Just a heads up for my fellow frog fans. Nature is airing a documentary on frogs on June 25th. YAY! Here is a description from the website.

Don't miss it!

DYT Blogger: So, Mr. Phrogg--

PPP: Oh, please, call me Phineas.

DYT Blogger: As you wish. Phineas, what is it like to share the big screen with stars like, George Cluney and Sandra Bullock?

PPP: Well, I have to say, that they are consummate professionals. It was a real honor. Both of them were so very easy to work with. They're like Michael Jordans of the film world.  Not only are they fantastic, but they make everyone around them better too. I wish them the best of luck in their respective careers, and you can bet that they're on my short-list should an appropriate role be available for them in one of my future projects.

DYT Blogger: That's very gracious of you, Mr. Phro--er, I mean Phineas. Did it bother you at all that they seemed to get more screen-time than you?

PPP: Oh, not at all. I feel like they were a great lead-in to my scene, which was, of course, the climax.

DYT Blogger: ...and a captivating climax it was, I'll say.

PPP: Thank you.

DYT Blogger: Although, it did seem a rather small role for an artist of your stature...

PPP: There are no small roles, only small minds, sir.

DYT Blogger: Righto! So why, exactly, weren't you featured earlier in the film?

PPP:  Simple: Logistics.

DYT Blogger: What do you mean?

PPP:  They simply couldn't find a space suit of suitable proportions to fit me--although your point is well-taken--next time I think I'll instruct my agent to negotiate for a custom-made space suit.

DYT Blogger: Perhaps for a sequel?

PPP:  If there is a sequel.  My time is valuable, and--how shall I express it--my dance card is filling up. Perhaps though i might be able to squeeze in another cameo.

DYT Blogger: So tell me, or, let's say, tell the world, who have been some of your inspirations and mentors helping you to launch your illustrious career?  Kermit the frog, perhaps?

PPP: Ahem, you're walking on thin ice there.

DYT Blogger:  Thin ice?

PPP: That's a bit offensive, if you don't mind.

DYT Blogger:  Oh, so sorry Mr. Phrogg, no offense intended.

PPP:  Well, I'll just chalk it up to your ignorance. let me just say this, Kermit is, to frogs, what blackface is to African Americans--not funny. In fact, an insulting caricature. 

DYT Blogger: Oh, I apologize again.

PPP: ...and let me add, that like most of Hollywood, I'm quite tolerant of, how shall I say this, "unusual" relationships. But I can't wrap myself around Kermit's obsession with--I can hardly say it--a pig. That "Miss Piggy" is not only not a frog, she isn't even an amphibian. Beastly!  (PPP was breathless at this point.) Sorry.  I need a moment to recover from the thought.

DYT Blogger:  Perhaps we should change the subject.

PPP: Yes, let's do so.  Let's get back to the original subject: Me, that is.

DYT Blogger: Perhaps you could share who some of your inspirations are?

PPP: Well, this is exactly about me, but I'll roll with it.  Not exactly a model, but someone I admire is Peter Dinklage.

DYT Blogger: The dwarf actor in "Game of Thrones?"

PPP: Yes. Now there's and actor who goes against the grain. Before Peter it seemed that most dwarfs were portrayed as ridiculous. Remember "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?" Similar to him I seek to make the world treat both frogs and toads with the distinction and seriousness that is long overdue.

DYT Blogger: Of course.

PPP: Inexcusable stereotyping. But Dinklage broke that stereotype. On "Game of Thrones" he's clever, conniving, with extraordinary diplomatic intellectual guile, and quite the ladies man too.

DYT Blogger: That he is.

PPP: Of course he's not nearly as fecund as even the average frog, he is, after-all, a mammal. But anyway, I'm trying to separate from ridiculous frog-stereotyping in the same way. What Sidney Poitier is to racist black-face, Dinklage is to anti-dwafism, and I intend to be against anti-frogism. This, I hope, will be my cultural legacy.  Now, I'm very sorry, but I have to wrap this up. My agent has arranged a meeting with Stephen Spielberg and I'm already ten minutes late.

DYT Blogger: Thank you sir.

PPP: My pleasure.

That, DYT Blog readers, is the transcript of the interview with Phineas P. Phrogg, who I am sure will be showing us great things, no matter what pond he winds up in.

