Disclaimer:

A quick note before we dive in:

Everything you’re about to read reflects my personal observations, experiences, and opinions, formed over decades of hanging out in museums, digging (and digging through) dinosaur bones, and having more conversations about fossil funding than most people consider healthy.

This blog isn’t meant to throw shade at anyone or any institution. It’s written to stir up conversation, ask tough questions, and maybe even spark a little curiosity. If you disagree with something I’ve said, great! Let’s talk about it. Paleontology is full of gray areas (and gray taxonomy).

Facts shared here are pulled from public sources, industry norms, and my own memories, opinions, and feelings. I’ve done my best to get things right, but if something’s off, apologies! I'm only human.

BC

Brian Curtice, PhD 

6/16/2025

Ceratosaurus juvenile skull heading to auction sold at auction for $26,000,000 before fees, formerly on display at the Mountain America Museum of Ancient Life from ~2000 - 2024.

Museums Can Sell Fossils???

Short answer? Yep! As long as they are not from public lands.

Mountain America Museum Of Ancient Life Ceratosaurus Information

The MAMOAL Ceratosaurus was collected in 1996 by Western Paleontological Laboratories, a commercial fossil company, from Bone Cabin Quarry, a privately owned ranch. The specimen was displayed at the then-named North American Museum of Ancient Life around 2000, where it sat until being sold in 2024. I have only found a single reference to it in a published academic paper, Snively and Russell (2007), in the Appendix as NAMAL without a specimen number. The dissertation of Tsai (2015) lists it as TPI 1010 in Table 3-2 and references it in a sentence about its pelvis. This is despite the fact that it is a juvenile Ceratosaurus with a gorgeous skull and some well-preserved postcrania. I have been shocked that this animal wasn't published. 

MAMOAL is not a research-oriented museum, and the CEO likely saw an opportunity to leverage an unused asset to catapult the museum's education and experience Mission forward. It is possible that the museum never legally owned the Ceratosaurus; a Foundation or other legal entity may have retained title. I'm sure the story is fascinating. However, I'd wager that had it been dubbed "Sarah," and its scientific importance woven into an adorable narrative, it wouldn't have been sold. MAMOAL is a 501c3, like most museums, it has a collection, and it could have been described. The fact that it wasn't might have led to its being sold.

Will MAMOAL get a black eye from this sale?  Probably in the academic community. But the locals won’t care for long. It will blow over; the museum is too cool for them not to love it. 

Now that you have my take on what transpired, let's dig deeper into how a museum can legally, and within the rules of various professional societies, sell a fossil. I'll dig into the fine print of deaccessioning, the processes used to make a museum specimen available for sale, and close with what other museums are doing to raise money. Along the way, I'll share my observations from 32 years of paleontology.

Many Museums Have A Potential Funding Source That Didn’t Exist 40 Years Ago… Dinosaurs

In today’s hot fossil market, many museums have a resource that didn’t exist 40 years ago… dinosaur bones. In the last few years, dinosaur prices have escalated to stratospheric levels. $40 million Stegosaurus, $27.5 million Tyrannosaurus, and numerous skeletons exceeding $5 million. These eye-watering amounts might cause a museum in a financially tenuous scenario to consider selling a specimen, especially if it will save the museum.

Luckily for paleontologists, the vast majority (95%+?) of museum specimens are from public lands. It is illegal to sell a public-land fossil. Alas, not all museum leaders may initially understand this public versus private land distinction, but I presume someone, somewhere, lets them know only specimens with a private-land provenance can be considered for sale.

You might think, “Museums that are repositories can’t sell fossils.” The Government cares about Government property, not specimens collected/purchased from private land, as it is legal to sell such fossils. I have yet to find a document (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) that prevents a museum that is a public repository from selling private specimens. If someone can point me to, or send me, documents that explicitly state the illegality of such an action, I'd love to read them.

