Talk:Frog/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Frog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should we be using the phrase: "body plan"? It gives the impression of design, which I do not like. Not to mention, I have never heard the term before. --liquidGhoul 11:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The official term, I believe, is "bauplan". Body plan is sometimes used, and refers to processes of development rather than ID. The header could equally well be "general anatomy" or "overview of anatomy", imo. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should settle on one Dendrobates for the gallery. D. auratus is not in perfect focus as far as I can tell, and is a red link; on the other hand, D. aureus has a fuzzy line through his/her behind, so neither picture is really ideal. There also this one:

Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I really can't choose. None of them are the greatest, and we really don't need that many. Hopefully someone will take a great photo of one in the near future, and we can use that. I think the problem is that most people come across them in the rainforest, and they will either blow out the image with their flash, or there is some motion blur because of low shutter speed (which occurs with most of these photos). --liquidGhoul 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the new one, it is clear, and the colouring vivid. It seems a lot of people take photos of their backs, is that to illustrate the markings, or because it is a defensive position, in that they are showing potential predators their colours? --liquidGhoul 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume the former - there are pictures of the front of the same animal, but the one I chose is the best imho. I couldn't say for Dendrobates, but Bombina spp. will turn on their backs when threatened and show off their colourful undersides. I suppose that only works if you are likely to notice your predator in time to take such action, which may be the reason why Dendrobates are brightly coloured all over. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fun game. Tell me which of these photos is/are misclassified:

• 
  "Dendrobates tinctorius"
• 
  "Dendrobates azureus"
• 
  Less ambiguous azureus specimen
• 
  Less dodgy tinctorius
• 
  Juvenile Dendrobates tinctorius "Cobalt"

Also check other tinctorius on the web, e.g. Google images search results - they are extremely polymorphic: [1].

Samsara _contrib ^talk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of these pictures are misclassified. D. tinctorius has a lot of morphs... possibly the most of any Dentrobates. Possibly the first pic labeled azureus is actually a tinc morph? (note the first 8 results from [[2]]--Leperflesh 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same conclusion I came to after lots of thinking and looking at pictures. Thanks for the corroboration! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went through the frog photo collection at commons, and found some spectacular photos. I will list them, instead of thumbnails, as the last time I used a gellery, it slowed down this page quite a bit:

1. Image:Megophrys.nasuta.7034.jpg
2. Image:Megophrys.nasuta.7035.jpg (Either this or the first one, it would replace the removed frog from the Megophrys genus.
3. Image:Spea hammondii 1.jpg (my favourite of this list)
4. Image:Vermiculatusmale.jpg (not brilliantly illustrative, but a remarkable photo)
5. Image:Parkerilateral.jpg (This frog is beautiful, but the framing isn't the best)
6. Image:Goldenergiftfrosch2cele4.jpg (It is another Dendrobatid, but it is a cool photo)

Either, we can just fill up the gallery, with one more photo to fill the gap, or we choose four. If we were choosing one, I would go for number 3. If we were choosing four, I would like: 3, 1 (I would crop it to frame only the frog), 4 and 5. I think none of these families are currently illustrated in the gallery. --liquidGhoul 05:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean choosing one photo or five. I'd have to say that for the Megophrys, I favour "35" - although it doesn't show the whole frog (oh, how everyone will be in uproar!) the eyes look incredibly dull in the first one, and intriguingly sharp in the second. All the other ones are good pics. I think there may even be some nomination material there! Well done for finding them!

Samsara _contrib ^talk 11:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I meant five. I guess I need to find another photo now, as I don't want to add another Dendrobatid. I kind of agree with the Megophrys picture, I was kind of undecided on the two photos, and chose the more conservative option. I think the second one shows the incredible uniqueness (is that a word) of the shape of the frog's head well. I agree about the FPC nominations as well. I don't know if they will appreciate the flooding of frog photos. :) Although we need to find other homes for them, as they aren't really illustrating frog in any way the other photos aren't. --liquidGhoul 12:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going frog watching tomorrow night, so hopefully I can find something new. However, if I do find something I haven't photographed before, chances are it will be in the genera: Crinia or Litoria. I can only hope, but it will most likely not be suitable for this article. Currently, the only photo I can find is one of mine, here: Image:M fasciolatus.jpg. The problem is, that it is in the same family as the Eastern Banjo Frog (although it looks very different). --liquidGhoul 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I made this category - it may come in handy once it's picked up a few more images: Category:Frog_images. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I originally submitted this as part of the nomination, but it became too long, so posting it here instead; directed especially at liquidGhoul, Pstevendactylus, Joyous and Lejean2000:

