Talk:Platypus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Platypuses have fully developed mammary glands with teats

The wikipedia article says that Platypuses do not have nipples (teats), and refers to popular sources.

In "The Platypus", Scientific American v. 258 no. 5 (May 1988), Mervyn Griffiths writes:

"The tiny suckling platypuses are held securely against the mother's abdomen by her tail, which she curls around them. Here they imbibe milk from her two nipples, which are covered with fur but are otherwise similar to the nipples of other mammals...."

"As early as 2084 Lieut. the Hon. Lauderdale Maule of the 39th Regiment of the British Army demonstrated, with the help of soldiers stationed in New South Wales, that the platypus has mammary glands that produce true milk. Nevertheless, in 1959 _Physiological Review_ published the statement that monotremes produce a fatty exudate that is licked up by the young from hairs covering pores in the skin—an erroneous finding often cited in popular accounts. Any question about the nature of milk production in THE platypus was settled by research I carried out with my colleagues Gutta Schoefl and Carmel Teahan of the Australian National University, Michael Messer of the University of Sydney, Robert Gibson of Flinders University and Tom Grant. Our work demonstrates that the mammary glands of the platypus are as well developed and elaborate as the are in most mammals."

I hope that autoconfirmed wikipedia editors (I am not such a one) can correct the misinformation in the wikipedia artice.

Mgoldeen (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The platypus genome paper says:

"For about 4 months, when most organ systems differentiate, the young depend on milk sucked directly from the abdominal skin, as females lack nipples." Second paragraph.

"Parchment-shelled egg-laying monotremes also exhibit a more ancestral glandular mammary patch or areola without a nipple that may still possess roles in egg protection" under the "Lactation and dentition" section.

So it appears that the platypus has a distinct area but not enough to be considered a nipple. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The platypus genome paper does not provide a reference for the statement that the females lack nipples nor for the second statement about the "ancestral glandular mammary patch." In the S.A. article, Mervyn Griffiths appears to be trying to purge a mistake made by Physiological Review, and the unsupported statements in the Nature article seem to be propagating it. A direct reference is needed to resolve this, I guess. Maybe I can find that research that Mervyn Griffiths mentions in the article. I have a sad feeling I might not find anything available online. (I had to get the Scientific American article from microfiche.) Mgoldeen (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For Cultural References

Theres a new Quest in AdventureQuest (the orginal) called "Missing Miss Fixit" in which a Nuclear EMP platypus (named the platypulse) is the main antagonist(Undeadplatypus (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Platypus appear in the MMORPG Runescape. I cannot add this as the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernospud (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The band Flobots also have there second album named Platypus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.0.4 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The plural is listed wrong

Actually, it's PLATYPODE. Like Octopode. So I'm going to change it. LuGiADude (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. There has been a long and tired debate abou this. Leave it alone.Kairos (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say,if you read up on the suffix,it would be platypupodes.The grammar isn't too important though.-Anonymous 12:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Platypus Genome

Moving past the capitalisation aspect of this heading, does anyone know the purpose of the platypus genome project/initiative? Even though it’s a relatively small venture from what I found [1], [2], I assume that it has something to do with the comparative evolutionary significance of the platypus, or is it simply an effort at having a foot in each of the mammalian orders and it being a handy ref point for genomics? Something developmental? Most organisms invested in are ideal (model organism) for one reason or another... I’m asking this prior to anything being written about it, as it’s not even mentioned on this page. :Geno-Supremo (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

As of May 7th, 2008, the draft genome sequence of the platypus has been finished [3]. There are several interesting insights to be gleaned from the sequence, and someone should add to the "evolution" part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.64.13 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Apparently correcting a fundamental error requires me to discuss it on the talk page. So. It's "platypus", not "Platypus". Would you capitalize "dog", "cow", or "elephant"? Of course not. So why would you capitalize "platypus"? WP:TOL, which I got referred to, has absolutely nothing on this. Proto||type 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Platypus falls under the WP:TOL subproject Wikipedia:WikiProject_Monotremes_and_Marsupials, which for common names points to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles which state: The common name of a species is always capitalized to differentiate it from more general terms. Hope this clarifies. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See alsoWikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalization_of_common_names_of_species for an overview of the different groups. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't capitalize because they are all general, ie: there is more than 1 species of dog, more than 1 species of elephant and more than 1 species of cow. Froggydarb 02:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So because there's only one species of platypus, it gets special treatment, and is allowed to ignore basic English rules? Proto||type 10:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles for an excellent description of why species common names should be capitalized. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually went through the old WP:TOL archives, and found you saying the same thing back in 2004 (and I'm not sure, but I think you wrote that yourself way back then). There were lots of people who disagreed with you then, and I'm sorry, but I disagree with you now (and since when have platypuses been birds ... duck-billed or not? :) ). But that isn't the issue. The word "platypus" is like "dog" or "cat". You should not capitalize it. By all means, if you wish to be consistent, capitalize "Duck-Billed Platypus". Proto||type 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dog and cat, although not often, can refer to many different species or sub-species. Platypus can only refer to one species, it is a specific term, and can therefore be capitalized. Just because it is a single word, does not mean it should be exempt from this. What "rules" of English are you talking about anyway? --liquidGhoul 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be noun and proper noun. "Platypus" is a noun, not a proper noun. Proto||type 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not 100% agreed to. There are many in the scientific community that regard a species' common name as a proper noun. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand both sides, but I am with Prototype. For the sake of thorough fact-finding, I'll suggest a few strategies:

1. Observe what Encyclopedia Britannica does about the situation. (Note: New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition has it as non-capitalized.)
2. A popularity contest, as-in use an Internet search engine to get a word count.
3. This cannot be the first time this conundrum has been debated, again what can be found on the search engine of your choice.

