Talk:Frog/Archive 5

Etymology
Salientes is not from Latin saltare, which means "to dance" (etymologically it's the iterative/intensive formation to salere (salio) "to jump", and therefore originally meant *"to jump about").Alsihler (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The infinitive form of verb salio is salire (salio,-is, salui, saltum, salire), not "salere".

Plava is not Sanskrit for frog. Can someone who has access please change it to read frog is bheka, maNDuka. The Sanskrit words do not show any correlation to Frog. In Sanskrit, pravate/plavate means to jump but it does not mean that Germanic took pravate to mean frog. Look at the Slavic languages: they all say Zhaba. There would have been more of a similarity with Sanskrit as they were closer to the Indic language. However zhaba is not anywhere close to plavate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.18.248 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait...
...shouldn't their be at least passing mention of the fact that "Frog" is a derogatory reference to Frenchmen? 68.39.174.238 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what the Disambiguation page is for! Hydrostatics 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reproduction image
Why is there a photo of two toads mating on a page about frogs? There may not be an available photo of frogs mating, but it's still inaccurate. -Hobbesy3 12:10.., 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, never noticed this question before. Maybe you should read the article instead of just looking at the pictures. Toads are frogs. --[[User:

but since common toads are memebers of the family bufonidae which are consistently called toads it is perhaps not the wisest choice of photograph --86.138.80.234 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are lots of Bufonids called frogs, and since Bufonidae is in Anura, it is a perfectly logical choice. --liquidGhoul (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the interesting fact that frogs hear with their lugs? Why wasn't this article pronouncing very important facts about it's main idea?? And also if you want to write about something shouldn't you stay away from the very touchy subject evolution?? Dangerous territory I tell you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.41.84 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly the stupidest comment I have ever seen. How about the "fact" they taste with their colons? Evolution is not a touchy subject. --liquidGhoul (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Smallest species
Ashutosh, as it concerns 8793874e83087987 species. The National Geographic article on the Monte Iberia Eleuth discovery in 1996 specifically stated that it was the second smallest amphibian at 3/8 in (9.5 mm) length. According to the article the smallest species was a Brazilian frog measuring 11/32 in (8.7 mm, this would be the Brazilian Gold Frog), but that E. iberia would be the smallest species on the Northern dang you!!!!!!!!Hemisphere, with the previous record belonging to another Cuban species of 13/32 in (10.3 mm) length (the Yellow-Striped Pygmy Eleuth – Sminthillus limbatus is a synonym for this, right?). Over the years Guinness has fluctuated between B. didactylus and E. limbatus as the smallest amphibian with lengths of 10 mm and 8.5–12.4 mm respectively; I think they've even had the former credited as the smallest amphibian, while the latter was listed as the smallest frog in the same edition! Also, I don't remember Guinness ever acknowledging E. iberia at all. --Anshelm &#39;77 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Found this on the subject. --Anshelm &#39;77 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

smallest
The pages for the Monte Iberia Eleuth, Brazilian Gold Frog, and the Yellow-Striped Pygmy Eleuth all contradict the size of each species and their ranking in size as well 71.112.2.145 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Put some bloody information about how a frog adapts to its environment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.140.23 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. How can you call this a featured article in its current state? Green t-shirt (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What information exactly are you looking for? Frog adaptations to certain environments are throughout the article. You can't have any blanket statement for "frog adapts to its environment" because they inhabit almost every habitat in the world. Just for examples, the article speaks of desert frog, arctic frog, tropical frog adaptations, and it goes on. If you think the article requires a specific habitat or adaptations, then please ask for it.
 * As for FA status. I cleaned it a couple months back, but the crap keeps coming in and I don't have time to continually clean it up. I will do it periodically. I would much appreciate knowledgable editors, but most of the people who have previously helped have disappeared of late. --liquidGhoul (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Frogs in popular culture
I've performed a quick, sloppy merge of notable-looking, mostly unsourced items from the article Frogs in popular culture, which is nominated for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination). Any attention given this section would be apprecated. I may return to polish it a bit later, but I am not an expert in these subjects. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Frogs
They left a few types of frogs out of here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.45.85 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing color?
My female frog changed from green skin with brown spots to brown skin and brown spots. Is it just me or is it actually changing color? If it helps, I have a male frog (That eats 3-4 crickets a day!) that is much smaller and stays brown and bumpy with a few spots. Both their undersides are "Fire". P.S. What would I have to do with the spawns in the case they reproduce, and what should I feed the one or two I keep? - Guest
 * You're better off asking this at Reference desk. Hut 8.5 09:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