Comment Guys, I can't put in words what a pleasure it's been to work with you all on this article. Great effort, hope it succeeds, and hope to see you again somewhere on Wikipedia! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 11:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Frog Heart"
• "The Digital Frog"
• "Frog Heart Model"
• "Information and facts about frog anatomy"

The last one is due to User:Temporary account.

Samsara _contrib ^talk 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The only one I could find was Image:L_dentata.jpg, which doesn't show the vocal sac too clearly. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't really want to use that. The vocal sac isn't even near fully distended. I have been trying for ages to get a really good photo of a calling frog. We just have to be patient... :) --liquidGhoul 22:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A reference for Xenopus as research model, suggested in FAC:

• http://www.nature.com/celldivision/milestones/full/milestone07.html

Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you asked if unique could be used instead of special. I agree it would be better, but you would have to say "unique to amphibians", as I believe all amphibians have hearts like this (wait for confirmation to verify this please).

If you have any other questions, could you please add them here. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the fracophobe statement. Not necessary, is it? Tony 02:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean... --liquidGhoul 04:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The bit about the derogatory name for French people—detracts from the authority of the article. I'd be hoping that at some stage, French WP contributors might see this article and use some of the info, translated, to improve their own article. Tony 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that it is fine to leave it out. Even if there is a need for it, it can go in Frogs in popular culture. --liquidGhoul 08:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Which variety of English is this written in? I saw an 'is', and subsequently changed an 'iz' to an 'is'; then I saw several 'iz's. Tony 07:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where, and when. Can you give the dif link. --liquidGhoul 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My dissemination of the edit history leads me to believe that you are referring to a different article, Tony. Such instances as you mention were not present before you started editing the article, nor are they apparent in any diffs of yours. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand then, that you are referring to instances of, for example, specialisation vs. specialization. I believe that en.wikipedia.org has no policy of following either British or American spelling. My contributions will always be in British English. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I just wanted to raise this issue again. I don't feel it's right for the amphibian heart to be explained in the frog article. The article carries a "too long" warning already. Can we merge the appropriate sections into tetrapod (which I understand is the correct place from a taxonomic perspective) and then make a link to that, i.e. "frogs have the three-chambered heart ancestral to the tetrapods"? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --liquidGhoul 08:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Amphibians and reptiles have a three-chambered heart: two atria and one ventricle. Blood from both the body and the lungs is pumped into the single ventricle, where unoxygenated and oxygenated blood may mix. The blood from the single ventricle is then pumped to both the lungs and the body tissues, a type of double circulation.

Source: heart

Frogs have three-chambered hearts. Like humans, frogs possess a left and right atrium; however, frogs have a single ventricle, while humans have two. The ventricle always contains both oxygen-rich blood and oxygen-poor blood. They do not mix because the right atrium dips downward into the ventricle, causing the oxygen-poor blood entering the right atrium to pass to the bottom of the ventricle. The oxygen-poor blood fills the lung vessels and forces the incoming oxygen-rich blood to detour into the arteries, where it carries oxygen and nutrients to the tissues. Frog blood is made up of a liquid plasma which carries solid elements such as red and white blood cells.

Source: Frog zoology

Frogs are known for their three-chambered heart, in which oxygenated blood from the lungs and de-oxygenated blood from the respiring tissues enters by separate atria, and is directed via a spiral valve to the appropriate vessel—aorta for oxygenated blood and pulmonary vein for deoxygenated blood. This special structure is essential to keeping the mixing of the two types of blood to a minimum, which enables frogs to have higher metabolic rates, and be more active than otherwise.

