This Friday I have an odd looking object from the Horniman’s collection that had been misidentified . Do you have any idea what it might be?
I know that Jake will work out what it is straight away, as he’s blogged about this type of bone before, nut you can put your suggestions in the comments section below and I’ll do my best to reply. Good luck!
Last week I gave you this very unusual object to identify:
Plenty of you recognised this as a vicar of some sort, painted on the cervical vertebra (or neck bone) of a large mammal. There were some great ideas from neanth, Lewis Thompson, henstridgesj, Ze-Jeff, Jake, ermineofthenorth, Carlos, Daniel Jones, andy J, Natasha and Daniela.
In particular, Daniel Jones made some very interesting observations about which vertebra from which animal, while Tony Morgan managed to identify the preaching subject.
It seems that this object is a cervical vertebrae from a Heavy Horse (by which I mean something like a Shire-horse, not just a greedy nag). Looking at the relative proportions and the angles of the processes I think it’s probably the 4th cervical vertebra.
Meanwhile, the subject of the piece appears to be John Wesley, co-founder of the Methodist movement in the 18th Century. Apparently this sort of British folk depiction of John Wesley (and his brother Charles) was quite common in the late 18th and early-mid 19th Centuries, and there are several examples online (1, 2, 3).
Finally there is a bit of a mystery attached in the form of a label:
The date is written without the century, which is a problem in collections that can be well over 100 years old. This could be from 1984 (unlikely), 1884 (the year Horniman started showing his collection, or 1784 (one of years in which John Wesley was active).
The handwriting looks familiar to me, so I’m going to go for 1884 and assume that this is a label that was added when the object was collected by Horniman, rather than it being a label added by the person who painted the vertebra – after all, who adds labels like this to their handiwork?
I hope this provides a good reason for why you should always write the year in full if you work in a museum.
The mystery object has been a bit boring recently, mainly because I’ve been tied up with other projects (like the After Life exhibition I’ve been curating with the excellent fine art photographer Sean Dooley) and haven’t been in the stores much. So this Friday I thought I’d give you a bit of a fun object that my brilliant colleagues at the Horniman (check out their Tumblr) came across when reviewing the Anthropology collections:
Any idea what this weird piece of art (a Vicar, or perhaps Nicholas Cage?) has been painted on to? I’ve added a few more images below to help you work it out.
As usual you can put your suggestions in the comments section below – I can’t wait to hear what you think!
Last week I gave you this mystery object to have a go at identifying:
Jake was in like a flash, correctly identifying that the bone was a humerus – not an easy thing to spot considering the very strong curve and the deep groove at the head end. Jake also noticed that the humerus was adapted for something unusual, hence the weird shape.
There was a suggestion of pig by henstridgesj, which would have fitted the curve of the bone, but it was too small and the deep groove is at the wrong end.
Newcomer to the mystery object, Rute Branco, suggested that the object was the humerus of a (young) tortoise – a suggestion that I agree with (as does Daniella).
Tortoises have weird legs that need to carry quite a lot of weight, thanks to their bony carapace. They also need to get their legs inside their shell, so they have to be shaped for efficient retraction.
One of the differences between a terrestrial tortoise and an aquatic turtle humerus is the shape of the groove in the head, with terrestrial tortoises having a very steep and deep groove while swimming turtles have a slightly shallower and wider groove to allow a wider range of movement.
I can’t find enough comparative material to work out a species, or even genus of tortoise for this specimen, but I will keep my eyes peeled! Thanks for everyone’s input.
This week I have a mystery bone for you to have a go at identifying. Nothing is known about it (although I have some ideas), so all suggestions welcome. Any idea what this is and what it might be from? (Apologies for the poor image quality)
As usual you can put your answers below and I’ll try my best to respond. Enjoy!
It seems like an age ago that I gave you this mystery object:
There were fantastic comments from everyone, but I’ve been bad about responding and writing an answer because I’ve been pretty swamped recently. Also, there are several things that confuse me about the specimen and I’ve not had the chance to take a really good look at comparative material.
The function of the object was correctly identified by Daniela, Paleotool and Jeanie – it is a bone whistle, in this case a fairly modern Navajo example. Our Keeper of Musical Instruments was keen to know if this was from an eagle and whether it might be covered by CITES.
At first I thought it might be the femur of one of the large American eagles, but it is far too long. If it was from any bird of prey it would be a Californian Condor based on the size but the tapering shape is wrong. I then considered the humerus – which is a better match for size, but the position of the groove for a tendon path on the underside is wrong. So it doesn’t seem to be from an eagle.
The slight curve and taper rule out a hollowed deer metapodial, which are very straight and uniform in width.
My best guess is that this may made from a section of the humerus of a species of swan – a guess partly informed by the opinion of the anatomical knowledge of Wouter van Gestel and the archaeological knowledge of Paleotool. The shape and few remaining anatomical features are about right, but there are other large birds that haven’t been ruled out.
Perhaps an unsatisfactory answer, but sometimes a good solid “I don’t know, but it’s reasonable to think it might be this” is the best answer you can get. Thanks for everyone’s input!