Fire Belly Frogs. Awesomely beautiful (And they know it.)

This croc better be careful. He's about to have his lower jaw ripped off by this frog! From National Geographic.

The hula frog was, as in the Monty Python dead parrot sketch, NOT dead. He was, apparently...only sleeping. No doubt about the fact that frogs are a highly endangered group, with about a third of them in trouble. So, it is good news that one species, the Hula Painted Frog, has been found alive. This gives new hope to the possibility that other extremely-hard-to-find frogs, are just that: hard to find and not gone. More info at this very-informative National Geographic article.

Bring it Rev. Billy! Toads rule! We at Do Ya Think Blog Headquarters knew it all along.

Gastric brood frogs stand out for their peculiar reproduction habits. After the usual external fertilization process, most frogs abandon their progeny. But, in a fascinating departure from the norm, the female gastric brood frog ingests about forty fertilized eggs and the young tadpoles hatch and develop in the mother's stomach. During the incubation, the mother doesn't eat, although apparently she does digest some of the embryos. When the incubation is sufficiently advanced, her lungs collapse and the mother and relies on gas exchange through the skin. After about six weeks there is a "re-birth," well, regurgitation really, of about 20 to 25 fully-developed froglets. This behavior reminds me a little bit of Darwin's frog, in which the young incubate in the vocal sacs of the male, or Egyptian mouthbreeders, in which the eggs and young are protected and reared in the mouth of the mother.
    Sadly, both species of gastric brooding frogs, which resided in Eastern Australia, became extinct in the mid-1980s. What a shame. A loss of an interesting critter.
    But is there hope for the species yet? Recently, a research group led by Mike Archer of the University of New South Wales in Sydney in Australia has reported  the transfer of frozen gastric brooding frog DNA genomes into donor eggs derived from the Great Barred Frog in which the donor DNA had been inactivated. The result of the so-called "Lazarus Project," was the creation of a small mass of embryonic cells containing gastric brooding frog DNA. None of the embryos survived beyond a few divisions.
    One matter of clarification, even if the embryos had developed into adults, it would be a bit of a stretch to call this even an abortive "rescue" of the species. There are profound epigenetic events that are mediated by the maternal RNA, i.e. the RNA in the donor oocyte, which have been documented in several organisms, including frogs. It would be more accurate to say that experiment resulted in a "rescue" or resuscitation  of the nuclear genome of the gastric brooding frog. Nevertheless, the research team is optimistic that using refinements of the technology they will soon be available to clone and raise adult frogs. Similar experiments were performed in the creation of Dolly, the sheep, the first vertebrate cloned from an adult cell, although the donor oocytes were derived from the same species.
    This is of broad academic interest, since there are similar experiments underway or contemplated to clone a number of extinct species, such as the passenger pigeon, the great auk, and even wooly mammoths (using modern elephants as egg donors).  
    What does this all mean?  Recently, a TED-X conference  sponsored by National Geographic, was convened to discuss the ethical and practical issues related to "De-Extinction."  Although, videos of the conference have yet to be released, it will be interesting viewing.
    Where do I come down on this issue?  I really don't know, but I offer the following:  1)I don't believe that any of these creatures should be released into the wild.  Repopulating North America with semi-pseudo wooly mammoths or frankenfrogs? Bad idea. 2)I really wonder what conclusions can be drawn from the possible results of these experiments? Can we ever draw definitive conclusions about the behavior and biology of these "resurrected genomes?" Even the Dolly experiments, using donor eggs from the same species, resulted in adult animals with serious health problems and I expect that using donor eggs from differing species will result in even greater deviations from normal adults.
    Although the expansion of humanity has had cataclysmic consequences on both the ecology of the planet and the destruction of species diversity, it is believed that 99% of the known organisms that ever lived have become extinct.  Most of these extinctions preceded human beings. Extinction is not exceptional; it is the norm in planetary history.  
        Personally, I wonder if we would be better served by rescuing charismatic animals (like tigers and blue whales), and studying ways to try and prevent the extinction of surviving species, primarily by protecting and preserving habitats and ecosystems, rather than trying to resurrect lost organisms. This would seem to me to be a more efficient and valuable use of scarce scientific resources. Agree or disagree, that's my take. Rebuttal is always welcome.