Talk:Platypus/Archive 2

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

The BBC is reporting that the genome has been sequenced, and that the sequencing is published in

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)

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)

"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)

Please replace "the only mammals that lay eggs " by "one of the two mammals to lay eggs the other being

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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;

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

Are they ever called

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

"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)

{{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,

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)

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)

What is the evolutionary origin of the venom glands in this creature? Is there any relationship to the

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)

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)

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

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)

{{

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

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

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.

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 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 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.^[1] 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.^[1][2] 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.^[1][3] Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19–48 million years ago.^[4]

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. -

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:
      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. —
  moral♪♫
  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:

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

WP:BRD).  Chzz  ► 

16:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Platypusary is misspelled in the article as "platypussary".

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• "Platypus In The Tropics 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

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• "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 ${\displaystyle n}$ platypuses, numbered ${\displaystyle 1,2,\dots ,n}$, and platypus ${\displaystyle i}$ spends every day ${\displaystyle f_{i}}$ hours looking for food, ${\displaystyle s_{i}}$ hours sleeping, and ${\displaystyle l_{i}}$ hours for leisure (that is, all other activities). Then ${\displaystyle 24=f_{i}+s_{i}+l_{i}}$. Taking averages, that is summing over ${\displaystyle i=1,...n}$ and dividing by ${\displaystyle n}$, one gets

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

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

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

Edit request: Change range map

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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?

--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)