Talk:Cane toad/Archive 1

Film

There has also been a documentary film about Cane Toads with the title Cane Toads.

pop culture

These things are probably why Beavis and Butthead licked frogs -- user:ClydeChristopher

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Common name

Is "Giant Neotropical Toad" actually used by anyone. I know it is not used at all in Aus (called the "Cane Toad" here), but was wondering if the Americans, or someone else, call it that. --liquidGhoul 00:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rightio, since there has been no objections, I am going to move this to "Cane Toad". If anyone objects, please raise it. Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have placed it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, as I cannot move to Cane Toad as there is already an "article" there. Google has only 678 results for Giant Neotropical Toad, and 267,000 for Cane Toad. --liquidGhoul 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support move to Cane toad (in lower case). Jonathunder 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would much rather it in upper case. This is a common name for a species, and most of the frog species are going towards complete upper case. Also, I prefer it, as it is much less ambiguous. If someone writes about "green tree frogs", how are you to know whether they are talking about all tree frogs that are green, or a specific species? If it is capitalised, it is obviously a specific species. Also, this article already uses complete upper case. --liquidGhoul 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support move to cane toad per Jonathunder. If the article is not in accord with the WP:MOS, the article should be changed. Septentrionalis 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• What does lower case have to do with WP:MOS? It says that it is up to the editors of the article. Considering that the original contributor used capitals, and most frog articles are capitals (White's Tree Frog, in all of the Australian frogs except 1, Mexican Burrowing Toad, Common Parsley Frog, Ethiopian Banana Frog, Tukeit Hill Frog. In WP:FA it is pretty split down the middle, and this is a thing I don't like in Wikipedia, however if there is uniformity within a group (as there almost is with frogs, I am working on it), why do we need to change it? I would like to know why you like using non-caps, could you explain it to me? --liquidGhoul 05:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The MoS is generally opposed to unnecessary capitalization, chiefly on the grounds that it fits easier into running text. This upper-casing is not helpful, and to my ear not English. The OED does not happen to discuss this species, but it has horned toad, midwife toad, so capped.

That is the worst argument I have ever seen. I just read the section on capitalisation in the MoS, and it doesn't state anywhere that it is opposed to capitalisation in common names! It says "As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but create a redirect from the alternative form." So that argument is invalid. Secondly, the OED is a dictionary!!! It is not scientific in any way, and should not be used for anything except the definition of simple words. For anything animal related, I would rather use books about animals.

Now, lets see:

Barker, J. Grigg, G. C. Tyler M.J. A Field Guide to Australian Frogs (1995) Surrey Beatty & Sons ISBN 0949324612 - Uses complete capitalisation, and is the most accurate, and used frog identification book in Australia.
--liquidGhoul 00:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from uniformity within a group are seriously flawed, even if the uniformity has not been recently imposed by a single enthusiast. Wikipedia is inconsistent, and it ought to be. Septentrionalis 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read your view on conformity on your user page, and just because you have this philosophy, does not mean you should strive to bring unconformity to Wikipedia. It is very useful, as it creates a friendly user interface. It makes it much easier for someone to find an article if all the articles use the same conventions for naming.

