Talk:Golden toad

Random comments

Toads are ampibians!!! It's my newest discovery!!! Bye.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.189.6 (talk • contribs)

I knew that when I was in like yr 2 

This is not exstinct... http://www.ranadorada.org/declines.htm—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulder (talk • contribs)

That website is talking about the "Panamanian Golden Frog". If it means Bufo periglenes instead, it is getting both the name and its status wrong. The more likely explanation is that the website is discussing a different species. Jkelly 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the species may not be (but probably is) extinct. On the talk page for baiji, another endangered creature that has not been seen in recent years, somebody brought up the fact that a species may only be considered extinct until 50 years after the last sighting. This, if true, means there is still time left to look for golden toads (ditto gastric brooding frogs). Is it all right if I change the template to "possibly extinct"? Belgium EO 23:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't understand what this means

Sorry if I'm being very stupid. I know absolutely nothing about toads, and was just drawn to read the article from the lovely picture. I'm struggling to understand this sentence:

From their discovery in 1966 for about 17 years, and from April to July in 1987, over 1500 adult toads were seen.

Does that mean that from 1966 to about 1983 (about seventeen years) over 1,500 toads were seen, and that from April 1987 to July 1987, another 1,500 toads were seen, totalling over 3,000 toads between 1966 and 1987, with an unexplained gap in counting between (around) 1983 and April 1987? Or does it refer simply to a total of something more than 1,500 toads that were seen between 1966 and 1987, again with an unexplained gap between (around) 1983 and April 1987?

I don't know if this is some previously unnoticed mistake that was made when the information was being added, or whether this is something that's quite obvious but that I'm too dense to follow! ElinorD (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that particular sentence, but I read it as population tracking by herpetologists -- for the periods of observation given, the population observed was greater than 1,500. I can go through the references I was using when writing this article and see if I'm right about that. Jkelly 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw you had reverted vandalism recently, but I didn't realise you had added so much of the content. It's a very nice article. If the sentence means more than 1,500 for the first observation period, and also more than 1,500 for the second period, I think it should say "and again from April to July" (or something like that). It seems odd that only 1,500 would be seen over seventeen years, and then the same number in a period of just a few months. But to report a number over an observation period that has a completely unexplained gap in it would seem odder. ElinorD (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Golden Toads or golden toads?

One other thing. I know that there are some rules about capital letters in articles about animals; editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals told me that stubs I was creating should be called Typical Striped Grass Mouse but Striped grass mouse. They directed me to some explanation, but I can't remember where it was. This article has "Golden Toad(s)" all the way through except for one occurrence of "golden toad" in the "Biology" section (second sentence, looking a bit odd after the upper case letters in the first sentence) and one occurrence in Footnote 7, which gives the title of an article from an academic journal, and is presumably accurate. I don't want to tamper with something I don't understand (and don't waste time giving me a long explanation, because I'll just forget it later!), but if the "golden toad" in the "Biology" section is meant to be "Golden Toad", perhaps someone could fix it? ElinorD (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that I was paying any attention to any style guide when I was working on this article. If we can find the Mammal MoS (is there an Amphibian MoS?), we should just fix it to comply. Jkelly 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find out. I think the WikiProject Mammals people directed me to something about birds to find out about capitalisation. I'll look up the reference. ElinorD (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the MOS, which directed me to WikiProject Tree of Life and Naming conventions (fauna). The latter says that:

• Birds are always capitalized.
• Mammals are mostly capitalized.
• Fishes are mostly in lower case.
• Reptiles and amphibians are a mixture.
• Arthropods are mostly in lower case, except that Lepidoptera and Odonata are often capitalised.

More information is at

• WikiProject Birds
• WikiProject Mammals (quite helpful)
• WikiProject Fishes (not helpful)
• WikiProject Arthropods

Based on that, especially the Mammals WikiProject, I would say that the second sentence in the "Biology" section should be upper case. But if someone with expertise told me I was wrong, they'd find it quite easy to convince me. ElinorD (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on common names in Naming conventions (fauna) is probably the bit you are interested in here. I guess it may have changed since you checked, but now it says "in general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case". I am guessing that the conventions that you saw were for higher taxon names (like Odonata - dragonflies). So mostly in wikipedia one would write 'golden toads'. There really is no hard and fast rule - we have arguments about this at work every now and then.

cheers, Flit (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

The text below has been in need of a citation since feb 09, i have looked online and can find no sources supporting this claim of an invasive species so i have removed the section. If somone finds a source to support it then please post here, thanks mark nutley (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC) It has also been hypothesized that an invasive species, not native to the area, could have caused the extinction. Theorists claim that tourists brought these invasive species to Costa Rica. The years prior to the extinction of the golden toad, tourism grew exponentially in Costa Rica fueled by the new relative stability of the Costa Rican government and improved relations with the United States. Programs such as Peace Corps brought thousands of Americans to Costa Rica in this time period. Specifically, species from cold regions such as Chicago could thrive in warm climates. The introduction of a new species could have had detrimental effects on the small, golden toad populations. B. periglenes would have lacked much variation in genes due to restrictive nature of breeding within the same population. The mutation necessary to survive the new invasive species could have been lacking in B. periglenes. Pictures from one such Peace Corps volunteer, Peter Jude LoPresti, verify over 8 golden toads seen only months before their documented extinction. Invasive species theory could account for the rapidity of the golden toad's extinction.

