Tag Archives for Friday mystery object

Friday mystery object #512

This week I have a guest mystery object for you, from the collection of Andy Taylor FLS FBNA – a regular contributor of specimens to the blog, and this year a fellow attendee of the Natural Sciences Collections Association conference, which is taking place in Machester at the moment – but more about that when I come to the answer next week.

For now, here’s the object:

Let me know if you can figure out what it is – I appreciate that the photography of the specimen makes this a bit more of a challenge, so you may need to dive deep to work it out. Have fun!

Friday mystery object #511 answer

Last week I gave you a particularly mean mystery object to try to identify:

This would be difficult if it was an accurate representation of the eye of the living animal, but I suspect it’s pretty much impossible (unless you’re familiar with this specimen), considering how different this eye appears from the eye of the actual animal. This is something that katedmonson spotted and commented on:

The problem I can “see” with this eye is that we are relying on the skill of the taxidermist to have correctly chosen the exact correct glass eye: pupil, color, shape of the iris, for the animal is is supposed to represent. And did the preparer accidentally strip the eye of any eyelashes, (sus scrofa as many have indicated) or does this animal not have any. Which is fairly unusual as far as ‘eyes’ go. Unless it was cetacean, which the fur would indicate it is not. Not seal either.

Kat made the point I was planning on making when I chose this mystery object – the eyes of taxidermy specimens are a choice made by the taxidermist who does the preparation, and that choice might be accurate – or it might not be. However, there is one point Kat makes that isn’t quite on point – this is in fact a type of seal:

This is a Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata (Erxleben, 1777) – a species that I have talked about before on the blog, in fact I think the specimen I used in that instance may have been the skull that came from this taxidermy example:

I should probably offer my apologies at this point, for going with such a difficult mystery object, but sometimes it’s nice to pose a puzzle that even the crack community of commenters on the blog have trouble with. Thanks to you all for your thoughts on this – I hope the search for an answer wasn’t too frustrating!

Friday mystery object #510 answer

Last week I gave you this genuine mystery object to have a go at identifying:

This came to light when we were clearing out cupboards in the Dead Zoo, and it may have been an ill-considered option, considering how tricky vertebrae can be to narrow down to species and how little time I’ve had to research this particular specimen.

I was hoping that someone in the comments might spot something I’d missed, and Adam Yates certainly spotted everything I’d noted from my inspection of the specimen:

Clearly birdy (pneumatic foramina and saddle-shaped posterior centrum face). The odd short anterior of the pair is probably the axis, and the one behind, Ce 3. I can’t do better than that right now, but will return to this puzzle later…

He also added a useful comment about size which I hadn’t really considered fully:

…The first few cervical vertebrae of birds are surprisingly small and I judge this axis to be about 25 – 30 mm across the postzygapophyses, using Paolo’s thumbnail as scale. That would suggest a raft of large species. I’m going to guess this one rhymes with “he knew”.

I’m assuming that’s a reference to Emu, and the size of the vertebrae certainly seem to be in the right size range (at least according to this paper by Baranowski et al, from 2018). However, I’m not entirely convinced that the shape is quite right, Rheas might be a little more similar, and there was a hint at a pouched animal by katedmonson, which I suspect is a reference to a Pelican.

I think these are a little bit too short for a Pelican, but I’ll certainly keep that identification in mind as I try to find where these came from. However, without spending a good bit more time trying to find comparative specimens, it’s going to be a challenge. It may be that the easiest way to work out what this is will be to search for a large mounted bird skeleton that’s missing these vertebrae, since there are not too many such specimens in the Dead Zoo.

But before I start a wider search, I have a hunch that I want to check out. There is a King Vulture specimen that I’ve blogged about previously (way back in 2018) that is large and consists of a partially dismounted skeleton. I think I’ll make that my first port of call, as (if memory serves) it has similar levels of soot build up on the bones, and I suspect it’s in the right sort of size range, as vultures have fairly large and robust cervical vertebrae for their size.

So my thanks to everyone for their suggestions and observations – if I eventually discover the identity of these bones I’ll be sure to update this post, and if you think you know what it is, I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Oh, and if you celebrate Easter, I hope you have a great one!