I don't want to get into an argument about what the convention should be on Wikipedia, as it has been done, and doesn't get resolved. We should be discussing this on an idividual basis, as it states in your beloved MoS. My arguements are: 1) Original contributor used all caps in naming article, 2) current article uses all caps and 3) the current convention with this group is to use all caps. I don't care if you personally disagree with the third one, I still believe it is a valid argument. It seems kind of weird that someone who doesn't want conformity uses the MoS in an argument when it is there to create conformity. --liquidGhoul 00:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My views of uniformity are my own; but if Wikipedia is going to have conventions imposed on it, they should be helpful ones, reflecting the normal use of English. This is neither. Septentrionalis 03:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• And this is the normal use of English, capitals for common names are very commonly used, infact it is forced in bird common names, otherwise there is the ambiguity I raised earlier. Again, we are not trying to make a policy here, just what is based on the article in its current state. --liquidGhoul 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose move to cane toad - Australia isn't in the native range of the species; use of a common name that applies to an area where isn't native is a bad idea. Bufo marinus is the best choice, IMO. Guettarda 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that it was used in other countries as well. Also, I was going by result numbers in Google, and "Bufo marinus" rates lower than Cane Toad (though much higher than "Giant Neotropical Toad). We should be using the most common common name. --liquidGhoul 00:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly used here in the US, but I see "marine toad" used just a frequently, if not more so, than "cane toad". I've never heard anyone ever refer to them as a "neotropical toad" except in books. Most layman when they see mine just call it "Whoa, thats one big friggen toad." :) Anyway, I don't support or oppose, I think the whole debate is ridiculous and the biology/animal related communities only serve to turn it into a heated debate and create half-assed edit wars all over the place, instead of trying to come to a concensus and a standard. -Dawson 15:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Google lists "Marine Toad" as 22,000 results, so it should definetally be Cane Toad, just a matter of the capitalisation. --liquidGhoul 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The number of google hits for Bufo marinus, cane toad or marine toad isn't the issue - the issue is that there is no single common name, so the only unambiguous name is the latin name. "Giant Neotropical Toad" is one of these pseudo-formal common names that some zoologists like - much like the names used for birds. They don't reflect common names anywhere, but they attempt to establish a standard name the people can understand. I'm not a fan of these pseudo-formal common names, but I think they are better than regional variants based where the species is an exotic pest. If you want to use a common name in English, use crapaud. If you want an English name that's common usage in their native range, where people immediately recognise them (and don't say Whoa, thats one big friggen toad) use crapaud ;). But seriously, I reallythink that unambiguous names are best - Bufo marinus is my first choice, Giant Neotropical Toad second choice, Crapaud third choice, and beyond that I'd go with Whoa, thats one big friggen toad. Guettarda 12:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:TOL has a guidline for naming of articles:

"In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise."

Considering most frogs do not have a formal common name, then we shouldn't be using them until formal names are implemented for ALL frogs. A lot of species have many common names. For those articles, you use the most common name, which is Cane Toad.

I don't particularly understand the argument of not using the common name of where it has become a pest, because it is native to a region where English is not the spoken languange. The common names in those areas will not be in English, and are therefore unsuitable for an English encyclopaedia (except in cases where the native language has been adapted with English, like Corroboree frog). Since this is the English Wikipedia, it should be the most common English name. White's Tree Frog (a featured article) uses a name which is not used where it is native. No one in Australia calls it White's Tree Frog, we all call it the Green Tree Frog. However, it is not possible to use that name as other countries have Green Tree Frogs, so the article is named based on what it is called where it has been introduced. Also, it is obviously not called whatever it is called in New Guinea, as that would not be English, and not be suitable for an English encyclopaedia. Could you give me any example of an animal, well known to English speakers, that has a name purely based on another language?

Using the scientific name is the last case scenario, generally when there are no common names left (e.g. Litoria chloris is called the Red-eyed Tree Frog, and nothing else. Since there is a conflict in names, it had to be called by its scientific name). The Cane Toad has many, many common names, and it should really have to get to its scientific name. Considering "Cane Toad" is by far the most used, and is unique as far as I know, it should be used for the article name. As for ambiguity, we have redirects from all the common names, and the scientific name. It is not an issue. --liquidGhoul 13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. While I take the point that we shouldn't use Australian English just because the name appears on lots of Australian websites (because this toad is a big environmental issue here), if you exclude Australian sites you still get about 140,000 Google hits for "cane toad". So it's not just Australia that uses this as the normal name. Andrewa 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• 'Support'

Giant Neotropical Toad is stupid and since no other alternative is given Cane toad is the choice. Enlil Ninlil 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bufo marinus?

Does anyone know why it was called B. marinus, in relation to the specific epiphet: marinus? --liquidGhoul 09:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

marinus is in reference to marine, this species is more aquatic than other species of toads-giving it the other common name marine toad (ie. bufo=toad, marinus=marine).--Tnarg 12345 10:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was a aware that it is in relation to "marine", but that doesn't really make sense as marine refers to salt water, not fresh water. --liquidGhoul 10:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A Feild Guide to Frogs of Australia by Martyn Robison states that this species is tolerant of brackish water and can be found in mangroves-perhaps the first speciemens of this species where found in areas close to the coast or mangrove areas-however that is just my guess as to why it might have that in its name--Tnarg 12345 10:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Frogmouths as predators

Wonder if there is a citation for this ? I am under the impression that the Caprimulgiformes are exclusively insectivorous. Shyamal 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation given from the book I got it from is: Freeland, W.J. (1985) The need to control cane toads. Search 16(7-8): 211-215. I can't find it on Google Scholar, but I will have a look at the uni library tomorrow. --liquidGhoul 11:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The paper does say that they eat the Cane Toad, and can withstand the toxins. From my bird identification book, it eats: "large insects, spiders, frogs, small mammals and ground birds." They wouldn't have such a large beak for a purely insectivorous diet. --liquidGhoul 13:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Australian species, but Frogmouths in have large gapes that help them catch insects on the wing. The rictal brisles also help them form a funnel. A difference must be made between being able to eat something (when fed in captivity) and predation. Shyamal 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No-one in their right mind would feed a tawny frogmouth a Cane Toad in captivity! --liquidGhoul 10:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:) Never know how people might use info on this wikipedia article ! Shyamal 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

spelling

I'm confused: is this article in AuEng? The spelling's inconsistent. Tony 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't gone through it yet and made spelling consistent. I am using Australian spelling, and I am guessing that some of the previous authors have not (it was a pretty long article before I started any work). I would rather it be Australian spelling, but I haven't got any anything to really back this up, just personal preference :). --liquidGhoul 08:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Random comments

I've just taken a look over the article, and have a number of comments, ranging from significant to pedantic (and listed in no particular order):

1) "among frogs it has a unique diet of both dead and living matter." It is definitely not true that these are the only frogs that eat dead animals, though for most species this is kind of rare. Is it true that these toads consume such significant quantities of dead animals that it's worth mentioning? I'm not so sure, but it probably isn't significant enough to go in the introductory paragraph.

I was aware of this (I think you have mentioned it before), I think one of the copy edits re-worded it. I will change it back. As for whether it is significant enough, some Cane Toads in Australia live entirely on dog food (stealing it of course). The ability to eat dead food is pretty much what allows them to survive in cities. --liquidGhoul 03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph of the taxonomy section, marinus is listed as similar to three species of North American toads that do not widely overlap the range of marinus. I'm wondering, then, why this paragraph is there. There's far more species that are more similar in appearance than fowleri, quercicus, and terrestris. I think this whole paragraph should be removed. If anything, mention the large paratoid glands and arrangement of cranial crests as key features to this species which would eliminate other similar Bufo. Or, maybe mention in the start of this paragraph that these are similar species in the USA.

Lol. That section was made by me, and two other Australians. If you would like to completely redo it, please do. This is the worst section for me as the only references I have for it are from Australian books, and the internet. The Australian books describe similarities to Australian frogs (of which they are not similar at all, it is just for people who don't know their frogs), and the internet described similarities to those three toads. --liquidGhoul 03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

3) Origin of marinus epithet. According to Savage's "Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica", Linne named the species "marinus" because it had been erroneously reported as living in marine environments. These original false claims were apparently made by a Dutch biologist by the name of Seba in the early 18th century. Linneaus clearly didn't check on the biology of this species. Since Linneaus was apparently horrified and disgusted by all amphibians, I'm surprized he bothered to formally describe the species at all.

