![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
SUMMARY
The duck-billed platypus, or Ornithorhynchus, was the subject of an intense debate among natural historians in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Its paradoxical mixture of mammalian, avian and reptilian characteristics made it something of a taxonomic conundrum. In the early 1820s Robert Jameson (1774–1854), the professor of natural history at the University of Edinburgh and the curator of the University's natural history museum, was able to acquire three valuable specimens of this species. He passed one of these on to the anatomist Robert Knox (1791–1862), who dissected the animal and presented his results in a series of papers to the Wernerian Natural History Society, which later published them in its Memoirs. This paper takes Jameson's platypus as a case study on how natural history specimens were used to create and contest knowledge of the natural world in the early nineteenth century, at a time when interpretations of the relationships between animal taxa were in a state of flux. It shows how Jameson used his possession of this interesting specimen to provide a valuable opportunity for his protégé Knox while also helping to consolidate his own position as a key figure in early nineteenth-century natural history.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to John Henry and Catherine Laing for reading through the manuscript of this paper and making many helpful suggestions for improvements. My thanks are also due to David Philip Miller, Oliver Hill-Andrews and the two anonymous reviewers for the Annals of Science for their valuable and insightful comments. I would also like to thank Sue Beardmore of Elgin Museum for her help in tracking down George Gordon’s notes from Robert Jameson's lectures and Morven Donald of the National Museums of Scotland for guiding me through the records of the University of Edinburgh's College Museum in search of Robert Jameson's platypuses.
ORCiD
Bill Jenkins http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0625-2685
Notes
1 In this paper I will refer to the creature as the platypus, as this was the term commonly applied to the animal in the early nineteenth century, as it still is today.
2 [William Macgillivray], Catalogue of the Museum of the College of Edinburgh, Natural History Department Registers, Library of the National Museum of Scotland, p. 53.
3 Ann Moyal, Platypus: The Extraordinary Story of How a Curious Creature Baffled the World (Washington, DC, 2001); Brian K. Hall, ‘Thinking of Biology: The paradoxical platypus’, Bioscience 49(3) (1999), 211–18.
4 Peter Hobbins, ‘A Spur to Atavism: Placing Platypus Poison’, Journal of the History of Biology 48 (2015), 499–537. Hobbins includes a very useful account of Robert Knox’s contribution.
5 Jacob W. Gruber, ‘Does the platypus lay eggs? The history of an event in science’, Archives of Natural History 18(1) (1991), 51–123. Pietro Corsi also makes some perceptive remarks about the important role of Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772–1844) in the debate. See Pietro Corsi, ‘The revolutions of evolution: Geoffroy and Lamarck, 1825–1840’ (2011), pp. 10–11 http://hsmt.history.ox.ac.uk/staff/documents/Corsi_Lamarckinthe1830s_Oct2011.pdf [accessed 6 May 2014].
6 Nicolaas Rupke, Richard Owen: Biology without Darwin (Chicago, 2009), pp. 43–52.
7 Rupke (note 6), p. 44.
8 See, for example, Adrian Desmond, The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London (Chicago, IL, 1989) and James A. Secord, ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians: Robert Jameson and Robert E. Grant’, Journal of the History of Biology 24 (1991), 1–18.
9 Wernerian Natural History Society, Minutes of the Wernerian Society, 1808–58. 2 vols. University of Edinburgh Library, Dc.2.55, f.297.
10 Carl Linnaeus, Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, 2nd edn, vol 1 (Stockholm, 1758), pp. 18–19.
11 Georges Cuvier, La Règne Animal, Distribué d’après son Organisation, vol. 1 (Paris, 1817), pp. 81–287.
12 William Lawrence, ‘Introduction’, in J.F. Blumenbach, A Short System of Comparative Anatomy (trans. William Lawrence) (London, 1827), pp. xvi–xxii.
13 Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Zoologie Philosophique, vol. 1 (Paris, 1809), 343–47. Lamarck did not include the Ornithorhynchus among the mammals, but rather regarded them as intermediate forms between birds and mammals.
14 David Collins, An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales (London, 1804), p. 427.
15 George Shaw, ‘The Duck-billed Platypus’, The Naturalist's Miscellany, 10 (1799), 228–32 (228).
16 Thomas Bewick, A General History of the Quadrupeds (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1800), p. 521.
17 J.F. Blumenbach, A Short System of Comparative Anatomy (trans. William Lawrence) (London, 1807), p. 472.
18 Londa Schiebinger, ‘Why mammals are called mammals: Gender politics in eighteenth-century natural history’, The American Historical Review, 98 (1993), 382–411 (382).