One might argue, "The museum has a clause that says they can't sell fossils." Can that clause withstand the museum having a "Change in Mission"? Is the Board of Directors capable of overriding it with a vote? I suspect very few, if any, museums have wording that 100% prevents the selling of original fossils should the Board become motivated to do so. One of the reasons museums are loath to accept donated specimens that have "strings" is that it reduces use future possibilities.

Deaccessioning - Deeper Dive

Oxford Languages deaccession definition:

Verb: officially remove (an item) from the listed holdings of a library, museum, or art gallery, typically in order to sell it to raise funds.

Noun: the official removal of an item from a library, museum, or art gallery in order to sell it.

Deaccessioning Is An Acknowledged Process

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) allows deaccessioning according to the Member Ethics section, refers deaccessioning questions to the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the International Council of Museums (ICOM) code of ethics pages. The AAM refers individuals to the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) and the National Park Service (NPS).

The AAM (and, therefore, SVP) is okay with deaccessioning if individuals don’t make money directly. Monies raised from the sale of an item are to go back into enhancing the collection. This stance is echoed by the AAMD.

Deaccessioning In Practice

Let’s look at a real-world example of deaccessioning, this one from the public documents of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City, one of the largest museums in the world. 

According to ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer feature, the AMNH generated $229 million in 2023 and spent $228 million, and its assets, at 1.64 billion, outweigh its liabilities of $537 million. This is a major player in the field of nonprofits. They were chartered in 1869, from what I can tell, which would make them exempt from the New York Compiled Codes, Rules & Regulations (NYCRR) Title 8 § 3.27, which exempted entities chartered before 1890 from legislation that seems to be a codification of the AAM deaccession standards. I thought I’d mention this neat factoid since I'm using a New York museum as an example.

The AMNH has kindly posted their “Collections Policy and Procedures” document online, (after clicking the link, then click the arrow next to 'Collections Policy and Procedures') and reading through it reveals typical museum language, some of which might be surprising to readers not versed in the “fine print” of museum handbooks. I’ve quoted some of the more salient points tied to sales of objects directly from the link above and use bold to draw your eye to key words, as some of the paragraphs risk falling into “handbook speak.” :-)

Section 5.0 “Deaccessions and Disposition,” 

5.1.3 The Museum recognizes that collections are not static and must be continually improved to reflect new research directions, to complete the record of life and nature they represent, and to support new exhibitions. Improvement includes growth through new acquisitions, judicious removal of materials from the collections through exchange, gift, or sale to other institutions or agencies. 

     This statement, found under the General Provisions section, notes that sale is an option at this museum. It states “... to other institutions or agencies” but doesn’t define what those are. Is Sotheby’s an institution? Also, see 5.2.5 below for alternate paths an object can take.

5.1.4 b. The material does not relate or is tangential to the Museum’s scope of collections, research or educational activities

     This clause allows them to remove from their collections items that are no longer relevant to their mission. Many museums include a version of this clause. Museums sometimes change focus. Should the AMNH decide dinosaurs are not a draw, they could remove them via this clause. Who defines the museum’s scope and direction? The Board.

5.1.4 e. The specimen or object has little scientific or educational value 

     This statement is quite subjective. Does a mostly crushed vertebra have little scientific value? What about a Triceratops skull, of which allegedly 500+ individual crania exist in museums around the world. Is a 501st necessary (Star Wars fans, don’t answer that ;-)).

Section 5.2, Approvals 

5.2.2 Prior notice shall be given by the curator and division chair to the Dean of Science for Collections and the Provost for their approval for:

1. A sale, exchange, or donation of an object whose monetary value might reasonably be expected to exceed $25,000 

     What isn’t clear to me is the process for items under $25,000. Do they not sell items with a value under $25,000? Are those simply thrown into the trash? (Yes, things are thrown into dumpsters…)

5.2.3 Where the value of the item or lot to be sold or exchanged is reasonably assumed to exceed $100,000, or the applicable restrictions as deemed by the Provost or President may prohibit such dispositions, then the further approval of the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees is required. 

     A Board of Trustees is where a desire to sell a fossil would typically start. Let’s say a museum is in terrible financial peril. The Board, especially if run by business folk, may evaluate the collections and decide that selling a few rooted Tyrannosaurus teeth at $100k+ each is better than closing the doors. 

5.2.5 (Sentence Two) If the object is offered for sale, preference shall be given for sale at public auction or the public marketplace in a manner that will best protect the interests of the Museum. 

     The museum would prefer the item go to auction or be listed publicly for sale instead of a backroom transaction. Auctions typically maximize the sold-for price and remove allegations of unfairness from potential buyers or concerns from Board members that, by selling it privately, they didn’t get the maximum value. Regarding the latter point, wait til you see what the art world allows (seen much later in this missive).

5.2.7 Objects that have lost their value to the Collections because of alteration, replication, deterioration, or other compelling reason and have no value for exchange, sale, or donation may be discarded or destroyed, with the deaccession record deposited with the Office of Registrar. 

     This is the side of museums that the public doesn’t get to see, and it is tragic for all involved. I hate to use this analogy, but it is akin to putting an animal down at a shelter after no one wanted it for many months. In the case of museum objects, it is usually decades. Most longtime museum folk have stories about having to dispose of items in the heartbreaking fashion of the dumpster.

5.5 Use of Proceeds  The proceeds realized from a sale of collection items must be used for acquisitions to the collections or the preservation, protection, and care of the collection. These proceeds may not be used to defray ongoing operating expenses of the Museum.  

     The statement that the proceeds may not be used to defray operating expenses is usually code for the money can’t be used to make payroll. A clever Chief Finance Officer might sell an item and then move all of the collections budget to another department, such as payroll. Since the sale will now pay for collection expenses, the money formerly allocated can be used elsewhere. Finance people are the ones to watch out for :-).

     The first part of 5.5 doesn’t define what “preservation, protection, and care of the collection” means. What if the money is used to turn part of the collection into a “living exhibit,” where the items are displayed and people can observe scientists accessing them? Also, I read this as the Board having the ability to sell a specimen to acquire a more desired one that suddenly becomes available through a private seller. (In reality, nothing ‘suddenly’ happens in museums, other than dropped specimens...)

Rules!

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) selected the American Alliance of Museums (AAM, formerly American Association of Museums) as the arbiter of deaccessioning rules and ICOM as an ethics check. From what I can find, that is the extent of deaccession guidance provided by SVP. Here is a link to the deaccessioning rules from the SVP Handbook 01/2021 v1-10. The link takes you to their download page, then click on the link enttiled 'SVP Handbook'. The deaccessioning paragraph states:

“If vertebrate fossils are to be deaccessioned from registered collections procedures should follow the recommended guidelines as outlined by either the American Association of Museums (AAM) and be in accord with in the International Council of Museums (ICOM) code of ethics."

I interpret this to mean that for any questions I have about deaccessioning, I should follow the AAM and ICOM documents. I'll break those down in a moment.

 SVP ethics rules have an interesting, to me, line:

Access by researchers to collections is regarded as an essential quality for all registered public collections. 

SVP doesn’t define what makes something registered or what a public collection is. Is there a government registrar? Does one have to be a member of AAM? I know the answer is knowable; I just haven't found it. I would love it if someone could send me a few links on this topic.

     In the ethics section, there is another statement that sounds clear at first read, but when I parsed it out, I was left seeking more guidance: “Fossils and their contextual data must be accessioned and curated in an institution, the mission of which is scientific study and education in perpetuity.” 

     How is an institution defined? A 501c3 with a large building? Is Thanksgiving Point’s Mountain America Museum of Ancient Life an institution? It has a curator and accessions specimens in a catalog, and it has an education mission. By saying “scientific study and education in perpetuity,” does one effectively make any museum with a mission statement that says "education is a focus" an institution?

American Alliance of Museums

The AAM (American Alliance of Museums, formerly Association) is where SVP sends its paleontologists for many questions, including deaccessioning.  Here is what the AAM writes about deaccessioning.

Deaccessioning and Disposal

"The practice of deaccessioning an object is the act of formally removing that object from the museum’s permanent collection. Once an object is deaccessioned it can then be disposed of by various means. The following resources were compiled from organizations throughout the nonprofit and museum sector. AAM reviewed and approved each one based on the organization’s authority and expertise and the resource’s usefulness related to the topic. Clicking the links below will take you off the AAM website."

The AAM endorses the National Park Service Policy, which is a fantastic policy for government agencies that can’t sell public items whatsoever. Thus, it doesn’t have a section on selling fossils, which is what many individuals visiting this link will be looking for.

The AAM references the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD). Here is the 2010 guide, updated in 2015. I’ve pulled some salient points out of this guide. I think you’ll raise an eyebrow or two! As before, I added boldface to draw your eye to the salient parts regarding selling fossils. Underline means this is a very important term, as it has global ramifications for a museum.

Association of Art Museum Directors

Section I: Deaccessioning and Disposal

1. Deaccessioning is a legitimate part of the formation and care of collections and, if practiced, should be done in order to refine and improve the quality and appropriateness of the collections, the better to serve the museum’s mission.

The AAMD acknowledges that deaccessioning will happen; they even tie it to serving the museum’s mission. Boards of Directors/Trustees can change missions; a thought to sell fossils to help the museum would likely come from the top, where the mission statement and collection appropriateness are more easily changed.

2. Funds received from the disposal of a deaccessioned work shall not be used for operations or capital expenses. Such funds, including any earnings and appreciation thereon, may be used only for the acquisition of works in a manner consistent with the museum’s policy on the use of restricted acquisition funds. In order to account properly for their use, AAMD recommends that such funds, including any earnings and appreciation, be tracked separate from other acquisition funds. 

This one is another finance person’s delight! It says you can’t use the funds from a fossil sale on capital expenses, yet it can be used for the acquisition of works, which is usually a capital expense. Plus, it says, “consistent with the museum’s policy…” Fossil sales aren’t something a museum is going to do overnight; likely, there will be changes to mission statements, values, directions of research, etc., months in advance of a fossil sale, presuming the language isn’t already built into the existing operating structure.

More from the AAMD, which acknowledges in a fashion that art has tremendous dollar value:

Section II:

G. The work is being sold as part of the museum’s effort to refine and improve its collections, in keeping with the collecting goals reviewed and approved by the museum’s Board of Trustees or governing body.  

Refining and improving collections, in light of goals set by the Board of Trustees, presumes that the Board will always do the right thing. I hope it will, but if the option is bankruptcy/close doors, or sell a specimen…

Section III: Authority and Process

B. The final authority for the deaccessioning and disposal of works rests with the Board of Trustees or governing body or its designee. 

This clause gives the Board of Trustees effective carte blanche approval. Now, I don’t mean to sound negative, to paint every Board as if looking to raid the cookie jar of collections. I have been around enough Boards, though, to know they are people, most of whom are from the local community, and want to see their museum flourish. If you show them a way they can generate $200,000 from selling a fossil, especially if they are near fossil beds and can possibly get more (no matter how low the odds), I can see this becoming a problem. Why wasn’t this a problem before? Low fossil sales values. We have entered a new era, and there is no going back. The world has a record number of millionaires and billionaires, and everyone at some point loved dinosaurs, and nearly everyone knows a child, niece, nephew, etc., who loves them still. The art community is decades ahead of paleo, so we can look at what they have experienced to see what is coming for us.

Section IV: Selection of Methods of Disposal

1. Preferred methods of disposal are sale or transfer to, or exchange with another public institution, sale through publicly advertised auction, and sale or exchange to or through a reputable, established dealer. Every reasonable effort should be taken to identify and evaluate the various advantages and yields available through different means of disposal.  

