Talk:Cane toad

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 4 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dhaynes0. Peer reviewers: Abihoover, Saucyluffy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It is the world's largest toad?

I find it hard to believe that cane toads are bigger than Blomberg's toad. Is there any reference for cane toads bigger than 25 cm snout-to-vent? 190.98.38.206 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Title case

In some cases in the article, the toad is referred as a 'Cane Toad' in title case and in others simple as a 'cane toad' in all lower case. Is it possible to reach a consensus on what it should be? Mastercampbell (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This site in Australia uses lower case. If it is good enough for the Government of Australia, it is certainly good enough here.

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Cane+toads

Wanderer57 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, featured articles such as Blue Whale, Andean Condor and Arctic Tern all refer to the animals in title case. Mastercampbell (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), the title and common names should be lowercase (unless they are using a location or someone's name). StevePrutz (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Article title

After reading the naming standard that Steve pointed to, I am wondering why this is not called "Cane Toad", like Peregrine Falcon and Southern Boobook. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:Cane_toad/archive1#Common_name. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad behaviour article

Recent article on luring: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/38412/title/Morse_Toad_When_amphibians_tap_their_toes StevePrutz (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mouth size

I was reading the article and saw the toad has a maximum mouth size of 1 meter. While this is not correct, I do not know what size would be correct, so would somebody with this knowledge please fix this? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Split out of info

I split out info to Cane toad (Australia). It was well overdue for being in its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article status

Considering the lack of punctuation in image captions, and the flow and the balance in the article I fail to see why it still is a featured article. I have corrected some of the problems. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, folks, Cane toads in Australia was recently split out of this article, which is currently a featured article. Rather than revert, I have opened discussion here to gain consensus on the matter.

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per discussion. Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Merge and expand to address undue weight. -- Avenue (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Merge. The splitting was badly done, and turns one very good article into two mediocre ones, with a demarcation that is unclear at best. Rebecca (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Merge and expand the various subsections appropriately (I also commented about this, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cane toad/archive1). However the article itself does indeed need some citation improvement throughout. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Merge. The Land mass of Australia affected by this is really much (several tens of times) larger than the other small islands where they were added, so the relatively large ecological effect section is justified, although the popular culture should stay put in the fork. And expand the other countries to maintain proportion as needed. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I believe that this is a valid topic for forking because it is clearly notable, and because the remerge with the main article would very likely cause an imbalance in coverage. For example, Australian attitudes of the toad have been prominent in popular culture, but this information would not sit well in the main article. In a fork, however, these attitudes can be more amply covered by limiting the scope. I do not see size as a very great issue in this; balance is the main issue here. bibliomaniac15 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I split the article because the info I split out was a significant portion of the orig article and the new article is a notable enough issue to deserve its own article. I did not spit it on article size criteria. My main concern was the imbalance in the cane toad article toward Australian info. BTW, I don't think the split can be described as forking. See Wikipedia:Content forking. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Bibliomaniac15. Merging would lead to unbalanced coverage. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
4. oppose per all - with this in the main article there is undue weight on Australia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Splitting the article is necessary particularly when discussing ecology/social and environmental impacts/culture because the (invasive feral) cane toad in Australia is a different animal from the (native) cane toad in its Central American natural habitat. Compare this situation with our beloved Tasmanian Bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus), an important ecological resource in Tasmania, but also an introduced tree species responsible for songbird deaths in California; it really does need to be treated separately. BoundaryRider (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
6. It is a notable introduction into Australia, so a separate article will likely eventuate anyway - we may as well build this article with that in mind. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

There are many articles significantly bigger than the combination of these two articles - thus I see no need to fork off at this point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The pre-split article is rather heavily weighted towards B. marinus in Australia. The popular culture section, for example, is entirely Australian. If the article was expanded to balance out the undue weight issues, it would need to be substantially longer. But while there are concerns here, I don't know if a split is the best solution. Guettarda (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was 31 kb, and thus could be even double or triple the size. A better way would have been some form of {{unbalanced}} tag - OMG Australian bias! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh...missed that. I just looked at the relative size, not the absolute size. Yeah, 31 kb isn't unreasonable - double that isn't shocking. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Should add other concern that I estimate only 5-10% of readers would actually go on to read the daughter article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is possibly because a sibling article is of a more specialised nature and therefore has a smaller readership interested in such specialised/specific info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Should concede maybe forking is wrong word - still unimpressed at sloppy way the split was done. Alan, if you are going to split articles like this, at least you could have left a succinct summary of Australian coverage on the main article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken on the summery that I left behind. It was a bit of text from the article that looked appropriate. Will make an attempt at a summary soon. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• The fact the other stuff exists is a valid argument for the split. Some examples of the same type are Rabbits in Australia, Common Brushtail Possum (New Zealand) and Gorse in New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

That argument doesn't convince me, especially after looking at those examples. Rabbits in Australia is the only one which contains a lot of material that would be inappropriate in an expanded main article, and even there the material in the subarticle is not done justice when summarised in the main article. -- Avenue (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP is always expanding and I feel that it is better to split articles into related notable topics sooner rather than later (for a variety of reasons). I have every intention of expanding the two New Zealand articles. They are both notable and there is a lot of info that can - and should - be added. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether to merge or not. I'm hoping to expand this article by discussing the ecological studies in some more depth, and increasing coverage of recent studies that have been done with the cane toad. Although most of these studies are based on Australian data, I don't think that necessarily means this info should go the Australia article, as it's specific to the biology of the organism, not necessarily specific to its existence in Australia. However, having a split article will give a place for the popular culture stuff to go, and I personally wouldn't mind that section not being in the main article. So I won't cast a "vote" either way, but would like to know if I should be concerned if the article does get split, and I start adding in some Australian info, will it get siphoned off into the daughter article? FWIW, I'll try to expand some of the other sections as well, but it'll take longer to get access to the relevant literature (i.e. waiting for interlibrary loans). Sasata (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than cane toads in Australia, how about cane toads as an introduced species? The latter seems to be more of a "natural joint" of reality (to use a metaphor from "Everything is Miscellaneous") rather than cane toads in Australia, which mainly reflects on the authorship of Wikipedia. Andjam (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The treatment of the cane toad as an introduced species is summarised in the article. I get the impression that cane toads in Australia is the more notable introduction of the species, hence the need for a separate article. I see no reason for separate country articles for cane toad introductions since Wikipedia is not paper. Articles for the countries mentioned may eventually be written. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Some work has now been done on expanding the "Introductions" section. It is almost getting to a stage that the section could be summarised and a Cane toad as an introduced species article is created. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so - it is pretty much a summary as is, given the wealth of material on the subject (Lever's book has considerable information, and while Easteal's paper is fairly short, it contains a lot more detail than was appropriate here). But be that as it may, some discussion on the spread of the cane toad is certainly appropriate in this article, and it doesn't add too much to the length. - Bilby (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Systema Naturae

It would be helpful to nail down which edition of Systema Naturae this species first appeared in, as it expanded very quickly. The original is on Wikisource at s:la:Liber:Systema naturae 1735.djvu, and most of the other editions are available online. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference says OD Bufo marinus (Linnaeus, 1758) - Syst. Nat., 10th ed., Vol. 1, p. 211 , .. described from a drawing in Seba (1734).

Linnaeus, 1758 is easy enough to obtain, and I think I have found it in Seba Table LXXI Figure 6.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Supa p. 114 (please fix any obvious transcription errors):

Num. 6. Bufo, Brasiliensis, Margaritis veluti conspersus, Aquaqua dictus.

Inter alia rariora haec quoque Bufonum species ex Brasilia, nuperque etiam ex Portugallia, nobis transmissa est, quae mira certe & haud vulgaris est. Capite pollet triangulari, superne quadrato fere, limbis acutis munito, mitrae facerdotali haud absimili, oculisque igneis conspicuo. Corporis superni pictura ex fusco rubra granulis dilutius rubellis, ceu totidem margaritis, undique dispersis, varia est. Per dorsum. a naso ad anum usque taenia decurrit alba, artificio singulari elaborata. Femora pedesque diluta flavedo marmoris in modum variegat. A naso utrinque supra caput, juxta ventris latera, chorda tenuis, candida, protenditur. Pedes, cum unguibus crenati quasi, & Margaritis consperfi sunt.

Syst. Nat., 10th ed., Vol. 1, p. 211 says something to the effect of:

marina. 7. R. scapulis gibbosis, clunibus nodosis.

See. mus. i. t. 76. f. i. Rana marina maxima.

Habitat in America.

Palmae tetradactylae fissae; Plantae pentadactylae subfissae

A possible source for the original naming issue is Bulletin of the Essex Institute (1869) p.94; and another"Albertus+seba"+Bufo+marinus. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Identification

Hi. There seem to be two claims which I can't source in the article. Specifically:

In the United States, the cane toad closely resembles many Bufonid species. In particular, it could be confused with the Southern toad (Bufo terrestris) and Fowler's Toad (Bufo fowleri). The Southern Toad can be distinguished by the presence of two bulbs in front of the parotoid glands,[12] and the Fowler's Toad has a pale, cream-white stripe that runs down the dorsal surface; the cane toad lacks this stripe.

It is possible to confuse the cane toad with the Rococo Toad (Bufo schneideri), sometimes referred to as Schneider's Toad, whose range overlaps that of the cane toad. The Rococo Toad grows to nearly the same size but has additional poison glands on its back legs which can be used to reliably identify it. Within its native range, the cane toad can be distinguished from the other true toads by the shape of its parotoid glands and the arrangement of the ridges on its head.

While the comparison with the Southern Toad is documented, I can't find anything making the comparison with the Rococo Toad and the Fowler's Toad. If there are any suggestions on sources it would be much appreciated. Otherwise, I may lean towards taking these out until they can be sourced, and only retaining the Southern Toad comparison, given that they don't seem essential (although, from a practical perspective, they do seem helpful). - Bilby (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I've removed: Tadpoles reach 27 millimetres (1 in) in length but are smaller—up to 22 millimetres (0.9 in)—under overcrowded conditions. While it is very probably accurate, and the use of exact numbers makes it clear to me that the original author knew what he or she was talking about, and in all likelihood had a reliable source for it, I can't track one down. There are a couple of books on the topic of tadpoles that may provide a source, but in the meantime I've gone with the ISSG database for the tadpole sizes, and will change it back if we can find something better. - Bilby (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See [1] for a related post. DrKay (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One more: These predators possess either a tolerance to the cane toad's toxins or behavioural adaptations that allow them to avoid the most poisonous areas of the toad as they hunt and consume it. It seems logically sound, on the grounds that these are the only two possible responses, but I haven't found a source specific enough to be applied here (after a fairly extensive search). So for the moment I've pulled out the text, although I suspect that there will be a good source available, given time. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats

Perhaps a -threats- section can be added. Chytridiomycosis aswell as Rhabdias hylae, Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala can be mentioned. See http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/newideasoncanetoadcontrol.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.64.171 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

cane toad sounds

Does a cane toad make a sound? If so, what is it like? We have them around us here on the Gold Coaost, in Queensland, Australia, but they don't seem to make any sound at all? LilyLilyRose (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy Question

I noticed that in the introduction, it was stated that the toads common name is derived for its use against cane beetles, but in the taxonomy section, it is stated that the common name is derived from its use exterminating pests from the sugar cane plant. Which one is right? 174.21.150.74 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Both & neither. The pest in sugar cane fields is the cane beetle, and the (failed) predatory is the cane toad. Whether the toad was named after the beetle or the plant is moot, since the beetle was also named after the plant. HCA (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Binomial trouble

There is a big issue in this article with the binomial name. Bufo marinus, Rhinella marina and Rhinella marinus are all cited as being the correct name at various points. Currently Rhinella marina is the correct name to use (see ICUN, EoL, Amphibia Web and many current publications). Bufo marinus is an old name (though still used by some) since Rhinella was split from Bufo to form a distinct genus, Rhinella marinus is a synonym formed from people getting confused over gender rules in nomenclature. I am not overly competent with Wikipedia editing but this article should be edited to make it clear that the correct scientific name for this species at the moment is Rhinella marina, I am just not sure how to do it correctly atm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.184.82 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I made the necessary changes. Dger (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Massive cane toad?

"Adults average 10–15 cm (3.9–5.9 in) in length; the largest recorded specimen weighed 2.65 kg (5.8 lb) with a length of 38 cm (15 in) from snout to vent."

