This Friday I have a pair of skulls (top and underside) for you to have a go at identifying. Do you think they are from the same species, or do you think they represent two different species? (N.B. You can click the image for a bigger version)
As usual you can put your questions, comments and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to reply. Good luck!
On Friday I gave you this object to identify:
As usual Jake was in like a shot with a correct general identification of whale vertebra. However, identifying what kind of vertabra and what species of whale is a more tricky prospect. The type of vertebra was narrowed down quite quickly by Jake, henstridgesj , Barbara Powell and Kevin K, all of whom agreed that it was one of the cervical (or neck) vertebrae.
Now the neck vertebrae in whales are odd. All mammals have seven vertebrae in their necks (even Giraffes), but whale neck vertebrae are a bit odd as in many whale species they tend to be fused together (as Barbara Powell pointed out). This makes sense when you think about how whales behave – they don’t need to turn their heads much, so having separated vertebrae is not necessary and may even cause problems considering the forces transmitted through the neck vertebrae during swimming, surfacing and feeding.
The pattern of fusion varies according to species and stage of development – some whales have no fusion, some have all of their neck vertebrae fused, others have the atlas (the first cervical that articulates with the skull) free and the other six vertebrae fused and yet others have the atlas, axis (the second cervical that the atlas pivots on) and the next four cervical vertebrae fused and the seventh and last cervical free. Just to complicate matters young whales start off with all of the vertebrae free and they fuse as the animal develops, which means that a young animal will not conform to the adult form.
In light of this situation, the mystery object becomes rather tricky to identify without being able to see the amount of fusion or other parts of the same specimen that may indicate developmental stage. That just leaves us with size and shape to go on, which is a bit problematic unless you have a suitable reference to compare this specimen against.
As it turns out I was unable to find a decent set of images for comparison and we don’t have much whale material at the Horniman. This means I’ve been a bit stumped in trying to identify this specimen – particularly since it came to us with the limited description ‘Vertebra of Whale’.
The size, shape and fusion suggest to me that it is from one of the large Oceanic Dolphins (Delphinidae), such as a Pilot Whale or Killer Whale. This would agree with Barbara Powell’s suggestion, but it would disagree with an identification that was made by a marine mammal expert who has helped me with identifications in the collections in the past. He suggested that this vertebra belonged to a Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758 – presumably a young individual, given the size, although that doesn’t really tally with the amount of fusion.
Apologies for the somewhat tentative outcome of this mystery object, but it serves as another example of the lack of certainty that we sometimes have to accept when trying to identify specimens – it can really be a pain in the neck.
This week I’ve got a mystery object inspired by an enquiry that came around the Natural Science Collections Jiscmail list yesterday. Any idea what this object might be?
As usual I will do my best to respond to your suggestions, comments and questions throughout the day. Good luck!
On Friday I gave you this object to identify:
I chose this object because it gave me a chance to take a photo using my new phone camera and a hand lens (inspired by an article by Nigel Larkin in the latest NatSCA News). I thought it might be a bit of a challenge, but I was proven wrong once again, as Jake tentatively identified the part of the skeleton this bone is from straight away – it is indeed a baculum or os penis (that’s the Latin for penis bone).
The species was a bit more difficult, but Barbara Powell was quick to identify that it came from a Mustelid and then there was a bit of disagreement between Barbara, Ric Morris and Dawn about whether it was from a Continue reading
This week I haven’t had a chance to photograph a new mystery object, so here’s an old image I took of a specimen from a while back:
Any idea what this skull might belong to? I’ve deliberately omitted the scale bar to make it a bit harder, but if you want to see the scale just click on the image.
As usual you can leave your questions, comments and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to respond. Good luck!
Apologies for the somewhat tardy answer to the mystery object that I gave you on Friday. Not only is it tardy, it’s not really an answer, as I still haven’t ruled out all of the possible options as to what this skull is from:
Now I’m quite happy to say it’s from a member of the crow family or corvid of some sort, but there are quite a lot of corvids out there. My first thought was Jackdaw Corvus monedula (Linnaeus, 1758), which is also what Jake thought. However, when compared to the Jackdaw on the Skullsite the bone between the eyes looks too narrow.
Barbara Powell very helpfully provided some measurements from Jackdaws in her collection, that make me think that this may still be a Jackdaw, but I have reservations, since there are several other corvids with skulls in the same size range as this specimen (6.9 cm long). The Magpie Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) is one that was suggested by several people (biologycurator and Leigh) and henstridgesj suggested it could be one of the North American Jays.
