…and this is a 
It means "devil toad," and it was a 10 pound monster that lived 70 million years ago, in what is now Madagascar. It's huge, and judging by its living cousins, was a voracious predator. If it were alive today, it would probably be eating your cats and puppies.
In other words, this was an awesome toad, and I wish I had one for a pet.
Here's what it looks like, with some very large extant toads for comparison.
Beelzebufo ampinga, Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. (A) Skull reconstruction showing parts preserved (white areas, Left) and distribution of pit-and-ridge ornament (stippling, Right). (B) Skeletal reconstruction and inferred body outline of average-sized (skull width, 200 mm; SVL, 425 mm) adult female B. ampinga based mainly on Lepidobatrachus asper. White areas indicate parts represented by fossil specimens. For size comparison, dorsal view silhouettes of Ceratophrys aurita (the largest extant ceratophryine) (C), and Mantidactylus guttulatus (the largest extant Malagasy frog) (D), are shown. cp, crista parotica; fm, foramen magnum; frp, frontoparietal; mx, maxilla; n, nasal; pmx, premaxilla; qj, quadratojugal; qu, quadrate; sq, squamosal. (Scale bars: 50 mm.)
There are some biogeographical puzzles associated with this beast. It's found in Madagascar, but it's closest extant relatives are South American…and since frogs and toads do a poor job of crossing salt water, that implies the existence of land bridges between those continents around the Cretaceous. It's not a major puzzle, though, although some of the news reports I've seen play up the concern, as if it were a significant controversy. As the authors explain,
We suggest that extant ceratophryines are remnants of a Gondwanan hyloid clade that once ranged from at least South America to Indo-Madagascar. Whether this clade was more broadly distributed and on which Gondwanan landmass it originated cannot be determined on current evidence. However, as the Late Cretaceous fauna of the Maevarano Fm, including its ceratophryine anuran, bears little resemblance to that of modern Madagascar, major biotic changes clearly occurred on the island in the intervening period. When and how the ancestors of the endemic mantellid and microhylid anurans arrived on Madagascar remains controversial, but there is general agreement that these frogs did not diversify significantly until the Paleogene. Their radiation has been linked, at least in part, to the expansion of rainforests, but may also have been facilitated by the extinction of archaic faunal elements, including ceratophryines.
It was a diverse, widespread group once upon a time, and it's not at all challenging to report that the continents have shifted in 70 million years. It's just very cool that anurans achieved the status of charismatic megafauna*, once upon a time.
*For a generous definition of "mega".
Evans SE, Jones MEH, Krause DW (2008) A giant frog with South American affinities from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105(8):2951-2956.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: thalarctos | February 19, 2008 5:15 PM
For a generous definition of "charismatic".
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 19, 2008 5:22 PM
No! Look at that face, it's highly charismatic!
It's far prettier than Ben Stein, anyway.
Posted by: Fresh Clichès | February 19, 2008 5:22 PM
Phenotypically, it appears to look no different than a South American Horned ("Pac-Man") Frog. Cool.
Posted by: Rheinhard | February 19, 2008 5:24 PM
ALL PRAISE TO THE HYPNO-TOAD!!
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 5:26 PM
So this infernal bad boy would have been as big as the Goliath frog?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | February 19, 2008 5:29 PM
If it is true that frogs use their eyes to help them swallow, it would seem not to have been significant for this species.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 19, 2008 5:30 PM
Much bigger. The largest Goliath frog was around 7 pounds; this one specimen would have been 10.
Posted by: Alex | February 19, 2008 5:33 PM
Total fabrication. There's no way they could know the colors of the stripes.
Posted by: Dan | February 19, 2008 5:33 PM
I wonder if it would still taste like chicken.
Posted by: HP | February 19, 2008 5:36 PM
Who painted the reconstruction?
Posted by: True Bob | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM
Very cool. I used to have a pet ceratophrys sp. and it was really cool. Like all frogs, it ate anything it could cram in its mouth, which would include mice. It would also make a whistling call at night. It couldn't have weighted even a pound.
I for one welcome our prehistoric toad overlords.
