Talk:Poison dart frog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image identification

I just posted a question about some Dendrobates images on Talk:Frog. It appears at least one of them is misclassified. - Samsara contrib talk 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fruit flies

Someone disambiguated the fruit flies link (in Toxicity) to point to Tephritidae. However, the Tephritidae content indicates that Drosophilia are not members of Tephritidae.

See, the thing is, the vast majority of captive dart frogs are fed either Drosophilia melanogaster or Drosophilia hydeii, chosen specifically because there are flightless varieties available (these frogs do not hunt flying insects well).

I'm fixing the link.--Leperflesh 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captivity

tfuikfghfgkvbnmgukcfgbmngftyjgbvcngyjgchjghjycfgtyjgycghjvgyigvhgyighjghj i think we should mention that while poison dart frog as pets are becoming quite popular, it is extremely wrong and almost always extracted from their natural habitats illegaly, and could even present a danger to local populations since amphibious habitats are receding at an alarming pace, this sort of activity only makes it worse

The vast majority of domestically-available posion dart frogs are bred in captivity, and not wild-caught. Futher, these are CITES:2 species, meaning that their export is allowed under various circumstances. In other words: your point is not a neutral point of view. It might be worth referencing specific information (if it exists) about to what degree these particular frogs are poached from the wild? --Leperflesh 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Species

Unless someone objects, I intend to extract the comprehensive and long list of species, and make a new page for them - "List of Dendrobatid Species" or maybe "List of Poison Dart Frog Species". Some other wiki articles about families tend to export long lists of species in this manner. Really each list of species belongs in its relevant genera page, but many genera pages don't exist yet either. Any objections? --Leperflesh 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very little genera articles for Dendrobatids. It is probably better to create those articles than to create a list. But either way, it is better than having it on this page, this page will end up with more info later, and it will be better not having a long list in the taxonomy section. --liquidGhoul 03:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right. We should create the genera pages, and move species lists to those pages. I only wish I had some info for each of the genera at hand. In the meantime, they will be stubs. Leperflesh 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Lol, that is pretty weird. I started creating the genera articles last night (great minds think alike I guess). There are only three more left to create. At the moment, they are all stubs, as it is hard to get thorough information on most of them. --liquidGhoul 23:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It would seem we are working simultaneously, LiquidG. Please see my comment re: Minyobates, below. --Leperflesh 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Very simultaneously. I have never had an edit conflict creating an article before!! :) --liquidGhoul 23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Fun! I went ahead and created Nephelobates. I believe that since we now have all the (accepted) genera covered, we can remove the long lists of species from Poison dart frog. --Leperflesh 23:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Mannophryne still hasn't been created. --liquidGhoul 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
heh. Look again! --Leperflesh 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! Now I can get to work on expanding the article. Want to help? --liquidGhoul 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. But, alas, not today. I'll check in again later... thanks for helping. --Leperflesh 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a new review around here. Very comprehensive, very long and technical. I have started with out-commenting Aromobatidae fam. nov. genera from genus list and added the new Dendrobatidae genera. Genera Cryptophyllobates and Nephelobates are synonymized in review; not corrected in these articles but remarked on Talk pages (accepting these genera creates paraphyly issues in others). Family assignment of extant Aromobatidae pages has been adjusted. Distri map might need reworking, but I'm not really a frog person. Dig away! Dysmorodrepanis 12:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but, isn't it premature to assume that this just-published study (August 15, 2006) represents the new, accepted taxonomy? I think we should comment pages, but not make drastic changes reflecting the new ordering, until there has been time for any objections to a new taxonomy to settle out. Most importantly, we do not want to create a situation where the commonly accepted genus/species names of animals no longer work for people searching for them in wikipedia. At most, older designations must redirect to the newly-named pages. The changes you made to the taxobox mean nobody can now navigate from Dendrobates down to Nephelobates, for example, even though that's where those species are currently listed. Reacting to every article adjusting taxonomy, as soon as it is published, is (in my view) a recipe for disaster, particluarly if the entire job is not done at once. --Leperflesh 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minyobates

In attempting to research Minyobates genus, it seems this genus may be synonymous with the Dentrobates genus. See: Amphibian Species of the World. Note also that in addition to Minyobates steyermarki, we have Dendrobates steyermarki. this page lists 8 Dendrobates species, each with the synonym Minyobates. However, that they list only 8 of the (at least) 40 Dendrobates species indicates this reference is incomplete. Dendrobates synonymy reference (again from Amphibian Species of the World) again indicates that 'Minyobates' is circa 1987, Myers, but that "This synonymy considered tentative by Daly, Garraffo, Spande, Clark, Ma, and Ziffer, 2003, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100: 11095.".

