CHAPTER IV. Controversy on the Laying of Eggs

CONTROVERSY ON THE LAYING OF EGGS

Home (1802), the first anatomist to examine the platypus, suggested that, from the nature of the reproductive organs in the female, it might be ovi-viviparous. In 1819 (p. 238) he makes a categorical statement, without giving any evidence in support, as follows:--

“In the ornithorhynchi the yelk-bags are formed in the ovaria; received into the oviducts, in which they acquire the albumen, and are impregnated afterwards; the foetus is aerated by the vagina, and hatched in the oviduct, after which the young provides for itself, the mother not giving suck.”

Had this been put forward as merely the probable course of events, there would perhaps have been some justification for it. But it is given as a statement of fact, and it is hard to imagine how a worker of Home’s standing could have committed himself to so dogmatic a statement--which time has proved to be entirely erroneous, and for which not one jot of actual evidence existed at the time it was written.

Blumenbach (1801), after a study of the skull, suggested that the platypus might be oviparous; but although this long shot ultimately received confirmation, it hardly seems necessary to credit the Göttingen anatomist with any very remarkable acumen.

Those zoologists who considered the platypus to be definitely a mammal, of course believed that it brought forth its young alive. Among these we may include Blainville, Cuvier, and Oken. The last-named suggested (1817) that the mammary glands might occupy some unusual situation, and so might have escaped notice; later (1823), commenting on the ovarian ovum described by Dr. Patrick Hill (see below), he points out its resemblance to the mammalian Graafian follicle, and concludes by saying that the tales of oviparity and ovi-viviparity have all arisen from failure to observe the mammary glands. Oken’s assurance of the existence of mammary glands was justified, as we have seen, by the discovery of these glands by Meckel, announced in 1824.

The spurs are concealed behind the heels. In this specimen the hair is almost entirely worn off the under surface of the tail.

Plate 7]

It seemed likely, then, that despite the opposition of Etienne Geoffroy and the extraordinary form of the animal itself and of its reproductive apparatus, Ornithorhynchus would turn out to be quite an ordinary mammal, which produced its young alive. But persistent statements came from the colonists of New South Wales that it laid eggs. Sir John Jamison (1818, p. 585) wrote, without comment, and as if citing an established fact:--“The female is oviparous, and lives in burrows in the ground.” This would seem to indicate that nesting-burrows and eggs had been definitely observed. But no actual evidence was forthcoming to calm the agitation of European zoologists.

Dr. Patrick Hill (1822, p. 623) examined what he believed to be an impregnated female, in the left ovary of which was a large Graafian follicle. This specimen was taken to England by a Mr. Scott, and, as is recorded in a footnote, was presented to the University of Oxford. Hill’s error as to the nature of the ovum gave rise to a considerable misunderstanding. Fleming (1822, p. 215) stated that the eggs of Ornithorhynchus had been transmitted to London; although he was aware that these ‘eggs’ were merely ovarian ova, this statement was repeated in several French works. Hill concluded his letter with the following words:--“Cookoogong a native, chief of the Boorah-Boorah tribe, says, that it is a fact well known to them, that this animal lays two eggs, about the size, shape, and colour of those of a hen; ...” As the egg of the platypus measures only three-quarters of an inch in length, Cookoogong’s estimate of the size is rather wide of the mark; but this may have been due to misunderstanding on the part of Hill.

In 1824 an anonymous article, “Quelques observations nouvelles sur l’Ornithorhynque,” appeared in the Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (Vol. II). Quite possibly it was written by Geoffroy St.-Hilaire. On p. 75 the following words appear:--“On a vu à la Nouvelle-Hollande des oeufs d’Ornithorhynque, et c’est M. Jameson, l’un des principaux propriétaires et habitans de Botany-Bay, qui guarantit ce renseignement.” Jamison’s statement that the platypus lays eggs has here been converted into a definite assertion that the eggs have been seen.

In Vol. X of the same journal (1827) a second unsigned article appears:--“Sur les Habitudes de l’Ornithorhynque”--the account of the habits being quoted from the Antologia di Firenze, XXIV, p. 305, where also it appears anonymously. On p. 193 we read--“Ornithorhynchus inhabits the marshes of New Holland. It makes among tufts of reeds bordering the water a nest composed of down and interlaced roots, in which it deposits two white eggs, smaller than those of ordinary fowls: it broods on them for a long time, hatches them like a bird, and only abandons them when threatened by a formidable enemy.” The author of the article comments (pp. 194-5):--“We regret that the Antologia usually omits to make known the source whence it borrows the curious facts which it communicates to its readers. What we have just read bears a tolerably faithful resemblance to an account by Patrick Hill, ... but it differs in being more precise; which leads us to believe that it may be borrowed from another and a newer source.” It is quite obvious that the account was drawn from Hill, the greater precision being due to the journalistic sense of the writer.

However, these statements about eggs stirred Etienne Geoffroy to make enquiries, and the article closes with a quotation from a letter written by Southwood Smith to Milne Edwards in reply to Geoffroy:--“There are no eggs of Ornithorhynchus with the Linnean Society, nor in any other collection in London. One preparation had been seen, and was said to be furnished with an egg; Sir Everard Home had examined it, and was convinced that this was a mistake. This man of science added that no one had taken more trouble than himself to resolve all doubts on the subject of Ornithorhynchus, and that he had hopes of doing so, having interested the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this research.” This is a fairly literal translation of the French, as it appears in the Annales. The letter may have been written in English, in which case the re-translation of a translation would be certain to differ considerably from the original.

Lesson, writing in the Annales, Vol. VI (1825), says on p. 249:--

“Mr. Murdoch, superintendent of the farm at Emu Plains, assured me that he had found the eggs of Ornithorhynchus, and that they are of the size of those of a domestic fowl.”

In Vol. XVIII (1829) Etienne Geoffroy, flushed with triumph, produced a description and figure of veritable eggs. He writes on pp. 160-164:--

“But this fact, the more decisive as it is a fortunate confirmation of old stories, has just been sent to me by the learned Professor of Comparative Anatomy and Zoology in the free university lately founded in London, Mr. Robert E. Grant: this is, that Ornithorhynchus certainly lays eggs. I publish the full text of the letter which this savant has sent me; it is written from London, from the headquarters of the new university, under the date 14th September, 1829.

“Mr. Grant’s Letter.

“Sir,--

“My return to London has been delayed, as I stopped at Calais, Boulogne, Dover, and other places in England for the purpose of making zoological investigations on the coasts; but having now arrived here, I experience very great pleasure in communicating to you the information which I have just received, and which I have obtained from Mr. Leadbeater, concerning the eggs which he possesses, and which are said to be those of Ornithorhynchus.

“Mr. Holmes, well known to most naturalists in London as a gatherer of natural history collections, has lived for some years in New Holland. One day while hunting on the banks of the Hawkesbury, a river in the interior of the country, he saw very distinctly, some feet away, an Ornithorhynchus leave a sandbank and escape in the river. On examining the place where the animal had rested, Mr. Holmes saw a hollow in the sand about nine inches in diameter, and in this open cavity were some small twigs and the eggs in question.

“He found there four eggs:--all were brought to England, together with a collection of birds of the country. Mr. Holmes has since returned to New Holland, with his wife and family. Two of these eggs are in the Manchester Museum; the other two were given to Mr. Leadbeater, who will not part with them, neither for cash nor for any other consideration: he has refused to sell them to Sir Everard Home, to various other naturalists, and to myself.

“At the same time, despite the remarkable agreement of these facts with the results of your profound studies, you will only accord to this evidence such confidence as is due.

“These eggs seem to me to differ, in form and texture, from those of birds; they are remarkable for their regular spheroidal-oblong shape, of an equal width at both ends; they measure 1⅜ inches in length, by a breadth of ¾-inch; the shell is thin, fragile, semi-transparent, and of a uniform flat white colour; its external surface, under a lens, shows a wonderfully woven network; the calcareous matter forms the white walls of its innumerable and very minute cavities, which do not prevent the surface from remaining somewhat polished. One of the eggs was broken, and I examined its inner surface, which seemed also to be formed by the deposition of very small grains of calcareous matter.

“The size and shape of these eggs recall the eggs of lizards and snakes, reptiles which have not, however, a tenth of the bulk of an Ornithorhynchus.

“My friend Mr. Yarrell, who has also examined the eggs, thinks that they differ as much from those of birds as from those of reptiles. Other travellers have told me that the Hawkesbury River, on the banks of which these eggs were found, is reputed in that country to harbour great numbers of Ornithorhynchus.

“Mr. Holmes has been back in New Holland for nearly a year: and he will again be directing his attention to this matter.

“I regret being reduced to so few facts for communication to you on this subject of so great interest to science.

“I place at the bottom of my letter a drawing, made with the greatest care, of the entire egg which I saw at Mr. Leadbeater’s; it is shown natural size, and with the precise detail of its shape.

“Robert E. Grant.”

But, alas for the hopes of M. Geoffroy, this drawing, which he reproduces in Plate 3, is so faithfully done that an Australian zoologist has no difficulty in recognizing it as the egg of the common long-necked tortoise (Chelodina longicollis). Geoffroy was, of course, unaware of this. When, however, he came to consider the size of the egg, he realized that it could not possibly pass through the pelvic ring of the female platypus, the diameter of which was but five-twelfths of an inch, while that of the egg was nine-twelfths. Nothing daunted, Geoffroy first supposed that the egg passed to the cloaca in a not fully developed condition, and that it underwent further development there, but so rapidly as not to cause serious obstruction. Later, however, in 1833, he discarded this view, and believed that it remained in the oviduct until hatching took place, since it could not pass through the small pelvis. He would seem to have conveniently forgotten that the eggs were found laid in a nest in the sand.

Though, in support of oviparity, Geoffroy fell so often into error, he ultimately proved right. The great Richard Owen, on the other hand, through too firm and convinced a belief in ovi-viviparity, rejected evidence which, in the light of our later knowledge, was convincing enough; in the upshot he was proved wrong. The first piece of positive evidence was given by Lieutenant the Hon. Lauderdale Maule, of the 39th regiment, in a letter to Dr. Weatherhead, extracts from which were communicated to the Zoological Society of London and printed on pp. 145-6 of the volume for 1832. Maule writes:--

“During the spring of 1831, being detached in the interior of New South Wales, I was at some pains to discover the truths of the generally accepted belief, namely, that the female Platypus lays eggs and suckles its young.”

He goes on to say that he found and opened up a number of nesting-burrows, of which he gives a summary description. He obtained young which were forwarded to Dr. Weatherhead, and described by Owen; but “no eggs were found in a perfect state, but pieces of a substance resembling egg-shell were picked out of the debris of the nest” (p. 155). There is no reason to doubt that these were actually egg-shells, but Owen ignores this statement altogether, and Broderip (1840) writes in the Penny Cyclopaedia:--“The supposed portions of egg-shell found by Lieutenant Maule in the nest were probably portions of excrement, coated, as in birds, with the salts of the urine, that secretion and the faeces being expelled by the same orifice.”

It is probable that Owen based his views on the evidence of Dr. George Bennett, who spent many years in endeavouring to penetrate the secrets of the furtive and mysterious platypus. Bennett obtained impregnated females, and forwarded uteri containing ova to Owen, who described them in 1834. He also found young, but did not succeed in getting eggs, and became convinced that the young were brought forth alive. He tried to get precise information from the aborigines, but, again probably through lack of understanding, failed. We read on pp. 122-3 of his Gatherings of a Naturalist:--

“The various contradictory accounts that have been given, on the authority of the aborigines (who might be supposed, from their so often seeking these animals for food, to be able to state their habits correctly), as to the animal laying eggs and hatching them, induced me to take some pains to find out the cause of such an error, and being now perfectly satisfied as to the contents of the uteri, I could the more readily determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the accounts which I might receive from the natives. I determined, however, not to ask any person who had been repeatedly questioned before on the same subject; but some time after, when I visited the out-stations in the Tumat country, where such questions had never been previously asked, I made inquiries among the most intelligent. The Yas natives at first asserted that the animals lay eggs, but very shortly afterwards contradicted themselves. To ascertain what dependence could be placed on them, I made a drawing of an oval egg, which was recognized to be like that of the Mallangong. I then made a drawing of a round egg, and that also was declared to be ‘cabango’ (egg) of the Mallangong. It was also declared that ‘old woman have eggs there in so many days’ (the number of which they did not know), that the young ones ‘tumble down,’ and that two eggs are laid in one day. An account subsequently obtained from a native, who appeared anxious to explain the fact, would lead to the belief that the animal is ovi-viviparous; but yet, from the difficulty they find in expressing themselves in our language, we often misunderstand them. He asserted the animal to be oviparous; but when desired to procure the egg, he replied, ‘Bel cabango (no egg) tumble down; pickaninny tumble down.’

