Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
That is, I was going to say duck billed platypus but three people beat me to it.
I can quite see why it was believed to be a fake by the first scientists who saw a specimen.
cr
… unless PCC is kidding us and it’s actually a fluffy toy.
cr
Four people beat you to it. A puggle is a baby platypus.
Okay. I was avoiding comment on what a ‘puggle’ might be. That is, your answer might have been facetious (which has been known to happen on this website) and a puggle might have been [some other animal or creature, fictitious or otherwise, of which I am ignorant]. But it evidently wasn’t and it isn’t.
Subsequent information seems to suggest the ‘platypus’ illustrated isn’t a platypus either. So that’s all cleared up then.
cr
Hmm… the ever-reliable Wp says, “The proper name given to a juvenile Monotreme (i.e. either an echidna or a platypus) – specifically, the period between hatching and weaning.”
But it clearly ain’t an echidna.
/@
After reviewing many pictures of baby duck-billed platypuses, I now think this is a toy. It just doesn’t look realistic. The bill, for instance, seems to be made out of rubber.
But I’ll give you a joke by way of compensation.
A duck goes into a drugstore and asks for a tube of Chapstick. The druggist hands it to him and says, “Will that be cash or charge?”
The duck replies, “Just put it on my bill.”
I’ll be here all year, folks. . .
Heh, heh, heh!
It was the fur – in particular the white fur – that didn’t look quite right to me.
Also, I wonder if it’s safe to hold even baby ones like that, or are their poison glands already developed?
cr
Fooled me too. I immediately thought DBP. But when it’s pointed out it is *obviously* not real. It’s incredibly obvious, but it still fooled me.
LOL! Haven’t heard that one in a bit, but it gives me a chance, to include in the electronic archives of the era, for all eternity, this one, whose origins go back to about 1970:
A duck walks into a bar and asks the bartender, “Got any pond scum?”
The bartender says, “Uh, no. Sorry. No pond scum.”
The duck leaves but comes back the next day and asks, “Got any pond scum?”
The bartender says, “Sorry. I told you yesterday, we don’t have any pond scum.”
The duck leaves but comes back the following day and asks again, “Got any pond scum?”
The bartender sighs, puts one hand over his eyes and says, “Look. I’ve already told you. We don’t have any pond scum. Now quit coming in here and asking for it! In fact, you come in here and ask again, and I’ll nail your webby little feet to the floor!”
The ducks leaves. The next day he’s back again. He asks the bartender, “Got any nails?”
The bartender is befuddled. “Uh, no. No nails!”
“Good,” the duck says. “Got any pond scum?”
It’s either a womble, a furby or a baby wild haggis. I can’t narrow it down.
Definitely not the third option.
a baby platypus doll
It’s a baby cuteness isn’t it?
It’s a baby platypus doll made by a Russian woman who sells on the interwebs under the name Oso Polar.
PCCE – did you see the BABY CHERRIES that this woman makes on the etsy site???
She’s also on the Deviant Art website as “Da-bu-di-bu-da”. Her work there is more edgy and not so terminally cute.
Duck sloth!
🙂
Yes, this is a doll. You don’t see this type commercially too often because they’re not really child friendly (they can be delicate), but they usually have cast resin heads, paws, and other details like horns or antlers, resin or glass taxidermy eyes, and a plush body that sometimes has a jointed armature for posing. I think someone who goes by the name Miss Monster used to make dolls of this type, though of monsters rather than baby animals.
PCC(e) — You could just have changed the title text to Guess the animal this doll is based on and avoided the embarrassing apology! 😁
/@
But that’s not PCC(E)’s way.
cr
The hand is clearly that of the animal homo sapiens sapiens.
Haven’t i seen this picture here before just a few days ago?
Puts me in mind of the most dangerous argument ever advanced by creationists:
Platypus?
Not a platypus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus_(weevil)
Lame
Puggle (5 microseconds)
A plat billed duckypuss.
Duck Billed Platypus.
Yes.
