Talk:Poison dart frog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePoison dart frog has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Image identification[edit]

I just psted 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)[reply]

fruit flies[edit]

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)[reply]

Captivity[edit]

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)[reply]

List of Species[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It would seem we are working simultaneously, LiquidG. Please see my comment re: Minyobates, below. --Leperflesh 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very simultaneously. I have never had an edit conflict creating an article before!! :) --liquidGhoul 23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mannophryne still hasn't been created. --liquidGhoul 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
heh. Look again! --Leperflesh 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Now I can get to work on expanding the article. Want to help? --liquidGhoul 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But, alas, not today. I'll check in again later... thanks for helping. --Leperflesh 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minyobates[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Naming of the species[edit]

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.

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great, I will keep tintorius the way it is. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Predators[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
yes please! --Leperflesh 00:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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

It would be funny if a poison arrow frog bit itself. Or canabalism. (Anoynomous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappo123456789 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more pictures[edit]

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

Revert[edit]

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

Fixed a bunch of stuff[edit]

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)[reply]

Expert needed; subspecies - morphs[edit]

The "colour morphs" section [now re-named "Subspecies and morphs"] 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)[reply]

Has now been dealt with. 212.10.82.36 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the earlier comment it has been re-edited by someone that clearly was unaware of the biological definition of morphs and subspecies. So, we're back at a point where the section needs to be cleaned up. 212.10.86.98 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added an expert-tag to that section. Yet another problem in the same section is the sentence: Dendrobates tinctorius "azureus", making it another morph of D. tinctorius.
If it truly is a morph, it should be written Dendrobates tinctorius var. azureus, Dendrobates tinctorius v. azureus or Dendrobates tinctorius morpha azureus to avoid confusion with the trinomial used for subspecies, though commonly the use of any morph name is avoided entirely (i.e. simply Dendrobates tinctorius of the azureus/blue morph instead). If, however, it actually is a subspecies, it should be written Dendrobates tinctorius azureus. Regardless, that section, even is small, is a mess from a biological point of view. 212.10.86.98 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox problem[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nitpick on Intro[edit]

--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".

All frogs of Dendrobatidae are toxic. Only three frog species are recorded to have been used by natives for the poisoning of darts. This does not mean that the other frogs are unsuitable for such purpose: only that their use for such purpose is not documented. Not all natives across central and south america hunt with poisoned darts, for example. I am unaware of any scientific assay of relative toxicity across all dart frog species. In general, the term is a misnomer, but it is the general-use term for Dendrobatid frogs, so it stays. --Leperflesh (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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..."

This is not, strictly, true: to be accurate we should say "only three are documented as having been used for this purpose". However, these three are also the three species with highest-recorded toxicity, so the correlation may be the cause (but we should not imply that it must be). --Leperflesh (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.[reply]

Stop doing this[edit]

"They lay their eggs in moist ground..." I keep seeing people injecting husbandry information that is, at best, only correct for a handful of species. Most dart frog species do not lay their eggs in the dirt. PLEASE try to keep your updates to information which is true and applicable to all frogs in Dendrobatidae... and cite your sources. --Leperflesh (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they'll listen, it's kinda a big problem with all frog and herp articles. We're trying to curb the Pet Care injection problem, if you want to take a look at our discussions and have any ideas: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Husbandry. StevePrutz (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poison dart frog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no original information, and so shouldn't have references unless they are backing up a direct quote.
    • Please either expand paragraphs that only have one or two sentences, or combine them with other paragraphs.
    • There is a pair of hidden comments under the Habitat section on adding some information that should probably be acted upon and/or removed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Please make sure that you have the publisher listed, not the work, for web references. For example, for ref #6, the publisher would be The American Museum of Natural History, not Research.amnh.org. Also check refs 7, 8, etc. Basically, they shouldn't end with a .com, etc. unless that's actually the name of the company that publishes the website.
    • Please either use cite templates for all of the refs or none of the refs, rather than mixing it up like it is currently.
    • There are a few spots that need references:
    • Habitat section - entire section
    • Color morphs section - last half of first paragraph, most of second paragraph
    • Toxicity and medicine - last half of first paragraph, all of second paragraph
    • Captive care - entire section
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

At the moment, there are some major referencing issues in this article, so I am putting the article on hold until these can be addressed. Due to the referencing issues, I have not completed a full check of the prose; I will do this when I see that referencing is proceeding. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I have fixed up all of the questionable content in your review. Please take a look. StevePrutz (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. My final comments would be that for the further improvement of the article, I would suggest finding a reference for the information at the end of the Captive care section, either finding refs for or removing the information that you currently have hidden, and removing the rest of the extra fields from the cite web templates. I've already removed the big groupings of them, but any other fields that you don't use can be removed. If, at some point in the future, the information becomes available, it's easy enough to add the fields back in, and they make editing harder and clutter up the editing window to just leave them in and empty. Nice work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! I will try to run DOIbot again on the article refs (it wasn't working yesterday). StevePrutz (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

poison dart frog[edit]

These are great articles!

poison dart frog[edit]

These are great articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.212.221 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of lede section[edit]

Just wondering, but why is the lede a mild diatribe against the injustice of calling them poison dart frogs?

