Platypus, platypus, platypus, platypus

Posted 15 November 2013 by M. Wilson Sayres

Platypuses at Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology

The platypus is currently tied for my favorite mammal (along with hedgehogs and manatees). Platypuses have a lot of unique characteristics, but one of the features I find most fascinating is their sex chromosomes. Before a post about their chromosomes, there's a few things we need to clear up.

1. The platypus is not a "cross" between a duck and a beaver.
Because of its unique features, there is a lot of confusion about the platypus. The platypus is not some strange hybrid. A duck and a beaver cannot produce an offspring together. The population of platypuses evolved, like all other living organisms.

Upon closer inspection, looking at the picture above, the platypus bill looks very little like a duck bill at all. The platypus bill is wide and flat, and appears to be more leathery than the hard duck bill.

By DickDaniels (http://carolinabirds.org/) (Own work) via Wikimedia Commons

And, even though popular cartoons continue to draw its tail as if it were beaver-like, the platypus tail is relatively short, and is covered with soft brown fur, not at all like a beaver's large hairless tail:

The beaver has a large, flat, hairless tail. By Steve, Washington, DC via Wikimedia Commons

2. The platypus is not the ancestor of modern mammals, it is a modern mammal.
Although it lays eggs, and doesn't have breasts or nipples, the platypus is still classified as a mammal. Platypuses are part of the group of egg-laying mammals called "monotremes." These are not "proto-mammals." Nor are they "primitive". Monotreme mammals have been evolving for the same amount of time as all other mammals. As humans we share a common ancestor with platypuses, approximately 220 million years ago. That doesn't mean that it isn't useful to understand more about the platypus, but interpretations should be careful not to assume the platypus has maintained the ancestral state of all mammalian traits.

3. The platypus is not the only egg-laying mammal.
In addition to the platypus, there is another group of monotreme mammals that lay eggs: Echidnas. Echidnas and platypuses diverged from one another about 64 million years ago. While they share some characteristics that are unique to monotreme mammals (relative to other mammals), such as egg-laying and oozing milk out of mammary pores instead of having nipples, the two groups of species have accumulated many differences. Perhaps one of the most notable is that there are at least four species of echidna, and only one species of platypus.

Other cool echidna features include their body covering which includes a mixture of course hair and dense, pointy, spines.

Echidnas at Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology

Echidnas also have long durable nails that they use for digging in the sand and dirt.

Check out those nails.

4. Platypuses are about the size of a house cat
I don't know why, but when I was growing up, I always imagined that platypuses would be fairly large critters - not unlike a recently discovered branch in the platypus tree that went extinct 5-15 million years ago. Turns out, modern platypuses are actually about the size of a house cat. You can see the pictures below with my hand next to them.

Not so giant platypus.

If you want to see a live platypus (which I really, Really, REALLY do!!), check out this video of some people hand feeding a platypus.

70 Comments

DS · 15 November 2013

Well unless you can show me a cross between a duck and a beaver, then evolution can't be true. What's that? Oh, I meant a cross between a duck and a crocodile. Yea, that's it, that's what I meant. What's that? Oh, ... never mind.

eric · 15 November 2013

Another nifty factoid: the males are venomous, a trait which is also fairly rare in mammals.

Charley Horse · 15 November 2013

For a laugh...https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5978955264/h86E19339/

Charley Horse · 15 November 2013

I get a 404..Not Found for this: If you want to see a live platypus (which I really, Really, REALLY do!!), check out this video of some people hand feeding a platypus.

Glenn · 15 November 2013

@Charley Horse: try http://www.youtube.com/embed/a6QHzIJO5a8

M. Wilson Sayres · 15 November 2013

Thanks for the comment - I fixed it. Originally, I had tried to embed the video, but that didn't work. When I made it into a link, I forgot to take the embedding code out.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 November 2013

the platypus bill looks very little like a duck bill at all.

And only the platypus gets the electric bill. Glen Davidson

Henry J · 15 November 2013

DS said: Well unless you can show me a cross between a duck and a beaver, then evolution can't be true. What's that? Oh, I meant a cross between a duck and a crocodile. Yea, that's it, that's what I meant. What's that? Oh, ... never mind.

Platiduck?

John Harshman · 15 November 2013

You couldn't at least produce a duck whose distribution overlaps the platypus? Or the beaver, for that matter? Give hybridization a chance. Maybe an otter would be a better choice than beaver.

