User talk:Tnarg 12345

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to Wikipedia. I love your frog photographs, I have uploaded heaps on my time here, but my location restricts the species I encounter. I hope you can add more in the future. Thanks for the contributions.

Do you have any other photos of frog species you are willing to upload? --liquidGhoul 10:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's great to hear, I am glad we are starting to get some more Australian frog enthusiasts here. I've only in the past three years gotten into frogs, and have only photographed 10 or 11 species. This last year when I got serious about it, I got most of these, so hopefully next season will be better for frogs (way too dry last/this year), and my photo collection will increase.
Just a quick question. I created the White's Tree Frog article a while ago, and since it has gained featured article status, I haven't been able to add much. There were two things that I really wanted to improve the article. One, was a photo of a L. caerulea which is brown, and the second was a photo of a Magnificent Tree Frog (Litoria splendida). Do you have either of these? --liquidGhoul 08:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Mixophyes iteratus is one of the frogs I want to see the most. They are so beautiful. I noticed your Heleiopous australiacus, and have added it to the Heleioporus (which I created just for it) and Giant Burrowing Frog articles. I also cropped it a bit, as it is hard to see in the taxobox window unless it is tightly cropped. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I have cropped the photo again, and added to the article. It is a beautiful frog. Looking forward to the rest. :) --liquidGhoul 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the L. caerulea photo, I have cropped it and added it to the article. --liquidGhoul 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Mixophyes iteratus tadpole.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mixophyes iteratus tadpole.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limondynastidae and Myobatrachidae

The taxonomy of the Australian ground frogs is very confusing. If you read this and this it expains why it is and gives the scientific papers. This website is my main source for taxonomy. I don't know whether Cogger or Tyler have accepted this taxonomy, as Cogger hasn't released a new book in 6 years (and I doubt he will again as he has retired), and Tyler, Grigg and Barker baven't released one in 11 years. Hopefully the big time difference in between Tyler's book is because of a major change in taxonomy (though I doubt it). --liquidGhoul 00:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. --liquidGhoul 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I will ask on WP:TOL. Could you post a copy of the email? --liquidGhoul 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Great thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought

Do you have any photos from a frog family which is not represented with a photo in List of Anuran families? You said that you had some frog photos from overseas, and was hoping that you might have gotten one. Thanks --liquidGhoul 03:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Taxobox

There is no coding for that. If you would like to enquire about with the people who created the template, ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage. They may even have something for that situation, however I could not find it, and I don't think it is completely neccesary. Firstly, I changed the conservation status to "See Text". If you could write a section called "Conservation status", that problem is sorted. As for the common name, I suggest changing it to Verreaux's Tree Frog, as Tyler, Grig and Barker call them "Verreaux's Alpine Tree Frog" and "Verreaux's Tree Frog". This gets rid of the complication caused by having two common names which are so different. Otherwise, call the article "Litoria verreauxii". I prefer the former option. --liquidGhoul 07:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L. wilcoxi female

I've added the photo of a female L. wilcoxi to the Stoney Creek Frog article. --liquidGhoul 09:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

Thought you might be interested in joining this WikiProject. It is only very new, and needs as many people as possible. Also, you should join up to WP:TOL. --liquidGhoul 08:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep --liquidGhoul 08:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L. barringtonensis