New Frog Photo: What kind of frog is it?
I took the below photograph of a frog at a pond in the Catskill Mountains in Davenport, NY, USA August 2008. Can anyone help me identify it? Would it make a good addition to this (or another) article? MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of American frogs, but it could be the American Bullfrog or a close relative. The picture could go there if confirmed although it would look nicer in a natural background. Shyamal (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

here you go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.242.170 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Although proposed merges are supposed to be discussed on the destination page (in this case, Frog) the proposer put the discussion at the source page so here's a heads up and link to the discussion for the editors of the frog page. Talk:Frog zoology. pschemp | talk 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion here. cygnis insignis 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger
This page should probably be merged with the main frog article. There's little new information here, much more information on the Frog page, and what little information is missing from the main page is unsurpirsing and uninteresting primitive characters like having cranial nerves and such. IMHO, a few sentences could be moved from this page to the main page, and this page could be deleted, concentrating the information in a single, easy-to-find place. Mokele (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Bueller?  Bueller? Mokele (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the delete tag and restored the article, leaving the clean-up and merge tag. I don't think it needs to be merged, it needs to be improved. cygnis insignis 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? What possible benefit is there to having a separate article, when the main article already covers so much? Mokele (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is hardly a small topic, I fail to see any lack of notability or ways of expanding and improving it. It has not suffered from lack of interest, from editors and 3 to 6 thousand viewers per month in the last year. Why are you so keen to delete it? cygnis insignis 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not that the content is bad overall (though a large portion of this page is either inaccurate or an inappropriate generalization based on Ranids). It's that much of it duplicates what is in Frog, and it seems like a much better idea to keep all of this info on one page, rather than on two pages with overlapping info.  It's also a bit odd considering that the term "Frog zoology" covers the entire contents of frog - everything about frogs (their evolutuon, physiology, life history, etc) could be labeled "frog zoology", making this page merely a duplicate.  I'm also not aware of any other animal which has a "____ zoology" page (though several have specific pages for specific parts of their zoology that are notable, such as feeding mechanisms or evolution).  As a whole, I'm just not sure why there should be two pages, especially since fusing them would make the information easier to find. Mokele (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The history of the article shows it to be very unstable, large sections have disappeared into the void. It is not as good as Frog, which doesn't need much expanding, but it could be another legitimate fork of that article. The name could be changed, or split into the topics you have mentioned. There is no reason to merge it, effectively deleting it, and there is plenty of scope for improving it. cygnis insignis 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow why you actually disagree with the merger. My reasons are: 1) much of the information is a duplicate of frog, 2) splitting the information into two pages makes it harder for the reader to find, especially since there's no way for them to know a priori the contents and omissions of each, 3) it violates the wikipedia policy on consistency, as no other animal has a _____ zoology page, 4) if overlaps are removed, this article becomes very short, very quickly, and 5) while it could be improved, it's so poorly written and inaccurate that it would be better to simply move the information over to frog.  Do you dispute any of these, or have alternate reasons for wishing to preserve it?  I'm just not entirely sure why you're keen on keeping it in light of its litany of flaws. Mokele (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in light of the lack of any good reason being given to keep frog zoology, I'll begin moving it over soon. Last call for any reason why not. Mokele (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given my reasons, I think they accord with policy and guidelines. I intend to move it to a better name, then improve it. cygnis insignis 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not really sure what those reasons are. You've claimed it gets 3-6 thousand hits, but frog gets more than 10 times that, almost 100,000 per month, so clearly any information would be more accessible if placed in frog.  You've claimed it could be a legitimate fork or split into such forks, but every topic in frog zoology has been covered in frog in superior detail.
