Friday mystery object #66 answer

On Friday I gave you this mystery object:

I thought it would be too easy, but I hadn’t factored in that it is the skull of a juvenile, which makes it much harder to identify from just a photograph. I did drop a few hints about what it might be on Twitter when I said it was ‘easy as pie’ and I had a hard time restraining myself from making a give-away comment about it flying when Jake asked if it was a big bat.

Manabu Sakamoto spotted that it was a juvenile and that the canine-like teeth were quite distinctive of a particular group. Neil managed to convey that he knew the answer with a beautifully subtle comment:

After rooting around a bit I think that I have sussed out the answer.

The answer being Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #65 answer

On Friday I gave you this bit of geology to identify:

I used this because I had it to hand on Thursday afternoon after doing a behind the scenes tour of the Horniman’s store for some of the attendees of TAM London. I also used it so I would have the chance to tell the story behind this innocuous looking, if pretty, bit of stone.

Before I get started on the story I must congratulate Steven D. Garber, PhD on spotting that one of the main components of this is serpentine (the other being calcite) and I have to hand a big dose of kudos to Dave Godfrey who got the answer spot-on when he suggested that this was a sample of Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #64 answer

On Friday I gave you this anthropological object to identify (courtesy of the helpful staff and volunteers at the Horniman’s Study Collections Centre):

I asked you where it was from, what it was for and what it was made from. The first two questions were correctly answered quite quickly – Manabu Sakamoto correctly identified the seal on the side of the vessel as Chinese and Wildaker worked out that it was for holding tea (in leaf form I hasten to add). So, it’s a Chinese tea-caddy.

However, what it was made from was a much trickier issue. Suggestions ranged from Ostrich leather (by Prancing Papio) to knitted silk (by Wildaker). Zigg recognised that it was compressed into shape and that it was plant based, and ObenedO suggested it was made from rice or mushrooms, but nobody (except Melissa, my lovely wife) correctly recognised it as being made from Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #63 answer

On Friday I gave you this weird-looking object to identify:

Steven D. Garber, PhD jumped straight in with the correct identification of what it is – the sternum keel and trachea of a bird. The more tricky part was working out what bird it came from. Dave Godfrey suggested that it was a large bird, possibly a gull, while Zinjanthropus suggested that it might have belonged to a Trumpeter Swan, with support from Carlos Grau (who suggested it could also have been from a pelican). Jonpaulkaiser proposed that it came from a penguin, a suggestion seconded by Dave Godfrey on the basis of the shape.

So the identification became divided between the swan camp and the penguin camp. Jake joined the swan camp (bringing Zigg with him) and provided a link to a great piece by Darren Naish on his Tetrapod Zoology blog, which focussed on the bizarre tracheae (and sterna) of some birds – including swans, which related to the observation by Zinjanthropus:

Is it a trumpeter swan? They have large, convoluted trachea that goes through the sternal keel so that it can act as a resonating chamber.

It turns out that the swan camp had the right of it, this sternum and trachea did in fact belong to a Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #62 answer

On Friday I gave you this specimen and left you to work out what it was by yourselves (for which I humbly apologise):

There were some great observations from the outset – Jake immediately spotted that it had strong jaws and looks like a carnivore and Manabu Sakamoto went on to explain the biomechanical reason for the strong jaws and recognised that it’s a marine mammal. Jake came close when he said that it’s something similar to a Leopard Seal and jonpaulkaiser came even closer with the suggestion of California Sea Lion. Neil subtly hinted that it might be a Stellar’s Sea Lion, but Zigg managed to work out that it is in fact the skull of a Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #61 answer

On Friday I gave you a bit of a respite from skulls, in the form of this rather beautiful object:

I asked you what it was made from and what function it might serve.

Dave Godfrey immediately recognised that the two halves of this egg-shaped object fold down and likely contained something inside. What the two halves were made from was hinted at by Raymond Ho and Steven D. Garber, PhD (who recognised that it was derived from molluscs) and was explicitly identified by by Dave Godfrey as being mother-of-pearl (or nacre as it’s also known). Jonpaulkaiser went a step further and identified that the nacre came from the shells of Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #60 answer

On Friday I gave you this skull to identify from box NH.83.1:

Unfortunately I’ve not been able to respond to comments and this answer is a little late (and short) because I’ve been at a wedding in Ireland (for anyone who knows what this entails you will understand…). I will take the time to respond to comments and elaborate on answers when I get back home and have managed to get more than a couple of hours sleep.

