Talk:Golden poison frog

message: "Golden poison frogs are curious, bold, and seemingly aware of the fact that they are next to invulnerable, making no attempt to conceal themselves and even flaunting their striking colours to intimidate potential predators."
Surely a poisonous animal would instinctively flaunt itself to potential predators? I see no reason this signifies intelligence, any more than producing the poison signifies an understanding of biochemistry. Removing this part, feel free to revert if you have supporting evidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenzeneRing839 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence 

message: Which is the more common term - 'phases' or 'morphs'? (I have only heard 'morphs' used, which is why I added the term, but maybe my experience has been unusual) --Leperflesh 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the morph section and added several citations as well as the discussion of the newly established "orange blackfoot" line. I am not sure if "morph" is the correct term to describe the color variations as they are really more "locales" than morphs.. in my experience "morph" is a term used by pet breeders. For now I have left "morph" in place as the terminology of the article; if there is a more biologically appropriate term I would encourage using it instead of morph. Connor Long (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phases? 

message: Large portions of this article have been copied and pasted verbatim from one of it's cited sources....
http://www.wonderquest.com/frog-poison.htm
Ronstock (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of quotes from a source 

message: "Batrachotoxin is only found[6] in three poisonous frogs of Colombia (genus Phyllobates)"
A careful reading of the cited page does not lead to this conclusion. The author never says that only these three frogs carry batrachotoxin. Rather, it says that in the 1960s, two specific Phyllobates species were discovered to have Batrachotoxin; it then says "Other frogs use different poisons, but none as toxic as batrachotoxin.". The construction "other frogs" is not the same as "all other frogs" and leaves open the interpretation that some frogs use Batrachotoxin (besides just the three Phylobates species), and other frogs do not.
I bring this up because I was under the impression that all species of Dendrobatidae are toxic, and that they all use Batrachotoxin as the source of this toxicity. 
I'll leave the article as-is, but if anyone has better information for the origin of toxicity in poison dart frogs other than Phyllobates spp., please make the correction. --Leperflesh (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More than three dart frog species have batrachotoxin? 

message: Golden Poison Frog: enough toxin to kill 15,000 humans or one Katy Perry? Is this a sick joke, PR, or simply libelous reference to a young singer? Wiki has its oddities people. The PR firms are amazing, aren't they? Anything to get a Google link. Where else on Wiki has this been quitely inserted? Any admins willing to do a global search? Phoenixthebird (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on existing sources I believe the number of non-Katy Perry humans a single specimen could poison is fewer than 15,000 and the number of Katy Perrys that could be poisoned is more than one. Unless the assertion was referring to the musician Katy Perry, and then by definition there is only one that could be poisoned. I know it has been 12 years, but I have completed an undergraduate degree and a doctorate in that time and now finally feel prepared to answer this critical question Connor Long (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Katy Perry?

message: Does anyone else think that this would be an appropriate addition?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.2.214 (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Poison Frog in popular culture?

message: The word "skin" appears twice in the article, both times referring to the animal's skin. The word "touch" doesn't appear at all. I think somewhere in the article it should be made clear that by simply touching the animal the human skin can absorb enough toxin to cause potentially lethal systemic poisoning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.40.191 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to ask the same question. You did it almost 3 years ago and... nobody answered. The most likely reason is that nobody knows the answer :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, the poison really shouldn't be able to be absorbed through healthy skin. However, the animal is so toxic that any small abrasions on your skin could be enough to poison you. The sources I have read (and cited in this article) are a little bit mixed, some asserting you'd have to let the toxin touch a mucus membrane for absorption, and some hedging and saying even touching the frog is dangerous. I am not sure this is known conclusively - rubbing one of these frogs on a person to find out would be a terrible idea. If anyone has a source that clarifies further, please provide it. Connor Long (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes this frog so dangerous? 

message: formic acid is not an alkaloid. 2600:4041:5D9E:5D00:9855:BB84:276C:375E (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  formic acid