Thanks a lot!!!! Could you please add that to the article with a citation (makes me very happy, that is very hard to find) --liquidGhoul 03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

. 4) Common name (and article naming stuff). Hate to bring this up again, but the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (a North American-based organization) puts out an official listing of standard English scientific and common names for amphibians that live in North America. Their official name for marinus is "Cane Toad." These common names are recognized by all of the major herpetological societies in North America, and should be difinitive. Here's the link: http://www.ssarherps.org/pdf/Crother.pdf.

Thanks :)

5) It might be worth mentioning that marinus never made any significant dent on the target arthropod populations it was introduced to control. It serves as a good warning for amateurish attempts at biological control.

It is mentioned (twice I think). --liquidGhoul 03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

6) There's got to be a decent recording of the call for free on the web somewhere.

I'll ask if someone can get one on the Australian Wikipedia Notice Board. --liquidGhoul 03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

7) I'll try to upload some more photos (tadpoles, eggs, calling adults) as soon as I can. I'll put up a note when I get a chance, but it may be a while. --Pstevendactylus 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.

Thanks a lot Pstevendactylus, you brought up many of the things I was concerned with. --liquidGhoul 03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a call record on the Frogs Australia Network. This is the link.Froggydarb 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Any ideas why 'Spring Chicken' would redirect to this page?

Distribution map

The distribution map for this species is missing some areas. I know for a fact that the Cane Toad or Marine Toad was introduced to Puerto Rico and possibly other Caribbean islands to control sugar cane pests. Also aren't they also found in Florida? Joelito (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn. I blanked completely on all of the North American introductions and Puerto Rico. I will try and get around to it, but am busy for the next week and a bit. If you could fix it, please do. --liquidGhoul 14:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of the map which includes some areas in the Caribbean, I don't know if I got all of the islands they occur on there so if I missed any someone can go ahead an fill them in.--Tnarg 12345 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar species

The Rococo Toad (Bufo schneideri) is a very similar species, in size and appearance, which shares native range with the Cane Toad, it is also frequently imported into the pet trade, so is often mistaken/mislabelled as the Cane Toad. I'm having a brain fart, so figured I'd mention it and let someone else determine whether/how to add it to the article. -Dawson 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Animated map

I really like the animated map, but (maybe I'm asking too much), could you change it so the year appears and changes as the map progresses? CG 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I could do that. (May be a day or two before I upload it though.) Froggydarb 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is up, sorry I took so long. Froggydarb 04:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad Golf

I added this text to the 'popular culture section', and it was promptly removed. I tried to make it as NPOV as possible, and I even had a reference.

In states where the toad is common, it has been a passtime for people to play "Cane Toad Golf" - injuring the animals with golf clubs or cricket bats. This is not advisable, as the force exerted by a golf club or cricket bat is not sufficient to kill the animals , and their poison remains toxic after their death. In April, 2005, Dave Tollner, a Northern Territory Member of Parliament, called for the legalisation of attacking the cane toad.

