Jump to content

Talk:Beelzebufo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crypto457 (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 27 July 2010 (→‎Is there actual proof?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPalaeontology Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAmphibians and Reptiles Unassessed
WikiProject iconBeelzebufo is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Outcommented statement

"That it so closely resembles those relatives supports the theory that South America was connected to Madagascar, via land bridge, 40 million years more recently than the scientific consensus claims."

It is outright bullshit the way it is put. The "land bridge" would have been Antarctica, India and the Mascarene Plateau plateau combined. That makes the "land bridge" LARGER THAN THE WHOLE OF SOUTH AMERICA!

So Beelzebufo is entirely non-informative in this respect. Between ~100 and 90 million years ago one could walk from South America to Madagascar perhaps without having to cross as much as an inch of ocean, though this feat was impossible if you wanted to get from either Madagascar or South America to Africa. So there we have a pretty narrow time window, and what Lane says is pretty much right on the spot (though it's nothing very new) - in fact, having a proto-Pacman frog arrive say 95 mya on Madagascar and getting 'Beelzebufo 25 million years later on Madagascar as well as roughly similar pacman frogs in South America today fits "the scientific consensus" like a glove.

See also Sooglossidae and Nasikabatrachus to get the basic idea. Furthermore the ancestors of Platymantis vitiensis did certainly not get to Fiji via a land bridge, as Fiji is an independent microplate that was always surrounded by open ocean in the relevant time. Two eggs on a duck's feet would be all that it takes. And birds capable of such a feat certainly were around by then too (not that it likely happened that way for Beelzebufo. But it is technically a viable hypothesis until proven wrong). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It further stands to note that there was enough dry land in the western Indian Ocean as late as 45 million years ago to make the immigration of vanga, "Malagasy warbler" and a certain pigeon's ancestors from south(east)ern Asia an exercise in microcontinent-hopping rather than in ocean-crossing. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note I inserted a "perhaps" above. Checking what I have around, it seems that time, place and mode of actual, final detaching of the India/Seychelles/Madagascar continent from Antarctica seems beset with a generous amount of uncertainty, not the least because the Deccan Traps megaeruptions obliterated much of the data. But even the most extreme scenario would require nothing more than the Kerguelen Plateau being at that time an archipelago like Indonesia today rather than a one-piece microcontinent.
You want the mysterious "land bridge"? Go to Port-aux-Français and odds arer you're actually standing right on it.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal link?

The Associated Press source cited in the article says the frog's description was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I can't find a link through Google Scholar. Does anyone have a link, or failing that, access to a hard copy they could cite? I don't trust mainstream-media science journalists and their editors to get everything right. --Ginkgo100talk 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always in such cases, try searching for beelzebufo and doi:
The DOI might not be active yet. You can add it into the template {{doi|}} (only the DOI ID not the preceding : ). I usualy put it into <small></small>
This may have been missed by WP:Dinosaurs - its not a dino but they may well have the best experts around. You might check there, perhaps some1 has access to the original description already.
There is a seemingly rather good article on n-tv, but in German. And it's not gonna say anything new once we get a hold of the description. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the "early edition" section: "A giant frog with South American affinities from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar" doi:10.1073/pnas.0707599105. I'd add stuff myself, but I'm at home and can't look at it. Circeus (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the abstract here. Thanks! Circeus, if you have access to the journal (I don't), pretty please improve the article with it! --Ginkgo100talk 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't do anything until tomorrow, I'm afraid. Circeus (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed text on palm tree

I removed the following text:

This confirms suspicions brought about by the discovery of Tahina spectabilis, a palm tree with similar continental plate-spanning history.[1]
  1. ^ Hogg, Jonny (January 17, 2008). "Giant palm tree puzzles botanists". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-02-19.

There's nothing in the reference about this frog and I saw no "suspicions". You can infer from the reference that Tahina spectabilis corroborates that Madagascar was once connected to Asia (which, as far as I know, everybody believes). There's nothing there about South America, which is the connection Beelzebufo may help to date. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actual proof?

I want to see actual evidence if this poorly discribed creature was alive during the time of the dinosaurs it was possibly big enough to swallow small or baby dinosaurs but the notion of such a creaqture seems just as ridiculous as bigfoot and crocodillians in sewers.