Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Amid Agony, Scientists Discover World's First Venomous Frog 88

sciencehabit writes: Some discoveries come with a price, and Brazilian biologist Carlos Jared's discovery of the world's first known venomous frog came with agony. When Carlos picked up a Brazilian hylid frog—a small, lumpy, green amphibian—while doing fieldwork, the frog raked him with spines hidden within its upper lip across the hand. He dropped the frog, and excruciating pain shot up his arm for the next 5 hours. It was known that some frogs secrete poison onto their skin but this species has tiny spines on their heads and upper lips that enable them to inject lethal venom directly into the bloodstream. C. greening's venom is twice as potent as that of the deadly pit viper, the researchers report.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amid Agony, Scientists Discover World's First Venomous Frog

Comments Filter:
  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @09:26AM (#50268933) Journal

    If they don't name that frog after Moe from the Simpsons, then I just don't want to know about it.

    (Moe Sizlak: http://webpages.shepherd.edu/B... [shepherd.edu] )

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07, 2015 @09:27AM (#50268945)

    Amazon rainforest, Australian outback, Middle East, Somalia, Baltimore

    • I normally dislike this meme, but:

      "Amazon rainforest, Australia [tvtropes.org], Middle East, Somalia, Baltimore"

      Fixed that for you.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • The universe itself is trying to kill you, it's how you respond that counts. For example I wouldn't be surprised if a dedicated scientist who thought he was dying in agony from his frog find, started typing up his journal submission to Nature before he passed out.
  • Frogs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rossdee ( 243626 )

    Meanwhile some Amazon tribes have been using frog venom on their arrows and blowpipe darts for thousands of years...

    And theres probably some joke about Jeff Bezos patenting it...

    • Re:Frogs (Score:5, Informative)

      by JMJimmy ( 2036122 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @09:37AM (#50268999)

      Meanwhile some Amazon tribes have been using frog venom on their arrows and blowpipe darts for thousands of years...

      And theres probably some joke about Jeff Bezos patenting it...

      Apparently you didn't read the summary let alone RTFA - they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.

      • Apparently you didn't read the summary let alone RTFA - they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.

        Umm, maybe you should go re-read TFA before pointing fingers.

        There are no injectors on these frogs, they secrete venom ON THEIR SKIN then flail their spines to open and get venom into a wound. It would be perfectly feasible to harvest venom from these as if they had been typical poison dart frogs.

        • Apparently you didn't read the summary let alone RTFA - they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.

          Umm, maybe you should go re-read TFA before pointing fingers.

          There are no injectors on these frogs, they secrete venom ON THEIR SKIN then flail their spines to open and get venom into a wound. It would be perfectly feasible to harvest venom from these as if they had been typical poison dart frogs.

          An injector is imply a mechanism that breaks the skin to introduce the toxin. Whether it is by coating or hypodermically does not change the injector mechanism.

          • *typo: imply = simply. Also, I should be specific: "does not change the injector mechanism", by definition it does change. What I should have said was "does not change the fact that it is injected". A hypodermic injection occurs below the skin, a non-hypodermic injection is into and possibly under the skin depending on the depth of the injection.

          • by Snufu ( 1049644 )

            In this case it makes a big difference. "Injectors" are for predation (snakes, spiders, etc.) "Spines" are for defense (frogs, fish, rays, etc.)

            • Excellent distinction, one of those things I have never noticed but as soon as I read it, it was "obvious". An exception might be jellyfish who regularly use their stingers for both purposes, jellyfish stingers are more like a tiny speargun than a needle or a spine.
        • by mlynx ( 812210 )
          The article is pretty specific that it's a poison gland in the skin near the spines. a lot like the stone fish.
      • Meanwhile some Amazon tribes have been using frog venom on their arrows and blowpipe darts for thousands of years...

        And theres probably some joke about Jeff Bezos patenting it...

        Apparently you didn't read the summary let alone RTFA - they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.

        Geez, this is a tough crowd tonight.

      • they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.

        So they are talking about Bezos, right?

      • Actually, they'd have to be talking about injectable because that's the very definition of venom. The frogs used by natives secrete poison from their skin. Beyond the article, it's the actual words that often get confused. Poison is ingested or absorbed, venom is injected.
      • by mlynx ( 812210 )
        Actually a more appropriate comparison would be the stone fish. It also uses spines as the venom transport mechanism.
      • This is incorrect. The frog does NOT inject venom. The spines are simply venom coated.
        • This is incorrect. The frog does NOT inject venom. The spines are simply venom coated.

          The spines are coated in a toxin, which is "injected" when the spine drives into the skin, making it a venom.

      • Leave aside how you get the venom out of the frog (that's an exercise in applied bio-technology), poisoned darts and arrows are a technique for injecting it into a victim. Works just about as well if it's a venom that the original animal could inject into you by itself, or a poison that normally would only get into your bloodstream if you ate the animal, snorted it, or got it on a cut in your skin. (There are some poisons that only affect you if you eat and digest them, but they're not the kind that would

    • Re:Frogs (Score:5, Informative)

      by Flavianoep ( 1404029 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @09:44AM (#50269059)
      It's not venom unless the animal carrying it have means to actively inject it in its victims or enemies. What the Indians have been using is poison.
      • Hmmm ... so if the Amazon tribes put it on pointy things, and can then "inject" it, are they venomous?

        I realize it's a scientific distinction, but it really sounds like a small matter of semantics.

        If it's chemically the same as poison, and administered via something pointy it becomes venom, that's an awfully small distinction. It sounds like if I put it in your drink, I've administered poison, but if I stab you with it it's venom.

        I'd at least expect a different chemistry.

        • Hmmm ... so if the Amazon tribes put it on pointy things, and can then "inject" it, are they venomous?

          I realize it's a scientific distinction, but it really sounds like a small matter of semantics.

          If it's chemically the same as poison, and administered via something pointy it becomes venom, that's an awfully small distinction. It sounds like if I put it in your drink, I've administered poison, but if I stab you with it it's venom.

          I'd at least expect a different chemistry.

          It's an important distinction for several reasons. Scientifically, specificity is always important. To a survivalist, they generally stay away from poisonous things but they can, with care/proper technique, use venomous things. Venomous things also generally create/store their own toxins where poisonous things can get them from another source, like poison dart frogs - their poison is actually from a plant that an insect feeds on which the frogs then eat & excrete. Take away that chain and they are n

        • Re:Frogs (Score:4, Informative)

          by Flavianoep ( 1404029 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @10:26AM (#50269399)

          The meaningful distinction is between poisonous animals and venomous ones. I guess I don't need to explain to you the implications on survival strategy that those two features entail.

          But the GP seemed to make fun of scientists for discovering now what the Indians have known for ages. The case is that scientists know about poisonous frogs for a very long time, you know, by talking to the very Indians that have been using frog poison for ages.

          By the way, AFAIK, you can not call a poison a venom just because if it's in a man made pointed object, because such an object is not a biological structure and therefore the human bearing it is not venomous.

          • Biologically, we're not venomous (though bites or scratches inflicted by humans can get infected.) But somebody with a venomous attitude toward you may try to poison you, or kill you with a blunt instrument or sharp object.

