Talk:Frog/Archive 3

message: I am currently  proposing  a  frog wikipoject. If you are interested, please read the proposal, discuss at the proposal page anything you think I should add, and sign up  here. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 01:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frog Wikiproject

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 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could prove a good source for inspiration: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.box.4334 . - Samsara 12:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I think this needs to go in the article. Unfortunately, I don't know the details of it, e.g. which species have which system. - Samsara 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So which part of its anatomy is this frog using to call? - Samsara 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is important for the article. I think there is more than just the two types. I have a book at home which I think covers this, so I will look it up and reply later. It should be noted, that some frogs do not have them at all. Like the Stoney Creek Frog (on the right), has none, although most of its genus does. --liquidGhoul 23:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom vocal sac or pair of sacs through cheeks 

message: Do you think we should split the frogs in culture (including popular culture) section into its own article? At the moment, it is taking up so much space, and is so ugly. If it were its own article people would be able to contribute to it, through more than just bullets, and elaborate on some points.--liquidGhoul 10:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and would also note that it duplicates some of the material in the disambiguation pages. - Samsara contrib talk 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree that biological information should be split from everything else. Three votes are enough to proceed?. Lejean2000 16:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Went ahead with it. - Samsara contrib talk 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Uses section also looks a bit out-of-place Lejean2000 09:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frogs in Culture

message: I found this website. Seems like it has some good evolutionary biology on frogs, but I haven't read it all yet. --liquidGhoul 10:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: I have finally "merged" my frog adaptations article into this article. At the moment it is extremely clunky (just a cut and paste job), so it needs cleaning up to flow with the article. I would love to eventually get rid of all the sub-sections (3 = signs). --liquidGhoul 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current structure actually looks great to me. - Samsara contrib talk 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:LiquidGhoul/Frog adaptations]]

message: Does anyone have a copy of Cyclic Nucleotides in the Nervous System by John W. Daly? Could you check whether it makes the statement cited in the article? Thanks, Samsara contrib talk 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this article by Daly. The statement is correct, though I wouldn't call pseudophrynamine alkaloids unique. Lejean2000 13:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't worried about the statement. I was concerned that the citation does not correspond to a reference at the end of the text. You just can't have floating citations like that in an article that's striving for featured status. So I guess we'll replace "Daly" with the reference you've given. - 86.138.87.64 13:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daly reference 

message: I mistook the second one for a fossil, which is why I put it in the evolution section. If anyone has any further thoughts on this, please let us know! - Samsara contrib talk 10:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like a fossil to me - it's damn well preserved for a fossil and I don't see any traces of restavration  on it. Lejean2000 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frog skeletons 

message: I still feel like the article could use some significant changes to be better organized for feature status, and these are primarily within the "Natural history" section (and more specifically, "Life cycle."). I want to see this article get featured status, so I'm just hoping for improvements here.  Granted, I did make major structural changes earlier today, so I understand if there's some resistance to the idea. But anyway, here's what I'm proposing:
*Life cycle
**Eggs (with a special note about very cool complex egg behavior where in some species, adults lay eggs on leaves above ponds so that the eggs don't get eaten by fish.  Then, because eggs out of water can be eaten by snakes or predaceous wasps, the eggs will hatch early if one of these predators approaches, and fall as early tadpoles into the water. And, of course, I have a reference for this very cool study).
**Tadpoles
**Metamporphosis (because this involves MAJOR changes to the morphology and physiology of amphibans: from herbivores to carnivores, gills to lungs, fins to legs, etc; it deserves more importance than has been provided already).
**Adults
**Reproduction (including amplexus)
**Parental care (not that rare, actually, probably at least present in 20% of species, in one way or another).
*Diet
*Predators
Since this is a major change, I'd like to see some consensus.  But I totally feel that it would be a better organizational scheme and would allow more detail into life cycle.Pstevendactylus 04:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as no information is removed (it seems you want to add more which is great :)), I don't see a problem. However, I think you should wait to see what Samsara says, as he had a lot to do with the formatting of Life cycle. egg --> adult is the normal progession in books, so it has that advantage. --liquidGhoul 06:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure II

message: Stumbled over this passage:
:Most tadpoles are herbivores, eating moss, or filtering small plant particles through their gills.
Surely it is algae that they eat? Moss does not do that well under water afaik. - Samsara contrib talk 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to have a look at this article about tadpoles diet. I too tired to read it this late. IMHO, some moss species can do well on the bottom of lakes and I can easily imagine tadpoles, being bottom feeders, grazing the surface of rocks at the bottom.
Lejean2000 21:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From a brief skim, it looks like 100% algae, esp. diatoms and Oedogonium. So I'll change that to "algae". - Samsara contrib talk 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tadpoles eating moss? 