File:Bufo periglenes2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bufo periglenes2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 16, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The golden toad (Bufo periglenes) is an extinct species of true toad that was once abundant in a small region of high-altitude cloud-covered tropical forests, about 30 km² (12 sq mi) in area, above the city of Monteverde, Costa Rica. The last reported sighting of a golden toad was on 15 May 1989. Its sudden extinction may have been caused by chytrid fungus and extensive habitat loss.Photo: Charles H. Smith, USFWS

False Citation

Citation 30 is "ANewGoldenToad2012". I cannot find anything suggesting this is a real source despite searching. I feel it should be removed or elaborated on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.36.32 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This is in regards to the recently described Incilius aurarius, which is a completely different species. The mention of Incilius aurarius in the lead is incorrect.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Article needs work.

This article reads a bit too much like science journalism rather than a straightforward encyclopedia article. The large blocks of text and overly expansive narration make it more difficult to glean the important info. I believe a good deal of slimming down is in order, e.g. rather than padded, wordy phrases like "Joe Scientist traveled to Costa Rica and studied the toads and wrote a paper called "The Study of Golden Toads" that found that the toads are golden", it's much simpler to say "the toads were golden^(Citation)". This should not read like a class report and there is no minimum word count. Additionally, the Extinction section needs revision for cohesion and flow, perhaps with subheadings. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Description section

Correction to my original comments: After looking at the article again, I see that "Description" is a main section and the text I describe below is an introduction in that section.

I'm a new Wikipedian, and am still familiarizing myself with all of the variations in editing requirements.

Is this section required? I ask because it seems that the information in this section could be moved to other sections and this section deleted entirely.

The second sentence in this section expands slightly on the first sentence in the introduction, and could possibly be incorporated in the introduction. Since both sentences are footnoted, I hesitate to simply combine them since I don't have access to either of the cited sources.

I don't quite understand the third and fourth sentences in this section:

These toads lived in areas where the land decreased in size with increasing elevation. Because of this, golden toads were less likely to be found as the elevation increased.

Considering the small size of the golden toad, a decrease in the amount of land at higher elevations wouldn't seem to automatically result in a decrease in the likelihood of finding golden toads. A decrease in habitat would seem to be a more relevant factor. It's possible that suitable golden toad habitat might actually increase at higher elevations. I don't have access to the source document cited, so I'm not sure how the information was presented there.

Also, might this information be included in the "Extinction" section?

Could the last sentence in the "Description" section regarding lifespan be incorporated in the "Reproduction" section with the title of the "Reproduction" section changed to "Reproduction and Lifespan" or "Lifecycle"? //Blaise Mitsutama^talk 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Plans for editing this article

I would like to take some time over the next couple of days to edit this article. As noted by --Animalparty--, at a minimum some of the existing sections need to be organized into smaller pieces with subheadings. I will use particular care when editing text that includes a citation since I don't have access to many of the cited sources. I will focus mainly on copy editing and cleaning up the organization of the article.

If I have significant edits to text, should I present my proposed changes on this Talk page before editing the actual article? //Blaise Mitsutama^talk 17:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If making substantial radical changes, it might be better to produce a draft in your sandbox. For a concise account written by experts (which you may want to use as an outline), see the AmphibiaWeb page. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and the reference. //Blaise Mitsutama^talk 03:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific names

I've noted discrepancies in the way species names are handled in this article. In the first sentence of the article, the primary species name is shown as Bufo periglenes with Cranopsis periglenes and Incilius periglenes shown as synonyms. In the speciesbox, the binomial name is shown as Incilius periglenes with synonyms Bufo periglenes, Cranopsis periglenes, and Ollotis periglenes.

• In Savage (1966), the scientific name is given as Bufo periglenes. So it would seem that should be the binomial name in the speciesbox.
• In the first sentence of the article, it would seem that if any species name synonyms are included, all species name synonyms should be included. Since this is the first biology article that I'm editing, I wasn't sure whether to add Ollotis periglenes or to delete the existing species name synonyms.

If someone can advise what is acceptable, I'll make the appropriate edits. //Blaise Mitsutama^talk 16:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden 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/20160304111823/http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/goldentoad.htm to http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/goldentoad.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)