“Strict Fidelity to Nature”: Scientific Taxidermy, U.S. Natural History Museums, and Craft Consensus, 1880s-1930s Jonathan David Grunert Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science and Technology Studies Mark V. Barrow, Jr., Chair Matthew R. Goodrum Matthew Wisnioski Eileen Crist Patzig September 27, 2019 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: taxidermy, natural history, museum, scientific representation, visual culture “Strict Fidelity to Nature”: Scientific Taxidermy, U.S. Natural History Museums, and Craft Consensus, 1880s-1930s Jonathan David Grunert ABSTRACT As taxidermy increased in prominence in American natural history museums in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the idea of trying to replicate nature through mounts and displays became increasingly central. Crude practices of overstuffing skins gave way to a focus on the artistic modelling of animal skins over a sculpted plaster and papier-mâché form to create scientifically accurate and aesthetically pleasing mounts, a technique largely developed at Ward’s Natural Science Establishment in Rochester, New York. Many of Ward’s taxidermists utilized their authority in taxidermy practices as they formally organized into the short-lived Society of American Taxidermists (1880-1883) before moving into positions in natural history museums across the United States. Through examinations of published and archival museum materials, as well as historic mounts, I argue that taxidermists at these museums reached an unspoken consensus concerning how their mounts would balance pleasing aesthetics with scientific accuracy, while adjusting their practices as they considered the priorities of numerous stakeholders. Taxidermists negotiated through administrative priorities, legacies of prominent craftsmen, and a battery of instructive materials, all claiming some authority as to what proper taxidermy could—and should—be. The shifts in taxidermy authority revealed truths about what taxidermy could mean, questions of how taxidermists identified themselves within the profession and to outsiders, practices for presenting taxidermy to museum visitors, and techniques for representing nature. This project traces the paths of consensus for developing techniques to construct museum taxidermy from the 1883 end of the S.A.T until the founding of the Technical Section of the American Association of Museums (AAM) in 1929. Two critics who book-end this project—Robert Wilson Shufeldt, an army doctor, naturalist, and museum critic, and Lawrence Vail Coleman, director of preparation and exhibition, American Museum of Natural History, and director of the American Association of Museums—identified similar characteristics that suggest a like-minded approach as to what constituted proper museum taxidermy among museum taxidermists. Museum taxidermy carried with it a set of characteristics: accuracy and a pleasing aesthetic for Shufeldt; feeling, unity, action, balance, reality, and size for Coleman. These two sets of criteria complemented each other as they reified consensus. What complicated this finding was that taxidermists themselves did not acknowledge them specifically, only relating to them in passing, if at all. Regardless, taxidermic practice seemed to be consistent across these decades. This study complicates the nature of scientific representation, in that it focuses a great deal on its artistry. Museum taxidermy is supposed to be an instructional tool, guiding museum visitors in the way they approach nature, and especially how they see animals, and focusing on teaching the science of animal behavior, biodiversity, and habitat, to name a few. It is a scientific object, representing the most up-to-date research in the field, but consensus surrounding it is not scientifically measurable. Instead, taxidermy consensus happened in hallways and back rooms (both literal and metaphorical), with little written down, and the mounts as the most substantial evidence that is had been achieved. Nevertheless, taxidermists negotiated the array of stakeholders present—museum administrators, naturalists, collectors, and the public—as they fashioned mounts that were both accurate and aesthetically pleasing representations of animal lives. “Strict Fidelity to Nature”: Scientific Taxidermy, U.S. Natural History Museums, and Craft Consensus, 1880s-1930s Jonathan David Grunert GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT In this project I look at museum taxidermy in United States natural history museums, from the 1880s to 1930s. In that 50-year span, taxidermy practices coalesced around a primary technique for mounting animal skins, using a wooden form and papier- mâ ché as the structure for stretching the skin over it. But there was more to this consensus than using the same techniques, as two critics who book-end this project—Robert Wilson Shufeldt, an army doctor, naturalist, museum critic, etc., and Lawrence Vail Coleman, director of preparation and exhibition, American Museum of Natural History, and director of the American Association of Museums—identified similar characteristics that suggest a like-minded approach as to what constituted proper museum taxidermy among museum taxidermists. I argue in this project that taxidermists reached an unspoken consensus around their craft that balanced scientific accuracy with a pleasing aesthetic, to achieve mounts that would be both scientifically meaningful and not off-putting to museum visitors. Museum taxidermy carried with it a set of characteristics: accuracy and a pleasing aesthetic for Shufeldt; feeling, unity, action, balance, reality, and size for Coleman. And these two complement each other as they reify consensus. What complicated this finding was that taxidermists themselves did not acknowledge them specifically, only relating to them in passing, if at all. Regardless, taxidermy seemed to be consistent across these decades. This study complicates the nature of scientific representation, in that it focuses a great deal on its artistic nature. Museum taxidermy is supposed to be an instructional tool, guiding museum visitors in the way they approach nature, and especially how they see animals. Museum taxidermy generally shies away from terrifying visitors with animal size and ferocity, focusing instead on teaching the science of animal behavior, biodiversity, and habitat, to name a few. In this sense, it is a scientific object, representing the most up-to- date research in the field. Consensus in the realm of taxidermy, and in scientific representation more broadly, is not scientific consensus, but more consistent with an artistic approach, like a posteriori recognitions of characteristics unique to artists or artistic movements. Taxidermy consensus happened in hallways and back rooms, with little written down, and the mounts as the most substantial evidence. Nevertheless, taxidermists negotiated the array of stakeholders present—museum administrators, naturalists, collectors, and the public—as they consistently made these mounts both accurate and aesthetically pleasing. And they still make sense when we see them, as they can be repurposed to tell new stories consistent with current understandings of animal lives. vii DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Lissa, for being a motivator, inquirer, and partner. This paper is as close as we’ll get to having taxidermy in the house; I promise. viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It would be disingenuous to take full credit for this project. At least, to take it without many caveats. A project of this scale is not something that one person can undertake alone. Indeed, many people contributed to the formation of this work, in innumerable ways. Librarians get a lot of thanks in these acknowledgements, and not without due cause. As one trained in librarianship, I have appreciated the gratitude of researchers who have recognized the librarian’s efforts in the process of a project. As one of those researchers, I appreciate the amount of work that librarians do, indeed, put into projects that are not their own. More, though, librarians get credit for helping find information, artifacts, and publications that elude even the craftiest researchers. However, their enthusiasm for projects is encouraging, and as important to the formation of ideas and finishing a project as is finding those bits of information. I’d especially like to extend my sincerest and most enthusiastic gratitude to three sets of librarians. First, librarians at Virginia Tech, Colorado State University-Pueblo, and SUNY Geneseo were encouraging and helpful in different ways. Virginia Tech University Libraries gave me my first librarian experience, which is irreplaceable. Librarians there, especially Bruce Pencek and Scott Fralin, were instrumental in helping me form research ideas and figure out how best to pursue them in a way that was both manageable and interesting. CSU-Pueblo and SUNY Geneseo hired me despite my being ABD, and their Libraries gave me time and encouragement to finish this project. Interlibrary loan shark Kenny McKenzie, ix in Pueblo, helped to retrieve materials, both historical and current; without these resources, this project would not have been possible. Second, archivists and special collections librarians were indispensable to the completion of this project. Notably, Ellen Alers and Pam Henson at Smithsonian Institution Archives helped navigate the tremendous collection in Washington, D.C., as well as providing