A M ERIC AN MUSEUM NOVITATES Number 3956, 56 pp. June 24, 2020 Reconstructing the specimens and history of Howe Quarry (Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation; Wyoming) EMANUEL TSCHOPP,1,2 CARL MEHLING,1 AND MARK A. NORELL1 ABSTRACT In 1934, Barnum Brown of the American Museum of Natural History in New York (AMNH) led a large-scale dinosaur excavation in northern Wyoming, where he had found bones two years earlier. Initially, Brown expected to excavate two skeletons of sauropod dino- saurs, but soon after opening the quarry, the team realized that the site far exceeded their expectations: in the end, they unearthed approximately 3000 bones within six months and sent approximately 144 crates back to the AMNH. Due to the enormous number of bones, the site became world famous as a dinosaur graveyard, and media from all over the United States and abroad reported on the expedition. Soon after, however, the collection shifted away from a curatorial focus. What followed was a history of neglect: inappropriate storage conditions, water and fire damage, collapsing wooden boxes, and deteriorating plaster jackets. Relocation and further excavation of the quarry by the Sauriermuseum Aathal (Switzer- land; SMA) from 1989 to 1991 confirmed earlier finds of skin impressions and resulted in the recognition of a novel diplodocid sauropod: Kaatedocus siberi. Given that the amount of bones found by the AMNH far exceeded those found by the SMA, a new project was started in 2017 to reassess the state and scientific value of the historic collections at AMNH. Although most of the bones are heavily fragmented, preliminary results show that overall preservation is still exceptional. Here, we reconstruct the history of the excavation, as well as past conservation and preparation procedures, and provide a report of current efforts to prepare, conserve, and catalog the material that has remained in storage since the 1930s. These current efforts show that his- toric collections, even after decades of neglect, can be of great and unexpected value, both for research and scientific outreach. 1 Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York. 2 Centrum für Naturkunde, Universität Hamburg, Germany. Copyright © American Museum of Natural History 2020 ISSN 0003-0082 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3956 INTRODUCTION Howe Quarry is one of the most enigmatic and famous single dinosaur sites in the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. It was discovered sometime in the 1920s, on the land of Barker M. Howe, north of Shell, Wyoming (fig. 1), and brought to the attention of Barnum Brown in 1932 by Nellie Austin, a local fossil enthusiast (Brown, 1935a). Initially expecting to excavate two sauropod dinosaurs within a month or two, Barnum Brown’s team ended up spending six months in 1934 excavating an estimated 3000–4000 bones from a minimum of 20–25 indi- vidual skeletons. Many of these skeletons were semiarticulated and arranged in a criss-crossed way. The bones are dark brown to black, encased in a gray siltstone matrix (Breithaupt, 1997; Michelis, 2004). Photos of the quarry, and numerous media reports made the site world famous as a dinosaur graveyard, and hundreds visited the quarry during the excavation in 1934. Unfor- tunately, not all the material was shipped to the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), and only a small portion of it was prepared in the following years (see below). Even though not much was done with the Howe Quarry material at AMNH in the following years (due to Depression era economics, war time, and Brown’s retirement), the fame and fascina- tion with it remained alive, mostly thanks to the publication of photos and a very elaborate quarry map drawn by Roland T. Bird in popular science articles and books (fig. 2; e.g., Brown, 1935a, 1935b; Colbert, 1984; Bird, 1985; Norell, 2019). Most importantly, Bird (1985) also described the excavation itself in some detail, and mentioned that the site was never fully excavated, which prompted several parties to relocate it. In 1989, a preliminary excavation at the historic Howe Quarry led by the Swiss commercial collector Hans-Jakob (Kirby) Siber yielded additional bones, and his team got permission from the Howe family (the fossil rights owners) and from Press Ste- phens (the land owner) to excavate again. The rest of Howe Quarry was fully excavated by the Siber team in 1990 and 1991, which led to the establishment of the Sauriermuseum Aathal (in Aathal, close to Zurich, Switzerland; SMA) in 1992 (H.