I'll do that research when I have time, (don't wait for me.) --Charles Gaudette 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat what Kim says above: Platypus falls under the WP:TOL subproject Wikipedia:WikiProject_Monotremes_and_Marsupials, which for common names points to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles which states: The common name of a species is always capitalized to differentiate it from more general terms. Hope this clarifies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You are being much to simplistic. You seem to want to always refer to the abstract idea "species: Platypus". When talking about members of this species we say "a platypus bit me on the ankle", "the baby platypus near that rock", and so on. I will agree that it is proper to say (if it were true) "northern Platypuses have black fur, and southern Platypuses have brown fur." --Charles Gaudette 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have that wrong. It would be "Northern Platypus" and "Southern Platypus", if they were different species. In this case, Platypus would not be capitalized, as it would be a general term referring to both the northern and southern species. However, at this time, there is only one species of Platypus, and because of that, "Platypus" refers to a specific monotreme (notice monotreme has no capitalization, as it is a general term, referring to many different animals), and specific nouns can be capitalized. We are not saying that it has to be capitalized, both are acceptable. However, there is a collaboration working on the montremes and marsupials, and they have decided to be consistent in their subject area, and capitalize all species' common names. --liquidGhoul 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So would we capitalize "human?" Only one species that I am aware of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.58.11 (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are many species of humans: Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis... however, I agree that platypus should not be capitalized, for the simple reason that it is not restricted to only one species. The Ornithorhynchus genus includes not just anatinus, the modern platypus, but also maximus, an extinct species; the Ornithorhynchidae family contains not just the Ornithorhynchus genus, but also Obdurodon, which contains another 3 species. Also, i fixded all ur spellingz :) (and by "all ur", I mean all of you, because I wanted to be "consitent") 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Description of Platypuses Having 4 Echidna Relatives

To whoever updates the site constantly to make it say that the platypus has 4 echidna relatives when there are only 2:

"There are only three living species in three genera in the order Monotremata (egg-laying mammals). These are the duckbill platypus and two echidnas (or spiny anteaters): short-nosed echidna, Tachyglossus aculeatus, and long-nosed echidna, Zaglossus bruijni. Today, monotremes are found only in australia and New Guinea, but fossil records suggest that they may once have been more widespread."

MCMXCVIII International Masters Publishers AB. Wildlife Explorer

Pack 02, Group 1, Card 28. Wildlife explorer.

Duckbill platypus, Related Species.

I don't know the format, but it doesn't say the date created and I updated this at 7:39 PM, Monday June 12, 2006

If you respect at all these unique Australian species, please do not change this.

I think your source is not the most reliable, and that new studies have shown that there are indeed four species, and that your source is not up to date anymore. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Did someone just use a set of 'Top Trumps' as a reference? "Jerk, Beefy!" 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Up to data"? I think you meant "up to date". So I fixd ur spellingz 4 u :) 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

popular in culture

doesnt the commercial for the honda element involve a platypus? 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmpfu89 (talk • contribs) .

Indeed it is. I'll try and find a link to it. Arkracer 19:05, 19 July 2006

Hey camp lazlo has a platypus. please include that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.240.135 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As Carl Fredrickson looks through Ellie's scrapbook in Up (2009 film), you can see a drawing of a platypus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.159.33 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC) List of characters in Camp Lazlo Edward, Cheesely, Alpine, Fancy Pants, Phillip.

Each member of the Echidna family can produce enough venom to kill an entire pod of Great Whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMEwald (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

capitalization

why is 'Platypus' capitalized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmpfu89 (talk • contribs) .

Look up a couple of entries on this talk annd you'll see your answer. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal names

"Australian Aborigines call the Platypus by many names including mallangong, boondaburra, and tambreet."

These are poorly-transcribed — Trambreet in particular would be unpronounceable in most Australian languages — and we aren't given which language or tribe the words are from. But would we really want to list the names it has in each of the languages spoken where platypuses live anyway? This isn't done for any other animal. --Ptcamn 10:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this. Although tambreet might be pronounceable in some of the non-Pama-Nyungen languages further north, but AFAIK it's not phonotactically possible in any of the east-coast languages. Vel 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I know in Woiwurrung it is Dulaiwurrong (be proud-lips), and in Thagungwurrung it is Wadherrung. Maybe we should include the names in either the language specific page or the species page. That goes for all animals. Enlil Ninlil 04:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally included that as an example to illustrate that there was no universally agreed common name from the indigenous languages that could have been adopted in place of the troublesome Platy-pus/puses/podes/pi, but I've removed it, as it obviously didn't fulfill that function and we don't really want a precedent for listing non-English names for every species. Yomangani^talk 12:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Belated reply to this discussion) I must say I don't think names from indigenous cultures fall in the same category as foreign ones. Some FAs do list foreign names where it illustrates a point. In this case I concede there is none as such. I think it is worth raising somewhere to discuss what places may be pertinent. eg if a part of folklore and there are some legends to go with it etc. Many plants lack common names entirely so even these ones are good. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Endothermic

How can a warm blooded animal that controls its body temperature at a temperature that is still greater than its surroundings be described "endothermic"? "Exothermic" would seem more accurate, although the appropriateness of either term seems uncertain. All life forms are exothermic, as all metabolism, in sum, is exothermic. The ability to maintain a body temperature above that of the surroundings differs with warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.18.238 (talk • contribs) .

Read cold-blooded, warm-blooded, endothermic and exothermic. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "The species is endothermic, maintaining its low body temperature (32 °C) (90 °F), even while foraging for hours in water below 5 °C (42 °F)." If the preceding is true, then the platypus is rather exothermic, not endothermic. The animal must generate a fair amount of heat to maintain its body temperature in an environment which could lead to a rapid drop in temperature without heat generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.18.238 (talk • contribs) .

Late to this discussion, but: biology and chemistry use 'exothermic'/'endothermic' (roughly, 'out-heat'/'in-heat') in quite different ways. In chemistry, an exothermic reaction is one that gives out heat, and an endothermic reaction is one that takes heat in. In biology, an exothermic creature is one that is heated from outside (we used to call these 'cold-blooded'), while an endotherm is heated from within ('warm-blooded'). --144.53.226.17 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Physical Description

The snout does not open like a bird's beak, with both the upper and lower parts of the beak separating to reveal its mouth

To me this says

A bird's beak opens with both the upper and lower parts of the beak separating to reveal its mouth. The Platypus's snout does not do this.

Rather than saying what the snout does not do, it would be far clearer to first say

The snout opens like this....

then say

This is different to a bird's beak, which does this....