Posted by: jeh | February 19, 2008 5:50 PM
Jabba-esque. "Cheesa. Peacha. Chr'Wanki Chewbacca."
Posted by: Alex | February 19, 2008 5:53 PM
Q:Yeah, well that science is all well and good, but can anyone explain why it went extinct?
A:because the last one croaked.
Posted by: Homie Bear | February 19, 2008 5:57 PM
The "bufo" name for toads is either derived or is the derivative for our word buffoon, so Beelzebufo is "devil-buffoon". Now we just need a Deobufo.
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 5:57 PM
Hmmmm... So, if it was still alive, and available to the pet trade, would it be feasible to keep it in a bathtub, or in the backyard? And would it be feasible to feed it live chickens or captured salespersons?Posted by: nobody | February 19, 2008 5:58 PM
See now, THIS is why Pharyngula is at times such a great read.
Posted by: Hans | February 19, 2008 5:58 PM
Why do toads have only four fingers? From the pictures, it looks like they have four fingers, but five toes. Where did the fifth finger go? Or, conversely, where does our fifth finger come from?
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 6:05 PM
Living tetrapods are all descended from an amphibian that had five digits per foot.Frogs (and toads), and as well as salamanders and caecillians, are descended from a later amphibian that had eventually developed four toed forefeet some time during the Permian or Triassic periods.
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 6:09 PM
The word "buffoon" is derived from an Italian word meaning "one who puffs one's cheeks."
It could be safe to assume, given as how Italian is descended from Latin, that it can also mean something along the lines of "one who puffs one's cheeks in the manner of a toad."
Posted by: Pleco | February 19, 2008 6:11 PM
So this was in the tree trunk in Pan's Labyrinth!
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 19, 2008 6:13 PM
Actually, the literal translation should be "Lord of the Toads", which is an even better name.
And it definitely doesn't mean "Frog from Hell"
Posted by: Matt H | February 19, 2008 6:19 PM
Wwwooowww. That is sooo amazingly cool. I thought cane toads were big, but ten pounds...wow.
What was it about the environment 70 million years ago that was so propitious for megafauna?
Posted by: Doc Bill | February 19, 2008 6:20 PM
So, what do they call you back in that fancy place, the Cretaceous or whatever you call it. Uptown, ain't it? The "Big City." Ohhh, I'm shaking in my boots being a country boy and the likes. So, tell me, what do they call you back there, huh?
They call me MISTER Toad.
Posted by: Russell Seitz | February 19, 2008 6:24 PM
Ah, this explains why Rana goliath is found only around Equatorial Guinea.
It originated on B.ampinga's side of the Mozambique Channel, but took one look at it licking its chops and leaped clear across Africa.
I can hardly wait for the synbio guys at Ventner to cob together Rana schwartzenegger and Beelzebufo calavarasi
Posted by: Mister DNA | February 19, 2008 6:26 PM
That huge mouth? Obviously designed for swallowing coconuts whole.
Posted by: HP | February 19, 2008 6:29 PM
They call me MISTER Toad.
Hey, isn't that a quote from "In the Heat of the Wind in the Willows"?
Posted by: SEF | February 19, 2008 6:49 PM
As I said before, he's adorable. Perhaps you just don't like any frogs and toads much. With a monocle, he could give Patrick Moore competition over sheer gravitas. Alternatively, for the relevant villain persona, he needs a cigar and a furry hench-critter.Posted by: Holbach | February 19, 2008 6:51 PM
I saw that story on the Internet news. I have a big
fascination for the island of Madagascar as there are
plants and animals indigenous to this fourth largest
island on earth with almost 90 percent of the original
forest destroyed. Freaking shame to see a unique island
ecosystem wiped out by a third world population which
will eventually render the island a waste land.
Anyway, years ago I was watching a nature program on the
Discovery Channel or comparable nature channel, and they
featured frogs, all manner and sizes. In one segment
there was a snake who swallowed a fairly large frog, then
slithered off only to be ambushed and swallowed by a huge
frog, something resembling Beelzebufo. The snake kept biting the huge frog about the mouth but was slowly gulped
down, no doubt writhing away in it's gullet and stomach.
