Talk:Hyla
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Changes in the taxon name
In 2005, Faivovich et al. revised the status of the family Hylidae (Rafinesque, 1815) and divided the genus Hyla into many revived genus only with this purpose (Hyloscirtus, Hypsiboas, Dendropsophus etc...). The whole document can be found on the web.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.176.160.15 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 July 2006.
- Why not go ahead and bring the changes into WP? Don't forget to include all links from Hyla and cross-reference the new genera back to Hyla--GRM 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Author(itie)s for/of scientific names
It seems that whoever wrote this article may have made the unilateral decision to put all authority names in brackets. This is not strictly correct. Those familiar with the Hyla species should edit the file if/where it is necessary to remove the brackets--GRM 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikispecies is where that convention seems to be going. As this is just an encyclopaedia, it doesn't really require it. We might end up doing something in the taxobox (that gives me an idea, just wait a bit) to indicate whether it was in the original genus, but otherwise it can be kept like this for now. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Serious factual problems
The article states that the genus Hyla contains thirty-two species, but the list contains 40. Are many of these old scientific names? Additionally, the article states that Hylidae is a family of New World tree frogs, but then says that this genus contains species from the Old and New World. What's going on here? I'll do a few clarifications in the meantime. --Adamrush 15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I too am confused, not only do the numbers not add up, but I'm not sure whether I should add the bird-voiced treefrog (Hyla avivoca) or not. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)