Friday mystery object #109


This week I’ve decided to go back to mammal skulls. Any idea what this belonged to?

N.B. length of skull approx 12-13cm

As usual you can leave your questions, comments and suggestions below and I’ll try to provide some pointers. Good luck!

94 thoughts on “Friday mystery object #109

      • Now I don’t feel quite so stupid, seeing how many experts still haven’t pinned it down … you’re going to explain that what I’m about to suggest is a member of one of the groups already mentioned, but that would mean looking it up and it’s hard enough just typing on this phone, now. Mongoose???

    • I started writing a guide about a year ago and it got a bit more complicated than I had envisaged. When I get a chance I’ll try to pull together something simpler – maybe in instalments…

      The answers to objects on Monday often have some pointers, but there are quite a lot of them to go through now!

  1. Okay, a mammal, a carnivore, not a mustelid, but long quite narrow skull…
    Too big for herpestids, I was thinking viverid, but too big for a Genet? In fact, the teeth look wrong there. Okay… and too big for mephitids?

    I d’know. Still think the skull here is too big, but Hog-Nosed Skunk.

  2. I was going to say mustelid as well… Damn you convergence and/or similarity-due-to-common-ancestry!

    Whatever it is, it must have had a scary powerful bite force seeing how long that skull is and how massive that temporalis muscle was …

    SO, it’s not a dog, not a cat and not a pinniped…A viverrid? I’m doubting this as I type, purely on the basis of you having done a civet before, but you could very well throw a curve ball at us… 🙂

    Definitely checking later for the answer!

  3. Not a canid. Not a cat/ Nota viverrid. Not a mustelid. Not a seal, skunk or mongoose. Doesn’t look like the procyonid skulls either. Nor is it a Linsang.

    Ir does look very stoaty, but its far too big.. I don’t think its a Kinkajou, the back of the skull doesn’t look right.

    • The mountain beaver has huge incisors rather than canines and even though it’s very basal it has the large diastema characteristic of all rodents.

    • Sagittal crests are a developmental characteristic, often they don’t show up in younger adults, so they aren’t all that useful for identification

  4. Y’know, I’d swear it’s a weasel if it wasn’t for those dang-nabbit 12-13cm measurements. Well, from what I gather it has to be a feliforme of some kind. The skull looks too elongated to be a civet…or a linsang. Doesn’t seem to be a raccoon, but the dentition appears to be very raccoon-ish.

    And just my luck, skullsite only works with birds 😉

  5. Somehow I feel like we’ve already had a binturong, but I suppose there isn’t a rule against repeats, and that’s sort of how it’s reading to me…

  6. I’m going to put my vote in for crab-eating raccon, Procyon cancrivorus. Although it still looks very much like an otter to me! I’ve obviously got a lot to learn.

  7. Either it’s a crab-eating raccoon or a Bassariscus(don’t ask me to differentiate the two species…), I guess.

  8. the skull is so specialized, I love the sound of crab-eating raccoon, cause that’s gotta be one specialized Procyanid.
    everybody who specializes in eating crabs has a funny shaped head. So that’s my vote.

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s