I have never seen that program again after all these years
and will never forget that snake eats frog who is eaten
by frog. So damn intelligent designed!
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 6:55 PM
Technically, the literal translation would be "Toad, Lord of the Flies"
Posted by: True Bob | February 19, 2008 6:57 PM
It's hard to draw five fingers and make them look right - see any cartoon ;)
Posted by: Dave M | February 19, 2008 7:02 PM
Holy moly - that's one mean-looking toad. But for a name, how about "Mofobufo"?
Posted by: Trent Eady | February 19, 2008 7:03 PM
"Bufo" means "toad" and Beelzebub was the "Lord of the Flies."
Kudos to the scientists for the clever name!
Posted by: True Bob | February 19, 2008 7:03 PM
Stanton, that is perfect, and perfectly correct.
Aside, the ceratophrys are ambush hunters. When something appropriate walks by, they reach out and touch it. Then they cram it down their maw. No worries about alive or dead, in it goes. Amazing how big that little smile opens up to.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 19, 2008 7:04 PM
Really, then I stand corrected, I was under the impression that the "zelbub" bit of "Beezelbub" meant "of flies", and "Beel" was derived from the deity "Baal".
But then linguistics was never my strong point.
Posted by: True Bob | February 19, 2008 7:12 PM
Well it is kind of mangled, what with the "ze" in there, instead of beelbufo.
Posted by: Graham | February 19, 2008 7:24 PM
There's this really yappy Chihuahua that lives next door to my parent's house. It would have made a real nice snack for this prehistoric toad.
The thought brings a smile to my face.
Posted by: Doc Bill | February 19, 2008 7:30 PM
"There's this really yappy Chihuahua that lives next door to my parent's house. It would have made a real nice snack for this prehistoric toad."
Just Google "rent a snake"
Enough said.
Posted by: Kirt | February 19, 2008 7:30 PM
""Beel" was derived from the deity "Baal"."
And Baal, while also being used for the diety, is the ancient Hebrew word for "Lord" or "Master" and in occasionally used in the Pentateuch as a name for the Hebrew god. I really don't think the namers of this toad were linguists either, but still a very cool name. Not quit as cool though as Fjordichthes slartibartfastii, bit still very cool
Posted by: Zeph | February 19, 2008 8:02 PM
I don't know too much about paleontology, but I find it very interesting. I have a few questions that I assume those more scientifically inclined might be able to answer. 1) am I correct in assuming that the white areas in the drawing of the skeleton are the pieces of the fossil skeleton that were actually found? 2) if so, how was it determined that this was a toad, and that the toad looks as it does in the drawing? for instance, I see that there were no fossils of bones in the front legs found (if my assumption about the coloring is correct), so how do they know that it only had 4 toes on each front foot?
thanks for any answers
Posted by: MoxieHart | February 19, 2008 8:03 PM
Imagine having one of those on a leash and just walking down the street with it?
WANT!
Posted by: ice9 | February 19, 2008 8:05 PM
First thing tomorrow I'm getting a t-shirt: Big-ass frog, cool-sounding Latin name in sciency italics, "Charismatic Megafauna" below. It will be the best toad shirt in the whole school.
ice
Posted by: Stanton | February 19, 2008 8:15 PM
If it was anything like living horned frogs, taking it for a walk would mean loading and unloading it into a Radio Flyer red wagon.
Posted by: thalarctos | February 19, 2008 8:32 PM
No, you're right, Dave.
As Kirt explained above, "be'el" is from בעל "ba'al", which means "lord, master, owner", etc., and זבוב ("zebub") means "fly" (singular, actually). One way of expressing the genitive (possessive) in Hebrew is to juxtapose the two nouns in the following way:
noun1 noun2
where noun1 = the noun which belongs to the second noun
and noun2 = the noun which possesses the first noun.
While it's not an especially common formation, we do have an example of that in English: for the "break-of-the-fast", we say "break-fast", or "breakfast". If you think of that construction, you can see how the usual Hebrew possessive construction is formed.
