Last week I gave you this skinny piece of bone to have a go at identifying:

As it turns out, it was both a fairly easy one, and a difficult one at the same time. The easy bit was working out what the bone was and the family that this particular one comes from. The difficult bit was working out the species.

This bone is part of the tongue-bone (or hyoid) of a woodpecker – as everyone seems to have known, based on all the comments. More specifically, this hyoid is from a European Green Woodpecker Picus viridis Linnaeus, 1758.

If you’re not familiar with the hyoid of a woodpecker, it’s a particularly interesting structure that I have written about before (all the way back in 2012). To summarise, the tongue of woodpeckers is extremely long and has barbs, which allows the woodpecker to insert it into the holes it drills in trees to fish out insect larvae.

To help accomodate this length, the hyoid arises from the right nostril of the bird and goes around the skull and into the mouth, supporting the muscle of the tongue almost the whole way around. The tongue can then contract against the bone, which allows it to elongate significantly:

Since I first blogged about this, there has been research published that has dismissed one of the proposed functions of this unusual feature. Research suggests that it is no longer considered likely that the tongue and hyoid act like a shock-absorber to help protect the woodpecker’s brain from impacts when pecking wood. (Physiology: Woodpecker skulls are not shock absorbers: Current Biology).

This was previously a widespread idea that had gained a lot of support, but I’m not particularly surprised that it probably isn’t the case to be honest, since it didn’t make a huge amount of sense from a functional perspective. Other species of bird also wrap their hyoid around their skull in the same way, simply to accommodate long tongues, but without any need for cushioning their brain. Hummingbirds are a good example that I’ve featured on the blog before:

Shock absorbing or not, these long hyoids are fascinating features, that leave a clear mark on the skull of the birds that have them – see the wide, smooth groove over the top of the skull of the specimen that this mystery hyoid came from below (it even makes a handy place to write a museum number!):

Just to note, I thought that someone might have guessed the species based on the scale and shape of the mystery object. I noted that it was 6cm across, and with that curvature it offered a hint at the length of the skull, ruling out smaller species.

For reference, here are examples of the only woodpecker species that have been recorded in Ireland, with a scale bar to help compare sizes:

I hope you enjoyed that little update on our understanding of the weird and still wonderful woodpecker hyoid.

Last week I gave you this guest mystery object from regular contributor Joe Vans:

It does pose a real challenge to get to species level, but the Family is a lot more achievable with those distinctive four tooth plates that scream Tetraodontidae.

Joe kindly offered up locality information about where this specimen came from, which does help to narrow things down quite a bit:

mid-peninsula Baja California, gulf side.

With this information the possibilities drop substantially – as Adam Yates said:

I found a list of fish from the Gulf of California. It includes 7 species in the four-tooth family. We can immediately rule out the sharpnose because it has an adult body length of about 9 cm (too small for these jaws).

Narrowing it down further gets tricky, as you need comparative material – if you can find it. For me I spent a while trying to get some decent images for reference and I got lucky with the excellent Osteobase which is an incredible resource for finding fish bone images across many families, but unfortunately there isn’t huge coverage at species level (given the diversity of fish, that would be a mind-boggling undertaking).

A good amount of scrutiny of the premaxillary, dentary and maxillary left me fairly happy that the one Tetraodontidae represented on Osteobase is in fact the same as this species – so I plumped for the Bullseye Puffer Sphoeroides annulatus (Jenyns, 1842).

Fortunately, Joe Vans saw this fish when there was a bit more to it, and he was able to confirm that this indeed what it is.

I hope you enjoyed delving into the deeps to figure out which pufferfish we were looking at. I don’t think anyone nailed it, but I’m not too surprised given how tricky it is to to find good comparisons. I’d like to pass on my thanks to Joe Vans for sharing his specimen!

Last week I offered up a fossil specimen from the collections of the Horniman Museum & Gardens for you to have a go at identifying:

The type of preservation here is quite distinctive for those familiar with fossil Lagerstätten (sites of exceptional fossil preservation or concentration). This silvery sheen on a piece of dark slate is immediately recognisable as the type of soft-bodied preservation I expect to see in specimens from the Burgess Shale.

The Burgess Shale is an incredible fossil locality in the Canadian Rock Mountains, that preserves animals from marine ecosystem that was rapidly buried around half a billion years ago. The rapid burial and some factor that created a hostile environment (low O2 or perhaps a hypersaline seep) prevented the decay of the soft tissues of the animals that were buried and created conditions that preserved soft parts of the animals present, rather that just preserving hard parts,

This unusual set of conditions means that rather than just seeing shells of animals like brachiopods and carapaces of trilobites, we get a much more accurate snapshot of marine life at the time, including a variety of bizarre worm-like animals and creatures with forms that aren’t recognisable as being from types of animal alive today.

