BizarriaMilk and Eggs - the Platypus and the Big Picture by wgh24763


                      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
  Article   Key Questions    Sources Internal Hyperlinks Key Learning Areas


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.

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
           Choubard, fl. 1807-1830. Nouvelle-Hollande, nelle. Galles du sud, ornithorinque. [1807].
              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

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

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

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?


   •   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

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


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?



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').


Internal Hyperlinks

One opening for birth and excretion
This is referred to as a 'monotreme'.


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:


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'.

Try this website. You can tour empress Josephine's chateau de Malmaison
(1799), look at the pictures and better still test out your French:


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).


Etienne Geoffroy St-Hilaire
Here is a site about this French scientist, 1772-1844:


Richard Owen
Here is a site about this English scientist, 1804-92:


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:


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.


Charles Darwin
Darwin is one of the world's greatest ever scientists. A good guide to his life
and career is:


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.



Key Learning Areas

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.

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.

Level 6
TCC Cultural constructions of evidence.
TCC Ethical behaviour of people in the past.

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

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.

Australian History - 11/12 HS730B:
2: The European entry - perceptions and misconceptions.
11: Researching the past.

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.

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.

To top