Sometimes in a noun combination, there is a slight pronunciation shift, which accounts for "ba'al" to "be'el". Same meaning, though,
Posted by: LC | February 19, 2008 8:46 PM
So technically Beelzebufo could translate into "Lord of the Toads"?
But either case is an apt name - a toad roughly the size and weight of a bowling ball isn't going to take lip from anything. Especially if its like the Pac Man toads and eats anything it can shove in its mouth.
Posted by: ithaqua | February 19, 2008 9:04 PM
I imagine it looked something like this.
Posted by: ithaqua | February 19, 2008 9:05 PM
Let me try that again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=444843&in_page_id=1965
Posted by: gg | February 19, 2008 9:06 PM
Hypno-toad, nothing! All praise Tsathoggua and his monstrous kin! This prehistoric toad is one of the omens of his imminent return!
Posted by: Jeff | February 19, 2008 9:09 PM
Today, my local Christian/Conservative/Creationist radio host cited this toad as evidence of the world wide flood. The "reasoning" was that oxygen levels in the atmosphere would have been different before the Flood which would have resulted in much larger animals. Of course, he didn't mention that the fossil was 70 million years old, probably since he conveniently doesn't believe in radiometric dating.
I used to think it would be easy to be extremely religious. Now I understand that the work of denial must be extremely difficult.
Posted by: Andy | February 19, 2008 9:20 PM
Re: #10, on who painted the reconstruction, the drawing was done by Luci Betti-Nash, one of the artists in the Dept. of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University (and she did a fantastic job!). She based many of the details off extant Ceratophyrs spp. (an internet search will bring up relevant pictures), which should answer the question about number of toes, etc.
As for the lack of limb bones, etc., we probably have some sitting in the collections from the Maevarano Fm., but random frog limb bits are pretty tough to differentiate from the other vertebrates that kick around in the formation (unless the bones are complete, or something truly distinctive like vertebrae or the wacky bone texture on many of the cranial elements). It is worth noting, also, that the reconstruction was based on elements recovered from several different localities (although there is enough overlapping material to know we're dealing with the same beastie).
Posted by: MAJeff | February 19, 2008 9:25 PM
"Devil Toad." Just more proof that evolution and biology are tools of the devil meant to draw good people away from god.
Then again, my goatee got me labeled "Mephistopholes" in college.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 19, 2008 9:27 PM
The word "buffoon" is derived from an Italian word meaning "one who puffs one's cheeks."
That pretty well describes L'Azzuri's goalie *ducks*
Posted by: Michelle | February 19, 2008 9:41 PM
Now that's the kind of toad I wanna sneak in my mom's bed for a prank.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | February 19, 2008 9:44 PM
The former chair of my geography department contends that all frogs came from the Indian subcontinent. His argument is that when India rolled up into Asia, that was when they were able to disperse. Is their any merit to this argument? I simply took him at his word and never looked it up. It's out of my field of interest, I'm looking at citrus dispersal in the hands of Portuguese explorers.
Posted by: noncarborundum | February 19, 2008 9:45 PM
I am the keymaster. Are you the gatekeeper?
Posted by: thalarctos | February 19, 2008 10:09 PM
:) , noncarborundum -- I should have been more precise.
I was referring to the specific directionality of possession--in "breakfast", the implied "of the" occurs between "break" and "fast" without rearranging the order of the nouns.
Your examples are correct that we often use compound nouns to show possession, but in your examples, we have to reverse the word order before we insert "of the", because the directionality is different. "Keymaster" does not become "key of the master", but rather "master of the key", and similarly, "gatekeeper" becomes "keeper of the gate", not "gate of the keeper".
The point I was trying to make, and I slid over it way too fast without making myself clear, is that while we have the same kind of construction as Hebrew, it typically is in reverse order as to which noun possesses the other noun. "Breakfast" is about the most common example of an English possessive compound that has the same word order as "Be'el" "of the" "zebub".