This paragraph says try to sell it to a public institution; however, see what you think you can get at auction for it, and what a dealer can get you via a private sale. I have been told the rarest of the rare paintings never see a public auction, a dealer might have a standing order to buy Painting X for $xxx million, no need for the public to see it happen!  The fossil guidelines recommend keeping all sales public. The art world says, “Get the best deal for the deaccessioned item.” At least the paleo rules say to leave the transactions in the public eye.

In 2022, the AAMD adopted the AAM policy on what the money can be used for. Here is the current and previous rule.

The new rule, number 25 in Professional Practices, reads as follows:

Funds received from the disposal of a deaccessioned work of art including any earnings and appreciation thereon, may be used only for the acquisition of works of art in a manner consistent with the museum’s policy on the use of restricted acquisition funds or for direct care of works of art. Direct care for purposes of this section means the direct costs associated with the storage or preservation of works of art. Such direct costs include for example those for (i) conservation and restoration treatments (including packing and transportation for such conservation or restoration) and (ii) materials required for storage of all classifications of works of art, such as, acid-free paper, folders, matboard, frames, mounts, and digital media migration. Funds received from the disposal of a deaccessioned work of art shall not be used for operations or capital expenses except as provided above. Direct care does not include (a) salaries of staff or (b) costs incurred for the sole purpose of temporary exhibition display.

Which changed from:

Funds received from the disposal of a deaccessioned work shall not be used for operations or capital expenses. Such funds, including any earnings and appreciation thereon, may be used only for the acquisition of works of art in a manner consistent with the museum’s policy on the use of restricted acquisition funds. In order to account properly for their use, the AAMD recommends that such funds, including any earnings and appreciation, be tracked separately from other acquisition funds.

The AAMD has declared that deaccessioned sales can’t be used to run the day-to-day operations of the museum. I suppose that was in exchange for being able to sell via private sale ;-)?

Applying the AAMD guidance to a dinosaur collection might be interpreted as shelving, compactors, and even a new facility can be expensed under the "materials required for storage," as sauropods require a lot of space and love. See what I mean about squishy interpretation?

What about ICOM and its ethics? This is boilerplate stuff that should surprise no one; however, I found these two sentences interesting.

International Council of Museums

9- The object is no longer consistent with the mission or collecting goals of the museum.  

10- The object is being sold as part of the museum’s effort to renew and improve its collections, in keeping with the collecting goals approved by the museum’s governing body.  

ICOM echoes AADM and AAM in that the "Mission of the Museum," as defined by the governing body, is the overriding force. They don’t discuss what to do with proceeds, just that ethically, items can be sold to “renew and improve” their collections. 

Squishiness

The more I read the handbooks from AAM, AAMD, AMNH, ICOM, SVP, and others, the more I realized there are many vague, highly interpretable words. Many of these sentences initially sound great, but digging in as I would playing the part of a CEO desperate for cash, they get "squishy," with lots of room for interpretation.

A Natural Consequence?

Why is anyone surprised when a museum follows the rules established by the professional societies? Perhaps they weren't familiar with what is permissible. Nowhere do the rules state that the specimen can't have been on display or shouldn't have been researched. The rules are clear, the Mission Statement and the Board have the final say. Their fiduciary responsibility is to ensure the museum's continued success. For many museums, success is minimally defined as staying in business, and maximally by enhancing their visitors' experience.

The vast majority of museum visitors won’t care if a museum sells an original specimen and uses the revenue to build many additional displays. That will seem like a fair trade, especially in troubled economic times when they themselves may be considering selling a beloved collectible to purchase a new appliance or pay rent.

New children are born daily, and in 3-5 years, they will want to see dinosaurs. Terrible press events blow over. But new exhibits? They will be in place for decades. 

The AAM has constraints on how the proceeds from selling deaccessioned objects can be used. Clever CFOs might move the existing collection budget to another department and backfill this new deficit with the interest garnered from investing the sale proceeds. Finance experts make legal magic happen.