The big problem here is that there aren’t many features of the skull of the corvids that help distinguish them from each other, apart from the size and the bill shape. However, Magpies and Jackdaws are a bit too similar in these features. Other characters may be able to help, such as the shape of the bones of the palate (which I think favours the Magpie), but without a large sample size for comparison it is hard to tell what variation is due to species differences and what is due to individual differences.
Given that this specimen is from the King’s or Chelsea College collection, which contains material from around the World, we can’t even rule out species from other countries. All of this makes identification a bit too uncertain, so for now I will simply keep the identification to ‘corvid’ and make a note of the various species it is most likely to be. Better to be uncertain than to be wrong.
Thanks for your help!
Once again I have a genuine mystery object for you to identify this Friday. I have been going through some of the material from the old King’s College Collection in an effort to identify some material with no data that would be suitable for the Horniman’s handling collection.
I found this bird skull that I think would be ideal – I think I know what it is, but I need to make sure that I’m not mistaken and that it isn’t an important or rare species. I will check the identification myself and I will see if you all come to the same conclusions as me about what this is:
Please leave your comments and suggestions below and let’s see what we come up with!
I know I’ve discussed the situation regarding rhino horn before, but I recently had an article published in NatSCA News that goes into a bit more detail about the thefts of rhino horn from collections in Europe, the current status of rhino populations in the wild and the huge increase in levels of poaching. I thought it might be useful to share the article a bit more widely by making it available here: The Horns of a Dilemma: The Impact of the Illicit Trade in Rhino Horn.
Normally NatSCA News articles are published online a year or so after they are published in hard copy, but the article I wrote will be out of date by then and I will have to spend the next year or so getting annoyed by newspaper articles talking about the market for horn as an aphrodisiac (which is nonsense), without being able to easily share the results of my research into the subject.
One element of my research has been a map that shows the places in Europe from which rhino horn has been stolen in the last 18 months or so (I will keep updating it):
The situation for rhinos is bad and it’s getting worse.
On Friday I gave you another genuine mystery object from the Horniman’s collections:
It was in a box of unidentified and unlabelled bones which I’m pretty sure came from the King’s College teaching collection in the 1980s, when King’s merged with Chelsea College. Quite a large amount of material came to the Museum and unfortunately much of it was jumbled up, missing labels and quite often different parts from the same specimen had become separated.
I have been kept busy trying to make sense of it all, which is no small task, as the collection was mainly used for comparative anatomy meaning it is very diverse. The specimens in the collection could be from anything and from anywhere in the world – which makes it rather difficult to narrow down the options.
This specimen was a bit of a puzzle, since although it is clearly from a fairly large animal, it is quite hard to work out what the full adult size would be, as this bone is from a juvenile (as spotted by Kevin). This is apparent from the unfused ends of the bone (called the epiphyses).
One possibility that occurred to me (and Rhea) was that it may be the bone of an aquatic mammal, such as a seal. However, in aquatic mammals the humeri need to rotate, meaning that they tend to be flattened in two different planes at the proximal and distal ends. This bone is just flattened in one plane, meaning it wouldn’t be great for use in swimming efficiently and it wouldn’t be great for bearing large amounts of weight/force during locomotion – a more rounded cross-section of bone is better for that.
In fact, the general shape of the bone is wide and flat with large tuberosities for muscle attachment – almost like the humerus of a mole:
This is something that Richard Forrest seems to have picked up on when he suggested that it is the humerus of a fossorial [digging] animal. This narrows down the options quite nicely, as there are only a few large fossorial animals.
The Pangolin was suggested by Dave Godfrey, but the bone is too large. Dave also suggested the Aardvark, which is a good contender, although not quite right. I personally have a different animal in mind – Continue reading
This week I have another genuine mystery object for you, but this time it’s not a skull. Any idea what this is?
As usual you can ask questions or make comments and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to respond. Happy identifying!
On Friday I gave you another skull to identify from a box of unlabelled material dating from 1974:
At first glance it looks quite similar to the skull of a small dog or fox, but the muzzle area seems a bit short, the braincase too small and the teeth aren’t quite right for a canid – in fact the teeth look more like those of a mustelid (as Jake pointed out). However, mustelids tend to have quite broad and blocky skulls and this one seems a bit elongate and gracile.
