Talk:Common coquí

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DestiniQuinones, Smith.Courtney.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This page should be moved

This page should be moved to ELEUTHERODACTYLUS COQUI, and have "common coqui" (or whatever other common names you wish) to be redirected to that page. 64.75.193.32 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) oops, forgot to log in: philiptdotcom 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This page needs Taxonavigation added

This page needs Taxonavigation added 64.75.193.32 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) oops, forgot to log in: philiptdotcom 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a medical anthropologist and conservationist living in Hawaii, and directing the Coqui Hawaiian Integration and Reeducation Project (CHIRP), with a website at www.HawaiianCoqui.org. The information in this Wikipedia listing of the Common Coqui is biased against the coqui, with some information coming from the anti-coqui interests in Hawaii. The Wikipedia listing says the coquis have a loud, 100 decibel chirp. It is scientifically unsupportable to say the coqui has a 100 decibel chirp. All decibel ratings require a reference of distance from the source of the sound to the sound meter. Readings of coquis taken at 1 1/2 feet from the coqui give 70 decibels. However, as you move away from the source of the sound, the intensity reduces significantly (with the inverse square of the distance). In fact, the sound is very pleasant, which is why recordings of the coqui are commercially sold to aid sleeping. In Hawaii, however, where there is anti-coqui propaganda being used to justify a costly, ineffective, and environmentally destructive "Frog War" against the introduced coquis, the sound of the coqui is characterized as a "shrill shriek" that can cause hearing loss, sleepless nights, and other horrors. To control coqui numbers (with no hope of eradication) the government sprays acid or caustic lime into the environment, which burns the coquis to death, a painful and cruel process that takes up to 45 minutes to kill. Other non-target organisms, such as geckoes and other lizards, spiders, insects, and plants, are also harmed or killed by the spray. With frogs dying around the world and governments working to save frogs from extinction, the Hawaii government is waging a war on coqui tree frogs, which are perhaps the most beloved frogs in the world, and the national symbol of Puerto Rico. Readers should realize that coqui information coming from Hawaii is propaganda, not science. There is no scientific evidence that they are a threat to the environment. In fact, they are beneficial since they consume invasive insects, such as mosquitoes, fire ants, all sorts of garden pests, roaches, etc. And the predators in Hawaii for coquis include insectivores birds, rats, cats, and other coquis. They have been in Hawaii for 20 years now, and their populations stabilize. They are not a threat, as mischaracterized by Hawaii eradication interests. Since the coqui is revered in Puerto Rico, and reviled in Hawaii, it is clear that Hawaii does not have a coqui problem -- it has an attitude problem. For more information, see Panic in Paradise: Invasive Species Hysteria and the Hawaiian Coqui Frog War (ISCD Press, 2005).

Thank you for the propaganda, however, coquis, according to the issg dtabase, at 0.5 meters attain nearly 100dB. Also, Robertson's Words for a Modern Age: A Cross Reference of Latin and Greek Combining Elements and other book, state that the sound of a coqui can reach 108dB. Unless you produce some peer-reviewed articles that prove that the coqui sound does not reach 100dB then the assertion will stand. Joelito (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The point I raised was that the distance from the coqui was not stated in the article page for the coqui when mentioning 100 decibels. At 0.5 meters, it may reach that level of dB, however, that distance (0.5 meters) needs to be mentioned. Otherwise, people will think that it is 100 dB to the normal human listener. In fact, most people do not have a coqui 0.5 meters from their ear! At about 20 meters away, a more realistic distance, the same coqui sound would be about 40 dB. To offer a dB reading of 100 makes the coqui sound excessively loud. You need the qualifier of ridiculously close distance. Note, also, that your picture for the coqui comes from the Hawaii invasive species eradicators who are asking for money to kill frogs. And the sound recording you offer of the coquis as a link is to the same people, whose recording was manipulated to make the coquis sound especially shrill and loud. The hear.org website you refer to also editorializes on the sound, saying how terrible it is. Why use such a biased website for a reference, and reject our website, which also offers the sound of the coqui, but with a realistic recording. I have offered our website www.HawaiianCoqui.org, as a balance to your one-sided references, and you have refuse to list it. This makes me suspect that the editor of this article's comments has a conflict of interest in promoting anti-coqui propaganda. Otherwise, why not list our website as an external link? Our website is certainly not redundant with the hear.org website. We have been interviewed for the BBC, Nature, Animal Planet, Smithsonian magazine, Science News, and others, and it is now recognized that there are two sides to the Hawaii coqui situation. The Wikipedia should not be sensationalizing the sound of the coqui by making it seem extremely loud. You could have mentioned that their sound is sold commercially as a sleeping aid, and that millions of visitors to Puerto Rico come to hear the coqui.

I have added the distance and changed the sound link to a direct link thus avoiding the editioraling of the website. Also the image is from the Caribbean National Forest website [1]. I will ignore your comments about my bias since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Furthermore I have looked through your website and have not found any relevant information regarding the animal. Joelito (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to reference to our website www.HawaiianCoqui.org, while still referring to the University of Hawaii's (CTAHR)website, is a clear bias in this article. The control of coquis in Hawaii is controversial. There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that the coquis are a threat to the environment. And the issue of controlling coquis by the cruel methods used by CTAHR i.e., spraying acid or caustic lime into the environment, is also controversial. The article is about the coqui, not about coqui control in Hawaii. If you insist on referring to the CTAHR website, then balanced, non-biased reporting should include our website, which promoted acceptance of the coqui. This is not a one-sided issue. Coqui control is a political, not scientific issue. Either remove them, or include us. Anything else is clear anti-coqui bias.

In addition, I appreciate your inclusion of distance from the coqui in your decibel reference in the article. However, why are you mentioning the intensity of the sound at all? A bird's chirp, measured at 0.5 meters, could also be 100 dB. The intensity of the coqui's chirp is not an essential feature of the frog. It has become an issue here in Hawaii because residents are not familiar with the sound, and exaggerating the issue has fueled aggression against the coqui to justify killing coquis here. It is an anthropocentric issue, since "loudness" is a human judgement. If you want to be objective, you should eliminate the dB issue altogether. The sound could have just as well been considered "soothing", which is also an anthropocentric judgement. BOth would be biased and inappropriate for this Wikipedia article on the coqui.

Look, whatever. You want to add a link for propaganda, nothing else. You do not wish to contribute anything of relevance to the article and are only lokking to support/impose your POV. Joelito (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

114,000 invertebrates ORLY?

The article currently says "The Common Coquí is a general nocturnal predator which can consume 114,000 invertebrates each night.". I believe this must refer to 20,000 individuals/ha as that fact comes from the same printed source. The article text makes it seem like a single frog can eat 114,000 bugs every night. --Boston (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rican culture

The introduction makes reference to the coquí's cultural importance. Perhaps there should be a section in the article addressing this topic? Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 16:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Better sound file needed

The current sample contains a very persistant buzzing cicada in addition to the frogs. --2601:445:8300:3370:E190:94D4:E07D:994D (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for some editing mistakes

Hey, I just wanted to say sorry for messing up four edits in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_coqu%C3%AD&diff=1179518121&oldid=1149691230

What was supposed to be a small change (from "endemic" to "native") ended up taking 4 edits because I kept screwing up. First I forgot to login, then I accidentally pasted the whole article again into the top section, doubling its size. I think it's fixed now, but sorry about that!

-Arcataroger (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Addition of 7 sources, edits

Added information on several recent studies which expanded a lot of the page's content on the invasive populations of Hawaii. Other additions include drivers of morphology and impacts on its native ecology. Conclusions drawn from studies on reproductive and diet behavior were likewise added. A few more images were added along with some formatting and grammatical edits. JackRuvin0 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)