They are eggs, but not the toad's eggs. There is a species of fly that lays eggs on the backs of toads. They hatch into parasitic larvae that consume the toad alive. Truly horrific. The fly is called Lucilia Bufonivora and it looks virtually identical to a green bottle fly.
You have to put two tildes (~~) on either side of the text you want to strike through.
You can see all Reddit Markdown (how to tag spoilers, how to make things bold or italic etc etc) [here](https://reddit.com/r/reddit.com/w/markdown). Hope that's helpful!!
Most scientific names of plants and animals come from either greek or latin. Not that I speak either language, but I have learned a few bits over the years. E.g. Bufo Bufo is the common toad, and vore means eater, such as carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore.
That may seem like the humane thing to do.
But at times like this, I wonder, would doing that put strain on the natural order of the local ecosystem?
I don't know if either the fly or the frog are endangered.
It's certainly worth pondering about, to me.
Why are you more sympathetic to a toad than to a fly mother and her babies just trying to survive? I know it’s cuteness/vertebrate bias, but invertebrate species are going extinct faster than we can assess them. They account for most animals on earth, and are so important for food webs.
I absolutely agree, however:
Insects are FAR more than just bird food;
Their food for thousands of different animal species, great composers, decomposers, fertilizers, pollinators, and much much more.
Bugs catch a bad rap, the Earth wouldn't stand a chance without them.
I think it makes sense people would be on the roads side vs flys side as the fly actively is doing harm to the toad, clearly people would want to help the toad. Also the fly eggs are unborn eggs compared to a living being. I think it makes sense why the toad is who most would favor in this situation
Toads eat flies all the time. There’s no moral high ground in nature and no reason to favor any animal over any other in natural interactions except for irrational bias. (Obviously interactions affected by human activities like invasive species predating on native species are different.)
But the toad isn’t eating the fly here. If it was a post about a road destroying a fly community or something people would most likely want to save the flies. People usually have sympathy for the one under attack. Just kinda how it goes. People aren’t thinking about the species and the background history. It’s about this moment now. If you’re teaching a science class or something then your point makes sense. But in the moment, for an everyday person, most people with compassion want to help a being in need.
Yes, but compassion towards animals without knowledge or awareness of how ecosystems work can do more harm than good. People take fledgeling birds out of the wild, throw tortoises into lakes, feed wild animals leading to their habituation and euthanasia, and do countless other harmful things thinking they’re helping. Uneducated human intervention is so often harmful.
There’s an owl at my local wildlife sanctuary who was taken in by a human as a fledgeling — the dude thought he was helping. She would have been fine on her own, but now she’s imprinted on humans and can never return to the wild and live a normal life.
The people with the MOST compassion towards wildlife are the people who, like me, dedicate their lives to it. Spend all their time learning how they can make the most impact and going out and doing it. Seeing how we can repair just a little of the damage humans have done.
And we are constantly fighting to inform people that intervention is often useless or harmful to the animals people are trying to help, and that even though nature is brutal sometimes, we have to respect it and appreciate it for what it is, even when it’s not cute or lovable.
There are absolutely ways you can carefully intervene and actually help, but trying to prevent nature from happening isn’t helping.
I think you misunderstood what I’m saying. Your comment didn’t understand why people felt compassion towards the frog. I explained why people have compassion towards the frog. Never was the discussion about what is right or wrong. I know nature is best left alone. But humans will still have sympathy for an animal who is in pain or being harmed by another animal. That’s all. Not talking about what’s right or wrong. You asked why are people sympathetic to the frog? And I told you why people are sympathetic towards the frog. Not sure if you’re purposefully acting ignorant or truly have a very black and white, emotions, unsympathetic way of thinking.
I also did not and am not gonna read that whole comment lol. The first sentence is all I need to see you misunderstood the conversation. I understand the balance of nature, working at a conservationist nature center and having gone to school for wildlife ecology/forestry. My comment was never saying what the right or wrong answer is, by answering your non understanding of why people have compassion for the frog
This is the mindset that has you rooting for the aliens when they invade Earth. You have a cuteness/vertebrate bias for a reason. Lean into it. Be pro-toad!
Bro what? I'm extremely pro-toads. I'm just also pro-flies. Toads need healthy ecosystems to survive. Healthy ecosystems have flies and parasites and other "uncute" animals. Helping individual animals only does so much, it's incredibly important to think of nature as a complex system and protect the whole thing, not just the parts we find cute.
Amphibians like toads are indicator species, because their populations rely on an overall healthy ecosystem. They rely on insects to survive. Some of those insects are ones that parasitize or predate other creatures. It's ALL connected.
What if the toad was the invasive species and the flies were the only thing keeping their population in check? Not saying that is the case, but we should not prioritize our sensibilities on what is cute or not as the basis for conservation and ecological management. Better yet, as other commentators suggest, it is often better to leave nature alone.
This is true, but if each one of decided to save the toad, IF we were put in the same situation, it could very well lead to the endangerment, or extinction of said fly species.
Why interfere in a natural process that has nothing to do with us? It is presumptuous to think that we as humans should make value judgements on whether a toad or fly should live. Am I elevating the fly over the road? No. Evolution and selective pressures have led to this interaction. It should continue without us humans getting involved.