“In the Tumat country the answers were readily and satisfactorily given; and afterwards, more minute questions being put to them through my interpreter, the result was the same. ‘Tambreet no make egg (corbuccor) tumble down; pickaninny make tumble down,’ was their reply. This accorded with my observations; for it was at the season when this inquiry was made that the young platypi were found in the burrow, as if just brought forth.”

Had Dr. Bennett relied more on individual effort instead of on aboriginal information, this vexed question could have been settled there and then.

The next account is that given by M. Jules Verreaux, of the Paris Museum, who spent some time in Tasmania; he wrote an article “Observations sur l’Ornithorhynque” in the Revue Zoologique for 1848. This article contains a curious admixture of fancy with some of which we shall have to deal later. The only point that interests us here is that on p. 130 Verreaux declares himself quite sure that the animal is ovi-viviparous, without giving any justification for his assertion. Owen (1848) reviews this article, and on p. 318 comments on Verreaux’s statement, which, apparently, he is quite prepared to accept, suggesting that it is based upon the same kind of evidence that has led to his own conclusions. He deplores the lack of absolute proof, but sets out in a footnote the reason for his belief: “It is to the absence of this proof that Dr. Carpenter appears to refer, where he remarks, in his excellent Principles of Human Physiology, 1842, p. 40, ‘No positive evidence has yet been obtained that its young are born alive.’ The minute size of the ovarian ovum and consequently of the vitellus; the presence of small ova with a delicate chorion and without chalazae or shell, in the uterine portion of the oviduct; the absence of any shell-forming portion of the oviduct--all are elements of a body of positive evidence in favour of the ovi-viviparity of the Ornithorhynchus, which needs only the discovery of the foetus in utero for decisive confirmation.”

In 1865 (1865, pp. 683-4) Owen published, with comment, two interesting letters from Australia, which are worth quoting in full:--

“Wood’s Point, September 21st, 1864.

“To Professor R. Owen.

“Sir,--I have great pleasure in being able to inform you of a very interesting discovery in the economy of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus, and one which I have no doubt you will hail with delight. About ten months ago, a female Platypus was captured in the River Goulburn by some workman who gave it to the Gold-Receiver of this district. He, to prevent its escape, tied a cord to its leg and put it into a gin-case, where it remained during the night. The next morning, when he came to look at it, he found that it had laid two eggs. They were about the size of a crow’s egg, and were white, soft, and compressible, being without shell or anything approaching to a calcareous covering.

“I had an opportunity of examining them externally, and I found no evidence of their having had any recent vascular connexion with the maternal organs; but I am sorry to say that I never had a chance of examining their contents, as, on inquiring for them a day or two afterwards, I found they had been thrown away, much to my chagrin and disappointment.

“The animal itself was afterwards killed (next day), and I was told that numerous ova (in the words of my informant ‘eggs’) were found in it, in various stages of development, which in the aggregate somewhat resembled a bunch of grapes; but this I cannot personally vouch for.

“It may appear to you a matter of surprise that I did not examine more minutely this interesting animal; but I am sorry to say that the same spirit that dictated the throwing away of the eggs, prevented me making a more detailed investigation.

“I am in hopes that I shall be able to get another pregnant specimen; if so, I shall have much pleasure in sending it to you for your inspection.

“I have the honour to be, Sir, “Your obedient Servant, “Jno. Nicholson, M.D., etc.” “Wood’s Point, Victoria, Australia.”

By a later mail Owen received from Dr. Mueller a letter from the “Gold-Receiver” referred to by Dr. Nicholson. It had been written in reply to enquiries, which vague reports of the occurrence had induced Dr. Mueller to make.

“Woods’ Point, September 25, 1864.

“Dear Sir,--In reply to your enquiries relative to the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus, I must in the first place correct an erroneous impression which the newspaper paragraph has conveyed.

“The Platypus is not now in my possession, and the eggs were laid the day after its capture. The animal was captured in the Goulburn and given to me. It was then fastened by a cord in a gin-case, and on examining it the next morning the two eggs were found in the bottom of the box, both of them having undoubtedly been laid during the night. In the course of the day the creature was killed by a would be scientific friend of mine, with the intention of preserving its skin; and on opening the body the ovaries were found to be clustered with ova in different stages of growth; but none of them so large as the eggs which were laid. These eggs were white, soft, and without shell, easily compressible, and about the size of a crow’s egg.

