One: how we’re all just overanalyzing this. The OP’s answer is completely serviceable and, imho, still the best answer of all of the submitted (especially without delving into trivial nit-picking).
Assuming that these qualify as ‘names.’ However, they seem to be nearly as good a description of a subset of mammals as mules or ligers. None of them are species, but then, the definitions of a species make it extremely difficult to arrange for repopulation without exempting some of the species population from extinction.[/spoiler]
(My explanation is included with the second sample answer.)
Eggs are still alive. If the eggs survived, I wouldn’t say that every platypus had died. Also, young platypusses need to nurse from their mothers. I don’t think many, if any, would survive on their own.
Is mule really correct? I thought mammals were supposed to make milk for their offspring. Mules wouldn’t have either, would they? Are they really mammals? I mean, they’re furry and they look like mammals, but they seem to not meet the crucial critera. Like Pluto’s not really a planet, y’know?
A possible reading of this would be that you are looking for a species as an answer. But mules aren’t generally considered a species, are they? They’re a hybrid, cross, or some other term.
Great. Now I’ve got Michael Palin in my head telling about how he wants to train crocodiles–you know, cute little fuzzy things with long ears and bobbed tails nibbling on carrots all day?
There are too many to name. I’d imagine the original was looking for “Mule”, but there’s Hinny, and Zorse just with horses, not to mention the Zonkey. Then there’s Coydogs, Jack-dogs, Coy Wolf, wolf-dog . . . and Geep, and Grizzly-Polar Bear, and Savannah Cats, and Ligers. . .and of course, BAT-BOY!