-J. Siber, personal commun.). These more recent finds sparked new scientific interest in the area, and in Howe Quarry material itself, and resulted in a number of scientific publications. These reported on sauropod skin finds (Czerkas, 1992, 1994), theropod footprints (Lockley et al., 1998), and a new species of sauropod dinosaur (Kaatedocus siberi; Tschopp and Mateus, 2013a), among others. Material from the SMA excavations at Howe Quarry contributed to a more detailed understanding of sauropod anatomy (both of soft and hard tissues; e.g., Czerkas, 1992, Klein et al., 2012; Tschopp and Mateus, 2013a, 2013b), sauropod-thero- pod interactions (Lockley et al., 1998), and more generally Morrison Formation paleoecology (e.g., Michelis, 2004; Tschopp and Mateus, 2017; Whitlock et al., 2018). Preliminary results from ongoing research on the historic material at AMNH further confirm the enormous scientific value of this site (Moretti et al., 2018; Tschopp et al., 2018, 2019a). Given the scientific importance of the Howe Quarry material, a preparation and conservation project was initiated in July 2017 to reassess the curatorial state and scientific value of the historic collections at AMNH (Tschopp et al., 2018). The Howe Quarry campaign can thus be divided into three distinct phases, which we try to reconstruct here to provide a complete report of the excavation, preparation, and curation (or historical neglect) of the collection. The phases comprise: (1) the discovery, excavation, early preparation, and curatorial neglect of the remaining unprepared material; (2) the reloca- 2020 TSCHOPP ET AL.: RECONSTRUCTING HOWE QUARRY 3 FIGURE 1. Location of Howe Quarry north of Shell, Bighorn County, Wyoming, with a photograph of Barker M. Howe (left) and Barnum Brown (right) on the site. Some constructions of Howe’s homestead can be seen in the center right of the photograph. Maps of the United States, Wyoming, and Bighorn County copyright by d-maps.com, used with permission. Photograph courtesy of the AMNH Research Library (Photo Collec- tion 5: 4, Box 7; “Howe Quarry, Wyoming, 1934”). 4 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3956 FIGURE 2. Photograph and quarry map of Howe Quarry, Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. A femur (turquois) and a scapula (red) recognizable in both images are highlighted to show spatial relationships. Note the three men in the photograph for scale. tion of the quarry and salvaging of the neglected collection at AMNH; and (3) the recent conservation project. Thus, we provide both a historical assessment and a summary of recent curatorial efforts to preserve and catalog the previously unprepared Howe Quarry material. Our focus will mostly be on the historic collections at AMNH, highlighting the importance of keeping historic collections no matter their condition. Institutional Abbreviations AMNH FARB American Museum of Natural History, Fossil Amphibian, Reptile, and Bird collections, New York AMNH FF American Museum of Natural History, Fossil Fish collections, New York AMNH VPA American Museum of Natural History, Vertebrate Paleontology Archives, New York MOR Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana SMA Sauriermuseum Aathal, Aathal, Switzerland YPM Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven, Connecticut MATERIAL Most of the material excavated from Howe Quarry and present at AMNH belongs to sau- ropod dinosaurs of at least two different taxa: the diplodocine Kaatedocus siberi, and a macro- narian sauropod closely related to Camarasaurus (Michelis, 2004; Tschopp and Mateus, 2013a; 2020 TSCHOPP ET AL.: RECONSTRUCTING HOWE QUARRY 5 Tschopp et al., 2015). Additionally, fragmentary remains of the ornithischian Camptosaurus are present, as well as theropod teeth and a lungfish tooth plate (Brown, 1935a, 1935b; Kirk- land, 1987; Michelis, 2004; E.T., personal obs., 2017). Brown (1935a) initially reported mostly Barosaurus, with some specimens of Morosaurus and Camptosaurus but also stated repeatedly in the press that many represented new taxa (e.g., New York Times, Sept. 9, 1934). Whereas Morosaurus had actually been synonymized with Camarasaurus more than 20 years earlier (Mook, 1914), some of the Barosaurus material likely belongs to Kaatedocus siberi (e.g., AMNH FARB 7530, see Tschopp et al., 2015). Breithaupt (1997) also mentioned the presence of Diplod- ocus and Apatosaurus, but referrals of specimens to these taxa in northern Wyoming and Montana have been shown to be questionable (Tschopp et al., 2019b). The faunal list from the Howe Quarry in Foster (2003) represents several distinct quarries on the Howe Ranch, which are from different stratigraphic levels (including the Howe-Stephens and Howe-Scott quarries; see Schwarz et al., 2007; Tschopp and Mateus, 2017). A detailed assessment of the taxonomy of all the remaining Howe Quarry material will be necessary to definitively confirm which taxa were preserved here. Such a study is out of scope of the current paper and will be addressed in later contributions. HISTORY (1932 TO 1970s) Excavation (1932 to 1934) Barnum Brown first visited the site in the summer of 1932 with Peter Kaisen and Darwin Harbicht. They soon realized that there were too many bones to excavate that summer, so they covered them, and left the excavation for the following year (Brown, 1935b; Michelis, 2004). Brown’s team found evidence for two individuals, with two tails, one connected to a sacrum, the other one associated with a hind limb (Brown, 1935a). In 1933, a limited amount of money was available through the Frick Fund (AMNH Annual Report, 1933), allowing Brown to remove six feet of overburden from an area of 65 × 45 feet, but not to further excavate the area (Brown, 1935b). Significant sponsorship by Sinclair Oil and Refining made the excavation pos- sible in 1934 (Brown, 1935a, 1935b). Carl Sorensen was appointed to lead the 1934 expedition in Brown’s absence. He left