User talk:LiquidGhoul/Archive 2

Frog pics for LiquidGhoul
I just uploaded a Rhinophrynid pic for your families table. The picture isn't the best, but there's only one species in the family, and they only come out of the ground for a couple days a year. I was happy to just see this thing. They're wierd fat little frogs, though.

I do have pictures of Ascaphus (tailed frogs in the family Ascaphidae), but they're poor quality, and they're slides that I'd have to dig up and scan. I can do this, but not soon. I'm in the forest next week and I'll try to grab a couple photos of come glass frogs (Centrolenids).

As for other help, I know that there's Brachycephalid pics on the Brachycephalidae page.

By the way, here's a "Potentially Aposematic Tadpole Award" for the good work on Frog. 

Romer
Man, i'm thinking of shooting the tiny creature all the day! i can't promise, though... not really an easy job... and there seems to be no public display... i'll try, anyway... btw, how many frogs do u keep? --K.C. Tang 22:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your new creatures too! That sounds a truly meaningful undertaking. but i heard that taking care of frog takes much time, isn't it? (and u r still studying, right?) :) --K.C. Tang 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * the creature seems to have another name besides Philautus romeri (see here), i'm confused, could u help me figure it out? thanks a lot. :) --K.C. Tang 00:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * btw, i've seperate the Dung beetle from the Scarab beetle, and have put your high-quality pic on the latter article, hope you won't mind. :) --K.C. Tang 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i use that site too, the site is really great, man. All the taxons are there! indeed i've added a footnote about the classification in the article, but i'm not sure one should use the old or the new name in the taxbox, what is the common practice?--K.C. Tang 13:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks a lot! i've expanded and revised the article, hope u can go through it when u have time...:) btw, do u think the dart frog article has the potential to be a featured one? the subject is really fascianting...--K.C. Tang 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Frog
Hi LiquidGhoul, Sorry if I've made you a little impatient, but I've been trying to find ID's at a herptology site I know. However, nothing has turned up yet. I don't have any other pix of the frog, as it jumped away as soon as I took it. A little info if you want; taken in East Gippsland Victoria Australia in a low creek. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 05:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yeah sure go ahead. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanx for your work on the ID, i'll upload a correctly named pic soon --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 11:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

request
Sure, will look at it this w/end. Tony 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of clarifying the difference between genera, family and species somewhere in the article? As a non-specialist, it would make it easier for me to navigate through the text. Let me know if you have trouble rewording the bit about maximum of six (I don't quite comprehend the intended meaning, so it's hard to fix). Tony 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Echidna
Common names vary from region to region, thats why we have binomial nomenclature. Maybe spiny anteater is primarily an American name, because its been called that (albeit as a secondary name to Echidna) in every single text I have seen on the wierd creature. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just fired off an email to Groves. Would you like a copy? You can email me. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject:Amphibians and Reptiles and WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials
Just wondering would you be interested in collaborating on these projects. It includes fossil and living forms except Dinosaurs in the reptile part. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Enlil Ninlil 01:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I am getting support but will creat it an way. Thankyou. Enlil Ninlil 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

request frog photos
Sorry for the delayed reply, I have heaps of frog photos, from at least 50 different species, most from around Sydney, but some from Tasmania and even some from Canada. I should be able to upload some of them, however this will probably be over a fairly long period of time. Tnarg 12345 21:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a Litoria splendida photo, however one of my pet green tree frogs is often a brown colour and I should be able to take a picture, I will upload it in about 1 week (the tank is currently full of files [for food] and if I open it they will all fly out). I uploaded a picture of a Heleioporus australiacus this morning, I will try to upload a few more threatened species images sometime soon (eg. Mix. iteratus, Pseudophryne australis & bibronii). Tnarg 12345 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a pic of M. iteratus today, I'll see if I can upload a Lechriodus fletcheri pic tomorrow, I should be able to upload quite a few frog pics in the next week or so (school holidays leaves me with a bit of time on my hands). Tnarg 12345 10:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have any photos of any families that don't already have a picture, I only got some rana frogs, bufo's and one species of pseudacris in Canada (as well as a couple of salamander species). Tnarg 12345 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I upload a pic of a brown-green Litoria caerulea, this was the most brown one I could find, hope it helps. Tnarg 12345 0:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

warning and blocking vandals
Generally, give some slack, but don't over do it. test1 through test4, or blank1 through blank3, followed by vblock. There are other templates for warning and noting blocks, but those are the ones I use. Most also have a "-n" version to indicate what page they vandalized (eg test1-n). - UtherSRG (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh... and always subst those templates! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Banksia robur
You're right, it couldn't be B. robur at Gloucester Tops - B. robur is a coastal plant. I had thought it must be B. robur because that is the only eastern Banksia with green flowers. I now suspect that this is an "underripe" flower - a very new flower that hasn't yet gained its true colour.