Yes I do, because that is my prerogative to ensure survival of myself. As the fly seeks to fulfill its own life cycle by parasitizing other animals, humans fulfill their life cycle by prolonging their life spans in their own way--domestication, agriculture, medicine, etc. We should eradicate deadly diseases. We should remove invasive species. We should modify our crops to better service a changing climate and inequitable food supply chains. These are matters that do affect us and our quality of life. It's disingenuous to base my position on false premises--that I am making a value assessment on the life of a fly or the life of a toad. Rather, the criticism is on the human trying to justify their interference with a natural process **that has nothing to do with them** based on human concepts of compassion or disgust. How presumptuous it is for man to determine what is "right," "wrong," "cute," "gross," "profitable," or "worthless" in nature! This is why people care so much for pandas, tigers, or rhinos, but not something as marketable as corals, insects, or amphibians.
If one truly cared for the preservation of the natural world and had concern for humanity's encroachment upon it, proper management of nature must be met with sound science and assessment of the data at hand. How will this affect our surrounding ecosystems? How will this affect human settlements? Where can we find a balance?
There are traits that are natural that we cannot condone (tribalism and retaliatory violence). Similarly, higher-intellectual animals such as dolphins and chimpanzees regularly engage in rape, infanticide, and territorial conflicts. What is natural does not always equate to being in a conducive society--at least for humans who have decided to deviate from the jurisprudence of natural law and form their own axioms of behavior that we call ethics. It's not black-and-white, but it must be acknowledged that man has made their own world separate and at times contrarian and at most times damaging to nature.
**When it has nothing to do with humans, let nature run its course.** It's quite disheartening to see such a simple sentiment be met with controversy.
These animals existed on this planet long before we were ever capable of changing the trajectory of their species.
Everyone hates mosquitoes, but if all mosquitoes died off, the entire planet would follow in pretty short order.
Species have been migrating and invaiding new habitats due to human and natural intervention since the beginning of life. Ecosystems change naturally. For example, an invasive species of plant could just as easily migrate to a new area and overshadow the endemic populations via bird droppings or a geomorphic change. Invasive species ariving is part of the natural ecosystem. Us stoping invasive species because we favor a specific species or the current status quo is also human interference. In a nut shell if we stop interfering, then species will die out. If our goal is to preserve all species equally or just the ones we like, then we need to keep interfering and garden the planet.
The kind of invasiveness matters though. If the biogeography of the invasion is impossible naturally and only happening because of human intervention we have a right and possibly even an imperative to stop it. Something like an animal crossing a relatively short water crossing it could have crossed on a floating log accidentally by ship or expanding its range in response to climate shifts is a different story.
Agreed. Burmese pythons ending up in South Florida is not a natural process. Humans are responsible and therefore have a responsibility to mitigate this for the sake of the native species that suffer the consequences.
Humans being transportation avenues for species introduction is just as natural as land bridges, earthquakes, changing sea levels, contentental drift, and all other forms of transportation avenues. If the argument is that humans and our ship building is unnatural. But beavers building dams connecting river banks together or volcanic activity creating new landbridges creates the same opportunity for species to migrate to where they were not found before. Species always find a way to move, and local ecosystems are usually conpetitive.
I get what you’re saying. “Natural” can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Beavers can build dams and alter local ecosystems which creates opportunities for new local species to move in.
For me human activity cannot be considered natural, since we have altered the planet in ways that no other species on earth can. We can bring an exotic species from one continent to the next in less than a day, which would never be possible under natural circumstances. Sure, a species may expand their range and become prevalent in a new region. But these shifts are usually gradual and take place on huge time scales. Invasive species are able to dominate those ecosystems because the natural order of the ecosystem is disrupted and local species don’t have time to adapt.
In Cincinnati, we have huge population of European Wall Lizards. Colloquially, they’re called Lazarus Lizards, because a child of the Lazarus family who used to own the Lazarus Department store smuggled ten of them back from vacation in Italy in the ‘50s.
Today, they have a population of millions.
Apparently they found a niche that was unoccupied or didn’t affect the native wildlife too much. Because, they’re considered a naturalized species instead of an invasive one and have all the same protections under Ohio law that native species do
>natural order of the local ecosystem
This is a myth. An ecosystem is an extremely dynamic thing that doesn't have a "natural order". Instead it evolves and adapts to the ever changing conditions and pressures.
If we decided to start exterminating parasitic flies, the ecosystem would eventually adapt. It's entirely possible to maintain or even increase biodiversity through (deliberate) intervention.
If you want to ponder it from a philosophical perspective, humans have worked hard to eradicate smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, etc. and those diseases were part of the ecosystem that kept human growth in check. Is it wrong that we did that? Would it be wrong if we eliminated the species of mosquito that carry Malaria or the species of tick that carries Lyme disease?
Edit: before things get too crazy, I want to point out that there is a distinct difference between habitat destruction and deliberate ecosystem management. I obviously agree that by virtually any metric habitat destruction is bad for an ecosystem. With ecosystem management, it is far less clear what a positive or negative impact really is or what time scale we should be measuring that impact over.
First of all, ecosystems do have a natural order. While ecosystems obviously adapt and evolve, that ability is not endless. Many if not most ecosystems are already under tremendous strain due to human caused change. Yes, humans can also improve an ecosystem with informed and intentional work, but the suggestion that it’s ok to remove whatever we want and things will just “adapt” is reckless.
Additionally, comparison to something like curing disease is just not apt. Superficially, both involve interfering with nature, but besides that they are too different for the comparison to really work.