19 Everard Home, ‘A description of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 92(1) (1802), 67–84 (81–82).
20 Everard Home, ‘Description of the anatomy of Ornithorhynchus hystrix’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 92 (1802), 348–64 (360–61).
21 Home (note 20), 361.
22 Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, MA, 1964), p. 52. For a detailed analysis and critique of Lovejoy's ideas see William F. Bynum: ‘The Great Chain of Being after Forty Years: An Appraisal’, History of Science, 13 (1975), 1–28.
23 William Smellie, The Philosophy of Natural History (Edinburgh, 1790), p. 520.
24 Smellie (note 23), p. 55.
25 Anon, Notes of John Walker's lectures on natural history (1791), Edinburgh University Library, Dc.10.33, f.37.
26 George Shaw, General Zoology or Systematic Natural History (London, 1800), p. 232.
27 Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Catalogue des Mammifères du Museum d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris, 1803), pp. 222–26.
28 Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Philosophie Zoologique, 2 vols (Paris, 1809) I, p. 145.
29 ‘qu'il devenait nécessaire de voir en eux l'essence d'un nouveau type, d'établir pour eux une cinquième classe parmi les animaux vertébrés.’ Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, ‘Considérations sur des œufs d’Ornithorinque, formant de nouveaux documens pour la question de la classification des Monotrêmes’, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 28 (1829), 157–64 (158).
30 Georges Cuvier, Le Règne Animal Distribué d’après son Organisation, 2 vols, (Paris, 1817), II, p. 226.
31 John Fleming, Philosophy of Zoology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1822), p. 215.
32 Henry Lonsdale, A Sketch of the Life and Writings of Robert Knox the Anatomist (London, 1870), p. 116.
33 [Robert Jameson], ‘List of Members of the Wernerian Natural History Society of Edinburgh, – continued from Vol. III’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, 4 (1823), 586–89 (588).
34 Editor's footnote to Robert Knox, ‘Observations on the organs of digestion and their appendages, and on the organs of respiration and circulation, in the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, 5(1) (1824), 144–50 (144).
35 Scottish Universities Commission (1826), Evidence, Oral and Documentary, Taken and Received by the Commissioners Appointed by His Majesty George IV., July 23d, 1826; and Re-appointed by His Majesty William IV., October 12th, 1830; for Visiting the Universities of Scotland. Volume 1. University of Edinburgh (London, 1837), p. 142.
36 William MacGillivray, Weekly Report Book of the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, vol. 1, from 18th March, 1822 to 19th July 1823, Natural History Department Registers, Library of the National Museum of Scotland, 185–86.
37 MacGillivray (note 36), 156.
38 Scottish Universities Commission (1826), Evidence, Oral and Documentary, Taken and Received by the Commissioners Appointed by His Majesty George IV., July 23d, 1826; and Re-appointed by His Majesty William IV., October 12th, 1830; for Visiting the Universities of Scotland. Volume 1. University of Edinburgh (London, 1837), p. 142.
39 Sharon Macdonald, ‘Collecting practices’, in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. by Sharon Macdonald, (London, 2006), p. 82.
40 Desmond, (note 8), 50.
41 Evelleen Richards, ‘The "Moral Anatomy" of Robert Knox: The Interplay between Biological and Social Thought in Victorian Scientific Naturalism’, Journal of the History of Biology, 22 (1989), 373–436 (399).
42 Robert Knox, ‘Enquiries into the philosophy of zoology. Part 1. – On the dentition of Salmonidae’, The Zoologists: A Popular Miscellany of Natural History, 13 (1855), 4789–90.
43 Lonsdale (note 32), p. 36. Lonsdale incorrectly remembered the title of Jameson's journal in this quotation; it was in fact entitled the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal rather than the Quarterly Philosophical Journal.
44 [Robert Jameson], ‘Proceedings of the Wernerian Natural History Society’, Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, 6 (1821–22), 172–73 (172).
45 A.W. Bates, The Anatomy of Robert Knox: Murder, Mad Science and Medical Regulation in Nineteenth-Century Edinburgh (Brighton, 2010), pp. 44–47.