  1. The lede is supposed to be used as an introduction to (and summary of) the body of the article, not as a placeholder for what any given editor thinks is the "message" readers should take away from the subject. This doesn't belong in the lede, it belongs in the body.
  2. Please keep in mind that if the common usage is wrong, that doesn't change the fact it's the common usage. Assuming that it is indeed a terrible injustice, Wikipedia describes disputes, it doesn't take sides in them. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read through the current version[1] of the lede five times, but can't find any hint of condemnation of the term poison dart frog --catslash (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose adding a strawberry poison-dart frog mention[edit]

I came here from the strawberry poison-dart frog article after researching the phrase "red frog" on Google. There are businesses, events, products, based on the creature. I found a little plastic realistic-looking red frog with black markings somebody had dropped; hence my curiosity. I was surprised to see that there is no photo of the strawberry poison-dart frog in this article, no mention of it in the body of the article, yet the name appears in SIX references. I would like to propose that a regular editor here include a photo of the strawberry poison-dart frog or at least include a Wiki link to its article. 5Q5 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

in the second paragraph of the section it was said that "his study found that polymorphic poison dart frogs that are less conspicuous are more toxic in comparison to the brightest and most conspicuous species." this was by Wang and Shaffer (2011), however there is another article that contradicts this and a study was done that says the poison from blander frogs was less potent than that of more colorful frogs. this article was from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-do-tropical-frogs-get-their-stunning-colors-712275/?all

Another note when it comes to sexual selection it is also said that females prefer males with the shiniest skin, so perhaps this could be another piece to mention.

Also there can be many different colors among the species that can eventually become consistent within an area. A study was done in the Amazon forest with 2 colonies of frogs only ten kilometers apart, it showed how if a frog does not recognize a certain pattern or color of the frog it will attack thinking that it is prey. Eventually all the frogs will become one color or pattern after time of realizing they are all essentially the same. http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20111121-predators-drive-the-evolution-of-poison-dart-frogs-skin-patterns.html

Emery.86 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014[edit]

Food: Poision Dart Frogs eat meat, flies, ants, insects, spiders, and termites. Legoboygavin (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poison dart frog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017[edit]

In the intro paragraph, the fifth sentence reads as such: "The species that have great toxicity, derive this from their diet of ants, mites and termites." However, it isn't grammatically correct. It should read as such: "The species that have great toxicity derive this from their diet of ants, mites and termites." Sgtbossman (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most anurans have a unique way of detecting their environment through their smell. They have an organ called the olfactory bulb, which allows them to discriminate odors and detect their environment based on the different smells that surround them. Their smell is not necessarily used to find food, but specifically allows them to detect when predators may be approaching, which is useful for when they are watching over their young or protecting themselves. The olfactory sense is also useful in finding mates in the colorful rainforest as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agallegos2 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018[edit]

hi there id like to input that some poison dart frogs have enough poison to kill 2000 people 87.35.25.19 (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on July 24 2020[edit]

Hi, I'm new so I'm hoping I'm doing this right. In the intro, it says:

"These amphibians are often called "dart frogs" due to the Native Americans' indigenous use of their toxic secretions to poison the tips of blowdarts."

I thought the phrase "Native Americans' indigenous use" should be something more like "the indigenous peoples' use", or "indigenous Native Americans' use" [1] Unless I'm misunderstanding the proper way to use the terms. Thanks very much. JonathanHawthorn (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)JonathanHawthorn July 24 2020[reply]

Agree, have changed. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020[edit]

poison dart frog are highly poisonous and taste disgusting when eaten . they tend to be very brightly coloured IRONMANX3 (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What source says they taste bad? – Thjarkur (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7htyrg uehprhe``ir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.144.8 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yarlagaddas (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Britneys99, ShawnMohammed, Emily486103, Jsun2148.

— Assignment last updated by Eurquhart02 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022[edit]