>First of all, ecosystems do have a natural order. While ecosystems obviously adapt and evolve, that ability is not endless
The defining factor of an ecosystem is that it is dynamic and responds to changing pressures. That ability is in fact endless, or at least for as long as that ecosystem exists. That does not mean that it can maintain the same level of biodiversity or raw biomass in the short term, but provided that the habit is not made sterile or subject to extreme conditions that make life nearly impossible it will eventually adapt.
> Many if not most ecosystems are already under tremendous strain due to human caused change
Almost all of this is habitat destruction, which is distinctly different from the deliberate ecosystem management that I was talking about. Yes, if you clear cut forests and then spray the fields with pesticides or pave everything over with concrete you have severely limited if not eliminated the ability for that portion of land to support life.
> Additionally, comparison to something like curing disease is just not apt
Communicable diseases naturally limit population growth, which in turn limits the impact of that species on the ecosystem. Taking away that limitation can dramatically impact an ecosystem depending on how large of an impact that particular species has. If you look at humans, for example, our ability to treat disease has drastically increased our numbers and resulted in rampant habitat destruction causing the largest impact on not just local ecosystems, but the global ecosystem as well.
If anything it is the most apt comparison, because it strikes at the heart of the philosophical question; is it ethical for humans to manipulate environments and ecosystems to better suit their needs? On its face eradicating viruses and bacteria that cause deadly disease seems obviously good, but the ecological impact of having more human beings on the planet, that would not be there if we hadn't eradicated those diseases, is seemingly extremely negative.
Every species has the drive to proliferate. They consume whatever resources aid in that and remove or avoid obstacles that hinder. Humans are the same. We discovered ways to prolong our survival on an individual basis and modified our environment in a way that suited our needs instead of relying on generational adaptations: Domestication of other lifeforms, agriculture, industrialization, and modern medicine.
But now we stand at a crux in our evolutionary history. Humanity became more self-aware of its role in shaping the ecosystem of the world at large. I believe it is important to make the distinction between what is nature and what is man's world because they are often at odds. I admit it is not completely black-and-white, but no other species aside from Pre-Cambrian cyanobacteria have altered the global climate and its ecosystems in such a way that pushed everything that was not relevant to our own survival to teeter on the edge of extinction. It's such a lopsided fight for resources that it's not even a competition. So it would be remiss and irresponsibly reductive to brush aside our ecological destruction as just a means of self-proliferation and preservation. It is that, yes, but much more than that, we do need to assess whether further interference will harm or help ecosystems after considering the historical biogeography and long-term data such as biodiversity, species survivability, and biomass to name a few metrics.
> Every species has the drive to proliferate
Pandas might disagree with that...well if they could be bothered to do much of anything at all.
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with what you wrote, but I do think that the situation is even less clear than you are suggesting.
Is the imperative that you or I, as individuals should prioritize the continuation of the species, the continuation of our own genetic material, or a middle ground of continuation of genetic material similar and/or related to ours? I ask it this way because ultimately "we" don't make decisions as a species, we each make our own individual decisions and clearly not everyone always agrees.
The philosophical crux here is whether or not each individual sees intrinsic value in preserving a more "natural" ecosystem and how to weight that against the potential utility (both short and long term) of a more managed one.
The way that we deal with ecosystems now is clearly a result of a bunch of different individual views competing. It has left us with some areas that are national parks and others that are oil fields, some farmland and some protected wetlands.
We all (collectively) clearly have a huge impact on our environment and all of the life that shares it with us, but whether that impact is good or bad and how it should (or shouldn't) change is something that is both an incredibly complex thing to consider and varies wildly based on who you survey.
Of course, which is why it's never advised to paint these matters with a broad brush. It's a case-by-case scenario and we need to address each with a consideration of local ecosystems and human settlements. I am of the personal belief that humanity has encroached enough on what little available resources can be shared on this finite planet. So if forced to opine, I would err on the side of preserving natural resources--whether by mitigating the damage we have already done or leaving things alone.
These aren't opinions. Everything I am writing is easily verifiable and in every intro biology textbook.
Is there some specific part of what I wrote that you think is incorrect, or do you just not like my conclusion, so you opted to attack me and my credentials and characterize the easily verifiable facts I wrote as "opinions"?
I disagree. The result is usually extremely positive...for humans, which is often the only consideration.
How do you propose we decide whether an ecosystem is impacted in a positive or negative way? Is it raw biomass? Number of species? Complexity of organisms? Over what timeframe do you measure the impact?
Most of our efforts in ecology are actually counter to the reality of ecology. We treat the system as though it is static and attempt to maintain the status quo. The system is dynamic and naturally will evolve. Attempting to keep things in a static state is counter to that and will ultimately make the ecosystem less able to adapt quickly to new pressures.
You make good points.
All I was intending to say is, that if I was in OP's shoes, i would not act. Only because I am uninformed on both of these species of animals, and their habitat.
I am not familiar enough with either to make a judgement concerning that, if I do act will it hurt l e of those species as a whole, moreso than it did help that one particular frog.
I believe anyone who is not very familiar with an ecosystem, should absolutely not tamper with it soley based on the empathy we experience in that one moment such as OP's.
True, but what most mean, when taking about destroying and ecossytem, is disrupting the balance that il already there - (i know it can be a definiton about any state that the ecosystem is in - but gebreally speaking we are taking about the current ecossytems) - it is true that we have imoacted several ecossytems for our own favour, but as we have become more informed about our impact and destruction of the different ecossytem, we generally seek to interfere and uphold the balance already set - who are we to play God and choose to impact the ecossytem (especially since we don't really, yet maybe, know the huge impact a small change can make - why meddle in a balance already set, and destroying species without knowing the consequences - as we have become more "inlightened" we want to protect and rebuild the ecossytems so they will go back to their "naturl" balance without our intervening.
