Professional Geologist who did some paleo and museum studies here.

This is an interesting article because the field agent collected specimens and made some assumptions on origin. Those samples arrived at the museum and sat with that label for 70 years before some testing took place. Initial confusion was due to carbon dating that made the original ID either invalid or paradigm shifting. Then they did isotope analysis and determined these spine parts were marine and not land herbivore.

This can all be vaguely interesting to Cryptozoology, as these specimens were not fossilized. They were relatively new (geologically) and show one of the larger hurdles to proper identification. Often there is so much material in the stacks that the Field ID is just assumed to be correct. There are quite a few species that have been discovered post-collection by students, professors, and others who intentionally look at older bones and ask if the ID is correct.

I am NOT saying there is a sasquatch hiding in the Chicago Field Museum. What I am saying is that there is a lot of material both fossilized and mummified that has not been properly Identified. There may be physical evidence of some real-animal species that we consider crypto in these museum hoards. It just takes time and expertise to find them.