You say on your user page that you would like to find Litoria barringtonensis. IT is no longer recognised as a species, and has been merged with Litoria phyllochroa. I was also very interested in finding this frog, as I used to live very near Barrington, however it isn't its own species. :( --liquidGhoul 08:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This has a good explanation of why it is not its own species (citing some pretty recent papers, from biologists I know of). I will read the 1999 article cited there tomorrow, and see what it says about it. --liquidGhoul 09:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I still doubt it is L. pearsoniana, as the distribution of L. pearsoniana is nowhere near that of Barringtion, or what I know of L. barringtonensis' distribution. I don't quite know why it is talking about a hybrid zone, but the sympatric statement says that L. phyllochroa and L. barringtonensis have an overlapping distribution. So that is why I am leaning towards phyllochroa, as they would have to extend the distribution of L. pearsoniana from temperate, norther NSW to an area which includes Barrington Tops National Park, which is very cold. I don't think many species can quite manage that. Just wait until tomorrow, I will read the paper, and see what conclusions are drawn. --liquidGhoul 11:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just read the paper, and it is extremely complicated. Through genetic testing (including mDNA), they concluded that the L. phyllochroa species group (a group within the L. citropa species complex) was split into three species. Species A (Litoria nudidigitus), Species B (Litoria phyllochroa) and Species C, which is not nameable. There are lots of taxonomic rules which restrict the naming of the species, and not enough work was possible on this species, so it has remained un-named. Of the choices, there were L. pearsoniana and L. barringtonensis, however it would require description of the species, which was not possible in this study. There was also a call for a morphological and call analysis study as part of the conclusion, as there is a problem with the orignial descriptions for L. phyllochroa. Since it is sympatric with Species C, the original description may have included frogs which were from both Species C, and L. phyllochroa. This obviously is a problem, as what used to be variability in the species may actually be different species! --liquidGhoul 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
What you need to do when there is a problem like this, is mention in the articles concerned. Just a statement in the intro or taxonomy section which states that L. pearsoniana and L. barringtoniensis may be of the same species (in both articles), and that the morphological differences between L. phyllochroa and L. pearsoniana, L. barringtoniensis has not been properly studied yet. Otherwise it is not NPOV (which is a big deal on Wikipedia). --liquidGhoul 10:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geckoes

Yes, definetally upload the gecko photos. If you cannot find a suitable species article, you can also place the pictures within genus, feamily etc. articles. Also, you only need to create a stub if you don't feel like creating a decent sized article. Most of the articles on Wikipedia are stubs. Make the taxobox, add a sentence or two, categorise it, and add "reptile-stub" in double curly brackets to the article.

[edit] L. tasmaniensis

Do you have a Limnodynastes tasmaniensis with the orange line down the middle? It would be good to be able to illustrate it in the article. Thanks --liquidGhoul 06:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B. marinus

How good is your Cane Toad photo? I would like to replace the current one(s), they are pretty low quality. --liquidGhoul 09:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it then. I am sure it won't be hard to get someone to take a good photo of one. --liquidGhoul 10:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi, I love your frog pictures. I'm not sure if you take requests, but since you are in Sydney do you think it would be possible for you to get a picture of the Australian Stock Exchange (like the one currently in the Sydney article) and the Reserve Bank of Australia?--Peta 06:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations please

Could you please cite your moprh survival rate submission please. I am trying to get the article featured, and it needs to be meticulously cited. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L. latopalmata images

The photos were too large, and were staggered in my resolution (1280x1024). When it comes to image placement, there can be many problems. As people use different browsers, operating systems and resolutions, you need to take that into account when designing a page. Try not to have any photos within too close a proximity, as this usually causes a problem. With the L. latopalmata page, it shouldn't matter at the moment which paragraph it is included in. The user will still see it when they are reading about the eggs. If the article gets larger, then you should be able to format it th way you want, as there will be more room to fit the images. --liquidGhoul 12:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Here is the Australian blank map, and here is the page from which I got it. Good luck. --liquidGhoul 07:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not again... :)

I have to admit that originally I had never really looked into this frog. When I saw the genus, I did a search and found that AMNH had merged the genera. They tend to be very up-to-date with research, but I have learnt after the Rheobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae incident, to make sure the research is accepted elsewhere (like in Australia), so I checked frogs.org.au, which has just done a huge update, and they also classified it as Crinia, saying that Bryobatrachus is an old name (at the bottom). Assuming there was no contention, I changed the Myobatrachidae article. Now, I have just done some research, reading the paper that merged the genera again, and I am sticking with my decision. I reccomend you read it, here, starting at page 304. The most important is at start of 305. It was written in 2001, so Marion Anstis may not have been able to include it in her book, as it was published just the next year. As for the Tasmanian National Parks, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife is terrible with their scientific names. They place Cyclorana albogutta in the Litoria genus, and spell lots of them wrong. --liquidGhoul 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of things have been left open in the Crinia genus. They need to split it so C. tasmaniensis and C. nimbus are within their own genus, and this needs to be stated somewhere in Wikipedia. I am in the same boat as you though, as I have exams next week, and Monday week. Though, I may be able to do something. We'll see. --liquidGhoul 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megistolis

