Bizarria Milk and Eggs - the Platypus and the Big Picture 'In the evening, we went with a gun in pursuit of the Platypi & actually killed one… I consider it a great feat, to be in at the death of so wonderful an animal.' Charles Darwin (visiting Sydney in 1836) The platypus is one of our nation's icons - it was a mascot for the Sydney Olympics and it's on our twenty-cent piece. These days the platypus is part of the cute and cuddly brigade. It is protected. When white settlers first came to this land, however, the platypus was a mystery, an oddity, a bit of bizzaria. The platypus was killed for fun. Its pelt made good slippers. But very quickly the little creature acquired another role. Scientific endeavour went hand in hand with British colonisation. The platypus was a hot issue, a prime subject for science. It even figured in imperial rivalry between Britain and France. While the two nations were at war, both were striving for supremacy in science. The anatomy of the platypus defied scientific understanding of the day. It was a tiny thing, but its contribution to the way we see the natural world around us was going to be very BIG. Article Key Questions Sources Internal Hyperlinks Key Learning Areas Article When the first fleet arrived in Australia in 1788, the new inhabitants thought it was a weird place full of weird plants and animals. It was full of things unfamiliar to people of the northern hemisphere. When Aboriginal people saw horses and cows, they were startled; when Europeans saw kangaroos and platypuses, they were startled too. Of all the weird things, the platypus was the weirdest and the most puzzling. For more than a hundred years, observers in Australia and scientists in Europe tried to work out where platypuses fitted into the natural order. Their big question was, 'What is it?' Our big question is: 'Why did this take so long to figure out?' The platypus had a bill like a duck. This is why it was named Ornithorynchus anatinus, or the duck-like bird snout. But unlike a duck it had four legs - it was a quadruped. Dissectors soon after discovered more weirdness. The platypus had a rear end with only one opening for birth and excretion - the same as reptiles - and a reproductive system that suggested birth from eggs. The creature was also fur covered. The female had mammae, or mammary glands though it took more than three decades for collectors and dissectors to discover this fact. These characteristics meant that the platypus was a bizarre mix: 'an unbeatable combination of strangeness', as Stephen Jay Gould puts it. It seemed to have features of a bird, a lizard and a mammal. Although the mammae took a long time to turn up, so to speak, scientists had already noted how the creature was fur-covered and four-legged - like a lot of other mammals. Even more confusing, however, was the make-up of the skull. Platypuses skulls had reptile-like bones. So, the bones in the head were reptile-like, but the head also had a beak like a bird. The body was furry and four-legged, like land-going mammals, but it lived in rivers most of the time, like a fish, or a fresh-water crocodile. Its reproductive system (the one hole in the rear end for birth and excretion) suggested the laying of eggs, something mammals do not do - or so it was thought. Furry things don't lay eggs! Furry things don't come out of eggs!! (Or do they?) 'Nature… leads us a dance in a far continent', wrote Francois Peron, a Frenchman and the first trained zoologist to land in Australia. He was in Port Jackson (Sydney), studying the weirdness, in 1802. Frank Hurley, 1885-1962. [Platypus Northern Territory between 1910 and 1962], transparency: plastic, stereograph; 5.8 x 12.8cm. In: Hurley negative collection: Cold store PIC HURL 370/50/12 National Library of Australia PIC FH/10569. nla.pic-an23605295 Observers were miffed. They were puzzled. They were anxious to solve the riddle of the platypus. Why anxious? Why not just curious? The answer to this question takes us from a study of one little creature to the Big Picture: the whole natural order as it was then understood, and every creature's place in it. Until well into the nineteenth century, many Europeans believed that the natural world was created by God in one mighty act. All creatures of this world seemed to them to have been ordered by God into a 'chain of being' stretching from the lowest forms to the highest, from the simplest amoeba to the most complex of the mammals, human beings. It was thought that humans were so special they were in a category all of their own, separate from apes and other mammals. It was thought that every living creature was more or less perfect from the beginning. Natural history, so it seemed to them, was unchanging, a mere glimpse into 'the secret cabinet of God'. There was no truly scientific understanding of 'evolution'. But understandings of the natural order were changing fast. In several branches of science, field-workers and scholars were making important discoveries - in botany, in geology, in zoology and in the new field of 'palaeontology' (the study of fossils). Fossil-hunting was especially revealing. Incredibly old bones and wonderfully