# Talk:American bullfrog

Why no mention of its invasiveness and its threatening local ecosystems where it was introduced by humans? In most European countries, it has officially been classified as an invasive pest. Eradication programs are underway in France, the UK, and Germany (maybe even elsewhere). In China and Japan, as well as in Brazil, it is also considered a foreign invasive pest. By any means, in these places, the bullfrog is no cutie. Some further research should be done about it. Maybe start by looking at the corresponding articles in other languages.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 
Current map shows bull frogs as introduced in most of Canada.  I'm certain that they do not extend into tundra regions, including the Canadian Archipelago!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.H.Jarrell (talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 

Noted that retention pond at a watched amphibian site was drained and this drove frog population into a small basin below the retention pond. A single bull frog appeared in this basin and all smaller frogs disappeared. It appears that the confined area favored the bullfrog's hunting techniques, or the smaller frogs were simply scared away. Note that the nocturnal song of this bullfrog, heard only once, is as sonorous as it is reputed to be; a very soft and deep call.

Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I read that the bullfrog is the only animal that never sleeps. I feel that this would be a good addition to this page, assuming that it can be verified.

Moved from article:
how long does it take about 11-12 week afterthe prometamorphisis?
Not the same person above but Should it be mentioned that this one of the types of frogs that people eat? :D4.238.155.127 23:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to use this page for scientific reference should be aware that not all herpetologists are in agreement about how to establish taxonomic relationships.  The article states that Rana catesbeiana has been changed to Lithobates catesbeianus.  However, the entire herpetological community has not agreed on this name change, and you will find other organizations and public agencies stating that the name is still Rana catesbeiana.  Anyone wishing to find a scientific reference for bullfrogs should keep this in mind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensheep (talk • contribs) 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 

I think this photo I took may be a Bullfrog.  If someone can confirm, you're welcome to use it.  It was taken in August in the Catskill Mountains, in Davenport, NY, USA. MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a late reply, sorry. Given the species of frogs and toads that occur in NY, the lack of brown/dark blotches, and the lack of a dorsolateral fold, I would say that this is definitely a bull frog. --TheAlphaWolf (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the purported claims that bullfrogs are the only animals that do not need to sleep?  This "factoid" is so pervasive on trivia lists that it should warrant mention and, preferably, resolution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.210.50 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 

I added a section about the mating system and habits. WhitleyTucker (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of minor grammatical errors and added a few hyperlinks. I also italicized rana catasbeiana. I was not sure if you needed to mention the authors that contributed to studies of the bullfrog or if just citing them was enough. This may be something to think about. Zhangt2413 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I see you’ve expanded this article significantly. There are a few edits that I made to your wiki article. I concentrated mostly on cleaning up your inline citations and adding hyperlinks to other wiki pages. There were many instances where you duplicated the citations. I want to point out that you can use the ref name=XXX  tag to reuse a source, so that next time you can use ref name=XXX to cite, saving space and clutter in your editing window. I also went over some of your info in the mating system and chorus sections. Be careful when you make reference to researcher’s names. I found myself getting mixed up about different people’s theories and how they supported or opposed each other. I think you mention Ryan’s full name after you reference him in the first paragraph of “Mating Systems”.   Be careful that you don’t use the phrase “discussed later”, since it gets hard for readers to track the flow of information. Otherwise, this was a very informative edit that added a significant amount of content. GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I would echo similar sentiments as the other reviewers. I felt that you expanded the article's behavior section quite expansively and added a great deal of interesting detail. I felt like the ordering of your sections was effective and clear and made it really easy to follow. I found it a bit confusing that you referred to studies using the researcher's name. I think just citing the sources at the bottom for reference is sufficient and I found it difficult to remember all the names. Since you refer to the males calls a fair amount, it would be beneficial to the page if you could potentially find a sound clip to add. Multimedia would also be effective in illustrating what you mean by 'choruses serving as centers of attraction'. Overall, however, great job!!! Samara levine (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bullfrog's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USGS":
From Kansas: "Elevations and Distances in the United States". United States Geological Survey. 2001. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
From Snake River: "Boundary Descriptions and Names of Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units and Cataloging Units". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
From Salt River (Arizona): "Boundary Descriptions and Names of Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units and Cataloging Units". United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 2011-04-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello AnomieBOT. It was probably my additions yesterday that worried you though I am unclear quite where the problem lies. I have renamed the reference I used to the USGS but otherwise do not know how to proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This article states twice that they bite and so do not make good pets (including in the lede, which seems to be breaking policy by advising us not to keep them rather than just stating that someone else thinks we shouldn't keep them).  How powerful/dangerous is the bite?  I can't see anything in the article to clarify this (other than that their teeth are very small and only useful for grasping), nor in the cited Petwatch.net website (which doesn't say anything about biting, only that they are an invasive species that eat and spread diseases to native species).  Are their bites really so terrible (presumably worse than a cat or dog) that this is the main (or even just a) reason not to keep them, or is someone ever-estimating the threat they pose? Iapetus (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the references in the article to biting. A Google search for "bullfrog" and "bite" came up with a large number of listings, the majority of which seemed to be about the African bullfrog (Pyxicephalus adspersus). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The American Bullfrog is a common species, which partially explains why the page is pretty complete. There is extensive writing about its breeding practices, including receptivity and sexual difference, mating style and system, competition between males, and group formation of choruses. The article even touches upon aggression and social hierarchy. Feeding is also covered, which includes diet, eating style and what appendages are used and how, and tongue biomechanics specifically. The article mentions the jumping mechanism of the frog and ecology including predators/evasion/invasiveness/immunity. There are numerous cited studies throughout and the coverage is quite thorough. I would appreciate more connection between appearance and reasoning behind its appearance. Does it have any other defensive or offensive procedures against threats? How is the call formed?
The article is rated as vital, of mid importance, and a good article. I would largely agree with these ratings, given how extensive the writings were and how in detail some sections were, especially the one on breeding. The comments and talks section in general is quite dated, with the latest one occurring in 2013. There is discussion about clearing up certain confusions with other species, sleeping, taxonomy, and invasion. Edits about adding information and praises for the article’s expansion in 2012 are merited and I largely agree this article is pretty well-kept. There were a couple of typos I picked up on. AnnieLiu13 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The American bullfrog is a species commonly found in North America in ponds, lakes, and swamps. They’re named after the bull-like sound the males make during breeding season. With their voracious appetite and their ability to jump very high, they can survive in the wild. Some strengths of this article were the behavioral categories, like breeding behavior and feeding. I found the feeding section especially interesting because these frogs can eat anything. They have such a strong appetite that it makes sense why they’ve become invasive species in other places around the world where they’ve been introduced. In this article, some categories that are missing/incomplete are 1) the invasive species subtopic—I think some more information on how they spread around the world would be really interesting. Also, 2) defenses and how this frog defends itself is missing, and 3) predators. Overall, there are a good amount of citations under this frog and the talk page has some good discussions on some potential new additions. It’s ranked as level-5 vital article, which indicates that it gets a lot of attention and holds an important place.
Eylul.horozoglu (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hope you liked that fact 2601:5C9:C300:3990:4C76:A819:36BA:5807 (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 27 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pcr&img37 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Pcr&img37 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

After discussion with the reviewer for this article's GA status (FunkMonk), i believe that this article warrants reassessment as it has come a long way since its GA form. Anthropophoca (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of edits since the GAN have worsened the article, and some parts should be restored to that state. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)