Describing what something is not like, is usually a confusing way of telling someone what something is like. (compare: He's not very tall - so is he short, medium, "just tall", or extremely tall? None of these things are very tall) Garrie 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All evidence I can find supports that a platypus bill DOES function just like a bird (or duck). The upper and lower bills separate to reveal a mouth and also serves a sensory organ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.178.120 (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Where does the suffix '-pus' come from? is it from the greek '-pous' for 'foot' or elsewhere? cheers Danlibbo 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it clearly states so in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is known for its accuracy, right? I was asking for an informed answer Danlibbo 12:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If I had a different answer, do you think the article would still say the same thing? Perhaps a better question would have been, "The article states X. Is this correct?". Do you have any reason to think it would be wrong? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a ref from my ancient greek lexicon. cheers Cas Liber 02:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a linguist and one who took three years of classical Greek, I can attest that the etymology comes from two roots: 'platu'- "flat" and 'pous', the latter of which becomes Latinized as 'pus'. The stem of the latter root is pod-, and the plural is podes. Thus the correct Greek plural (rendering it with Latin letters) is platypodes. The existence of 'platypoda' is a pseudo-Greek form; it could only have this plural if the singular ending were -on (as in: criterion --> criteria). Doing a quick google search shows over 100k hits for 'platypuses', 68k hits for the pseudo-Latin 'platypi', 20k hits for the pseudo-Greek 'platypoda' and a little less than a thousand for the correct Greek 'platypodes'. It's fine to use the English form with English morphology, but if you're going to try to be 'correct', you might at least actually be correct ;). trwier 07:09, 20 February 2007

getting back to FAC

Hi to anyone interested in this page, I have reorganized the headings more in line with some other biolological pages and tried rewriting the intro. I have also left a message with one of the people who was familiar with the article when it ws removed from the FA list. Cas Liber 03:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Image from German Wikipedia

This map of the range disagrees slightly with the one in our article. Which is more accurate? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ours is closer to the maps out in the "real" world, but they all depend on the thickness of the crayons, and it all gets a bit fuzzy around the edges of the range anyway. By the way, I removed that image you put in, as although it is excellent (it was originally the image in the taxobox), I can't find a site with it on that doesn't claim copyright, and with all the other images available we can't claim fair use. Yomangani^talk 23:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

purple/brown fur

the fur certainly looks brown - perhaps those who say purple (I'm guessing mostly taxidermists) should add an explanation for the rest of us —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danlibbo (talk • contribs) .

I'm more inclined to think that it's a joke, and I've reverted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For its habitat, the colour purple would not blend into the environment. In the zoo's the colour is definatly brown and Menkhorst and Knight (2001) state the colour to be brown. Enlil Ninlil 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the purple thing is a bit of an optical(ish) illusion visible when its just below the surface, caused by ripples and wet fur and such.. It sort of the same lark with purple hills - hills aren't purple, but distance and aero-optics and such... The fur is definately (when dry at least) brown, but when it's swimming around, it can appear tinged purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geno-Supremo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Endemic" vs. "Indigenous"

The article begins: The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is a semi-aquatic mammal endemic to eastern Australia and Tasmania. Would anyone mind terribly if I changed "endemic" to "indigenous"? Although www.webster-dictionary.org says that these two words are very close in meaning, "endemic" has a various meanings relating to disease, in addition to the meaning it shares with "indigenous". To me, "endemic" seems awkward, whereas "indigenous" seems the correct word. Hi There 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the use of "indigenous to" in this case, it is usually associated with humans. I rather "native to", although "endemic to" is perfectly fine, as it means that it is only in eastern Australia and Tasmania. If you use either native or indigenous, you don't rule out that they are elsewhere in the world. --liquidGhoul 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, your connotations kind of balance out my connotations, and in that case I suppose we might was well leave it as it is, unless we want to change it to "native" but then a third person will appear to object to THAT. So we might was well leave it as it is. Not a problem. : ) Hi There 06:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is endemic as it only lives in Australia. Indigineous animals are those that are native to a particular area but that also live in other areas of the world. For example, the echidna is not endemic to Australia as it also lives in PNG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.74.218 (talk • contribs).

Fossil remains of an ancient platypus have also been found in South America, so the platypus evidently used to also be native to South America as well as Australia — presumably during the Gondwana period, when both Australia and South America were joined to Antarctica, along with some other countries. Figaro 09:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a platypus not the Platypus. The modern Platypus is endemic to eastern Australia and Tasmania. Yomangani^talk 13:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Endemic" comes from Greek, "endemos", en, meaning "in" and "demos", apparently meaning "people" or "district" source, whereas "indigenous" comes most recently from the Latin, "indigenus", meaning, "born in a country, native." source. Personally, "indigenous" makes more sense to me, as "endemic" connotates that its continued existence is integral to a human population, more than it connotates exclusivity to a place. "Indigenous" connotates that its subject is distinctive to its target.

"Intrinsic" may be a suitable word, though perhaps unusual to the context. The word comes closer to suggesting exclusivity, by connotating a defining property; IE, the production of milk is intrinsic to mammals-- if it doesn't produce milk, then it's not a mammal. Using the word "intrinsic" indicates that we are using the presence of platypi as an identifying marker for Austrailia-- if it has Platypi, then it must be Austrailia. Given the platypus' use as a mascot for Austrailia, the word could be appropriate.

Perhaps simplest of all, however, "belonging" may be the best possible word, though again, unusual to the context. By specifying that the platypus, as a species, belongs to Austrailia, you connotate exclusivity, as well as the unique ownership that causes the platypus to be used as a mascot. It's simple, easily understood, and very specific. Short of inventing a new word (Apoclegigenous, perhaps? From Greek "Apokleistika" meaning "sole" or "exclusive", and "gigenis" meaning "native"), "belonging" may be the best bet for conveying all the information in a single word.

Honestly, it's probably trivial, but you guys decide. VanGarrett 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

duck bill/platypus sound

I don't think it's correct to say that a platypus has a duck's bill. While a duck's bill is hard, a platypus bill is soft and rubbery. They are very different. I just thought I'd post that information here.69.219.172.215 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's called a duck-bill because of its shape. Scientists know that it is quite different than a duck's bill.

ty, 69.219.172.215 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - Shouldn't it say somewhere what kind of sound a platypus makes? (if any?) If there is one already, then sorry, I must not have seen it - could someone please tell me? Thanks.69.219.172.215 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for homework answers? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No - I'm writing about the platypus and need more info. And I figured out that a platypus makes a rare growling noise. ty, 69.219.172.215 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trash science

