Talk:Frog zoology

message: frogs are anphibianstext'Frogs can breathe by absorbing oxygen through their skin directly from water.  Although Toads are usually found on dry land, can they also absorb oxygen in the same way?--````JimB72
The frog/toad distinction is not universal.  While most frogs spend most of their adult life in water, some are strictly terrestrial.  Similarly, some toads are aquatic.  The degree to which the frog/toad lives on land is proportional to how permeable their skin is to oxygen, carbon dioxide, and most importantly, water.  Doctor K 0101 15:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frogs vs. Toads and yesin ding ding 

message: Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: How long does a frog stay a tadpole?
:It is dependent on the species, some it is a few weeks, and for others it can be a few years. The main influence on it is the environment. If the water is going to dry up fast, they will develop fast, if they are in the tropics, they can develop very slow. Also, some undergo direct development, so you could say the minimum is 0 days. --liquidGhoul 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add 

message: All tetrapods, including not just frogs but all reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals, descend from those same sarcopterygian fishes.  The first paragraph is remarkably misleading.
Unless someone else does it, I'm going to rewrite that intro.
CarlFink 04:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It never says that reptiles etc. didn't evolve from the amphibians, they are never mentioned. However, the person who wrote it over simplified, and it sounds bad. I don't think the info is even neccesary. Everything that should be in that section is already in the Frog article, under evolution. This article is more for the complex subjects within frog zoology, particularly to do with physiology. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 04:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We were all once fishes 

message: Is it true that frogs use their eyes to help them swallow? Could this be added if so?
:It is true. I will see what I can do in adding it. Thanks for the suggestion. --liquidGhoul 13:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digestion 

message: "Many higher-class animals (including perch, rats, and humans) show superficial bilateral symmetry."
What?  Why is that in an article on frog zoology?  Why is the Symmetry section even there?  Any objection to its removal?
CarlFink 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fearful symmetry? 

message: There should be a section on the metamorphic stages of a frog, specifically describing how a frog grows from an embryo to a larval stage, i.e. a tadpole) and then metamorphosizes to its adult frog form.  With time, I will try to add this.
As well, other physiological functions described in this article should be updated to reflect the various metamorphic stages of the frog.  For instance, the embryonic frog obtains oxygen through its skin, but in most species, the tadpole uses gills to obtain oxygen and the adult uses its lungs to obtain oxygen.
Doctor K 0101 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metamorphic stages and respiration 

message: Why is the introduction after the table of contents, that just looks wierd compared to the rest of wiki. Standardizing of looks and style help people gather and understand knowledge quickly. Also, why am I assaulted with someone trying to tell me a story about how everything comes from the oceans and how amphibians are the remaining species of these earlier ones. First, this is a frog article, not an amphibian article, explaining about amphibians is not relavent. Second, is there really any solid connection to modern amphibians (specifically frogs) and the first to emerge as life coming from the oceans? I have never heard of an ocean frog, they all seem to prefer rivers and lakes, although some specific individual species might get along on the coast, I doubt they have been living there for millions of years. Theres alot of stuff in between the oceans and the rivers, especially in Pangea (unless my geography is rather off), before the ice ages that formed many of the biggers lakes and inland water systems. Obviously this means that the original oceanic amphibian species adapted to become river and lake ones at some point, after adapting to land and losing scales, probably in the time period of the Labyrinthodont and Lepospondyli, which preceeded the modern amphibians families. So any direct connection between the first land life on this planet and frogs seems to be a rather far stretch on te part of someone trying to make frog zoology sound specifically grand and large. It should speak for itself and not need some build up with useless information. If it can't speak for itself, it should be absorbed and merged into frog and amphibian and zoology articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: About 600 million years ago, some members of the sarcopterygian group of fish moved onto land. These became the first amphibians. Today, these animals still spend part of their lives in water and return to water for reproduction.
Um, no.  Some of their descendants still spend part of their lives in water, but others (say, we humans) do not, and still others (manatees, for example) spend 100% of their lives in water. 
I'll rewrite if no one else wants to.--CarlFink (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange evolutionary thinking 

message: This page should probably be merged with the main frog article.  There's little new information here, much more information on the Frog page, and what little information is missing from the main page is unsurpirsing and uninteresting primitive characters like having cranial nerves and such.  IMHO, a few sentences could be moved from this page to the main page, and this page could be deleted, concentrating the information in a single, easy-to-find place.  Mokele (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller? Mokele (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the delete tag and restored the article, leaving the clean-up and merge tag. I don't think it needs to be merged, it needs to be improved. cygnis insignis 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  What possible benefit is there to having a separate article, when the main article already covers so much? Mokele (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It is hardly a small topic, I fail to see any lack of notability or ways of expanding and improving it. It has not suffered from lack of interest, from editors and 3 to 6 thousand viewers per month in the last year. Why are you so keen to delete it? cygnis insignis 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that the content is bad overall (though a large portion of this page is either inaccurate or an inappropriate generalization based on Ranids).  It's that much of it duplicates what is in Frog, and it seems like a much better idea to keep all of this info on one page, rather than on two pages with overlapping info.  It's also a bit odd considering that the term "Frog zoology" covers the entire contents of frog - everything about frogs (their evolutuon, physiology, life history, etc) could be labeled "frog zoology", making this page merely a duplicate.  I'm also not aware of any other animal which has a "____ zoology" page (though several have specific pages for specific parts of their zoology that are notable, such as feeding mechanisms or evolution).  As a whole, I'm just not sure why there should be two pages, especially since fusing them would make the information easier to find. Mokele (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of the article shows it to be very unstable, large sections have disappeared into the void. It is not as good as Frog, which doesn't need much expanding, but it could be another legitimate fork of that article. The name could be changed, or split into the topics you have mentioned. There is no reason to merge it, effectively deleting it, and there is plenty of scope for improving it. cygnis insignis 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow why you actually disagree with the merger.  My reasons are: 1) much of the information is a duplicate of frog, 2) splitting the information into two pages makes it harder for the reader to find, especially since there's no way for them to know a priori the contents and omissions of each, 3) it violates the wikipedia policy on consistency, as no other animal has a _____ zoology page, 4) if overlaps are removed, this article becomes very short, very quickly, and 5) while it could be improved, it's so poorly written and inaccurate that it would be better to simply move the information over to frog.  Do you dispute any of these, or have alternate reasons for wishing to preserve it?  I'm just not entirely sure why you're keen on keeping it in light of its litany of flaws. Mokele (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and how do you find out how many visitors a page has had?  I'm more of a content person, so I'm not very well versed in a lot of wiki tools and suchlike. Mokele (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal