Talk:Colorado River toad

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Psychoactive toad

The wording of the first sentence is funny. A psychoactive toad. As opposed to, a toad that produces psychoactives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bufo alvarius name changed to Ollotis alvaria

The Sonoran Desert toad, has been reclassified by scientists who have performed genetic analysis on the world-wide population of amphibians. Bufo alvarius is now Ollotis alvaria.

Frost et al. (2006) conducted a huge analysis of the genetics of frogs worldwide, and noted that the Middle American group of bufonids formed a monophyletic clade different from northern bufonids. The Sonoran Desert Toad is most closely related to other toads from Middle, rather than North, America. Frost et al. (2006) concluded that "Bufo alvarius" should be therefore placed in the genus Cranopsis. They later discovered that Ollotis had priority over the name Cranopsis, hence the Sonoran Desert Toad became Ollotis alvaria. The North American clade of toads is now in the genus Anaxyrus rather than Bufo. I give you the references:

Frost, D.R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R.H. Bain, A. Haas, C.F.B. Haddad, R.O. de Sá, A. Channing, M. Wilkinson, S.C. Donnellan, C.J. Raxworthy, J.A. Campbell, B.L. Blotto, P. Moler, R.C. Drewes, R.A. Nussbaum, J.D. Lynch, D.M. Green and W.C. Wheeler. 2006a. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297:1-370.

Frost, D.R., T. Grant and J.R. Mendelson, III. 2006b. Ollotis Cope, 1875 is the oldest name for the genus currently referred to as Cranopsis Cope, 1875 (Anura: Hyloides: Bufonidae). Copeia 2006:558.Wirykuta (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

The Sonoran Desert toad's range of habitat includes only the tiniest southwestern corner of New Mexico. However, travelling home last September, we almost ran over one hopping across the road in the middle of Alamogordo, located in Otero County, which is in the south-central part of New Mexico. What gives? Then after taking it to a local pet store, thinking it was a bullfrog, they told me that since I found one in our town, they could no longer sell the ones they had for sale in their shop, and GAVE me the four that they were selling. Game and Fish finally came through and took them to a zoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BikerAngelMom (talk • contribs) 06:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toxin Discussion

The main article states:

The toad's primary defense system is glands that produce a mild poison[1], appearing as tiny lumps on the skin that are often called "warts". These parotoid glands also produce the 5-MeO-DMT [2] and bufotenin for which the toad is known; both of these chemicals belong to the family of hallucinogenic tryptamines. The presence of these substances in the skin and poison of the toad produces psychoactive effects when smoked.

In "A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert", 2000, University of California Press, page 537, it reads, "Sonoran Desert toads have extremely potent, defensive toxins that are released from several glands (primarily the paratoids) in the skin. Animals that harass this species generally are intoxicated through the mouth, nose or eyes. Dog owners should be cautious: the toxins are strong enough to kill full grown dogs that pick up or mouth the toads."

The reference for the first sentence of the article's existing paragraph (the California Academy of Sciences) doesn't mention the Sonoran Toad at all - it mentions the Poison Dart frog and it's 'mild venom'. I am going to change the article, remove the existing reference, and add the reference I have in hand. I welcome any arguments or comments. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I lack the citation to disprove it, I know for a fact that this species (Bufo Alvarius) is relatively harmless to most mammals. I think that whoever added this likely had it confused with another, more toxic species of Bufo toad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.254.211 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sure would like to see more than one unsupported reference claiming sufficient toxicity to kill a full-grown dog. Surely someone has more complete, quantitative, verifiable data about the toxicity? Unfortunately, there seems to be much debate about the actual toxicity ("LD50") of the active component bufotenin (see Talk:Bufotenin/Archives/2020/February#Sources)152.17.122.11 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in Arizona for 20 years. Talk to any veterinary clinic in Wickenburg or Cave Creek, Arizona, for example, and they will confirm that dogs get very sick and sometimes die from mouthing these toads.Wirykuta (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give this page an upgrade

Hey, added some information to the Colorado River Toad page based on the references you provided; see what you think. Some questions that have arisen in my mind:
  • The media reference you gave (and I cited) stating the illegality of the toad is from the Kansas City area... do the same laws apply here in Arizona? Is the drug (and/or toad itself) federally illegal?
  • We cited the AZF&G laws about the possession, sale, etc... the toad isn't found just in AZ, do the same basic law principles apply in other states?
Some research for us to do, I guess. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possession of the toad can be perfectly legal in one situation, and totally illegal in another. What makes the difference is INTENT. In Arizona, you may possess up to ten B. alvarius quite legally if you found them in the wild and you have a valid AZ fishing license. Maybe you're just a hobbyist and you don't even know about the psychoactive properties. Your possession of the toad is harmless and no one thinks twice about it. Of course, for many people, these toads live in their back yards, so what then is possession and intent? Now, if someone uses and/or deals lots of different drugs and the police bust in and also find our toad, the police are also going to charge the person with possession of a Schedule I substance because the cops will say the toad is one more drug, just like they did recently in Kansas.

