Scientist Discovers First-Ever Venomous Frog the Hard Way

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[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).

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.

 

[Yopaz]

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).

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.

 

[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).

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.

 

[Yopaz]

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).

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.

 

[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).

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.

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.

 

[Yopaz]

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).

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.

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

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

 

[Naldan]

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

 

[Draconalis]

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

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

 

[PatrickJS]

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

The frog rammed its head into the researcher's hand, while the frog sort-of "wolverine'd" its spine out the top of its head. Yes, it's crazy. Frog lives on.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

Nope, check it out!

It's a kind of modified bone spur. Nature is so weird and endlessly fascinating.

That animal alone shows how weird nature can be. It needs no other example, yet it has so many. Incidentally, I dub our new species here the 'Unifrog'. Use it well.

 

[hittite]

Zoop

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

Not really, but it might be a tonal thing that's not translating well over a written medium. The way I read it, he wasn't outright saying "this guy's a troll" it was more along the lines of "this guy is antagonistic and unwilling to budge on his point which are common hallmarks of trolls." To put it in other terms, it's sort of like the difference between a "suggestion" and an "accusation" in Clue. You've since proved him wrong, but you might have overreacted a bit.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

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

Not really, but it might be a tonal thing that's not translating well over a written medium. The way I read it, he wasn't outright saying "this guy's a troll" it was more along the lines of "this guy is antagonistic and unwilling to budge on his point which are common hallmarks of trolls." To put it in other terms, it's sort of like the difference between a "suggestion" and an "accusation" in Clue. You've since proved him wrong, but you might have overreacted a bit.

Suggesting that I'm trollish is still a terrible thing to do, plus it's definitely against the code of conduct. I took his post as antagonistic and goading, and he can walk off his one warning, easy. Now, I've gotten angry on this site before, but I've also used the moments where my own moderation was deserved - about half, let's be honest - to find ways to cool my jets. I haven't overreacted to anything around here for a good long while, and I plan to keep it that way. That doesn't mean I gotta sit there and take it, though. Now, I think we really shouldn't keep on de-railing the thread like this.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

SNIP

You know, I am inclined to agree with you. As a category I would count them all as the same, and then sub-categorise the minor differences. Over-categorisation leads to not categorising in the first place.

I deal with Electronic Warfare (EW) at work. That is the umbrella term for everything associated, which is an accepted term. But like the issue here it is then split into Electronic Attack, Electronic Protection and Electronic Warfare Support. It's all well and good us geeks getting all excited about the differences between someone using a jamming pod, some flares or passively collecting and tracking RADAR emissions, but they are all still EW and we shouldn't labour the point if someone passing the field settles with that category only.

 

[Quellist]

So he got sore for a bit? Pfft!

If the first venomous frog had been found in Australia the researcher would have been dead before he could draw a breath to scream and within a minute his body would have turned into a puddle of toxic black goo!