For now I will say that Steven D. Garber, PhD suggested that this was a petrel skull, probably for the reason posited by Cromercrox – it has a tube nose and is therefore from the Order Procellariiformes. David Craven noticed that the skull is too small for an albatross and the beak is too broad at the base to belong to a storm-petrel – both being excellent observations, but the concluding suggestion of something from the Pterodroma was slightly out – they’re a bit too big. A-M (via KateV) and Prancing Papio, FCD also went for species that are a bit too big, but Rachel managed to get something the right size and shape (and distribution working with SmallCasserole’s observation about the other specimens from the same collection). She suggested Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #59 answer

On Friday I gave you this mystery object dragged from the cold, dead grasp of my old camera:

It was immediately identified as an ‘insectivore’ of some sort – which narrowed it down slightly. Although ‘insectivore’ doesn’t have quite the same meaning as it used to.

Once the Insectivora was a bit of a waste-basket taxonomic group that included a wide range of small insectivorous mammals, including moles, golden moles, hedgehogs, shrews, tree shrews, elephant shrews, tenrecs, colugos and solenodons. However, the group was fragmented on the basis of molecular studies and now the Insectivora no longer exists as a taxonomic group.

Despite this taxonomic shake-up the use of ‘insectivore’ still works as a descriptive term for the numerous small invertebrate eating mammals out there. Of which this is one.

But which?

The moles were ruled out straight away by Dave Godfrey, then the hedgehogs were ruled out by cromercrox, before Prancing Papio slammed in with the correct identification of Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #58 answer

On Friday I gave you this skull as a mystery object, dredged as it was from the memory card of my severely concussed camera:

This was a slightly sneaky object, because I had a feeling that quite a few of you would make the same mistake as I did when I first saw this skull, by assuming that it’s from a large rodent. The large front teeth (the incisors) support this, since enlarged first incisors are a feature of the rodents.

Rodents also have a large gap behind those incisors called a ‘diastema’ – which this skull has for the lower jaw (or mandible), but you may notice that the upper jaw has three incisors in the pre-maxilla (that’s bone in the front bit of the upper jaw) before the diastema. This is easier to see in a side (or lateral) view:

You might notice that there’s a small tooth behind the third incisor in the upper jaw – that’s a canine. You might also notice the faint wiggly line in the bone of the jaw just above the canine – that’s the junction (or suture) between the maxilla and the pre-maxilla bones. The canine is the first tooth in the maxilla and all the incisors are in the pre-maxilla (this is the same for all mammal teeth).

Rodents only have two teeth in the pre-maxilla, not six. They also have no canine teeth in the maxilla. That means this mystery object cannot be a rodent. Here’s what a rodent’s diastema looks like (the suture between maxilla and pre-maxilla is really clear in this photo):

Lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) have teeth similar to rodents, except they have an extra pair of incisors behind the front pair in the maxilla – these are called ‘peg teeth’:

Peg-teeth in a Rabbit skull

Clearly the mystery object has more incisors than this, plus those canines, so it can’t be a lagomorph either.

So what beastie has six upper and two lower incisors? Several of you worked out that this was a marsupial from the dentition (namely Cromercrox, jonpaulkaiser, David Craven and Zigg), but only Prancing Papio and Jamie Revell managed to get it to species, namely the Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #57 answer

On Friday I gave you a specimen that I had to identify myself earlier in the week:

The first steps of this identification are quite straight-forward – in the words of Jake it “Looks a bit sheepy and a bit deery” which pins this firmly in the order Bovidae. Dave Godfrey neatly summarised what makes it look sheepy and deery – “Diastema, lack of upper incisors, and the shape of the teeth“. Rob went a step further and ruled out deer, sheep, goats and camelids – coming to the conclusion that this is an African bovid of some kind. Then David Craven blasted through the narrowing-down process and hit upon the same species as I had concluded it was, namely a Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #56 answer