New York on Friday, 25 May 1934, and arrived in Billings, Montana, on May 31 (as indicated in a letter from Brown to Edward [Ted] Lewis from May 26th, 1934; AMNH VPA-14). Here, Sorensen met Lewis (from Yale University), Dan Thrapp (AMNH), and Bill Frutchey (New Jersey) (Bird, 1985). They arrived on the Howe Ranch on Friday, June 1 (Brown, 1935a). Later the same day, Roland T. Bird joined the group from Florida (Bird, 1985). Brown and Kaisen were supposed to join the excavations at a later stage, but Kaisen was recovering from surgery that summer. Brown initially planned to arrive around June 20, but got there on July 11 (AMNH VPA-38; The Greybull Standard, July 12, 1934: 1). Interestingly, Bird (1985) wrongly reports Brown’s arrival to have been on July 3. Quarry work began either on Monday June 4 (according to Bird, 1985) or more likely on Wednesday June 6 (according to the unpublished “Summary of important dates,” which seems 6 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3956 FIGURE 3. Historic photographs from the 1934 excavation at Howe Quarry. A, Removing overburden with horses. B, Excavating and jacketing. Two original crates are ready to be packed. Box number (109 on the one on the right), year of the expedition, and institution are written on the crate. Crate 109 (on the right) is also marked with “Block 71”, indicating that a large jacket from section 71 was packed in that crate. C, Documen- tation of the quarry with photography from a barrel hanging from a hay derrick. D, Large or long plaster jackets were reinforced with branches and wooden beams. E, Many bones (including ribs) were jacketed as single elements and nearly completely prepared in the field (as in this rib from section 62, which Brown is showing off), likely to reduce weight. Photographs are courtesy of AMNH VPA (A, C) and the AMNH Research Library (B, D, E; Photo Collection 5: 4, Box 7; ‘”Howe Quarry, Wyoming, 1934”). to be more accurate than Bird, 1985; AMNH VPA-38). They uncovered two articulated tails with chevrons, several ribs, and a scapula, most of which were already exposed and covered again by Brown in 1932 (Brown, 1935a; Bird, 1985). A few days later, the team had already found five scapulae, two more tails, and a neck (Bird, 1985). Due to the considerable number of newly uncovered bones, Brown sent three more men: Laurence F. Rainsford and his son Laurence K. from Rye, NY (who arrived on July 1; AMNH VPA-38), and Wyman R. Green from Princeton (who arrived on July 2; AMNH VPA-38). After 2020 TSCHOPP ET AL.: RECONSTRUCTING HOWE QUARRY 7 FIGURE 4. Historic photographs from the 1934 excavation at Howe Quarry. A, Visitors were common during the excavation. Barnum Brown explains the site to two of them. B, The Paton Ranch, where many dinners were held, and where some jackets were stored in 1934 to be picked up later (which never happened). C, A picture of the excavation team (sitting, left to right: Barker M. Howe, Laurence Rainsford, Barnum Brown, Carl Sorensen, William Frutchey; standing, left to right: Roland T. Bird, Wyman Green, Ted Lewis, Dan Thrapp, unknown, possibly Rainsford’s son). D, Snowstorms interrupted quarry work several times between September and November. Photographs are courtesy of AMNH VPA (A, B, D) and the AMNH Research Library (C; photo 132802). Brown’s arrival, Milo Howe (Barker M. Howe’s son) started to help in the excavation and removal of overburden with his horses (fig. 3A; Bird, 1985). More people joined later during the season, while others had to leave before the end of the campaign, so that the team averaged between nine and 12 members (fig. 4C; Brown, 1935a). Given the complicated arrangement of the numerous bones and partial skeletons, Bird vol- unteered to draw a map to record how all the elements were associated (Bird, 1985). The entire area was divided into squares of three feet (Brown, 1935a, 1935b; Michelis, 2004), which were numbered (Brown, 1935a, 1935b; Bird, 1985), and totaled 378 squares (18 rows of 21 squares each; Michelis, 2004). The bones were sometimes drawn into the map while still partly covered by matrix, so that only parts of certain bones could be drawn. The field sketches were copied to the final, compiled map once back in New York, at R.T. Bird’s parents’ home in Rye (fig. 5; Bird, 1985). The drawings of incompletely visible bones were subsequently completed for the compila- tion, vertebrae in particular, so the shape and exact dimensions are not necessarily accurate (according to notes in the AMNH Research Library: Department of Vertebrate Paleontology 8 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3956 FIGURE 5. Evolution of R.T. Bird’s quarry map from sketches to the final, published version. The portion of the map shown here covers section numbers 79–81 (top row), 100–102 (middle row), and 121–123 (bottom row). The sketches (left) were transferred onto large Bristol board plates in Bird’s homestead in Rye, NY (cen- ter), and then onto the final map (right; see Bird, 1985, for more details). There are numerous notes on the sketches, including numbers given to the jackets, outlines of blocks taken out with more than one bone, and more. Bird also traced the fracture patterns of the single bones, and generally only drew the visible