The Field Museum Shuffles its Dinosaurs

Rendering of Patagotitan and the Sue remount. Source

This morning, The Field Museum of Natural History announced two big changes to its dinosaur exhibits. First, the indispensable Sue the Tyrannosaurus will move from its prime location in the central Stanley Field Hall and into Evolving Planet, the museum’s permanent paleontology exhibit. Next, a cast of the South American sauropod Patagotitan will take Sue’s place in the main hall. Sue will be disassembled just a few months from now in February 2018. Patagotitan will be installed later next year, and Sue’s new home on the second floor opens in Spring 2019 (perhaps deliberately, this is within weeks of the National Fossil Hall’s reopening at the Smithsonian).

Sue has been the Field Museum’s defining attraction since the skeleton was acquired in 1997. It is the most complete Tyrannosaurus yet found, but it is also more than a natural history specimen. Sue is part of the pantheon of Chicago landmarks, and the public’s association of the mount with the city it resides in has all but eclipsed the legal battle that preceeded it’s acquisition.

The current Sue mount has a touch of “grenade-swallowing syndrome.” Photo by the author.

Nevertheless, the Sue mount that has been on display for 17 years is not perfect. Assembled by Phil Fraley Productions, the mount has been the subject of grumbling among tyrannosaur specialists for years: the coracoids are too far apart, the furcula is incorrectly placed, the posterior ribs are unnaturally bowed out, and so forth. Happily, Sue will be getting thoroughly updated during the move. In addition to correcting the various anatomical problems, the new mount will reintroduce Sue to its gastralia (belly ribs), which have been displayed separately since 2000, and change her crouching pose to a standing one. As Collections Manager Bill Simpson explains in the announcement video, “we now know more about how a T. rex skeleton should look and Sue is going to reflect those changes.”

Sue 2.0 will take over the second floor space occupied by the recently shuttered 3-D theater. Accessible as an annex to the dinosaur section of Evolving Planet, the Sue exhibit will contextualize the Tyrannosaurus with other fossils from the Hell Creek Formation.

Rendering of Patagotitan in the Stanley Field Hall. Source

Patagotitan is the same animal that the American Museum of Natural History billed as “the titanosaur” two years ago. Argentina’s newest megasauropod was first announced in 2014 but was formally named and published by José Carballido and colleagues just three weeks ago. While not technically the biggest known sauropod, Patagotitan is the only dinosaur in its class known  from reasonably complete remains. The skeleton itself will be more or less identical to the cast Research Casting International produced for AMNH. However, instead of being crammed into a small room, this Patagotitan will have space to stretch out, its neck craning to look over the second story mezzanine. The Field Museum exhibits team also wants visitors to be able to walk under and even touch the cast skeleton.

What do I think about all this (asked nobody)? I’m thrilled with the plans for Sue – it’s great that even though Sue is such an important symbol for the Field Museum, they don’t consider it a static piece. Much credit is due for the museum’s willingness to invest in their star attraction by keeping it up to the latest scientific standard. In addition, I never entirely liked how disassociated Sue was from the rest of the paleontology displays, and it’s nice to know that somebody at the museum must have felt the same way. There’s something to be said for giving the skeleton pride of place, but ultimately I think museumgoers will be better served by seeing Sue contextualized within the story of life on Earth.

While I love me some megasauropods, I can’t help but be less excited by the Patagotitan. I realize that most people don’t go to every natural history museum, but two identical casts already exist. To be fair, the Field Museum Patagotitan will be in a very different setting from its AMNH predecessor (although it may turn out rather like the Royal Ontario Museum Futalognkosaurus). Still, I would rather have seen something more unique to the Field Museum. One idea would be to bring back the Brachiosaurus reconstruction, and display it side-by-side with a remount of the historic Apatosaurus currently in Evolving Planet. Both specimens are tied to the museum’s own expeditionary history, and together would tell the remarkable story of Elmer Riggs. The Apatosaurus in particular could anchor a Field Museum retrospective, while images of the three different locations it has been displayed in since 1908.

The last time a sauropod graced the Stanley Field Hall. Source

Somebody more cynical than me might point out that switching up iconic displays is becoming a predictable way for museums to generate press and manufacture controversy. For example, the Natural History Museum in London got no less than three media splashes when they announced Dippy the Diplodocus was to be replaced, actually removed Dippy, and finally unveiled the remounted blue whale in Hintze Hall earlier this summer. Nevertheless, there is a strong case to be made that stirring up public reactions in this way is an effective way to keep the people interested in their museums. As Field Museum president Richard Lariviere told the Chicago Tribune, “the public doesn’t understand that the science…we convey is changing on an almost hourly basis here. I talk to people all the time who think that since they’ve been to the Field Museum 10 years ago they’ve seen it. By transforming the central space, we hope to convey that exact message.”

At any rate, we’re in for some great new dinosaur displays at the Field Museum over the next couple years. What do you think of the upcoming changes?


Filed under dinosaurs, exhibits, FMNH, fossil mounts, museums, opinion, sauropods, theropods

6 responses to “The Field Museum Shuffles its Dinosaurs

  1. Unsurprisingly, I am much more excited about the Patagosaurus than about relocating and remounting Sue. I thought it was an act of vandalism when the Brachiosaurus mount was evicted to be replaced by Sue, and it feels only right that another sauropod is now righting that wrong.

    I take your point that the AMNH already has a version of the same mount; but remember those museums are 800 miles apart: most people will not realistically see both.

    But, really, the lesson here is surely to be learned from the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin. When they redesigned their central hall display, they put THREE sauropods in (Giraffatitan, Diplodocus and Dicraeosaurus), plus a sprinkling of other lesser dinosaurs. The result does not feel at all cramped, and provides a unique and valuable opportunity to directly compare three very different sauropods in a single room. The FMNH main hall is a very good size, and could happily encompass the new titanosaur AND the museum’s own Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus.

    That would bring me to Chicago.

    • Ben

      I must say that I am shocked by this utterly out of character response! 😛

      I take your point that Patagotitan casts at two peer museums doesn’t really mean these things are rolling off an assembly line. Maybe they should be – what if Patagotitan became the new Dippy, with one in every big museum?

      • I would personally much rather see a less generic taxon in every big museum, there are a lot of sauropods from the US even that are rare or under-popular. Taxa like Abydosaurus, Haplocanthosaurus or Sauroposeidon (incl Paluxysaurus) are relatively complete taxa that are not nearly as known in popular culture.

  2. Ben

    Thanks for the comment! I agree that it’s nice to see less widely known dinosaurs on display when possible. The problem is that the “popular” dinosaurs are frequently the ones known from more complete skeletons. Abydosaurus is known only from a skull and a few other odds and ends, and the only Sauroposeidon specimen is just four vertebrae.

    Is it appropriate to display a complete skeleton, filled in with parts from close relatives, when the species you’re representing is actually known from so little material? I lean toward no – what do you think?

  3. I’m just excited that I can finally take a good photo of Patagotitan without having to crop off more than 50% of the body, or take one of those panoramas that stretch the skeleton like elastic (AMNH and its darn orientation hall). There’s also those 50,000 pterosaurs they’re putting in the hall along with Patagotitan(be ready for everybody saying Quetzalcoatlus lived with Patagotitan).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s