Talk:Rana (genus)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rana re-arranged

Recent studies have placed a number of North American Rana species into an older genus. Frogs from Middle & South America were also affected, however I do not have much information on those species. Of course, there is no general consensus concering the change, but I thought I would note it. Here are the changes for North America:

  • Crawfish frog (Rana areolata to Lithobates areolatus)
  • Rio Grande Leopard Frog (R. berlandieri to Lithobates berlandieri)
  • Plains Leopard Frog (R. blairi to Lithobates blairi)
  • Carolina Gopher Frog (R. capito to Lithobates capito)
  • Bullfrog (R. catesbeiana to Lithobates catesbeianus)
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (R. chiricahuensis to Lithobates chiricahuensis)
  • Green Frog (R. clamitans to Lithobates clamitans)
  • Pig Frog (R. grylio to Lithobates grylio)
  • River Frog (R. heckscheri to Lithobates heckscheri)
  • Florida Bog Frog (R. okaloosae to Lithobates okaloosae)
  • Relict Leopard Frog (R. onca to Lithobates onca)
  • Pickerel Frog (R. palustris to Lithobates palustris)
  • Northern Leopared Frog (R. pipiens to Lithobates pipiens)
  • Mink Frog (R. septentrionalis to Lithobates septentrionalis)
  • Dusky Gopher Frog (R. sevosa to Lithobates sevosus)
  • Florida Leopard Frog (R. sphenocephala to Lithobates sphenocephalus)
  • Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog (R. subaquavocalis to Lithobates subaquavocalis)

note: The Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog is apparently not officially recognized as a species yet.

  • Wood Frog (R. sylvatica to Lithobates sylvaticus)
  • Tarahumara Frog (R. tarahumarae to Lithobates tarahumarae)
  • Carpenter Frog (R. virgatipes to Lithobates virgatipes)
  • Lowland Leopard Frog (R. yavapaiensis to Lithobates yavapaiensis)

Here is a link for those interested : http://www.cnah.org/research.asp?id=52 MFuture 23:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Very true, I'm currently busy with the genus Lithobates and its species. Here another link: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/references.php?g_id=959 . Peter Maas\talk 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the Lithobates species mentioned in [1] to the new genus. Also changed the species pages. Peter Maas\talk 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are a couple of references for moving them back to Rana:

Lithobates is actually defined as a much more restrictive taxon, equivalent to the Rana palmipes group. It is now treated as a subgenus of Rana, but only for four species, including none of the North American species. Ranapipiens (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Ranapipiens

[edit] format of page

I think that the format of the list of species in this article should follow that of Litoria and that of most Australian frog articles.
Ie. Common Name, Scientific Name (authority, year) rather than
Scientific Name Authority, year and common name (if available)
It is also better to have the link to the common name rather than the scientific name to follow WP:TOL. I realise that this is a big change so if no one objects to this format over the next couple days I will start chaging the page, by adding all the common names and linking them. I will also start moving individual frog articles from scientific name to common name where one is available.--Tnarg12345 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am the one who changed most of the Australian frog articles. It takes quite a long time on articles like this one. ANHM is the best source for common names (though be wary, as some of them are pretty obscure!). --liquidGhoul 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion, don't move articles but make redirects. Froggydarb 09:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they need to be moved if there is a suitable common name. Redirect from the scientific name, name the article in the common name. --liquidGhoul 10:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to start moving some pages today, will be using full caps instead of partial caps.--Tnarg12345 02:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All articles have been moved except Green frog as there is already an atricle "Green Frog", which is just a redirect to Green frog, so it won't let me move the page. I will start re-formatting the page today or tomorrow. I am not sure whether to have the authority in brackets or not, as an authority inside brackets means a different thing to an authority not in brackets, does anyone have an opinion on this?--Tnarg12345 09:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Common Name, Scientific Name (authority, year) is confusing to look at, because the "field" by which the list is ordered doesn't come first. Is Scientific Name Authority, year and common name (if available) really that bad? Ardric47 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The main reason for having the common name first is because it is the name of the article and the name of the frog. I understand what you mean by the order of the list, but I think that people will still understand the order of the list, even though scientific doesn't come first.--Tnarg12345 07:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)