If the Frogs Australia Network and ARC have adopted it, then I would say that it is probably right. I haven't read the paper, but I will get it some time. I can't be bothered at the moment. Again, we should mention it in the article, and redirect from Megistolis to the species article if it is created. --liquidGhoul 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Heleioporus range.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Heleioporus range.PNG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family maps

Since you are procrastinating, and making lots of maps (don't you have exams?), would you be willing to make some maps for the frog families, using the blank world map with no borders? I would like to improve the List of Anuran families article by adding distribution maps for all families, however I won't add them to the table until all are created. I will be creating maps when my holidays start (Monday week), but if you could help, that would be great. I have already done Ascaphidae. Thanks --liquidGhoul 02:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You basically have to search for each family individually. I used amphibiaweb for Ascaphidae. --liquidGhoul 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It is very hard to get people who copyright their images to use them on Wikipedia. You can't just ask for permission, they have to agree to put it under a free licence (either GFDL or Creative Commons). People are really trying to get rid of fair use, so it is better not introducing new ones. You could ask him which ones he would be willing to release under free licences or something. Also, you must mention that under a free licence, the images can be used for commercial purposes, as that is the main deterent for people. Here is a good page on the subject. --liquidGhoul 03:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:List of Anuran families, I have listed all the families. If you are about to start a map, check the list, bold the one you are about to start, and strike it out once it is uploaded. I have only striked out Ascaphidae. Strike out all those you have done. Thanks --liquidGhoul 10:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is too hard to go with introduced ranges for entire families. You have no idea what has been introduced to less regulated countries like America. There are just too many variables. You would have to include Hylidae in New Zealand, and whatever the hell has been introduced into Hawaii, and other Pacific islands which have very little information on them. Also, would you include Pipidae in Australia. It has been introduced, it has probably not survived though. You can't keep the information factually consitent. --liquidGhoul 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Litoria littlejohni

What's with the Litoria littlejohni? How'd you find it, and in Sydney? --liquidGhoul 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is pretty impressive. I am aware they are at Watagans (what isn't). I am planning on camping there for a while in the holidays to see some new species (for me). I haven't heard of Darkes Forest though. I read recently that the most recorded calling at one time is 10, so that is cool. Did you get any recordings of the call, as they are the least recorded frog in Aus. Did you find any other species (common or not, it is still cool to hear they are going well)? --liquidGhoul 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leiopelmatidae

Great that you have supplied a distribution map for my NZ frog articles. Only thing is, the actual distribution on a world-wide map is almost invisible. Any chance of a NZ map, so that the distribution shows up more clearly? There is a Wiki guy in NZ who does maps & might be able to help. Interested? Cheers GrahamBould 09:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a little invisible. Maybe use a New Zealand map for the article, and we can use the world map for the table when they are finally imported, to keep things consitent. I will have a look at what looks best when I have time, I have a feeling it would be pointing to it with an arrow. --liquidGhoul 09:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
User 'Furius' may be able to collaborate with maps. He has done lots of NZ ones (see article on "Taranaki", picked at random). Good luck. GrahamBould 10:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Crossed messages, I think. Furius's maps might be preferable as they are simpler/clearer & don't have the political stuff & cities which really aren't relevant. But you don't need my permission! Anything you do would be great. I'm also wondering if a Genus map would be very helpful, if each of the 4 species had their own map... Cheers GrahamBould 10:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How about :Image:NZ-Akaroa.png as a base? I think I will use this to have a go at maps for some other NZ articles I've written. GrahamBould 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You are a star, Tnarg. You beat me to it. Only comment is - Archeys map doesn't display.

A general comment is that it seems there is always going to be a problem with some animal with an extremely limited range. Maud Island Frog is a good example, only a few square metres. One way is a series of maps, maybe world with a box around NZ, then NZ with a box around northern South Island, then a detailed map of northern South Island showing the actual location. This is done in newspapers etc, but is probably impractical. Maybe its the resolution on my monitor, but the arrows on your maps are very faint - I wonder whether they could be a bit bigger. Like to know what method you used to add the ranges to the maps. I have worked out a method of using Clone to create boundaries, then Magic Wand to define edges, then Colour Replace. Cheers GrahamBould 10:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try & get you a detailed map tonight (I'm in the UK at present) GrahamBould 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded a map I knocked up :Image:Marlborough base map.png GrahamBould 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just looked through the Leiopelmatidae range maps - very good work. Just as well we don't have to go down to the level of the actual habitat on the islands, we'd need yet another map down to a few square metres!! Cheers GrahamBould 14:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range maps

See alpha compositing for an explanation of "alpha channel". Your maps contain an alpha channel with value of zero everywhere (i.e. specifying that the whole image is completely transparent). Some pieces of software ignore this channel under certain circumstances and just show the colours in the other channels, which is why you might not notice that the image is transparent.

