Jurassic Oceans- Ophthalmosaurus' field trip

[crazy8wizard]

Over the weekend, I visited the Denver Museum of Nature and Science to catch the tail end (hah) of their run of NHM London's Jurassic Oceans Exhibit. In addition to the broad swath of photos I usually take when visiting a museum, I also brought my Ophthalmosaurus figure along to take some photos in the exhibit.

For an ichthyosaur this is like meeting a celebrity. It's Mary Anning's Temnodontosaurus!

Here's an ichthyosaur skull I forgot to photograph the text for and now I forgot what it is. Given a repeated trend in this exhibit, it's probably Ichthyosaurus (again, NHM London). Surprisingly no Ophthalmosaurus fossil casts on display. What a shame.

A life model of Ichthyosaurus by the spectacularly skilled Bob Nichols. Notice how wildly different the anatomy between early and late Jurassic ichthyosaurs became!

POV: you are a belemnite

This next one I didn't photograph the Ophthalmosaurus with since it wasn't an ichthyosaur, but it's worth seeing nonetheless. This exhibit had only a small handful of full mounted skeletons, with this one being the centerpiece: Futabasaurus. This specimen is smaller than I would have expected, but since Futabasaurus is missing most of the neck this exhibit went with the shorter necked reconstruction.

Impressively built, but not crazy long.

And then towards the back of the exhibit there was a screen with animated clips of various marine reptiles including, wait hang on a second...

An amusing coincidence for sure, but since this exhibit is from the UK I'm not surprised some BBC Documentaries are peppered in.

And despite it feeling inevitable there was almost nothing in regards to Mosasaurs or Megalodon. In fact, Megalodon takes a backseat to Hybodus (Can't say I blame them, I would do that too).

There's very little representing the WIS in this exhibit, but since I pretty much live right on top of it I'm not too disappointed. I popped over to Prehistoric Journey to get my big ugly fish fix for the day.

The Big Ugly Fish that ate Kansas.

I have oodles of extra pictures of this exhibit, so if you want to see more of it I have plenty more to share!

[Torvosaurus]

I haven't been to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in a long, long time, probably 25 years or so, maybe longer. I think it was still called the Denver Museum of Natural History the last time I went (yikes!).

It looks like they have really expanded the dinosaur section since then. Do they still have the halls of taxidermied animals as well?

Nice photos of the Jurassic Seas exhibit. I'd be good to see some more photos, btw. Do they still have the Dunkleosteus skull among there normal exhibits?

Torvo

[crazy8wizard]

It looks like they have really expanded the dinosaur section since then. Do they still have the halls of taxidermied animals as well?

Nice photos of the Jurassic Seas exhibit. I'd be good to see some more photos, btw. Do they still have the Dunkleosteus skull among there normal exhibits?

Torvo

In terms of their dinosaur expansion, they haven't actually added a whole lot to Prehistoric Journey since 2000. The biggest changes have been the addition of a triceratops skull, a refreshed anatomy eryops skeleton, and some new dynamic lighting. Most of their other paleontological finds are either limited time displays in the lobby and PJ prep lab, or have their own new temporary exhibits such as the new Paleocene collection and Teen Rex.

As for the taxidermy halls, they're never getting rid of those since some of the dioramas are older than every single person on this forum. There are some that have been in the museum since 1908 with animals on display that are now extinct!

As for the Dunkleosteus skull cast, they still have it but since 2000 they've added sclerotic rings!

[Halichoeres]

Cool that the exhibit visited Denver, and that your Ophthalmosaurus got to reminisce about the old (old, old) days!

[DinoToyForum]

Are you 100% sure that's a Bob Nicholls sculpture? Did it say so in the exhibition?

[crazy8wizard]

Are you 100% sure that's a Bob Nicholls sculpture? Did it say so in the exhibition?

I'm pretty sure it did say in the exhibit but now that you ask I can't find the credit for it anywhere. I took some sign pics but forgot to photograph this one.

[ZoPteryx]

Very cool exhibit, thanks for sharing!

