# All-Natural, All-Toxic



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

All-Natural, All-Toxic § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

and this one as well, related:
Mini frog packs a powerful punch | Science | guardian.co.uk


----------



## alex111683 (Sep 11, 2010)

Let's see how long it takes before they find their way into the hoby.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

not likely at all, actually.


----------



## Vermfly (Jun 6, 2010)

That is a beautiful little frog.


----------



## edwing206 (Apr 9, 2008)

What makes you say that?


stemcellular said:


> not likely at all, actually.


Very awesome looking frog though!


----------



## charlesbrooks (Oct 18, 2009)

I wonder, do the frog mentioned belonging in the dendrobate group?


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

charlesbrooks said:


> do the frog mentioned belonging in the dendrobate group?


No, different group of frogs completely.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

alex111683 said:


> Let's see how long it takes before they find their way into the hoby.


yeah, let's see who dares to go to Cuba!


----------



## charlesbrooks (Oct 18, 2009)

johnc said:


> No, different group of frogs completely.


wow....another poison frog group to add.


----------



## HunterB (Apr 28, 2009)

Thanks for posting Ray - very interesting read


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Eleuthrodactylids are a group of frogs that don't get much appreciation by the frog hobby as most are little brown frogs.. 

Ed


----------



## DannyMeister (Sep 30, 2010)

I love little brown frogs. Frogs are the cutest mouths with legs that I know of, regardless their color


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

Interesting read. I wonder if mites are the source of toxins for other species.


----------



## Phyllobates azureus (Aug 18, 2010)

johnc said:


> No, different group of frogs completely.


Dendrobatoidea and Leptodactylidae are actually closely related, according to "300 Frogs".


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

The fact that they are different taxonomic families must be a mistake then huh. Those crazy scientists. If only they knew what they were talking about. /sarcasm


Phyllobates azureus said:


> Dendrobatoidea and Leptodactylidae are actually closely related, according to "300 Frogs".


----------



## SDRiding (Jul 31, 2012)

johnc said:


> The fact that they are different taxonomic families must be a mistake then huh. Those crazy scientists. If only they knew what they were talking about. /sarcasm


Your sarcasm quote should have ended before "Those crazy scientists". The taxonomy is not static and is constantly being updated. The relationship between Dendrobatoidea and Leptodactylidae was hypothesized.

Cytogenetics of Hylodes and Crossodactylus species ... [Genetica. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI 
http://webhost.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/Haas2003.pdf


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

Those 2 families are still 2 different families and while they may be allied, no amount of research will unite them in one. Now I've satisfied my "someone is wrong on the Internet" quota for April. Be good.


----------



## Phyllobates azureus (Aug 18, 2010)

johnc said:


> The fact that they are different taxonomic families must be a mistake then huh. Those crazy scientists. If only they knew what they were talking about. /sarcasm


I am talking about the "higher classification". Yes, they are different families, but *related.*, as in, more closely related to each other than than either are to, for instance, Ranidae.


----------



## Phyllobates azureus (Aug 18, 2010)

johnc said:


> Those 2 families are still 2 different families and while they may be allied, no amount of research will unite them in one. Now I've satisfied my "someone is wrong on the Internet" quota for April. Be good.


Nobody ever said the two families were one. 
But I agree, /debate.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Phyllobates azureus said:


> Dendrobatoidea and Leptodactylidae are actually closely related, according to "300 Frogs".


 
I hope you weren't serious about using that book as a reference....... 

As far back as 1996 (see link below) the mtDNA research separates Dendrobatidae pretty significantly from Leptodactylidae... and this is supported in the text book literature (for example Herpetology, An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, 2001; Academic Press) has Dendrobatidae as being in the "ranoids" and being a sister taxon with possible affinities to either bufonidae (see http://ruvinskylab.uchicago.edu/files/hay_1995.pdf) or with possible affinities to Arthroleptidae... but in any case very separate from Leptodactlyidae... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

SDRiding said:


> Your sarcasm quote should have ended before "Those crazy scientists". The taxonomy is not static and is constantly being updated. The relationship between Dendrobatoidea and Leptodactylidae was hypothesized.
> 
> Cytogenetics of Hylodes and Crossodactylus species ... [Genetica. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
> http://webhost.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/Haas2003.pdf