I am a student of Washington University in Saint Louis. I am a student in the behavioral ecology class. I have done a great deal of research in the poison dart frog. I would not like to change any previous work. I would like to simply add information. I have a few paragraphs about general behavior, mating behavior, diet, and chemical defense, and a few other subjects. I also have 7 references I would like to add. Yarlagaddas (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, if you make one more edit you'll be able to make the edits yourself, as you'll be auto confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add content about behavior, mating behavior, diet, parental care. My resources are these:
References:
54. Evolution of Dietary Specialization and Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): A Comparative Analysis. Catherine R. Darst, Pablo A. Menéndez‐Guerrero, Luis A. Coloma, and David C. Cannatella The American Naturalist 2005 165:1, 56-69
55. Daly, J.W., Martin Garraffo, H., Spande, T.F. et al. Dietary source for skin alkaloids of poison frogs (Dendrobatidae)?. J Chem Ecol 20, 943–955 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02059589
56. John W. Daly, Sherrie I. Secunda, H.Martin Garraffo, Thomas F. Spande, Anthony Wisnieski, Jack F. Cover,An uptake system for dietary alkaloids in poison frogs (Dendrobatidae),Toxicon,
Volume 32, Issue 6,1994,Pages 657-663,ISSN0041-0101,https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-0101(94) 90335-2. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041010194903352)
57. Crump, Martha L. “Territoriality and Mating Behavior in Dendrobates Granuliferus (Anura: Dendrobatidae).” Herpetologica, vol. 28, no. 3, 1972, pp. 195–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3890619. Accessed 16 Oct. 2022.
58. Caldwell, J.P. and de Araújo, M.C. (1998), Cannibalistic Interactions Resulting from Indiscriminate Predatory Behavior in Tadpoles of Poison Frogs (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Biotropica, 30: 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.1998.tb00372.x
59. John W. Daly, Charles W. Myers, Noel Whittaker,Further classification of skin alkaloids from neotropical poison frogs (dendrobatidae), with a general survey of toxic/noxious substances in the amphibia,Toxicon,Volume 25, Issue 10,1987,Pages 1023-1095,ISSN 0041-0101,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-0101(87)90265-0.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041010187902650)
60. Toft, Catherine A. “Evolution of Diet Specialization in Poison-Dart Frogs (Dendrobatidae).” Herpetologica, vol. 51, no. 2, 1995, pp. 202–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3892588. Accessed 16 Oct. 2022.
61. Kyle Summers,Sexual selection and intra-femalecompetition in the green poison-dart frog, Dendrobates auratus,Animal Behaviour,Volume 37, Part 5,1989,Pages 797-805,ISSN 0003-3472,https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(89)90064-X.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000334728990064X) Yarlagaddas (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022[edit]

I am following up. I would like to add content about behavior, diet, and parental care about the Dendrobate family. I am a student at Washington University in Saint Louis in a Behavioral Ecology class and am trying to contribute for school work. Yarlagaddas (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarlagaddas: Your account is autoconfirmed, so you should be able to make these edits yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Added subsections such as conspicuousness, aposematism, and other factors to “Evolution of skin coloration and toxicity” and reorganized sections. I added more information under mating section such as visual cues and courtship length. I noticed that in captive care section, citation is needed for the part that mentions the dart frog tends to live longer in captivity and captive ideal environments. Fixed minor grammar errors such as typos, run-on sentences and italicized species name. Emily486103 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I changed a lot of the wording in some sections of the article. I also rewrote certain sentences to make the article flow better. I also added a citation to spot that needed it (the sentence that claims the golden poison frog can kill up to 10 men or 20,000 mice). ShawnMohammed (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I reorganized the last sentence of the second paragraph to make it clearer. Before the edit, the sentence structure was a little confusing because information about the plant was intertwined with information about the frog.

Word “unacceptable” changed to “dangerous” in the “Toxicity and Medicine” section. Unacceptable is more of a vague word and detracts from the potency of the toxin.

Moved the exposition under “Evolution of skin coloration and toxicity” to the “Aposematism” section to improve clarity in organizational structure.

Subsection titled “Visual cues” was removed and the information was embedded into the paragraph.

“Chemical Defense” section moved to “Toxicity” section to reduce redundancy.

Minor grammar changes and edits to make sentences more concise were made throughout the piece. For example, “The diet of the Dendrodates is one that is unique” was changed to the “The diet of the Dendrodates is unique.”

Overall, the article was well written and contained lots of interesting information. Organization could be improved, but other than that, it looks great! Jsun2148 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of the above edits! I think the edit that my peer left was well-written and well-researched. I think the article could benefit from some reorganization so it doesn't have 4 separate sections on behavior, but am unsure of how best to proceed with this. I did add an enemies section also. Britneys99 (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022[edit]

in the [dart frog page] there is a typo in the diet section “The second category of pretty are much rarer finds…” please change pretty to prey, thank you very much. Seanblair07 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Mvqr (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True True 👍👍✅ 115.70.173.50 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endogenous is wrong, it should say exogenous[edit]

Endogenous is the wrong definition for being produced outside the body, it should say exogenous. Dijon Djinn (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect word[edit]

In the section talking about toxicity, the word endogenous is incorrectly used as that means to come from within the body. The correct term is exogenous. Rjones6045 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Dendrobates family"[edit]

Dendrobates, which is a genus, was referred to several times as a family. I've corrected these to refer to Dendrobatidae instead since that's what the article seems to be about. However, these references might be inaccurate, so the article needs an expert on the topic to investigate and correct any errors. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many poison dart frogs are out there? And what’s your favourite?[edit]

I will guess that about 400 are alive (PROJECT): go to Columbia and save golden poison dart frogs from extinction! 115.70.173.50 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poison_dart_frog&oldid=1193696719"