That is what I meant, my initial impression was slightly off and I realised we were looking at one the more familiar species beakier cousins. Of the three it is not going to be Sir David’s and it does not appear to have the requisite number of claws to be the eastern species – so it must be Z. br.
Glad to see you’ve kept his baculum strapped on ‘down under’! Quite the ‘sticky-beak’ but is it the short or long kind, cobber?
Adam make a good spot on the “baculum” below 😉
I was going to comment that this was the quick-tongued mother of all monsters, but I suspect that would be zigging when I should have zagged
Great clue, although Zagging would have been better 😉
That is what I meant, my initial impression was slightly off and I realised we were looking at one the more familiar species beakier cousins. Of the three it is not going to be Sir David’s and it does not appear to have the requisite number of claws to be the eastern species – so it must be Z. br.
…mind you, I can’t help thinking that there’s something a bit topsy-turvy about those back feet!
A common error in older mounts
mention baculum make me think to Odobey… but that seems like a no go…
you mention back feet topsy turvy, heck I see only one front leg!
There’s an odd, dark-colored back left leg with a formidable claw,much like the front ones.
It ain’t no baculum, there is a pair of them, and they have a firm ligamentous attachment to the pelvis.
Looking down under it the question on so many lips might be is it a bear….
Actually, a bear it is not, but I kid now, another beauty from the merry old land of OZ
Certainly a friend from Down Under!
That’s the only one I can find with such a strange scapula. And leaving the head off? Their heads are really weird!