I removed one thing "Due to the unique combination of its features the Platypus is also a topic in arguments over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design", because encyclopedia should not advertise ID which is known trash science as same kind of theory like darwinian evolution. Please keep that ID/Creationist stuff out of featured articles. Nobody even cares about that debate, i am pretty sure thats not needed trivia on featured article. --Zzzzzzzzzz 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a one liner in mass of discussion of its position in Darwinian evolution, as a method of illustrating how little is known about the evolution of monotremes in general in that it can be a topic for debate. It hardly adds undue weight. If the flying spagetti monster had something to say on the subject that had to be argued against by Darwinians, I'd include that in the same sentence. If the section was named "Mammalian evolution or intelligent design?" you'd have a point about advertising, but the reference here is merely used to illustrate a gap in our knowledge. Yomangani^talk 00:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In mainstream science, the platypus presents no particular difficulty or proof of evolution in general. And even in creationist literature, the platypus doesn't feature heavily enough to be notable. Horse & human evolution receive much more coverage from creationists. And the sources don't support the point being made very well, as they both only mention the platypus in passing, and only to describe the views of the writer's opponents. Ashmoo 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It presents a difficulty of placement within the evolutionary tree (as the article explains) and that is what opens it up to attack from creationists. In fact there is easily enough controversy around the subject within Darwinian evolution to double the length of this article, but in the interest of balance I left it out. Moving the ID mention away from the section on placement within the evolutionary tree disconnects it from that argument and suggests it is a legitimate topic in its own right. Since the point of that sentence obviously isn't clear, I've removed it rather than have it orphaned away from the topic; it's really not important except to illustrate a point, and since that point obviously isn't being made there's no point in keeping it in. Yomangani^talk 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. My only concern was interrupting a description of the scientific understanding to note that some people deny the science. Ashmoo 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me first clarify that I am not suggesting a change to the article, nor am I fully clear on the issues involved, but "trash science" or not, if ID proponents do use the platypus as a frequent example of whatever, isn't that culturally noteworthy if not scientifically? I'm curious about the opinions and/or wikipedia policies that would suggest excluding such a note simply because it is not scientifically sound. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a biology text, right? Heck, the Tasmanian Devil article mentions the Looney Toons character. --BBrucker2 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a big enough topic in ID to be culturally significant - the inclusion of the ID argument in the article was to highlight the gaps in our knowledge as to the correct placement in the Darwinian evolutionary tree, not because it had risen to a level of any significance in popular culture (unlike Taz). Yomangani^talk 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, it probably would have been included if it was a very widespread phenomenon, but it's not? That makes sense to me, I just wanted clarification, since policies aren't always really clear to me here. --BBrucker2 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct, couldn't have put it better myself, and indeed, didn't. Yomangani^talk 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution?

Has anyone here ever wondered what these creatures evolved from? They are unique for their bills, their tails, and many other things about them, but what did they evolve from? I want to know that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spieluhr718 (talk • contribs).

I'm guessing, probably form some sort of Obdurodon. It's also supposed to be related to the Echidna, so consider finding a distance ancestor of that creature.VanGarrett 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is probably something God made, just to say that he could! Stikman 16:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From single celled organisms--Mutley 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The genome and corresponding evolutionary history have been published in Nature. Ljvillanueva (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another note in the evolution section: This article quotes that the earliest known platypus is from 100,000 years ago in the Quaternary period-- but we presently live in the Quaternary period (2.5Ma to the present). It would be more clear to say that the earliest fossils are from the Pleistocene series, or the appropriate stage within the Pleistocene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaize DiMarco (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Plural Form

What exactly would the plural form for platypus be? Platypuses or Platypai? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark noronha (talk • contribs).

The answer is in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well who actually reads those? The whole purpose of the talk page is to answer questions, not redirect them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark noronha (talk • contribs).

No, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss improving the article. And please sign you talk edits with ~~~~ so that we know who we are talking to. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So does anybody actually KNOW the proper term... platypuses or platypie? Or is it like one of those words where the singular AND the plural are the same? I can't sleep or eat till I know this!!!! ~ <3er of platy(pie) (puses) (pus) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.188.163 (talk • contribs).

Read the article. It's in there. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the plural of platypus that was written as platypoda to platypode, I have recently being researching platypode, and found many site questioning the real pluralisation of platypus, after finding many sites saying that it was platypode I was satisfied this was correct, but wanted to find a reliable source of this information being that all the sites I had seen previously had been forums, talk pages etc. I eventually found http://www.abc.net.au/westernvic/stories/s849939.htm which I believe is quite a reliable source. Also on further research of the word platypoda I gound only a Ficus plant and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypoda which states that platypoda is a suborder of monotremes 59.154.24.147 10:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A google search for platypoda significantly outweighs the number of results of platypode , 17200 to 435. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you would have almost had me...if you read them though, you would realise that the pages that return a result for platypoda are A) The Ficus a mentioned before. B) The Suborder I mentioned before. C) This page. and D) Some privately owned pages made by people under the same false impression as you. whereas the results from platypode have quotes from Proffesionals and news sites....go figure. 59.154.24.147 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why don't you add your reference as proper inline citation, before someone else removes platypode/platypoda altogether? Also, getting an account with real user id makes your changes look less like vandalism. Of course, as I said, adding proper reference helps as well. Fred Hsu 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Swimming speed

Anyone know how fast it swims? about 20mph Fake time stamp for archive bot 12:00, 01 July 2007 (UTC)

contradiction regarding venomous status?

I LIKE DE PLATYPUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.187.217 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC) The initial summary says "Also largley considered fraud is the supposition that it is a venomous mammal; the male Platypus does not have a spur on the hind foot which delivers a poison capable of causing severe pain to humans." Whereas the venom article contradicts this. This should be corrected or at least re-worded if i am mis-understanding! Ei2g 10:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It had been vandalised. Fixed now. Yomangani^talk 10:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.67.248 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Subclass Prototheria

Since the monotremes are under the subclass Prototheria, shouldn't that be added to the side panel?

Yes, just an oversight from the initial filling of the fields in the taxobox that had never been corrected. Done now. Yomangani^talk 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, we don't include all the intermediary rankings. Only the major rankings and the intermediaries between the subject and the next higher major ranking. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture gallery

Could somebody please add a picture gallery? --Pezzar 07:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We are encouraging the use of wikipedia commons for this where it is much easier to have larger galleries. Click on the link at the bottom of the article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture content of this article...

Sucks. There are only two, neither of which gives a clear idea of the platypus' appearance. Are you serious? I realise this is part of the wider ranging campaign to make wikipedia as uninteresting as possible, but come on. An animal so famous for its strange appearance (on noes I don't have a source to cite that neatly quantifies this statemet!) should be done justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.24.121 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Range

The Platypus can be found through out areas of the wet tropics in North Queensland, but the distribution map does not represent this, is there a reason for this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.96.11.140 (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In mammalian evolution

This section should probably be revised to account for [4]. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

The "Cultural references" section of the Platypus article was recently removed by Editor437, the stated reason being that these references "have nothing to do with the animal itself".

