Talk:Australian green tree frog

message: According to this article, the skin secretions of White's tree frog have the abillity to destroy HIV. I am not comfertable with putting this in the article yet, as I think it is not really useful for an encyclopaedic article, until there is a use for the peptides. E.g., if it is used as a preventative or cure. What are your thoughts? --liquidGhoul 03:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would include this information. Even though this may turn out to not be a cure for HIV, the fact that it is being investigated and you have a citation is good enough. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree- I think including this information helps to provide more interesting information other than the basic facts about this frog. Even if research is inconclusive on its effects on HIV, I think it still is useful to mention that the frog's peptides were even considered as a cure or prevention. Madisonjb (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV

message: The life span in captivity is specifically mentioned, is the lifespan in the wild known? Since they are referred to as long lived in the conservation status, it'd be good to have the figure.--nixie 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically all I can find on it, is statements like this: "life span in the wild is much shorter due to heavy predation" (source). However, I don't trust this, as there is no actual research cited, and I think it would be nearly impossible to figure out their avergae life span in the wild. I wouldn't mind adding "the average life span in the wild is shorter, due to predation" as that statement is safer. As 1) if predation is the only thing that causes shorter life, then I am sure that there have been frogs that have reached an old age (and not saying average gives the impression of all frogs live shorter life) and 2) "heavy predation" is a phrase I would like to avoid. --liquidGhoul 03:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One last query- the lead now says they live for 16 years- is there a reference for this?- If not I think it's safest to say that it lives for over 10 years--nixie 01:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the ADW site, they say it is 16 years, and cite (Duellman, 1986). I don't know if this is good enough reference, so if you still don't like it, I will change it. I have noticed that it says 15 years lower, so I will change that to 16. --liquidGhoul 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It gerat the it'd got a reference, I was just corious when I saw it was added by a new editor to the page.--nixie 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right, that was me. I got the 16 years from the "life span" section of this article which is noted in Note#4 which is being used to reference the same info in the last paragraph of the "Ecology and behaviour" section. --maclean25 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Life span

message: Can someone fix this sentence, I have tried but cannot get anywhere. The problem is with the second section, it is far too fragmented. 
 Like many frogs, White's tree frogs call not only to attract a mate; they will also call outside mating season, usually after rain, to advertise their location, for unknown reasons. 
Is this any better?
 Like many frogs, White's tree frogs call not only to attract a mate; they have been observed calling to advertise their location outside the mating season, usually after rain, for reasons that are uncertain to researchers. 
I avoided the implication that the frogs are uncertain. If you're unhappy with the number of commas (I think they're ok), try:
 Like many frogs, White's tree frogs call not only to attract a mate; they have been observed calling to advertise their location outside the mating season, usually after rain; the reasons for this behaviour are uncertain. 
If you don't like two semicolons in the same sentence (nothing wrong with that, IMV), consider turning the second one into a full stop.
Tony 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: How does this article fit into "biology and medicine"? 64.231.72.45 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It fits into biology because it is a form of life. Biology is the study of life. --liquidGhoul 01:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I have seen some discussion about the naming of this article around the place, and was wondering what the community thought would be the best name for this article. Should it stay White's Tree Frog, or move to Australian Green Tree Frog. I am pretty neutral on the subject, but slightly favour Australian Green Tree Frog, so does anyone have any opinions on it? --liquidGhoul 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all the Australian frog books I own this species is plain and simply refered to as the Green tree Frog, however the texts that I own that refer to the species as the whites tree frog are all american published (probably refering to it as whites tree frog in order to avoid confusion with the american green tree frog). I believe the Australian Green Tree Frog would be a better name for the article because it is an Australian species and almost all australian authors would refer to this species as the green tree frog. Also the majority of Australian people in generaly would refer to this species as the Green Tree Frog not the Whites Tree Frog. However I dont really mind what the articles is called, because I mostly use scientific names when talking about frogs (as common names get confusining when there is more than 1 name-like for this species).--Tnarg 12345 09:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming?

message: You mention that there are both blue and green pigments, and a yellow layer.  Is there a reference for this is?
My understanding was that there is a yellow pigment, over a skin layer that refracted the light and made it appear blue (similar to Rayleigh light scattering that makes the sky look blue).  When the frogs were preserved in alcohol (ethanol) the yellow pigment dissolved leaving a blue frog.  If you've ever put a green Litoria frog into alcohol the alcohol turns yellow within a few weeks.  I'll look for a reference.
:This is where I got it from. --liquidGhoul 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies for not signing, I'm new to Wikipedia and assumed it automatically happened.
The reference for the info you referenced is a TFH book, so I'm even more sceptical now.  I'll track down the TFH book, and also see what I can find in a decent text.
The webarticle you referenced for the pigment info contains several glaring errors (which you largely left alone), notably about behaviour.  It must be noted that GTF's are widespread, and it's possible the Northern and South-eastern Australian populations are different subspecies, as they can be distinguished by skin peptides (reference available).  They also have different coloured thigh flashes.
If you're interested and time permits I'd like to discuss several points in your article, but give me some time to find references to support any changes.
Stevew139 06:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, anything to improve it is good. --liquidGhoul 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A frog not eating is a symptom for a huge number of problems. If you have a problem, go and see a vet. Also, make sure you clean out your tank pretty often. The most common cause of illness in frogs is bacterial infection from dirty enclosures. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue colour 

message: I was looking around at some of our shorter FAs wondering if any might need to go to the Wikipedia:Featured article review. I don't think this one needs a full review, but it's a little weak with citations: Taxonomy, Distribution, and Conservation could use one or two more. Anybody around? Marskell (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, had a go myself. There's a couple of stray sentences that could use a source but I think it's basically back up to standard. Marskell (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 1 