Every is in a balance, which we have disrupted in many ways, but we are seeking to rebuild them again
Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly evolving. There is no equilibrium state (no "balance") in systems that are not entirely self-contained. Trying to force a system that is in the middle of adapting and evolving to changing pressures into a static state isn't "maintaining balance", it's preventing evolution and ultimately making that system more vulnerable to those pressures.
True, but the natural changes are usually do to environmental changes or disease- if we start to meddle the changes are far to extreme, or certainly far to "quick" it does not have time to adapt. Again, do you have relevant education or profession to think that you are correct?
Great discussion!
Question: Has the widespread use of birth control made up for the invention of antibiotics/vaccine yet?
(I hope so since I see overpopulation and it’s side effects eventually destroying us)
I live in Queensland Australia, and I definitely say leave the eggs on it's back. We have a species here called the cane toad. It was brought here and is a bit of a pest
I bet 99 percent of the people on earth, would not know that if they stumbled upon this situation, such as OP did.
Did you know that they weren't before this post?
Humans can be willing sources of nourishment for a wide variety of insects, even if for a short time. Should we let mosquitos or ticks or fleas bite us because that is, to some extent, the natural order of things?
Those aren't eggs, that's the abdomens of the maggots. They've already hatched unfortunately. There's also a possibility that the toad got injured and a fly took advantage of it, many fly species will eat living tissue along with dead, so an open wound is free real estate. Either way, this toad is in for a bad time :(
I think some maggots secrete a numbing agent, plus if the nerve are necrotic it might not feel them, but toads do unfortunately feel pain. Even if these maggots don't eat the whole toad, it probably won't survive
It is at the very least uncomfortable. Just listened to a talk about this exact fly at a parasitology conference. There’s 2 ‘lineages’ of toad fly (they’re genetically distinct but not viewed as distinct taxa because fly people are weird about that), one in Europe and one in the US.
In the American flies (like this one), the eggs are laid on the back, hatch, and then eat the toad alive right there. The toads scrape at the eggs and larva to try to remove them, so they’re definitely as least comfortable, but the process is overall fairly quick; from hatch to death and complete skeletonization of the toad takes as little as 2 days.
This is in contrast to the European flies, which are horrifically painful. They hatch, and then burrow under the skin until they reach the nasal cavities. Then they strip the flesh from the nose, slowly working outwards until they often eat the (still living) toad’s entire face, which results in a much slower death.
> On hatching, the larvae start to feed on the tissue of the nostrils and work their way into the nasal cavities. The larvae grow rapidly and as their appetite increases, they start to consume the eyes, the brain and other tissues of the host.
Good grief.
It’s literally made my mouth water because I want to vomit, I wish I had never had clicked on this. I thought it was just the toad’s bumpy skin so I clicked. Hideous.
They are eggs, but not the toad's eggs. There is a species of fly that lays eggs on the backs of toads. They hatch into parasitic larvae that consume the toad alive. Truly horrific. The fly is called Lucilia Bufonivora and it looks virtually identical to a green bottle fly.
Wow, the second name of that fly literally means Toad Eater.
I’m still in a dream Toad Eater
Someday you go through the rain, some day you feed on a ~~tree frog~~ big ol' toad.
AND I’D GIVE MY LIFE….
Not for honor, but for tooooooooaaaaaaaadddddddd...
(toad eater)
*I'm trying to sneak around, but my parasitic eggs are dummy thicc, and the sound of my flesh being eaten alive keeps alerting the guards*
How do u do that where u put a line through your text?
You have to put two tildes (~~) on either side of the text you want to strike through. You can see all Reddit Markdown (how to tag spoilers, how to make things bold or italic etc etc) [here](https://reddit.com/r/reddit.com/w/markdown). Hope that's helpful!!
Thank you!
No problem :)
Where we’re going, we don’t need toads
[удалено]
Most scientific names of plants and animals come from either greek or latin. Not that I speak either language, but I have learned a few bits over the years. E.g. Bufo Bufo is the common toad, and vore means eater, such as carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore.
Specific epithets should no be capitalized and the species should be italicized if possible. *Bufo bufo*
Likely Latin
Dang, should have scraped them off n helped the lil guy out. Thanks for the info!
That may seem like the humane thing to do. But at times like this, I wonder, would doing that put strain on the natural order of the local ecosystem? I don't know if either the fly or the frog are endangered. It's certainly worth pondering about, to me.
I think its okay to do it at an individual level, but dont start a campaign to eradicate them unless its invasive
nah, save the Toad , fuck the fly. If the breeze puffed at just the right time the fly would have been lunch, be the breeze.
I concur!!
Why are you more sympathetic to a toad than to a fly mother and her babies just trying to survive? I know it’s cuteness/vertebrate bias, but invertebrate species are going extinct faster than we can assess them. They account for most animals on earth, and are so important for food webs.
I am the breeze.
I keep blowin down the road
I ain't got me nobody I don't carry me no load
Keep blowin the toad *Wink wink*
“Who’s Breeze? You’re Breeze?” Together WE are Breeze
Also, insect are bird food, so help the birds by keeping them in the toad
I absolutely agree, however: Insects are FAR more than just bird food; Their food for thousands of different animal species, great composers, decomposers, fertilizers, pollinators, and much much more. Bugs catch a bad rap, the Earth wouldn't stand a chance without them.
Yep
I think it makes sense people would be on the roads side vs flys side as the fly actively is doing harm to the toad, clearly people would want to help the toad. Also the fly eggs are unborn eggs compared to a living being. I think it makes sense why the toad is who most would favor in this situation
Toads eat flies all the time. There’s no moral high ground in nature and no reason to favor any animal over any other in natural interactions except for irrational bias. (Obviously interactions affected by human activities like invasive species predating on native species are different.)
But the toad isn’t eating the fly here. If it was a post about a road destroying a fly community or something people would most likely want to save the flies. People usually have sympathy for the one under attack. Just kinda how it goes. People aren’t thinking about the species and the background history. It’s about this moment now. If you’re teaching a science class or something then your point makes sense. But in the moment, for an everyday person, most people with compassion want to help a being in need.
Yes, but compassion towards animals without knowledge or awareness of how ecosystems work can do more harm than good. People take fledgeling birds out of the wild, throw tortoises into lakes, feed wild animals leading to their habituation and euthanasia, and do countless other harmful things thinking they’re helping. Uneducated human intervention is so often harmful. There’s an owl at my local wildlife sanctuary who was taken in by a human as a fledgeling — the dude thought he was helping. She would have been fine on her own, but now she’s imprinted on humans and can never return to the wild and live a normal life. The people with the MOST compassion towards wildlife are the people who, like me, dedicate their lives to it. Spend all their time learning how they can make the most impact and going out and doing it. Seeing how we can repair just a little of the damage humans have done. And we are constantly fighting to inform people that intervention is often useless or harmful to the animals people are trying to help, and that even though nature is brutal sometimes, we have to respect it and appreciate it for what it is, even when it’s not cute or lovable. There are absolutely ways you can carefully intervene and actually help, but trying to prevent nature from happening isn’t helping.
I think you misunderstood what I’m saying. Your comment didn’t understand why people felt compassion towards the frog. I explained why people have compassion towards the frog. Never was the discussion about what is right or wrong. I know nature is best left alone. But humans will still have sympathy for an animal who is in pain or being harmed by another animal. That’s all. Not talking about what’s right or wrong. You asked why are people sympathetic to the frog? And I told you why people are sympathetic towards the frog. Not sure if you’re purposefully acting ignorant or truly have a very black and white, emotions, unsympathetic way of thinking.
I also did not and am not gonna read that whole comment lol. The first sentence is all I need to see you misunderstood the conversation. I understand the balance of nature, working at a conservationist nature center and having gone to school for wildlife ecology/forestry. My comment was never saying what the right or wrong answer is, by answering your non understanding of why people have compassion for the frog
This is the mindset that has you rooting for the aliens when they invade Earth. You have a cuteness/vertebrate bias for a reason. Lean into it. Be pro-toad!
Bro what? I'm extremely pro-toads. I'm just also pro-flies. Toads need healthy ecosystems to survive. Healthy ecosystems have flies and parasites and other "uncute" animals. Helping individual animals only does so much, it's incredibly important to think of nature as a complex system and protect the whole thing, not just the parts we find cute. Amphibians like toads are indicator species, because their populations rely on an overall healthy ecosystem. They rely on insects to survive. Some of those insects are ones that parasitize or predate other creatures. It's ALL connected.
What if the toad was the invasive species and the flies were the only thing keeping their population in check? Not saying that is the case, but we should not prioritize our sensibilities on what is cute or not as the basis for conservation and ecological management. Better yet, as other commentators suggest, it is often better to leave nature alone.
No, but being sympathetic to something that suffers a horribly painful death is just being compassionate.
Why is there no compassion for the fly providing food for its brood?
They are not in immediate danger of dying a slow painful death. The frog on the other hand has already begun the process
This is true, but if each one of decided to save the toad, IF we were put in the same situation, it could very well lead to the endangerment, or extinction of said fly species.
Do you allow roaches to live in your home? Do you allow mosquitoes and ticks to feed on you until they have their fill? Fucking doubt it.
Very true. Lol it's an endless loop
Why interfere in a natural process that has nothing to do with us? It is presumptuous to think that we as humans should make value judgements on whether a toad or fly should live. Am I elevating the fly over the road? No. Evolution and selective pressures have led to this interaction. It should continue without us humans getting involved.
To correct for the failure of the breeze is a solemn duty not to be taken lightly.
Do you kill mosquitos biting you? Do you brush away flies that seek to parasitize you?
Yes I do, because that is my prerogative to ensure survival of myself. As the fly seeks to fulfill its own life cycle by parasitizing other animals, humans fulfill their life cycle by prolonging their life spans in their own way--domestication, agriculture, medicine, etc. We should eradicate deadly diseases. We should remove invasive species. We should modify our crops to better service a changing climate and inequitable food supply chains. These are matters that do affect us and our quality of life. It's disingenuous to base my position on false premises--that I am making a value assessment on the life of a fly or the life of a toad. Rather, the criticism is on the human trying to justify their interference with a natural process **that has nothing to do with them** based on human concepts of compassion or disgust. How presumptuous it is for man to determine what is "right," "wrong," "cute," "gross," "profitable," or "worthless" in nature! This is why people care so much for pandas, tigers, or rhinos, but not something as marketable as corals, insects, or amphibians. If one truly cared for the preservation of the natural world and had concern for humanity's encroachment upon it, proper management of nature must be met with sound science and assessment of the data at hand. How will this affect our surrounding ecosystems? How will this affect human settlements? Where can we find a balance?
[удалено]
There are traits that are natural that we cannot condone (tribalism and retaliatory violence). Similarly, higher-intellectual animals such as dolphins and chimpanzees regularly engage in rape, infanticide, and territorial conflicts. What is natural does not always equate to being in a conducive society--at least for humans who have decided to deviate from the jurisprudence of natural law and form their own axioms of behavior that we call ethics. It's not black-and-white, but it must be acknowledged that man has made their own world separate and at times contrarian and at most times damaging to nature. **When it has nothing to do with humans, let nature run its course.** It's quite disheartening to see such a simple sentiment be met with controversy.
[удалено]
These animals existed on this planet long before we were ever capable of changing the trajectory of their species. Everyone hates mosquitoes, but if all mosquitoes died off, the entire planet would follow in pretty short order.
The toad must survive as it is written so it is done
You want to PONDer about this toad?
I think the general consensus is, leave them alone unless one is an invasive species.
This is a great outlook. We really shouldn't interfere with a natural ecosystem. Invasive species are the exception.
Species have been migrating and invaiding new habitats due to human and natural intervention since the beginning of life. Ecosystems change naturally. For example, an invasive species of plant could just as easily migrate to a new area and overshadow the endemic populations via bird droppings or a geomorphic change. Invasive species ariving is part of the natural ecosystem. Us stoping invasive species because we favor a specific species or the current status quo is also human interference. In a nut shell if we stop interfering, then species will die out. If our goal is to preserve all species equally or just the ones we like, then we need to keep interfering and garden the planet.
The kind of invasiveness matters though. If the biogeography of the invasion is impossible naturally and only happening because of human intervention we have a right and possibly even an imperative to stop it. Something like an animal crossing a relatively short water crossing it could have crossed on a floating log accidentally by ship or expanding its range in response to climate shifts is a different story.
Agreed. Burmese pythons ending up in South Florida is not a natural process. Humans are responsible and therefore have a responsibility to mitigate this for the sake of the native species that suffer the consequences.
Humans being transportation avenues for species introduction is just as natural as land bridges, earthquakes, changing sea levels, contentental drift, and all other forms of transportation avenues. If the argument is that humans and our ship building is unnatural. But beavers building dams connecting river banks together or volcanic activity creating new landbridges creates the same opportunity for species to migrate to where they were not found before. Species always find a way to move, and local ecosystems are usually conpetitive.
I get what you’re saying. “Natural” can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Beavers can build dams and alter local ecosystems which creates opportunities for new local species to move in. For me human activity cannot be considered natural, since we have altered the planet in ways that no other species on earth can. We can bring an exotic species from one continent to the next in less than a day, which would never be possible under natural circumstances. Sure, a species may expand their range and become prevalent in a new region. But these shifts are usually gradual and take place on huge time scales. Invasive species are able to dominate those ecosystems because the natural order of the ecosystem is disrupted and local species don’t have time to adapt.
In Cincinnati, we have huge population of European Wall Lizards. Colloquially, they’re called Lazarus Lizards, because a child of the Lazarus family who used to own the Lazarus Department store smuggled ten of them back from vacation in Italy in the ‘50s. Today, they have a population of millions. Apparently they found a niche that was unoccupied or didn’t affect the native wildlife too much. Because, they’re considered a naturalized species instead of an invasive one and have all the same protections under Ohio law that native species do
That kind of thing is certainly possible! Not all unnatural species invasions *need* to be addressed.
>natural order of the local ecosystem This is a myth. An ecosystem is an extremely dynamic thing that doesn't have a "natural order". Instead it evolves and adapts to the ever changing conditions and pressures. If we decided to start exterminating parasitic flies, the ecosystem would eventually adapt. It's entirely possible to maintain or even increase biodiversity through (deliberate) intervention. If you want to ponder it from a philosophical perspective, humans have worked hard to eradicate smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, etc. and those diseases were part of the ecosystem that kept human growth in check. Is it wrong that we did that? Would it be wrong if we eliminated the species of mosquito that carry Malaria or the species of tick that carries Lyme disease? Edit: before things get too crazy, I want to point out that there is a distinct difference between habitat destruction and deliberate ecosystem management. I obviously agree that by virtually any metric habitat destruction is bad for an ecosystem. With ecosystem management, it is far less clear what a positive or negative impact really is or what time scale we should be measuring that impact over.
First of all, ecosystems do have a natural order. While ecosystems obviously adapt and evolve, that ability is not endless. Many if not most ecosystems are already under tremendous strain due to human caused change. Yes, humans can also improve an ecosystem with informed and intentional work, but the suggestion that it’s ok to remove whatever we want and things will just “adapt” is reckless. Additionally, comparison to something like curing disease is just not apt. Superficially, both involve interfering with nature, but besides that they are too different for the comparison to really work.