It would seem that members of Dendrobatidae are under some degree of taxonomic flux, these last couple of decades. What should Wikipedia pages do, when there is controversy over taxonomy? --Leperflesh 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

All frogs are basically under a taxonomic flux, it is a fact of life really. What we tend to do, is create the articles for what is accepted (in this case Dendrobates, and not Minyobates), and then describe in the article that there is contention with the taxonomy, and that some people place some of the speices within the Minyobates genus. --liquidGhoul 23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of the species

I have noticed that nearly all the species' articles within this family are named by their scientific name. According to the Tree of Life naming conventions, articles should be named by their common name. If no common name is available, then they should be named by their scientific name. I would like to reach a consensus in the one place, so as to not split up the conversation. If we reach consensus, I will move the articles. Anyway, here are the articles, and what I wish to name them:

I got these common names either from the article, IUCN or AMNH.

[edit] Support

  • Support --liquidGhoul 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Froggydarb croak 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Tnarg12345 07:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --">Onagro 26 July 2006
  • Support with reservations --Leperflesh 23:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --OneTwentySix 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Discussion

If you have any problem with a specific name, but you are OK with the rest, could you support (with the exception in brackets), and discuss the exception here. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a frog keeper (as pets), I can attest that generally (in stores, online, at herp conventions, etc.) the scientific names dominate. Often with herps and amphibians, there are multiple common names, conflicting names, or the common names are confusing. On that basis, I'd support leaving them as scientific names. Having said that: where a common name exists, it might be favorable for more general Wikipedia use? I do not feel strongly either way about this issue, just providing a data point. --Leperflesh 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I am with you, in that I don't really care. Except that I like to keep things consitent, and that is the reason for the guidelines. I have created a lot of articles on frogs, and have edited most, and most of them use common names. If any of the above are too obscure (as in, absolutely noone uses them) or are ambiguous, then I am happy to leave as is. However, I know that at least some of them have real common names. --liquidGhoul 00:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Having done database entry in the herps department of the Pennsylvania State Museum, I can attest that there are enough problems with common names they don't even bother with them in the database. Sometimes a species will have a different common name in different parts of the country, or a common name will be used for two or more different species, or any one of a number of other confusing inconsistencies. Honestly I think they are fine as is; we just need redirects from the common names. --TexasDex 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I know about the problems with common names, I come across them all the time. However, the guidelines state that, if they are unique, the most common name should be used. Have a look through the categories, the minority in most families are named by scientific name, and the rest are common, except for the poison dart frogs. Again, if any of the above common names apply to the problems you stated, then I will be fine with either finding another common name, or keeping them as scientific names. However the guidelines state that we should at least try first. --liquidGhoul 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I can agree with the general idea, and then just protest certain specifics. For example: of the species you listed, most of those common names are indeed common. 'Dying', though, is not at all: I have only ever found them referred to as 'tinctorius' or 'tincs'. Note also that there are more than a dozen color morphs of tinc... so, usually they are referred to something like 'blue sipaliwini tinc' or 'D. tinctorius "oyapoc"'. Soooo... having said that, certainly the others are fine - I see the harlequin, strawberry, green-and-black and so on with relative frequency.--Leperflesh 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Great, I will keep tintorius the way it is. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All the articles have been moved. Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predators

Are there any animals capable of eating these little guys?

Although the frogs have a wide range of toxicity, all of them are at least mildly toxic (in the wild). I don't know of any natural predators.--Leperflesh 23:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I know of some instances of reported predation by arachnids, among other animals. I can look up the source if anyone is interested. --OneTwentySix 02:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
yes please! --Leperflesh 00:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a species of snake that specializes in eating both golden and black-legged poison frogs called Leimadophis epinephelus. However, it can only handle younger frogs, as older ones can make them sick or kill them. --Onagro 4:28PM CST 22 May 2007

[edit] more pictures

More pictures on the "Golden Poison Frog" article would be nice. Zantaggerung 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Please revert this page to before the last edit. Thank you.