I edited Image:Leiopelmatidae range zoomed.PNG and removed the alpha channel completely (so that the image now has a white background). If this is wrong and you really wanted the seas to be transparent, let me know. I cut it down to 16 colours, reducing it from 31 kB to 13 kB.

Note that if you update an image you don't expect to see the change immediately. That's because Wikipedia caches images (both the original uploaded images and the automatically generated thumbnails). Generally you have to wait a few days for the cache to expire, or else tweak the size of the thumbnail so that Wikipedia has to make a new one.

I use GraphicConverter for editing bitmaps. Gdr 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I moved three of your frog articles to Archey's frog, Hamilton's frog and Hochstetter's frog as they are named after Gilbert Archey, Harold Hamilton, and Ferdinand von Hochstetter respectively. They probably ought to have lower-case "frog"; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna).

[edit] distribution maps

Please add the source(s) of your distribution maps to the Summary of each image. Thnaks Froggydarb 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The source should be on the image page as well, just in case the image is used on a different page. --liquidGhoul 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the award! I really appreciate it. Also, thanks for sharing your photos and adding lots of information to the frog fauna of Australia. When I first came here, there were no species articles for frogs within the Litoria genus, and only a few for the Australian frogs (Lim. dumerilii was one). It is great to have help to bring that number up. --liquidGhoul 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Parks

I noticed you added National Parks to your recent todo list. I also want to get one of the Australian National Parks (or many over time) to featured status. Do you want to collaborate on Wollemi National Park. It needs a hell of a lot of work, but as it is the largest wilderness area in NSW, I am sure there is plenty of info out there. --liquidGhoul 10:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you go there for. Frog watching, a specific species or something else? I might go up there soon as well, depends how bored I get these holidays. I am going to Dorrigo National Park in a couple weeks though. --liquidGhoul 11:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, that is a great source. I was starting to get worried, as I was finding very little information on it. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rheobatrachus image

I guess so, I am not really knowledgable on the subject. I was just defending the purple frog, as it was already here, it is an extremely rare photo, and no-one else seemed to want to defend it. I think it would be best to ask someone more in the know. I do agree with you though, it really needs a photo. --liquidGhoul 12:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving pages and double redirects

The software which runs Wikipedia requires redirect pages to directly link to the article, and not to another redirect. If it does redirect to a redirect (called a double redirect), then it will stop on the second redirect page, with a link to the article, istead of doing it automatically. When you move an article, as you have been doing with the Rana frogs, all the redirects that linked to the old article name must be changed to redirect to the new article name. The easiest way to find these redirects, is to go into the newly moved article, click "What links here" in the tool box on the left, and look at the list. It is a bulleted list, and any redirect page (which are really easy to see) which is indented is a double redirect, and needs fixing. I have fixed all the articles you moved in Rana, but for future reference, could you please fix all double redirects created during the moving process.

I don't know if the above is completely understandable, but here is a page about double redirects. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, glad to know you knew about it. I have had the same problem, and the only way to get around it is through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. --liquidGhoul 10:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: adelotus spawn photo

Yeah, that is fine. Froggydarb 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have fun!

