Monday, November 10, 2008


So, I totally forgot a very important part of the walrus anatomy, which my girlfriend reminded me...

But I'm not going to tell you. Its time for you to play 'which of these is not like the others...'

What's different?

AND, more importantly, does anyone out there (I.E. any of Annalisa's ex-students) have any suggestions on how to improve the reconstruction?

If noone does, then I'll assume my artwork is 100% perfect (as it usually is).


Lost Geologist said...

I assume you are referring to the missing hairs - whatever their exact name may be.

Elizabeth said...

I knew exactly what you were talking about halfway through the first sentence. Does that mean I spend too much time with Laura/Brian?

Anyway, how could you?! I think you should make it pathologic, just for fun.

Eric said...

I knew it. I knew it was going to be that.

Morgan said... this about walrus boners?

also at this point in my research, you have probably looked at more walruses than me, So I don't really have any criticisms right now

Boesse said...

actually... I guess everyone was right. To a degree.

Those who pointed out that this thing is missing a baculum... good job. However, it could just as well be a female, if you didn't know what female skulls/postcrania tended to look like (the skull on this composite skeleton happens to be from a male).

However, the difference between the two pictures were the vibrissae (or whiskers);these happen to be my girlfriends favorite thing about pinnipeds, so she was quite pissed when I omitted them. Sorry, it is now fixed.

I guess I could easily fix the no penis problem for our poor eunuch of a fossil walrus with a few minutes in photoshop.

Maybe I'll do a post on pinniped baculi in the future... and pathologic walrus baculi... thanks Liz..

Anonymous said...

Whiskers! I agree with adding a pathological baculum though... might make pinnipeds more interesting for me.

Intelligent Agent said...

Bobby, I can't believe you would go out of your way to mention a baculum.