The problem here is that a hypothesis is being used to imply proof that Leptodactylidae and Dendrobatidae being closely related is not too crazy... This is a poor example... For example I could posit the hypothesis that Bufonidae and Typhloectidae are sister taxons but the hypothesis by itself does not lend any proof that it is true (and in the reference you provided, it is demonstrated that the evidence used in that paper does not support the placement (specific from the abstract quote We conclude that the cytogenetic data do not provide further evidence which could be useful to corroborate the supposed relationships between the hylodines and dendrobatids since there are no unambiguous homeologies between the karyotypes of these groups.endquote))... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## SDRiding (Jul 31, 2012)

I tried to provide the original source that stated the relationship, and then a different study that was slightly opposed. I was only trying to add some information to the discussion, and poke fun at "Crazy scientists, if only they knew what they were talking about". It's more true than sarcastic at times  I don't think the hypothesis has been rejected though, but I could be wrong. 



Ed said:


> The problem here is that a hypothesis is being used to imply proof that Leptodactylidae and Dendrobatidae being closely related is not too crazy... This is a poor example... For example I could posit the hypothesis that Bufonidae and Typhloectidae are sister taxons but the hypothesis by itself does not lend any proof that it is true (and in the reference you provided, it is demonstrated that the evidence used in that paper does not support the placement (specific from the abstract quote We conclude that the cytogenetic data do not provide further evidence which could be useful to corroborate the supposed relationships between the hylodines and dendrobatids since there are no unambiguous homeologies between the karyotypes of these groups.endquote))...
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


----------



## Phyllobates azureus (Aug 18, 2010)

Ed said:


> I hope you weren't serious about using that book as a reference.......
> 
> As far back as 1996 (see link below) the mtDNA research separates Dendrobatidae pretty significantly from Leptodactylidae... and this is supported in the text book literature (for example Herpetology, An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, 2001; Academic Press) has Dendrobatidae as being in the "ranoids" and being a sister taxon with possible affinities to either bufonidae (see http://ruvinskylab.uchicago.edu/files/hay_1995.pdf) or with possible affinities to Arthroleptidae... but in any case very separate from Leptodactlyidae...
> 
> ...


I wasn't serious about using 300 Frogs as a reference (it uses the 29-family classification for "convenience" and contains a number of other errors. Sorry for the confusion, but it's hard to convey written sarcasm, especially when the rest of the post is meant seriously) but it has been genuinely proposed that Dendrobatidae is closely related to Leptodactylidae. If DNA evidence suggests otherwise then fine, the hypothesis that I was basing my argument on is incorrect.

EDIT: Looking at Dendrobates.org, it actually appears that Dendrobatoidea is its own group, separate from the other groupings like Hyloidea and Ranoidea. 

Related to Bufonidae? That sounds odd, is there a link for that?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Phyllobates azureus said:


> EDIT: Looking at Dendrobates.org, it actually appears that Dendrobatoidea is its own group, separate from the other groupings like Hyloidea and Ranoidea.
> 
> Related to Bufonidae? That sounds odd, is there a link for that?


 
Replied to your pm.. 

The basic references to answer your question were in my post. 

The problem was that the subsequent discussion went towards what looked to have a serious tone about it.. Now people have clarified that they meant it to be sarcastic but that tone was not what I read from the discussion. I also had concern that people who aren't as versed in the literature would think that the book actually was valuable for that information... People often forget the possible ramifications from these posts in the future hence how I worded my response. 

There are some inconsistiencies in even the more recent literature (as I noted in my pm), for example the results in this paper using tRNA and rRNA contradict the mtDNA results and do not necessarily resolve evolved structural differences (see http://www.catfishlab.org/sites/catfishlab.org/files/DarstCannatella2004.pdf). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

SDRiding said:


> I tried to provide the original source that stated the relationship, and then a different study that was slightly opposed. I was only trying to add some information to the discussion, and poke fun at "Crazy scientists, if only they knew what they were talking about". It's more true than sarcastic at times  I don't think the hypothesis has been rejected though, but I could be wrong.


Even in the more recent literature I think the data is trending rather strongly away from that conclusion.. 
Now that everyone noted that they were being sarcastic the topic can be allowed to sink.. 

Ed


----------

