Talk:Strawberry Poison-dart Frog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Oophaga pumilio in Captivity
Hyperbole? "vast quantities", "huge increase"... without a reference, these sounds exaggerative.--Leperflesh 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oophaga vs. Dendrobates
Is it right to be changing the name? As far as I'm aware, Oophaga has yet to become accepted by the scientific community outside of a single paper proposing the massive reclassification you're undoubtledly familiar with, and I believe it's still in the review process. Correct me if I'm wrong here.--OneTwentySix 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely, and have been leaving comments to this effect on other dart frog pages. However, it seems there are at least three or four wiki folks eagerly implementing the new systematics.
- the real problem is, there is no "taxonomic authority" which decides when a proposed ordering should or should not be adopted. Thus, it is not really "incorrect" to start using even a controversial and problematic study such as this one. I personally think Wikipedia should reflect "the consensus view" as an encyclopedic source, while acknowledging the proposed changes, but I lack the authority to enforce my own opinion.--Leperflesh 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "recently"
Throughout the article are statements like "recently, x has happened". This is poor form, because an article's text can remain for years, and there is no specific date attached to a given article. Instead, we should be indicating dates or date-ranges in which things changed. I lack the reference sources to indicate such dates, but I thought I'd give others a chance to insert them before I go ahead and remove most or all such statements in the article. --Leperflesh 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photograph
The frog photograph listed as the "Basti" morph looks more like a Man Creek to me. Any thoughts? --OneTwentySix 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