 * What it boils down to is that, if we move the (highly limited) unique content of frog zoology to frog, it will improve frog without substantial increase in length while making that information more accessible. If we leave frog zoology in place, we have a second article which has major overlap and minimal additional information (which is hidden in an article with only one link).
 * Think of it this way: Say article 1 contains facts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I, and article 2 (linked to from 1) contains A,B,C,and Z. IMHO, the logical thing is to simply move fact Z into article 1 and delete article 2. Mokele (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So....What, exactly, is happening? This needs to be decided - the frog zoology article is not worth keeping in it's current state, no effort has been made to improve it since this discussion began, and any time I press for detailed explanations of why it should be kept, the discussion vanishes. If nobody cares enough to thoroughly debate or improve, I see no reason I shouldn't just go ahead and merge them. Mokele (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, seriously, why the hell do want to keep this page. It now has *nothing* that isn't in the frog article, it's not linked to by *anything*, it's poorly laid-out, badly written, and riddled with errors. No other animal has a similar section, nor is it necessary or helpful. You've *never* given a clear, coherent reason for retaining it, you've made precisely zero effort to improve it, yet you've refused any and every effort to do anything. Why? You can't just hang onto it for sentimental reasons. Mokele (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Frogs are a model species in science, and therefore their zoology is very important. They are usually the first vertebrates to tested for many experiments to do with animal physiology. The zoology article is a (admittedly poor) attempt at a more in depth look at their morphology/physiology because of its importance in research. It needs much improvement, and merging with the frog article will only make this article worse through unnecessary over-complication. This article should be a starter for people interested in finding out about frogs. Physiology is very complex and specialised, and people who are interested in it probably don't want to know about all the other stuff we talk about in this article. --liquidGhoul (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you do realize that this discussion in a year old, and the merger happened many months ago, right? Mokele (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Distribution Map changes
I'm not sure if frogs are historically native to the island of Newfoundland, but we certainly have frogs in our ponds. Perhaps the map should updated to reflect this. --Zippo (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, there are some anurans present in Newfoundland. According to "Amphibiaweb", these are the frogs and toads of Canada: list. Four of them are also present in Newfoundland: the American Toad (Bufo/Anaxyrus americanus; ), the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana/Lithobates pipiens, ), the Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica/Lithobates sylvaticus, ; introduced or native?), and - as an introduced species - the Green Frog (Rana/Lithobates clamitans, ). -- Fice (77.187.197.18 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Convergent Adaptation of Toads?
On both this page and the toad page, the distinction between the terms frog and toad is attributed to the "convergent adaptation" of toads to drier conditions. Convergent adaptation links to convergent evolution, and from what I can understand from that page, this isn't an explanation for the difference. If this were a case of convergent evolution then frogs and toads would be species of separate lineages that had independently developed a similarity, whereas I'm sure that what this article is saying is that they're of the same lineage but some species, known as toads, have adapted to drier conditions (which is divergent, not convergent, albeit very slightly). I think "convergent adaptation" should be changed to "adaptation" (adaptation even has its own biological article), but can someone who knows more than me help??!! Thank you!