message: I think it makes sense to present the life cycle starting with tadpoles. This will make it easier to explain the change of diet, and one could finish with the diversity of mating and brood care behaviours. - Samsara contrib talk 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. --liquidGhoul 12:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe this is pedantic, but shouldn't the life cycle start with egg? Pstevendactylus 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of lifecycle 

message: I just uploaded this from flickr - best I could find: 
Samsara contrib talk 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a pretty bad image. Maybe we should just wait until someone takes a good photo of it. It is not necessary for FA. --liquidGhoul 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images: predation image 

message: I have a gift for you guys. --ragesoss 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Would this fit frog or frogs in popular culture better? - Samsara contrib talk 14:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was supposed to be a scientific illustration; while there may be slight exaggerations, all the frogs shown should be real species.  I'll try to scan the opposite page which has the (German) descriptions and names of all the frogs listed.--ragesoss 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Image:Haeckel frogs with labels.jpg and :Image:Haeckel frogs text.jpg for the identities of each frog.--ragesoss 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haeckel frogs

message: Humpback whale is a featured article with an introduction that is shorter than this article. I'd say the one here is long enough, and I've crossed out that task on the todo list to reflect this opinion. Any comments, liquidGhoul, Lejean, anyone else? - Samsara contrib talk 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really agree, but we can let the peer review sort it out I guess. In the normal case, I would just go ahead and do it, but I hate intros so much! :) --liquidGhoul 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of opening 

message: I would argue that we should beef up the conservation status here.  Since we're looking at about a third of the species currently threatened by myriad risks, I would argue that it deserves more than a couple of lines.  The newly re-written introduction to the decline in frog populations page might be a decent summary to add.  Plus, there's a photo of Bufo periglenes.Pstevendactylus 21:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, with all the good info on amphibian declines out there, why is a third of the "distribution and status" section attributed to earthworm feeding?Pstevendactylus 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis on conservation

message: I'm moving through the paragraphs doing general punctuation/grammar editing. I've seen several references to "hands/feet" of frogs. I don't think I've ever seen the front feet of frogs referred to as hands. If this is common, please let me know because I've been removing the "hands" bit.  Joyous | Talk 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the front limbs is often used. However, if you use that, you might as well use hind limbs for the legs. --liquidGhoul 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with using "hands", since their structure is actually homologous with ours. - Samsara contrib talk 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frog hands 

message: :2004. Encyclopedia of Reptiles & Amphibians Second Edition. Fog City Press. .
I'm trying to track this ref down; could the person who added it give some more info or check to see if the ISBN is correct? --DanielCD 22:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is correct. If you would like more info on the book, I could supply it. I wasn't sure of how to write the reference, as there is no author mentioned, just editors (and there are lots!). --liquidGhoul 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I figured that was the case. I just wasn't able to find it. --DanielCD 03:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref

message: The article currently states that most frogs that use camouflage are nocturnal. Is this true? It seems that the ones active in the daytime would be the ones needing protective coloration.  Joyous | Talk 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is harder to distinguish colours during the night, so if something uses camouflage, it is better to do it during the night. Frogs' camouflage techniques are not as refined as reptiles, so it is better not risking it. The diurnal frogs are those which do not worry about predation, ie poison dart frogs.--liquidGhoul 08:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camouflage in frogs? 

message: I removed this sentence that was tacked to the end of the "poison" section, because I don't know what it means. Feel free to deal with it however you see fit. 
*"Edible frogs rely on skin modifications rather than poisons for protection."
--  Joyous | Talk 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edible frogs, poison, and skin modifications 

message: I am not a native English speaker but the following sentence from the Taxonomy section doesn't make any sense to me. Any hints?: The distinction is far from universally accepted, especially because there are few features that are as unique to any group as taxonomists would like.
Lejean2000 07:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bad sentence. I have changed it, how is it now? --liquidGhoul 08:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great ! Lejean2000 09:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy

message: The Global Amphibian Assessment has a figure that I think would be excellent for the "Distribution and status" section posted at http://www.globalamphibians.org/patterns.htm.  It shows the the number of species of amphibians worldwide (ALL amphibians, not frogs alone, so it includes salamanders and caecilians; still the trends for all amphibians should mirror those for frogs).  It also is free to reproduce for educational purposes.  However, I'm not familiar with the procedure for uploading images, nor the procedures for copyrights.  If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to get the scoop. Pstevendactylus 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution figure

