Talk:Darwin's frog

Extinction
Why am I reading news articles claiming the species has been wiped out by a fungal infection of the skin while the status on this page is merely Vulnerable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because apparently the article is out of date. I added the info, but I don't think the infobox should be changed because  still lists them as threatened.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article isn't clear which species is extinct: it uses the common names "Northern" and "Southern," but, which is used for which species?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the Northern. I found another source that's more clear, and have changed the reference to use that source.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced what I presume was your most recent information, as it still seemed to indicate that this species (R. darwinii) was likely extinct, when it is R. rufum that hasn't been seen since 1980. Both species are referred to as Darwin's frogs, creating some confusion. I also cited the original open-access study, rather than the National Geographic article; in general, I would be cautious citing modern-day Nat Geo as a credible source. Agyle (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks...I guess I didn't read the article closely enough. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was less clear than the journal article, and it looks like around a third of mainstream media articles based on the study confused the species in some way, reporting things like both species are now officially extinct, and many blogs and youtube videos then parroted these articles. Agyle (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments
To help the reader get a more clear image of the frog, include an image of the frog's snout.

For the Habitat and Distribution section, make sure that your sources are cited. Also, give more detail on why the population is fragmented and has poor disperal ability

Why can't the R.darwinii translocate to these new habitats? Is there an environmental aspect preventing them from doing so or is it a more behavioral problem?

For diet, move the information mentioned in the beginning to the section on diet.

Regarding mating, combine some of the information from parental care (brooding and egg laying) into this section and call it reproduction or reproductive habits. The parental care section seemed to have several different topics all in one subsection.

Furthermore, for mating, you could explain how evolutionarily their unique brooding arose and why it was selected for. Also, male selection can be included in this section as well.

Why are the R.darwinii less affected by chytridiomycosis when compared to other amphibians?

Name disambiguation?
Both Rhinoderma darwinii and Rhinoderma rufum are commonly referred to as two species of Darwin's frogs. Some form of disambiguation between this species (R. darwinii), and the family of both species, may be warranted. The species R. rufum is typically referred to as Northern Darwin's frog, or Chile Darwin's frog. The species R. darwinii is typically referred to as Southern Darwin's frog, or simply Darwin's frog. Agyle (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the alternate names to the articles, but I think we should go a step further. (See below). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. After two listing periods there are no further supports other than the nom, and the points by User:Agyle and User:Apokryltaros that the "southern" name hasn't taken official hold, and this one is still the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic seems to be valid objections. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Darwin& → Southern Darwin's frog – I think, given the tendency for news articles to not distinguish between the two species, that the article currently at Darwin's frog should be moved to Southern Darwin's frog, and Darwin's frog should redirect to Rhinodermatidae. Anyone else? Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking into it more, it seems like people (including in scientific journals) refer to the pair of them as "Darwins frogs" (with the plural frogs), and historically refer to the species R. darwinii as "Darwin's frog" (with singular frog) and R. rufum as "Chile Darwin's frog". "Southern" and "Northern" prefixes is much clearer, but seems to be a recent invention without official sanction. EDGE/Zoological Society of London used Northern/Southern in a page Google says is from Feb 2008 (though that could be way off, since it's a non-static php page). A few blogs sporadically used the convention, until the Nov 20 2013 PLOS One journal article used it, and it was then used in dozens or perhaps hundreds of mainstream media articles based on that journal article.
 * Given that this seems like an unofficial name, I'd leave this article name as is. The plural Darwin's frogs should be added and redirected to Rhinodermatidae, and the first paragraphs for both that page and this one should probably clarify the possible source of confusion. Example rewrite of current opening sentence: Darwin's frog (Rhinoderma darwinii) is one of two members of the Rhinodermatidae family of frogs collectively referred to as Darwin's frogs. Sometimes called the southern Darwin's frog, it is native to the forest streams of Chile and Argentina. Agyle (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be better to make "Southern Darwin's frog" a redirect to this page, as the majority of texts refer to Rhinoderma darwinii as simply "Darwin's frog." Plus, I've already made "Darwin's frogs" a redirect to Rhinodermatidae.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

 * Edited the article by moving sections to fit the frog outline. Citations needed for habitat and distribution section.Britneys99 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by CalJS (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Peer Revieq
Starting off, this is a very strong article that is quite aesthetically pleasing, with organized sections and subsections and lots of helpful visuals. Since there were so many images, some of the text was misaligned, so I fixed some of the spacing. I also added subsection titles under the “Characteristics” tab to organize the different topics being addressed. I added “Size” and “Coloration” subsections. I also added some subsections under the “Parental Care” section. The author started talking about different hypotheses for two different aspects regarding parental care, so I thought dividing them up and labeling them would make it easier to understand. I divided the two sets of hypotheses up into “Possible hypotheses for foster brooding” and “Possible hypothesis for the loss of tadpoles in metamorphosis.” Other than that, I did not have any other recommendations, and this was a very strong article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:200:561:14A2:11B5:6055:F9BA (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)