Clare P made a very good suggestion when she suggested the Asian Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus, although this animal is somewhat smaller than the species that this specimen came from. Size aside, the dentition matches pretty well (if you can work out which tooth sockets belong to each tooth):
So it looks like this is the skull of a viverrid. There are still lots of candidates out there and location could help narrow down possible species, but without any labels it can be hard to work out locality information. However, last week’s object was from the same collection and it was an African species, suggesting that Africa would be a good place to start looking for a species match.
Jamie Revell did just that when he suggested the Giant Forest Genet Genetta victoriae, which is a viverrid of about the right size from Africa. Although I already thought I knew what the specimen was, I took Jamie’s suggestion very seriously, as I hadn’t considered that particular species and it fit with most of the features of the specimen.
In the end an online French viverrid identification resource I’d not seen before provided me with the information I needed to exclude the Giant Forest Genet. Mainly it came down to whether the premaxillary bones made contact with the frontal bones – they do in the Giant Forest Genet, but they don’t in this specimen. Also, the area where the temporalis muscle attached is too narrow in this specimen.
In light of these observations and with reference to specimens in the Horniman’s collections (including one that I used as a mystery object a year ago) I am fairly confident in identifying this as Continue reading
This week I have another mystery skull for you to identify from a box of miscellaneous bones:
Any idea what animal this came from?
As usual you can put your observations, questions and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to respond. Happy identifying!
On Friday I gave you this unidentified object from the Horniman’s collections and asked for your help in identifying it:
Suggestions ranged from the Easter Bunny (topical) to Dangermouse (fantastic), but there was a remarkably fast convergence of opinion on what this is.
Jamie Revell, Barbara Powell, henstridgesj and Jake all came to the conclusion that this is the skull of a Continue reading
This week I have a genuine mystery object for you. I just stumbled across a couple of big boxes of unidentified skulls and bits of bone, so you can help me work out what some of these things might be from. To start with we have this skull:
Please put your suggestions, comments and questions below and I’ll do my best to respond. Enjoy – and have a nice Easter!
On Friday I was in rather a rush as I was involved in co-organising this year’s Natural Science Collections Association (or NatSCA) conference. It was a very enjoyable (if hectic) few days of natural history nerdery, but left me limited time to select an object from the FMO. I took my opportunity at the drinks reception at the Grant Museum of Zoology where I tried out the camera on my new phone to get an image of this specimen:
Now it was a fairly easy one to identify as the skull of these animals is very distinctive. Nonetheless, if you haven’t seen the skull of one of these animals before it is a bit of an oddity, with that spike in the face and the apparently strongly protruding maxilla and mandible (which is actually due to unusually elevated frontals). Continue reading
This week I’ve been rather swamped with co-organising the Natural Science Collections Association conference, so I haven’t had much time to think of a good mystery object from the Horniman’s collections. However, here is a nice (if somewhat distinctive) specimen from the excellent Grant Museum of Zoology for you to identify:
Any idea what it is?
You can put your comments below and I’ll do my best to respond, as the opportunity arises. Best of luck!
This week I have another skull for you to identify. Any idea what animal this might belong to?
As usual, I will do my best to respond to any questions or comments that you leave below. Good luck!
On Friday I gave you this object to identify:
It didn’t prove to be all that difficult, perhaps since the skull is distinctive in having the general appearance of a ruminant (in particular it is missing the upper incisors), but it also has canines and is very small, with a skull height of just over 5cm. This slightly unusual mixture of characters suggests one of the more primitive ruminants.
Jake suggested it might be a Muntjac or Chinese Water Deer, but as Lena pointed out, Muntjac (and Chinese Water Deer) have a scent gland in front of the eye (called a preorbital gland) that is housed in a big pocket in the skull. The skull itself is also a bit small even for a Muntjac.
Jack Ashby, Lena, Barbara Powell and Jamie Revell all managed to work out that this skull was from a member of the family Tragulidae. To be more specific it is from a Continue reading
This week I thought I’d give you a skull to identify – probably a bit too easy, but it’s a nice specimen!
Pop you questions comments and suggestions below and I’ll do my best to respond. Good luck!
On Friday I gave you this object to identify:
The idea was to provide a sense of how tricky it can be to identify bits of postcranial bone, even fairly characteristic bits like the humerus (which is what this is).
There were various suggestions, with sheep, goat and deer all getting a mention, but henstridgesj and Jake both got the same identification as the collector when they suggested Continue reading
Zygoma 