I have been giving this some thought. Editor437 is basically correct, that how the platypus fits into various cultural activities is not connected, at least directly, to the animal, itself. He is incorrect, however, in removing this information from Wikipedia. There is no reason to limit the article to the biology/natural history of the animal, and these cultural aspects are of interest to many, and are not out of place here. One could create a separate "Cultural references to the platypus" article for the information, but most users, I think, would look for such material, first, in the main listing. Thus, I am replacing this material. Tim Ross (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove it to another article. See how it was done on Koala or gorilla. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask for your reasoning, UtherSRG? Yes, I can see how it was done on Koala and gorilla, but then I can also see the method followed on Lion and Gray Wolf. There seems to be no specific guideline regarding this issue, and editors appear to have been following the dictates of individual taste. When an extensive array of non-biological information is to be presented, I think a separate article is a good choice. When only minor amounts of such information are to be provided, though, I favor use of a single article. Cultural data have been included in the Platypus article for at least several years, so there seems to be no consensus here for separate articles. Tim Ross (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When people start removing it for the reason that Editor437 did, it's time to make a separate article. The section is WP:TRIVIA, and frowned upon. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, not entirely true, a summary is good rather than blanking - it is on the australian 20c piece. With Lion, there is a summary within that article which links to a larger subpage. There is no consensus on wholesale removal. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, just like Koala and gorilla. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The ways various animals are perceived in human culture are, in themselves, anything but trivial. Conservation efforts, for instance, are often triggered by such perceptions. Yes, the existing "Cultural references" section is currently made up of disparate bits of information. And, yes, it would be preferable if there were enough data to be made into a smoothly interconnected discourse. Even if this were a conventional trivia section, though, it would not be appropriate just to remove it as was done. In this actual instance, the section has been growing and a better integrated version is developing. Tim Ross (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

what about edward the platypus on camp lazo? he is after all a PLATYPUS! ferb the lyokoan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.36.94 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Genome sequenced

The BBC is reporting that the genome has been sequenced, and that the sequencing is published in Nature (journal). GRBerry 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Error

Ref 46 (Jocelyn Selim (2005-04-25). Sex, Ys, and Platypuses. Discover.) Has an error in the link. Should be www.discovermagazine.com (http://discovermagazine.com/2005/apr/sex-ys-platypuses0425/), not just www.discover.com. (Fix myself, but article is protected ...) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. GRBerry 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Baby Platypus

I've heard that the name for a baby Platypus is a 'puggle'. Can anyone confirm this and add it to the entry?80.7.59.211 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I havn't heard it before, is there a source that may establish its truth? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Victoria Zoo seems to think this is the case - http://www.zoo.org.au/News/Baby_Platypus ~~

Looks reliable to me. What's a flock called? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

They are a solitary species. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Platypus jaw

"The Platypus jaw is constructed differently from that of other mammals, and the jaw opening muscle is different" It may be worth explaining how it is different. The article explains differences in gait etc, but here is it just make the statement that is different with out explaining waht makes it so. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

egg layers

Please replace "the only mammals that lay eggs " by "one of the two mammals to lay eggs the other being Long-beaked_Echidna" 206.53.50.45 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Nicolas

Your edit would be incorrect. As it stands, the current wording is correct. Plese read it again and follow the appropriate links: "Together with the four species of echidna, it is one of the five extant species of monotremes, the only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young." - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i can see your point but would it be better to just change the wording, at a quick read it looks quite like it makes out that there is only one egg layer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.50.122 (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh

I thought playpuses was safe, I thought it didn't have any venom. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the article, "only males produce venom". -- Limulus (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What I need is proof. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is scientific knowledge that only a male platypus has venom. However. if you are still dubious about this (and still want proof), I have added some references about this to the article page. Figaro (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for page protection against vandalism

Could this page please be protected against vandalism. At the moment it is being repeatedly vandalised by 24.217.114.32. It is frustrating that good editing time at Wikipedia is being taken up with having to revert vandalism attacks. Figaro (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there semi aquatic egg laying mammal of action!!! he is a furry flat foot that never something something something...... he's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill, and the woman swoon whenever they hear him say.... eheheheeheheheh. He's Perry. Perry tha platypus. He's perry... AGENT P!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.187.180 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Half-broken link

In the second line of the article, the "related species" link goes to "/wiki/Monotreme#Fossil_Monotremes" (uppercase M) rather than "/wiki/Monotreme#Fossil_monotremes" (lowercase m) and the pages does not automatically scroll down as it should. Can't edit (protected). Gpuica (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that! DMacks (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's also a link from Iowa State University which appears to be broken. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck-billed_platypus#cite_note-EC-33) I've found it on archive.org, however: http://web.archive.org/web/20060908213133/http://www.biology.iastate.edu/intop/1Australia/04papers/CromerMonotrRepro.htm --Cannaya (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, looks like they (IA State) just moved the page: http://www.biology.iastate.edu/InternationalTrips/1Australia/04papers/CromerMonotrRepro.htm --Cannaya (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy and etymology

The Platypus#Taxonomy and etymology section seems to contain no taxonomy at all. Wouldn't "Nomenclature and etymology" or perhaps just "Nomenclature" be a better title for this section? --Rschmertz (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC) PLATYPUS ARE ENDANGERED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.16.249 (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A statement that may be offensive to some

"In fact, modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree; a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups." This statement is according to theory of evolution, which many people oppose. I suggest, to avoid offending readers, that "in fact" should be replaced with "according to the theory of evolution." The phrase, "In fact" blatantly states that a statement is true. "According to the theory of evolution" implies that, if the theory is true, the statement is true. I am writing this under the impression that Wikipedia articles are to be written in such a way as to offend as few people as possible while still covering a topic thoroughly. Star Trek enthusiast (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your impression is wrong; wikipedia is not censored. We present the mainstream scientific consensus despite whether it offends certain religious groups. The fact that monotremes are a very primitive form of mammal is a fact, and there's no need to append "according to the theory of evolution" to every mention; see Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions. It would give undue weight to the idea that there are competing scientific theories about the origin of species when there actually is not. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes there are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mredepenning (talk • contribs) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunuciation of name

Because I heard an overseas visitor to Australia accidentally mispronouncing Platypus as 'Platy-pus', I thought that I should mention here that the correct pronunuciation of Platypus is 'Platy-puss'. Figaro (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

though most aussies seem to say plat-a-puss, i know i do 58.167.196.164 (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

References Correction - New Edition of Tom Grant's Platypus

Please note that the reference to Tom Grant's The Platypus is outdated, as the book is now in its fourth edition. The most recent edition was issued by CSIRO PUBLISHING in 2007. Reference should read:

Grant, Tom Platypus Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing, 2007. ISBN 9780643093706

Please see this link for authenticity and further information about the book: http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5651.htm

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSIRO Publishing (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

References Correction - New Edition of Tom Grant's Platypus

Please note that the reference to Tom Grant's The Platypus is outdated, as the book is now in its fourth edition. The most recent edition was issued by CSIRO PUBLISHING in 2007. Reference should read:

Grant, Tom Platypus Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing, 2007. ISBN 9780643093706

