Friday mystery object #342

This week I have something fishy for you to have a go at identifying:


It may prove a bit easy for some of you as it is quite distinctive, but that makes it all the more interesting! To avoid spoiling things for the non-fish fans please try to keep your comments cryptic.

Have fun!

14 thoughts on “Friday mystery object #342

  1. I don’t believe in the word “fish” unless it excludes sharks (all the chondricthyes) and therefore renders wrong the old cliché that the whale shark is the largest fish. Like the nonsense that claims (in English, mainly) that “apes aren’t monkeys”, it seems to me a linguistic assault upon systematics.
    This look like ray fins, but… what the bloomin’ ‘eck are those axolotl-esque forelimbs about?
    Thinking required but am going to assume it is not a lissamphibian and is probably an actinopterygian.
    More scrutiny and thinking required…

    • Dagnab you Wouter. I looked up skeletons of “flying fish” and “mudskippers” and am still not any the wiser. Now you tell me that one/some of those is a clue or answer. Dagnab you all to heck. And the hoatzin you rode in on.

      (Thanks for the clue BTW)

  2. Ooo ooo! Batman is missing his sidekick clearly! I was 40 years old the fist time I saw this fish and it completely blew my mind. It’s now a part of our classroom story of alternate uses for physical structures. Super cool!
    Not sure of the species….but can we go with Triglidae?

  3. Well, the Dans (Calleri and Jones) seem to have given it away. Truly weird critter: the separation of a few of the leading spines of the pectoral fin for use as legs (or antennae?) is remarkable!
    I take it that this specimen was preserved in some liquid that does awful things to pigmentation?

Share your thoughts

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s