The Platypus

CHAPTER I. Introductory

INTRODUCTORY

The first printed description of the platypus appeared in the tenth volume of the Naturalist’s Miscellany (1799) under the name Platypus anatinus and was written by Dr. George Shaw, of the British Museum, where the original skin, received in 1798, is still preserved. In 1800 the German anatomist Blumenbach received a skin from Sir Joseph Banks (one of two sent by Governor Hunter), and described it as Ornithorhynchus paradoxus. Shaw’s generic name Platypus was not permissible, it having been used in 1793 by Herbst for a genus of beetles. The correct name of the animal therefore became Ornithorhynchus anatinus Shaw; but ‘platypus’ has survived in the vernacular, to the exclusion of ‘duck-bill’ and ‘water-mole,’ which were in general use among the earlier colonists.

No animal has given rise to so much controversy among both laymen and professed zoologists. The first specimens which reached England were regarded with suspicion. Shaw’s account, quoted on page 17, shows clearly enough his doubts and fears, which were dissolved by the arrival of further specimens; Home’s anatomical research in 1802 put the genuineness of these beyond all question. But the general feeling is summed up by Knox (1823, p. 27), who writes:--

“It is well known that the specimens of this very extraordinary animal first brought to Europe were considered by many as impositions. They reached England by vessels which had navigated the Indian seas, a circumstance in itself sufficient to rouse the suspicions of the scientific naturalist, aware of the monstrous impostures which the artful Chinese had so frequently practised on European adventurers; in short, the scientific felt inclined to class this rare production of nature with eastern mermaids and other works of art; but these conjectures were immediately dispelled by an appeal to anatomy.”

The ‘eastern mermaid’ so mentioned is still to be seen occasionally in curiosity shops, and consists of the skin of the fore-part of a monkey skilfully sewn to the tail-part of a fish.

The singular nature of the platypus was not, however, confined to its external form, and the proof that its duck-like bill really belonged to it by no means ended the troubles of contemporary zoologists. A furred animal should obviously be a mammal--that is to say, it should have a uterus to contain its foetal young, and milk glands with external nipples for the suckling of the young when born.

But Home (1802) found no uterus, no mammary glands, and no nipples. Was the platypus a mammal? Home discovered that the oviducts of the female, instead of uniting to form a uterus as in the majority of mammals, opened separately into a cloaca, as in birds and reptiles.

Here was material for two further controversies. Should Ornithorhynchus be included in the mammalian class, or must a new vertebrate class be added for its inclusion? We know now that we may fairly include the platypus and its only near relative, the echidna, in a sub-class of the Mammalia (the Ornithodelphia), which, though so insignificant numerically, is the equivalent, zoologically, of the larger marsupial sub-class, Didelphia, and of the infinitely greater sub-class Monodelphia, which comprises all other mammals. But it was long before this point was settled. The varying opinions will be detailed in due course.

The second controversy concerned the method of reproduction. Persistent reports came from New South Wales that the platypus laid eggs, but definite evidence was lacking. Sir John Jamison, writing from Sydney on March 18, 1817 (Jamison, 1818, p. 585) states categorically:--“The female is oviparous, and lives in burrows in the ground.” But he offers no proof. Lesson (1839, p. 302) writes:--

“It is in New South Wales that one meets those singular and fantastic creatures to which naturalists have not been able to assign a position: the ornithorhynchuses or paradoxals with a duck’s beak, which live in the waters of the rivers, and which lay eggs, creatures set across the path of the scientific method to show its worthlessness.”

These statements were not, however, acceptable to European zoologists, with one or two exceptions, such as Etienne Geoffroy St.-Hilaire. At first two alternatives only were considered. Ornithorhynchus was either oviparous (egg-laying) or ovi-viviparous, that is, producing eggs which hatch within the parent body. But with the discovery in 1824 by Meckel, the great German anatomist, of the mammary glands, a third possibility was manifested. Did the platypus produce its young alive? Blainville and Meckel thought so. Home, and after him the great Richard Owen, stood out for ovi-viviparity. The St.-Hilaires in France, more especially Etienne Geoffroy, fought determinedly for oviparity. The controversy raged for eighty years, significant evidence being rejected from time to time because it did not fit in with the preconceived notions of the person to whose notice it came; and the question was not settled until 1884, when Caldwell reported his finding of the eggs.

