The Duck-Mole Paradoxus

A wise hero, indeed...

Photo by Doug Gimesy from naturepl.com

Categories make for efficient communication and statistical recordkeeping. They also satisfy the human lust for making things seem simpler than they are. –  Randolph M. Nesse  

Do you ever get the feeling that at your core, somewhere deep inside, you’re so much more than all the labels and categories people use to define you? That your more than your name, your age, your gender, your ethnicity, your job title, your hobbies, your political affiliation, or any of the other descriptors the world uses to pigeonhole you. That whatever it is that makes you you, is essentially undefinable. If so, you’re not alone. Because as it so happens, I have it on good authority that the hero of this tale also feels the same way…

Our hero is an artist that dares to be different. A misfit who does not care to be understood. An outlier who will not be boxed in. And a rebel who held his webbed-middle-finger up to conformity. Most people have no doubt heard this story. It tells of an eccentric creature who stuck so self-assuredly to his guns that when he was first discovered, the categorisers of the world had to come up with a whole new category just to define him. They labelled him a ‘monotreme’. That’s right, our hero is none other than the semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal known as the platypus. And for all the nerds out there, yes, I know the echidna is categorised as a monotreme as well – but this is about the platypus, so relax. Besides, when it comes to being unique the echidna doesn’t have a hedgehogs hope in hell of measuring up to the platypus.

Unlike most mammals the platypus is biofluorescent, which means it glows a bluish green under UV light.¹ It is one of the few species of mammals that emits venom through a spur in the male’s hind foot.² It’s jaw and shoulder bones are distinctly different from that of other mammals.³ It senses it’s food through electroreception.⁴ It sleeps an average of 14 hours a day.⁵ It has the gait of a reptile,⁶ the tail of a beaver, and the beak of a duck. It has 10 sex chromosomes instead of most mammals measly two.⁷ And uniquely among mammals it propels itself through the water by way of a back-and-forth rowing motion using only it’s front feet, leaving its back feet and tail to steer.⁸ In other words, the platypus is one unique son-of-a-bitch. That is why the platypus is our hero: because he is boldly himself. Which is precisely the reason he had the strength of character to defy the people who tried to classify him. To resist the labels they tried to put on him. And to repeatedly laugh in the face of our very human tendency to categorise everything into neat little boxes so we can feel like we ‘understand’ things. See, the platypus is more than just a cute furry hero, he is also a wise teacher who has tried to warn us time and time again about the dangers of categorisation.

                                                                  

Before writing this piece, I consulted The Platypus to ask him what his issue is with our tendency to categorise everything. And he was quick to make a very nuanced point, by reminding me that thinking in terms of categories isn’t all bad. After all, categorising things into groups helps us make sense of things. It helps us discuss and communicate ideas more efficiently. It helps us make generalisations about our complex world in a way that lessens our cognitive load. And it saves us from getting overwhelmed by the infinitely nuance-rich reality in which we find ourselves. Not only that but it is an intrinsic part of how our minds operate. In this way, categorical thinking is an incredibly useful mental tool that helps us humans simplify and organise the world so we can navigate through it. However, The Platypus pointed out that this can be a double-edged sword. Because us humans tend to fall into the trap of oversimplifying things far too much by way of categorisation. And this often gets us into all sorts of trouble. But, luckily for us, The Platypus reminded me of four examples from his own life, of how he has tried to show us humans why it is important to proceed with caution when it comes to categorisation. 

1) Fixed World View    

This photo comes all the way from the London Museum courtesy of a chicken I know (inside joke).

When British naturalists first examined the preserved body of a platypus, they thought it was a hoax.⁹ They were so baffled by this unusual creature that they did not believe it was a real animal. Instead, they thought it had been stitched together from the parts of other animals by some deceptive Asian naturalist.¹⁰

This is a rather good example of how categorical thinking can lead people to believe that their pre-existing categories actually represent some solid truth about reality. It highlights how categorisation can make people believe, this is how things are, as opposed to remembering, this is just how someone decided to arrange the world. The danger of this kind of thinking is that it can result in a fixed world view, where people’s understanding of the world becomes fossilised. The issue with this type of view is that it can lead people to deny new evidence when it conflicts with their existing understanding of the world. See, the British naturalists were so blinded by their belief in the categories as they already were, that rather than acknowledging that maybe their categorisation of the world was wrong – or at least incomplete – they dug their heels in and denied the evidence that was right in front of them. So much so that one of the naturalists even took scissors to the taxidermied platypus to find where it had been stitched together.¹¹ The Platypus told me that the reason people deny new evidence – even when it’s duck-billed self is staring them right in the face – is because when someone’s categories are challenged, their entire conception of reality is challenged.

