Taxidermists often use paints, hair dye and other traditional pigments for coloring. But for these historic displays, the museum needed a substance that could easily be removed in the future (should better technologies come along). They also needed coloring that would not alter the fur, could be cleaned easily and stand the test of time.
"We didn't want to use paint because the binder in the paint would bind the hairs together," Nunan says. And hair dye would have been difficult because it often requires heat and time to set it and would be difficult to do in delicate patterns, such as those on the jaguar; it also would not easily rinse out. "We were surprised about the limited amount of research that had been done on this," she notes.
The conservation team tested various alternative compounds on sample fur patches, examining them at the museum and shipping them off to be tested in accelerated-aging labs at Carnegie Mellon University and Buffalo State College. There, the samples were exposed to extreme light, heat and humidity to test their ability to stand up to these elements over 10, 20 or 50 years.
Conservationists also needed to match the original 1930s colors of the animals' fur, which was not easy to do—especially because the photographs from the original exhibition preparation are black and white. So Dante and his colleagues were able to borrow historic furs in the museum's collections that had been kept in dark storage to use as the baseline for colors and shading. Each animal also requires several shades, Dante notes. (The American bison, for example, each had eight different colors applied to them.)
But the work paid off. "What we came up with was truly groundbreaking—it will change the way these materials are treated," Elkin says.
The conservation team settled on an ethanol-based dye with metal components to improve color stability, which is similar to those that have been used in textile conservation. And it was light enough that it could be applied with an airbrush sprayer. "It's never as good as the real thing, but it's pretty close," Elkin says. "We've accepted that there will be fading of the dye, but it won't happen in any detectable manner for another 50 years," which, as she points out, will probably be time for another restoration anyway.
In addition to much of the fur, some of the ears, noses and other hard elements needed updating. "Almost all of the prosthetics developed for noses when the taxidermy was created used waxes or wax blends," Elkin says. "Those materials age poorly over time, so the fine detail had been lost." So the American bison and the collared peccary both received nose jobs to restore some of the original texture and fill in cracks. The antelope jackrabbit also had its ears updated to emphasize their signature veins.
Old, faded snow scenes, such as that featuring the Canada lynx and snowshoe hare, had once been created out of medical grade cotton topped with glitter. But by shifting to more modern materials, including silicate fiber that is used to line kilns, chopped up Ethafoam and UV-stable glitter flakes, the conservators hope this new arrangement will retain its white luster for decades to come. Now, notes MacPhee, the diorama looks "absolutely realistic, so you're perched right here on the mountainside next to the lynx."
Other minor touch-ups throughout the exhibit hall were also needed, including a faded rhododendron in the skunk diorama. The conservators carefully studied archive photographs to see where small changes had occurred over time, such as cactus spines shifting or bending.
Finally, to stave off future deterioration of the dioramas and to reduce energy use, the museum reimagined the lighting strategy for the hall. "A large part of the project was focused on re-lamping," Elkin says. For delicate textiles and other artwork, gallery lighting is often carefully controlled and kept at a dim level. The dioramas, however, have different demands. "In the bison diorama, they needed to mimic high noon on the plains—it's a blasting light," Elkin says. Each diorama now has energy-efficient light bulbs and filters "so that UV problem will not come back to haunt us," MacPhee notes.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentThis article is supposedly about dioramas, remember, to preface my comments below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-
"This enables researchers to track changes in coloring and habitat due to, for example, rapidly advancing climate change." - Don't you just love how each and every supposedly scientific article, no matter what the purported and/or stated theme of it supposedly is these days, just never fails to get its dig in about "manmade global warming" aka "[global] "climate change?" And so now it's again evolved further (for the dramatic purposes of this article) into "rapidly advancing" "climate change!" I swear! An article could be about string theory or polar auroras, and I honestly wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to hear global warming (or any variant) be given a "shout out," even in an article such as those! Give it a rest for God's sake! This is the exact reason I finally CANCELLED my Scientific American magazine. If you want to discuss it (climate change) rationally, (you remember rationally, don't you?) and in a focused and pointed manner within a story of relevance,, then fine, but to have it repeatedly infiltrate, in such a sub-rosa fashion, each and every article published, as a superfluous, incongruous component to the stated purpose of the story,, well then sorry, I can't, don't and won't buy it, and I am no longer going to be buying from you either...
Upon reading "rapidly advancing climate change" I jumped to comment, only to discover that you did it for me already!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American must have an employee responsible for ensuring that some variation of the phrases "global warming" or "climate change" occur in every other article.
Well, Nagnostic and Lewtheprof, have you guys ever had a subscription with Objective reality and by the way, it is free!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I was a long time PAYING customer of the hard copy of Scientific American. I did finally )in disgust) switch to Science News, and honestly, it is a lot better (in this respect we are discussing),, not perfect but better. Finally though, just why would you think that opinion, editorializing and proselytizing should be [allowed to be] a part of the articles within any such a "hard news" or supposedly fact based science journal. If you knew anything at all about the history of this magazine, you'd know it is not (never been) the norm for it, historically speaking. This is clearly a path into sensationalism for them, at best,, into politically driven, advocacy/propaganda journalism at worst. They've sullied themselves with this, and my guess is that in some way (probably credibility) it'll ultimately hurt them. It's clear that they are unconcerned with that possibility right now, or are but another willing sacrificial lamb for the cause of pseudo-scientific advocacy for that which is politically expedient in our time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-
BTW, free or not, it's still propaganda and propagandizing. You and others like you, are enabling them and those like them by rationalizing and so by default, defending them. Is that really the right thing to do, whatever the topic? Just remember, "Opinion Journalism" is an oxymoron!
Hmmm...I did not read them to say 'manmade' global warming. If you do not believe in global warming, whether manmade or otherwise, it seems to me you are the one who is not being objective, it is a fact, not an opinion. The fact of the matter is, the changes caused by global warming are relevant to the discussion, and therefore appropriate to the article. You might be a denier of global warming, just as you might be a denier of earthlings having walked on the moon, or the earth being round...the fact you want to continue to believe something that has no scientific objectivity, does not make you objective, just irrational. There is a difference between healthy skepticism, which is in my view a virtue, and wearing blinders to any fact that does not support 'your opinion'. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own 'facts'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's rather surprising to see an article in a scientific magazine refer to "pronghorn antelope" in a natural history article. I had thought that pronghorns were not antelopes, but a completely independent species. Was I wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPronghorns are members of the family Antilocapridae, while "antelopes" are members of several different subfamilies of the family Bovidae. The term "antelope" is used to indicate a tropical or subtropical bovid, usually from Africa, that has a particular general size, temperament, shape, build, or head/horn shape. For example, the eland, an oxlike bovid, is considered an antelope based on habitat, head shape, temperament, and build. Such distinctions are often rather arbitrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are going to give before and after shots, as with the Bison, please try to use comparable lighting and exposure. I would also be curious (a) what happened the Bison's "before" bird and (b) why was the "after" bison given a vigorous hair blow out (looks like 60s dos)? I would have expected the bison was originally given somewhat matted head hair as more likely in nature (rain, sweat, lack of combing, etc.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this