Conservation Treatment of Gilmore the Flying Lion: Making Decisions

Why is there a lion in the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum collection? In a Museum known for its aviation and space-related artifacts, there is a unique piece of flying history: a taxidermy male African Lion—more fondly known as Gilmore the Flying Lion. As a cub in the 1930s, Gilmore made aviation history when he traveled around the United States with the flamboyant and colorful aviator Roscoe Turner as a mascot for the Gilmore Oil Company. They flew over 25,000 miles together until the big cat outgrew his spot in the aircraft. Gilmore the Flying Lion is now on display in the new Nation of Speed gallery at the Museum in Washington, D.C. Before he could be displayed, we needed to address condition issues such as extensive fur loss, light damage, and previous repairs.

This is the second in a three-part blog series about the conservation treatment of Gilmore the Flying Lion. In the first blog, we examined Gilmore in detail to understand his construction, previous repairs, and current condition issues. These factored into deciding levels of intervention necessary to get Gilmore ready for display. Here, we explore how we balanced caring for the original taxidermy with our goal to present him as lifelike as possible.

A taxidermy lion was a very different type of artifact for the Museum’s curators and conservators to consider and we had many discussions about how best to approach this unique object—not just any old lion, but Gilmore the Flying Lion.

What Did We Need to Address?

Gilmore is structurally stable. X-radiography revealed he has an extensive internal armature. We can see he has not changed since he was displayed in the Turner family home soon after he was taxidermied (1950s-1970s). His body shape is the same, his face shape is the same—even his hair style is the same!

As detailed in the first blog, our primary concerns were with his appearance. Light damage had caused color to fade from his fur, he had large areas of fur loss, and there were disfiguring previous repairs. Decisions about the degree to which these should be addressed were difficult as they would impact his final appearance, and ultimately how visitors would view and understand Gilmore.

Philosophical and Ethical Framework

The Gilmore preservation team began researching examples of taxidermy animals from across the Smithsonian’s collections to inform our philosophical and ethical framework. Animals on display have enormous potential for public engagement and interest, but they can also invite public scrutiny. We found four distinct categories of taxidermy animals that represented different aesthetic outcomes based on how they were collected and their intended use:

1. Scientific specimens - collected and preserved to retain maximum originality of its material for research and study.
2. Diorama specimen - collected to be a faithful rendering of the overall appearance of a type of animal to educate the public.
3. Trophy specimen - hunted for sport and presented with a degree of lifelike quality dependent on the skills of the taxidermist and the wishes of the client as they are usually intended for personal display.
4. Iconic specimen - preserved to recognize the animal’s place in history where the individual story of animal heroism is significant and understandable for the public. These are often examples of “ethical taxidermy” where the animal died of causes unrelated to their collection, which in the case of Gilmore, was old age.

Within these categories are ranges in levels of intervention, going from minimal (for scientific specimens) to full restoration (for trophy specimens). These levels get murky in the iconic specimen category, likely because there are fewer examples of these. The Air and Space Museum’s collection includes only two: Able, a female rhesus monkey who flew in a Jupiter rocket’s nose cone to leave the Earth’s atmosphere in 1959, and Gilmore the Flying Lion. Our research considered what approaches other Smithsonian museums have taken to address their iconic animals and what their rationale was for their presentations.

Iconic Animals: Treatments and Philosophical Framework

Curators at the Smithsonian’s National Postal Museum decided that Owney the Dog was not recognizable as the particular “scruffy mutt” who was adopted as an unofficial mascot by Railway Mail Service staff and rode the Railway Post Office cars in the late 19th century. The goal to bring more “personality” back to the dog justified a more involved approach, including having his face completely reconstructed by a professional taxidermist based on historic images.

At the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, there is Cher Ami , the carrier pigeon responsible for saving 194 Americans during World War I. Cher Amiwas shot though the leg and breast during the heroic mission and died later of his wounds. He has been displayed in his original taxidermy state for many years.

Just in these two objects alone, we can see that there is no clear one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to iconic specimens.

What Should Gilmore Look Like?

Our treatment of Gilmore could fall anywhere on the spectrum from minimal intervention, such as surface cleaning only, to full-scale restoration, aiming for a more life-like appearance.

If Gilmore was displayed with the extant damage, it could be argued that he would still be understandable as an African lion who was a mascot for Roscoe Turner and the Gilmore Oil Company. But would he be understandable as Gilmore the Flying Lion? Gilmore, in his taxidermized state, does not appear as he did in life, which begs the question of what he should look like.

Our key questions were:

• What is Gilmore’s ideal appearance?
• What evidence do we have for, or against, changing his current appearance based on our examination and historical research?

Decisions

The final decisions and goals for Gilmore’s treatment resolved to impart a more cared-for appearance with as much life-like authenticity as possible. As he was structurally stable, no changes would be made to his overall shape or form, and our focus would be on his appearance. This meant removing the previous fur fills, which were both visually distracting and unfaithful to how Gilmore looked when he was alive. This philosophy carried over in the decision to compensate for areas of fur loss and light fading, the details of which are described in the third blog post (coming soon).

* All images attributed to NASM Conservation staff, unless otherwise specified.

Further reading:

The ethics of taxidermy interventions and preservation exist in the contemporary art world as well and can be seen in this article discussing Damien Hirst’s work:

Replication and Decay in Damien Hirst's Natural History – Tate Papers | Tate

For more case studies into how taxidermy can be approached in museum collections, see:

The Afterlives of Animals: A Museum Menagerie - Google Books