weird fossils provided important evidence about how the natural order had changed over time. Throughout the nineteenth century, careful study of fossils in layers and patterns in rocks (the geological strata) revealed astonishing things. Vast numbers of species, like dinosaurs, had become extinct. Reptiles stalked the land long before mammals. Only in (geologically) recent times had the fauna of the present world appeared. Some current creatures, like elephants, had clearly 'evolved' from earlier forms, like mammoths. The 'chain' of God's making was clearly rattled. The idea of 'God's cabinet' seemed more and more unlikely. Some who wanted to cling to this idea had to modify their theory. They maintained that God must have created the natural world several times over, with vast intervals between one act of creation and another, probably after catastrophes like Ice Ages, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. These people opted for a modified Biblical interpretation. Choubard, fl. 1807-1830. Nouvelle-Hollande, nelle. Galles du sud, ornithorinque. . print: colour engraving; hand coloured; plate mark 24.2 x 31cm. Rex Nan Kivell Collection; NK660. National Library of Australia PIC U3146. nla.pic-an7568602. Going South Another great driving force toward a better understanding in all of these fields was exploration of the southern hemisphere. In the eighteenth century, European explorers and traders crossed the oceans and circled the globe regularly. Scientists, amateur and professional, often went with them. Naval captains and scientists were regular shipmates. Captain Cook and Sir Joseph Banks are one well-known pair. Francois Peron and his Captain, Nicolas Baudin, were another. All were keen to discover the secrets of the natural world. On the journey from Australia back to France, Baudin turned his officers out of their cabins to accommodate the live specimens that Peron and others collected. Baudin and Peron's wombats and emus, a swan, one dingo, a tortoise and some parrots went first class. The officers grumbled. Some of them - the animals not the officers - ended up in a menagerie in empress Josephine's garden at Malmaison, just to the west of Paris. Many a captain was also an amateur naturalist. Captain Bligh's notebooks included descriptions of strange new creatures. Sometimes a beautiful drawing accompanied his words. Once, in 1792, he met an echidna. 'It had no mouth like any other animal,' he noted, 'but a kind of duck bill which opens at the extremity where it will not admit the size of a pistol.' The number of new creatures encountered in the southern hemisphere was astonishing. Some of these creatures created no problems for the 'chain of being'. They might be a bit odd, but they clearly had a place somewhere on the chain. They were there in 'God's cabinet' and had been since creation; Europeans just hadn't seen them before. The kangaroo, for instance, was clearly a mammal. It met all the criteria. It was furry. It was land going. It gave birth to live young. The mother had mammae or nipples to suckle them. To be sure, it moved about in the strangest way, and its pouch was a bit of a surprise, as was the 'premature birth' of its young (or that's the way it seemed). The platypus, on the other hand, was a major problem. It didn't seem to fit anywhere on the chain. The major classes of vertebrates (creatures with a backbone) were fish, birds, reptiles and mammals. The platypus did not fit neatly into any of these. One English naturalist was so puzzled his only explanation was 'random promiscuity': only a 'promiscuous intercourse between the different sexes of all these animals,' he said, 'could possibly have produced such a creature.' He was way off, but his 'theory' was a measure of the confusion. Don't try to imagine what he meant! The platypus upset established understandings. It seemed to be a 'misfit'. Its oddness challenged thinking about the natural order and helped undermine the whole concept of a 'chain of being'. This upset not only thinking about the natural order but also about God's role in the universe. Hence the great anxiety. Was it a hoax? Chinese taxidermists sometimes fooled and defrauded Europeans with the upper half of monkeys cleverly stitched onto the hind parts of fish. But no, after careful examination, it was clear this was no colonial prank. This was a real animal and as weird as could be. Some explanation was required. Scholars in England wanted specimens to slice and study. They encouraged hunters in New South Wales to go out and kill platypuses, bottle them in spirits and send them home to London where they went under the sharp knife and the steady hand of the anatomist. One collector caught three platypuses on the Yass River and brought them, locked in a box, to Sydney by horseback. He wanted to domesticate them and send live specimens to London. One died on the way to Sydney. The others ran about his house in terror, slept a lot, perhaps to ease their agony, and died from anxiety and want of the right food. The platypus was a tiny little thing, but its possible impact on the Big Picture made it a focal point for investigation. French