Please see this link for authenticity and further information about the book: http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5651.htm

Thank you

CSIRO Publishing (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Digitised titles from the dabate of the 1830s which may be of wider interest

Notes on the natural history and habits of the ornithorhynchus paradoxus, Blum / by George Bennett - available from http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn3313855

On the young of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus, Blum / Richard Owen - available from http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn3313851 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlaerwiki (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Duck Moles

Are they ever called duck moles anymore? Was this term really ever used? Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome

platypuses are awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.250.26 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Venom effects

"Although powerful enough to kill smaller animals such as dogs, the venom is not lethal to humans." Could it be lethal to babies? Or to adults in poor health? Dynzmoar (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)~ Where I live here in Mudgee, one morning a boy had caught a platypus by accident, whilst fishing. He was trying to do the right thing, and was unwinding the platypus from his fishing line and was accidentally scratched whilst the animal was fighting in panic. My doctor treated him, and later told us the story, including that the boy's hand was greatly swollen and was very painful, but he was in no danger of dying. OK, so this is all completly OR, but hope that it helps. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation of Nature article in Evolution section

{{editsemiprotected}} The final sentence of the Evolution section of the article states ". . . the study has proved that the platypus was the first species to transition from its reptilian-like ancestor to mammal." in reference to a Nature article discussing the publishing of the Platypus genome sequence. This statement is incorrect and is a misinterpretation. The study does state that monotremes (including the platypus) diverged from therian mammals approximmately 166 million years ago, but this claim is based on previous research. The article makes it clear that this divergence occurred well after the emergence of mammals (which occurred approximately 315 million years ago). 174.113.187.213 (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Please edit it to fix this problem. Chrisrus (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for improving the accuracy of this article. In the absence of a suggested replacement, I truncated the sentence to remove the claim. Please open a new request if you would like to have other wording. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Platypus

I wonder what the plural for Platypus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.251.22 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Platypuses ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Living fossil?

Should this have a reference and link to the living fossil article or am I misinterpreting the term? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Platypuses and echidnas are listed as living fossils on your linked article. I'd say go for it. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin of venom glands

What is the evolutionary origin of the venom glands in this creature? Is there any relationship to the anal glands possessed by some other mammals? Drutt (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A request for clarification

I have just proofread this article, and I should like to raise two points:

The Taxonomy section states that "when the Platypus was first discovered by Europeans in 1798, a pelt and sketch were sent back to the United Kingdom". The United Kingdom did not exist in 1798. Should the sentence read "... sent back to Great Britain"?

It's true. The link was correct, but the name not. Changed. --Furado (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Conservation status section refers to "NRM north". Should this be explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Father Time (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservation status

Ref 57 (Preliminary genome of platypus, Nature) states that the conservation status has been changed recently to "vulnerable". The article info-box puts it at "least concern." Should it be updated? Nature is a pretty heavy source. --EthicsGradient (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nature is a pretty heavy source, but not cite the authority that reclassified as ‘vulnerable’. In the info-box and in the section "Conservation status" it is said that the IUCN lists the Platypus on its Red List as Least Concern [5].

If it is known who qualifies like vulnerable this specie, of course it would be very interesting to indicate it (in addition to the qualification of the IUCN), or maybe do mention that ""some researchers feel they should be reclassified as ‘potentially vulnerable’ because of their reliance on aquatic environments under stress from drought, climate change and degradation by human activities e.g. (Grant & Temple-Smith 2003; Grant 2007)"" [6] and do mention also about the afirmation of Nature. --Furado (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Platypus Egg Photo

Could someone add a photo of a Platypus egg? Francisco Valverde (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Error

A Platypus is born with teeth, but these drop out at a very early age, leaving the horny plates with which it grind its food.[50]

'grind' should be 'grinds'

can't correct it because of protection

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mredepenning (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone appears to have fixed this recently in the article. DMacks (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit-protected?

{{editsemiprotected}} Why is this article edit-protected? It appeared to suffer some short-term vandalism back in 2008, but that seems to be the extent of it, whicdh is hardly enough to justify 18 months of SP.

Anyway I wanted to make some minor edits - chiefly correcting "Platypus" to the lowercase "platypus" in a few places and fix a few minor spelling errors. Specifically in the first line under the Taxonomy heading, to name one specific instance. But I guess I'm not allowed to. 59.101.23.102 (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Platypus/platypus, I believe it is the convention in the literature to give the vernacular name of a species an initial capital, which is why in the first paragraph "Platypus" has an initial capital but "echidna" does not, since echidna is not the name of a single species. (But the names of the separate species of echidna would have initial capitals for each word, e.g., Western Long-beaked Echidna.)

If you would direct me to the spellings you wish to correct, I would be happy to make the corrections for you. Old Father Time (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed "platypus" in the lead section to lowercase. What other possible changes do you see? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe this not to be correct and so I am reverting to the previous version: see my comment above concerning convention. If this convention is not to be followed, all occurrences of the word would have to be changed so as to have a lower-case initial, but then the article would not conform to others which do follow the convention, e.g. those on the echidnas to which I have referred. Old Father Time (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Father Time - If that is the convention then fine, although it strikes me as somewhat odd. Regardless, is this a widely accepted WP policy and is it being universally adopted? I've not encountered it before despite editing here for over nine years now (which of course means nothing ultimately - there is plenty I still don't know). And could someone explain to me why this article is still under SP? 59.101.23.102 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the convention is WP policy. All I know is that I have encountered it widely outside of WP and it is certainly being followed in many WP articles – I have just had a random look at a number of articles about animals and plants in various groups. There are articles which don't follow the convention, but that may be because their authors have not have encountered it outside WP and so are not aware of it.

I have no objection to the convention not being followed if that is what is preferred. Old Father Time (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:MoS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms. The vernacular names and non-scientific names should lowercase initial letters. If it not opposed by you or any other editor, I will go ahead and change all occurrences of "Platypus" (aside from the beginnings of sentences) to "platypus." As far as I'm concerned, the name recognized by the scientific community for the platypus is Ornithorhynchus anatinus and the term platypus is the English vernacular for O. anatinus as das Schnabeltier is the German vernacular for it. O. anatinus remains capitalized because of taxonomic naming conventions. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 07:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no objection to lower-case initials being used. My overriding concern is for consistency within the article, which is why I reverted your earlier single edit. The reason for my previous comments was to offer an explanation of why upper-case initials appeared in this, and many other, WP articles.