Stephen, 217.44.26.217 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's supposed to mean that the different animals referred to as toads are convergent with each other? 97.104.210.67 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Omission of basic physiological information
To be honest, I find my self suprised that this article has made it to feature status.

While in parts well written, it seems to be lacking pieces of basic physiological information. Specifically, there is no reference to the poikilothermic nature of the genus - no reference to thermoregulation at all in fact -, only very breif reference give to the lateral-line system with no clear development of the notion, and quite potently, no refrence to the audition of the genus. Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Link needs to change
There's a really stupid link in the 4th paragraph... it says "Bufonidae" but it links to "toad". The sentence is explaining that toads don't all belong in one group, but that the members of the Bufonidae are consistently referred to as toads--and then the word Bufonidae links to a general page on toads of any kind, even though an actual page on the Bufonidae does exist?? How does that make sense? It should link to the actual family. Linking it to the generalistic "toad" page is stupid and extremely confusing. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

predators
birds,otters,rats,large fish and hedgehogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.145.27 (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

mising informaton
how is it frogs are surviveing in winters? are they cold or freezeing or are they hibernate? how do they do it? please. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most hibernate, but 4 species freeze solid, notably Rana sylvatica. Mokele (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you. can the hibertanators also be hibernating under water?70.153.208.164 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think so, but there's really very little hard data out there about hibernation in most amphibians. Mokele (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They bury themselves (at least some of them do) in the mud under the water and breathe through their skin while hibernating. The water under the ice is above freezing, up to 4 degrees Celsius, so they don't freeze unless the pond/lake freezes solid.Mushmushmushmush (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing language
I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris class="autosigned">—Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Edit request
Too many full stops (periods) at the end of the first paragraph. Please delete one of them. Thanks.Mushmushmushmush (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Which one? (just kidding) Thanks.  Chzz  ►  20:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Greek
Isn't Ura plural or Uro? So it's "no tails" technically. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frog's hearing
I came across this article Electrical tuning which talks about how frogs and and reptiles use this process to hear and thought to add some text here with a link back to Electrical tuning. Not sure about the best placement on the page here thou. Any suggestions? Blackash  have a chat 12:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Cultural beliefs
"and some believed that that when Panamanian Golden Frogs died" One "that" too many. 216.221.62.69 (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC) L.D.

Mass Extinction
As I have read in numerous credible magazines (National Geographic, Smithsonian, etc.) and television shows (Nova, Nature, etc.) many types of frogs are undergoing mass extinction of an unprecedented scale. Why is ther eno mention of this? If it was mentioned it was so brief I missed it.

Teo del Fuego — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.233.211 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Distribution and conservation status --liquidGhoul (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Smaller frog
There is even a smaller frog then Brachycephalus didactylus. Avihu (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some gratuitous feedback on prose and other stuff....
Just scanning the article - I figured a few minutes would give it some impetus....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The morphology of frogs is unique among amphibians. - does this sentence add anything? Or to put it another way, is any meaning lost by its removal? I'm inclined to think not. Let the following sentences speak for themselves....


 * Many characteristics are not shared by all of the approximately 5,250 described frog species - err yeah. I am tempted to lose this as well. Doesn't tell us anything much at all.


 * The frog's digestive system begins with the mouth.  - I think we can lose this.....


 * In frogs the sexes are separate.  - We can definitely lose this.....


 * Again, I'd place the Evolution segment as a subsection within taxonomy

Overall, I just thought I'd take a quick squiz before hitting the sack. This article is really shaping up nicely. I am sure some copyediting will help trim text further and there will be some more examples like those I gave above. I'll take another look in a few days, but there are a few other priorities.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed all but the last - evolution and taxonomy, though related, aren't necessarily synonymous. They should be placed closer to each other, though. HCA (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to imply they were synonymous, just intimately related Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

To do list
Here are a few things that I think need doing:
 * Make sure that topics are not mentioned in more than one place (apart from the summary in the lead). Done.
 * Rewrite the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyedit and tidy up text.
 * There are some references missing in the "Natural history" section. Done.
 * I think "Reproduction" should go before "Life cycle" Done.
 * Much work needs to be done on the references. I propose that all authors names are in this form "Adams, E. J.; Thomas, R. S. ", that journal article titles are in lower case and book titles in uppercase, that publisher locations are omitted and that access dates are in the form 2012-06-15. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about a section on predators and defence? Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any topics that should be included but are missing?
 * Is there any stuff that should be cut out?
 * On my computer, the cladogram is too wide for the screen and a slider appears at the foot. Can the cladogram be made to fit better?
 * I have been trying to use only lower case letters for vernacular names of frogs.
 * What about a sound clip or two? Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other things I have not thought of. - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Breathing in frogs skipping tadpole stage
"Some species go through metamorphosis while still inside the egg and hatch directly into small frogs. These do not develop gills but instead have specialized areas of skin through which respiration takes place." This is not trivial. What is the source? thanks, Sir Shurf (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in which this statement occurs was referenced to the Stebbins book. I have reread the whole 15 pages on larval development and did not find the fact mentioned so I have removed the statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Evolution section isn't up to date
I think that data from these sources should be included in the article: I am currently trying to do so in the Russian version. Sir Shurf (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * article from 2007
 * article from 2011
 * I have added information from these sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012
The frog can shoot its tounge up to 20 mph to catch a bug