On Friday I gave you this object to identify:

I must admit that I thought it would be a tricky one, but I was surprised by the number of correct answers that came in, with the first by Prancing Papio who immediately got it to species. Neil made a subtle comment (“Looks like it could go both ways“) that almost passed me by, but which indicated that he knew which group this skull belonged to (see below for elucidation), whilst David Craven and Jamie Revell both pinned it down to species as well. That identification was Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #55 answer

On Friday I presented you with this anthropological mystery object:

I wanted to know what it is, what it’s used for and where/what culture it’s from. Since there are skulls on it I thought it would be a good idea to ask you to identify them while you were at it. No small task then.

Alistair was first to notice that the skulls belonged to monkeys, then Smallcasserole made the comment:

It’s the Predator’s earthly trophy bag with human skulls!

Which although not entirely accurate, is correct in identifying what this object is used for – it’s for carrying trophies. Moreover it’s for carrying the same trophies that the Predator might be out collecting…

Jonquil and Dave Godfrey worked out that it’s a basket rather than a bag and then Jonquil came through with a tribe in the right culture and place. I can’t be sure of the particular tribe this is from, but the culture is that of the Naga from the Northeastern part of India (Assam in this instance), who were renowned for the practise of head-hunting (and I don’t mean in the recruitment sense) until quite recently.

As to the monkey skulls, jonpaulkaiser suggested one may be from a Macaque and Jonquil suggested Gray Langur, while Dave Godfrey suggested Macaque and Gibbon. David Craven then provided a remarkably coherent and accurate answer:

Looks like a head-hunting bag, as used by the Naga (I couldn’t give a specific tribe). Still a very fraught part of the world unfortunately.

So, what sorts of monkeys do we have in that part of India?
Loads of Macaques, but others have said Macaque without being censored. Unless that’s too general to be censored…

Okay.
I’ll say Capped Langur on the left (I also considered Hoolock Gibbon).
Macaque on the right? Hard to find good images of macaque skulls for some reason, so I have to shoot in the dark a little. Stump-tailed Macaque.

I think this is about as good an answer as I could hope for, partly because it reflects the levels of uncertainty that we are often stuck with in the museum world. The basket/bag came from Assam and it entered the collections around 1903 judging by its label. There was no tribe name associated, so that information would prove difficult (if not impossible) to track down. The primate skulls are damaged and they are attached to the bag, making them difficult to inspect in the kind of detail needed to make a certain identification.

I was personally leaning towards the skull on the left being that of a Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock (Harlan, 1834) based on the distance between the eyes, but I’m not convinced that this is reliable and the shape of the nasal opening (long and heart-shaped) doesn’t quite fit with this idea. It could indeed be a female Capped Langur Trachypithecus pileatus (Blythe, 1843) but probably not a Gray Langur Semnopithecus sp. Desmarest, 1822 because their range doesn’t quite fit. It could even be a female Macaque of some sort (although the width between the eyes looks too big for that).

The skull on the right looks like a male Macaque, probably a Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta (Zimmermann, 1780) or a Stump-tailed Macaque Macaca arctoides (I. Geoffroy, 1831) – with my preference being the more common and widely distributed Rhesus (compare 1 & 2). I am keen to see David Craven’s reasoning, to see what I may have missed.

Many thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions. I particularly liked the idea by cackhandedkate that the basket was one of Lady Gaga’s costumes – something that I would not be surprised by.

Friday mystery object #54 answer

On Friday I gave you this skull to identify:

I was impressed by the efficiency with which the possibilities were whittled down and the correct species identified, since this isn’t an animal that’s very well known by most people (in the UK at least). Dave Godfrey immediately recognised this as being a member of the Carnivora and a dog-like one at that, an opinion supported by Matthew Partridge’s observations.

