Talk:Australian green tree frog

HIV

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)

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)

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)

Life span

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tony1's Edits

Tony, just some discussion on your edits and suggestions.

1) "It has a very distinct appearance, green or brown in colour with large features"

You removed colour, which makes it seem incomplete. I will also change it to physical features.

2) Suggestion: in comparison with most other frogs in captivity or in the wild? The comparison is unclear. 'throughout the world' appears a few seconds later as well.

It doesn't even mention in the wild, so why would that be an option of ambiguity. Would you rather "globally" than "throughout the world"?

3)Suggestion: So ... Victoria does or doesn't have winters that are too cold for it? Unclear.

Somebody changed this to "Occasionaly it is found in Victoria", it should have said that it is found in northern Victoria.

4) You started one of the paragraphs with "because", and I have always been taught that it is bad style to start a sentence, let alone a paragraph, with because. I really don't like that change.

5) This seems to be something you had a problem with. The repetitions found in the article, were all from the intro. I am not completely aware of the writing style of Wikipedia yet, but with most articles (non-wikipedian) the intro introduces the basic ideas in the article. The rest of the article must expand upon these ideas, which requires the restatment of them. I will give you an example. In the second paragraph of taxonomy, you deleted the leading sentence: "The species has been introduced to both the United States and New Zealand." This section was stated in the intro, but has to be repeated for the readers who are only interested in that section (and therefore skip the lead section). If you remove it, the entire paragraph is not introduced properly and results in fragmentation. "The species has been introduced to two regions in Florida, in the US, possibly through the pet trade." You have basically repeated what you omited from the lead sentence, but placed it within the sentences already there. There is no reason for this, and it just makes it a lot harder to read. The same goes with your other intro repetition changes.

Thanks for your other edits and suggestions.

The Lead section should summarise the main body of the article. This often means that specific points mentioned in the lead section are repeated and amplified in the body of the article. It may be possible to avoid with some elegant variation, but do not worry about too much about it. . -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ALoan, I have always had trouble with the lead section. I tried to have as little repetetion, by keeping out specifics. However during the peer review, the changes made by people suggested that they like some specifics in the lead. E.g. I had originally said "large frog", which was later elaborated on, by adding "up to 100mm". --liquidGhoul 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

'Colour' seems redundant after green or brown; much better removed. 'Physical features' is still unclear; do you mean cancerous tumours, or what? I'm unsure what was wrong with the changes to the NZ/US sentence, which appeared to be much improved, but has now returned to repetitiveness. There's no need to deal with both countries in the opening sentence—that forces you to add more words. Why not deal with one at a time? Tony 23:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is good for the paragraph to have an opening sentence, so as to set the subject of the paragraph. It should flow, from the basics of that subject into the specifics. Your suggestion goes straight into the specifics, making it flow much less. I cannot see the repetition, unless you are talking about the intro (see above).

Yes, your paragraph opening is better, liquidGhoul, don't change it. Since the paragraph is about the US and NZ, its topic sentence (=first sentence) does need to mention both, even at the expence of using a (very) few more words. It would be confusing to have the topic sentence imply that only half the topic (=the US) will be dealt with. Bishonen | talk 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

NZ/US thing is OK, I guess. In 'Ecology', common nouns, such as 'toilet', 'summer', 'sink', and 'dog' have been delinked—turns it into a dictionary. High-value links are welcome, but the higher the density of links, the harder it is to read, the less attractive on the page, and the less likely readers are to hit the focused ones. (See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting). Please note 'compare with', not to for contrasts.

OK, thanks. Also, thanks for the change to the stress call sentence. That is one I have had trouble making flow.

Sounds like a lot of predators: do you mean 'some' or 'several species of' snakes

I see your point, it is mostly snakes, and very few lizards and birds. --liquidGhoul 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

check 'another'—is the three days in addition to the two?

"Another" is not necessary. The eggs hatch after three days from being laid.

Request

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)

Thanks Tony, I like the first one. I will change it now. --liquidGhoul 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Category

How does this article fit into "biology and medicine"? 64.231.72.45 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It fits into biology because it is a form of life. Biology is the study of life. --liquidGhoul 01:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

questions

Some questions that I had while reading the article.

What's a downpipe?

I don't know a synonym for it (maybe there is an American word for it), but I can describe it. It is the pipe that leads from the gutter to the tank. --liquidGhoul 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That'll do it. We call it a downspout (and ours usually don't lead to tanks, but instead to drains or paved areas from which water can run off). Wikipedia is extremely poor in this area, and I'd do some work on it if I knew anything.

How did you know I was American—because I used the phrase "septic tank"? (Just kidding.)

Just a guess. Americans tend to have more of a different vocabulary to Australians than Canada, England etc. We use septic tank too. --liquidGhoul 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of tank do White's tree frogs call from? Ponds or troughs for livestock? Closed tanks for home or city water storage? Septic tanks? (Probably not.)

Closed tanks for home or city water storage. --liquidGhoul 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I put in a link—hope I got it right. Possibly "rain barrel" is closer. I didn't want to make such a big change at this point, but you might consider saying in the opening summary just that the frog is often seen and heard around houses, and saving the downpipes and windows and stuff for the more complete section later.

Actually, I will do that.

How does the color depend on the temperature of the environment?

I will research this, but I think it is that they darken (to brown or browninsh green) when it gets colder. --liquidGhoul 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed "the winter months" to "winter", but is there any difference in Australian usage?

No, it's good. --liquidGhoul 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reorder the paragraph about diet, but decided I couldn't because I don't know whether there's any connection between the WTF's unusual methods of catching prey and the unusual size of its prey. Is there? If so, it probably needs to be explained. If not, the two topics probably shouldn't be in the same sentence.

Yes, there is. If the prey is too large for the frog to use its tongue, then it will capture it by pouncing. I have changed it to say that. Thanks for pointing it out. --liquidGhoul 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, but do you want to add that the WTF eats prey that are bigger in comparison to its size than other frogs, which the previous version implied? (Or would that be true? I had the impression that other frogs ate with their hands too.)

—JerryFriedman 15:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it was just worded wrong before. The prey must be about the size of its head to eat it (the basic rule for all frogs). Some other frogs eat with their hands too, this doesn't say that it is unique, they are just in the minority. --liquidGhoul 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. —JerryFriedman 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It does, thankyou. --liquidGhoul 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to say that WTF change color to match the environment. this is a misconception commonly held about color-changing organisms. more accurately, the color changes according to temperature (as the article says) and mood. I don't think a WTF would, say, turn brown to match a brown log. It would turn brown because it was cold, or frightened. I'm not sure about this though. Don't have any sources. ---a reader

I would say that temperature has more of an effect on the colour, than does the colour of the surrounding environment. However, you will find that some frogs never go green because of their location. It is not instant, in that they will turn brown on a log, however, they will be brown, if they are constantly in a brown environment. This is something I am interested in, and am continuing my research on it. I would like to find scientific papers on it, as all I have found so far is "pet care" type articles. --liquidGhoul 02:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation Change

I have changed the capitalisation convention for common names of species in this article. This is mainly because I wanted consistancy in the Litoria article, and I prefer all capitals to none. I had originally made the article like this, however someone changed in the process. If anyone has any objections, can you please voice them here. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I think I prefer lower case, but the WP:MOS says:

Whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter has been hotly debated in the past and has remained unresolved. As a matter of truce both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but a redirect should be created from the alternative form.

So either is acceptable. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(This discussion is pretty old, but:) Full disclosure: I hate the all-caps convention. But based on the MoS, either form is correct. Still, it would seem that that original title should be given precedence. This is how we handle which version of English is going to be used, for example, to prevent edit wars over whether to say "neighbor" or "neighbour". — Amcaja 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. First of all, I am the one who created the article, and I am the one who changed it back to capitals. Secondly, the "original" title was "White's Tree Frog", it was first changed by Neutrality to "White's tree frog" when I asked him to do a copy edit of the article, and I changed it back to the original name later down the track when I found that both were acceptable. I am not going to get into another capitalisation argument, they piss me off, but you should look at the history of the article before you make claims like that. --liquidGhoul 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. If you originally created the article at "White's Tree Frog", then that term should be preferred. The specifics don't matter; my point was that the original page title should be preferred, whatever it may have been. Sheesh. — Amcaja 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, read the first paragraph of this discussion... --liquidGhoul 11:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming?

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)

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)

Blue colour

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)

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)

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

ok concern... my frog wont eat!!! four days and not one cricket gone! new to our home but it is a GREAT set up, and i have had other frogs, snakes, lizards... you name it! any ideas now...

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)

Citations 1

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)

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)

Citations 2

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) Collette

White, J. 1790. Journal of a voyage to new South Wales, with sixty-five plates of non descript animals, birds, lizards, serpents, curious cones of trees and other natural productions. Debrett, London, 229 pp. full citation;

also avail California Academy of Sciences as listed here

White, J. 1790 [Ref ID: 4654]

Journal of a voyage to New South Wales with sixty-five plates of non-descript animals, birds, lizards, serpents, curious cones of trees and other natural productions. Journal of a voyage to New South Wales with sixty-five plates of non descript animals, birds, lizards, serpents, curious cones of trees and other natural productions.: 1-297, Pls. 1-65. [See Paxton et al. 1989:12 [ref. 12442] for remarks on authorship in this work.]

(talk) 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Courtesy of Ellin Beltz:

Taxonomy of this species

Rana Caerulea White, 1790, J. Voy. New South Wales: 248. Type(s): Formerly in Leverian Museum (now widely dispersed and the types are presumed lost); see Tyler and Dobson, 1973, Herpetologica, 29: 373-375. Type locality: "New South Wales", Australia.

Hyla cyanea Daudin, 1803 (An. XI), Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 43. Types: Not formally designated, but including specimens noted by Schneider, 1799, under Rana austrasiae, and under "The blue frog" of White, 1790, J. Voy. New South Wales: 248, pl. iv. Type locality: "Nouvelle Hollande". Synonymy by Daudin, 1803 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 43; Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 174; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 30-31, 75; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 577; Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 119; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 383.

White got precedence due to the 1790 date... note it is called "the blue frog" of White, 1790, Journal of the Voyage to New South Wales, page 24, plate iv. Type locality is given as New Holland.

Amphibian Species of the World 5.3, an Online Reference http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php American Museum of Natural History

C-M-R-H (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

green tree frog

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)

Green Tree Frog and Dogs

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!

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)Adam220.253.213.145 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Featured article review?

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

Head photo NOT Litoria caerulea

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)

As for the picture, remember to change the category on Wikimedia Commons as well then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Heya they are right that is a Litoria splendida, not Litoria caerulea cheers Faendalimas ^talk 12:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the commons categories. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Normative usage of "genus"

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)

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)

Scientific Name ?

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)

I'd also like to request that the currently accepted name be what's shown in the taxobox and be consistent throughout the article. Davecw (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)