1 of ref. 2 are those that are most important and that have served as the basis for decision-making regarding repatriations (especially with Brazilian and foreign ministries). Furthermore, the laws presented in figure 1 of ref. 2 do in fact cover laws on natural (=mineral) heritage (laws of 1942, 1990, 2000 and 2016), as well as cultural heritage (laws of 1973 and 1988) and environmental protection (law of 1998). Thus, we disagree that we have presented a biased portrayal of fossils under Brazilian law. We also disagree with the idea that laws related to mineral and cultural heritage are conflicting.
ecology,evolutionary biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?