message: Hey guys, what do we think of the recently added picture of a frog in a suburban swimming pool? I notice it's not really in the same line as pictures we'd been planning to add to the article. The photographer and uploader added it to the article and went straight to featured picture candidates with it.
Do we think that it exemplifies urban encroachment of frogs, or does it just have odd colours? Do we believe that a frog in a swimming pool is more than a once-off occurrence? - Samsara contrib talk 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it, because it could be considered cruelty to animals. If the pool is in use, and contains chlorine, the first thing I would do, is take it out, and rinse it off. Not sit around and take a photo of it. If the pool is not in use, and does not contain chlorine, then it is a pretty common occurrence. However, the photos we have been adding to the gallery, illustrate the species of frog well, in that you can see the colour and shape of the frog. I don't know if the colour of this frog is accurate (as it turn brown when it is in water), and the body is blurry. Also, I am pretty sure we have a frog that is extremely similar (if not the same species) already in the gallery, and it illustrates it better. The point of the gallery is to illustrate as many different "kinds" of frogs as possible. --liquidGhoul 01:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: F.Y.I. The frog was removed from the pool right as it was being quickly photographed. It or one of the same species has repeatedly jumped into my suburban swimming pool and we have had to atttempt to remove it as it swam through the chlorinated water. I will admit it is not in line with the rest of the pictures on the article and I am going to of course also de-list it from the featured picture candidates page. I added the picture not so much to show the frog, but I thought it would help illustrate the effects urban sprawl has had on frogs. I am offended to be accused of animal cruelty. I have saved dozens of baby turtles that also have "suddenly appeared" in our pool over the years so that they might have a chance to live. I did not "sit around and take pictures of it." One person removed it right as I took a photo of it. Urban sprawl has had serious affects on frogs and I hope you can find a better picture to add to illustrate this very important issue. I am a strong supporter of the ASPCA. The color is actually quite accurate though. Have a nice day, and good luck with this article.  ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swimming pool picture 

message: Just a short comment, as a vegetarian it was really weird to see the article followed by a link to Wikipedia Cookbooks ... I think it's ok, it's just ... weird. ChaTo 12:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarian 

message: Samsara contrib talk 16:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I did mean to say gliding... alas, it was late! 

message: What I suggest we do, seeing that liquidGhoul may not come online for about three more hours or so, is to put the changes in without the subheadings and apply for FA. We can haggle about details later. Sound a plan? I'll be back in half an hour. - Samsara contrib talk 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my slightly modified version here: User:Samsara/frog_life_cycle Main changes are removing headings and substituting "understood" for "known" in one instance. - Samsara contrib talk 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... Haven't you two been busy... :) I don't particularly mind what the formatting is. It is not my forte, however we should go through peer review first, instead of featured article candidate. --liquidGhoul 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not particularly concerned with the formatting either, especially since all but one subheading is a single paragraph. I concur with the peer review status then FA.--Pstevendactylus 02:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once Pstevendactylus (man that is hard to spell) adds his life cycle section, I suggest we go straight to peer review. The AID time is about to run out, and I don't think there is anything we are still missing. --liquidGhoul 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added it, with headings; nominating for peer review now. - Samsara contrib talk 13:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Devious plan

message: Do we have an example of a poison dart frog predator? I know that there is an extremely poisonous newt and a snake that predates it, tolerating high concentrations of the poison. One of the recent textbook examples of variation in the wild. Anything like that for frogs? (There must be...) - Samsara contrib talk 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Behavioural adaptations have surfaced for eating the cane toad in Australia (which has only been here for 70 something years). Feshwater crocs will squeeze their head, and the poison is washed away so they can eat it. Some birds will also eat most of the body, except for the head, where most of the poison is. There is also one snake which is immune to the effects of the poison. I don't have references at the moment, but if you want some I will find it. As for dendrobatids, I have no idea. --liquidGhoul 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predators surviving toxicity 

message: It almost works. We need to find a tag that regulates the height of the frame around a picture, otherwise we won't get happy - IE renders the text a different length and hence puts breaks in different places, resulting in different numbers of lines that mess up the whole layout. We need something that is consistent across browsers, i.e. we need to keep frame height constant by means other than manual breaks. - Samsara contrib talk 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The gallery now works in Firefox 1.5, Internet Explorer and Opera. - Samsara contrib talk 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also works in Safari 2.0.3.  Joyous | Talk 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't work in Firefox 1.0.7 for Linux, though. Is this important to us? Maybe we should make a three-column table instead? - Samsara contrib talk 12:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is customary for web developers to design for all browsers, but if someone is advanced enough to use Linux, they can probably update. I don't want a major change like tables. One thing to note though, is that some of the photos have two line captions, and some have three. That may be the problem. --liquidGhoul 12:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in the Linux version, it's probably in the Windows version as well, but I can't test that. - Samsara contrib talk 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume I've added it in the place that people were thinking...? - Samsara contrib talk 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perfect. --liquidGhoul 09:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery again 

message: I think we've completed the tasks we set out here, should start a new discussion if new matters come up. Takes up a huge bandwidth every time this page loads... Thanks, - Samsara contrib talk 13:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done now. - Samsara contrib talk 18:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we archive the gallery section on this talk? 

message: One of the people who are active at peer review, Fritz S. made an edit suggesting the use of the <gallery> pragma. Since we have no other pictures near it that could conflict, maybe this is a safe choice for now? - Samsara contrib talk 18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery suggestion 

message: This image has a problem: :Image:Megophrys_lateralis.jpg
This one is probably alright: :Image:Nasikabatrachus_sahyadrensis.jpg
All the other ones are fine, either GFDL or PD. - Samsara contrib talk 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn they are both really good photos. --liquidGhoul 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced it with one of Bufo bufo, which means that Bufo is now overrepresented, but the picture was just too good to pass up. - Samsara contrib talk 23:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it will drill into people's mind that toads are frogs. :) --liquidGhoul 02:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyrights