Talk:Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis

Fungi High‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi 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.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis 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.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geographic distribution / Effect on amphibians

I wanted to bring to your attention a paper that was published. I think the paper might be relevant for the article as it highlights how widespread Bd is (found in 86 countries) and how pervasive it is (1000+ known amphibian hosts).

I am one of the authors so I feel doubtful about making edits and cite my published research as it feels like a conflict of interest (I want to share my research!). The guidelines suggest deferring to the community's opinion in the talk page and let others decide if any changes benefit the wiki page. Federico Castro Monzon — Preceding unsigned comment added by CM Federico (talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would make a great feature

I personally have nothing to contribute to this article, but I'd like to see it featured (possibly as a Did You Know) as we wrap up the Year of the Frog. It meets all the qualifications except for having had a major edit recently. Can someone contribute to it soon? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing, Sasata. I've nominated it for DYK. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

A threats section is best made to place the measures to combat the disease in. One of these countermeasures are symbiotic bacteria. See http://web.me.com/vancevredenburg/Vances_site/Publications_files/Woodhams%20el%20al%202007.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.184.220 (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not pathogenic?

The sentence in the intro

Another explanation for such occurrences, explained below, could be that some forms of the fungus are not pathogenic.

And the sentences under "Varying forms"

Once the heatwave began, the organisms assumedly changed into the more familiar disease-causing zoospores. This suggests that some populations afflicted with Bd may be free of chytridiomycosis not because of some inherent immunity, but because environmental conditions have not altered the organism into its more common, pathogenic form.

does not seem derived from the paper it cites. There is no evidence of that, just a possible explanation that the fungus may be more variable and that the declines could have been caused by climate change and something else. "By causing stress to the animals, environmental change may raise their susceptibility to various pathogens, many of which are relatively unknown." (Di Rosa, Ines et al. "The Proximate Cause of Frog Declines?" Nature 447.31 (2007) E4-E5.)--Ljvillanueva (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bd for short

I know researchers use Bd, but it doesn't seem appropriate to use it here. I'm changing it to the full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljvillanueva (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When used often throughout a text, "Bd" is preferred for clarity and ease of reading, especially in compound phrases like "B. dendrobatidis-susceptible amphibians". There is nothing inappropriate about being concise. I think a good compromise would be to use "B. dendrobatidis" the first time in a section or paragraph, followed by "Bd" where appropriate to improve readability, unless the full species name is needed. This is the format of many scientific papers on Bd. Animalparty (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second species of Batrachocytrium described.

Martel et al. 2013. Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans sp. nov. causes lethal chytridiomycosis in amphibians PNAS. Now that Batrachochytrium is not entirely synonymous with B. dendrobatidis, mention of this new species is warranted.Animalparty (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge "Chytridiomycosis prevalence" and "Immunity hypothesis" with Chytridiomycosis article

Batrachochytrium (Bd) is an organism and pathogen, while Chytridiomycosis is the disease that Bd can (but does not always) cause. The sections on "Chytridiomycosis prevalence" and "Immunity hypothesis" in this article are longer and more detailed than that of the "main article", Chytridiomycosis. While Bd and Chytridiomycosis are importantly linked, they are not equivalent, and I propose that the relevant sections be switched, albeit with ample reference to one another. Animalparty (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Sasata (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. It makes more sense to have the disease-related content with the article on the disease, and keep the fungus-related content here. There's plenty of mycology to discuss that would be superfluous to the disease article, so it makes sense to separate the issues. Medmyco (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've transferred the "Immunity hypothesis" section to Chytridiomycosis, and renamed the Chytridiomycosis prevalence section to Geographic distribution, because prevalence refers to the frequency of disease in a population. There is still room for improvement on both articles, especially bringing the geographic distribution info on both articles into congruence.--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

units of measure

Some of the lengths referred to in the article are m (meters) when I assume they should be Xm (prefix-meters). I assume its a problem with the 'odd' letters used for small units, or just my computer (IE8).

Example: "Zoospore structure: Zoospores of B. dendrobatidis, which are typically 3-5 dm in size, have an elongate–ovoidal body with a single, posterior flagellum (19-20 m long)".

But since I don't know I haven't tried to make corretions. 208.157.148.13 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip: I have corrected both to µm (micrometers), as per Longcore et al 1999.--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batrachochytrium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123174320/http://bama.ua.edu/~nsfpeet/ to http://bama.ua.edu/~nsfpeet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]