(my own attempt on frog)

For inclusion in tetrapod.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• 
  Eastern Banjo Frog (Limnodynastes
  dumerili)
• 
  Red-eyed Tree Frog (Agalychnis callidryas)
• 
  Marsh Frog (Rana ridibunda)
• 
  Painted Frog (Discoglossus galganoi)
• 
  Common Parsley Frog (Pelodytes punctatus)
• 
  Edible Frog (Rana esculenta) - a hybrid of Marsh and Pool Frogs
• 
  Stoney Creek Frog (Litoria wilcoxi)
• Purple Frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis) - a burrowing species, and a living fossil. Discovered in 2003.
  Purple Frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis) - a burrowing species, and a living fossil. Discovered in 2003.
• 
  Golden toad (Bufo periglenes) - last seen in 1989
• 
  Black and yellow poison frog (Dendrobates leucomelas)
• 
  Sheep Frog (Hypopachus variolosus)
• 
  Leptopelis parkeri
• 
  Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii)
• 
  Leptopelis vermiculatus
• 
  Megophrys nasuta

Okay, let's work on this some more, then! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the comment about saffron, I would suggest we try and limit this to two rows, hopefully placing most of the pictures elsewhere in the article, and then put the gallery at the very end. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

These two pictures currently stand out as aesthetically less appealing than the rest in the article. Can anyone contribute better ones, possibly in natural environment? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, photo from Dutch Wikipedia. Unfortunate crop, though. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've been gone. Work got busy. I'll try to keep wiki-ing, but my presence will be itermittent at best. Anyway, here's some more or less random comments, based on the talk page and FAC comments:

1) If "Body plan" is not popular, why not "Body form?"

2) There's a ref (Roy 1997) in the call section. I tried changing it, but then realized that I'm STILL horrible at the reference format. I just couldn't figure it out. Sorry.

3) I'm not sure about the earthworm diet specialisation bit in the declines section. Is this true or necessary? Is there a reference for this? I'm pretty familiar with the decline phenomena, but haven't ever heard anything about this.

4) Has Kermit ever appeared on Sesame Street? I thought the Muppets were totally separate from Sesame Street, but really have no idea.

5) In reference to nixie's comment (#4) on distribution, there's a great figure produced by the Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA) illustrating trends in numbers of amphibian species worldwide http://www.globalamphibians.org/patterns.htm#diversity. It's for all amphibians, not just frogs, but the trends should be highly correlated. They also have figures showing numbers of threatened species. It's all free to use for educational purposes, but I'm not sure if it is OK to reproduce wiki-style. I'm not familiar enough with the legalities involved to take this on, but thought I'd throw the idea out there.

Otherwise, looks greatPstevendactylus 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Body form sounds better.

2) If you give me the full reference, I will add it in.

3) It seems a bit out of place, and since noone has actually given a species name, it should be tossed.

4) Yes, he was on both. He recently was taken off as his copyright is now owned by another company.

--liquidGhoul 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

3) has been removed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

and 2) has been done as well, forgot to say! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly on comprehensiveness- as follows:

1. The lead does not give a sufficient overview of the content of the article
2. The ordering of sections in not optimal. It would be useful for the reader to introduced to the suborders/families of frog/toad before the differences are dicsussed in terms of physiology and so on
3. Mositure retention would more logically be called- skin, this section could also then cover other things to do with the skin like skin secretions (which aren't mentioned at all) and Camouflage (which doesn't really fit where it is currently discussed).
4. The distribution and status section is underdeveloped. Frogs are found worldwide ...., this is obvious. This is a good place to discuss the types of habitats where frogs are most likely to occur and to mention weird exceptions, like the Australian species that live underground in the desert and so on. It warrants more than a sentence. There is a huge body of literature on declining frog populations, which is not reflected here; at the very least the number of recently extinct species and endangered species should be included so the extent of the decline is apparent.
5. The section on agriculture and research is too brief. Some important discoveries have been made using a frog model, for example the first successful clones were frogs. The reader should understand why frogs are useful for research and how they are used in reseach.
6. The popular culure section has been shifted to a separate article- I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a little bit of information from there into this article in summary style
7. Would it be possible for someone involved to make with the images in the article into a picture showing the life cycle (unreleated example). It is a lot more simple for the reader to visualise the detail with a pic like this.
8. I don't think the gallery adds much - a table illustrating the different suborders included with the section on taxonomy would be useful though.
9. I also echo Tony'c concerns about the language and grammar

