Talk:Hylidae

Headline text
I do not like the idea of combining Hyla and Hylidae. There are hundreds of species of tree frogs which are not Hyla. It would completely exclude all the Australasian tree frogs, as well as countless others. Look under the taxonomy tag, you would be excluding all of those frogs, as they are not Hyla. The similarity in names, does not mean they are the same things. LiquidGhoul

I agree. Wiki-style is one article of the family and one of genus. Isfisk 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the merge would not be appropriate, so I removed the merge tags. Gdr 16:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the formatting on this page. There is a large gap caused by the red eyed tree frog photo. I have tried, however my WikiMedia editing skills are not the greatest. Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I fixed it.


 * There are some browser compatibility issues with image formatting. Sometimes images that look fine in Internet Explorer overlap the text in Firefox and Opera, but if the same images are aligned to be viewable in Firefox/Opera, they create gaps in text in IE. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer not to have the text overlapped - even if theres a few ugly gaps. Maybe someone has a magical way of fixing it though, I've run into it on a few other pages as well. -Dawson 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfertilised eggs
Some tree frogs lay behind unfertilised eggs as food for the tadpoles, which has become so dependent on these eggs that they can't survive without them. I am just curious; are these eggs different from the fertilised eggs in more ways than just not being fertilised? Are they more nutritious or have more yolk or something?
 * They probably are not different in those repsects. -Pgan002 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a reference for the statement that many tree frogs lay unfertilized eggs as food for their tadpoles? -Pgan002 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he/she has confused poison dart frogs for tree frogs. --liquidGhoul 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

81.187.22.89 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for telling us that tree frogs are arboreal. For I while I was worried they might live on the ocean floor or something. 81.187.22.89 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New genera
I've added a lot of new genera. The research leading to this can be find here:

Rhacophoridae
I've added details about the family Rhacophoridae which are usually considered treefrogs together with the Hylidae. Is there some reason for having excluded them? Otherwise the distribution map should be altered to include them. Paul venter 20:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They have their own article. Tree frog is most common for Hylids. It is useful to include in the article that the common name is shared with a few other families, but since this is the most common usage of it, it has the article name. --liquidGhoul 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've altered the distribution map as well, but if the consensus is that this article should only deal with the Hylidae, then it will just have to be reverted. Paul venter 21:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tree Frogs
I was wondering if tree frogs are poisonous? Thank You, Linda Nichols smalllinda@tds.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.129.241.137 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Clean Up
When we get more information for this page the pictures will be cleaned up right? Just wondering -- IvanTortuga 19:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This page needs a really staggering amount of work. My question is exactly what is it supposed to be describing? Frogs of certain genera? Arboreal frogs? Frogs with adhesive toe pads? Frogs with intercalary cartilage? Frogs popularly referred to as treefrogs? My suggestion is that it should be an overview of what constitutes a "treefrog" in popular usage, and then link to some typical species, and most/all genera which have species that fall into that definition.

There's a lot of work needed here. Names like "changeable tree toad" are badly out of date; just for entertainment value, google for that: You'll get 10 hits, several of them this article or forks of it. Now try "gray treefrog". Over 50,000 hits. And some of what's in here, such as "The European tree frogs such as Hyla arborea are common in the middle and south of North America", is flat-out wrong (Hyla arboria, as one will see from following its link in the article, does not occur in North America at all, and there are several northern species of treefrog, such as Pseudacris crucifer and Pseudacris regilla, which are common well into Canada).

I don't have the time to work on this, but someone really needs to. It needs a rewrite for clarity, modern taxonomy, etc., and it needs major fact-checking, such as what I just pointed out with regard to Hyla arborea. I'm tagging it accordingly. Worldwalker (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

frogs
The smallest frog in the world was about 0.4 inches. Some frogs can stretch there feet so there whole body is 3 times bigger than before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.77.210 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hylidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024033938/http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php to http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Pelodryadidae
This article is extremely inconsistent in terms of the inclusion of the Pelodryadidae (Australasian Tree Frogs). Historically they were considered a subfamily of the Hylidae but they are usually now considered their own family. The "Taxonomy and systematics" section makes no mention of the group and does not list any of the included genera, but the distribution map includes the group and there are examples and images of Pelodryadids elsewhere in the article. Furthermore, there is no article for Pelodryadidae so this information is currently not included elsewhere on Wikipedia as far as I know.

Is someone able to fix this up so that either: 1.136.109.0 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Pelodryadidae are completely included here and there is a note on the alternative classification OR
 * The Pelodryadidae are completely excluded here and given their own article, with a note and link to the new article