Thank you for pointing out that as it stood, my statement needed refining.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | February 19, 2008 11:41 PM
I saw this this morning on Science Daily and busted out laughing. Of course, it lost a lot in translation trying to explain the joke to my Comp Sci colleagues (who have never seen a large Bufo). I was disappointed that Science Daily kept referring to it as frog however.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | February 19, 2008 11:54 PM
Maybe the "ze" got left in under some French influence: "Lord of ze Toad(s)"
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 12:06 AM
In Hebrew, "zeh" alone means "this" or "that".
"Lord, that's a toad!.
("Toad" in Hebrew is "karpad", FWIW)
Posted by: Amazona farinosa farinosa | February 20, 2008 1:02 AM
Has no one even speculated on the possible huge volume of hallucinogenic bufotenine toxin this critter may have possessed? Imagine some therapod having a bad trip after trying to snack on one. Like giant pigeons on Avitrol.
Posted by: humanist | February 20, 2008 1:09 AM
Common mistake, but I hate to see good writers making it: you misspelled "its" by adding an improper apostrophe.
It should read, "...but its closest extant relatives are South American...".
Posted by: idlemind | February 20, 2008 1:14 AM
And here I thought folks got upset over mixed-language constructions (specifically, mixing Greek and Latin roots) aside from proper names. Hebrew and Latin seems even stranger -- though I guess Beelzebub is a "proper name."
Posted by: mothra | February 20, 2008 2:31 AM
There is zero merit to the idea of all frogs comming from the Indian subcontinent. Australia has (had) a very diverse and unique fauna. In a much broader picture, biogeographically, there is considerable merit to the idea that most lineages of terestrial animals when traced back have their roots either in Gondwanaland or in China. (This paper is not in press yet- I'm working on it.)
The question with this beastie is: what type of chemical defenses did it possess? Worse than Bufo marinus? remember that Madegascar was home to the Elephant bird and its late Cretaceous predecessors which would take down yon toad in a gulp.
Posted by: BrainyBiotch | February 20, 2008 3:24 AM
I do believe you have found my next household pet.
Posted by: NC Paul | February 20, 2008 4:41 AM
Obviously the namers were Bill Hicks fans.
Beelzebufo. Beelzebozo.
Mystery solved. Now what's for breakfast? :)
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 20, 2008 6:52 AM
MAJeff
LOL! Your theory needs work however - hell's gonna be much more interesting without those good people hanging around spoiling all the fun like they do up here ;)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2008 8:25 AM
It is a pacman frog. Today's pacman frog is Ceratophrys.
Isn't the Goliath frog also reported to reach 40 cm in length?
Already in the Early Carboniferous under both possibilities (temno- or lepospondyls).
No. It's a portmanteau of a pun. "Of the toads" would be bufonum.
Conraua goliath. Pretty distantly related to what is called Rana today. The times when all frogs were Rana, Bufo, Hyla or Leptodactylus are over.
Incidentally, the cane toad is no longer Bufo marinus: it's Rhinella marina. It's still a close relative of Bufo, though.
1) Yes.
2) It is not a toad. Like all languages, English is way underequipped to deal with anuran diversity. It is a ceratophryine -- more closely related to the real toads and the treefrogs than to the Real True Frogs (to which, incidentally, the North American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus belongs). Ceratophrys is called "horned toad" and "pacman frog" -- it's neither a toad nor a frog in the strict sense.
3) All amphibians have four fingers per hand. The only exceptions are those with reduced or absent forelimbs -- but an anuran ( = "frog" in the widest sense, including the toads) with reduced forelimbs is really difficult to imagine! Based on various anatomical details, it's clear that Beelzebufo is a ceratophryine, so the default assumption (Occam's Razor) is that it looked like one even in those parts that haven't been found or identified yet.
It's reasonable for the Real True Frogs -- Ranidae, and that in the strict sense. For all others, it's clearly wrong and has never been advocated in the literature.
The elephantbirds were herbivores, and they did not yet exist in the Cretaceous as far as can be told today. Though Majungasaurus did exist... big carnivorous dinosaur with close relatives in South America.
Of course not. Those are simply reconstructed after Ceratophrys. What did you imagine?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2008 8:33 AM
BTW, Mantidactylus is not a toad. As a mantellid, it's very close to Ranidae (and even closer to the Asian treefrogs -- Rhacophoridae -- which must have come from India, too), far from toads + treefrogs.
