This case is somewhat reminiscent of Case 251 in which an object that could have been identified by macroscopic examination was submitted for histologic processing, therefore making the identification extremely difficult. However, there are still features present that allow this 'object' to be identified as an arthropod, as shown in the photo below (CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE):
You'll note that the features in this case are very similar to a previous case of an embedded tick that was sectioned by histology (Case 83).
Here is a poem by Blaine Mathison to go with all of these types of cases!
Why pathologists are so quick to slice-and-dice
when an ID on this bug would be much more precise
if they had just left it intact
and let the entomologists have a crack
Alas a definitive ID is now a roll of the dice
As microbiologists, we can help our physicians by encouraging them to submit possible arthropods to the microbiology lab rather than to surgical pathology, and also ask our histology labs to send these types of specimens to microbiology rather than sectioning them. As I've mentioned before in previous posts, the CDC also provides an excellent e-consult service with a <24 a="" available="" expertise="" great="" hour="" href="http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Contactus.htm" is:="" is="" locally.="" microbiology="" nbsp="" not="" service="" site="" their="" this="" turn-around-time.="" web="" when="">http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Contactus.htm24>