Talk:American green tree frog

Pet frog instructions
I added the content abput pet frogs to the article Pet frog where it belonged. Dominick (TALK) 01:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mating call
Green tree frogs are easily identified by their distinctive "barking" mating call.

Speaking of which, this page needs an audio clip link! 75.72.46.100 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Merging
The Pet Frog article does not seem to have anything about pet frogs but rather only things about pet Green Tree Frogs, that clearly should be in here then, unless the pet frog article becomes a proper article about pet frogs rather than a specific species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Green tree frogs are taking over my deck in the evenings. How can I get rid of them?

Be careful about what you wish for. If you get rid of them, you will have a lot more insects. I find that they significantly cut down on the number of insects around my back door at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.181.45 (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does pet frog redirect here
This about a tree frog, not pet frog. I got here from Mantellidae. Split the page, and make pet frog its own page concerning all frogs kept in captivity.--108.1.205.40 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice Job!
WHO EVER HAD THOUGHT OF THIS AND HAD TIME TO PASTE IT ON THE INTERNET DID A VERY GOOD JOB AND I THANK YOU FOR DOING IT.....

THANK ALWAYS, S.O.S. Appreciate the info. Regarding your spelling and grammar in THIS, the day of 'never having to incorrectly construct a sentence or misspell words concerns me. BUT I guess it's cool to be illiterate. Wasn't aware....thanks for 'enlightening' me. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogmothion64 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding range???
I live in Cincinnati, Ohio and often see grey tree frogs but have been seeing more green tree frogs and starting in the past couple of years some grey-green tree frogs that appear to be a hybrid between the two with characteristics of both (mottled color but smooth not bumpy skin); can the range of the green tree frog be expanding due to introduction (ex, escapee pets) or something like global warming? I thought that green tree frogs are more of a subtropical type animal and that it is simply just too cold here in southwest Ohio for them but the continued presence of these little fellers each year seem to be telling me a different story, at least in my neighborhood (I live within one mile of the Ohio River and suspect a microclimate because the crape myrtles and mimmosa begin to bloom here at least 1-2 weeks earlier than areas further from the river, also, there are train tracks nearby and I suspect that they may be riding the rails here).Anyway, will these non-native green and possible hybrid treefrogs eventually die off or are they "hardy" enough to adapt and also are they capable of breeding with the local grey frogs, which appears to be the case here (or is that another type of frog altogether- but they do look most likely to be a hybrid green-grey trefrog if that is possible)? Any info on hardiness, range expansion, introduction, etc would be appreciated. Thanks. I also have been starting to see green anoles over the past few years as well- we never had either here when I was a child (but we do have plenty of wall lizards and blue tail skins and the occasional scaly fence lizard; regardless, it certainly appears that something odd is happening here. Any explainations? Thank you.

---

I also live in Ohio, and I've recently found what seems to be a small (smooth skinned) grey treefrog. From what I've looked up, turns out they change colors from around olive, grey, brownish, and obviously the green you seemed to notice. I don't beleive these are 'hybrid' frogs, but I also found there are two different types of them (Cope's Grey-Treefrog). They may have just found their way to around your area. But, I'm not certain, so you may have something going there.. Good luck figuring that out. ---

I caught an American Green Tree Frog in my back yard yesterday. I live in Michigan, zip code 48145, north to where you folks live. I am guessing this maybe due to the recent local weather - so much rain and plenty of mosquitoes. I have not seen any more than just this one, so I can not tell if they are breeding here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypomervi (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

---

One more for the list from the Columbus, OH area. I had one of these on my windshield wiper this morning (I park under a tree with low hanging branches). First time I've ever seen a frog like this. It was about the size of my thumb and bright green in color.


 * Please note that this is not a forum for discussing the American green tree frog (Hyla cinera). I would suggest that you bring up any topics you wish to discuss on other appropriate websites. That said, I sincerely doubt (although I can't be certain without seeing photos) that all of the above frogs from Ohio and Michigan are not American green tree frogs, but rather are gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor), which almost always are green-colored soon after metamorphsis during their first year of life. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Addition of new info regarding calls
I found a really neat study done with Cuban tree frogs that green tree frogs were also talked about in. They study was basically talking about the similarity of their calls and the competition that results from it. So, I added information from the study about that and how green tree frogs modified their call which affects mating (added it under breeding). Ctran24 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Entry Commentary Sep/22/2022
The entry provides some information on competition, diet, and breeding behavior; however, not enough where a distinct subsection is made. I learned that the Cuban Tree Frog, which is an invasive species, makes it hard for female Green Tree Frogs to hear male mating calls because they are acoustically similar. Male Green Tree Frogs have adapted by calling more frequently, shortening each call, and increasing loudness to make their call more distinct and easily heard.