Paul Burnett · 15 November 2013

Are the Platypuses pictured at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology dead or alive?

DS · 15 November 2013

Henry J said:
DS said: Well unless you can show me a cross between a duck and a beaver, then evolution can't be true. What's that? Oh, I meant a cross between a duck and a crocodile. Yea, that's it, that's what I meant. What's that? Oh, ... never mind.
Platiduck?

No man, duckapus. What is ya, ignorant?

M. Wilson Sayres · 15 November 2013

Paul Burnett said: Are the Platypuses pictured at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology dead or alive?

They are dead, taxidermied. Oh, if they were alive, I would probably never leave.

patrick.j.may · 15 November 2013

But, what do they taste like?

stevaroni · 15 November 2013

patrick.j.may said: But, what do they taste like?

Chicken?

MJHowe · 15 November 2013

DS said:
Henry J said:
DS said: Well unless you can show me a cross between a duck and a beaver, then evolution can't be true. What's that? Oh, I meant a cross between a duck and a crocodile. Yea, that's it, that's what I meant. What's that? Oh, ... never mind.
Platiduck?
No man, duckapus. What is ya, ignorant?

And a Platypus with attitude is.......?

M. Wilson Sayres · 15 November 2013

This thread proves that there needs to be a way to up-rate (and probably down-rate) comments on PT.

Henry J · 15 November 2013

MJHowe said:
DS said:
Henry J said:
DS said: Well unless you can show me a cross between a duck and a beaver, then evolution can't be true. What's that? Oh, I meant a cross between a duck and a crocodile. Yea, that's it, that's what I meant. What's that? Oh, ... never mind.
Platiduck?
No man, duckapus. What is ya, ignorant?
And a Platypus with attitude is.......?

A platitude?

apokryltaros · 15 November 2013

M. Wilson Sayres said:
Paul Burnett said: Are the Platypuses pictured at Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology dead or alive?
They are dead, taxidermied. Oh, if they were alive, I would probably never leave.

Maybe carried out on a stretcher by paramedics after your second or third encounter with the male's poison spurs.

Dave Luckett · 16 November 2013

Behold the duck-billed platypus/That's native to Australia!/As mammals go, not quite like us/But certainly no failure.

Not primitive, not left behind/Adaptions? Yes, they've gottem/That bill is brilliantly designed/For feeling on the bottom.

Designed? Well, clearly, that's not right./I meant "evolved", no, really./And "bottom of a stream at night."/Not lewdly touchy-feely.

But that's our language. It's a tool/that tends to the assumption/that "common sense" will always rule,/and all you need is gumption./Nor has equivoque occurred,/ for every single separate word/Has just one meaning. (That's absurd.)

Robert Byers · 16 November 2013

To this YEC creationist the platypus is case in point of wrong, too quick off the hip for the old ones, classification systems.
Its only unique is presumptions that like traited creatures are from like origins or just should be lunped together.
Laying eggs is no big deal in the animal kingdom. Its not a defining trait of heritage.
The platypus is just some kind of otter with adaptions for a niche it migrated too back in the day.
I understand the "beak" is sensitive for finding food and thats all it is. So the creature is always in the water and couldn't watch its kids like other creatures etc.
Like marsupials its just minor differences from relatives that lived elsewhere on the planet but now extinct.
Indeed evolutionists used to say it was between reptiles and mammals and so primitive. Its not primitive whatsoever.
Egg layers is just in a spectrume of a rathyer common plan of reproduction.
Some snakes lay eggs and some birth without them. Its no big deal.
The platypus, I think, is not a strange aberration but a revelation of the true equation that classification systems based on like traits is purely speculative.
As the bible says there is just kinds. no mammals or reptiles or dinosaurs.

Dave Luckett · 16 November 2013

And speaking of absurd...

Jared Miller · 16 November 2013

I can't help but thinking Byers is a spoof. His "mistakes" seem artificial and contrived, don't you think?

MJHowe · 16 November 2013

Not to mention platitudes... So the platypus is just 'some kind of otter' wearing a bush hat hung with corks tied to pieces of string - works for me.

Karen S. · 16 November 2013

Fascinating article! Thanks for posting it.

This thread proves that there needs to be a way to up-rate (and probably down-rate) comments on PT.

True, but there is a bathroom wall.