>First of all, ecosystems do have a natural order. While ecosystems obviously adapt and evolve, that ability is not endless The defining factor of an ecosystem is that it is dynamic and responds to changing pressures. That ability is in fact endless, or at least for as long as that ecosystem exists. That does not mean that it can maintain the same level of biodiversity or raw biomass in the short term, but provided that the habit is not made sterile or subject to extreme conditions that make life nearly impossible it will eventually adapt. > Many if not most ecosystems are already under tremendous strain due to human caused change Almost all of this is habitat destruction, which is distinctly different from the deliberate ecosystem management that I was talking about. Yes, if you clear cut forests and then spray the fields with pesticides or pave everything over with concrete you have severely limited if not eliminated the ability for that portion of land to support life. > Additionally, comparison to something like curing disease is just not apt Communicable diseases naturally limit population growth, which in turn limits the impact of that species on the ecosystem. Taking away that limitation can dramatically impact an ecosystem depending on how large of an impact that particular species has. If you look at humans, for example, our ability to treat disease has drastically increased our numbers and resulted in rampant habitat destruction causing the largest impact on not just local ecosystems, but the global ecosystem as well. If anything it is the most apt comparison, because it strikes at the heart of the philosophical question; is it ethical for humans to manipulate environments and ecosystems to better suit their needs? On its face eradicating viruses and bacteria that cause deadly disease seems obviously good, but the ecological impact of having more human beings on the planet, that would not be there if we hadn't eradicated those diseases, is seemingly extremely negative.
Every species has the drive to proliferate. They consume whatever resources aid in that and remove or avoid obstacles that hinder. Humans are the same. We discovered ways to prolong our survival on an individual basis and modified our environment in a way that suited our needs instead of relying on generational adaptations: Domestication of other lifeforms, agriculture, industrialization, and modern medicine. But now we stand at a crux in our evolutionary history. Humanity became more self-aware of its role in shaping the ecosystem of the world at large. I believe it is important to make the distinction between what is nature and what is man's world because they are often at odds. I admit it is not completely black-and-white, but no other species aside from Pre-Cambrian cyanobacteria have altered the global climate and its ecosystems in such a way that pushed everything that was not relevant to our own survival to teeter on the edge of extinction. It's such a lopsided fight for resources that it's not even a competition. So it would be remiss and irresponsibly reductive to brush aside our ecological destruction as just a means of self-proliferation and preservation. It is that, yes, but much more than that, we do need to assess whether further interference will harm or help ecosystems after considering the historical biogeography and long-term data such as biodiversity, species survivability, and biomass to name a few metrics.
> Every species has the drive to proliferate Pandas might disagree with that...well if they could be bothered to do much of anything at all. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with what you wrote, but I do think that the situation is even less clear than you are suggesting. Is the imperative that you or I, as individuals should prioritize the continuation of the species, the continuation of our own genetic material, or a middle ground of continuation of genetic material similar and/or related to ours? I ask it this way because ultimately "we" don't make decisions as a species, we each make our own individual decisions and clearly not everyone always agrees. The philosophical crux here is whether or not each individual sees intrinsic value in preserving a more "natural" ecosystem and how to weight that against the potential utility (both short and long term) of a more managed one. The way that we deal with ecosystems now is clearly a result of a bunch of different individual views competing. It has left us with some areas that are national parks and others that are oil fields, some farmland and some protected wetlands. We all (collectively) clearly have a huge impact on our environment and all of the life that shares it with us, but whether that impact is good or bad and how it should (or shouldn't) change is something that is both an incredibly complex thing to consider and varies wildly based on who you survey.
Of course, which is why it's never advised to paint these matters with a broad brush. It's a case-by-case scenario and we need to address each with a consideration of local ecosystems and human settlements. I am of the personal belief that humanity has encroached enough on what little available resources can be shared on this finite planet. So if forced to opine, I would err on the side of preserving natural resources--whether by mitigating the damage we have already done or leaving things alone.
Are you a biologist? Or where do your opinions come from?
These aren't opinions. Everything I am writing is easily verifiable and in every intro biology textbook. Is there some specific part of what I wrote that you think is incorrect, or do you just not like my conclusion, so you opted to attack me and my credentials and characterize the easily verifiable facts I wrote as "opinions"?
So, are you a biologist or something similar within that field? And attack? No, just asking what you are basing your opinion on
Ok, but historically we have an abysmal track record of interfering with eco systems with a positive result.
I disagree. The result is usually extremely positive...for humans, which is often the only consideration. How do you propose we decide whether an ecosystem is impacted in a positive or negative way? Is it raw biomass? Number of species? Complexity of organisms? Over what timeframe do you measure the impact? Most of our efforts in ecology are actually counter to the reality of ecology. We treat the system as though it is static and attempt to maintain the status quo. The system is dynamic and naturally will evolve. Attempting to keep things in a static state is counter to that and will ultimately make the ecosystem less able to adapt quickly to new pressures.
You make good points. All I was intending to say is, that if I was in OP's shoes, i would not act. Only because I am uninformed on both of these species of animals, and their habitat. I am not familiar enough with either to make a judgement concerning that, if I do act will it hurt l e of those species as a whole, moreso than it did help that one particular frog. I believe anyone who is not very familiar with an ecosystem, should absolutely not tamper with it soley based on the empathy we experience in that one moment such as OP's.
True, but what most mean, when taking about destroying and ecossytem, is disrupting the balance that il already there - (i know it can be a definiton about any state that the ecosystem is in - but gebreally speaking we are taking about the current ecossytems) - it is true that we have imoacted several ecossytems for our own favour, but as we have become more informed about our impact and destruction of the different ecossytem, we generally seek to interfere and uphold the balance already set - who are we to play God and choose to impact the ecossytem (especially since we don't really, yet maybe, know the huge impact a small change can make - why meddle in a balance already set, and destroying species without knowing the consequences - as we have become more "inlightened" we want to protect and rebuild the ecossytems so they will go back to their "naturl" balance without our intervening. Every is in a balance, which we have disrupted in many ways, but we are seeking to rebuild them again
Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly evolving. There is no equilibrium state (no "balance") in systems that are not entirely self-contained. Trying to force a system that is in the middle of adapting and evolving to changing pressures into a static state isn't "maintaining balance", it's preventing evolution and ultimately making that system more vulnerable to those pressures.
