Talk:Australian Green Tree Frog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Australian Green Tree Frog is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Australian Green Tree Frog appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2006.
Peer review Australian Green Tree Frog has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Flag Australian Green Tree Frog is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Australia Portal.
WikiProject Australia To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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". — BrianSmithson 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. — BrianSmithson 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, read the first paragraph of this discussion... --liquidGhoul 11:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_Green_Tree_Frog_20c5.html"