Scientist Discovers First-Ever Venomous Frog the Hard Way

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Scientist Discovers First-Ever Venomous Frog the Hard Way

It has been discovered that a Brazilian species is the world's first venomous frog. The man who made this discovery probably wishes he didn't.

Greening's Frog used Poison Jab!

It's super effective!

Wild frog researcher fainted!

At least, that's how I like to imagine the discovery of the world's first venomous frog went down.

Carlos Jared, a researcher from Brazil's Instituto Butantan in São Paulo, was collecting frogs in a forest reserve when one of them head-butted him, stabbing its venom-coated spine into his hand. It caused "intense pain radiating up the arm," said Jared, "lasting about five hours."

This tipped Jared and his co-researchers off that there was something strange about Greening's Frog, or Corythomantis greeningi, a species which has been known to science for some time. It turns out that Greening's and a related species, Bruno's Casque-Headed, are the only frogs discovered so far that inject venom into predators to ward them off.

What do you think? Does this beat out other newly discovered, real-life Pokemon?

Many tropical frogs are known to coat their bodies with a poisonous substance and bright colors, signalling to potential predators, "buddy, don't even try to eat me."

This is distinct from how a venomous frog delivers its toxin, though. Fun fact of the day: the difference between poisonous and venomous animals is that venom is injected by an animal into its prey or predator (as in the bullet ant covered recently), whereas a poisonous animal secretes (or borrows) poison to prevent predation. Poison, like a good joke, is all in the delivery.

Source: CBC.ca, Cell.com

Permalink

Pardon me, but I would count the Poison Dart Frog as number the first. It's a mild dose from one or two, but it is definitely poison if you come in contact with too many.

FalloutJack:
Pardon me, but I would count the Poison Dart Frog as number the first. It's a mild dose from one or two, but it is definitely poison if you come in contact with too many.

As the bottom of the article covers, there's a difference between being Poisonous and Venomous.

FalloutJack:
Pardon me, but I would count the Poison Dart Frog as number the first. It's a mild dose from one or two, but it is definitely poison if you come in contact with too many.

There's a difference between poisonous and venomous. Poisonous requires you to bite something. Venomous requires it to bite you.

There are plenty of poisonous frogs and many have been used as weapons such as the poison dart frog. This is the only known case of a venomous frog.

Supahewok:

FalloutJack:
Pardon me, but I would count the Poison Dart Frog as number the first. It's a mild dose from one or two, but it is definitely poison if you come in contact with too many.

As the bottom of the article covers, there's a difference between being Poisonous and Venomous.

HaileStorm:

FalloutJack:
Pardon me, but I would count the Poison Dart Frog as number the first. It's a mild dose from one or two, but it is definitely poison if you come in contact with too many.

There's a difference between poisonous and venomous. Poisonous requires you to bite something. Venomous requires it to bite you.

There are plenty of poisonous frogs and many have been used as weapons such as the poison dart frog. This is the only known case of a venomous frog.

Venom is poison, though. Seems to be splitting hairs. At the end of the day, the effect is that you are poisoned. I don't know why this distinction exists.

teh_Canape:

Sorry, but I'm not in that line of work. I think I'll just report this.

image

This thread went in a weird direction really fast. Could we get back on topic, about this RL pokemon? Come on, this frog will obviously show up in some RPG in the future, likely a turn-based JRPG. Besides, if it's one thing I've learned, people have an amazing habit of hanging themselves in these forums, with no help from the report tool even if they may think otherwise. If moderation needs done, it will be.

FalloutJack:
Venom is poison, though. Seems to be splitting hairs. At the end of the day, the effect is that you are poisoned. I don't know why this distinction exists.

Lots of venomous animals are edible, though. Venomous snakes, for example, you just avoid the head. A poisonous snake (there's a poisonous sea snake, IIRC), you can't eat.

thaluikhain:

FalloutJack:
Venom is poison, though. Seems to be splitting hairs. At the end of the day, the effect is that you are poisoned. I don't know why this distinction exists.

Lots of venomous animals are edible, though. Venomous snakes, for example, you just avoid the head. A poisonous snake (there's a poisonous sea snake, IIRC), you can't eat.

I'll have you know that I am a respectable westerner! There is no way that I am eating a snake, I much prefer red meat but chicken will do in a pinch. Once we start eating snakes we are savages. SAVAGES!

FalloutJack:

teh_Canape:

Sorry, but I'm not in that line of work. I think I'll just report this.

There are some extremely toxic venoms that you can ingest without harm assuming you have no open wounds in your mouth or digestive tract. Despite the name noninterchangeably referring to the method of introduction into the body many venoms need to be introduced directly into the blood stream otherwise your digestive juices can break them down, I and teh_Canape apparently thought this was common knowledge though this video seems to imply otherwise.

http://ufwildlife.ifas.ufl.edu/venomous_snake_faqs.shtml

Fascinating beast. Allow me however to correct two spellings:
Butantan Institute and São Paulo. You can drop the tilde (~) if you have to, but keep the u in "Paulo" instead of writing it in Italian.

thaluikhain:

FalloutJack:
Venom is poison, though. Seems to be splitting hairs. At the end of the day, the effect is that you are poisoned. I don't know why this distinction exists.

Lots of venomous animals are edible, though. Venomous snakes, for example, you just avoid the head. A poisonous snake (there's a poisonous sea snake, IIRC), you can't eat.

You know, I understand Fugu to be a delicasy, buuut I'll pass.

Saulkar:

Now, see, this actually gives me an answer. It actually states that methodology is the only appreciable difference between the two. It ALSO states that the terms are under the heirarchy of toxins. So, all nit-pickery aside, the science declares that it's the world's second toxin-producing frog, and I wouldn't eat either one of 'em on a bet, even if you boiled 'em for twelve hours and simmered 'em in a lovely marinara sauce.

srpilha:
Allow me however to correct two spellings:
Butantan Institute and São Paulo. You can drop the tilde (~) if you have to, but keep the u in "Paulo" instead of writing it in Italian.

Thanks! I honestly appreciate the help. The article's been updated (I even added the tilde).

FalloutJack:

Now, see, this actually gives me an answer. It actually states that methodology is the only appreciable difference between the two. It ALSO states that the terms are under the heirarchy of toxins. So, all nit-pickery aside, the science declares that it's the world's second toxin-producing frog, and I wouldn't eat either one of 'em on a bet, even if you boiled 'em for twelve hours and simmered 'em in a lovely marinara sauce.

If you by second mean one of many, then yes, it is the second discovered toxin producing frog.

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

Now, see, this actually gives me an answer. It actually states that methodology is the only appreciable difference between the two. It ALSO states that the terms are under the heirarchy of toxins. So, all nit-pickery aside, the science declares that it's the world's second toxin-producing frog, and I wouldn't eat either one of 'em on a bet, even if you boiled 'em for twelve hours and simmered 'em in a lovely marinara sauce.

If you by second mean one of many, then yes, it is the second discovered toxin producing frog.

My study of frog species and whatever toxins may lie therein has apprerntly been neglected. I wouldn't say that that makes the article better, then... Just another entry in the codex. Is that why people want the pokemon parallel?

HaileStorm:

FalloutJack:
Pardon me, but I would count the Poison Dart Frog as number the first. It's a mild dose from one or two, but it is definitely poison if you come in contact with too many.

There's a difference between poisonous and venomous. Poisonous requires you to bite something. Venomous requires it to bite you.

There are plenty of poisonous frogs and many have been used as weapons such as the poison dart frog. This is the only known case of a venomous frog.

Um excuse me it's only Magma when it's in space, it's lava when it's in earths atmosphere.

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

Now, see, this actually gives me an answer. It actually states that methodology is the only appreciable difference between the two. It ALSO states that the terms are under the heirarchy of toxins. So, all nit-pickery aside, the science declares that it's the world's second toxin-producing frog, and I wouldn't eat either one of 'em on a bet, even if you boiled 'em for twelve hours and simmered 'em in a lovely marinara sauce.

If you by second mean one of many, then yes, it is the second discovered toxin producing frog.

My study of frog species and whatever toxins may lie therein has apprerntly been neglected. I wouldn't say that that makes the article better, then... Just another entry in the codex. Is that why people want the pokemon parallel?

Well, considering the article mentioned the difference between poisonous and venomous and the fact that numerous tropical frogs are poisonous I don't think you can blame the article for much here. Maybe you should have read the entire thing before incorrectly saying that the poison dart frog is venomous, that venomous and poisonous means the same and that this is the second toxin producing frog (which is wrong in at least two ways).

Eric the Orange:

HaileStorm:

FalloutJack:
Pardon me, but I would count the Poison Dart Frog as number the first. It's a mild dose from one or two, but it is definitely poison if you come in contact with too many.

There's a difference between poisonous and venomous. Poisonous requires you to bite something. Venomous requires it to bite you.

There are plenty of poisonous frogs and many have been used as weapons such as the poison dart frog. This is the only known case of a venomous frog.

Um excuse me it's only Magma when it's in space, it's lava when it's in earths atmosphere.

Umm...

I think you made a mistake in what you were trying to say there buddy.

MiskWisk:

Eric the Orange:

Um excuse me it's only Magma when it's in space, it's lava when it's in earths atmosphere.

Umm...

I think you made a mistake in what you were trying to say there buddy.

Nah I find it funny to mix up pedantic words. In this case being Poisonous/Venomous, Meteors/Asteroids, and Lava/Magma.

So Croagunk has real-world equivalent now. When are we gonna get Chesnaught and Articuno?

Eric the Orange:

MiskWisk:

Eric the Orange:

Um excuse me it's only Magma when it's in space, it's lava when it's in earths atmosphere.

Umm...

I think you made a mistake in what you were trying to say there buddy.

Nah I find it funny to mix up pedantic words. In this case being Poisonous/Venomous, Meteors/Asteroids, and Lava/Magma.

The difference between poisonous and venomous is more than just pedantry. Lots of people eat venomous creatures. Getting those mixed up with poisonous ones would be a problem.

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

If you by second mean one of many, then yes, it is the second discovered toxin producing frog.

My study of frog species and whatever toxins may lie therein has apprerntly been neglected. I wouldn't say that that makes the article better, then... Just another entry in the codex. Is that why people want the pokemon parallel?

Well, considering the article mentioned the difference between poisonous and venomous and the fact that numerous tropical frogs are poisonous I don't think you can blame the article for much here. Maybe you should have read the entire thing before incorrectly saying that the poison dart frog is venomous, that venomous and poisonous means the same and that this is the second toxin producing frog (which is wrong in at least two ways).

The article is still in error. What you said before makes it even more so. I don't wanna hear no jive about "First!" if it ain't, which it ain't.

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

My study of frog species and whatever toxins may lie therein has apprerntly been neglected. I wouldn't say that that makes the article better, then... Just another entry in the codex. Is that why people want the pokemon parallel?

Well, considering the article mentioned the difference between poisonous and venomous and the fact that numerous tropical frogs are poisonous I don't think you can blame the article for much here. Maybe you should have read the entire thing before incorrectly saying that the poison dart frog is venomous, that venomous and poisonous means the same and that this is the second toxin producing frog (which is wrong in at least two ways).

The article is still in error. What you said before makes it even more so. I don't wanna hear no jive about "First!" if it ain't, which it ain't.

In what way is it wrong? I may have misunderstood you here.

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

Well, considering the article mentioned the difference between poisonous and venomous and the fact that numerous tropical frogs are poisonous I don't think you can blame the article for much here. Maybe you should have read the entire thing before incorrectly saying that the poison dart frog is venomous, that venomous and poisonous means the same and that this is the second toxin producing frog (which is wrong in at least two ways).

The article is still in error. What you said before makes it even more so. I don't wanna hear no jive about "First!" if it ain't, which it ain't.

In what way is it wrong? I may have misunderstood you here.

Well, my grumble is that venom and poison differences are semantical at best, and then Saulkar enlightened me to the fact that in science, it's very interchangeable and all under the heading of toxins. Finally, you inform me that actually there are alot of frogs like this, something I didn't readily know. I haven't studied amphibians as much as many other things. But the point is that if it's just another frog on a long list, then the real story here is how unfortunate it is that a scientist discovering a new species was poisoned by said frog. It's relevent as in it's new and someone got hurt, but it's not a 'first', according to the information I'm being fed here.

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

The article is still in error. What you said before makes it even more so. I don't wanna hear no jive about "First!" if it ain't, which it ain't.

In what way is it wrong? I may have misunderstood you here.

Well, my grumble is that venom and poison differences are semantical at best, and then Saulkar enlightened me to the fact that in science, it's very interchangeable and all under the heading of toxins. Finally, you inform me that actually there are alot of frogs like this, something I didn't readily know. I haven't studied amphibians as much as many other things. But the point is that if it's just another frog on a long list, then the real story here is how unfortunate it is that a scientist discovering a new species was poisoned by said frog. It's relevent as in it's new and someone got hurt, but it's not a 'first', according to the information I'm being fed here.

Venomous - toxin is injected (such as from the bite of a snake or the jab of this frog).
Poison - it is secreted from glands and works passively.

This isn't just semantics, this is how it is defined. For example a venom might not be poisonous. If your friend is bitten by a death adder and you try to suck out the toxins by sucking at the bite wound you won't get poisoned. The proteins that make up the snake venom are too large to pass through the epithelium. So it can work as a venom, but not as a poison.

I pointed out that there's numerous poisonous frogs. These frogs can not inject their toxins into a prey or predator making them poisonous, but not venomous. I haven't heard of venomous frogs before, maybe this is ignorance on my part, maybe this is the first one to be discovered. The article isn't wrong, just because you don't accept the terminology.

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

In what way is it wrong? I may have misunderstood you here.

Well, my grumble is that venom and poison differences are semantical at best, and then Saulkar enlightened me to the fact that in science, it's very interchangeable and all under the heading of toxins. Finally, you inform me that actually there are alot of frogs like this, something I didn't readily know. I haven't studied amphibians as much as many other things. But the point is that if it's just another frog on a long list, then the real story here is how unfortunate it is that a scientist discovering a new species was poisoned by said frog. It's relevent as in it's new and someone got hurt, but it's not a 'first', according to the information I'm being fed here.

Venomous - toxin is injected (such as from the bite of a snake or the jab of this frog).
Poison - it is secreted from glands and works passively.

This isn't just semantics, this is how it is defined. For example a venom might not be poisonous. If your friend is bitten by a death adder and you try to suck out the toxins by sucking at the bite wound you won't get poisoned. The proteins that make up the snake venom are too large to pass through the epithelium. So it can work as a venom, but not as a poison.

I pointed out that there's numerous poisonous frogs. These frogs can not inject their toxins into a prey or predator making them poisonous, but not venomous. I haven't heard of venomous frogs before, maybe this is ignorance on my part, maybe this is the first one to be discovered. The article isn't wrong, just because you don't accept the terminology.

The problem is that I DO find mere methodology to be semantics talking. Now, the biological reason is more interesting. That's a REAL difference, something more substantial than mere transportation.

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

FalloutJack:

Well, my grumble is that venom and poison differences are semantical at best, and then Saulkar enlightened me to the fact that in science, it's very interchangeable and all under the heading of toxins. Finally, you inform me that actually there are alot of frogs like this, something I didn't readily know. I haven't studied amphibians as much as many other things. But the point is that if it's just another frog on a long list, then the real story here is how unfortunate it is that a scientist discovering a new species was poisoned by said frog. It's relevent as in it's new and someone got hurt, but it's not a 'first', according to the information I'm being fed here.

Venomous - toxin is injected (such as from the bite of a snake or the jab of this frog).
Poison - it is secreted from glands and works passively.

This isn't just semantics, this is how it is defined. For example a venom might not be poisonous. If your friend is bitten by a death adder and you try to suck out the toxins by sucking at the bite wound you won't get poisoned. The proteins that make up the snake venom are too large to pass through the epithelium. So it can work as a venom, but not as a poison.

I pointed out that there's numerous poisonous frogs. These frogs can not inject their toxins into a prey or predator making them poisonous, but not venomous. I haven't heard of venomous frogs before, maybe this is ignorance on my part, maybe this is the first one to be discovered. The article isn't wrong, just because you don't accept the terminology.

The problem is that I DO find mere methodology to be semantics talking. Now, the biological reason is more interesting. That's a REAL difference, something more substantial than mere transportation.

So passive vs active isn't a reason to differentiate? OK, don't worry. You're wrong. Not sure if you're unable or unwilling to understand, but I hope it's the former.

Yopaz:

Snip

There's no reason to cop an attitude about it.

PatrickJS:

Carlos Jared, a researcher from Brazil's Instituto Butantan in São Paulo, was collecting frogs in a forest reserve when one of them head-butted him, stabbing its venom-coated spine into his hand.

... What? Did I get this right? The frog head-butted him, exposed with this technique its spine and rammed that somehow into his hand?

How? So the head... exploded?

I find this more odd than that the frog was venomous.

Burned Hand:
Snip for size

It says quite alot. It actually expands a good deal on the relevent part of Yopaz's post, about the biology aspect of things. There's a great deal of nuance that was hitherto unseen until now by me, all very interesting. The science of it wins out every time.

Burned Hand:

FalloutJack:

Burned Hand:
Snip for size

It says quite alot. It actually expands a good deal on the relevent part of Yopaz's post, about the biology aspect of things. There's a great deal of nuance that was hitherto unseen until now by me, all very interesting. The science of it wins out every time.

I'm glad to hear it, Viva Science! Viva Science!

Plus I really nerd out big time on this topic.

Indeed. Well, show these beautiful people the carefully-accrued knowledge and...riddle me this:

The scientist was headbutted to be stung by this frog. Why was the stinger here instead of maybe a tongue-spur or something? I wouldn't say ingesting its own toxins would be an issue, even if it was vulnerable to it somehow, since frogs can - by and large - turn their stomachs inside out and get rid of anything they don't like.

Burned Hand:
SCIENCE!

Cool, isn't it?

Very. This is not the first time I've heard of a 'tooth head', but I'm having a hard time remembering what else does it. Though, the platypus... It's spurs in the rear legs? I thought it was the little claws on the forelimbs.

FalloutJack:

Yopaz:

Snip

There's no reason to cop an attitude about it.

Dude... you reported a guy simply for commenting on how your lack of knowledge and understanding might have been a troll post. He didn't even say you were a troll, he was merely pointing out that it might have been an amazing troll post.

You've no room to talk about attitudes.

In other news, before I get reported for some reason I don't understand, (as I don't know which rule the above guy broke to be penalized) I'll state this much.

It's actually very interesting that we've discovered a venomous frog.

Not that I ever went around saying this, but I suppose I can put the statement, "There are no venomous frogs" right up there with, "there are no poisonous snakes" in the "This statement is false" category.

Draconalis:
Zoop

Yeah, he did, actually. He said it outright, AND he was wrong to do so. My attitude is completely fine.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here