2) False Sense of Knowing

This illustration comes from a book I have called - ‘The Shy Platypus’ by Lesile Rees.

When scientists were trying to come up with the scientific name for this elusive little water-rat, the name, “Platypus anatinus” was proposed. But it turned out that the genus of that term was already the name of some random beetle.¹² Another scientist had independently named the platypus, “Ornithorhynchus paradoxus” but according to the ‘rules of priority’ within nomenclature that name wouldn’t fly either. And so, in the end the official scientific name for our furry friend became, “Ornithorhynchus anatinus” ¹³ (although, I think ‘paradoxus’ was far more suitable). British settlers also had a hard time deciding what to call this cute little critter. Some of the more common names were, “duckbill”, “duckmole”, and “watermole”.¹⁴ The Australian Aboriginals also have numerous names for this label-hopping duck-otter such as, “Boondaburra”, “Tambreet”, “Mallingong”, and “Oonah”.^15,16  To make things even more interesting, and to answer a question that no doubt burns at the core of many of you: there is no universally agreed plural form of “platypus”. Some say “platypuses”, some simply use “platypus” as a plural, while others (me included) seem to think “platypi” is acceptable. Although apparently “platypi” is considered ‘pseudo-Latin’ according to one rather confident article, which also said that if we were to follow the Greek roots of the word correctly, it would be “platypodes”.¹⁷ And as if all that wasn’t already enough, there is also no agreed term for platypus young, as some say, “platypup” and others say “puggle”.¹⁸ The point is The Platypus defies definitive labels just as ardently as he defies categorisation.

Intrigued by this radical defiance I asked The Platypus why he eschews labels so resolutely. He said that labels and categories are inextricably linked as both are attempts to define things so they can be understood. This can be dangerous because it means that sometimes the labels and categories trick us humans into thinking we understand things more than we do. Just because we label something ‘this or that’ or categorise it ‘here or there’ that doesn’t mean we’ve gained a greater depth of understanding about the thing. “After all,” (he said) “call me a ‘platypus’ or a ‘duckmole paradoxus’ and categorise me as a ‘mammal’ or a ‘monotreme’ it doesn’t change what I am. Nor does it tell you humans anything fundamental about me”. In this way, the danger of getting too carried away with labelling and categorising everything is that it can lead us into this false sense of knowing where we believe we actually understand the territory, when all we really understand is the map.

3) Discrimination of the ‘Other’

This illustration also comes from a book I have called -‘The Shy Platypus’ by Lesile Rees.

In the 19^th century, very little was known about the platypus and other monotremes. This lack of understanding led to some silly myths being formed about these mysterious egg-laying mammals. Some people thought of these creatures as “quasi-reptilian” and others even thought of them as “inferior”.¹⁹ While these bizarre myths have long since vanished, they do highlight another issue with categorical thinking: it can cause division and discrimination.

Categorical thinking can make people favour groups their aligned with and it can make them stereotype and discriminate against groups they’re not. We see this ugly behaviour everywhere from sexism, racism, classism, ageism, and basically anything else you can attach ‘ism’ to. Members of a certain group will make broad generalisations about members of another group in a way that leads them to form unjustified judgements about these ‘others’ such as: all platypuses (or should I say platypi) are “inferior”. And the more people do not understand the ‘other’ – the more harshly they judge, discriminate, and denigrate them. The Platypus told me that so much of the vitriol us humans spit at one another is caused by this very issue. Our insistence on dividing everything up into ‘understandable’ categories has made us uncomfortable with nuance and scared of what we do not understand. And this causes us to persecute and attack those who are different from us, those who we cannot easily put into boxes, and those who challenge our categorisation of the world.