        • It's venom if the animal can use it to attack you, but an animal (or plant or mineral) can be poisonous without being venomous. If a traditional hunter wants something to poison an animal or a traditional warrior wants something to poison an enemy with, in either case by using a dart or arrow or knife coated with the poison, they could use venom from a venomous animal, or they could use some other poison that's available. (Those poisons have a partial overlap with the poisons an assassin or a bad cook cou

      • by msauve ( 701917 )
        The distinction seems a bit unclear. Definitions read like:

        poisonous matter normally secreted by some animals (as snakes, scorpions, or bees) and transmitted to prey or an enemy chiefly by biting or stinging; broadly : material that is poisonous

        But I believe all of the animals listed inject their venom using hollow, needle like structures and actively pump the venom. These frogs are different, they secrete a poison which coats the outer surface of a spiny structure, like a poison tipped dart. So while the

        • Inject = break the skin to introduce a toxin
          Hypodermic Injection = inject a toxin under the skin
          Poison = absorbed or introduced
          Venom = injected
          Toxin = poison, venom, etc

          • by msauve ( 701917 )
            You differ from Oxford:

            Inject: Drive or force (a liquid, especially a drug or vaccine) into a person or animalâ(TM)s body with a syringe or similar device...

            • You differ from Oxford:

              Inject: Drive or force (a liquid, especially a drug or vaccine) into a person or animalâ(TM)s body with a syringe or similar device...

              I was simplifying and contextualizing, however, if you really need that to be decompressed for you:

              "with a syringe or similar device" similar device = spike/tooth/claw/etc
              "a liquid, especially a drug or vaccine" = a toxin
              "drive or force" = the act of breaking the skin.

              So Oxford and I agree, just they have a very limited contextualization to humans performing the injection with a medical device.

              • by msauve ( 701917 )
                Sorry, I now realize that English isn't your primary language.
              • Arguably, "inject" generally implies a hollow tube through which the material is forced. This also means that a larger dose of the material can be forced into the wound since the material is under pressure. So syringe, snake fangs, mosquito proboscis, spider fangs, etc. are all hollow and "inject" would be appropriate.

                On the other hand, contact poisons (even on a barb or spin) would generally not be considered an "injection".

                If I coat a knife with poison and stab you with it, I'm not "injecting" the poiso

                • If you wipe the blade on skin, it's absorbed into the skin - not by the action of the knife. The action of the knife only allows transfer from one surface to another. Injection is pushing through a barrier, like the skin, to deliver the payload. Whether that payload is delivered by contact transfer or pushed in is irrelevant.

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @10:04AM (#50269223)

    I'm a bad motherfucking GANGSTA frog, and you in MY HOOD now!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I can't be the only one picturing this happening to some scientists from a Far Side cartoon...

  • by LaurenCates ( 3410445 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @10:16AM (#50269311)

    ...involving aliens?

    If there is any doubt, even 1% doubt, that something is 100% safe, don't handle it. Get gloves, or a net or a trap, or something, but for fuck's sake, don't pick it up, at least, not without gloves.

    Yes, I can read. I know frogs are not known to be venomous, thus the news story, but that doesn't mean that it isn't carrying a weird bacteria, or has a secretion that can cause an allergic reaction, or any number of things that can go wrong.

    • by IMightB ( 533307 )

      If he was wearing gloves, he wouldn't have made this discovery, nor would he have discovered a new weird bacteria or a "Potential New Cancer Fighting Compound"* that causes an allergic reaction.

      * Note this entire phrase was thrown in for Grant and Investor "throw money at me" purposes.

    • "If there is any doubt, even 1% doubt, that something is 100% safe, don't handle it. Get gloves, or a net or a trap, or something,"

      Unfortunately, in real life there is no sinister background music to cue you that you should be doubting...

      Are you sure that everything you touch has not been touched by someone with an infectious disease?

      • by PNutts ( 199112 )

        Are you sure that everything you touch has not been touched by someone with an infectious disease?

        No, but I'm pretty sure those guys arguing about whether the venom is injected touch something that hasn't been touched by anyone else, infectious or not.

      • Listen for your video card's fan kicking to high speed than.

    • Handle it the same way you handle small children: with large tongs.
  • Sometimes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @11:06AM (#50269713)

    Sometimes science advances with the phrase "hmm, that's unexpected" and sometimes with the phrase "arghargharghargharghargh!".

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • They should be more careful choosing what to lick.

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...