scholars also muscled their way into platypus study - in science, as in trade, there was fierce rivalry between the great powers of Europe. There was a lot of speculation, a lot of hot air and many learned papers. Even while England and France were at war - as they were in the revolutionary and Napoleonic eras off and on between 1792 and 1815 - their scientists were both competing for supremacy in science and swapping notes. In 1802, Sir Joseph Banks sent a platypus specimen to Napoleon, the greatest patron of science in France. Language was no barrier. Platypus literature criss-crossed Europe. Translators went to work. Experts agreed and disagreed and took long walks so they could take it all in. Enthusiasts in the colony did their own dissecting too. As Ann Moyal writes in her fine book Platypus (2001): 'The warm-blooded, furred, genitally peculiar animal from the antipodes plainly represented some kind of transitional form, an unexpected bridge between the categories of mammal/quadruped and reptiles and birds.' (p. 41) Someone had to make sense of it. Good Platypus Hunting • There were practical questions to be answered: did this little thing give birth to live young?, or • did it lay eggs?, or • did it, like some lizards, hatch young from eggs within the female's body and then give birth? Furthermore, • did the females really have mammae, or • did they give milk to their young? Or, shock horror, might the platypus possess a combination of these characteristics? That was thought to be impossible. There was no place in the 'chain of being' for something that laid eggs and gave milk because eggs were supposed to come from things well down the 'chain of being', relatively primitive things; while milk came from mammals, supposedly the category occupying the top rungs. How could a creature be in two places at once! A milk-producing, egg-laying animal - that just seemed preposterous. Getting answers to these questions was difficult because the platypus was a shy creature, hard to spot, quick to dive deep. It was very secretive about its breeding habits. The female, especially, was hard to catch. Even when caught and killed, the female's mammary glands were hard to identify outside breeding season - not even the anatomists in Europe could spot them and be sure of what they were looking at. As for the eggs, very few white hunters knew about the burrows where they would find them. So, was it milk or eggs or milk and eggs? A crucial moment in the journey to a better understanding came in 1824. The German anatomist, Johann Meckel, announced that he had found mammary glands in a platypus specimen. They seemed primitive. They opened directly onto the skin with no sign of nipples. Still, they were mammary glands. A French biologist, Etienne Geoffroy St- Hilaire would not believe it. 'If these are mammary glands,' he demanded, 'where is the butter?' M. St-Hilaire raised one good objection - how could a baby creature with a beak suck milk? He did not know that the so-called 'beak' took time to mature; little platypuses are, indeed, good suckers. He reckoned the so-called milk was at best a nutritious mucus or perhaps a liquid to attract a mate, similar in function to the 'musk' exuded by male deer. Two years later the Frenchman lost the argument. He lost it to Richard Owen. Owen was an 'Olympian figure' in English science, a man who hobnobbed with lords, archbishops and royalty and in his later years lived in a mansion given to him by Queen Victoria. Someone said Owen had 'enough brains to fill two hats'. In 1834 he dissected two 'neonates', two baby platypuses, sent to him by a soldier in New South Wales. He discovered two things - the infant's mouth was not 'duck-like' in that early stage, and there was milk in both stomachs. Round 1 to Richard Owen. What about the rumoured eggs? The hunt went on. Owen refused to believe that platypuses laid eggs. His own firm view of creation made it difficult for him to believe that species might evolve and transform from one thing into another. The natural order, he believed, was like a watch. Every bit was fully shaped and formed by the creator and then set in motion. Bits of a watch don't dramatically transform into something else; they just do what they were meant to do. Similarly, mammals were supposed to do what they are meant to do: give birth to live young. They don't lay eggs. Owen was a prisoner of his own Big Picture. He could only think of one model of creation. He could not see that the platypus was a kind of 'freeze-frame' of the evolutionary process. He could not even begin to imagine, as Charles Darwin did, that the transformation of the platypus had simply been arrested, or held up, by the fact that it worked so well in its habitat on the east coast of the land that we now call Australia. In its contrariness, the platypus confirmed Darwin's theory of evolution: each living form is descended from some 'differently constructed ancestor'. Isolated from predators in pristine streams, platypuses had all the food they needed and the great privacy and security of their burrows. They had not changed much in a very very long time. This creature fascinated Darwin