Scott F · 16 November 2013

Surprisingly, Byers is making more sense here than usual, if only unintentionally. The comment about "kinds" is silly (the notion suffers far worse problems than "species"), but it is certainly true that there are a spectrum of features in the animal kingdom, which often blurs the dividing lines between species. Looked at historically, species do run together. But what Byers is describing is a definition of Evolution, not a problem for it. In contrast, his observation of a spectrum of features completely contradicts his conclusion of distinct "kinds". Were the notion of "kinds" true, one would expect to see clear dividing lines, distinct clusters of features, rather than spectra.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 November 2013

Indeed evolutionists used to say it was between reptiles and mammals and so primitive. Its not primitive whatsoever

Not being primitive--which no modern organism is (hence the term "modern")--doesn't mean that it isn't somewhat intermediate between reptiles and other mammals. And it was always just "somewhat" anyhow, and only relative to "other mammals," as we likely are intermediate between monotremes and reptiles in other ways. I know, troll-feeding is frowned upon. But the troll does say things that creationists think and may agree with, so the ignorance needs pointing out. Oh Byers, explain the sex chromosomes of monotremes, and why they have an autosome homologous with our X-chromosome. Explain why the earliest mammal group to branch off from other mammals has the earliest reproduction method, that of egg-laying. Explain vestigial teeth in juvenile platypuses, electroreceptors in the echidna bill which have no apparent function, but do evolutionarily follow by echidnas branching off from aquatic platypuses. Explain the non-functional spurs in echidnas, like those that in male platypuses deliver venom. Rhetorical, of course, since Byers and other creationists aren't interested in explaining anything, but only in destroying evolutionary explanations that do exist, ignoring anything that doesn't fit their quest to destroy knowledge. Glen Davidson

Just Bob · 16 November 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: ...ignoring anything that doesn't fit their quest to destroy knowledge. Glen Davidson

Knowledge is atomic and unproven. [parodying an earlier statement by Byers]

Mark Sturtevant · 16 November 2013

There are platypus jokes.
A platypus walks into a bar and tells the bartender,"Got any shrimp?" The bartender says ,"No, now go away!." The platypus walks in to the bar again and says, "Got any shrimp?" The bartender says,"No and if you ask me that one more time I'll staple your webbed feet into the floor!" The platypus walks into the bar again and says,"Do you have any staples?" And the bartender says,"No." Then the platypus says,"Got any shrimp?"

Lodos Emre · 16 November 2013

istanbul escort ve escort istanbul olarak teşekkür ederiz

ksplawn · 16 November 2013

Robert Byers said: Egg layers is just in a spectrume of a rathyer common plan of reproduction. Some snakes lay eggs and some birth without them. Its no big deal.

But how they go about doing this is a big deal. Do any snakes have a placental system that exactly looks like most mammals'? No. What it looks like a modifcation to the more typical egg-laying plan. Even the fully viviparous species include key differences (such as a yolk sac) that mark the adaptation as being closer to egg-laying than to placental mammals' system. This indicates that live-birthing snakes are more closely related to egg-laying snakes than they are to live-birthing mammals. Oh, but I forget that Byers doesn't allow us to draw any inferences about relatedness for some reason. That's taboo, or something.

The platypus, I think, is not a strange aberration...

Neither does anybody here. It's not treated as an aberration in biology, but rather as a fine example of a whole host of mammals that are now mostly extinct.

... but a revelation of the true equation that classification systems based on like traits is purely speculative.

I know I cut out most of your post, but even with the rest of it and pasting the two clauses of this sentence back together, this conclusion is a complete non-sequitur. It doesn't follow logically from anything you've said, just repeats earlier assertions without connection to earlier premises. In fact by reading your post fully, one can't help but recognize the great lengths you go to simply to ignore the obvious conclusion.

As the bible says there is just kinds. no mammals or reptiles or dinosaurs.

So what?

stevaroni · 16 November 2013

DS said: Well unless you can show me a cross between a duck and a beaver, then evolution can't be true. What's that? Oh, I meant a cross between a duck and a crocodile. Yea, that's it, that's what I meant. What's that? Oh, ... never mind.

The creationist case for the platypus is actually quote straightforward. You see, Noah took one pair of everything on his big boat, but, unfortunately, some of the animals did not make it. One of the ducks ate some bad mushrooms and went awol, and one of the beaver-like things got wiped out by a falling elephant turd. So when Noah unloaded his magic cruise ship he was left with one spare duck and one spare beaver, like when you unaccountably have two mismatched socks left come out of the dryer. So the duck and the beaver look around, see their prospects for a hook up rapidly evaporating as the place empties out, and... well, to make a long story short, the duck and the beaver go home together. I'm told that the same phenomena still happens today, at closing time in college bars all over Oregon.

