Talk:Platypus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Peer review Platypus has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Main Page trophy Platypus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 4, 2004.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Flag Platypus is part 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.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Australia Portal.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
WikiProject Australia To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use monotreme and marsupial resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2001 – June 2006

Contents

[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)

[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)

[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)

[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)

[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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/a/Talk%7EPlatypus_4559.html"