There are frogs here too.  Large brown treefrogs.  I say large only because I have just been staring into the eyes of tiny glass frogs. 

Lola, I am thinking about our conversations.  Why do small species with no apparent benefit to man matter?  You posed this question to me when we discussed our endangered species laws:

"The question is, are we morally bound to save every species that is in trouble, for whatever reason?  We still have pockets of alpine plants in the Appalachians.  Certainly everyone will agree that there is no way the Appalachians are truly alpine.  Are these misfits, left over from the ice age, worth saving?  The pika has evolved into an animal that thrives in a very limited environment.  There are many species, especially plants, that have a little niche like this…As we all know, there is no complete agreement, with all due respect to Erik, on whether these things are happening due to man's activities or whether this is a natural phenomenon.  If it is natural, then we are playing God by interfering."

The story of the vanishing frogs is illustrative of our disagreement.  Let me explain.  There is no unifying theory as to the disappearance of the world's amphibians.  For many years, this allowed critics of extinction warning calls to say, there is no complete agreement, do not jump to conclusions.      

Ever since the 1980's, frog populations have been crashing.  Sometimes, entire populations disappear.  There is no one global theory, no single reason why this is happening.  Rather, it’s a host of reasons -  pesticides to pollution, introduced species to UV-B radiation, climate change to disease, poaching to encroachment.

Next

12345678910111213