Have fun! --liquidGhoul 07:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Just a quick suggestion for your user page. You should link to the tadpole, egg photos e.g. [[:Image:example tadpole|t]] --liquidGhoul 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Rightio, I didn't notice them. I thought you had uploaded more than that. --liquidGhoul 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frog articles

Hey Grant,

I have emailed two people who have still yet to reply. I don't think they are very active on the net, so it is probably not due to not wanting to release the photos. The two frog species are the Painted Frog (Neobatrachus pictus) and Sudell's Frog (Neobatrachus sudellii). I don't know if I will be successful with N. pictus, as it is not from Flickr, and the website (and email) may be no longer active. The other one is from Flickr, and his last upload was 20th of August, so he is still active, but probably doesn't have great internet access. If you want to create them, that would be great (recommend the Painted Frog first). Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. I am thinking of going out west some time in the holidays (I think I get three months holidays, need to do something), so I will hopefully try as well. You have to hope it rains though, it is looking pretty bleak. Oh, and I got it mixed around, I recommend N. pictus first. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I just did Orange-thighed Frog is you want to have a look over it. I emailed the guy, and he replied within an hour, so I just created the article myself. Good work on the other articles. --liquidGhoul 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I should be getting a photo of the Northern Barred Frog (Mixophyes schevilli) some time today. I will create the article if I get the photo before you have created it. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 01:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This guy works faster than I thought. I have created the article, and uploaded the photo. --liquidGhoul 02:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Donna from the frog forum has emailed me, and released to CC, many photos from her region (thanks Donna). These are the ones which don't have an article (I will upload them later tonight). New Holland Frog (Cyclorana novaehollandiae), Salmon-striped Frog (Limnodynastes salmini) and Northern Banjo Frog (Limnodynastes terraereginae). Brad, if you want to help too, I'm sure you are watching this talk page :). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done Wrinkled Toadlet and Short-footed Frog over the last two nights. Do you want to make Eastern Sign-bearing Froglet for Crinia parinsignifera? Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don;t worry about it, I have created it. --liquidGhoul 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amphibian barnstar

Amphibian Barnstar I award you the Unofficial Amphibian Barnstar for all your great photography, articles and distribution maps for frogs of the world, and especially Australia. Keep up the great work!

--liquidGhoul 11:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frog life cylce

I was wondering whether you had a better version of the life-cycle than is currently on the frog article. I would like one which has a really good tadpole photo, and every stage the same species (maybe Limnodynastes peronii would be easiest?). I really don't like the current one. The photos look depressing, and I doubt they are all the same species. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The metamorph shot of the Lim. peronii wasn't great, but I should be able to get a good one in the next couple weeks. I wasn't heppy with the tadpole shot, as it was too far away. I like the tadpole shot of Litoria littlejohni, and the style which is found in Marion's book. We all basically have unlimited supply of Lim. peronii tadpoles, I just need a small rectangular prism container with perfectly clear walls so I can photograph tadpoles, I have been completely unsuccesful as of yet because all my containers are crap for photography. Still upload your photo, and put it in the species article. We'll never know what we could end up getting the full set of! --liquidGhoul 05:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P. bibronii closeup

This is to Froggydarb as well.

Could one you you please upload a closeup shot of a Pseudophryne bibronii showing the nostrils. Donna has sent me some photos of Pseudopheyne major, and I am very unsure as to whether it actually is. Its marbling is blue, and its call sound like bibronii, however the nostril looks vertical (but I have nothing to compare it to), and the Queensland Museum have said that it is major. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Comparing the close-up of Froggydarbs, it is definitely more vertical in Donna's photo. Tnarg, it isn't the same dorsal surface photo (same ventral), but it still has quite a bit of red. The ventral colouration and call really threw me off though. Thanks guys, I will upload it soon if you want to create the article (and am comfortable with the identification, I am now that I can compare the nostrils, and considering Qld Museum have said so). --liquidGhoul 02:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:one blood single cover

The actual single [1] (taken from eBay) shows the other one. --Ted87 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: bell frogging

Hey Grant,

I went to the Brickpit, and nearby areas, swabbing and doing surveys. It was incredibly cold, so we didn't see much in the last couple days. We caught about 20 bell frogs (mostly on Monday and Tuesday), but the weather was just terrible, even on the few days we caught them. There were gigantic tadpoles and morphlings in one of the ponds. I didn't get any photos, as I had no equipment for photographing tadpoles (especially that large), and I couldn't catch a morphling, they were too quick. I did see a male try and amplex another male. He wasn't very happy :). --liquidGhoul 13:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corroboree photo

Hey Grant,

Could you upload a cropped version of 100_3012.jpg. I will post it on the image improvement page, so they can hopefully fix up the colours a bit. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. --liquidGhoul 12:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/n/a/User_talk%7ETnarg_12345_c958.html"