The only Banksias that occur in that area are Banksia integrifolia var. compar, Banksia marginata and Banksia spinulosa var. collina. It definitely isn't the last of these, because B. spinulosa belongs to Banksia sect. Oncostylis, which have markedly hooked styles, whereas the flower in the photo has the straight or slightly curved styles of Banksia sect. Banksia.

I think it is certainly either B. integrifolia var. compar or B. marginata, but I don't know which. Both have light yellow flowers. At the moment I'm leaning towards B. integrifolia var. compar, just because The Banksia Atlas lists a large number of collections of it within Barrington Tops National Park.

I'll do a little extra reading and see if I can find anything diagnostic in the photo. Snottygobble 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Frog identification
I will upload a picture tommorrow as I cant now. Sorry Enlil Ninlil 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry my computer brock down and is getting fixed la. Enlil Ninlil 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have a new computer, so am active again, the next article I want to do is Shamosuchus mesosuchian crocodya. Enlil Ninlil 00:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Photography project
That seems fine but if they have a picture and dont know the species, they could let u know so we can identify it. Also all picture's can go in the Wikimedia commons too. Enlil Ninlil 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is great, also the frog might be an eastern banjo frog, but will upload later and tell u.Enlil Ninlil 02:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

frog classification
I noticed that the Australian ground frogs have been split up into Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae. When I was writing the article on Lechriodus frogs is was unsure what to class them as. I have been under the impression that all of Australia's ground frogs were classed as Myobatrachidae. Would you please be able to explain this method of classifying to me. Thanks. Tnarg 12345 11:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I am starting to understand this way of ground frog classification, I have sent an email to Dr. Arthur White to find out his views on this method of classification (myobatrachidae, limnodynastidae & rheobatrachidae as opposed to just myobatrachidae) hopefully his response won't just confuse me further. Thanks for your help. Tnarg 12345 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Arthur White said that limnodynastinae, myobatrachinae and rheobatrachinae are sub-families in Myobatrachidae. I'll leave it up to you if you want to change the taxoboxes of the Australian ground frogs to incorporate limnodynastinae, rheobatrachinae and myobatrachinae as subfaimilies in the family myobatrachidae. Tnarg 12345 09:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This was Arthur's reply to my email: Dear Grant You may have misread the names" they are limnodynastnae, rheobatrachinea and myobatrachinae: These are sub-families, not familes i.e. they are sub-divisions within the family Myobatrachidae. Family names usually ends in idae whereas sub-families end in inae. Cheers Arthur Tnarg 12345 10:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You should probably also note (in the comment on WT:TOL) that Marion Anstis's Tadpoles of South Eastern Australia, which was first published in 2002 uses the taxonomy of just myobatrachidae. Tnarg 12345 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

taxoboxes
I was writing a taxobox for litoria verreauxii and i was wondering if you knew how to put two conservation statuses and common names in it, as litoria verreauxii has two subspecies, both with different common names and conservations statuses as it is kind of odd having the taxobox say least concern when one of the subspecies is critical. Tnarg 12345 6:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote up the section on conservation status. In the taxobox I wrote verreaux tree frog and just put the alpine part in brackets. Thanks for your help. Tnarg 12345 7:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

L. lesueuri
I wrote up the article for Litoria lesueuri so now there is something to compare the Litoria wilcoxi to. I will upload a male L. lesueuri photo today. Tnarg 12345 0:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

White's tree frog
Congrats on the pic of the day by the way. And I really like the shot of the frog in the spider's web too. Keep up the good work! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Pic if the day
Great Pic That pic of the tree frog that made pic of the day is amazing, makes me smile everytime i look at it! keep up the good work. olib123  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User you should know about
Somebody's created an account called User:Liquidcross. It appears to be good-faith, but maybe just an spam account (certainly not a vandal). I thought that if we could prevent such a confusion early on, it would be nice. I need you to give your opinion.--HereToHelp 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
Sure I will join up, I will also join up to WP:TOL, is all I have to do to join is add my name to the list of participants? Tnarg 12345 06:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

