Talk:Platypus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Platypus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 4, 2004.
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Flag
Portal
 Platypus is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Australia Portal.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
Assessment comments
Mammals
Mammals Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. (rated as high importance)
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
  1. 2001 – June 2006

Contents

[edit] For Cultural References

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Capitalisation

Apparently correcting a fundamental error requires me to discuss it on the talk page. So. It's "platypus", not "Platypus". Would you capitalise "dog", "cow", or "elephant"? Of course not. So why would you capitalise "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 capitalised 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 capitalise because they are all general, ie: there is more then 1 species of dog, more then 1 species of elephant and more then 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 platypi been birds ... duck-billed or not? :) ). But that isn't the issue. The word "platypus" is like "dog" or "cat". You should not capitalise it. By all means, if you wish to be consistent, capitalise "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 capitalised. 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 stratagies:
  1. Observe what Encyclopædia 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 state: The common name of a species is always capitalised 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 Platypus have black fur, and southern Platypus 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 capitalised, as it would be a general term referring to both the northern and sothern 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 capitalisation, as it is a general term, referring to many different animals), and specific nouns can be capitalised. We are not saying that it has to be capitalised, both are acceptable. However, there is a collaboration working on the montremes and marsupials, and they have decided to be consitent in their subject area, and capitalise all species' common names. --liquidGhoul 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posted at the main page

[edit] Correction of the Description Above

[edit] 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 this 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 data 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)

[edit] popular 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Yomanganitalk 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)

[edit] 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 (41 °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) .

[edit] 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 Platapus 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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. Yomanganitalk 23:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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. Yomanganitalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Yomanganitalk 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. Yomanganitalk 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). Yomanganitalk 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. Yomanganitalk 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Swimming speed

Anyone know how fast it swims?

[edit] contradiction regarding venomous status?

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. Yomanganitalk 10:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Yomanganitalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] In mammalian evolution

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)