This particular specimen is not all that strange in comparison to some of those organisms that diversified in the Cambrian explosion (a name we use to describe the apparently sudden diversification of multicellular life around 540 million years ago).

The mystery object actually doesn’t look too much different from some of the living Polychaetes, such as the pelagic Gossamer Worm:

However, there are several different Polychaete worms recognised from the Burgess Shale, so it does take a bit of close investigation to work out which it’s likely to be.

Adam Yates took a good look and while his first response of Canadia spinosa Wallcott, 1911 matches the label with the specimen, he updated his answer. Looking at the setae structure, I think that Adam is right in rethinking this. In Canadia spinose the setae appear more flight-feather-like, with longer leading bristles and a more swept-back appearance:

The setae of the mystery specimen appears a bit different, with bristles of a more similar length that stick out in more separated tufts. This makes me concur with Adam, in that we may be looking a Burgessochaeta setigera (Walcott, 1911):

I hope you enjoyed that little journey into the distant past as much as I did. Learning about the Burgess Shale was a highlight of my undergraduate days, as it offered a glimpse at both the lost diversity of the past, and a hint at the unfathomable depth of time through which life has persisted, adapted and evolved.

Last week I gave you this very tricky object to have a go at identifying:

It certainly proved a challenge and I have to admit to feeling a little guilty about setting such a difficult one. The reason it was such a challenge is because this is an abberant form.

I’m not sure if anyone worked it out fully, but katedmonson dropped in the word “Oughter” and Adam Yates spotted that it has a long-slung body that looked like it might belong to a mustelid… which it does.

This is in fact a Eurasian Otter Lutra lutra Linnaeus, 1758 – a particular noteworthy specimen due to its speckles:

And when I say it’s noteworthy, I mean there was a note written about it – published in Volume 18 of The Irish Naturalist in 1909. It’s an interesting note, that draws on the experience and knowledge of Mr Williams, the hugely experienced taxidermist who prepared the specimen – along with many others in the Dead Zoo.

Here’s the note for your perusal, and while we’re talking about notes – it’s worth noting how much darker the fur is in the photo from 1909 – this is the problem we have with fading due to light over time:

Thanks for all your thoughts on what it could be – it was really interesting to see how everyone went about solving this one!

Last week I gave you this hansome critter to identify:

I thought that it might prove tricky, since as with most of the Dead Zoo specimens, it’s quite faded. However, Adam Yates recognised it straight off the bat (if you’ll excuse the pun),

This is a Grey-headed Flying Fox Pteropus poliocephalus Temminck, 1825, a species of fruitbat native to Southern Australia.

Normally I’d go through and point out some identification tips, or provide a bit of story about the animal, but after 4 years I have finally succumbed to Covid-19 and I just don’t have the energy or brain power for that today – my apologies!

Hopefully by next week I’ll be a little more with it! Stay safe folks.

This week I have a fuzzy mystery object for you to identify:

Any idea what this handsome little beast could be? I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Last week I gave you this skull from customs to have a go at identifying:

The long horns rising in line with the plane of the face are a distinctive feature of the genus Oryx, which most of you spotted straight-off.

However, after that it gets a bit more tricky, not least because there are several species of Oryx and within the species there are different subspecies and populations from different parts of the African continent.

The first species that’s easy to rule out is the Scimitar Oryx, O. dammah since they have strongly curved horns which don’t diverge as much as this specimen. This species is currently extinct in the wild and individuals only survive in captivity.

Scimitar Oryx in Werribee Open Range Zoo in Victoria, Australia. Image by Waddey, 2009

Next up is the Arabian Oryx O. leucoryx which used to be extinct in the wild, but which is one of the few species to have become reestablished in the wild by captive breeding and release programmes. This is the smallest Oryx and the mystery specimen’s horns are way too long to be from this species.

Arabian Oryx in the Dubai Desert Conservation Area. Image by Sharp Photography, 2014 

Getting to the more likely species, there’s the East African Oryx, which either has a couple of subspecies or is two different species – the Common Beisa O. beisa, which is endangered and the Fringe-eared Oryx O. callotis, which is threatened. The other possibility is that it’s a Gemsbok O. gazella, which is still doing well in the wild.