Just Bob · 16 November 2013

Robert Byers said: As the bible says there is just kinds. no mammals or reptiles or dinosaurs.

NO IT DOESN'T! Why can't you fundamentalists actually READ the Bible that you hold to be literally true? Genesis mentions 'kinds'. It DOES NOT SAY there are "no mammals or reptiles or dinosaurs". You do realize that it is a blasphemous sin to say that things are in the Bible that aren't, don't you? That's lying about the Bible. It's putting words into God's mouth that he didn't say (or inspire or something). And the worst sin of all is YOUR implication that the Bible imperfect! You guys imply that it should say things like the above, although it clearly DOES NOT SAY THAT. You should see all the corrections and additions to the Bible that FL and IBIG try to make. There's a special corner of HELL reserved for those who have the abominable audacity to put words and meanings into the Bible that AREN'T THERE.

phhht · 16 November 2013

Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: As the bible says there is just kinds. no mammals or reptiles or dinosaurs.
NO IT DOESN'T! Why can't you fundamentalists actually READ the Bible that you hold to be literally true? Genesis mentions 'kinds'. It DOES NOT SAY there are "no mammals or reptiles or dinosaurs". You do realize that it is a blasphemous sin to say that things are in the Bible that aren't, don't you? That's lying about the Bible. It's putting words into God's mouth that he didn't say (or inspire or something). And the worst sin of all is YOUR implication that the Bible imperfect! You guys imply that it should say things like the above, although it clearly DOES NOT SAY THAT. You should see all the corrections and additions to the Bible that FL and IBIG try to make. There's a special corner of HELL reserved for those who have the abominable audacity to put words and meanings into the Bible that AREN'T THERE.

Hear, hear!

Henry J · 16 November 2013

Hear, hear!

There, there.

ksplawn · 16 November 2013

Henry J said:
Hear, hear!
There, there.

There, castle.

robert van bakel · 17 November 2013

My brother and his family live near Bundaberg near Brisbane, Oz. He had a bone dry creek running through his property. The property is largely sand, rock and eucalyptus. He bulldozed bolders across the creek one very dry season hoping to create a large pond next time it rained.In 2007 it rained and he got his pond, it's still there and seems almost permanent, even though he has had no appreciable rain for almost three years. With the water came a pair of platypuses (platypi?) which he has named and watches on many calm evenings; Bert and Bertha, heh! Don't know where they came from. He (and I) just considers himself lucky: He also has a couple of crocs, possibly three:)He has no idea how they got there also, as the nearest major water is about 15 km from his property.

Robert Byers you are foolish and offensive, but your worst failing is that ultimate crime against humanity, willfull ignorance.

Dave Luckett · 17 November 2013

"Near Brisbane" here needs to be understood in the Australian context. Bundaberg is about 230 miles north of Brisbane.

Dave Luckett · 17 November 2013

Oh, and that's fairly typical of the Australian and Queensland climate. "Droughts and flooding rain" is the norm. As one of our more inspired clerics once remarked, "Don't pray for rain - dam it."

robert van bakel · 17 November 2013

Quite right Dave. Once upon a short visit to his farm he took me, 'down the road' for a beer. 120km later we arrived at his 'local'.

prongs · 17 November 2013

Some distant cousins emigrated to Australia. They found a nice flat, dry spot to build a house and start a farm, I guess. It didn't rain very much so I don't know why they chose that spot to farm. After a few years they got the rain of a century. Water up to the rooftop, which is where they baked in the sun and almost starved until the water finally receded after a number of days. No one had ever seen anything like it in the Old Country.

Just Bob · 17 November 2013

prongs said: Some distant cousins emigrated to Australia. They found a nice flat, dry spot to build a house and start a farm, I guess. It didn't rain very much so I don't know why they chose that spot to farm. After a few years they got the rain of a century. Water up to the rooftop, which is where they baked in the sun and almost starved until the water finally receded after a number of days. No one had ever seen anything like it in the Old Country.