--nixie 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I am going to create a list here. I have not completed all of these tasks, but as I do I will reply to your comments. If someone else addresses one of nixies points, use the points below to comment please.--liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1. -
2. I have moved taxonomy to the top of the article. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Renamed it to skin, and merged the camouflage section. Also, I have moved poison so it is directly below it. If you read that section, you will find the skin secretions stuff you wanted. If you want expanding on anything, please tell me specifically. I don't particularly agree with you on this though. The moisture retention section contained specific adaptations the frog used for moisture retention (e.g .desert adaptations) Now it does not fit there. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But it could fit in the section on distribution.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Check out the Decline in frog populations article. It is extensive, and very good. It does not fit into this article, makes it far too long. As for the other section, it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The burrowing frogs ARE mentioned. I don't think it is suitable for distribution as much as it is for moisture retention (which is no longer there - see above). --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my points, which are that (1) That the distribution sentence is completely inadequate - it should be at least a paragraph, and that that paragraph could include some species with unusual adaptations (I don't care which) to flesh it out; (2) an estimate of the decline in frog numbers should be included so that the reader gets a good idea about the extent of the decline.--nixie 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it now? --liquidGhoul 08:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

5 This will take the longest time. I need to get some resources, and it will probably take a little while.
6 Has been done by liquidGhoul. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
7 Unless we can find a GFDL similar to the one you linked to, this may take some time as well. --liquidGhoul 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
8 There are three sub-orders. That does not sufficiently illustrate the diversity of frogs. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, illustrating the diversity of frogs is an impossible task in the bounds of this artilce. A table of images illustrating the suborders would be useful for the reader, so that they are able to see and associate certain characters with each suborder.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The suborders are not easily distinguished based on overall appearance. This is an enormous problem for frog taxonomists, not to mention laypersons. The suborders are technically classified based upon such features as number of vertebrae, rows of labial teeth in tadpoles, positions used in the mating embrace (believe it or not), morphological details of the pelvic girdle, number of teeth on various bones in the skull, and (increasingly) genetics. None of these characters will be exemplified from pictures. I think you will agree that they are also not the most interesting features of frog biology to a general audience. Pstevendactylus 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

9 Has been addressed by Tony (see his withdrawal of objection). Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Nixie can you please strike out when you are happy with a point. Thanks --liquidGhoul 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In preparation for the appearance of this article on the main page, I've recorded a spoken-word version of this article. However, before I can begin editing, there are a couple of taxonomy pronunciations I could do with confirming, since my Latin isn't really up to scratch. Namely

1. Heleioporus
2. Elginerpeton
3. Osteichthyes
4. Prosalirus bitis

Spoken versions, phonetic spellings, or IPA translations would be handy in deteermining which syllables to stress (as a reply, not in the article). GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how to pronounce them, and I don't think it matters, since academics often pick up words from books without knowing the exact pronunciation, so there are often several alternative pronunciations around in any case, especially when academics are from different countries. I would suggest (where ' indicates emphasis):

• Heleioporus: Heh-leh-ee-o-'poh-rooss, a bit like Princess Leia
• Elginerpeton: Ell-ghee-nehr-'pet-onn (but fairly short syllables throughout)
• Osteichthyes: Ost-eh-'ick-tees
• Prosalirus bitis: Pro-sah-'lee-rooss 'bee-tees (sah quite short)

But keep in mind that especially academics will often pronounce these sloppily in any way they please, so you may well meet "Prosalyress", "Osticktees" and "Eljinerpetton" pronounced like "vagina" (would this offend anyone?). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the † symbol be explained anywhere? It currently appears in the Evolution section but a general reader may not know what it means (I don't, at least). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it. Standard publishing use of "†" is for notation, but (A) there are no notes associated with this use in the article; (B) "†" was used in prefix instead of standard postfix position (at least from my own writing education); and (C) Wikipedia uses different footnoting systems, one of which is already in use here. If there is a biological or taxonomic meaning to this symbology, it should be explained, as Wikipedia's audience cannot be assumed to be biologists or taxonomists. Even so, it's probably better to avoid such symbology if it can be expressed in words. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It means extinct, and you were right to remove it because it is not used in Wikipedia, usually we just write "extinct" in brackets. --liquidGhoul 11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or has Frog been on the front page like 3 times now? Deja vu? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be thinking of White's Tree Frog, which is a FA and appeared on the main page in january. Raul654 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

HOW LONG CAN A FROG BEE WITHOUT FOOD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.56.6 (talk • contribs)

I see the article deals with babies in the stomach, but who else has seen a frog give birth to live babies, with the mother assisting with the front legs? One of those things seen on TV.. Gregorydavid 07:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard about the South African Plat-anna, also known as African clawed frog used for research at medical school and exported round the world with a Virus? Gregorydavid 07:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC) The development of computer aided education has also resulted in a decline in the use of frogs in the training of anatomy.Gregorydavid 07:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I see someone deleted the contribtion and link to the frog above , used at South African universities eg University of Stellenbosch and University of Cape Town.