Yet another controversy, which can scarcely be said to have been settled even yet, has been concerned with the spur which is found upon the hind limb of the male. This was first described by Shaw (1799), who includes it as a sixth digit, but mentions that it resembles a strong, sharp spur. Home, who also described it, suggested that it was used for holding the female in the sexual embrace. Jamison (1818) first mentioned the serious results of wounds inflicted by it. A number of independent observers in the early twenties--Hill, Traill, Blainville, Knox and others--described the spur and its duct and gland with varying degrees of completeness. Martin and Tidswell made a fairly exact investigation of the nature of the fluid secreted by the gland, and of its physiological effects. Numerous writers have quoted cases of severe wounds, while others, including Dr. George Bennett, who handled large numbers of male platypus, never knew the animal to attempt the use of its spurs for offensive purposes.

The mammary glands differ from those of mammals in general, and may be considered as modified sweat-glands. They open by a number of pores upon a small area of skin, there being no teats. After the end of the breeding-season they become so small as to be easily overlooked, and will apparently yield no milk at the time when the young are just hatched from the egg. In these respects they differ very markedly from the milk glands of ordinary mammals, and have afforded ground for further lively arguments. The fiercest opponent of their mammary function was Etienne Geoffroy; he was prepared to take any view other than the obvious one, which seemed fatal to his oviparity hypothesis.

The nesting habits of Ornithorhynchus have also taken a long time to elucidate. The early accounts of the nests are derived from information supplied at secondhand, and their fantastic nature may be due to misunderstanding on the part of the recorder. Hill (1822, p. 622) writes:--

“... a female Ornithorhynchus had been brought in alive, having been found on its nest in a lagoon near Campbell’s River, by Mr. Rawley, who says that he was obliged to tear the nest to pieces before he could get the animal out, the nest being formed of reeds and rushes, with a long tube or entrance into it, out of which the bill of the animal only was visible.”

It is easy to imagine that what Mr. Rawley really said was that he had to dig out the long tube, or burrow, and that, when he came to the nesting-chamber itself, the nest was made of reeds and rushes, out of which only the bill of the animal was visible. Maule (1832) gave the first account of the burrow, which was more fully described by Dr. George Bennett a little later. G. F. Bennett (1877) and Kershaw (1912) have increased our knowledge of the nesting habits.

Although at least the natural habits of the platypus have been ascertained, its life history and development are incompletely known. Development in the egg prior to the laying has been dealt with by Wilson and Hill (1908). Similar material obtained by Caldwell in 1883 was never described. A small number of ‘mammary foetus’ stages from the burrow have been dealt with by Owen, Parker, Poulton, Wilson, and others.

Finally, the habits of the platypus have been variously reported by different observers, some of whom would seem to have drawn upon a lively imagination for many of their ‘facts;’ moreover, the original accounts have become garbled in repetition. Most of the tales might have been disproved once for all by one or two published statements from colonists who were familiar with the animal. Curiously enough, however, there are no local accounts--at any rate, I have not been able to find any--during the first half of the nineteenth century. We owe all our early knowledge to English officials and visiting French naturalists. While scientific Europe thirsted for enlightenment, the colonist went blandly on with his pioneering. Fletcher (1901) has pointed out the main reasons for the apparent neglect of zoology in the early days of the colony. Sir Joseph Banks, who organized the early collecting, was more interested in botany; also, that study seemed more likely to have an economic value. So, while the flora was assiduously collected, catalogued, and described, the fauna was practically neglected. Nevertheless, such was the interest in Ornithorhynchus that in 1840 Broderip was able to write:--

Continue reading The Platypus free in the Wunder reader →