Why NOT Publish On Such Specimens?

For me, a key takeaway from this deep dive is the importance of publishing. Let's say the specimen was published, the academics gave it a cute name, and the community loves it, but the Board decided to sell it anyway. If it were in the literature, it could still be studied. 

Paleontologists routinely publish on specimens they have never, and will never, see in person. Think of nearly every cladogram ever published. How many of the specimens did the lead author actually touch versus how many did they score from the literature? 

Paleontologists publish on lost specimens and what I call paleocryptids, taxa based on nothing more than a 146-year-old line drawing and dubious description. Or Bigfoot-level grainy images. What if this Ceratosaurus had been CT scanned, and the raw data made available? As a lad who won't publish on bones he hasn't touched, I know the importance of access to original specimens. Yet, even today, museums continue to mount original bones, obfuscating, if not outright preventing, the study of my beloved sauropods. Some places wall off specimens, preventing tactile studies. If research was the key driving force then why mount original bone? And, if so, why not CT scan each bone first, or at the very least scan the bones before they are restored.

Why would it have been a bad thing for the Ceratosaurus to be in the literature from a purely scientific standpoint? What if the Rio museum had digital scans of each bone they lost? Or the hundreds of smaller losses that have occurred over the last 150 years, including drops, floods, theft, and misplacement? If the specimens were in the literature, especially CT-scanned, we could still lament, but we could also use the specimens.

Aside from understandable outrage and indignation from paleontologists and likely museum folk, this is a wake-up call. The fact that the ability to deaccession, and thus sell, objects is built into the fabric of many museums' legal documents was eye-opening to me. I suspect many more will add such language in short order.

What Is Public Trust?

Can this Happen Again?

Can? I think it will. With fossils becoming an asset class discussed as useful hedges against inflation, it will undoubtedly happen again. Mix in massive grant reductions, and museums that were barely hanging on will fall off a cliff. Unless… unless they sell their assets while the market is hot. We could even see a flood of sales, "Reputation be darned, the locals will forgive us!", as small museums sell off their items in a seller's market. That could even provide a bump in supply that should reduce the price of fossils. Or maybe not. We are in an uncharted formation. 

Thank you for reading!

BC

PS: Creative Monetization Pathways

Museums are exploring new ways of generating revenue. How long until other museums do what the Mountain America Museum of Ancient Life did, sell naming rights? It used to be the North American Museum of Ancient Life, but Mountain America, a local Utah credit union, paid money, or services in kind, for the rights to call the museum by their name in 2022. You can read about it here. 

Museums can partner with Corporate America, which I suspect is what the Field Museum did when they partnered with McDonald’s and Disney to buy “Sue” the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen that kicked off today’s escalating fossil prices. McDonald’s was able to open a location inside the Field Museum and funded(funds?) a prep lab.

In 2018, the Carnegie Museum sold a rare double-elephant Audubon book that was to help the ornithology collections. As far as I know, the Carnegie Library had another copy. You can read about it here, though it requires a subscription or access via a library to access.

The 2013 San Diego Natural History Museum sale garnered much coverage. Here is a National Geographic article, and here are a few of the specimens that were going to be sold. Note the expected sales price! I believe this Xiphactinus ended up at the Museum at Prairiefire. The National Geographic article warned that these specimens could be lost to private individuals, and thus any research that had been published on them wouldn’t be able to be verified. However, I don’t know if any of these specimens had (or have...) ever entered the literature (I don’t study them and must admit I didn’t dig too deep on this one). And, if they had, to my utter astonishment, paleontologists are still publishing on Amphicoelias fragillimus and Stromer's works, going so far as to name new taxa from lost specimens.

Rally Rd fractionalized ownership of a Stegosaurus, allowing anyone to purchase a share of it for $68.75/share. Investors are presuming this Stegosaurus will sell at auction for numbers approaching that of Apex, which would translate to shareholders seeing a tidy return on their investment.