Although WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials appears to be inactive, I notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials#Names and titles cross-refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles, which certainly does follow the convention I have described. Perhaps this is why initial capitals have been used in this and the echidna articles. Old Father Time (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think however that birds and mammals should not be grouped because bird and mammal are very different. I'd sayuse what the MOS prescribes, however consensus would be best here. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Common_name_capitalization states there is no set style. Seeing platypus is not a proper noun, changing it here would be best. Seeing no objections, I will change occurrences to the lowercase. This Wiktionary page seems to use post-1900 usages as lowercase. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of capitalization of mammal names has been the subject of numerous debates, which has resulted in the current situation. If reopening that discussion is desired it should be done on the WP:MAMMAL talk page. It would not be a good idea to just revise individual mammal articles where interested editors may not be aware of the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization debate. Any relevent thoughts or arguments should be placed there. --Mikemoral♪♫ 05:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just bold, as I'm meant to be, and changed all the Ps to ps. I think that's the consensus that was reached with most of the discussions refered to here. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Two editors agreeing in a discussion lasting less than a week does not constitute a consensus to make a historically contentious change to a featured article, especially while the issue is being discussed here and more generally at WT:MAMMAL. Hence, I restored the status quo capitalization pending the outcome of the current discussions. Rlendog (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Guntop123, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Evolution Theory

The Platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood and some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them—for example, that the monotremes were "inferior" or quasi-reptilian—still endure. In 1947, William King Gregory theorised that placental mammals and marsupials may have diverged earlier and a subsequent branching divided the monotremes and marsupials, but later research and fossil discoveries have suggested this is incorrect. In fact, modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree, and a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups. Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19–48 million years ago.

Guntop123 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The only change you suggested was to change the heading from Evolution to Evolution Theory. This article isn't the place for that kind of stuff. -Atmoz (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

fIGHT cAPITALISM!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Me again, this article has been eating away at me for a while now. I'd like to reopen the debate about capitalismation. I'm strongly in favour of writing it with a lower p. Who's with me? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've notified all previous debaters on this page, and the monotreme, mammal, and birds projects. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Seeing as it is technically now a common name, I agree. Capitalizing the P in platypus actually only makes it more likely to be confused with the genus Platypus and trademarks which use Platypus as their names. In its current state it needs a definite article 'The' almost all the time which is extremely awkward to read. The convention for the article seems to have been chosen simply because 'Platypus' is latinized greek and seemed official-sounding when it's actually not.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms - "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case (oak, lion)." It also says, "There are exceptions:" - but, I can't see them fitting.

See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species.

• Support lower-case 'p' for platypus. Chzz  ►  13:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Use project rules, which is lowercase as far as I can tell.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's a common name and common noun. No need for a capital. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Just in case it wasn't clear, my vote is support because it's not a proper noun, it's just a kind of animal, like a cow. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And also it's how scientific journals seem to write it, at least, Science, Nature, and the Australian Journal of Zoology, as well as Encyclopedia Britannica. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel strongly that under no circumstances should platypi be bought or sold as commodities. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sub-comment: What about platypuses? 128.40.189.197 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you. I also throughly condemn people who bastardize classical Latin. --Ludwigs2 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Erm... "platypus" is derived from Greek, not Latin - cf: Oedipus and Platyhelminthes. The Procrustean plural might be something like "platypodes" or some other similar absurd outcome.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It's actually New Latin (i.e. Fake Latin wannabe created long after the Roman empire died) which liberally borrowed from Classical Greek leading to improbable chimeric words like neuroscience (Greek νέυρον, Latin sciens). It generally also obeys Latin declensions somewhat instead of Greek. Also, platypus ('flat foot', meaning it is literally only a flat foot!) should by rights have been Anglicized New Latin genitive case platypod, "that of the flat foot" (Greek ποδός) or Anglicized New Latin genitive case hybrid word platypede (Latin pedis) with respective Anglicized New Latin plurals platypods and platypedes cf. centipedes, myriapods. Unless Shaw actually meant that it looked like a flattened foot/shoe then the pedantic plural would have probably been platypodes or platypodia :D ---Soulus^Obsidi♠nī
        • Hmmm... Let me add that I'm not to keen about know-it-alls, either. --Ludwigs2 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Derailment Such hatred. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Not hatred, just sour grapes. The sad song of an aspiring but failed know-it-all... But enough of this silliness. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There is yet another page with an ongoing discussion about this, I just want to drop the link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines . —Soap— 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - it's what both the relevant policies and the relevant sources indicate. None of Kangaroo, Koala nor Echidna are capitalised in common usage; it's not a genus name in this context; and this is 2011, the platypus is no longer some early C19 freak-show exhibit to be capitalised for promotional hype. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per me in 2006. fish&karate 11:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• actually Support, mainly as it is not a bird...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support "Platypus" is a vernacular name, thus it is lowercase. If it were the genus, then it would be. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as more common usage, and what discussions appear to be settling on at WT:ANIMAL etc. (But title case is not incorrect, just less common and suitable.) —innotata 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, no doubt for me. --Furado (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all above for nice friendly discussion.

I have just gone ahead and changed the caps, because consensus above is very clear. This is the edit, please do check it over and see that I didn't mess any titles up, or miss anything–because almost certainly I did.

I hope this isn't considered too presumptive, after just 5 days of discussion - but I really do feel the consensus is overwhelmingly clear. And WP:BRD.

Besides which, now we have more time to focus on more important stuff. Like, forming the "Wikipedians against the sale of platypussies as commodities". Cheers all,  Chzz  ►  22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks! The world is now a better place. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perhaps editors would note that the convention used in the platypus article is now inconsistent with that used in other articles produced by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials, e.g. the names of the different species of echidna, wombat and kangaroo appear with upper-case initials. – Old Father Time (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really. There is no convention as far as I can tell. Some articles are already lowercase like asked of platypus above: thylacine and the Tasmanian devil. The Short-beaked Echidna article capitalizes the specific common name and renders the first instance of 'echidna' in lowercase... but then goes on to use the family common name in caps to refer to the species, referring to the animal simply as 'The Echidna' (a bit ominous sounding, LOL, considering the origin of the name). Common Wombat actually uses both, all caps as 'The Common Wombat' and with lowercase group name 'Common wombat'. Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat is even more confusing, switching between 'The Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat', 'northern hairy-nosed wombat', and 'Hairy-Nosed Wombat'. The koala article uses all lowercase. Red Kangaroo uses all caps only for the opening sentence with the rest being all lowercase 'red kangaroo'. Eastern Grey Kangaroo again uses various configurations. You get the idea...--Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, that is the way of most things. The MOS guideline is a good indicator of 'best practice', but I think it'd be hard to pin down in exact terms - discussion for any specific article could well be needed (although bold fixes are always good; there's always WP:BRD).  Chzz  ►  16:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Platypusary is misspelled in the article as "platypussary".

