Talk:Frog/Archive 1

bicornuated tongues
I suggest adding a definition for "bicornuated tongues," for those people (like me) who don't know what that is.

true frogs
What are the non-frog frogs? anthony (see warning) 19:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

frogs and curare
I removed the claim that frog arrow poison is curare. An internet search found many websites that say this, but they seem to be wrong. Curare is a plant derived substance. One website refers to some frog poison as being curare-like. Perhaps it is. One site has the the ridiculous comment that indians use frog poison as an ingredient of curare! Pending proof that it is correct, I thought it better to leave it out. I also wonder about the statement that poison frogs produce their poison "when under threat".

poison produced when under threat
After reading several contradictory sources, I come to the conclusion that one can not say categorically that frogs produce their toxins only when under threat. It may or may not be true of some frogs. There is no reason I can find to believe it is universally true of all poison frogs.

On looking further I found the following at

http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/curare.htm

"Some Indians of South America crush and cook the roots and stems, and add other plants and venomous animals, mixing it until it becomes a light syrup. They call this mixture "ampi", or "curaré", which they use on the tip of their arrows and darts to hunt wild game"

so the word apparently did mean a mixture of poisons to some indians. but that's not what the word means now in english. curare is a specific plant substance as described in that web site and in wikipedia.

enhandle

Ribbit etc
I have certainly heard frogs in North America make a noise like Ribbit. However in England I have never heard this noise. Croak is an approximation to their call, although it is closer to Rurp, Urrrp, or Wur-up. Can we change the description so reflect this?

link to froglet
1)I took out the link to non-existent article froglet and instead redirected froglet to frog. 'froglet' is and ought to be handled in the 'frog' article. 2) there is an article called 'FROG' (not about the animal)and an article called 'frog' about the animal. Although there is a disambiguation page, this still ought to be changed.

Real frogs
This article is "wrong" because not only Ranidae are frogs. Ranidae are the only true frogs, while discoglossids, leiopelmatids, hylids and many others are frogs too (see Anura). It's up to a frog specialist to decide what species are "frogs". In vernacular frogs are more slender, more aquatic and have a less bumpy skin than "toads". &mdash; Phlebas 22:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have edited the article to reflect this. Ranidae is now a redirect to true frog. Phlebas 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So can we remove the disputed tag or was that something else?Billlion 10:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove it. - Bevo 16:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's something else: the article should talk about frogs in general, but it mostly chitters about frogs as Ranidae only: "Members of this family...", "Life cycle", "Diet",... it is all hearsay people know about frogs common in their area (which usually are ranids). When I have the time I'm going to follow the classification style of monkey, with "frogs" bolded. Because frogs are much more heterogenous (by range and diversity) than monkeys, it's going to look messy. Common names are such a pain. The tag is still needed. Phlebas 12:39, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies
Because the article merges info from both Ranidae and frogs in general, it is sometimes unclear what stuff applies where. Phlebas 12:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frog and Toad Families
Here is a list of all the Families in ORDER ANURA - well these were adequate to cover all species a few years ago. So unless you are using cutting-edge info, this list should be a simple (and probably the only way) to keep track of the scope needed to fully back up statements. A first useful step would be to find Family Common Names (multi-lingual). 09:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC) & Stanskis 10:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Further editing, based on: Hofrichter, R. (Editor) 2000 Amphibians: The world of Frogs, Toads, ... Firefly Books. 264p. I've standardised the list to this book. Because it is hard copy it is unchanging and so can be a reference that anyone can hope to use. From this reference I've added numbers of Genera (n1) and species n2, as (n1: n2). I've also checked the AMNH website for Family names and, of course the classification is very different - many "extra" Famiies, mostly due to rearrangements. I've 'adopted' some of these extra Families where Hofrichter indicated they could be valid, but I've done so mainly for the reason that people refering to his book would not be confused with what is in the list here. Other AMNH Families are recorded under "includes", etc, so as to direct users to their place in Hofrichter from outside sources. Why do I not adopt the complete classification from the AMNH; it is more recent and will be regularly updated? My reasoning is that because it will be regularly updated, it cannot be used properly as a reference - you can't usefully refer to a moving target; it has other unsatisfactory features, but Hofrichter (2000) is a solid mine of information with no (taxonomic) confusion between it and us. I look forward to comment and suggestions for Common Names. Moreso, I look forward to direction as to where a list of this sort might belong - here, in WikiSpecies, in WikiData - or anywhere? It could be the start of a stable Standard Classification (to iron out the 'reference' problem indicated above). 10:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC) & Stanskis 10:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