If they had been Bronze Age subsistence farmers, who had never seen anything more than a few kilometers from their land, to them the whole world would have appeared to have been flooded. And if they had managed to save a few of their sheep on a raft... a legend is born!

prongs · 17 November 2013

Just Bob said:
prongs said: Some distant cousins emigrated to Australia. They found a nice flat, dry spot to build a house and start a farm, I guess. It didn't rain very much so I don't know why they chose that spot to farm. After a few years they got the rain of a century. Water up to the rooftop, which is where they baked in the sun and almost starved until the water finally receded after a number of days. No one had ever seen anything like it in the Old Country.
If they had been Bronze Age subsistence farmers, who had never seen anything more than a few kilometers from their land, to them the whole world would have appeared to have been flooded. And if they had managed to save a few of their sheep on a raft... a legend is born!

Excellent, poignant observation!

Panspermia · 17 November 2013

Hey guys, love this site, have you read this over at Nat Geo about the giant platypus..

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131104-giant-platypus-evolution-science-animals-paleontology/?utm_source=NatGeocom&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=inside_20131114&utm_campaign=Content

Robert Byers · 17 November 2013

Scott F said: Surprisingly, Byers is making more sense here than usual, if only unintentionally. The comment about "kinds" is silly (the notion suffers far worse problems than "species"), but it is certainly true that there are a spectrum of features in the animal kingdom, which often blurs the dividing lines between species. Looked at historically, species do run together. But what Byers is describing is a definition of Evolution, not a problem for it. In contrast, his observation of a spectrum of features completely contradicts his conclusion of distinct "kinds". Were the notion of "kinds" true, one would expect to see clear dividing lines, distinct clusters of features, rather than spectra.

Yes it seems it would mean a cluster of traits equals a kind. The way out is to say the original kinds are not observed at all today. Since the fall they had to morph and adapt quickly to survive. The seeming spectrum of traits actually just shows this morphing and adapting ability in biology. Yet minor traits like hair or reproductive abilities are wrongly defining biology. Why should a turtle be related to a snake MERELY because of body warming issues and skin type and egg laying or live birthing.?? Its just a guess for classification based on grouping traits. If its the wrong way then people would unduly be amazed, as they were with the platypus, because of a different traits from the different trait groupings. Yet in fact , i think, its a clue that the classification system has been wrong and indeed upon research I find its primitive. or rather mere grouping of very minor traits. This done centuries ago. They were wrong. Australia just emphasizes this. The marsupials are the great example to me. So finding marsupial wolves, lions(fossil), moles, mice , etc etc is really just finding the marsupial traits were the adaptive things to migrating animals for reasons back then. no from unlikely convergent evolution. This repeated constantly in the fossil record in creatures known only be specialists. A new equation for classification is shown by the platypus. Its not a aberration or special.

stevaroni · 17 November 2013

Robert Byers said: The way out is to say the original kinds are not observed at all today. Since the fall they had to morph and adapt quickly to survive. The seeming spectrum of traits actually just shows this morphing and adapting ability in biology.

Yes, Beyers, we call this action "evolving". Although, bafflingly, in our model it is a much more difficult process that takes much more time. So, what you're arguing is that organisms can mutate very quickly in giant leaps via some mechanism driven by survival pressures, but apparently, not mutate slowly in tiny steps via some mechanism driven by survival pressures. I'm sooooo glad we cleared that up.

Robert Byers · 18 November 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Indeed evolutionists used to say it was between reptiles and mammals and so primitive. Its not primitive whatsoever
Not being primitive--which no modern organism is (hence the term "modern")--doesn't mean that it isn't somewhat intermediate between reptiles and other mammals. And it was always just "somewhat" anyhow, and only relative to "other mammals," as we likely are intermediate between monotremes and reptiles in other ways. I know, troll-feeding is frowned upon. But the troll does say things that creationists think and may agree with, so the ignorance needs pointing out. Oh Byers, explain the sex chromosomes of monotremes, and why they have an autosome homologous with our X-chromosome. Explain why the earliest mammal group to branch off from other mammals has the earliest reproduction method, that of egg-laying. Explain vestigial teeth in juvenile platypuses, electroreceptors in the echidna bill which have no apparent function, but do evolutionarily follow by echidnas branching off from aquatic platypuses. Explain the non-functional spurs in echidnas, like those that in male platypuses deliver venom. Rhetorical, of course, since Byers and other creationists aren't interested in explaining anything, but only in destroying evolutionary explanations that do exist, ignoring anything that doesn't fit their quest to destroy knowledge. Glen Davidson

