This week I have a mystery object from the Dead Zoo that I think you’ll probably find easy to get to genus, but then I think it’ll get much more difficult:
If it proves too hard to work out the species I have a clue that might help and I’ll add it to the post next week. Have fun!
Aaand, here’s your clue! This is where the label says it’s from. I hope that helps!
Thanks, sir, for your hint. Unfortunately that’s as close as I can get at the moment
I’ll go out on a limb and guess that the family name comes from its enlongated ankle bones. I think it has sticky fingers. I’m not familiar with the family, but could it be a pygmy?
Agree with jeenifermacaire. Huge eyes, plate in the orbite and peculiar upper incisors.
What they said! I had a cousin with eyes like that.
It’s hard to point to a species, but then some people say it this species points at YOU it could be dangerous.
Maybe this one is more characterized by a thick head rather than by its ankle bone. Certainly the less oriental of all.
East Indies … It’s a pity they didn’t have smaller geographical units at that time. It confirms my idea, I’m even pretty sure that this species takes its specific epithet from this island, although it is not called Bauka anymore.
Definitely a nocturnal creature, a lemur with an extra long finger. Decided I need to practise ID of mystery objects for next SHNH online quiz
That wasn’t my first guess, but it seems like it coulda been a contender… The Wikipedia article on the species I think you are suggesting (maritime affirmative?) has a picture of the skeleton, with the skull in side view: the incisors are much more prominent, with a gap between them and following teeth, and the orbit doesn’t seem to be closed behind as it is in Paolo’s critter. So I am sticking with the ankly guess.
I am in on the ankle-biter guess as well. If it wasn’t for those incisors there is another owly contender.
Cover art for a paperback horror/fantasy novel?
(I’m with the ankle guessers.)
The Philippine variant is apparently the smallest, and the size of this one seems to match the Ph. skull length I found on the WWWeb.
but grandma what BIG eyes you have… AY, better to see you my dear… but you don’t live in north carolina do you?
Having read the other posts (and come to this two days late) I agree about the ankle theory. But since it seems wiki can’t agree with itself about how many genera there are, let alone species, I think this is an unfair challenge. Like being asked to identify a species of beetle from its droppings. Bad Paolo. Naughty Paolo.
Yes – and the Genus has been changed in the past, ah… hundred years.
I’m with the ankle biters, er, guessers.
Yes, my cousin Little Carl looked just like this on the inside!
I thought I was onto something spicy – until the dental formula popped up in an abstract. Now I think I have been horsing around too much, and will just go back to my original field of interest.
So….. It doesn’t match the Eastern Tarsiers. If, in fact, it did come from the island of Bauka, (which I discovered from a geological abstract on tin mining) which is now called Bangki the species defined on that location is Cephalopachus bancanus. The dental formula seems to be correct. Especially the tricuspid molar.
An amazing site called Morphosource ruled out the Carilo syricha, which was really close!! But the foramen was slightly different and the jawline.
I ruled out: Cephalopachus bancanus borneanus because the occipitals were too smooth and much larger than our specimen.
So my final is guess is Cephalopachus bancanus. It’s 10 15 pm Thursday here – but 6:15 am Friday there, so I don’t have to leave hints…. I also may NOT be right.