1) This source is not properly cited. 2) I don't think they mean snout to vent; that would make the Cane toad's size on par with that of Beelzebufo, the largest frog species ever to live. Surely they mean extended from the snout to the tip of the legs? 184.254.142.0 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just ludicrous. Guinness has, over the years, shown such sloppy fact-checking and willingness to take rumor as truth that I don't consider them a reliable source. I've replaced it with a valid source. I did find a second (but poor quality) site giving a similar weight to the 24 cm toad, which makes me suspect that Guinness messed up their units - that Prinzen was 15 cm, not 15 inches. HCA (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Invasive species section

The invasive species section of the article contains excessive detail, is not written in a concise encyclopedic style, and is unduly weighted. Cleanup tags have been added. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Tag removed, section restored. This species is one of the most notorious and destructive invasive species known. This is a very large part of its notability. HCA (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised that this section does not mention the spread of these toads in Florida. I worked for veterinarians in Miami in the 1970s, and we regularly saw dogs who had been poisoned by chewing on these toads. The story was that the toads had been imported for pregnancy testing and someone dropped a crate of them at the Miami airport. I have no validation for this, but the two vets I worked for were close to the airport. Susan Chambless (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cane toad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319112937/http://biostor.org/cache/pdf/4f/f1/64/4ff16475d2671dd59ead6395475b1ef4.pdf to http://biostor.org/cache/pdf/4f/f1/64/4ff16475d2671dd59ead6395475b1ef4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cane toad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604131527/http://www.savethefrogs.com/why-frogs/images/Tyler-2007-Why-Frogs.pdf to http://www.savethefrogs.com/why-frogs/images/Tyler-2007-Why-Frogs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Range maps

Updated maps from recent research are available. – SJ + 01:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Length

The Guinness Book of records mentions a Swedish cane toad measuring 38 cm (1 ft 3 in) from snout to vent and 53.9 cm (1 ft 91/4 in) when fully extended, which exceeds the maximum length given here. The Australian variety also distinctively predates its own species, as an adaptive response to arid conditions and scarce waterholes for reproduction.Stuart Layt, ‘This is not normal’: Australian cane toad tadpoles have become cannibals The Age 27 August 2021 Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

In the second sentence of the second paragraph ("A fossil toad (specimen UCMP 41159) from the La Venta fauna of the late Miocene of Colombia is indistinguishable from modern cane toads from northern South America.") the preposition "of" between Miocene (a geological epoch) and Colombia (a country) seems off to me. I think "in" would be clearer. 68.48.107.79 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Many other frog pages have included their conservational threats. A section focusing on that would give contextualize how these frogs impact their ecosystems. This page could be improved by including information on mating and reproduction. I would add one category for each. The category on mating should focus on mate selection, breeding seasons, hibernation, etc. Reproductive information should explain which parent cares and tadpole early life. A lifecycle category could bridge the two. There is no distinction between tadpole and adult diet and behavior, which seems like a significant oversight. For example, the habitat section should address ideal juvenile habitats against adult habitats. JackRuvin0 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

I would have liked to link the included phrase "Saw-shelled Turtles" to "Saw-shelled Turtles" so others would not have had to search for the understanding. 68.50.173.55 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Unsourced sentences and paragraphs (esp. in "Invasive species"). Range maps (File:Bufo marinus distribution.png and File:Bufo marinus australian range.png) are unsourced and out of date (see also: Talk:Cane_toad#Range_maps). The first map mentions "Wikipedia in English" as a source, which is a case of WP:CIRCULAR. It only partially matches with the IUCN's map. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Removed the "Invasive species" section. The Distrubition section already covers this and all it does is get into detail on a few studies. LittleJerry (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Add to Australia section: "Currently, in terms of trying to control Cane Toads, there is research on lungworm parasite and alert pheromones as successful and effective control measures to slow or decrease population growth. Mac.jpe (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Rhinella horribilis

This article needs extensive revision to reflect the reclassification of the north-western populations of cane toads as R. horribilis rather than R. marina. I don't know what the best approach is to do that, though, hence opening a Talk subject rather than simply editing. 2600:1700:13C8:D8C0:79E5:7A97:CA31:374B (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)