part of the bones in the field. He likely retraced the sketches with black ink before transcribing the data onto the Bristol board plates, the “OK” possibly indicates that he had already transcribed this sheet. During the transcription, Bird fleshed out the drawing of incompletely visible bones, and got rid of the fracture pattern, probably in an attempt to increase readability of the map. This process was even more enhanced in the second transcription step, and can especially be followed in how the ribs are drawn in the center of the figured portion of the map (section 101) and with the cervical vertebrae in section 121. Also, location and proportions of certain bones changed (see the disarticulated caudal vertebra in section 100, and the large cervical vertebra along the section line between 80 and 101), and some elements were not drawn in some of the later iterations (e.g., the frag- ments in sections 79 and 100, and one of the chevrons in section 79). Proportions and exact location of single elements are likely most accurate in the original sketches. Roland T. Bird Howe Quarry Field Sketches and Notes, approximately 1934–1940, DR 202). Also, according to these notes, not all the bones were transcribed from the field sketches to the com- bined plan published by Brown (1935a; see Michelis, 2004), and some bones were discarded on site due to poor preservation. Indeed, some bones in jackets that were unpacked subsequent to 2017 could not be located on the map. These discrepancies are likely to be part of the reason why early estimates by Brown (4000 bones; 1935a) diverged so much from a later count of the bones on the map by Michelis (2004), who identified around 2200 bones. A current count lists 2669 elements (including bones, soft tissue, and sediment samples, and some bones that were discarded on site due to poor preservation). Although this count is likely to increase as more of the remain- ing material is unpacked, it is unlikely it will reach Brown’s estimate. This richness of fossil dinosaur bones attracted a lot of public interest. Brown was inter- viewed several times during the excavations by various news outlets including radio shows at KGHL in Billings, Montana, and a Paramount Newsreel (AMNH VPA-38). The New York Times alone published at least 12 articles on this specific excavation in 1934 and 1935. The news attracted more than 2500 visitors to the site (fig. 4A; Brown, 1935a; Bird, 1985), which FIGURE 6. Photograph and quarry map showing a vertically preserved tibia and fibula. These peculiar finds were drawn in perspective by R.T. Bird. Location of the photographer and Barnum and Lilian Brown in the photograph are indicated on the map for orientation. The colored specimens are cataloged bones in the collections at AMNH (see also fig. 15); the tibia and fibula in question are part of AMNH FARB 7540, together with a pes and a dorsal rib. Note the grid system and the section numbers in the lower left corner of each square of the grid. 2020 TSCHOPP ET AL.: RECONSTRUCTING HOWE QUARRY 9 10 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3956 FIGURE 7. Original jackets and packages from 1934, when being unpacked after 2017. Note the number painted (upper pictures) on the plaster-and-burlap jackets or scratched into it (lower right), indicating that these speci- mens were excavated from sections 130 (upper left), 126 (upper right), and 196 (lower right) of the quarry map. Small specimens were packed in newspaper, in some cases with a cushioning layer of wool or cotton (lower left). Plaster jackets were supported with cedar as well as possibly cottonwood branches (upper right). A cutter was used to cut the jackets open after 2017, and the section numbers were preserved where possible. The number of the cabinet where the specimens were housed (“door 1064”; lower left) before the recent conservation project was noted and kept associated with the specimens throughout the entire process. all had to sign a guest book (AMNH VPA-16a). In late July, the local community erected signs along highway 14 to direct tourists to the dinosaur dig (The Greybull Standard, July 19, 1934: 1). Some of these visitors damaged and even stole bones (mostly claws, but also parts of ribs and possibly other elements) exposed in the quarry (Bird, 1985). Other bones were damaged during a nighttime thunderstorm, when the crew did not expect rain, and had to cover the quarry by night. A scapula also shattered into pieces while turning a plaster jacket (Bird, 1985). The site did not only seem important for its richness of bones: skin impressions were found too, but “much of it had to be destroyed in preparing the bones for shipment” (Brown, 1935a: 6). Bird found potential stomach contents, with 64 gastroliths. The team also found several articulated lower legs that apparently got stuck in the mud and were preserved nearly vertically (fig. 6; Bird, 1985). The bones were extensively cracked when discovered. Shellac was used to consolidate the bones once uncovered (Brown, 1935a; Bird, 1985), as was typical for the time (Linares Sori- ano and Carrascosa Moliner, 2016). In some cases, several rounds of consolidation were necessary (Brown, 1935a; Bird, 1985). In order to protect the bones for transport to New