L.phyllochroa/barringtonensis
The species complex of Litoria phyllochroa is even more complitcated than the ground frogs, I believe that L. barringtonensis is still recognised as an individual species, if it was to be merged with another species it would most likely be L. personiana, L. barringtonensis & personiana are both members of the phyllochroa complex, however they have black spots present on the dorsal surface, L. phyllochroa does not. The way that barringtonensis/pearsoniana are distinguished is that one of them has brown in the tympanum (I think it is pearsoniana) and L. phyllochroas tympanum is always green. I am not sure on the current taxonomy of pearsoniana/barringtonensis I'll ask Arthur next time I see him. Also L. barringtonensis is present on the Litoria page- that is where I got the common name from. Tnarg 12345 08:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see where you are coming from. However I still think that if L. barringtonensis was merged with another species it would be L. pearsoniana. Marion Anstis tadpoles of South Eastern Aust. has L. pearsoniana and barringtonensis on the same page, it makes some explanation of the taxonomy, this is a quote from the book (on the pearsoniana page)- "Another very similar frog found in the mid-north coastal ranges of NSW was descriped by Copland (1957) as Hyla phyllochroa barringtonensis. The validity of this species and the whole Litoria phyllochroa species group is the subject of ongoing genetic anaylysis, and is yet to be fully resolved. However, the name L. barringtonesis would replace that of L. pearsoniana should the two frogs represent by these two names prove to be conspecific." This quote also makes reference to The Australian Journal of Zoology 47:275-93, from 1999. It says that L. phyllochroa is sympatric with L. barringtonensis in the comment on this page-do you know if this is the same area as the hybrid area stated towards the end of the same comment? Tnarg 12345 09:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Me and user:froggydarb have just wrote up a key on the Leaf Green Tree Frog page for distinguishing between the species of the L. phyllochroa complex, if you have a look at the photos you can see the difference in the species and what we have described. If you have a look at the images, you can see how all L. pearsoniana, L. phyllochroa, L. barringtonensis and L. nudidigitus all look different physically, I could accept that this may be from variations in a population of one species, however the variations proved to be seperate and didn't opverlap (from observations), (ie. ones from barrington all looked different from ones from QLD) Perphaps these are just different subspecies however at this time I think that it would probably just be more simple to just leave them as 4 seperate species in the Litoria page.. Tnarg 12345 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The calls of L.pearsoniana and L.barringtonesis are very different. On the 'Australia Frog Calls, Subtropical East by David Stewart, CD' the L.pearsoniana call is recorded from around the Lismore area (listen to the call hear), this would be the 'hybrid' zone for L.barringtonensis and L.pearsoniana. The call of L.pearsoniana on the CD is very different to the L.pearsoniana I recorded in Springbrook National Park, QLD. This has lead me to believe that the frog call on the CD is not L.pearsoniana but L.barringtonesis. I do not believe that L. barringtonensis and L. pearsoniana are the same species.Froggydarb 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The differences of what I believe is L.barringtonensis (listen hear) and L.phyllochroa (listen hear) are also different.Froggydarb 01:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A few years ago I was at Barrington Tops and I went frogging at the Williams River. I found what I thought was L. phyllochroa and another frog that looked a lot like it but had black dots on the dorsal surface (at the time I thought they might of been L.phyllochroa/L.pearsoniana hybrid because I didn't know of L.barringtonensis). When I got back to Sydney I showed the photos of the two different frogs to Arthur White. He said that the ones I thought were L. phyllochroa were L. phyllochroa and the ones with the black spots appeared to be L. barringtonensis. I also found more than three specimens with black dots and more than three specimens without.Froggydarb 02:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say any of the 4 species were the same, all I said was that at the time (2 or 3 years ago) Arthur White said that 1 photo was of a L. phyllochroa and the other appeared to be a L. barringtonesis (both from the Williams River, Barrington Tops.Froggydarb 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 'When you found those species you recorded you probably mis-identified it.' This is a picture of the frog I recorded. [[Image:Litoria pearsoniana 1.JPG|thumb|right|200px|]] I am certain that this frog is a Litoria pearsoniana This photo was taken at Springbrook National Park, QLD. I haven't seen a L. phyllochroa north of Smiths Lake, NSW. And if you compare this photo with a photo of L.phyllochroa you can see many physical differences. I believe that there are 4 species and I could make that conclusion on the calls alone.Froggydarb 04:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I talked to Arthur about it in 2003 or 2004. And I can't find where I added any opinion in any of the articles.They also do not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. And if theydo and I haven't seen it can you please tell me where it is so I can delete it, or delete it yourself. I see where you are coming from with the L. tasmanensis example. I guess the issue with the 4 (or 3) species will be resolved sooner or later.Froggydarb 07:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian Geckos
I noticed that there aren't many images of Australian Geckos, I have photos of species around Sydney, I dont really no too much about the different species so I'm not really suited to writing the articles but I can upload pics. Tnarg 12345 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

tasmaniensis
I have a photo of a Lim. tasmaniensis with a orangeish stripe and another photo of a tasmaniensis with a pale yellow stripe. I'll upload the one with the orange stripe later today. Tnarg 12345 06:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