N.B. Here’s a side view: 
This week I thought I’d give you an object to identify that I was asked to look at by one of the other curators at the Horniman Museum:
This object is pretty easy to identify in terms of function, but the trickier job is to work out what part of which animal has been used in its construction. Any ideas?
You can put your thoughts below and let’s see if you come to the same conclusions as me. Enjoy!
Last Friday I gave you this mystery object to have a go at identifying:
I wasn’t sure if it would be too easy but it turns out that no-one managed to identify it, so I guess not!
Lots of suggestions were made, from a bum (thanks Jake) or coco-de-mer to the join in a lip to the cleft between toes – but the closest suggestion came from newbie Daniela, who suggested an armpit.
The reason I thought you might find this easy is because it’s the armpit (or perhaps flipperpit is more accurate) of the Horniman’s infamous Walrus Odobenus rosmarus (Linnaeus, 1758). This fine, if portly, specimen will be back from his hols in Margate soon.
I expect the presence of the hair may have thrown people off the scent, as we don’t tend to think of Walruses as being hairy – but as we can see, they are. A bit.
Things are still very busy at the moment, but I managed to find this perplexing image in my camera, that I thought might make an interesting mystery object. Any idea what it is?
You can put your comments, questions and suggestions below – but please keep them decent!
A very late and brief answer to the last mystery object I’m afraid – hopefully I’ll get back on track soon, once everything has calmed down a bit!
I gave you this object to identify:
It was a bit of a mean one, since these teeth are mostly broken with several missing. but there were some great answers.
Several of you recognised these as teeth from a juvenile Old World primate, so well done to henstridgesj, Jake and Jakob Ramlau. Jakob also alluded to dogs in his answer and I wonder if he managed to spot that the primate was a Dog-faced Baboon Papio cynocephalus (Linnaeus, 1766) or Yellow Baboon as it’s also known.
I’ll take some time to talk about deciduous teeth sometime soon, once I’m able to sit down and get back to blogging properly!
This week I have a difficult mystery object for you to have a go at identifying. It was found in a crate of stray teeth and bones that recently came to light and I’m afraid it’s not in the best condition. Any idea what this incomplete run of teeth may have come from?
Click for a bigger image
As usual you can put your comments, questions and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to respond as quickly as possible. Good luck!
Apologies for having such a belated answer to the belated mystery object from last week.
Things are really busy at the moment – I’m researching mermaids for a paper due to be submitted at the end of this month, curating an exhibition that’s due to open in September, double-checking the scientific accuracy in Jake’s book, doing talks, running PubSci, involved in recruitment for NatSCA, working on elements of the Horniman’s Bioblitz project and trying to write a grant application, on top of my more usual day-to-day work. That means I haven’t been able to spend the time on my blog that I would like. Hopefully everything will start getting back to normal in the next couple of weeks!
On to the answer – I’m afraid it will be brief… I asked what this bone was:
Carlos recognised this as a rib and there were a variety of suggestions about what it might be from, ranging from a cetacean to a mammoth. Some good ideas, but Lena came closest with speculation about dinosaurs.
This is in fact the rib of a Triceratops Marsh 1889.
There is a lot that could be said about Triceratops and other horned dinosaurs, but since I’m pushed for time I will just leave you with a link to an article by Darren Naish who knows more about such things than me and this brilliant stop-motion video from the 1925 film of The Lost World, which is simply iconic:
A rather belated mystery object today – my excuse being that I forgot it’s Friday! Been too busy finishing my skeptic talk for the Nineworlds Geekfest this weekend.
Here is the object for you to have a go at identifying:
As usual you can leave your comments, questions and suggestions below, but I apologise in advance that I probably won’t get a chance to reply until Sunday. Good luck!
Last Friday I gave you these tiny bones to identify:
Several suggestions were put forward with soph coming close with the suggestion of a broken furcula and Lena and henstridgesj correctly suggesting the clavicles (or collarbones) of a Cat Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758.
Cat clavicles, like the clavicles of a variety of other animals, are much reduced and are no longer connected to the scapulae (shoulder blades). This allows the scapulae to move much more freely during running, which can increase stride length and in the case of Cats it allows the animal to fit through holes big enough to get their heads through (assuming the Cat isn’t a bit too portly).
These sorts of vestigial structures are interesting from an evolutionary perspective, since they serve little or no direct function, but they still develop as a result of inheritance from ancestral forms that did use them.
In the case of Cats that form would have been around quite some time ago (probably 61.5 – 71.2 million years ago) since the closest related group to the Carnivora with a well-developed clavicle (that I can think of) would be the Chiroptera (bats), where it plays an important role in flight.
Since that divergence of the Chiroptera and the lineage giving rise to the Pangolins, Carnivora and Ungulata the clavicle has been pretty much completely lost, so it’s interesting that even a vestigial form occurs in Cats.
It’s funny to think how such small bones can raise questions that lead us through millions of years of evolution in search of answers, but that’s the nature of studying nature!