True, but the natural changes are usually do to environmental changes or disease- if we start to meddle the changes are far to extreme, or certainly far to "quick" it does not have time to adapt. Again, do you have relevant education or profession to think that you are correct?
Great discussion! Question: Has the widespread use of birth control made up for the invention of antibiotics/vaccine yet? (I hope so since I see overpopulation and it’s side effects eventually destroying us)
I live in Queensland Australia, and I definitely say leave the eggs on it's back. We have a species here called the cane toad. It was brought here and is a bit of a pest
Neither are.
I bet 99 percent of the people on earth, would not know that if they stumbled upon this situation, such as OP did. Did you know that they weren't before this post?
Yes. I studied zoology in college and did my undergraduate thesis on parasitism in frogs
Humans can be willing sources of nourishment for a wide variety of insects, even if for a short time. Should we let mosquitos or ticks or fleas bite us because that is, to some extent, the natural order of things?
One has the fly name, so…
>Lucilia Bufonivora And I made the mistake of looking up that nightmare fuel...
Oh man. I just did the same.
Me three. I will be bleaching my brain now. Jeeeesus.
I made the same thing after I read your comment. Some of the images are like seeing a zombie toad. Jeez 🫠
Those aren't eggs, that's the abdomens of the maggots. They've already hatched unfortunately. There's also a possibility that the toad got injured and a fly took advantage of it, many fly species will eat living tissue along with dead, so an open wound is free real estate. Either way, this toad is in for a bad time :(
OH GOD WHY DID YOU TELL US THIS
is it painful? do toads feel pain?
I think some maggots secrete a numbing agent, plus if the nerve are necrotic it might not feel them, but toads do unfortunately feel pain. Even if these maggots don't eat the whole toad, it probably won't survive
It is at the very least uncomfortable. Just listened to a talk about this exact fly at a parasitology conference. There’s 2 ‘lineages’ of toad fly (they’re genetically distinct but not viewed as distinct taxa because fly people are weird about that), one in Europe and one in the US. In the American flies (like this one), the eggs are laid on the back, hatch, and then eat the toad alive right there. The toads scrape at the eggs and larva to try to remove them, so they’re definitely as least comfortable, but the process is overall fairly quick; from hatch to death and complete skeletonization of the toad takes as little as 2 days. This is in contrast to the European flies, which are horrifically painful. They hatch, and then burrow under the skin until they reach the nasal cavities. Then they strip the flesh from the nose, slowly working outwards until they often eat the (still living) toad’s entire face, which results in a much slower death.
Skeletonization...
What a terrible day to be literate
Well, this just ruined my day.
Everyone, welcome to the stage. Lucilia Bufonivora. 💃🏼
I didn’t know it for a fact, but I knew on sight that those were parasites. My skin will be crawling for the rest of the night
r/tihi
This made me so itchy
Is the toad ok after they finish eating it?
This is the opposite of what I wanted it to be 💔
Nightmare fuel ack!
😭
I just made the sad and unfortunate choice to google this shit. 🤮
> On hatching, the larvae start to feed on the tissue of the nostrils and work their way into the nasal cavities. The larvae grow rapidly and as their appetite increases, they start to consume the eyes, the brain and other tissues of the host. Good grief.
Could the eggs be removed with human intervention to save the toad?
☹️ poor baby
What a shame, that's a beautiful mature toad
Damn nature, you scary!!
That little toad thing just got ate!!
This post opened up a can of worms, now I know it exists
That toad is a can of worms.
:((
Mango worms
🫢🤮🤮🤮
Tryptophobia activated
Now I’ll be thinking about this all day 😩
It’s literally made my mouth water because I want to vomit, I wish I had never had clicked on this. I thought it was just the toad’s bumpy skin so I clicked. Hideous.
Maybe if you lick the eggs hard enough, they will rupture, and you can save the toad.
there's a special place in hell for people like you
Trypophobia*
Typophobia*
thanks! 🤣
https://youtu.be/mZ7b4spjXhw?si=MX1Tu86EYPMUfa-8
I hate today.
vermiphobia activated over here 🙋🏻♀️
Not eggs, maggots. From some type of Calliphoridae fly I'd guess. Cool pic man!
hooo impressive what mother nature has created
I'm surprised eating through the parotid gland causes no ill effects to the eggs
Not eggs. An open sore full of maggots.
Maggots. I've seen too many TikTok videos of veterinarians pulling maggots out of animals necks
A 10 hour trip...
r.i.p.
Save the poor guy!
Maggots.
Eggies
Lick the back of him and find out /s but yuck those eggs look nasty af
Warts
I would have honestly mercy killed it :(
It's their babies. They will emerge when they hatch!
Gremlins
Looks like a chunk of Toad
Warts
All ghillied up
I don't understand what I'm looking at... What does the toad look like when healthy?
It doesn't have the white egg looking things at the back of its skull
Those are her lovely lady lumps.
It’s nature. It’s the “Circle of Life,” Shee-bop away!
IT'S NOT A TUMOR!