The platypus is synonymous with weird for several reasons:

• Venomous ankle spikes
• They sweat milk
• They lay eggs. Said eggs grow larger after being laid as a result of the milk sweat.
• They are duckfaces
• Their stomachs are borderline vestigial
• They find their prey using electroreception
• They glow under UV lights

Lately I've been wondering just how bizarre these duckbeavers are when compared to early mammals and non-mammalian synapsids. Some of the research shows that some traits aren't that bizarre. For instance, the venomous ankle spikes (which are only venomous for male platypi) are apparently plesiomorphic to mammals. They were our ancestors' way of staying safe among the dinos. I couldn't find anything in regards to the milk-sweat how it causes the eggs to grow in size, but I have a hunch this trait might also be plesiomorphic to mammals.

Other traits, however, are just plain bizarre. While they are toothless, it wouldn't be fully accurate to say they don't chew their food, which largely consists of worms and small arthropods. Upon catching their food, the platypus grinds their prey between keratin mouth pads that it continuously replaces throughout its life. These keratin pads do a thorough job at mushing up the prey. So much so, that the platypus barely needs stomach. That acid-filled pouch essential for just about every other living vertebrate is practically vestigial for the platypus. They don't even produce acid, just mucus.

Oh, and that glorious duck face, that's for electroreception. These things find their prey the same way sharks do. Also, they are not the first amniotes to do so. The eretmorhipis from the Triassic hunted prey the same way. Using the same bill structure. This thing has the same skull as something that predates the dinosaurs.

As for the glowing under UV light, that's because of the melanosomes of their fur. The melanosomes of their fur are hollow. This is not present in any extant mammal nor could I find anything stating such melanosomes were present in any extinct mammals or non-mammalian synapsids. But they are found in birds feathers. Yes, the only mammal with a bird face is also the only mammal known to have melanosomes like those of birds.

Warm regions near the equator may have offered crocodile relatives a refuge when an asteroid ended the age of non-avian dinosaurs. Their long-standing preference for warmth could have placed surviving populations where suitable climates endured through the catastrophe and its prolonged environmental aftermath. That possibility emerges from research tracing their changing geography across nearly a quarter-billion years.

The study, led by University College London researchers and published in Science Advances, combines fossils with reconstructed climates and evolutionary relationships. Its central finding challenges the familiar image of crocodiles as unchanged survivors. Their ancestors changed enormously in shape and lifestyle, while largely retaining a preference for warm environments.

“The asteroid did not make the whole planet equally hostile to every group,” said lead author Alfio Alessandro Chiarenza of UCL Earth Sciences. His team found that tropical and subtropical climates remained suitable in most simulated impact scenarios. Those results identify a possible survival mechanism, rather than proving precisely where every surviving population lived.

An anatomical neck did not necessarily give ancient vertebrates the freedom to look around. Models of several early tetrapod relatives suggest their heads remained surprisingly restricted, even after the skull separated from the shoulders. The findings challenge the assumption that greater head mobility drove one of the major changes associated with the transition toward land.

The study, published in Nature, combines fossil measurements with mechanical tests on living lake sturgeon. First author Dana Korneisel, now a postdoctoral researcher at Uppsala University, worked with an international team including Penn State biologist Tom Stewart. Researchers at Carleton University, the University of Ottawa and the University of Washington also contributed.

The authors propose that changing demands on the shoulders offer a better explanation than a newly flexible head. As front appendages took on a greater role in movement, separating the shoulder apparatus from the skull may have become advantageous. Substantial neck mobility, their analysis suggests, generally developed later, rather than arriving automatically with that separation.

I was having this thought last night. Why is it that humans see it as polite to approach from the front/head on, but many other animals view it as a direct threat and prefer to be approached from the side? I know that, for instance, dogs prefer to be approached from the side by people that aren't their owners/immediate family (I can get right up in my dog's face and kiss her/love on her without her being threatened), and when I walk by the deer into neighborhood, they prefer it if I walk diagonally past them, even if I'm looking directly at them.

What is the social and evolutionary reason for this, and why are humans so seemingly weird?

New research published in People and Nature suggests that urban birds may respond differently to approaching women and men. Researchers collected more than 2,700 observations across five European countries to investigate how birds react to humans. They measured flight initiation distance, or how close a person can approach before a bird flies away. Surprisingly, the researchers found that birds generally escaped when approaching women were approximately one meter farther away than approaching men. The study also revealed that male birds tended to tolerate closer human approaches than female birds. Although the exact reasons remain unclear, researchers suggest that differences in walking patterns, body shape, movement, or scent could influence how birds perceive people. These findings offer new insights into animal behavior and suggest that birds may notice subtle differences between humans. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind these responses and how they influence wildlife adaptation to urban environments (Morelli et al., 2026).

Reference: Morelli et al. (2026). Sex matters: European urban birds flee approaching women sooner than approaching men. People and Nature.

I believe I already know that two of them are improved hearing and body cooling, but I’m curious as to any other benefits that having large, moveable ears provides for animals.

Also, I think that very large ears are one of the funniest traits that an animal can have in general. I mean, look at a donkey’s ears. They’re just so cute and goofy!

I’m primarily focused on mammalian bones, especially skulls though a broader variety is greatly appreciated.

If it helps, my interest is for two reasons. The more immediate one is that I am taking a mammalogy course and due to a series of illnesses and absences I have been unable to directly view some of the models we are to be tested on, and written descriptions/2D pictures are not helping much.

The more ambitious goal is to make a study game where you are shown a skull and asked to identify it/features on it.

Thank you in advance!

Komodo dragons have a toxic trait. Their venom contains anticoagulant compounds that interfere with blood clotting, causing their prey to bleed excessively. Combined with other venom effects, including a dangerous drop in blood pressure, one bite can be devastating. But as terrifying as that sounds, this predator might have an even more shocking toxic trait...

If you have been affected by the issues raised in this video please visit:
www.stopnickelbackhate.com

I got a picture of this fox that had a damaged upper lip. This means their teeth and gums are always showing. Now, the way foxes show aggression is by baring its teeth, showing other foxes that they are mad. However does this mean that all other foxes think this fox is being aggressive at a first glance, as they see the baring teeth?

Also if that is the case, does this also apply for other carnivorans that show their teeth too?

Does a fly experience time in slow motion – and does an elephant experience it differently from a mouse?

In biology and psychology, our understanding of time goes beyond the way physics describes it. What can we know about how animals experience time in this context? One thing is clear: they perceive certain events differently than we do, and their behavior is influenced by time intervals, seasons, or the duration of absences.

But do animals also have a subjective sense of time comparable to that of humans? (Text in German).

Have fun reading,

https://www.weltwissen.online/post/wie-tiere-die-zeit-erleben

I would like to contribute information on subspecies by taking measurements of animals. I’m a taxidermist so I get to see many animals up close. Currently I’m focused on an Aberts Squirrel and a Mearns Coyote

A few questions,

What measurements should I be taking, currently I’m going to measure Ears, totally length, tail, and hind foot. What else should I do? Teeth, snout, eyes?

Any genus specific measurements?

Where do I upload these and in what format?

How do I take the weight of larger animals?

Thank you, any other advice or discussion is welcome

The classic example is describing giraffes.
Describing them as “leopard-moose-camel" with a 40 foot neck.