[Torvosaurus]

It looks like they have really expanded the dinosaur section since then. Do they still have the halls of taxidermied animals as well?

Nice photos of the Jurassic Seas exhibit. I'd be good to see some more photos, btw. Do they still have the Dunkleosteus skull among there normal exhibits?

Torvo

In terms of their dinosaur expansion, they haven't actually added a whole lot to Prehistoric Journey since 2000. The biggest changes have been the addition of a triceratops skull, a refreshed anatomy eryops skeleton, and some new dynamic lighting. Most of their other paleontological finds are either limited time displays in the lobby and PJ prep lab, or have their own new temporary exhibits such as the new Paleocene collection and Teen Rex.

As for the taxidermy halls, they're never getting rid of those since some of the dioramas are older than every single person on this forum. There are some that have been in the museum since 1908 with animals on display that are now extinct!

As for the Dunkleosteus skull cast, they still have it but since 2000 they've added sclerotic rings!

I really need to go. It's actually been about 40 years since I was there, geez time flies. There probably is a lot more to the dinosaur exhibit.

Torvo

[DinoToyForum]

By the way, Futabasaurus is from the Late Cretaceous. This exhibition may be 'Jurassic' in the same way Jurassic Park is.

I remember seeing a Futabasaurus cast (unbuilt) in the NHM London stores when I was doing research there in the mid 2000s, so it makes sense for the museum to finally put the skeleton to good use (I presume it is the same cast). It is great to see it mounted.

I wasn't working on it specifically, but I took a peep for comparative purposes. Here are some snaps I took back then. You can see how the front of the skull is a cast of a fossil while the rear portion is a (cast of a?) model.

[crazy8wizard]

By the way, Futabasaurus is from the Late Cretaceous. This exhibition may be 'Jurassic' in the same way Jurassic Park is.

I remember seeing a Futabasaurus cast (unbuilt) in the NHM London stores when I was doing research there in the mid 2000s, so it makes sense for the museum to finally put the skeleton to good use (I presume it is the same cast). It is great to see it mounted.

Oh I'm aware. It used the name Jurassic just because it sounds cool (although a considerable chunk of material there is actually from the Jurassic Period)
The exhibit itself had the temporal range of Triassic to Holocene (which kinda stinks to not see any paleozoic sea creatures considering they kinda invented that, but I like marine reptiles so it gets a pass)

That's really cool that this cast is probably the same one you saw unbuilt! I think the portion seen on the second shelf are the bones that the exhibit mentioned having injuries on.



Strangely the skull looks quite a bit different from that one. It looks flatter and it's a bit contorted. Although, it does still look like the back half past the temporal fenestrae is entirely sculpted.

[DinoToyForum]

Yes, you can even see the same yellow labels on the neural spines.

I'm sure it's the same skull, the unusual textured pattern on the modelled section is the same. It probably looks different because of the angle and distance, the parallax will be worse in my photograph.

Thanks for the extra photos. Maybe I could pinch one or two for my plesiosaur website and to share on Mastodon this #FossilFriday?

[crazy8wizard]

Yes, you can even see the same yellow labels on the neural spines.

I'm sure it's the same skull, the unusual textured pattern on the modelled section is the same. It probably looks different because of the angle and distance, the parallax will be worse in my photograph.

Thanks for the extra photos. Maybe I could pinch one or two for my plesiosaur website and to share on Mastodon this #FossilFriday?

Looking closer, yeah it does look the same as that second skull you posted. The eyes look a little different than the one on the shelf but maybe it's because it's being viewed from lower.

As for borrowing the pics, absolutely. I have a few more of the backside and one other of the side profile and skull. Although I am on mastodon (not often but still) so if you could credit me at crazy8wizard@sauropods.win I would appreciate it!

[DinoToyForum]

Yes, you can even see the same yellow labels on the neural spines.

I'm sure it's the same skull, the unusual textured pattern on the modelled section is the same. It probably looks different because of the angle and distance, the parallax will be worse in my photograph.

Thanks for the extra photos. Maybe I could pinch one or two for my plesiosaur website and to share on Mastodon this #FossilFriday?