As crazy as it sounds, this really did happen, and there was a bit of a controversy at the time about it. Can someone else have a go at making the text sound betterer and adding it in? Thanks. - 220.237.30.150 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason this addition wasn't accepted is that we don't like to incite cruelty to animals by writing about it, and that there may be little value in writing about the practices of presumably a small number (in terms of proportion of population) of immature individuals. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you would by surprised how accepted it is. It is disgusting. Here is a good article about it. If that radio show were talking about any other animal, they would probably be fired. On the subject, I have re-added the section. It is not in the best condition at the moment, as I think it sounds slightly pro-cruelty (I know it is not meant to be), but I don't think it will take much to fix. --liquidGhoul 10:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's widely accepted because the cane toads are so much of a problem, and so difficult to get rid of any other way. While I don't have any first hand experience of it, the consensus seems to be that there's simply so many of them that you need to get as many people as possible to help. They're not very susceptible to poison, they're tough-skinned, they breed like stupid crazy, AND they eat crops. It's incredibly difficult to kill them; it's noteworthy that the Australian State Government have called in the army to help with the problem (ref). --Firien § 10:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not hard to kill them humanely! Collect them into a container, stick them into the fridge for a day so they go into a hibernation like state (they experience this in nature, and experience less pain when cold). Then stick them into the freezer. They will die humanely, and it is a lot better solution than smacking them with a club. I completely understand they are a huge threat to our native wildlife, and I want to see them all gone, but this is not going to be achieved through people beating them to death, in fact it might improve their population. Scientists are starting to find that Cane Toads are dying from an unknown disease, and it only affects adults. If you kill all the adult Cane Toads (as usually happens, as they are the biggest), then you are removing the vector, and decreasing the chances of spreading the disease. Secondly, it does not always kill the toad, and is therefore less effective than the freezer method, and dead Cane Toads are still a threat to our native wildlife. By beating them over the head, and leaving them it makes it easier for a predator to come along and eat it. AND they don't "eat our crops". I hope you haven't spread that misinformation to anybody. Killing them individually does work to an extent, as has happened in Port Macquarie, but once they have completely overrun an area, there is no chance of decreasing their population through these means. The use of the army is to stop their spread any further, not to take back areas which are already invaded. --liquidGhoul 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you put at the end something about the identification difficulties (for a layman, a frog is a toad is a big friggen toad) and that most local councils in cane toad infested areas would have resources for identifying them, and that the preferred method of disposal is to fridge them and then freeze them. What are you supposed to do with the bodies after you've frozen them? - 220.237.30.150 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service has made a small booklet on how to identify Cane Toads from similar looking frogs, as to make sure when people kill the toads they don't kill native frogs by mistake, if an online link to this booklet can be found it would be good to add it to the article. Once the Cane Toad has been frozen dead I'm not entirely sure what the best thing to do is. But I would recommend either throwing them out with the rubbish, burying or burning them as long as native animals can't get to the dead bodies (ie. don't just put them back where they were found). The only website I found with some information on it said that once they've been frozen dispose of them, whatever you make that to be.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 04:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

dig a hole and bury them, they make good fertalizer.

Like this? (Also comes with MP3 of cane toad call!) I won't add it in myself, because I can't do the fancy citing things. - Malkinann 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thats really good. I'll (or if someone else does it before me) add it to the article soon.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a good paragraph

Hi folks

A recent edit alerted me to this paragraph:

As of 2005, there have been successes using dark ultraviolet lights to lure and capture Cane Toads for extermination.[17] In June 2006, the University of Queensland announced research into a gene which would reverse the sex of female Cane Toads, leading to a population consisting only of males, which could possibly eventually wipe out the species.[18] However, this carries the risk of a reverse introduction that would also wipe out cane toads in their native range.

The first sentence is dodgy. Then "which would" "which could"; and it's kind of long. "Could possibly"—one is redundant. I don't understand the meaning of the last sentence. Is "also" necessary? Tony 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, that was pretty bad. How is it now? --liquidGhoul 11:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Watermark

I think that the watermark on this image (Image:Agarkroete_fg4.jpg) should be removed. It is released under a free license which allows us to legally do this. Afterall, this photo only requires attribution, which can be done in text form outside of the image just as well. Removing an obtrusive and non-contextual watermark is beneficial to image quality. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the licence says: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." I take this to meaning that the licensor has attributed his own work in the manner of a watermark, and that must be used. --liquidGhoul 10:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. The work allows for derivatives. It's licensed BY-SA 2.5. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I just read the license, and it appears that you're right. To quote: You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice [...] Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.. That's too bad. Huge copyright notices (in poor typeface, too!) do distract from the context and subject matter. :( —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they are pretty common purses in Qld, maybe someone could take a similar photo. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Phenomenal egg production

4 to 36,000,000 eggs? Could this be 36 eggs? Sperm counts are usually high, but egg counts are usually small as the eggs are much more substantial. NickyMcLean 21:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's from 4,000 - 36,000 eggs. I will correct this. Joelito (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Population density

The claim of 1000-2000 cane toads per 100 square meters sounds high. That's 10-20 per square meter, or a carpet of toads. Can someone with access to the source material check the number?