That is, I was going to say duck billed platypus but three people beat me to it.
I can quite see why it was believed to be a fake by the first scientists who saw a specimen.
cr
… unless PCC is kidding us and it’s actually a fluffy toy.
cr
Four people beat you to it. A puggle is a baby platypus.
Okay. I was avoiding comment on what a ‘puggle’ might be. That is, your answer might have been facetious (which has been known to happen on this website) and a puggle might have been [some other animal or creature, fictitious or otherwise, of which I am ignorant]. But it evidently wasn’t and it isn’t.
Subsequent information seems to suggest the ‘platypus’ illustrated isn’t a platypus either. So that’s all cleared up then.
cr
Hmm… the ever-reliable Wp says, “The proper name given to a juvenile Monotreme (i.e. either an echidna or a platypus) – specifically, the period between hatching and weaning.”
But it clearly ain’t an echidna.
/@
After reviewing many pictures of baby duck-billed platypuses, I now think this is a toy. It just doesn’t look realistic. The bill, for instance, seems to be made out of rubber.
But I’ll give you a joke by way of compensation.
A duck goes into a drugstore and asks for a tube of Chapstick. The druggist hands it to him and says, “Will that be cash or charge?”
The duck replies, “Just put it on my bill.”
I’ll be here all year, folks. . .
Heh, heh, heh!
It was the fur – in particular the white fur – that didn’t look quite right to me.
Also, I wonder if it’s safe to hold even baby ones like that, or are their poison glands already developed?
cr
Fooled me too. I immediately thought DBP. But when it’s pointed out it is *obviously* not real. It’s incredibly obvious, but it still fooled me.
LOL! Haven’t heard that one in a bit, but it gives me a chance, to include in the electronic archives of the era, for all eternity, this one, whose origins go back to about 1970:
A duck walks into a bar and asks the bartender, “Got any pond scum?”
The bartender says, “Uh, no. Sorry. No pond scum.”
The duck leaves but comes back the next day and asks, “Got any pond scum?”
The bartender says, “Sorry. I told you yesterday, we don’t have any pond scum.”
The duck leaves but comes back the following day and asks again, “Got any pond scum?”
The bartender sighs, puts one hand over his eyes and says, “Look. I’ve already told you. We don’t have any pond scum. Now quit coming in here and asking for it! In fact, you come in here and ask again, and I’ll nail your webby little feet to the floor!”
The ducks leaves. The next day he’s back again. He asks the bartender, “Got any nails?”
The bartender is befuddled. “Uh, no. No nails!”
“Good,” the duck says. “Got any pond scum?”
It’s either a womble, a furby or a baby wild haggis. I can’t narrow it down.
Definitely not the third option.
a baby platypus doll
It’s a baby cuteness isn’t it?
It’s a baby platypus doll made by a Russian woman who sells on the interwebs under the name Oso Polar.
Ms Polar Bear’s Oso Polar shop on etsy:
http://www.etsy.com/ru/shop/chercheto
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27241019@N04/15431715831
Blue
PCCE – did you see the BABY CHERRIES that this woman makes on the etsy site???
She’s also on the Deviant Art website as “Da-bu-di-bu-da”. Her work there is more edgy and not so terminally cute.
Duck sloth!
🙂
Yes, this is a doll. You don’t see this type commercially too often because they’re not really child friendly (they can be delicate), but they usually have cast resin heads, paws, and other details like horns or antlers, resin or glass taxidermy eyes, and a plush body that sometimes has a jointed armature for posing. I think someone who goes by the name Miss Monster used to make dolls of this type, though of monsters rather than baby animals.
PCC(e) — You could just have changed the title text to Guess the animal this doll is based on and avoided the embarrassing apology! 😁
/@
But that’s not PCC(E)’s way.
cr
The hand is clearly that of the animal homo sapiens sapiens.
Haven’t i seen this picture here before just a few days ago?
Puts me in mind of the most dangerous argument ever advanced by creationists:
http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/633496335450082779-platypus.jpg?w=400&h=320