DRAFT -  DRAFT  -  DRAFT ORDER ANURA: - TAIL-LESS AMPHIBIANS Allophrynidae - Toothless Tree Frog (1: 1) Arthroleptidae - Sub-Saharan Frogs (7: 74) (or in Ranidae, or Hemisotidae (as Hyperoliidae) Ascaphidae - Coupling Frog (1: 1) from Leiopelmatidae Astylosternidae - (was in Ranidae) Brachycephalidae - (2: 3) Bufonidae - Toads (34: 410) [not 'True Toads'; what would be a 'False Toad'?] Centrolenidae - Glass Frogs (3: 125) Dendrobatidae - Poison-dart Frogs (10:186) Discoglossidae - Disk-tongue Frogs (4: 18) (includes Bombinatoridae) Heleophrynidae - Ghost Frogs (1: 5) Hemisotidae - Shovelnose Frogs (1: 8) includes: Hyperoliidae - Reed Frogs Hylidae - Tree Frogs - Hyperoliidae; see in Hemisotidae Leiopelmatidae - New Zealand Frogs (1: 3); & see Ascaphidae Lepodactylidae - Southern Frogs/Catch-all Frogs (50: 972) Microhylidae - Mountain Frogs/Narrowmouth Toads (66: 321) Myobatrachidae - Australian Ground Frogs (23: 119) (includes Limnodynastidae; Rheobatrachidae) Nasikabatrachidae - Gnats Burrowing Frog (1: 1) Pelobatidae - Spadefoot Toads (10: 109) (includes Megophryidae; Scaphiopodidae) Pelodytidae - Mud-diver Frogs (1: 2) Pipidae - Aquatic Frogs/Tongueless Frogs (5: 29) Pseudidae - Paradox Frogs (2: 3) Ranidae - Frogs - Versatile Frogs (44: 746) (includes Mantellidae; Petrospedetidae) Rhacophoridae - Old World Tree Frogs (10: 236) Rhinodermatidae - Mouthbreeder Frogs (1: 2) Rhinophrynidae - Burrowing Toads (1: 1) Sooglossidae - Seychelles Frogs (2: 3) end.


 * I am trying to compile my own list of amphibian articles in User:Ahoerstemeier/Amphibians, both to keep track of the articles already existing, as well as to make sure that there's always a redirect from the taxonomic to the common name; and maybe it may finally become a List of Amphibian species. Still it's work in progress, some families are covered down to species levels, some still empty. Any help is welcome. andy 22:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Coordinate Amphibian pages?
Finding that this "Frog" page was on track to do everything for Frogs and Toads, I jumped in with the above bit of Classification. Then Google pointed me to page "Anura"! Since "Anura" has got most going for it and the "Frog" page overlaps with it, AND since it happens to be impossible to separate Frogs and Toads (despite the brave (failed) attempt on the "Anura" page), I suggest we re-organise the Amphibian Info around the "Anura" page.

First; a last plea for not trying to say anything vaguely scientific about Frogs as Frogs and Toads and Toads:
 * These terms are names, and names are concepts that anyone can have and anyone can change any time. They cannot be defined by relationships (Classification), so the names are applied on appearance. (Frogs, to a European, have damp, shiny skin, long legs and mostly hop, whereas Toads, to most Europeans, have dry, warty skin, short legs and mostly crawl.)
 * The Family Ascaphidae contains only two species, both are called Bell Toads and both are called Tailed Frogs, probably even sometimes by the same people. Why not Bell Frogs or Tailed Toads? - tradition.
 * From the "Anura" page we see "A classification of Anurans based on "Frogs" and "Toads" results in polyphyletic groups.". These Common Names are not scientific so this sentence is totally unfounded; a nonsense.
 * The Family Discoglossidae contains both Midwife Toads and Painted Frogs.
 * "All Frogs have horizontal pupils..." ("Anura" page), is wrong:
 * Many groups of Frogs and Toads only have species with horizontal pupils ), eg Bufonidae and Brachycephalidae;
 * many others have vertical slits, but in some Families horizontal pupils are present in most, but not all Genera, or, in most species in the Family but with odd-ones-out.
 * The exceptions that prove the rule that there is no rule are the Firebelly Toads (Bombinatoridae (ex Discoglossidae)) with triangular pupils and the Clawed Frogs (Pipidae) with circular pupils.

So, I suggest we rewrite the Anuran page with a lot less emphasis on applying non-scientific terminology. What's needed are Order-level statements (covering all species) and then valid subdivisions of the total. I'll suggest more on the "Anura" page.

As for the "Frog" page, "Ranidae" already points to it, as Bufonidae does to the "Toad" page, so would anyone (or two, or 10) care to re-organise these pages in a more formal way. Soon we will want a page for each Family.

In addition, the "Lissamphibia" page, which is an orphan, could easily be fitted onto the "Amphibian" page - consolidating rather than expanding, except for the addition of the fossil Order Proanura. 05:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) & Stanskis 05:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Frog legs, food
Any discussion on the usage of delicious frog legs in food? Kent Wang 06:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

White's Tree Frog Peer Review
I have put the White's Tree Frog article up for peer review. As this is a related topic, and there are probably many here who are interested in the subject, could you please contribute to the peer review. You can access it through the discussion page of the article, by pressing the request has been made link. I would greatly appreciate it. --liquidGhoul 07:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Frog Classification
I don't like the way this article is classified. The taxobox says that it is the Ranidae family, which are commonly called "True Frogs", and not just frogs. By having the title of the article for the Ranidae as "frog" is misleading. The title should be "True Frogs."

Also, many of the pictures which are on this article, are not part of the Ranidae family. For example, the Pobblebonk, and most likely, the "Australian Frog" in the gallery, as only one Australian frog is part of the Ranidae family. I think this article should be split up. One into Frog (where the toxobox stops at Anura), and one for Ranidae (that is similar to the Hylidae article).

The Frog article should be very similar to this one, however, the taxobox stops at Anura, and maybe the Anura article is merged into this one. The problem with the distinction between frogs and toads still needs to be adressed. I think the best way to do this, would be a paragraph describing the distinction between frogs and toads. As I understand it, toads are actually frogs, they just belong to the Bufonidae family. The toad article seems fine.

The new Ranidae article, would have all the genera, and a short description of the Ranidae family. --liquidGhoul 02:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Could someone please reply, this whole Ranidae thing is starting to annoy me! --liquidGhoul 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I recieved no reply, I went ahead and changed it. If you would like to change it back, you please discuss your reasons first. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 06:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should use words that aren't that big because no one is going to continue reading if they keep having to search up definitions and they are go to find another website to learn about frogs.