It is actually per 100 metres of shoreline, not per 100 square metres. Thanks for bringing it up. --liquidGhoul 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Toxic Effects

I've just copyedited the new section on toxic effects, but it smacks of original research, so I'd be happier if it had some references to back it up. Especially of note is that as far as I can tell, it is the only place in the article where Africa is mentioned. Ross Hatton 12:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, you are correct. Cane Toads are not in South Africa as far as I know. If the author of that section would like it put back in, please create citations, and add it to the appropriate section (there is already info on the toxins in the article, expand that section). I will add the removed section below. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cane toads excrete a neurotoxin from their venom glands when provoked. The toxin is harmless when touched but extremely lethal when orally ingested. The toxin acts quickly on the neuorological system in humans and stops the electrical impulses that command the muscles in the body. Then, the major organs in the body shut down. As a result of this death occurs if urgent medical attention does not arrive quickly enough.

Many people in southern Africa have died after ingesting cane toads or their eggs because of this. Their were many cases in Australia also. However, medical attention had usually arrived quickly enough and there has been only 1 fatality in Australia since."

Humourous

I changed the back as "humorous" is the correct spelling worldwide, see Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/H for example. --Guinnog 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a full discussion of this at [1] if you aer interested. --Guinnog 13:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad Trap

Haha - Someone's made a Cane Toad Trap and run it on The New Inventors some time... Is it worth mentioning, or is it just a flash in the pan? Or maybe it's notable for the idea that the NT govt ran the Cane Toad Trap competition?- Malkinann 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is neccessary. Only extermination programs which have succeeded or failed, but cost a lot of money/resources etc. need to be included. --liquidGhoul 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Parotid/Parotoid

When I was studying zoology (way back in the early 90s) parotid (lit "level with the ear") was the only acceptable term. A quick Google scholar search shows that parotoid (lit: meaningless) is in apparently in use today. However since "parotid" seems to be overwhelmingly the more common spelling in journals I thnk perhaps we shoudl stick with that. I have no idea where "parotoid" comes from or even what it's supposed to mean.

The parotid gland is a salivary gland, the parotoid gland is under the skin of some amphibians. I have books dating prior to the early nineties, and they all use parotoid gland in relation to frogs, so it is the correct term. If these toads salivate through their skin, then that is news to me. --liquidGhoul 13:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Largest specimen

From an article in the Daily Telegraph of Australia (March 27, 2007):

A cane toad the size of a small dog has been caught by a pest eradication group in the Northern Territory. FrogWatch, a group culling the introduced menace across the Northern Territory, has found a toad measuring 20cm in length and weighing 860gm.

Somehow that specimen made into this article for the size record. Someone misplaced a decimal point and converted 860gm to 8.6kg. 860gm is somewhat large, but nowhere near the record. I removed it.Lfishel (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture is here. — Loadmaster 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Arthritis

New research is showing that the longer legs evolving are causing about 10% of cane toads to suffer from arthritis of the legs. I don't know how to do the citing thing, but this would be an interesting point to put in. Source: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.202.1 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreational Drug Use?

There is not much here about the Recreational Use of the drugs the Toad secretes.... Here in the USA the Cane Toad has become someone famous (especially in the Southwest) for inducing an hour-long "high". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.215.85 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On the flavor of cane toads

"many people who ate cane toads say that they taste just like chicken except have a slightly border and dryer taste."

I'm trying to guess what a border taste is.

Do people who eat toads have problems pronouncing words? (This last bit is meant as a joke.) Wanderer57 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)