This line of investigation was somewhat derailed by Gimpy’s suggestion that this was a Tasmanian devil skull, an observation that was incorrect, yet very pertinent, since there are quite striking similarities between this and a Tasmanian devil skull as a result of convergent evolution. It’s strange to think that two species can look so similar and yet be separated by at least 124 million years of divergence (check out the placental-marsupial divergence node using the awesome University of Bristol Date-a-Clade webpage). That’s what similarities in environment and lifestyle will do to organisms with similar ancestral skeletal bodyplans.

Debi Linton then came to the rescue with some astute observations about the teeth of this animal and after trawling the Skulls Unlimited site (which appears to be much-used by people hunting for the answer to the FMO) she hit upon the correct answer of Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #52 answer

On Friday I gave you a different mystery object to the one I had originally planned, after my memory stick let me down. Nonetheless, it seems to have been an interesting one given the number of questions.

The first correct identification by Robert Grant was cleverly phrased, so as not to give the game away. Indeed, it seems as though the allusion to the song Alouette led many people off down the wrong track, due to its reference to skylarks. This combined with the object’s similarity to the shape of a whistle, identified early on by Jake, brought many of you to the conclusion that the object was a used as a musical instrument, whistle or game calling device. The string attached to the specimen certainly offers support that this object served a functional role for humans, although it may simply be part of the mounting for the original display of this object.

As it turns out, the reference to Alouette was a phonetic rendering of the taxonomic name for the genus to which this specimen belongs, which is Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #51 answer

On Friday I gave you a fairly straightforward mystery object to identify – at least straightforward in that it wasn’t an odd section or a fragment of bone, instead it was a very characteristic skull:

As a result a good number of you correctly identified this, with zinjanthropus first past the post with a general identification, Neil with the correct genus and David Craven with the full species identification. So well done everyone, this specimen is indeed the skull of a Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #50 answer

On Friday I gave you a multipart mystery object from the wonderful Grant Museum of Zoology:

This was easy in part and horribly difficult in part. The bones themselves were quickly identified as being bacula (plural of baculum) or os penes (penis bones) by Shane and SmallCasserole, but then there was confusion about which species they might belong to. Matthew Partridge got one right, but after that the guesses went a bit wide. Here’s an unedited image that has the labels attached: Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #49 answer

On Friday I gave you one of the specimens on display at the Horniman Museum, photographed from an unusual angle, as the mystery object:

I thought it might prove tricky, but jonpaulkaiser managed to identify it within 16 minutes of it being posted. Impressive stuff! Matt King also managed to spot what general type of beastie this bit of bone belonged to; a Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #48 answer

On Friday I gave you this lovely skull to identify:

It seems to have been a bit more tricky than I had expected. It was immediately identified as a carnivore, which is spot-on, but from there it got a bit murky. I must admit that I could have been a bit more generous with clues, particularly when David Craven asked if this was a viverrid (the family containing the civets) – I took the question at the family level, so I said ‘no’, but I should probably have asked for clarification since this skull belongs to a member of a family that falls into the infraorder Viverroidea (according to some sources).

This is in fact the skull of a Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #47 answer

On Friday I gave you what I consider to be a rather interesting mystery object:

I must apologise for my tardy responses to the excellent questions asked, on Friday I was at a fascinating conference about using DNA from natural history collections for research, hosted by the NHM, and I didn’t get an opportunity to address the questions until quite late.

The questions were astute from the outset, with Bob O’H asking if it was a bird – no doubt inspired by the lightweight structure of the bone. SmallCasserole suggested that it was the sectioned skull of a Cassowary, based on the presence of the bony crest (or more accurately the casque) – an opinion that was widely supported. However, Dave Godfrey raised the possibility that this skull belonged to a hornbill, a suggestion that Neil developed to arrive at the correct genus with David Craven delivered the coup de grace with the correct species identification of Continue reading →

Friday mystery object #46 answer

Last Friday Mark Carnall from the Grant Museum of Zoology provided a guest mystery object in the rather unpleasant looking form of this:

It looks a bit like part of a spinal column, but it isn’t. It looks like a worm of some kind, but it isn’t. So what is it?

David Craven and Dave Godfrey came through with the goods on this one. It is a parasitic crustacean related to the tongue worms (a misnomer because they are not worms at all) and it is in the genus Continue reading →