Talk:Cane toad

message: 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)
thread_title:  It is the world's largest toad? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This was discussed at Talk:Cane_toad/archive1#Common_name. --John Vandenberg (chat) 01:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: 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)
thread_title: Cane toad behaviour article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mouth size 

message: 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)
thread_title: Split out of info

message: 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)
thread_title: Featured article status

message: no consensus. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It was 31 kb, and thus could be even double or triple the size. A better way would have been some form of  tag - OMG Australian bias! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: # Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #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)
thread_title: Oppose

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: See  for a related post. DrKay (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification 

message: 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)
thread_title: Threats

message: 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)
thread_title:  cane toad sounds 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Taxonomy Question

message: 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)
replies: text: I made the necessary changes.  Dger (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Binomial trouble

message: "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)
thread_title:  Massive cane toad? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Invasive species section 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Length 

message: 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)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rhinella horribilis