No biology, say creationists , is more or less primitive then the other. Simple to complex didn't happen. Its all too complex to duplicate with raw materials. they used to say these were intermediate but now retreat to something different. It was a first blush they were intermediate because of the egg laying thing. Reptile-monotreme-mammal. in fact its a minor thing and just a hunch its a clue. Your list of things fits fine within diversity of kinds or for like needs needs like replys. Several small mammals have poison abilities as a common response for their smallness problem against predators Some snakes have poison and some don't. its not a big deal and wrong to classify them out of thier family. Vestigial features are welcome to show the greater diversity of the past. Creationists want diversity to have been in the beginning and not later. However the big point is that only the classification system makes the platypus unique. Its not related to the other montremes. Just like traits for like needs. Just like mammals.

Robert Byers · 18 November 2013

ksplawn said:
Robert Byers said: Egg layers is just in a spectrume of a rathyer common plan of reproduction. Some snakes lay eggs and some birth without them. Its no big deal.
But how they go about doing this is a big deal. Do any snakes have a placental system that exactly looks like most mammals'? No. What it looks like a modifcation to the more typical egg-laying plan. Even the fully viviparous species include key differences (such as a yolk sac) that mark the adaptation as being closer to egg-laying than to placental mammals' system. This indicates that live-birthing snakes are more closely related to egg-laying snakes than they are to live-birthing mammals. Oh, but I forget that Byers doesn't allow us to draw any inferences about relatedness for some reason. That's taboo, or something.
The platypus, I think, is not a strange aberration...
Neither does anybody here. It's not treated as an aberration in biology, but rather as a fine example of a whole host of mammals that are now mostly extinct.
... but a revelation of the true equation that classification systems based on like traits is purely speculative.
I know I cut out most of your post, but even with the rest of it and pasting the two clauses of this sentence back together, this conclusion is a complete non-sequitur. It doesn't follow logically from anything you've said, just repeats earlier assertions without connection to earlier premises. In fact by reading your post fully, one can't help but recognize the great lengths you go to simply to ignore the obvious conclusion.
As the bible says there is just kinds. no mammals or reptiles or dinosaurs.
So what?

Thats fine and good. I'm saying the reproductive system is just a twist on each other. Snakes who live birth originally egg birthed. Or the other way around. There was originally one kind and one method. The change is not important in defining the snakes classification. marsupialism is not much different then placentalism in most ways. Just a few endgame traits. Yet its wrong to demand it defines creatures in bigger related groups rather then in groups it looks exactly like. So then they must invoke convergent evolution to explain spot on look alikes. Yet, I say, it was a original error in classification. In fact it was, oddly, done before evolutionary concepts and so they couldn't imagine the ability for biological change. Egg laying or the marsupial way is a minor matter in reproduction. its been wrong to classify groups by this common trait. So the platypus was seen as a odd man out. Yet was in fact a revelation of a more accurate equation in classification.

ksplawn · 18 November 2013

Marsupials DON'T look exactly like placentals. I've already pointed you at anatomical features which are unique to marsupials that go beyond their reproductive system. No placental mammals have those traits.

Why can't we then classify living marsupials separately from the living placentals?

DS · 18 November 2013

So. according to Booby, all real biologists is wrongly like. He is no way going to be believing what them says cause they do not to studying biology. He is just to be placing hands over ears and screaming it aint so at the tops of his lungfuls. No traits is to be considered as to relations. It not to be mattering weather all nested hierarchy is convincing. Rapid and sudden evolution can only to be occur when he be saying, like after falling and what not. Its just a line of reasoning and not biology. There is no groups, just baramin like to be surely. And no, i am never to be learning anything from you of coarse. My minds is made up on the internets and i am not imagining biological like change so i am a odd man out. Yet was in fact change of a more accurate equation not being a revelation.

And now back to our regularly scheduled platypus.

Karen S. · 18 November 2013

So. according to Booby, all real biologists is wrongly like. He is no way going to be believing what them says cause they do not to studying biology. He is just to be placing hands over ears and screaming it aint so at the tops of his lungfuls. No traits is to be considered as to relations. It not to be mattering weather all nested hierarchy is convincing. Rapid and sudden evolution can only to be occur when he be saying, like after falling and what not. Its just a line of reasoning and not biology. There is no groups, just baramin like to be surely. And no, i am never to be learning anything from you of coarse. My minds is made up on the internets and i am not imagining biological like change so i am a odd man out. Yet was in fact change of a more accurate equation not being a revelation. And now back to our regularly scheduled platypus.