In the third paragraph of the Etymology and taxonomy section, there is a link for the word "radius" which currently refers to the geometric term. The link should link to "Radius_(bone)"

Esaper (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Improvements to the categorisation of this article
This article is placed into the category "Amphibians of Madagascar". Shouldn't this be changed to just "amphibians", since frogs belong to the class of vertebrates known as amphibians in general, regardless of whether they live in Madagascar or not? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I have added frogs (and also newts) to this category myself now - it seemed rather silly to have toads and salamanders in this category but not frogs or newts!ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request : Number of species of frogs?
I was wondering how many species of frogs there are in the world, this entry says about 4800, but http://srel.uga.edu/ecoviews/ecoview081012.htm says 5645 species, and http://www.nzfrogs.org/NZ+Frogs/How+many+frogs.html says 6289 species... Can someone provide a definitive number and source of that info? Thanks.

--KeyMaker2012 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All these figures are just estimates and which one you accept depends on which expert you most respect. Some species are later shown to be synonymous. In other instances, one species proves actually to be two species originally included under one name. Many frogs live in remote areas such as New Guinea where new species are still being discovered. Other species become extinct. Frogs in general are under-researched. So you see how difficult it is to give a definitive reply to your question. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My edit (7 March 2013)
In the taxobox, I changed the authority of Anura from Merrem, 1820, to "Duméril, 1806 (as Anoures)". I don't know why Merrem (1820) was ever cited in the first place; it's the first publication to use Salientia the (more or less) modern way, but neither introduces the name Anura nor, apparently, a new spelling variant of it.

Frost et al. (2006: 357) say it goes like this: Duméril (1806): Anoures (in French, like Urodèles, but that wasn't a big deal back then); Fischer von Waldheim (1813): Anuri; Rafinesque (1815): Anuria; Gray (1825): Anoura; Hogg (1839): Anura. AFAIK, none of these variants except the first was introduced as a new name, just as some kind of correction of a previous variant, so they should all be considered the same name, which should then be attributed to Duméril (1806). Counterarguments?

In the evolution section, I
 * fixed the spelling of my name in a reference,
 * corrected the portrayal of Gerobatrachus – it's been considered a stem-batrachian, especially in the original publication, but never a salientian;
 * added Czatkobatrachus – you can't mention Triadobatrachus without mentioning Czatkobatrachus, which has the same age and is known from less but better-preserved material;
 * removed the mention of "Sanyanlichan". That's not a genus name, it's the Chinese vernacular name for what was soon described as Callobatrachus sanyanensis; and while C. is indeed about 125 Ma old and does seem to be a discoglossoid/alytoid/bombinatoroid/costatan (though not necessarily a discoglossid in the modern usage of that word!), there's no reason to privilege it above all the other well-preserved Mesozoic frogs, so I simply took it out instead of making a long list. If someone does want to make a list, I recommend including Yizhoubatrachus, Mesophryne, Eodiscoglossus (not a discoglossoid either!), Liaobatrachus, Gobiates, Callobatrachus, Iberobatrachus, Rhadinosteus, Gracilibatrachus, Neusibatrachus, Cordicephalus, Thoraciliacus, Vulcanobatrachus, Baurubatrachus, Beelzebufo, Indobatrachus, Arariphrynus, Cratia, Eurycephalella, and Uberabatrachus – again, that's just the well-preserved Mesozoic ones.

Michel Laurin and I have a paper on the lissamphibian fossil record in review right now, an update of our 2007 paper. I guess it'll come out in a few months.

David Marjanović (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improvements to the article. As the person who brought the article to FA status, I must admit to struggling with the evolution section and it is very helpful to have you sort it out. As for the authority for Anura, it has been "Merrem" for several years and I never even considered that it might not be correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014
220.255.2.105 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Frogs can jump really really high sometimes. They can jump as high as skyscrapers in order to get away from their predators.