Yes, I did, and here is the edit summary:

I don't think we can list every frog that has been used for dissections; we did not use this one at uni

Diff

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For a featured article that is otherwise quite thorough and excellent, I am surprised that there is no mention of recreational "frog licking," though it does allude to hallucinogenic poisons. I have heard that possession of certain frog species is controlled in the USA for this reason. NTK 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, no U.S. editor has recently put significant work into this article. If you'd like to add this information (ideally with references), feel welcome! Please note that your contribution may be further edited, especially for brevity! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

...and POV, as I don't know what the general feeling is about the term "recreational", for instance. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Wikipedia, I wanted to inquire as to others before blindly adding info to the article. NTK 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one am not surprised as frog licking borders on being an urban myth and I suspect acceptable references (citing this as a common thing) would be difficult to find. (urban myth references are a whole other thing) You are welcome to try however. pschemp | talk 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I did not add anything to this article is that I do not know anything about this for certain, in particular whether there is any truth to it. If it is an urban myth, then it is certainly notable enough for a reference here, because it is very widespread. NTK 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Australia where it's a problem. Queensland classifies toad slime as an illegal substance. http://level2.cap.gov/documents/DDR_Frog_Licking.ppt Here's another link. http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/hall_toad_thief.html I've never tried it though. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah crane (talk • contribs)

Ah, that's much more sensible, I knew that wasn't a U.S. thing (AFAIK, there are no frogs banned for this reason in the U.S.) pschemp | talk 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link with several references on Erowid [:http://www.erowid.org/animals/toads/toads_media1.shtml]. NTK 01:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also see Bufotenin, Colorado_River_toad, and Bufo_marinus. Some of this information can be merged in here or in Toad. NTK 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And an entire lengthy article at Psychoactive toad, which oddly was not linked to from Frog or Toad. I've added a reference under the poison section here and at Toad. NTK 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the frog article, not the toad article, and the psychoactive chemicals are found in toads, I've moved the info to toad. It just dawned on me that we are talking about two different animals here (frogs v. toads). That also explains why the info wasn't here to begin with. Also why google has so few hits for "frog licking", as it is actually toads. Bufotoxin is actually named after the Genus name of toads (bufo), again reinforcing that the info goes with the toads. pschemp | talk 02:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia "Frog" article is inclusive of toads. While I might think I could distinguish a common "frog" from a common "toad," Frog here is everything in order Anura, while Toad is order Anura, Family Bufonidae, and is almost a stub in comparison. I agree that Toad probably deserves a more extensive mention, but I don't think it should be removed from Frog altogether, seeing as it discusses poison frogs. 07:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NTK (talk • contribs)

Ah. sorry, I didn't read carefully enough. User:Samsara has put the relevent information back in. pschemp | talk 13:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody tried it? --Sarah Crane

(Sarah, please sign with four tildes) ,~~~~, however I doubt it as the information seems to indicate that those who do generally die. pschemp | talk 16:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I am not a herpetologist, but I saw something in the article I wondered about.

The article says: "Adult frogs are characterised by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits, protruding eyes and the absence of a tail."

Having personally encountered Tailed Frogs in Glacier National Park, I know that there is at least one species of frog that has a tail (albeit a vestigial one).