Friday mystery object #509 answer

Last week I gave you these fuzzy chicks to try your hand at identifying:

Their speckled camouflage is perfect for pebbly beaches and it’s just what you’d expect from a member of the Gull Family (the Laridae). This is something that everyone picked up on, with a variety of excellent clues.

pleasantly78f070d606 was first in the door, with a great clue identifying the correct species in three words:

Silvery chip thief

The chip stealing (both in the UK and USA meaning of chips) encapsulates one of the more familiar and frustrating behaviours of this commonly kleptoparasitic species:

The “silvery” references the species name argentatus (which in tern references the silvery shade on back of these cheeky birds). So this is the chick of a Herring Gull Larus argentatus Pontoppidan, 1763.

It can be tricky to distinguish between the chicks of various different gull species, but you may notice that these look a bit like they’ve gone for, what I can probably best describe as an eyeliner flick. This bar behind the eye is variable, but occurs frequently in Herring Gull chicks, but less so in the similar looking chicks of other closely related species.

These chicks are from a particularly nicely done diorama in the Dead Zoo, which we’ve been in the process of preparing for transport out of the building. We’ll be sharing some of the progress on the project on some social media platforms (Bluesky and Instagram) soon – so I’ll be sure to share some of those stories from our hard-working team here as well.

Friday mystery object #508 answer

Last week I gave you a St Patrick’s themed mystery object in the form of this snake:

It was a really difficult ask – the skin is faded and the specimen has been chopped into several pieces, making identification very tricky. I did provide a clue with the location of where this specimen is from, to offer a little help in narrowing down the possibilities (it’s from Venezuela).

Unfortunately, as Adam Yates spotted, I managed to leave in another more obvious clue that I thought I’d removed – the name of the species, which appears in the photo of the full specimen. I cropped the image in WordPress, not realising that if you click on it the original uncropped image opens. Not my finest moment!

However, specimen identifications need to be taken with a pinch of salt until they’re verified, so let’s do that as best we can.

The side view of the head of this specimen gives a useful clue that Adam picked up on:

It has a sensory pit between the eye and the nostril, indicating that this is a type of Pit Viper, which does help reduce the options from around 50 Venezeulan snake species to around 15 or so. It’s also consistent with the identification of Bothrops venezuelensis Sandner-Montilla, 1952.

Most of the other Pit Vipers are fairly distinct from this specimen in terms of colour and pattern, but there are a couple of members of the Genus Bothrops (the Lanceheads) that are similar to this.

You may just be able to see a hint of a stripe behind the eye that terminates just above the last scale above the mouth, which can be useful in distinguishing between B. atrox (where the stripe touches the last three scales over the mouth) and B. asper (where it just touches that last scale as we see here), but this feature is less relaibe for B. venezuelensis, which can be distinguished from the other two species by having a more rounded rostrum:

This specimen’s rostrum (snout) is a little pointy, but for a type of snake called a Lancehead, you expect them to be very pointy. Of course this specimen is a little imperfectly prepared, so the rostrum shape may be misleading. As a result, I’d be a bit unwilling to differentiate between B. asper and B. venezuelensis based on the images.

What we do know is that this was certainly a venomous snake, since it bit a farm labourer working on a hacienda who required two doses of antivenom, but they thankfully survived. I suspect that this is why the head is separated, since the snake was killed and presumably identified to assist with administration to the appropriate antivenom.

This specimen is one of several from the same collector, who I plan to talk about more in future posts, since we have great information about a fascinating life.

Friday mystery object #508

This Friday we’re gearing up for the St. Patrick’s weekend here in Ireland, so it seems only appropriate to have a snake for you to have a go at identifying:

It’s not an easy one, so if you need a clue to help narrow down the options, I can confirm that this specimen is most definitely not Irish and is in fact from a bit further afield.

Big thanks to our Terrestrial Zoology Curator Emma for sharing these photos.

I look forward to seeing how you do with this tricky St. Patrick’s themed mystery object!

Friday mystery object #507 answer

Last week I gave you this extreme close-up of a specimen from the Dead Zoo to have a go at identifying:

Only providing this would probably have been unforgivably mean, so I also provided an image with less detail and little bit more context:

Clearly this provided plenty of information, since several of you managed to work out what this spatula-shaped appendage was from. In fact, the spatulate shape is so distinct it’s incorporated into the animal’s name.