message: A couple of points about color and this curious little "blue" frog, and perhaps even just an oversight; but:
The Australian green treefrog has actually been photographed in its blue phase... recently... 
Please refer to the following wonderfully insightful and incredibly-well researched book written by Ellin Beltz, "Frogs: Inside Their Remarkable World" (Firefly Books, Copyright 2005); noting, please, that this referenced work was not quoted and/or used in conjunction with the currently created Wiki page on Australian Treegrogs.
Ellin Beltz holds degrees in both biology and geology, and is a widely-recognized and well-respected herpetologist.  She is a long-time member of the Chicago Herpetological Society and, having written about frogs for over 20 years and teaching at Northeastern Illinois University, the Morton Arboretum, and Trinity Christian College, she is most certainly an authoratative resource for this information.  
On page 111 in "Frogs" we see a beautiful photograph of the Australian Green Treefrog in its legendary-blue phase (photograph B.G. Thomson/Photo Researchers Inc.).
As cited in the paragraph below the above-referenced photograph:  "Australian green treefrogs, Litoria caerulea, are usually green, but their name means "blue."  For years, books have been suggesting the frog changed color in the preservative used to send it back to England.  More recently, however, the unusually blue-colored phase has been photographed in the wild.  These frogs are relatively common across a wide band of northern Australia, although some declines have been reported." 
  
Of note:  
Within this same "blue tribe" of frogs, namely litoria caerulea, we can observe their change of color as displayed by White's Treefrog.  The blue phase of this particularly lovely little frog is widely photographed; and a sample can be found at http://whitestreefrogs.blogspot.com/ .  While this site may be said by some to be a rather less than celebratedly-scholarly site, it is nevertheless informative and thoughfully presented by one Arley C. 
: http://whitestreefrogs.blogspot.com/      Look for Dumpy. 
C-M-R-H (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 2 

message: the green tree frog is a light green unless its changes colour it can change to a darker green throughout the day  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.12.151 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  green tree frog 

message: I thought this might be a good addition somewhere in your excellent article just to highlight the danger to your pet if it managed to grab a Green Tree Frog.
Green tree frogs are not poisonous like cane toads however they can have a very serious even fatal effect on some dogs. Frogs exude a repellant, just like toads - it is their only protection against predators - toads are very toxic, frogs less so. It doesn't have any effect on some dogs other than to taste nasty but some dogs can have a severe reaction to it. Best practice is to wipe your dogs mouth out with a wet washer (including gums, tongue and teeth) thoroughly to remove any frog/toad juices.
Very best practice is to prevent the dog from getting the frog/toad in the first place!http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=179124
there is also a CSIRO article here on the toxins http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO04019.htm
220.253.213.145 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Tree Frog and Dogs 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article review is currently working through featured articles that have not been reviewed in the last 8 years and this article is listed near the top. I notice that there was a featured article review on Cane toad, that seemed to benefit the article (which retained its FA status). So, a nomination might benefit this article too. Specifically, my concerns are:
#The article is less than half the readable prose size of other featured articles in the same subject area: Green and golden bell frog, Common toad and Cane toad, indicating that the article might not be comprehensive. For example, this source (used in the article) says some taxonomists place the species in the Pelodryas genus, but there's no mention of this in the article.
#The sentence on HIV. The source appears to be a news story, but if the secretions were useful than there ought to be more substantial coverage in the scientific literature.
#There are some statements, such as that its lifespan is long for a frog and that reduction in numbers is difficult to spot, that ought to have citations. DrKiernan (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review? 

message: I deleted the photo at the end of the article which is clearly that of Litoria splendida. Also, why is this creature repeatedly referred to as White's Tree Frog when I have never heard of it being referred to as anything but the Green Tree Frog. Is this just more US cultural imperialism? Please change this! 2001:8003:A015:BC01:E9B0:B120:5866:29BD (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the picture, remember to change the category on Wikimedia Commons as well then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, by "head", you meant "main" photo, this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caerulea3_crop.jpg It is a featurred image, so should probably be looked into. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Heya they are right that is a Litoria splendida, not Litoria caerulea cheers Faendalimas talk 12:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've changed the commons categories. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this conversation, as I haven't been active for years. But the photo in question was definitely Litoria caerulea. I have requested the image name be changed back on Commons and I will be replacing the photo as it is a featured picture. The frog was found in Stratford, NSW. It is thousands of kilometres from the range of L. splendida and is definitely caerulea. Spotty caerulea are common in some areas, and it's good that this commonly misidentified feature is on their wiki page. Cheers --liquidGhoul (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head photo NOT Litoria caerulea 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian green tree frog. 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/20110701212846/http://www.perthzoo.wa.gov.au/animals-plants/australia/nocturnal-house/green-tree-frog/ to http://www.perthzoo.wa.gov.au/animals-plants/australia/nocturnal-house/green-tree-frog/
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) 15:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian green tree frog. 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/20051127014409/http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_froghiv.htm to http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_froghiv.htm
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) 11:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For the normative syntax of the combination of "genus" with an associated Linnaean name, see any of the following Google Ngrams: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6. I hope the pattern is obvious. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement from me there - I spend time doing precisely this change on various biology pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normative usage of "genus" 

message: Numerous examples on web and five in the article's own reference area use the name Litoria caerulea. If the current Ranoidea caerulea has a valid source, please considering adding discussion\explanation of the two variations in the first paragraph.TomStonehunter (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific Name ?