I don't know about the protocol for these sorts of things. Am I splitting hairs? Does the word "characterized", still allow the statement to be true? --Cpetrizzo 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for asking. My understanding after brief research is that the tail is not a real tail, it is a protrusion of the cloaca, see [3]. And Wikipedia does, in fact, have an article about this creature: Tailed frog. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Convergent evolution is when two distantly related organisms adapt to fill the same niche resulting in similarities in appearance. Frogs and toads on the other hand, have a common evolutionary origin and adapted to different niches. Therefore, they are an example of divergent, not convergent, evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikmd (talk • contribs)

You misread the sentence. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I did misread. I still don't like the use of convergent adaptation in this context. Are we certain that different species of frogs independently adapted to dry environments? Is it also possible that one or a few ancestor species acquired toad-like characteristics and the variety of modern toad species branched off from this one through the process of adaptive radiation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikmd (talk • contribs) (four tildes please, timestamps are important)pschemp | talk 05:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

{Mikmd}

No. As I believe the article states, "toads" are paraphyletic. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere in this article or the article on toads that they are paraphyletic. Also, even if toads were paraphletic, that would not mean that they arose from different species of frogs. A paraphyletic group has the same common ancestor, but does not include all of this ancestor's decendends. It surely is possible, perhaps even likely that "toads" are an example of convergent evolution, but without any fossil or molecular evidence, this is still a hypothesis. Mikmd 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to read the following paragraph again:

A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, prompted by the convergent adaptation among so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis. The only family exclusively given the common name "toad" is Bufonidae, but many species from other families are also called "toads," and the species within the toad genus Atelopus are referred to as "harlequin frogs."

I believe you will find that the highlighted statements are equivalent to saying that "toads" are paraphyletic.

Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph indicates that there is no taxonomic basis for the classification of toads. It also states that there are numerous animals in the order Anura that are commonly refered to as "toads" even though they are not in the family Bufonidae. I fail to see how this implies that toads are paraphyletic. Furthermore, taxonomic classifications in general have not been shown to accurately represent evolutionary lineage. For example, it has been proven through analysis of mitochondrial genomes that although hippopotamus are taxonomically placed in the order Artiodactyla, they are actually more closely related to members of the order Cetacea, which consists of whales and porpoises (Ursing and Arnsen 1998). Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the statement that toads arose through the process of convergent evolution either be removed from the article or labeled as hypothetical. Best - 129.174.194.83 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Last message was was me BTW, just forgot to sign in : ) Mikmd 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, it has been proven through analysis of mitochondrial genomes that although hippopotamus are taxonomically placed in the order Artiodactyla, they are actually more closely related to members of the order Cetacea, which consists of whales and porpoises (Ursing and Arnsen 1998).

Yes, that means that the previous classification was wrong. While frog taxonomy is debated, we have no similar consensus in Anurans.

If you see a way of making the phrasing of the article more intelligible, please go ahead. That's how wikipedia works, by people taking positive action. However, the passage will not be removed as it is a major disambiguation concern crucial to defining the scope of this article.

As for the issue of dry frogs being called toads and the comment on convergent evolution, let me check that we both understand the same thing. Many Anuran families have members with dry, warty skin; people call these "toads". Most of these "toads" live in relatively arid habitats, and there are plausible reasons why Anurans in dry habitats, regardless of what family they are from, will be selected to have dry, warty skin. In some regions, taxonomy is fairly clear as they have only a small number of Anuran families, for instance Australia. For these phylogeographic reasons, it is often very clear that such "toads" have independently evolved from other toads. The best we can do in this article is to follow the consensus view on phylogeny. Finally, I point out that you have not presented a single piece of evidence to suggest that "toads" are monophyletic.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

After some deliberation and research into frog taxonomy, which I admit is not in my area of expertise, I see that there is a very compelling case for convergent evolution. As you pointed out, there are families of Anurans that include members that share the characteristics of toads and are commonly referred to as "toads". Some examples include the family Discoglossidae, which includes both painted frogs and midwife toads. Also, even if some species, for example certain members of the family Bufonidae, arose through adaptive radiation, it is evident that the initial accumulation of toad-like characteristics arose independently in numerous Anuran lineages and is therefore a prime example of convergent evolution. Thanks for clarifying this point and the zoology lesson. Kudos to everyone on an excellent article 129.174.194.83 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Mikmd 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the section on research and agriculture should be split in two. Gregorydavid 07:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. pschemp | talk 13:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think the section should be split into Agriculture and another Research or suchlike.. Surely Agriculture deals with established production of certain species for human consumption and maybe other species for sale to researchers and also frogs for fish to eat.., while Research covers a whole range of topics ranging from historic to current research and also the use of frogs routine laboratory tests. me again Gregorydavid

Pollution and climate change are two factors that affect frog populations. Does anyone know the name of the virus, said to be causing a decline in frog populations worldwide, that is said to have been spread around the world on frogs used for research? Gregorydavid 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipedia articles are said to contain useful information: in this case, a link to Decline in amphibian populations. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see it is a fungus that causes Chytridiomycosis. Cheers Gregorydavid 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't frog deformities mentioned in this section of the article as one cause of the decline?