The entry could add a subsection on Life Cycle. The entry briefly mentions eggs in the context of egg-laying location, tadpole appearance, and presents some photos of the various stages in its life cycle but goes no further to provide detail about these stages seen in photos. The entry could also include a subsection on predation. The entry goes to mention their small size multiple times; however, no mention of predators or dangers to the Green Tree Frog’s livelihood are made. A third subsection could be made on diseases that affect the species. Since these frogs are frequently kept as pets one could assume observations on diseases present in captivity could have at least been made.

The article delivers some information such as, “Males frequently call most of the year, especially after being misted in the tank. ” These two bits of information do not logically go together. The point about needing to be misted either needs more context to make sense or would be better off omitted. Furthermore, the entry discusses some of the requirements for keeping these frogs as pets. However, the entry wrongly interprets a source by reporting that, “[t]hey need a large (at least ten-gallon) terrarium” whereas the cited source reports that, “A minimum 10-gallon tank is suitable as a terrarium for green tree frogs, although larger works well too.” The entry possesses a Start-Class and is of Mid-Importance. Start-Class seems appropriate as many of the sources cited are not peer-reviewed and some are blog-style posts published on independent websites. The Mid-importance ranking is deserved for holding some cultural importance as state amphibian and being extremely commonplace in the American south.--Elwhoelwu (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Entry Review
The description category and distribution category are well done as it thoroughly describes the appearance of the frog and how the males are smaller and tend to have wrinkled throats. Additionally, the skin of the frog can vary with temperature. I think the categories of predator/enemies, physiology, and phylogeny should be added. The physiology category might be beneficial as there is information dispersed throughout the passage related to it and placing it under one category might be easier to understand. An example of information that would be placed under physiology would be the changing of color with temperature. Predator/enemies is an important category as provides insight to how the American green tree frog is impacted by the other inhabitants of the environment, for example the reference to the Cuban tree frog that it must compete with. Additionally, phylogeny is important as it allows for the reading to relate tree frogs, specifically the relation of the American green tree frog to the Australian green tree frog and the gray tree frog for which it is sometimes confused for.--Friedaloo (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Entry Reply
The American Green Tree frog article was quite interesting overall and very well organized. I enjoyed the section about the frog kept as a pet and the advantages that make them so popular for human use. This article strongly describes the physical characteristics of the frog, but I would have loved to know more about its anatomy and physiology in comparison to other treefrogs (e.g. the Australian green tree frog). The section on breeding appears very well displayed and is another strong point especially since it combines work explaining how it varies from other frogs. If I were to include more sections, I would love to know more about “predators,” “phylogeny or genetics,” and “invasive species.” Predators would give more insight into how the frog is so broadly distributed in the US and whether its predators vary in different locations. Genetics or phylogeny would help place the frog in context with other green tree frogs. Invasive species would give more room to discuss issues with the Cuban tree frog in south Florida as well as any other species. Finally, the article is in the Start section and is of mid importance which makes sense considering the few sources (about 10) and are often nonacademic work as well as the frogs’ distribution throughout the US. Thebullfrogwhisperer (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Entry Peer Review
This article was well written and included adequate and proper citations throughout. The content itself flowed well and was very relevant to the topic of discussion, specifically the extensiveness of the 'Mating Calls' subheading. There is also a lot of room to expand the article under the 'Conservation' heading due to the recent habitat loss. While the content of the article was good, I made some grammatical edits with phrasing, in an attempt to simplify some of the phrases as per Wikipedia recommendation. There was also multiple direct quotations taken straight from the scientific papers themselves, while these were correctly cited, the Wikipedia forum does not typically include direct quotes, instead preferring paraphrasing. I edited one under the 'Mating calls' section but there are two included under the 'Feeding' subheading that should be paraphrased. Anikavarsani (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022
— Assignment last updated by CalJS (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Updated Additions
I added descriptions on the frog's habitat and distribution, conservation, home range, and territoriality into the Wikipedia article. I also provided an extensive description of the frog's mating calls and their physiology as well as information on the frog's enemies and ability to function as bioindicators for aquatic contamination. The frog's physical and behavioral information were also included, and a brief summary of the entire page and citations were included. ~ Hoonji2022 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Entry Peer Review
The entry was jam packed with information. My favorite section was the section on mating calls. It was extremely thorough and leaves me not wondering more. The language was concise and if detail was needed it was thoroughly explained so as to be accessible to a general audience. In the other sections I made changes to wording. These changes include: passive to active voice, grammar, and stylistic. I also truncated and broke sentences in half where I thought the information belonged in two separate sentences.

