Talk:Pipidae

Pipids in South America southern rain forest
The article states: "The thirty species in the family Pipidae are found in tropical South America". The distribution map confirms this statement. However, a list of vertebrates living in the South American southern rain forest (Chile and Argentina), that is temperate South America, mentions the presence of the pipids Rhinoderma darwinii and Rhinoderma rufum (in: Ecologia de los bosques nativos de Chile, J. J. Armesto et al., editors. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, 1996, pp. 416). This is a matter of thousands of km, quite visible even in such a small map. It can well be assumed that the southern population is isolated from the tropical population. Would a knowledgeable person look into this matter and make the necessary amendments? (I am not a zoologist and do not want to spoil a good article). --Lupo Manaro 09:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have now seen that there is an order Rhinodermatidae for these species. The error is in Armesto's book. --Lupo Manaro 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vernacular name
Shouldn't it be mentioned they are sometimes called "Tongueless frogs" and "Clawed frogs"? KimiNewt (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Primitive?
First off, the term primitive is inappropriate when discussing extant organisms. If it can be demonstrated that a particular trait has been maintained from a common ancestor that the the other descendents of that ancestor have lost/modified, than that particular trait can be considered primitive. But it cannot be extrapolated from the presence of one or a few primitive traits that all an organism's traits are primitive (= a "primitive organism"). It's always good to remember that all living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, as we likely all descend from a single, ancient organism, and that traits largely evolve independently from one another. Indeed, traits deemed "primitive" generally are identified as such from an anthropogenic perspective.

Furthermore, what pipid traits are "primitive?" Relative to other anurans, they seem entirely derived. They bear little resemblance to any extant anurans, including the other pipoids, nor do they resemble ancient, extinct anurans or amphibians. I think somebody misconstrued "weird" as "primitive". . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.134.207 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)