Page 1 of 1

O-M-G, Dolphins Stoned on Pufferfish??

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:29 am
by Pufferpunk

Re: O-M-G, Dolphins Stoned on Pufferfish??

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:21 am
by RTR
Bizarre... Don;t try this at home...

Re: O-M-G, Dolphins Stoned on Pufferfish??

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:02 am
by Arny
I didnt think that puffers could realise poison into the water. I thought it was only dangerous if you ate the insides

Re: O-M-G, Dolphins Stoned on Pufferfish??

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:12 am
by Pufferpunk
Me too.

Re: O-M-G, Dolphins Stoned on Pufferfish??

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:02 pm
by Infinity8
I think I read somewhere that certain species can secrete it through their slimecoat at times too?? Dunno for sure.
How bizarre though O_O HANDLE WITH CARE DOLPHINS.

*insert lame "puff puff pass" joke here*

Re: O-M-G, Dolphins Stoned on Pufferfish??

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:17 pm
by RTR
Storage locations for their toxins vary with the species. A number of them do have toxin stored in their skin. Dolphins "mouthing" a live puffer would very likely release some toxin just by abrasion. That is one of the reasons for not "petting" puffers. But the biggest is just not to disturb their slime coat or shin. We really have little or no data on how quickly they lose their toxicity in captivity.

Puffer taxonomy is still pretty much confused and frankly rather unscientific, and IHO will remain so until taxonomy involves the total genome of an individual, not just the chromosomal genes. I gave up trying to discus Rainbow fish genetics with hobbyists years ago as most do not they don't have the language needed, and non-chronosonal genes are largely from the female "Eve" of any given species. Gregor Mendel was either the luckiest man in the history of science, or he simply did what most applied scientists do - he explained the data he could analyze and predict and ignored the rest. That in no way minimizes his work or his contribution to the advancement of science. We are unlikely to ever know which, and it does not really matter - what he learned was important and invaluable. Charles Darwin was far smoother and more subtle. We have more of his work and we can see the subtlety of his work and his careful presentations of it. But few have his wisdom in not pushing the boundaries too hard or too fast for his audience - few of us have that degree of elegance.