Talk:Golden poison frog

Intelligence

"Golden poison frogs are curious, bold, and seemingly aware of the fact that they are next to invulnerable, making no attempt to conceal themselves and even flaunting their striking colours to intimidate potential predators."

Surely a poisonous animal would instinctively flaunt itself to potential predators? I see no reason this signifies intelligence, any more than producing the poison signifies an understanding of biochemistry. Removing this part, feel free to revert if you have supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenzeneRing839 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I was extremely fascinated to learn that the golden poison frog is one of the, if not the most, poisonous animal on our planet. As a neuroscience major, I was enthused to see that the author included a section about the neural mechanisms by the which the frog’s poison Batrachotoxin works. Furthermore, as we learned in class, the frog possesses a polymorphic aposematic coloration to warn predators of its toxicity. Overall, this is a very detailed and comprehensive article about this species. In terms of things to improve, I would have liked to see a section about Batesian and Mullerian mimicry because, of course, with its aposematic coloration, there will be other species that have evolved to mimic the golden poison frog’s appearance to deter predators. Another category that would have been good to see is something about the frog’s interactions with humans. Given the frog’s high toxicity, there is no doubt that there have been accidents and precautions taken against this species as a result. Lastly, a category about the frog’s thermoregulation because there are tradeoffs to aposematism. In the case of the wood tiger moth, that tradeoff was a decline in the insect’s ability to thermoregulate. Therefore, I’m curious if the golden poison frog experiences a similar downside to its coloration. Looking at the talk page, there seem to be a variety of different comments discussing the factuality of some of the information on the article. One comment even mentions how one of the sections was plagiarized from another website. However, it seems many of the issues brought up have already been fixed. Overall, the article has been rated as a “B-class” in quality and “mid” in terms of importance which I agree with because of the frog’s place as the world’s most poisonous animal. -- B1deng (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Phases?

Which is the more common term - 'phases' or 'morphs'? (I have only heard 'morphs' used, which is why I added the term, but maybe my experience has been unusual) --Leperflesh 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the morph section and added several citations as well as the discussion of the newly established "orange blackfoot" line. I am not sure if "morph" is the correct term to describe the color variations as they are really more "locales" than morphs.. in my experience "morph" is a term used by pet breeders. For now I have left "morph" in place as the terminology of the article; if there is a more biologically appropriate term I would encourage using it instead of morph. Connor Long (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Distribution?

I deleted "Guyana" from the article, since I couldn't find any evidence that the species occurs there (pretty improbable with the small distibution area west of the Andes). -- Schneekrönchen 17 November 2007

Excessive use of quotes from a source

Large portions of this article have been copied and pasted verbatim from one of it's cited sources....

http://www.wonderquest.com/frog-poison.htm

Ronstock (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More than three dart frog species have batrachotoxin?

"Batrachotoxin is only found[6] in three poisonous frogs of Colombia (genus Phyllobates)"

A careful reading of the cited page does not lead to this conclusion. The author never says that only these three frogs carry batrachotoxin. Rather, it says that in the 1960s, two specific Phyllobates species were discovered to have Batrachotoxin; it then says "Other frogs use different poisons, but none as toxic as batrachotoxin.". The construction "other frogs" is not the same as "all other frogs" and leaves open the interpretation that some frogs use Batrachotoxin (besides just the three Phylobates species), and other frogs do not.

I bring this up because I was under the impression that all species of Dendrobatidae are toxic, and that they all use Batrachotoxin as the source of this toxicity.

I'll leave the article as-is, but if anyone has better information for the origin of toxicity in poison dart frogs other than Phyllobates spp., please make the correction. --Leperflesh (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Only Phyllobates have Batrachotoxin, this is actually one of the traits that taxonomists use to define the genus. However, batrachotoxin is not the only toxin in poison frogs (of Phyllobates). Other species have other combinations of toxins, but none of them are as strong as batrachotoxin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.176.118.119 (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Katy Perry?

Golden Poison Frog: enough toxin to kill 15,000 humans or one Katy Perry? Is this a sick joke, PR, or simply libelous reference to a young singer? Wiki has its oddities people. The PR firms are amazing, aren't they? Anything to get a Google link. Where else on Wiki has this been quitely inserted? Any admins willing to do a global search? Phoenixthebird (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on existing sources I believe the number of non-Katy Perry humans a single specimen could poison is fewer than 15,000 and the number of Katy Perrys that could be poisoned is more than one. Unless the assertion was referring to the musician Katy Perry, and then by definition there is only one that could be poisoned. I know it has been 12 years, but I have completed an undergraduate degree and a doctorate in that time and now finally feel prepared to answer this critical question Connor Long (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Golden Poison Frog in popular culture?

Does anyone else think that this would be an appropriate addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.2.214 (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, this is just poor english : "The golden poison frog's skin is densely coated in alkaloid poison" "Alkaloid poison" is not a thing, fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.248.206 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What makes this frog so dangerous?

The word "skin" appears twice in the article, both times referring to the animal's skin. The word "touch" doesn't appear at all. I think somewhere in the article it should be made clear that by simply touching the animal the human skin can absorb enough toxin to cause potentially lethal systemic poisoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.40.191 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to ask the same question. You did it almost 3 years ago and... nobody answered. The most likely reason is that nobody knows the answer :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, the poison really shouldn't be able to be absorbed through healthy skin. However, the animal is so toxic that any small abrasions on your skin could be enough to poison you. The sources I have read (and cited in this article) are a little bit mixed, some asserting you'd have to let the toxin touch a mucus membrane for absorption, and some hedging and saying even touching the frog is dangerous. I am not sure this is known conclusively - rubbing one of these frogs on a person to find out would be a terrible idea. If anyone has a source that clarifies further, please provide it. Connor Long (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

formic acid

formic acid is not an alkaloid. 2600:4041:5D9E:5D00:9855:BB84:276C:375E (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)