Talk:List of Anuran families

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured list star List of Anuran families is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Amphibians and Reptiles Portal
List of Anuran families 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

The way it is now is a very messy solution. See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Frog. Phlebas 13:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why does batrachia redirect here?

Batrachia redirects to anura, but it isn't mentioned in the article. Is this another name for the order? -- Kjkolb 05:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Whoudn't it be more informative, and more in line with naming conventions, to name this article List of Anura?--nixie 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever goes with concesus. I created this article when I had only just started editing Wikipedia, and was unsure as to the conventions (and hadn't discovered WP:TOL to ask). --liquidGhoul 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think List of Anura is informative enough, how about List of Anuran families? --liquidGhoul 09:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good.--nixie 05:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. --liquidGhoul 05:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myobatrachidae

Should the common name for the myobatrachidae family be changed to Australian ground frogs rater than Australian toadlets or froglets. Toadlets and Froglets refer to small frogs, frogs in Mixophyes, Heleioporus and Limnodynastes wouldn't be considered small.--Tnarg 12345 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I have made the change. I think Australian ground frogs is used more often as well. --liquidGhoul 08:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hylidae

Should the common name for the Hylidae family be change to to include something about the genus Cyclorana, or are they still considered "Tree Frogs"? Froggydarb 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tree frog is still the common name for them. This is where common names are very weak, in that they cannot possibly account for all species. There are tonnes of non-arboreal tree frogs in the world, but it is very common for all Hylids to be called tree frogs. Common names are more about the history of the classification then they are about the actual animals. --liquidGhoul 09:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Froggydarb 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution maps

Bold before you start working on the distribution map, cross out once it is uploaded. --liquidGhoul 10:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Ascaphidae
  • Bombinatoridae
  • Discoglossidae
  • Leiopelmatidae
  • Megophryidae
  • Pelobatidae
  • Pelodytidae
  • Pipidae
  • Rhinophrynidae
  • Scaphiopodidae
  • Allophrynidae
  • Arthroleptidae
  • Brachycephalidae
  • Bufonidae
  • Centrolenidae
  • Dendrobatidae
  • Heleophrynidae
  • Hemisotidae
  • Hylidae
  • Hyperoliidae
  • Leptodactylidae
  • Mantellidae
  • Microhylidae
  • Myobatrachidae
  • Nasikabatrachidae
  • Ranidae
  • Rhacophoridae
  • Rhinodermatidae
  • Sooglossidae

[edit] Extinct families

This is a list of extant Anuran families - are there any extinct ones? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea. There is an extinct species which is a "proto-frog", but is placed in the superorder of Salientia, and not included as an Anuran, so would not qualify this list. Frogs are not well represented in the fossil record, and those that are found, are usually grouped into an existing family, or, according to this site, some genera are not included within any families. --liquidGhoul 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Great - thanks. Is that worth saying? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably. --liquidGhoul 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I just found an extinct family, and have a feeling there are a few more. This one is Palaeobatrachidae (doesn't have an article, but the genus Palaeobatrachus does). --liquidGhoul 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is also Protobatrachidae (for example, the genus Triadobatrachus) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like it will take some research before I can add anything to the list. I will look into it next week. Thanks for the family. --liquidGhoul 10:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of species

Could you add the number of species for each family. This information is useful and enriches the list. CG 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but it is not an easy task so it may take a while. Thanks for the input. --liquidGhoul 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe numbers of genera would be easier to compile? Circeus 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Great work. Thank you. CG 15:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dendrobatidae/[[Media:Aromobatidae fam. nov.

Hi, check out the latest review here. Dendrobatidae are split into the present]] family and Aromobatidae (skunk frogs & relatives). New genera galore. Distri map might need revision. I have already added the ref to Dendrobatidae, and done some work on the genus list there (Aromobatidae genera are outcommented & ready for copy'n'paste into new family article; family assignment of Aromobatidae genera has been corrected). Dysmorodrepanis 12:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out once I have finished exams (Nov. 10). Feel free to go nuts with it, and change as much as you want. I don't think there will be any disagreement. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm leery of dumping all of the changes from this study into Wikipedia as though they were authoritative. I've had a few conversations with frog systematics insiders, and note some threads on dendroboard; while it's likely that much of the new classification will survive, there are some very controversial classifications as well. The AMNH (authors of this study) is one of the last bastions that holds to a purely cladistic approach to taxonomy. Cladistics is a method of statistically measuring the similarities and differences of things and deriving a relationship based upon those similarities. In this case, it is the process of running snippets of DNA or RNA sequences through statistical algorythms that spit out measures of "relatedness" based on the similarities of the sequences. It is an important and powerful tool but it ignores several factors believed to be important for defining a "species". Specifically, it ignores morphology and behavior, which are still important factors when determining a systematic taxonomy - pure cladistic systematics are somewhat out of style, although such a thorough study still contains much of value.
As an alternative, might I suggest adopting an approach similar to the edits I made of Dysmorodtrepanis' edits in Dendrobatidae? Which is to say, in existing articles, leave the current classifications intact, but also provide the new ones, with the prefix "proposed". Do not break links between articles based on the current classifications. For new articles, be sure that older classifications redirect to the article as well as new ones. Use redirects to ensure that anyone searching on either old or new taxonomy will get to the 'right' articles. Sound good? --Leperflesh 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)