Common Beisa. Image by Steve Garvie, 2010

Fringe-eared Oryx. Image by Riaan Marais, 2009

Gemsbok. Image by Sharp Photography, 2018

As you’ve probably worked out, part of why customs are interested in knowing which species this specimen belongs to is knowing what level of protection it has under CITES, should they need to pursue a prosecution. Regardless, the specimen was seized because it wasn’t properly prepared and it entered Ireland without the appropriate information.

Of course, differentiating between the Gemsbok, Beisa and Fringe-eared Oryx using only the skull is tricky (and even harder if you only have photos).

Fortunately, there is literature that can help, with measurement ranges for certain features, like horn length, distance between horn tips and number of rings on the horn. Of course, these are only indicative, but they offer a guide to most likely species. Ungulate Taxonomy by Groves & Grubb, 2011 has a handy table of these, which I used to narrow down the options to just one – a population of Gemsbok Oryx gazella (Linnaeus, 1758) from the Nata River in the northeastern region of Botswana.

Of course, DNA sampling can offer a more certain diagnosis these days, but only if there is a good quality reference sequence to compare against and it assumes there is the equipment and expertise available to do the sampling and analysis. This is why identification from morphology can still play an important role in managing wildlife crime.

It’s Good Friday, so it seems only appropriate to give you a nest with some mystery eggs to identify:

Hope you have an eggselent Easter!

This week I have a specimen that I’ve been considering for display for you to have a go at identifying:

No scale for this, but it’s probably safe to say it’s bigger than you’d be comfortable with.

For some of you this will be too easy, for others it may pose more of a challenge, so if you do know what it is, please keep your suggestions cryptic to keep things fun for everyone!

There has been a slight hiccup in providing an answer to last week’s mystery object, in the form of the NatSCA 2018 conference.

It’s been a great couple of days of discussion, but it’s not been well-suited to finding time for blogging.

So rather than doing a rushed job, I’ll provide the answer on Monday. I hope you can bear the suspense!

Last week I gave you this object to have a go at identifying from the Grant Museum’s Micrarium:

There were all sorts of suggestions, but it turns out that the very first comment by Chris was correct – these are the mouthparts of a Honeybee Apis mellifera Linneaus, 1758.

Honeybee showing its mouthparts in situ. Image by Jon Sullivan

These are more than just feeding apparatus for the bee, they also act as radiators to help it cool by evaporating fluids when they get overheated. The mouthparts also play a role in honey production, since honey is formed from nectar that is partially digested and regurgitated through them.

Bees are in the news a lot at the moment, due to their importance as pollinators (Honeybees are estimated to contribute around £165 billion of ecosystem services to global agriculture) combined with problems like colony collapse disorder in the USA and severe population decline of Honeybees and bumblebees in the UK.

There are opportunities to get involved in survey work  to help work out what’s happening, so why not get involved?

In a few weeks I’ll be delivering some training in Cyfarthfa Castle, Merthyr Tydfil, which will look at using natural science collections to engage a range of audiences. If you think this might be of interest the details are below.

Date & time: 11 March 2015 10am for a 10.30 start to 4.30pm

This free course is funded by CyMAL and provided through the Linking Natural Science Collections in Wales partnership project. It is open to staff and volunteers working in museums in Wales and beyond. NB a charge of £10 for catering will be made for those working in museums outside Wales. Any cheques to be payable to ‘Federation of Museums and Art Galleries of Wales’.

It is suitable for anyone who:

• Wants to think creatively about how to use natural science collections
• Is already working with natural science collections
• Is interested in making links to local landscapes/wildlife groups
• Wants to tackle current issues such as biodiversity and climate change
• Wants to make links between natural science collections and social/industrial history etc.

Aim: To offer insight into creative ways of using natural science collections to engage key audiences.

By the end of the course participants will have:

• details of useful resources
• ideas for using their collections
• greater confidence in their ability to use natural science collections to engage with key audiences, including schools, communities and specialist groups.

Training Methods: A blend of presentations, practical exercises, informal discussion and one to one consultancy.
Preparation: Please come with an idea of what is in your natural science collections (eg geology, zoology, shells etc.)
Registration Registration requests are limited to 2 per organisation however we are happy to waitlist any others in the event the course is not fully subscribed. Please contact
Sarah.daly@museumwales.ac.uk to book a place.

This week I’ve been busy at a natural science collections conference in Cardiff, so I’ve not had much time to photograph a mystery object. Nonetheless, here’s one for you to identify that was used in a pub quiz at the conference:

Any idea what it is?

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 110,000 times in 2013. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 5 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

19,000 people fit into the new Barclays Center to see Jay-Z perform. This blog was viewed about 66,000 times in 2012. If it were a concert at the Barclays Center, it would take about 3 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.