What is this page about? The order Anura or frogs? A distinction has to be made as there are animals within this order that are not frogs. Also, the interlanguage links link to pages on frogs apart from the French one which links to the order. Now, there is obviously considerable overlap between the two, but which one is this page about? Perhaps, the page List of Anuran families could be merged with the page Anura (which is currently a redirect) to make this distinction. --Bob 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of an Anuran which is not a frog? --liquidGhoul 23:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bufonidae --Bob 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that would be it. Toads are still frogs. Toad is a word that has carried along for a long time, and people have just not shaken it off. It is basically for frogs with dry skin. Since there are "toads" which are not part of the Bufonidae family (e.g. Western Spadefoot Toad), and there are frogs within the Bufonidae family (e.g. Schmidt's Snouted Frog (Bufo scmidti)), it is not accepted as a scientific rule, that toads are not frogs. Common names can be really silly. Read the taxonomy section of this article, it discusses this point. --liquidGhoul 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, then the name of the article should be changed to Anura so as not to confuse the less taxonomically minded, and the average reader. --Bob 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be bowing to the needs of those with less knowledge. If they don't understand, they should read the article, it explains it quite well. The frog/toad thing can be confusing. It is not up to Wikipedia to change that. All we can do is expanin it in the least confusing way. A toad is a kind of frog. Just like a mouse is a kind of rodent. Just becasuse the common name does not include the word frog, does not mean it is not a frog. The common name of the House Mouse does not include the word rodent, and it does not mean that we should name the rodent article Rodentia. Also, the convention on Wikipedia is to name a nature article by its most common, common name. That is definetally frog, not Anura. --liquidGhoul 01:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with liquidGhoul. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet, we have an article on Toads...--Bob 15:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? A toad is a frog. I will repeat, just because frog is not part of the common name does not mean it is not a frog. A mouse is a type of rodent, even though it is not stated in the common name. They are just common names! I do agree though, the Toad article should be renamed to "true toad". I will bring it up on the talk page now. --liquidGhoul 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree with LiquidGhoul, Samsara, et al. "Toad" is a non-technical descriptor for various groups of frogs. That's what you'll find in any reputable textbook.Pstevendactylus 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Toads are frogs, but frogs are not toads. Get it? Dora Nichov 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that although people around the world think that all frogs make a noise like "ribbit", the only frogs that really make that noise are the ones near Hollywood so it is often heard in films. No matter where the film is set? SteveCrook 03:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me, but I seen Australian films where there are Australian frog noises in the background. Actually, I saw an episode of Walking with Beasts, where they were in Australia, and every night scene had a Peron's Tree Frog calling in the background. I thought that was a cool touch. Are there frog noises in the swamps where Yoda trains Luke? --liquidGhoul 04:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The classic "ribbit frog" is the Pacific Chorus Frog, Hyla (or Pseudacris) regilla. This species lives in the Western US, presumably near Hollywood, and is the frog call most frequently used in films. That's how the story goes, at least. I haven't paid that much attention to frog calls in flims, but I doubt film-makers would go so far as to attempt to use frog calls from frogs inhabiting areas where the film is set. Pstevendactylus 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Frogs are found nearly worldwide, with some even occurring in Antarctica, but are not present on many oceanic islands." I am not aware of any frogs occuring in Antarctica.--Tnarg 12345 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism from when the article was on the main page. Thanks for picking it up. --liquidGhoul 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The wood frog can reach the Arctic, but no frog reaches Antarctica. Dora Nichov 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

is the frog's ass water tight?

I can't say I've ever heard this question, but the answer is definetally not. The pelvic region of skin is the most water permeable in most frogs. --liquidGhoul 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear All,

There is now a stable version of frog at frog/Stable. The version chosen is the first one that carried the FA tag, and thus should be uncontroversial. I here propose two more recent choices for the stable version, one more conservative than the other.