Looking closer, yeah it does look the same as that second skull you posted. The eyes look a little different than the one on the shelf but maybe it's because it's being viewed from lower.

As for borrowing the pics, absolutely. I have a few more of the backside and one other of the side profile and skull. Although I am on mastodon (not often but still) so if you could credit me at crazy8wizard@sauropods.win I would appreciate it!

Thanks! Of course you're on Mastodon, I forgot! Then better for you to post a picture or two under the hashtag yourself and I can simply boost it.

[crazy8wizard]

better for you to post a picture or two under the hashtag yourself and I can simply boost it.

I use mastodon so infrequently that I might have forgotten my password lol. I'm sure I can figure it out though.
Since you're here, I have extra photos of the plesiosaurs.





In addition to Futabasaurus, the plesiosaurs present in this exhibit included:
Cryptoclidus

Plesiosaurus

Liopleurodon

[DinoToyForum]

Thanks for the extra photos!

Pretty flipper, its a hindlimb, specimen NHMUK PV R 3703. It has been remounted on acrylic since it was last documented and photographed in the NHM London collection:

See: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/56e711e6-c847-4f99-915a-6894bb5c5dea/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb/record/456982

The Plesiosaurus is actually a cast of the type specimen of Thalassiodracon hawkinsii. The NHM should know better, the original is on display in their Marine Reptiles gallery.

And that lovely Liopleurodon jaw is specimen NHMUK PV R 2447, also remounted for exhibition since it was last documented:

See: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/collection-specimens/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb/record/457083

What's that large bone next to the Liopleurodon jaw? It looks like a plesiosaur ischium (or maybe a coracoid)?

[crazy8wizard]

The Plesiosaurus is actually a cast of the type specimen of Thalassiodracon hawkinsii. The NHM should know better, the original is on display in their Marine Reptiles gallery.

What's that large bone next to the Liopleurodon jaw? It looks like a plesiosaur ischium (or maybe a coracoid)?

Oh no, whoops! That is amusing but also embarrassing. At least there wasn't a picture of the Rhomaleosaurus with the "Mary Anning's first Plesiosaur!" distinction that so many people erroneously apply to it.

I foolishly forgot to photograph it in full, but the flat bone is a scapula.

[DinoToyForum]

If it was labelled as a scapula in the exhibition then the label was wrong.   It is an ischium, here's a picture of it from the NHM's database. What gave it away from your photo is the three distinct facets on the process peeping out: one for the pubis, one for the ilium, one for the femur. The equivalent bone in the pectoral girdle (the coracoid) only has two facets on the equivalent anterolateral process (for the scapula and humerus). And the scapula has two facets as well (for the coracoid and humerus).

Sorry for geeking out on plesiosaurs! 

[crazy8wizard]

If it was labelled as a scapula in the exhibition then the label was wrong.   It is an ischium
...
Sorry for geeking out on plesiosaurs! 

That very well could have been on me. I remember one of the signs mentioning a scapula but it could be a different one in the display or in a different one. I was making an estimation based off of what I remembered, what I could see in the photo, and this diagram (amusingly sourced from your own website)

I'm not as familiar with the pelvis and pectorals of plesiosaurs, so you'll have to forgive the blunder.
No need to apologize at all though! It's really interesting to talk to someone who is so familiar with the specimens!

[DinoToyForum]

No problem! That plate from Tarlo shows the anatomy of the scapula well, although a large portion of the anterior blade is missing (broken off) from that specimen. Nevertheless, notice the two articulations towards the bottom of the picture, as opposed to the three of the ischium. It kinda looks like three facets in two dimensions in the scapula picture, but that's because the region is quite deep and the photo is slightly oblique, so the part in shadow is actually the articular surface of one of the two facets. Notice also the ridge that runs diagonally from the bottom left to the top right - this ridge separates the main blade (right, with much missing) from the dorsal blade (left, almost complete), which are in different orientations/planes. In contrast, the ischium has no dorsal blade so the whole bone is in one plate-like plane, with no ridge.