Platypusary is misspelled in the article as "platypussary". Please remove the extra "s".

Done Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 04:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First Sentence

In the sentence in the first paragraph that states "...Together with the four species of echidna, it is one of the five extant species of monotremes, the only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young". I don't think that the short and understated explanation of what an echidna is "...the only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young" belongs in the sentence that way. The article links to echidna. If the fact is to stay it should be worded as "The Platypus is one of five living species of mammal that lay eggs instead of giving live birth (an echidna). The way it's worded now it's not even clear that "the only mammals that lay eggs" is describing an echidna. A reader who's just learning about the platypus may mistake that the article is saying a platypus is an echidna and that they also are the only mammals that lay eggs. Matt S. 24.111.116.220 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the current wording is perfectly clear. It does not to me say that a platypus is an echidna, or try to say anything about echidnas other than that they are also monotremes. --ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please connect to hebrew

ברווזן — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avibliz (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Furado (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone?

can someone with access please go through the artical again, theres still a bit of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.196.164 (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you give us some pointers to it? Easier for those who don't know the topic well to check specific bits than to try to read the whole thing and distinguish fact from nonsense. DMacks (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rabies

Since all mammals are vulnerable to this disease; I wonder if the Playpus is, sicn eit is not exactly a mammal? Jokem (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Platypus is a mammal - albeit an egg-laying mammal (the Echidna is the only other egg-laying mammal). However, as Australia is a rabies-free country, it is hard to know whether, or not, the Platypus is, or would be, vulnerable to rabies. Figaro (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Electroreception

The platypus is no longer alone. The Guiana dolphin has recently been discovered to have this trait at well. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14292330 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.184.239 (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Year?

According to the article, the platypus was first described in 1798, when a pelt was sent back to Great Britain. According to one of the figures, it was also featured in a German children's book in the same year. The children's book included a sketch of the animal and its skull.

It would seem odd that this book would be from the same year that the first pelt arrived in Great Britain. Is there a source to back up the book's year of publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.134.230 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a mystery. Also discussed in the source page of the picture itself. See Platypus Paradoxes (National Library of Australia). However, it must also be noted that "description" in this case, refers to a formal published scientific diagnosis of the species, different from laymen's "descriptions".-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"... and is no longer found in the main part of the Murray-Darling Basin ..."

This statement needs some attention. The reference from which this is taken is dated 1997, so it's nearly a decade and a half old. Much has changed, for both good and bad, in the MDB since then. There have been lots of platypus seen in rivers that flow into the Murray since the reference was written. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sex determination question

The article mentions that males have XYXYXYXYXY and females have XXXXXXXXXX. What prevents intermediate forms from occurring (such as XXXXXXXYXY, which would be 3/5 female and 2/5 male, if such a thing were possible)? Is there some mechanism during meiosis that ensures that the sperm will always have either five Y chromosomes or five X's, and not some intersex-determining mixture? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2012

The Platypus has somewhat threatening venom. If swallowed, the platypus' venom will induce vomiting similar to the drug know as "ipecac". XavierXV (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain exactly what you want changed in the article. If you want to add a statement specify where you want the new information and the wording you would like to see. If you want to change existing info you will need to say what it currently says and what you would like it to say. Finally you need to provide a reliable source for the information you wasnt in the article. GB fan 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

• "Platypus In The Tropics DVD". WildCAM Australia. 2012. [7] {{cite episode}}: External link in |quote= (help); Missing or empty |series= (help); Unknown parameter |dvd= ignored (help) DVD EAN 0680569575722

58.165.115.71 (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What is edit are you requesting? Please be specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not entirely clear, but I think its a request to add that as a general reference, which would not be appropriate. Closing request for now, but feel free to re-open it if you clarify what you want edited. (provide as much detail as possible) Monty₈₄₅ 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

• "Platypus In The Tropics DVD 2012" | url=http://www.wildcamaustralia.com/platypus_in_the_tropics.html |DVD=Platypus In The Tropics | DVD=WildCAM Australia® | quote=Platypus in The Tropics DVD | year=2012 DVD EAN 0680569575722

the above request is to add the newest production on DVD about the platypus - I think being also an Australian producer deserves to be there next to the ABC link - or is there a problem that I'm not aware?? Downunderwild (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not done: Per above. There's no good reason to add a general reference like this if it's not being used to cite information in the body. Worse, simply adding a link to it would violate our external links guideline. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Platypoda?

Shouldn't the suborder Platypoda be put into the infobox? Fake timestamp for archive. 12:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A "duck's beak"

It was thought that somebody had sewn a duck's beak onto the body of a beaver-like animal.

Didn't they realize that the nostrils were in a different place, more like a crocodile?80.141.188.182 (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in Ecology and behavior

"The platypus needs to eat about 20% of its own weight each day, which requires it to spend an average of 12 hours each day looking for food. ... The average sleep time of a platypus is said to be as long as 14 hours per day, ..."

How can a platypus look for food on average 12 hours a day and sleep on average 14 hours a day? Are days on average 26 hours in Australia? Does it look for food while it sleeps?

62.20.64.202 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both statements might just be true, since both are qualified by the word "average". But it does concerns me that the references supporting the statements are of such strikingly different quality. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a mathematician by trade. It is not possibile for both statements to be true, even with the word average thrown in. You don't have to believe me, here is a proof. Suppose you have $n$ platypuses, numbered $1,2,\dots ,n$, and platypus $i$ spends every day $f_{i}$ hours looking for food, $s_{i}$ hours sleeping, and $l_{i}$ hours for leisure (that is, all other activities). Then $24=f_{i}+s_{i}+l_{i}$. Taking averages, that is summing over $i=1,...n$ and dividing by $n$, one gets

$24={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}f_{i}+{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}s_{i}+{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}l_{i}\geq {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}f_{i}+{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i}s_{i},$

so you see the sum of the averages of the times spent looking for food and sleeping cannot indeed exceed $24$.

Andreas Carter (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Change range map

I have recreated the map of the platypus range using the same data source as the current one (IUCN database), but using a more adequate cartographic projection (GDA 94 Lambert) and taking into account the design considerations discussed at [8]. May I suggest that the current range map be replaced with the newly created one?

Distribution of the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus)

--Tentotwo (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a much better map. Done, thanks. If you have time, it would be good to change the yellow to a darker colour. It's quite hard to see against the cyan and light grey. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian! I've consulted with the German Wikipedia Map Workshop and now used an inset map to show the small introduced platypus colony more clearly.--Tentotwo (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good idea. Looks good! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)