and he wrote about it in his famous book the Origin of Species as a great survivor. An Evolutionist finally finds the Eggs - Why? Now Aborigines had told hunters that the platypus laid eggs, but their evidence was considered unreliable. Hearsay among farmers and part-time naturalists confirmed this too. But science was reluctant to believe it. Even stranger was the many decades it took to convince hunters that they would find eggs in the burrows. Finding the burrows and tracing their course was extremely laborious. The Aborigines had mastered this art. It is perhaps no surprise that in 1884, an evolutionist found platypus eggs. Darwin's idea of evolution was still not widely liked. His sensational findings published in the Origin of Species in 1859 caused uproar. Many people, scientists included, Richard Owen included, hated and feared the idea of evolution. The man who found the eggs was William Caldwell, a young Scottish biologist. He was born in 1859 and reared on the ideas of Charles Darwin. He solved the egg puzzle. First he got himself to Australia with a travelling fellowship from Cambridge University. Next he journeyed to Queensland. There, on the Burnett River, he organised a large contingent of Aborigines to hunt and kill echidnas and platypuses. Over 1300 echidnas were killed. How many platypuses were shot or speared we do not know but probably another big number. On so many fronts now, in so many places, natural science was marching forward on the carcasses of thousands of 'specimens'. In the third week of the hunt, Caldwell got his answer. On 24 August 1884, he shot a platypus and made biological history. Her first egg had been laid; her second was on the way. He telegraphed his news to a great science meeting in Montreal where one top scientist declared that no more important news had ever been cabled across the world. The eggs proved, once and for all, that the platypus was a link between reptiles and mammals. The platypus was a 'freeze-frame'. It helped prove that life was in motion, but not like clockwork. It all seemed a matter of evolution. Darwin had already died in 1882 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Richard Owen was still going. He had campaigned fiercely against having the 'Devil's Chaplain' in the Abbey. Two years later, after Caldwell found the eggs, one of Richard Owen's faithful collectors wrote to him from New South Wales: 'Who would have thought,' he wrote, 'that an animal with so large a milk gland should actually demean itself by laying small white eggs'. Indeed. By Peter Cochrane BACK TO TOP Key Questions What does this story tell us about how people learned in the past? Think about where the people of the past in this story went wrong and why, in trying to 'explain' the platypus. Might we be like them, in the same or in other ways? If so, why; if not, why not? What lessons should we historians draw from the examples in this story? To avoid errors, like those made by the natural historians in this story, what advice would you offer in general to historians trying to find out about the past? BACK TO TOP References The best book on this subject is Ann Moyal, Platypus. The Extraordinary Story of How a Curious Creature Baffled the World, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 2001. (Recently released in paperback) Other helpful sources include: Tom Grant, The Platypus: a Unique Mammal, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney 1995. Various books of essays by Stephen Jay Gould are also full of discussion about evolution, for example: Bully for Brontosaurus, W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 1991, esp. pp. 272-78 on the platypus, and The Flamingo's Smile. Reflections in Natural History, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1985, esp. ch.23., pp. 347-59 ('Darwin at Sea'). BACK TO TOP Internal Hyperlinks One opening for birth and excretion This is referred to as a 'monotreme'. RETURN TO TEXT Stephen Jay Gould Stephen Jay Gould is an American academic who writes award-winning books about evolution. He writes for a general audience. His language is accessible but he does not simplify concepts. He is a good read, informative and full of fun. His essays are short and punchy, many of them about 10 pages long - very handy. References to two of his books are in the Sources section at the end of this article. Here are some websites which offer more about the man and his ideas: http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/index.html http://www.annonline.com/interviews/961009/biography.html http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ RETURN TO TEXT Evolution Evolution is the theory developed by Charles Darwin and first published in his Origin of Species in 1859. The gist of 'evolution' theory is the that each living creature is descended from some 'differently constructed ancestor'. RETURN TO TEXT Malmaison Try this website. You can tour empress Josephine's chateau de Malmaison (1799), look at the pictures and better still test out your French: http://www.mairie-rueilmalmaison.fr/decouvrir/patrimoine/chateau_accueil.htm RETURN TO TEXT Ann Moyal Ann Moyal is a well known