“Not being sufficiently versed in the subject I am not prepared to say whether these eggs might not have been abortions caused by fear, but there was no appearance on the surface of their ever having been vascularly connected with the maternal uterus, and reviewing all the facts observed I should undoubtedly say that the animal was oviparous.

“I am, dear Sir, “Yours faithfully, (Signed) “Geo. J. Rumby.”

Owen comments as follows upon these letters:--

“Assuming the fact of the oviposition in the month of December 1863 (Dr. Nicholson writes of the occurrence as having happened ‘about ten months’ before the date of his letter, September 21, 1864) by a female Ornithorhynchus, of two ova, about the size of a crow’s egg, ‘white, soft, compressible, without shell or anything approaching to a calcareous covering,’ the question is--What did they contain? Had the unvascular chorion been cut or torn open, an embryo or a yelk might have been seen. Better still would it have been if both ova had been at once immersed in a bottle of whatever colourless alcoholic liquor might be at hand. Probably no medical man had ever an opportunity or a chance of settling a point in comparative physiology of more interest, and with less trouble, than the gentleman who was privileged to be the first person to see and handle the new-laid eggs of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus.”

I can sympathize with Owen in his disappointment. It would indeed be interesting to know what was inside those eggs. Probably young birds! However, without that knowledge it is not possible to decide whether they were the first eggs known to have been laid by a platypus. If the size mentioned by both Nicholson and Rumby is correct, they could not have been the eggs of Ornithorhynchus, which have but a third of the length and a tenth of the bulk of any Australian bird’s egg that could justifiably be referred to as that of a crow. The words “soft” and “compressible” in their descriptions are perplexing; if correct, then the size was wrong, and, if incorrect, the probability is that a practical joker introduced birds’ eggs.

At the outset Owen appears to have accepted this account at proving that Ornithorhynchus was oviparous; but later he inclined to the belief that the eggs might have been “abortions due to fear,” and was still enquiring for definite evidence.

In the Australian Journal of Education (vol. ii, 1869) there is a series of articles on the fauna of Australia, most of which are unsigned. That on the platypus appears on pages 104-5, under the pseudonym “Five Dock;” it contains nothing of any particular interest except a statement that the egg-laying idea is “exploded.”

On p. 16 of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania (1878) we read:--

“Some members having expressed their opinion that the question as to the animal being oviparous had long been settled in the negative, Mr. E. D. Swan remarked that Professor McCoy, who would be recognized by all as an authority of the greatest weight, had recently written to the effect that he had received evidence of a most reliable character that the Ornithorhynchus was oviparous.”

But I cannot find that McCoy ever published this evidence.

In the same journal for 1879 Dr. Crowther makes some interesting observations on the platypus, and remarks on p. 96:--“when I tell you that the foetus has been found in utero, and in a hairless condition in the burrow ... (The former of these startling facts I hope to demonstrate to this society soon.)” It is hardly necessary to point out that this hope was never fulfilled.

The matter was not finally settled until 1884. In that year W. H. Caldwell, a Cambridge zoologist who came to Australia specially to investigate the reproduction of monotremes and marsupials, obtained eggs of both platypus and echidna in the Burnett River district of Queensland. He writes (1887, p. 464):--“In the second week of August I had similar stages in Ornithorhynchus, but it was not until the third week that I got the laid eggs from the pouch of Echidna. In the following week (August 24) I shot an Ornithorhynchus whose first egg had been laid; her second egg was in a partially dilated os uteri. This egg, of similar appearance to, though slightly larger than, that of Echidna, was at a stage equal to a 36-hour chick. On the 29th I sent in the telegram ‘Monotremes oviparous, ovum meroblastic’ to a neighbouring station, where it would meet the passing mail-man, addressed to my friend Professor Liversidge, of the Sydney University, asking him to forward it to the British Association at Montreal.”

Caldwell’s cable was read before the Montreal meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in September, 1884, and the scientific world at last had the solution of a question which had troubled it for more than eighty years. Monotremes laid eggs. By a curious coincidence, W. Haacke found on 25 August, 1884, an egg-shell in the pouch of an echidna, and exhibited it before the Royal Society of South Australia on 2 September, the very day on which Caldwell’s cable was read in Montreal. Haacke has made the claim that he first discovered the oviparous nature of the monotremes, but there can be no question that Caldwell has priority.