4) Undermines Uniqueness

Photo by David Clode - Unisplash

This Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime story comes from the upper Darling River and is called: The Special Platypus. ²⁰

The story begins with the Ancestor Spirit’s deciding on totems. At this time, all the main animal groups were fighting over who was the most special group. The land animals thought they were the most special because they had fur and could run along the land. The water animals thought they were the most special because they could swim through the vast amount of water that covered the earth. And the birds thought they were the most special because they could fly and lay eggs. One day each of the groups came to the platypus and asked him to join their respective group. The platypus told the groups he would think about it and let them know. Since the platypus had fur and could run on land, had a beak and laid eggs, and could also swim through the water he did not know which group to join. After consulting his family and his friend the echidna, the platypus eventually made his decision. He gathered all the animals together and told them he would not join any group. All the animals were shocked, saying; “You have to join someone’s group!”. But the platypus explained that; “I don’t have to join anyone’s group to be special because I am special in my own way”. He went on to say that; “I don’t know why the ancestors have made us all different, but we must learn to accept all these differences and live with each other”. He also told the other animals that he wished to remain friends with all of them. The other animals accepted what the platypus said and thought he was very wise indeed.²⁰

I love this story. I find it heart-warming, inspiring, and deeply profound. The way I’ve interpreted it* also leads me to believe it is the perfect story to illuminate the last danger of categorical thinking. But just before we get to that, you might notice that The Platypus doesn’t say anything in this last section. He wanted you to know that that’s not because he doesn’t also believe strongly in this issue, but rather that he thought, for this section, it was important I stood behind my words.

Okay, so, the last issue I have with categorical thinking is that not only does it blind us from seeing people as unique individuals, but it can also cause people to hide that special thing that makes them unique. When we let categorical thinking lead us into the trap of seeing people only in terms of the categories they fall into or the labels we’ve placed on them – whether that’s: college graduate, construction worker, unemployed slacker, philosophy nerd, addict, skateboarder, writer, etc – we forget to see the person as a whole. We forget that people are constantly growing and changing. We forget how infinitely complex, nuanced, and unique we all are. We forget that people can be so many different things all at once. And we forget that when we put someone in a box and then think we ‘understand’ them, we’re reducing that person down to a low-resolution version of all they are and all they could be. And what I find truly disheartening about this issue is that sometimes people will do this to themselves. They will shrink their unique, unusual, weird selves down to the way people have defined them. They will dull their shine so they can fit in. And they will start to doubt that they could ever be more than they already are. I know this to be true because I did it to myself. Because here’s the thing: all those categories and labels I just mentioned – college graduate, construction worker, unemployed slacker, philosophy nerd, addict, skateboarder, writer – at one time or another, I identified myself as all those things. I came to think of myself as only those things. I believed I needed to be aligned with those things so I could know who I was. And when those categories and labels started to constrain that special part of me; instead of transcending them, I shrunk myself down so I could stay safely ensconced within them. I hid the weird and colourful part of myself that wanted to break free of those categorical boundaries. And I became nothing more than a hollow caricature of who and what I really was. But eventually, after much soul searching, I realised that I don’t need to hide myself. I don’t need to shrink myself down. And I don’t need to be aligned with anything to know who I am. I finally realised that I am perfectly fine just being me.        

Illustration by Neville W. Cayley            

 

After going over these issues The Platypus and I were discussing how most people are smart reasonable human beings who already understand all the dangers of categorisation. And so, we wanted you to know that our reason for going on about this issue is not because we think everyone is ignorant to it. But rather that since thinking in terms of categories is such an intrinsic part of how our minds operate it is incredibly easy to fall into the trap of overlooking the dangers it creates. It’s one of those things where it’s easy to forget that our minds are always trying to save cognitive energy, which means we often oversimplify things through categorisation in a way that leads to the aforementioned dangers. But that doesn’t mean thinking in terms of categories is bad. It just means that it’s helpful to remember that our minds are always employing this oversimplifying tool – even when things are not that simple. In this way, it's helpful to remember that this tool, which is so good at helping us form an understandable view of the world, is the very same thing that leads us to form a fixed view of the world. It’s helpful to remember that this tool, which helps us label and define things so that we can think more efficiently, is the very same thing that tricks us into thinking we know more than we do. It’s helpful to remember that this tool, which is incredibly useful at helping us identify and connect with people who are similar to us, is the very same thing that causes us to stereotype and discriminate against people who are different from us. And it’s helpful to remember that this tool, which is so good at enabling us to zero-in on the common attributes of members within a group, is the very same thing that not only blinds us from seeing everyone as unique individuals, but also pushes some people to hide that special part of themselves.