By George, I think he's got it!

gnome de net · 18 November 2013

I can has cheezburger?

M. Wilson Sayres · 18 November 2013

ksplawn said: Marsupials DON'T look exactly like placentals. I've already pointed you at anatomical features which are unique to marsupials that go beyond their reproductive system. No placental mammals have those traits. Why can't we then classify living marsupials separately from the living placentals?

To be technically correct, marsupials do form a placenta for a very short period of time. So, it's more accurate to classify: - monotremes - marsupials - eutherians Marsupials and eutherians together form the therians,

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 18 November 2013

It's really more correct to classify platypuses with "really cool animals."

Glen Davidson

ksplawn · 18 November 2013

Technical correctness is the best kind of correctness, of course, but that's a bit higher than the division I'm thinking of (eutherian vs. metatherian, where metatherian represents marsupials and their closest extinct relatives). Byers doesn't buy into any division between different "mammals" at all, despite the other anatomical features that distinguish eu/meta/prototherians from each other.

corbsj · 18 November 2013

To throw in another cool platypus feature they also have a 6th sense electroperception!

A platypus will keep its eyes firmly closed under water. It uses its bill to help scan and dig up the mud and is quite sensitive to touch. However it also highly sensitive to small electric fields. The ability is similar to sharks but evolved completely separately of course.

http://monash.edu/news/releases/show/2

So the platypus is a mammal that has a bill, fur, lays eggs, has venom and radar...

Robert Byers · 18 November 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Robert Byers · 18 November 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Robert Byers · 18 November 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 18 November 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

ksplawn · 18 November 2013

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

PA Poland · 18 November 2013

Robert Byers said:
corbsj said: To throw in another cool platypus feature they also have a 6th sense electroperception! A platypus will keep its eyes firmly closed under water. It uses its bill to help scan and dig up the mud and is quite sensitive to touch. However it also highly sensitive to small electric fields. The ability is similar to sharks but evolved completely separately of course. http://monash.edu/news/releases/show/2 So the platypus is a mammal that has a bill, fur, lays eggs, has venom and radar...
I didn't know that but its cool for ID or YEC creationists. The case is made about how its unlikely radar evolved in diffeent creatures and so rather its from other biological mechanisms.

You got the MATH to show how 'unlikely' radar evolved in different creatures ? All that is needed for echolocation is the ability to produce sounds, and the ability to hear them. IIRC, the cave birds have a rather crude form of echolocation, whereas bats and dolphins have highly developed ones. There was a paper comparing the Prestin protein in echolocating and non-echolocating bats and cetaceans. If you compare the DNA sequences, the echolocating bats group with the other bats, while the echolocating cetaceans group with other cetaceans and bovines (another artiodactyl). However, if you compare the PROTEIN, then the echolocating animals are grouped together. This is an example of convergent evolution (but Booby will claim that the groups magically willed themselves to gain the ability somehow. Or something even sillier).

For this YEC its exactly as expected. Radar in bats, whales, some cave birds, and now the platypus explains radar as a option for lots of creatures from innate triggers in the bodies. Hard to believe but most likely true.

Only if one is willfully IGNORANT of centuries of real world biology. Since your Magical Sky Pixie works in "mysterious ways", HOW CAN YOU ACTUALLY CLAIM anything is as expected from Him/Her/It/Them ?! The platypus uses electroperception - NOT 'radar'. Evolution works by modifying what an organism already has - there are very few novelties. Are you SERIOUSLY implying that those diverse groups magically willed themselves to gain an ability ?!?! Quick ! Will yourself to have a completely different reproductive system ! First you'll have to know WHICH genes to modify, and exactly HOW to change them. Or does it work by magic ? "Well, the critter doth will itself to change, and this magically alters the magical morph field, which magically alters the DNA (which is irrelevant because I don't know anything about such things !!) because a Magical Sky Pixie magically wills such things to be possible !!!!1!!!1!!" ?

Not from convergent evolution coming up with the same idea.