Adam Yates was the first to comment correctly, identifying that this is the rostrum of the American Paddlefish Polyodon spathula (Walbaum, 1792). Here’s a photo of the complete specimen:

It’s a fairly small example of this wonderfully unusual fish, as on average they weigh in at 60lb (27kg) and measure 5ft long (about 1.5m). I call them unusual because they do things differently to most other fish.

For starters, they’re from a very small family of fish that contains just themselves and a handful of sturgeon species. This family have heterocercal tails like sharks, and cartilaginous skeletons like sharks, but they’re actually bony fish that have become less bony.

They also have that distinctive spatulate rostrum (presumably constructed from little interlocking rays of cartilage based on the detailed photo), which looks more like the bill of a Spoonbill bird or a dabbling duck than the slashing blade that other fish species with an extended rostrum tend to have. However, the rostrum isn’t part of the jaw, and it can’t function in the same way as similar shaped structures in birds. Instead it serves a function in electroreception – picking up the tiny electrical signals from the muscle movements of clouds of planktonic crustaceans. Oh, did I mention that they’re freshwater filter feeders?

The name Polydon suggests to me that the species should have many teeth, and while this may be true for the tiny juvenile stages, the adults have no teeth at all – although the name probably relates to the large number of gill-rakers that are used to capture prey.

Another odd thing is that it’s only the American Paddlefish that filter feeds – the Chinese Paddlefish (which was recently declared extinct) fed on things like fish and crabs and had a totally different feeding mechanism that was much more similar to a Sturgeon.

Sadly, the American Paddlefish is at risk of going the way of its Chinese cousin due to overfishing and exploitation of their eggs for caviar. This would be a real loss, as they represent a fascinating example of how evolution is happy to play fast and loose with our expectations based on nearest relatives and shared ancestry.

Friday mystery object #506 answer

Last week I gave you a charismatic critter to have a go at identifying:

I only provided a close-up of the face of the specimen, since I didn’t want to make it too easy, and when you see the whole skeleton it’s pretty obvious which animal this is from:

This is, of course, a Pichiciago or Pink Fairy Armadillo Chlamyphorus truncatus Harlan, 1825.

These tiny Argentinan armadillos are incredibly cute, with their silky fine hair and huge forefeet with massive claws (all the better for burrowing, my dear), although it’s a little hard to see that from the skeleton, so here’s this specimen’s skin:

Several of you worked out what this was, but Adam Yates was the first to post the answer – so well done Adam.

One of the observations from Kat Edmonson was about the protuberences from the top of the skull – for which I’ve yet to find any functional explanation. It may be as simple as providing a structure to support the armoured shield over the head area, but it’s not present in other armadillo species, so I’m not sure how this would work.

Since this species burrows and spends a lot of time in the sand hunting for ants and insect larvae, it may be that the bony protrusions help channel sound to help with prey detection and predator avoidance – but that is pure speculation. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this feature!

Well done to everyone who worked out the identity of this mystery object – while it may be distinctive, it’s an unusual wee beastie.

Friday mystery object #505 answer

Last week I shared this specimen from the collections of the Dead Zoo, as it’s a good example of the type of specimen that will often turn up for identification:

If you didn’t recognise it, this is the braincase of a seal.

It’s not usual for seal skulls to be found in sections like this for a few reasons. One is that marine mammals tend to have quite open sutures in their skulls, presumably to help prevent issues with pressure during diving. Another is that young animals (with unfused skulls) will often be the ones that succumb to the rigours of nature. Finally, beaches are high energy environments, so skulls will often be rolled and broken up by wave action.

Knowing it’s a seal is useful, but there are over 30 species to choose between. However, Adam Yates spotted some useful information written on the specimen:

‘It looks like “Yellow Slrank 20/9/92” ???? I’m guessing a location and date, but Slrank? WTF is that?

Got it! Yellow Strand. It is a beach in Ireland.’ 

This really helps, since there are only a couple of species that are likely to be found in Ireland – the Grey Seal and the Harbour Seal.