There's an ornamental cactus that you can buy at Home Depot and it contains mescaline. Now many people grow these in their yards and they're not breaking any laws. But if you cut and prepare this cactus in order to extract the mescaline: that is illegal. Just like you can have our toad and it's fine, but if you milk it and the authorities find out, you're busted.

So when we talk about the legal status of the toad on the page, we need to be very careful about the language that we use. Perhaps it is best to simply state that the venom contains 5-MeO-DMT and a Schedule I substance; bufotenine. Then maybe we could say, while possession of the toad is not a crime in of itself, (in AZ you may legally bag up to ten toads with a fishing license,) if it can be shown that one is in possession of this toad with the intent to milk and smoke it's venom, this could constitute a criminal violation.

Now if you're in possession of the toad outside of any of the three States in which it is known to have existed (AZ, CA, NM), you have broken the Fish and Game laws of those States because none of them technically allow you to remove wildlife. However, surrounding States aren't going to enforce each other's Fish and Game Laws, and this is why Bouncing Bear Botanicals is able to sell our toad. The laws are weak and not worth enforcing. When people are busted with this toad it is almost always as a by product of other illegal activity, and the toad gets thrown in for good measure. The person is charged with possession of a Schedule I substance, not with breaking Fish and Game laws.

What I find really ironic is that while bufotenine is certainly psychoactive when the venom is smoked, it's actually the 5-MeO-DMT that does most of the magic in your brain. And 5-MeO, of course, is not scheduled. Wirykuta (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice recent edits. I did some formatting and rearranged the references to be more standard, and also removed the personal information about the kid that was arrested (this info is in the reference, I don't really think it's appropriate to put it on this article). I left a comment on your talk page regarding your edits; you just might want to think about leaving edit summaries and making more use of the preview edits button so you don't do a bazillion small edits - it makes the history page sort of a mess. Like I said on your talk page, just a thought. Of course, the page is severely unbalanced now - most of the information and almost all the references are about the hallucinogenic properties / law / etc and almost none about its habitat, etc. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken...

I guess I was rushing a bit and got a little sloppy.

More natural history information would certainly be in order. The absolute authority has always been Fouquette, M.J., Jr. 1970. Bufo alvarius. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles, edited by William J. Riemer, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 93.1-93.4.

However, the information provided here is more recent and brilliantly presented: http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_query?where-genus=Bufo&where-species=alvarius&account=lannoo

Not sure how to get it any better than that!

Two more things (technicalities):

1) This toad is never found in streams. I forget who said it first, but it's been repeated often. It's not true. They are drawn to ponds and temporary pools to breed, but not flowing water.

2) The law in CA that makes possession of the B. alvarius illegal is:

California Administrative Code Title 14, § 40(a):

TITLE 14. NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 1. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION -DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SUBDIVISION 1. FISH, AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES CHAPTER 5. NATIVE REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 40. General Provisions Relating to Native Reptiles and Amphibians. (a) General Prohibition It is unlawful to capture, collect, intentionally kill or injure, possess, purchase, propagate, sell, transport, import or export any native reptile or amphibian, or part thereof...

The problem is I don't know how to cite it where we have cites #7 and #8.

I can't link to it because it doesn't have a static link. You start here: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/html/regs.html and select "California Code of Regulations (Including Title 14)" and start drilling down from there with the "List of CCR Titles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirykuta (talk • contribs) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered?

The article states, "In California, B. alvarius has been designated as "endangered" ..." yet in the infobox its conservation status is shown as "Least Concern". If the word "endangered" is being used in a different context here perhaps this should be made more clear to avoid confusion. -- Ϫ 10:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: will be moved when the redirect is deleted. Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado River Toad → Colorado River toad — Animal names are not proper nouns. A dog is not "a Dog"; an African elephant is not an "African Elephant". --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a toad is not "a Toad." Support move. Spidey104 20:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colorado River 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:

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) 22:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Albert Most

The first episode of Season 3 of Hamilton's Pharmacopeia deals with the Colorado River toad. There it is revealed that the founder of the Church of the Toad of Light is in fact an impostor who falsely took credit for the booklet to aid his own cause. The original creators of the booklet are interviewed and it is revealed that the true author is in fact Ken Nelson.

They would then release a new version of the booklet Bufo alvarius: The Psychedelic Toad of the Sonoran Desert to not only correct this wrong, but also to speak out against the practice of toad poaching as conducted by the Church of the Toad of Light.

This is explained in the preface to the 2021 edition. --2001:16B8:45D4:2A00:C2D5:9ABF:5948:6201 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Colorado_River_toad"