Posted by: Katrina | February 20, 2008 9:13 AM
Looks an awful lot like the toads in Bermuda.
Posted by: Michelle | February 20, 2008 10:01 AM
@david 67 I always mix toads and frogs... I just can't remember the difference.
...
HYPNOTOAD!
Posted by: Paguroidea | February 20, 2008 10:34 AM
Thanks for sharing this peer-reviewed research. Awesome!
Posted by: mothra | February 20, 2008 11:02 AM
@66 you are (of course) right that Aepyornis was a herbivore and I was being flippant. I did specifically say 'predecessors' and in no way meant to imply the existence of the relatively recently extinct Elephant bird in the Cretaceous.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2008 11:11 AM
One is that true toads (such as the cane toad) are completely toothless. Most or all other frogs-in-the-wide-sense retain teeth in the upper jaw (and one treefrog somehow got the lower teeth back, too).
Most animals called "toads" or "frogs" in English (or French or German) are neither toads nor frogs-in-the-narrow-sense. Start here for learning more about "Frogs and toads: sheer, untold awesomeness".
Posted by: Onkel Bob | February 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Thank you David and mothra. I probably misheard him during that lecture. It was a discussion on human geography and the competing arguments for our dispersion.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2008 1:06 PM
What competing arguments for our dispersion?
Posted by: mothra | February 20, 2008 1:55 PM
Are you (#74) perhaps thinking of Out-of-Africa, across southern Saudi Arabia and into the Indian subcontinent with dispersal from there to SE Asia and Australia, or north into Asia proper and then both west into Europe and east via Beringia into the Americas? Homo sapiens is still not originating from the Indian subcontinent.
Posted by: windy | February 20, 2008 5:37 PM
Most animals called "toads" or "frogs" in English (or French or German) are neither toads nor frogs-in-the-narrow-sense.
Case in point: "Shield toads" :)
Posted by: arachnophilia | February 20, 2008 8:31 PM
@Homie Bear (#14)
not quite. "beelzebufo" is clearly a mangling of word roots, making a play on the hebrew baal zebub, or "lord of flying things." you'll notice that it's clearly divided into "baal" (lord/god, a name for semitic deities such as hadad) and "zebub" (flying things). but this retains the ze- part of the second root.
@Owlmirror (#58)
yes, but that'd be זה and this is זבוב. there's no hey.
@idlemind (#61)
hard to say what makes a proper name in cases like these. if we look at the above example i gave, "hadad" is the proper name, and "baal" is his title, forming a constructed title-name "baal hadad." sort of like saying "dr. myers." the "dr." part is not professor's myers' name, but a title he has earned. so i'd be tempted to say that at best "baal zebub" or "baal zebul" is a constructed title-name. at worst, it's simply a description. though it has been mangled into a proper name over time.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2008 8:43 PM
Well, it depends on how you transliterate "Beelzebufo". I think "!bufo בעל, זה" makes as much sense as anything.
Especially since I was not being entirely serious in the first place.
Posted by: thalarctos | February 20, 2008 9:23 PM
"!bufo בעל, זה"
למאוROTF, Owlmirror!
Posted by: arachnophilia | February 21, 2008 2:02 AM
i do believe that is the most groan-inducing usage of hebrew characters i have ever seen, beating out the previous tied-winners, the real-world קוקה קולה and the shirt that zoidberg was wearing in that one futurama episode that said שלורם in the giftshop for the product of the same name.
owlmirror: yeah, "lord, that's a bufo" is pretty funny. it's just a pretty funny name in general... don't they have some kind of review for naming conventions?
Posted by: David | February 21, 2008 1:37 PM
@80 Arachnophilia:
No, there are only a few, rather bare bones requirements in the code about the formation of names, and taxonomists seem, as a rule, to be rather fond of puns: e.g. Oedipina (originally Oedipus) complex, Pieza pi, Pieza kake etc.
see http://tinyurl.com/38eru9
Posted by: arachnophilia | February 21, 2008 1:51 PM
that's awful! and hillarious.