It’s about the right size for a Harbour Seal, but the shape isn’t quite right. In particular, the frontals (that pair of bones that forms the skinny section that’s sticking out) aren’t skinny enough. There’s also a hint of muscle scars and unfused frontal-parietal sutures that suggest that the animal may be juvenile.

If that is the case (and I think it is), then I think this is most likely the skull of a young Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus (O. Fabricius, 1791). This was Adam Yate’s suggestion, supported by Kat Edmonson, so well done to them for picking up on that detail.

I hope you enjoyed that challenge – more to come next week!

Friday mystery object #503

This week I’m going to put you to the test with this mystery object from the Dead Zoo:

I’m not going to lie, this is probably going to be a challenge, but somehow I suspect that someone will manage to spot what it is.

As always, you can leave your thoughts, questions and suggestions in the comments box below, and I’ll try to offer some useful hints if it’s proving too difficult. Best of luck with it!

Friday mystery object #502 answer

Apologies for the late posting of the answer to last week’s mystery object, I lost all track of time over the Christmas break!

Last week I gave you this boring object to identify from the Dead Zoo:

Of course, by boring I mean it bores into materials, as it’s actually a pretty interesting type of mollusc, and by looking at the comments, it’s clear that everyone has a good idea of what it is.

I had hoped to trick a few people into thinking it could be a type of shipworm, by pointing out that this specimen has bored into pine, when this species much more commonly bores into softer rocks, like mudstones and chalk. They do this by using their muscular foot to attach themselves to the substrate and then they twist their shells into the surface.

The shell has multiple tiny rasping teeth all over the surface, which you can see on the specimen above, and this grinds away the rock (or in this case wood). You might expect the shell to be thick in order to achieve this, but actually it’s very thin – which is partly why the mollusc bores itself a hole in a hard substrate for protection.

This specimen is a type of Piddock and it was collected in Ireland, which can certainly help with the identification since there are only a few species of Piddock that have been found in Irish waters, although it does have a fairly characteristic feature readily visible – the beaked anterior end (which sits at the bottom of the bored hole, so this one is upside down).

This feature is seen in the Common Piddock, Pholas dactylus Linnaeus, 1758 while in species like the White Piddock and American Piddock the anterior end doesn’t form the same beaked shape. Well done to everyone who worked it out!

I did mention in the original post that it may not be very festive-looking, but the Common Piddock could be considered one of the most festive molluscs, since they bioluminesce, giving off a bluish green glow and an alternative common name for them is Angelwings due to the thin shell, shape and white colour. So not a boring boring mollusc by any means!

Friday mystery object #501 answer

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

I have to admit, it’s even harder than I thought it would be, so I should probably apologise about now! Adam Yates got as close as I think is really achievable from just this photo, dropping the clue:

He was very stern and he flipped me the bird when I suggested it looked like a ship: galley-form you could say.

This of course is a hint that the bone is a sternum from a bird in the Order Galliformes. Adam then followed up with:

I’m grousing because its proving difficult for me to identify beyond tribe level

This points us in the direction of the Tetraonini – the tribe within the Galliformes that contains the various species of Grouse. I’m entirely in agreement with Adam. Bird sterna are quite characteristic, as you can see from the gallery of different sterna below:

The chicken sternum in the images above (first one pictured) is the closest in form to the mystery object. The Galliformes have a tiny flat section to their sternum, with long processes coming off to support the pectoral muscle, unlike most other birds which have large flat sections to accommodate the muscle. This likely reflects the low use that the flight muscles tend to get in the Galliformes, which generally (although not exclusively) avoid flying if possible.

The fact that the sternum is showing its ventral side and it’s broken in several places, it’s really not feasible to definitively identify it to species based on the available information.

However, I have some additional context, because this piece of bone is actually just a small piece of set-dressing in a diorama from the Dead Zoo, depicting a Peregrine Falcon nest:

In this diorama the Peregrine chicks are being served a tasty portion of Red Grouse:

Since the bones of the Red Grouse would have been removed as part of the taxidermy process, there’s every chance that some of those bones used in the dressing of the diorama may have come from the specimen, although I’m sure there would be plenty of bones from Pheasants and other Red Grouse available in the taxidermy studios of Williams & Sons, where this was made.

So well done to everyone who got as far as Galliformes – I promise it won’t be quite so difficult next time!