..for Species
Quite right too! Thanks, sometimes the bleedin' obvious needs pointing out. :-) GrahamBould 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Scaphiopodidae
Hi, LiquidGhoul. Sorry I'm not around more. I thought life would get easier in May. I'll try to wiki as much as I can.

The problem with Scaphiopodidae/Pelobatidae is that it really depends on whose taxonomy you're following. I would suggest that one taxonomy be followed throughout the Project Amphibians and Reptiles so that the taxonomy is consistent. I would actually argue NOT to follow Frost et al. Though I think they're absolutely right about pretty much everything they've said (and have the data to back it up), I just think it's too new. So I would consider them all "Pelobatidae" for now, but maybe mention that newer data suggest that they be split.

P.S. I'm working on the glass frog photo. Any day now.

Litoria gracilenta image
I deleted the original photo because you aren't suppose to steal photos off other websites, as it say clearly on the uploading page. And as with your opinion, I believe it is irrelevant as you believe mien is. The yellow stripe isn't all that separates it from L.chloris and L.xanthomera what about size, iris colour, call, it's more granular skin and thigh colour (mauve-brown in L.gracilenta, blue/purple in L.chloris and orange in L.xanthomera.) Why only include that distinguishing feature in the description when it doesn't occur in all specimens of the species. I haven't found the yellow stripe to be in any field guides or on any internet sites to distinguish between the three species, this sounds like you might be breaking theNOR policy to me.Froggydarb 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry,I didn't see the key in that field I only looked under the 'Similar Species' heading under each separate species. Although in the article it should be noted that this feature does not occur in all specimens and other key distinguishing features that may help in the separtation of the three species should be included, if the yellow/white stripe is not present.

cane toad
My B. marinus photo aint that great, its only a juvinile and is a little unfocused around the head, however it has has many red coloured tubercles on back, which isnt really demonstrated well in the other pics, I can upload it if you want, however If I do I'll leave it up to you if you want it in the article.--Tnarg 12345 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got a few Cane Toad pics if you want them uploaded.Froggydarb 05:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded the picture and put it in the taxobox on the B. marinus, see if it is better or not.Froggydarb 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Should the name in the taxobox be changed from 'Giant Neotropical Toad' to 'Cane Toad' to go with the articles name?Froggydarb 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to Bio-barnstar proposal: What is the next move?
There was much talk lately about the bio-barnstar proposal, but these past 5 days there hasn't been more said. What is next? What is there to be done? Can we move this foward...? It is the first time I involve myself in a barnstar proposal and I do not know what is the procedure. I seem to read there is quite a support for a bio-barnstar and a considerable preference for the second proposal... Please, could someone tell me what next? Thanks.--Francisco Valverde 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FP
I hope you can see now that my reason for nominating the picture was seeking support for removing the flamingo again. I did remember putting your picture there. And please make sure you check your facts. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Collapsable taxobox
I really like your idea of creating a collapsable taxobox. It would be a great addition to have the ability to include the extra information without making the taxobox too clunky. I think you should bring it up somewhere, maybe WP:TOL first, to get people interested, and then maybe try and get some of the coders of Wikipedia to help (no idea how you would go about this). --liquidGhoul 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I did bring it up on a village pump page (technical i think) but the discussion seems to have gone AWOL (i can't find it anyway). The idea generally wasn't greeted with much enthusiasm, and the technical problems of implementing it are still there. The main criticism I can recall was that the levels of taxonomy that are hidden are also often debated/uncertain. As for the technical side, I have noticed that the metadata on images is collapsable, and maybe the javascript it uses can be hijacked. (e.g. see Metadata section on Australia_Cairns_Koala.jpg) but I haven't attempted to use this approach as yet. —Pengo 21:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