historian of Australian science who has held research and teaching positions at a number of Australian universities. She has written many books in her field including Scientists in Nineteenth-Century Australia: A Documentary History (1975), A Bright and Savage Land: Science in Colonial Australia (1993), Clear Across Australia: A History of Telecommunications since 1788 (1984) and Portraits in Science (1994). RETURN TO TEXT Etienne Geoffroy St-Hilaire Here is a site about this French scientist, 1772-1844: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/hilaire.html RETURN TO TEXT Richard Owen Here is a site about this English scientist, 1804-92: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/owen.html RETURN TO TEXT Watch Archdeacon William Paley used the analogy of a watch and a watchmaker to illustrate his account of the creation of the natural order. He published this account in his book, Natural Theology which first appeared in 1802, and was a widely read text throughout the nineteenth century. Paley believed that everything in the world had a designer and that designer was God. His notion of creation was very 'hands on'. The idea of the watch and the watchmaker was perfect for his purposes. The watchmaker creates an intricate machine and sets it in motion. The idea, as Ann Moyal writes, is one 'of complete and regulated design. His book was prescribed reading in the universities.' For more information on Paley, consult these sites: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html RETURN TO TEXT Owen Owen knew that evidence of egg shell had been found in the 'hinder halves' of female platypuses. So he decided that that creature probably hatched eggs within its body, then gave birth to live young. On the 'chain of being' he placed it somewhere between reptile and mammal. RETURN TO TEXT Charles Darwin Darwin is one of the world's greatest ever scientists. A good guide to his life and career is: http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html http://www.strangescience.net/darwin.htm RETURN TO TEXT Echidnas The echidna was closely related to the platypus and posed similar problems for scholars. Whether or not the echidna laid eggs was also a big question which Caldwell was able to answer in the affirmative. RETURN TO TEXT BACK TO TOP Key Learning Areas ACT High School Band C Individual experience of environments. C Widely accepted beliefs in Australia and the values underlying them. Diversity of ideological perspectives that influence human relationships and the environment. Senior Syllabus Individual Case Studies. NSW Level 4 Topic 5: Optional Study: The Shaping of the Modern World. Level 5 Focus Issue 1: What has been the nature of the relationship between Australia and the rest of the world? Level 6 Option 17: The Nature of Western Imperialism in the 19th Century. Students investigate the changing interpretations of evidence relating to Western colonisation in the 19th Century. Option 22: The Arrival of the British in Australia - expansion and exploration. QLD Level 6 TCC Cultural constructions of evidence. TCC Ethical behaviour of people in the past. SA Level 4 TCC 4.1 Suggests and justifies reasons why groups of people in societies, countries or civilisations have undergone changes in wealth and/or their ability to sustain natural resources. PSE 4.6 Identifies and describes ways that places and natural environments are valued or threatened, and discusses strategies related to ecological sustainability. Level 5 TCC 5.1 Critically analyses different interpretations of events, ideas and issues, including an understanding of the relationship between power and historical representation. Australian History Topic 2. The Bush Experience and Survival on the Land: Agriculture, Pastoralism, and Mining, 1788 to the Present. TAS Australian History - 11/12 HS730B: 2: The European entry - perceptions and misconceptions. 11: Researching the past. VIC VCE Australian History Unit 3: Section 1, The colonial experience to 1850. VCE Australian History Unit 3: Section 2, From colony to Nation: 1850-1901. Environmental impact of settlement. WA Level 4 TCC 4.1 The student understands that there is a sequence and order to the significant events, people and ideas of the past and these can be related within particular time periods. Level 5 TCC 5.1 The students understands that, when comparing the significant events, people and ideas in one time period with those of another, changing and lasting aspects are evident in communities and societies. C 5.1 The student understands that cultural beliefs and traditions can change over time. Level 6 TCC 6.1 The student understands that present-day communities and societies have been shaped by the changing and lasting aspects of significant events, people and ideas from the past. C 6.1 The student understands that contemporary cultures reflect change and continuity in beliefs and traditions. Level 7.1 The student understands that change or continuity in cultural beliefs and traditions influences the interaction between cultures.
Pages to are hidden for
"BizarriaMilk and Eggs - the Platypus and the Big Picture"Please download to view full document