And so, I guess what The Platypus and I are getting at is: sometimes the very tools we rely on the most, are also the things that get us into the most trouble. That is why The Platypus is our wise hero because he has been tirelessly fighting to remind us of the dangers of this tool we wield.

---

For anyone who would like to donate to platypus conservation efforts you can do so, here.

*FOOTNOTE: I want to acknowledge that the way I have interpreted this story may not be its only/intended meaning. And so, I mean no disrespect by using the story in this way.

REFERENCES:

Top quote – Nesse. Randolph M. 2019. “Good Reasons for Bad Feelings” Penguin Books. pp25.   

Ref 1 – Weisberger, Mindy. 2020. “Platypuses glow an eerie blue-green under UV light”. Article from livescience.com

Ref 2 – Gerritsen, Vivienne Baillie. 2002. “Platypus poison”. Issue 29. Article from proteinspolight.org.

Ref 3 – Grant, J.R. 2005. “Fauna of Australia” Volume 1b. From Australian Biological Resources Study.

Ref 4 – Pettigrew, John D. 1999. “Electroreception in Monotremes” Journal of Experimental Biology.

Ref 5 – Szondy, David. 2023. “The platypus returns to Australian national park after half a century”. newatlas.com/environment 

Ref 6 – Grant, J.R. 2005. “Fauna of Australia” Volume 1b. From Australian Biological Resources Study.

Ref 7 – Grutzner, Frank. et al. 2004. “In the platypus a meiotic chain of ten sex chromosomes shares genes with the bird Z and the mammal X chromosomes”. Journal – Nature, Volume 432, Issue 7019. pp 913-917.

Ref 8 – Fish, F.E. et al. 1997. “Energetics of swimming by the Platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus: Metabolic Effort Associated with Rowing” The Journal of Experimental Biology.

Ref 9 – “Duck-billed Platypus.” From the Museum of Hoaxes. 29^th July, 2014.

Ref 10 - “Duck-billed Platypus.” 2014. From the Museum of Hoaxes. 29^th July.

Ref 11 – Shaw, George. et al. 1799. “The Duck-Billed Platypus, Platypus anatinus.” The Naturalist’s Miscellany. 10: 385-386.

Ref 12 – Grant, J.R. 2005. “Fauna of Australia” Volume 1b. From Australian Biological Resources Study. 

Ref 13 – Grant, J.R. 2005. “Fauna of Australia” Volume 1b. From Australian Biological Resources Study.

Ref 14 – “Platypus facts file” 2006. Australian Platypus Conservancy.

Ref 15 – Mckay, Helen F.; McLeod, Pauline E.; Jones, Francis F.; Barber, June E. (2001). “Gadi Mirrabooka: Australian Aboriginal Tales from the Dreaming”. Libraries Unlimited. Page 83-85. “The Special Platypus” (Retold with permission by Pauline E. McLeod). 

Ref 16 – Hawke, Tahneal; Bino, Gilad; Kingsford, Richard T. (2020). “A National Assessment of the Conservation Status of the Platypus”. (Report). University of New South Wales (UNSW). Page 11. unsw.edu.au

Ref 17 – “Platypus facts file” 2006. Australian Platypus Conservancy.

Ref 18 – Carmody, Judy. 2011. “Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area: Tour Guide Handbook.” James Cook University, Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility.

Ref 19 – Kirsch, John A. W. et al. 1998. “The platypus is not a rodent: DNA hybridization, amniote phylogeny and the palimpsest theory.” Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 353.  

Ref 20 – Mckay, Helen F.; McLeod, Pauline E.; Jones, Francis F.; Barber, June E. (2001). “Gadi Mirrabooka: Australian Aboriginal Tales from the Dreaming”. Libraries Unlimited. Page 83-85. “The Special Platypus” (Retold with permission by Pauline E. McLeod).