NZ Frog pics

 * There are some photos on the Department of Conservation website that may be freely reproduced under the terms of crown copyright. There's a nice one with both an Archey's and Hochstetter frog here, and a few others . there are some great ones here , but I'm unsure of their copyright status.--Limegreen 01:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest Template:NZCrownCopyright? It's not public domain, but it's something! Best, Z iggurat 02:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit further, and unfortunately it seems that we can't use the Department of Conservation photo after all, because their license does not allow commercial use. See Template_talk:NZCrownCopyright and. Sorry. -- Avenue 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From Copyright_FAQ: "Works whose licenses restrict their use only to Wikipedia or prohibit commercial use are unacceptable on Wikipedia as well." This is because Wikipedia aims to allow reuse, including commercial reuse. One current exception would be if you can reasonably claim fair use. -- Avenue 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey LG, pity about Archey's frog picture. Hope you get it sorted out, if you do manage to get some sort of licence from DoC that's OK with Wikipedia I'd be interested in hearing about it. Full marks for trying. GrahamBould 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooo-er! I hadn't read the talk page on crown copyright, and had always assumed that any crown copyright image would be OK. I wonder how many others have made such a mistake? My guess is there could be a few DoC etc. images floating around... (sorry to clutter your talk)--Limegreen 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you could use the image off this site, it says it was was taken from a Wiki article but when you click on the link the page is not found.Froggydarb 07:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about posting here, but it seems to be a conversation among many people. If they are unsure of the copyright, and it has been deleted from Wikipedia, it is almost surely bad copyright. --liquidGhoul 07:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bio-barnstar??
You removed the talk about the bio-barnstar? That it was passed. What happens then in the end?? --Francisco Valverde 17:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * GREAT...!!! Thanks!!--Francisco Valverde 08:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

FPC
To tell you the truth I really expected not to get many 'Support' votes. Not many people like frogs and even if you did get a very good photo of a frog many would 'Oppose' it. I don't 'hate' or dislike the other people for what they are saying, it fact it just helps in taking better pictures next time. Froggydarb 01:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a question, for a photo to become a featured picture, do most of the votes have to be in 'Support' of the picture? If not can you please tell me how it works.Froggydarb 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

photo
Hi! How can I watch your photo? I like very much Australia, even if I have never been there, I'm sorry if I made some errors while I was writing, but I'm italian and I don't speak english correctly...bye! fedina

You have said in your user page that you love to share your photos on wikipedia...but if you don't want that I watch them, don't worry! fedina

uao!
They are very beautiful!Those with insects schocked me a bit...but they are beautiful too.The photo with the little bird is fantastic! You are very good at make photos...do you want to become a photographer? fedina

List of Anuran families
If you need any info on Neobatrachia there is some on this page, I don't know if it will help, but anyway.Froggydarb 08:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [:Image:Tailed frog.gif]] wouldn't be bad for the list is it was cropped (as the images in the list are so small.) I tried but neither of my photo editing programs would open a .gif file. Rmhermen 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

cane toad
So you just want the similar species of the Cane Toad's natural habitat?Froggydarb 11:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So after I wrote the Australia Similar Species part you put it into the Taxonomy section?Froggydarb 11:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole similar species is repeated in the Taxonomy, so the whole similar species section should be deleted.Froggydarb 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

citation
I put in the citation for the success rate on the cane toad page.--Tnarg 12345 10:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Me and user:froggydarb were working on that page at the same time when I was writing the citation and there was edit conflict, so in the history it says that the citation was written by him-if you were wondering.Tnarg 12345 10:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you got to the toadbuster section on this page there is some information on the cane toad traps and may help with the citation needed on the cane toad page.--Tnarg 12345 10:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the exact page it is this one. I don't know if it is what you want. Hope it helps.Froggydarb 11:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sry to overlook the divergent spelling


I think it is highly likely that someone will come along and change everything to reading "parotid", hence the comments. The intention was to avoid this happening. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

banksia at gloucester
Aha -the locality cinches it! I just figutred it out - it is a Banksia integrifolia monticola in late bud, this subspecies parallels the coastal integrifolia up the NSW coast from mt Wilson northwards - cool photo cheers Cas Liber Banksia Study Group leader

rotating the photo?
Um..I was wondering, the photo of the banksia looks to me like it should be rotated 90 deg to the right, or was like that when you took it?

BTW it is great when people snap rare ones - the biggest banksias of all are in WAshpool (are you baed on the north coast somewhere? cheers Cas

cane toads
Hi, I left some comments on the peer review. If you can't get access to the article I can email the pdfs to you.--Peta 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Avon River
Thanks for your comment. My family owned a huge property at Waukivory for most of the last century. Sussexman 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Glass frog photo
I finally got around to tracking down a glass frog and taking a photo, and I put it up on the frog families page. It's definitely not the best photo in the world, but I'll keep trying. Pstevendactylus 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)