• Current version at time of writing, free of vandalism afaik, article being watched by many froggy eyes
• On the dawn of the day it was on the front page

As this is the first page that this mechanism for creating stable versions is being used on, we need to decide how many editors need to agree on a new version for it to move forward, and how much support it needs (2/3 majority?) - always keeping in mind that officially, Wikipedia is not a democracy.

There is also the idea that stable-stamping should be a process similar to FAC, with its own central nomination page. I expect we'll see how it develops. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite knowledgable on this at the moment, but I would like to bring a vote to see if we can update it to the current version, there are a few good things which have been added since. --liquidGhoul 12:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I found an interesting CC photo on Flickr - [4]. Can someone classify this frog? --Lejean2000 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The photographer is from Japan, so I have no idea. I think it is some type of Hylid, but it would be very hard to tell without a good identification book, as many of them are different colours/shapes when they are morphlings. The licencing, even though CC, still states no commercial use, so, unfortunately, it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Beautiful shot though, you can see the vertebrae in the tail! --liquidGhoul 14:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think the image will be useful for some of the frog articles on Wikipedia I can talk to the guy and obtain permission. --Lejean2000 17:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is Hyla japonica, only because that is the only Japanese Tree Frog I know, the only other Hylid in Japan is Hyla hallowelli. It could also be a Rana, but I don't think so. Hope this helps.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right - this probably is Hyla japonica. Take a look at the last picture here - the site says it is a juvenile Hyla japonica. --Lejean2000

It could be a good image for this article. One of the clearest depictions of a morphling I have seen, mostly because of the visible vertebrae. I just sent an email a few days ago asking for a Flickr frog photo. I don't know if she will reply though, as it has been a while. --liquidGhoul 09:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2513389321258850998

Probably not for the kids. ;) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That was pretty nasty, glad he decided to take it out and not swallow it though (eventually). :) --liquidGhoul 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I found an explanation here: http://citizensforscience.org/aggregator/sources/5?from=20 Apparently, gordian worms only infect insects, so this would have been a case of predation rather than parasitism. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There was some vandalism on the page and I have put it on watch just in case. 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly frogs on the south island of New Zealand, having seen them as a boy, as far south as Dunedin. And this article

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/001~Native-Animals/Pepeketua-Native-Frogs.asp

seems to indicate they are native to at least Marlborough on the north of the South Island.

Can someone fix the map?

You wouldn't be able to see the distribution any way, this is why. -- Froggydarb ^croak 05:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The distribution map of frogs is for native species, there are currently no native species on the south island (except on 3 islands in the Marlborough Sounds), nor has there been any there for the past 1000 years, only the Growling Grass Frog and Whistling Tree Frog live on the South Island, and they are both introduced from Australia.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 05:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone here would be able to classify or tell me any information about this frog. It is a gray-green in color. Sorry about the picture quality.

Even though he was found in New Jersey, he looks like a White's Tree Frog (which is native to Australia), which is one of the most popular pet frogs in the US. I am guessing he escaped. He is a tree frog, as I can see the toe pads, and I don't think there are many tree frogs that big in North America. --liquidGhoul 04:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Blademaster313 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is in reference to the Ceratophrys image. The images on this article have been carefully chosen to correspond with the text. We have two photos to show what a frog looks like, in "taxonomy" and the taxobox. The Haeckel photo is used to show the diversity of frogs, while only using one image. Every other photo represents something specific within the text (look at the captions).

We used to have a gallery on this article to show the diversity of frogs, and show how strange and interesting they can get. This was removed as one of the requirements to become a featured article. Although the Ceratophrys frog is interesting in behaviour and appearance, there are so many frogs which are. With over 5000 species, I could list heaps of interesting looking frogs, and we can't include them all for the simple reason of there being too many. As was said, there is room in the article, and if you have a high quality photo, which represents something in the text, which isn't already represented, then it should be included. But make sure the reason it is in the article is included in the caption. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining so clearly. I accept that the pic does not suit any topic in the article (except camouflage, for which you already have a pic) - Adrian Pingstone 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is unacceptable. MasterPeanut 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is? --liquidGhoul 08:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have an section on frogs' digestive system, food, etc?Unknownlight 01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)