[edit] Fixed a bunch of stuff

There are some growing problems with "hearsay" creeping into the article. I have removed a couple of things that were certainly wrong (that there are dart frogs from "several continents" aside from central and south america, for example) and added "citation needed" to some more "facts" that I'm pretty sure are wrong. I also edited the first paragraph to account for all current or proposed taxonomies, and to match with the current taxobox ordering.

The section on care of dart frogs is, I think, problematic because the proper care of the various species varies too much to be captured well. Some of the behavior and sexing information is definitely wrong for some species, so I added some language to clarify that. For example, D. leucomelas males do not expand a throat sac when singing and thus cannot be identified by such a feature. Not all females of all species of dendrobatids are as aggressively territorial as is presented, nor do all males guard eggs as diligently as is implied.

Let's try to keep this article applicable to the entire family of animals, and leave the really tight specifics of behavior and care to the species-specific pages? --Leperflesh 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subspecies - morphs

The "colour morphs" section need a review. Subspecies are not the same as morphs, and using the term "subspecies morphs" is incorrect (if in doubt over subspecies versus morphs; check wiki articles linked). Unfortunately, I do not know this group of frogs particularly well, and am therefore unable to say if the variations mentioned is correctly described as morphs or subspecies, but determining which is correct should be fairly easy for someone with more extensive knowledge of this group. 212.10.82.42 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Has now been dealt with. 212.10.82.36 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox problem

I'm not very knowledgeable about dendrobatid taxonomy, but the taxobox here is strange. Specifically, it includes proposed subfamilies, proposed genera, and even proposed invalid genera, as if these taxa were in some sort of limbo. That's not really an option. If this is the latest thinking, then these names should be used in the box without the "proposed" wording. If the names are from a fringe source or researcher, it may be appropriate to indicate, perhaps with an asterisk/reference, that they are not yet widely accepted. Tim Ross·talk 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the taxobox is confusing. In 2006, a large paper (Grant et al, Phylogenetic systematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Amphibia: Athesphatanura: Dendrobatidae)) outlined a major revision to the taxonomy for poison frogs. The 'proposed' classifications in the current taxobox reflect the changes made in the paper. I would like to update the taxobox to reflect Grant et al, and audit related pages to update the scientific names to the new system. What do you think? --Aes123 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly recommend updating the taxoboxes if Grant et al are authorities in the field. If the views of Grant et al are not widely accepted, then some sort of note regarding the situation may be useful, while reverting the taxoboxes back to their earlier state, before the "proposed" language was added. In any case, it would be nice to remove the "proposed" status indicators. Tim Ross (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
After a little further digging, the nomenclature suggested by Grant et al is not quite as widely accepted as I had previously thought, though it's assumed that the majority of it will stick. I'm not a scientist myself, but rather a hobbyist that wants to ensure that available information is accurate and clear. So, should the taxobox be changed, with a note that the system is in a state of flux, or should it be reverted to the previous nomenclature with a similar note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aes123 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend using the note with the earlier taxobox. That way the new proposal would be covered, while the taxobox would be conventional. Either choice, though, would be an improvement. Tim Ross (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpick on Intro

--1. Article introduces Poison Dart Frogs as poison frogs, but later states that none of the "poison frogs" capable of dart/arrow-death are not of the Dendrobates genus (aka poison frog). I think there's a mix up of "poison[ous] frogs" and "poison [dart] frogs".
Also confusing with the number of species: 175+ or 150?
--2. a. "In actuality, of over 175 species of poison frog, only three are toxic enough to use for this purpose..."
Again with the poisonous vs. dart
b. This is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but if dart frogs can "kill a human by touch alone", why aren't they toxic enough to taint arrows/darts effectively?
--3. Characteristics are splattered all over the first two paragraphs. Name origins are mixed up with appearance, mixed up with toxicity. I think to flow better, it could go like this:
Introduce name/scientificb or a nickname and habitat ==> appearance, colors leading into ==> poison
I'm not sure where the name origin should go, but if it were short, it could go with the first few sentences. However, if one to were expand on the erroneous belief regarding darts/arrows, it might be better suited near the poison, as it would lead to another article.

That's about it. Just suggestions, grain of salt, etc. kthxbai

69.249.54.4 (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC) the poison dart frog has colors to warn predaters not to eat them.