This Friday I have a mystery object inspired by something that might be making an appearance in Jake’s forthcoming book:
Any idea what these little pieces of bone might be?
As usual, you can put your comments, questions and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to reply. Enjoy!
Last Friday I gave you this unusual tooth to identify:
It had me a bit stumped, as I couldn’t think of many things big enough for a tooth this size and I could think of even fewer with a tooth this shape.
My first thought was one of the smaller toothed whales, since this would be in the right size range and the open root is similar to what you see in a Sperm Whale:
But the low and wide shape was all wrong for most of the whale teeth I can think of, except perhaps for the rather odd tusks found in the mandibles of some species of beaked whale.
In fact, I was thinking that it might be the tusk of a juvenile or female Gray’s Beaked Whale, given the shape of the male’s tusks.
However, Laura McCoy made a very useful observation (initially via ermineofthenorth) about the upper incisors (or premaxillary incisors) of the Continue reading
Last Friday I gave you this rather large scapula that I discovered in a crate in the Horniman’s stores to identify:
It wasn’t an easy one, since there are relatively few distinctive features on a scapula compared to something like a skull.
Jake has talked about scapulae on his blog before and that provides a good place to see that this specimen is most likely from an ungulate – but an ungulate much bigger than a Red Deer. This led to suggestions for Cow, Horse, Aurochs and one of the larger species of deer.
Outside the comments section on Zygoma there were also suggestions of Giraffe and Giant Irish Deer and I wondered about Camel.
All in all, there were a lot of suggestions, but none of these looked quite right when I searched for comparative material – although finding good images of scapulae online wasn’t easy. I did, however, find a useful video explaining the differences between Horse, Cow (or Ox) and Camel scapulae:
This was enough for me to rule out each of those animals, although the closest was the Cow – in particular the relative sizes of the two faces (called fossae) on either side of the raised ridge called the spine. However, the shape of the acromion (the hooked bit of the raised spine that points towards the shoulder joint) didn’t seem blunt enough for a Cow.
The size differences in the fossae turn out to be about the same in Sheep and deer as in Cow, which led me back in the direction of Jake’s deer scapulae, which seemed to most closely match the shape, if not the absolute size.
Taking the size into account I realised that this animal must stand almost twice the height of a Red Deer, which narrows it down to just one modern species – the Moose or Eurasian Elk Alces alces (Linnaeus, 1758), which can stand at over 2m at the shoulder compared to the Scottish Red Deer’s (still imposing) 1.22m.
I still need to double-check my identification against a confirmed Moose scapula, but from looking at some images of Moose skeletons online it seems that the shape of both the fossae and the acromion fit well.
So a big thanks to everyone for their help in identifying this and special props to newcomer Jeanie who seems to have been spot-on about this being from a cervid. Thanks!
This Friday I have another piece of bone from an unexpected crate of bits that I found in the stores. Any idea what this might be?
As usual you can put your comments below and I’ll do my best to respond. Happy identifying!
Last Friday I gave you this big chunk of bone to identify:
I was hoping that it might be a little bit of a challenge because it doesn’t seem to have any really diagnostic characters, but your shape-matching skills were good and several of you managed to get a close identification.
Heather was straight in with the suggestion of it being the back part of the frontal bone (the bit that makes up the front and top of the skull) of an Aurochs – the very large, extinct ancestor of modern Cows. Wouter van Gestel also suggested one of the large bovids – the Asian Water Buffalo, and Ben Gruwier agreed with both Heather and Wouter in saying that it was from a large bovid.
This was as far as I had managed to get with the identification myself, however the specimen had a number (39.16), which I was able to check against the natural history registers. The first part of the number told me to check in the register for the year 1939 and it was the 16th entry for that year, so it was easy to find (unlike with some numbering systems with museum specimens).
It turns out that this specimen is in fact the frontal bone of a Gaur or Indian Bison Bos gaurus Smith,1827, and it turns out that the Gaur has a distinctive ridge between the horns, which is what this specimen is showing, so I should have been able to work it out from the morphology (I will be able to in future).
Bull Gaur can weigh up to 1.5 tonnes and stand 2.2m (7’2″) to the shoulder – they’re enormous. Their only natural predators are the Tigers and large Crocodiles they share their Southeast Asian forest habitat with, but even then Gaur have been known to kill Tigers by trampling and goring them.
Perhaps unsurprisingly these animals are far more risk from humans and have been hunted for meat and trophies until they have become threatened. They are protected by CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), but illegal trade continues and their forest habitats are constantly being lost due to human encroachment.
It’s disheartening that so many of my mystery objects end with a comment about human activities driving a species towards extinction, but unfortunately it’s a massive problem in the world we live in. I wonder if there will be any wild Gaur left in 2039, just 100 years after this specimen was collected?
This Friday I have a big chunk of bone for you to have a go at identifying. It’s something I came across in a stray box – I expect it belongs to another specimen, but I need to identify what species it might belong to before I can start checking. Any ideas?
Your suggestions will be most welcome in the comments section below – let’s see if we can work this out.
Zygoma 