Here's what I noted for each of the sections:

Lead

Changed the wording of the lead section. I made sentences more concise. Many sentences that used “either/or” and “and” were replaced with “and” and commas respectively. I also added areas that I believed need citations. I believe some of the concepts mentioned in the lead such as: satellites, female interception, and androgenic effects of vocalization are too specific for the lead and bog down readers.

“To avoid predation, the species will often hide in its aquatic territory” this is vague

Multiple unrelated topics are discussed in single sentences e.g. “It is the state amphibian of Georgia and Louisiana and can be used as bioindicators for aquatic contamination.” These sentences can be broken up into paragraphs for clarity.

Description

Changed sentences from passive to active voice.

This sentence is confusing, “Such a range in coloration accounts for false encounters of the frog by other species.”

Changed green tree frog/treefrog to American green tree frog for consistency.

Distribution and Habitat

Not necessary to change, but omit jargon e.g. monotypic, clinal variation.

Breeding

Quotes need to be summarized instead of quoted

Not totally sure but I think mating and egg-laying are not considered forms of parental investment because they are prerequisites to parental investment

Mating Calls

This section is easy to read and information dense, good job!

Enemies

“To combat predation, green tree frog tadpoles may increase hiding behavior while in water to avoid capture” this is unclear

Physiology

Androgens are not a source of energy, the paper cited says that CORT levels increase and DHT levels decrease due to the drain on energy vocalization causes.

“Androgens, such as dihydrotestosterone and testosterone, are the primary energy resource for American green tree frogs when engaging in acoustic signal calling. When a male frog engages in vocalization either for aggression or mate attraction, androgen energy stores are used and become depleted.” This needs to be changed Elwhoelwu (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Entry Peer Review
A lot of the information in the Lead section need citations. Even if you cite the information later on in the article, it’s important to cite it in the Lead! I would also maybe cut down on some of the information in the Lead as not all of it is particularly unique to this species (i.e., "Breeding is known to be influenced by day length, temperature, and precipitation.”). I would keep the size description, a few sentences about the range and habitat, and would emphasize that it’s the state amphibian of Georgia and Louisiana. The information about the breeding habits could definitely be cut down a lot for the Lead.

I’ve also changed the wording on a few sentences throughout the article to make them flow a bit better.

For the Breeding section (under Behavior) I would cut down on the direct quotations. If you use a direct quotation from a study, it must be attributed to the source within the text of the article, not just through a citation (this was done for the second direct quote from the Animal Diversity Web, but not for the one before it “In the Florida population”). I'd recommend getting rid of them entirely and just paraphrasing.

I’m confused by what the sentence “However, forcing male individuals to engage in selective attention of advertisement calls from only a few of their closest rivals” is trying to say (under Mating Calls).

I added in sub-headings for Satellite Males and Interspecific Competition under Mating Calls since the text for Mating Calls was a bit dense.

Under Feeding, the direct quotation again must be attributed to the source within the text, not just through a citation.

I didn’t edit this in the article, but make sure to italicize any scientific names you have in the text!

I would also recommend maybe moving the bioindicator section to the Physiology section maybe? It doesn’t really fit together with the state symbol info.

Overall, I’m really impressed with both the breadth and depth of information you found for this article! Information-wise, I think it’d satisfy the requirements for a Good Article. I think some of the phrasing could stand to be adjusted, direct quotations need to be attributed properly (here’s Wikipedia’s requirements for that by the way), and this is a super minor thing but I think the aesthetic of the article would benefit from spacing out the images along the page. Lvanzen3 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)