And you 'determined' that HOW, exactly ? Oh, right - imposition of willful ignorance and arrogance. If ** YOU ** can't see how something could happen naturally, then it be impossible !!!

corbsj · 18 November 2013

Robert Byers said:
corbsj said: To throw in another cool platypus feature they also have a 6th sense electroperception! A platypus will keep its eyes firmly closed under water. It uses its bill to help scan and dig up the mud and is quite sensitive to touch. However it also highly sensitive to small electric fields. The ability is similar to sharks but evolved completely separately of course. http://monash.edu/news/releases/show/2 So the platypus is a mammal that has a bill, fur, lays eggs, has venom and radar...
I didn't know that but its cool for ID or YEC creationists. The case is made about how its unlikely radar evolved in diffeent creatures and so rather its from other biological mechanisms. For this YEC its exactly as expected. Radar in bats, whales, some cave birds, and now the platypus explains radar as a option for lots of creatures from innate triggers in the bodies. Hard to believe but most likely true. Not from convergent evolution coming up with the same idea.

No. The other examples you mention use sonar. Completely different mechanism based on sound. Interestingly the other mammal that has this electroperception is the Echidna who is also a monotreme. Yet another trait that links them despite the animals looking significantly different. I'm not aware of the ability existing in any other mammals. So it has not evolved in many different creatures. So even though the Echnida and the platypus both lay eggs, have the same spur on their back leg on which they secretes a substance (although the echnida's is not venomous), have milk patches rather than nippples, have a four headed penis and have no teeth, I suspect you would say they are not in anyway related and the Echidna is just a hedgehog or a porcupine with a few additional minor traits....

DS · 18 November 2013

Bobbity boobity bobbidty boop.

Scott F · 18 November 2013

PA Poland said: This is an example of convergent evolution (but Booby will claim that the groups magically willed themselves to gain the ability somehow. Or something even sillier).

IIRC, it is in fact Ray's opinion that animals "will" themselves to gain various abilities; that it is the animals themselves who are intentionally creating variation in themselves (not just their offspring). That's his (apparently unique) version of "intelligent design" creationism. I think Robert is more of the six-literal-day YEC variety.

John Harshman · 19 November 2013

The metatherian placenta is different in structure from the eutherian placenta. The former involves the chorion only, while the latter involves both the chorion and the allantois.

Robert Byers · 19 November 2013

Sorry folks but no more discussions. WHY??????? It was interesting, on thread, and part of the whole purpose behind the forum. Oh well at least a little conversation on interesting matters in biology.
I know how that Freshwater guy feels !! Except telling the family about the loss of income!

DS · 19 November 2013

Bobby,

Your particular brand of "discussion" is only allowed on the bathroom wall. Go there if you dare. I am sure that you will get all of the "discussion" you can handle. This thread is for grown ups.

ksplawn · 19 November 2013

Just go discuss the matters at the Bathroom Wall you big doof.

Christine Janis · 20 November 2013

John Harshman said: The metatherian placenta is different in structure from the eutherian placenta. The former involves the chorion only, while the latter involves both the chorion and the allantois.

Not exactly. A yolk sac is an extraembryonic membrane seen in all vertebrates. Amniotes (mammals birds and reptiles) add three more: amnion (protects embryo), chorion (lines the internal egg surface), allantois (originally for waste storage). All amniotes have the outgrowth of these membranes, and monotremes (within the egg) show a condition rather like that of other amniotes. In placentals, a "placenta" (i.e., a connection between the embryo and the maternal tissues) is first formed via a connection of the yolk sac with the chorion (the "choriovitelline" placenta). Soon after, this is replaced with a placenta formed from a connection of the allantois (which grows out later in ontogeny) with the chorion (the "chorioallantoic" placenta). In marsupials (in comparison with placentals, monotremes, and other amniotes) the outgrowth of the allantois is suppressed. The period of gestation is also brief. Thus for most marsupials, the only placenta is the choriovitelline one. In some marsupials, convergently (koala+wombat on the one hand, and bandicoots on the other), and via rather different means, there is an outgrowth of the allantois at the end of gestation to produce a brief chorioallantoic placenta. The important point here is that the outgrowth of the allantois is delayed or suppressed compared with all other amniotes. Thus the lack of a placental (eutherian) like chorioallantoic placenta is actually a *derived* character (aided and abetted by the short gestation time, not exceeding a single estrus cycle).

Peter Naus · 26 November 2013

I was lucky enough to swim with one platypus (Numi) at Healesville Sanctuary a few weeks ago.

It turns out that they're more inquisitive than a kitten, quicker than a sneeze, and love having their artmpits (legpits?) scratched! And they're more endearing than a baby Black Rhino.

And astonishingly friendly, once they've figured out what you're up to. (At least, in a 50,000 gallon tank, anyway.)

Best 35 minutes of my insignificant life.