46 See Knox, ‘An account of the Foramen centrale of the retina generally called the Foramen of Soemmering, as seen in the eyes of certain reptiles’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, 5(1) (1824), 1–7; Knox, ‘Inquiry into the origin and characteristic differences of the native races inhabiting the extra-tropical part of southern Africa’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, 5(1) (1824), 206–19; Robert Knox, ‘On the Wombat of Flinders’, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1 (1826), 104–12; Knox, ‘Observations on the duck-billed animal of New South Wales, the Ornithorynchus paradoxus of naturalists. Memoir I. On the organs of sense, and on the anatomy of the poison gland and spur’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, 5(1) (1824), 26–41; and Robert Knox, ‘Notice respecting the presence of a rudimentary spur in the female echidna of New Holland’, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1 (1826), 130–32.
47 Robert Knox, ‘Memoir III. On the kidneys, urinary bladder, and organs of generation, in the male of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, 5(1) (1824), 151– 60 (151).
48 Plinian Natural History Society, Abstract of the proceedings of the Plinian Society from its first meeting Jan 14, 1823, to July 25, 1826, Session II. 1823–4, Centre for Research Collections, Edinburgh University Library, SD 6944/1, p.13
49 Robert Knox (note 47), 158
50 Robert Knox, ‘Observations on the anatomy of the duckbilled animal of New South Wales, the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus of naturalists: Memoir I. On the organs of sense, and on the anatomy of the poison-gland and spur’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, 5(1) (1824), 26–41 (27).
51 Knox (note 50), 27
52 Hobbins (note 4), 509.
53 Although, as we have seen above, Home actually believed the Ornithorhynchus to be ovoviviparous.
54 Knox (note 47), 153.
55 Robert Knox, ‘Memoir IV. On the osseous, muscular and nervous systems of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus’, Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, 5(1) (1824), 161–74 (161).
56 Knox (note 55), 165.
57 Knox (note 55), 172.
58 William MacGillivray, Weekly Report Book of the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, Vol. 1, from 18th March, 1822 to 19th July 1823, Natural History Department Registers, Library of the National Museum of Scotland, 228. Knox's involvement with the platypus did not in fact end here. In 1826 he published a description of the rudimentary spur of a female specimen of a platypus provided by Robert Jameson in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, a periodical edited by Jameson. See Robert Knox, ‘Notice respecting the presence of a rudimentary spur in the female echidna of New Holland’, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1 (1826), 130–32.
59 Robert Jameson, zoology lectures, 1822 (notes taken by George Gordon), Elgin Museum, L1987.5.3 (28/5), f.48 recto.
60 Richard Owen, On the Nature of Limbs (London, 1849), p. 83.
61 Geoffroy's first openly transformist work was his ‘Recherches sur l’organisation des gavials ; Sur les affinités naturelles desquelles résulte la nécessité d’une autre distribution générique, Gavialis, Teleosaurus et Steneosaurus ; et sur cette question, si les Gavials (Gavialis), aujourd’hui répandus dans les parties orientales de l’Asie, descendent, par voie non interrompue de génération, des Gavials antidiluviens, soit des Gavials fossiles, dits Crocodiles de Caen (Teleosaurus), soit des Gavials fossiles du Havre et de Honfleur (Stenosaurus)’, Memoires du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, 12 (1825), 97–155.
62 Robert Jameson, handwritten notes on the back of a Wernerian Historical Society meeting agenda, Centre for Research Collections, Edinburgh University Library, gen. 129.
63 Secord (note 13), 1–18. See also Bill Jenkins, ‘Neptunism and transformism: Robert Jameson and other evolutionary theorists in early nineteenth-century Scotland', Journal of the History of Biology 49 (2016), 527–57.
64 Robert Jameson, zoology lectures (notes taken by an anonymous student), vol. 2 (n.d.), Centre for Research Collection, Edinburgh University Library Dc.2.34, f.237.
65 Mark A. Ragan, ‘Trees and networks before and after Darwin’, Biology Direct, 4(43) (2009).
66 Robert Jameson, untitled mineralogy manuscript (n.d.), Centre for Research Collections, Edinburgh University Library, gen. 122, f.8 verso.
67 Robert Jameson, zoology lectures (notes taken by an anonymous student), 2 vols (1816/17), Centre for Research Collection, Edinburgh University Library Dc.10.32, f.1.
68 A famous example of such a controversy was the acrimonious debate that broke out in 1830 between Georges Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, both of whom had previously commented publicly on the place of the platypus in nature. For a detailed account of this fascinating episode, see Toby A. Appel, The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades before Darwin (New York, 1987).
69 For a classic account of the idea of ‘virtual witnessing’, see Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ, 1985), pp. 60–65.