Talk:Amphibian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Amphibian is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Amphibian 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 project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

Request for update[edit]

hey all, wondering if be willing to update the Bornean Flat-headed Frog article in regards to the information found at http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/10/frog.indonesia.ap/index.html . The article in question says that only two of those frogs have been found, and neither disected, but the page on cnn says that recently some guys have cut open another 8 frogs that they captured in the wild recently. just hoping that someone would update this. thanks, patrick. 72.147.1.104 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest 3 possible wiki links for Amphibia.[edit]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Amphibia article:

  • Can link different times: ..., a dorsal nerve cord, a notochord, and a post-anal tail at different stages of their life. They have persisted since the dawn of tetrap... (link to section)
  • Can link walk on: ...[[Carboniferous]] period they also developed the ability to walk on land to avoid aquatic competition and predation while allow... (link to section)
  • Can link semi-arid: ...re bound to water. Several species have adapted to arid and semi-arid environments, but most of them need water to lay their eggs... (link to section)

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link toLinkBot 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Coordinate?[edit]

I suggest we coordinate all Amphibian pages - under Anura (but planned from this page down). See Talk:Anura. Stanskis 02:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Amphibians aren't only Anura, but also Caudata amongst others. I suggest Amphibians being the top of all Amphibia class not Anura order. --Julien 14:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Basic question not answered[edit]

Shame on this article for not telling the reader whether or not amphibians can breathe water. Something like that is a basic question that children would like to know (or adults who would like to settle a bet).

Read the section on Reproduction; included is the development of amphibians. They start life breathing with gills - gills are for breathing water. The gills are eventually replaced with lungs - lungs are for breathing air. More in-depth information on the development of these systems can be found in more specific articles (such as Frogs), since they may vary from amphibian to amphibian. - Slow Graffiti 07:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How long are they tadpoles?[edit]

Someone please add this info: How large a portion of their life do amphibians typically spend in tadpole form? Also, do they start to metamorphose immediately after hatching, or does the metamorphosis only begin after spending some time as a tadpole? SpectrumDT 22:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As above, this is something that varies from genus to genus, species to species. Refer to more specific articles for more specific information. In the line of taxonomic groupings, Class is a very large division, just under Kingdom and Phylum. Amphibia is a Class containing almost 6,000 different species. Move down the line for more specific information: Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
Asking for a typical growth rate for amphibians is similar to asking for a typical growth rate or gestation period for a mammal (Class: Mammalia). A zebra has a gestation period of 365 days; a hippopotamus has a gestation period of 225 days; a lion only 108 days. - Slow Graffiti 07:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Basically here it is a few months, depending on temperature and individual differences. Metamorphosis is after spending quite some time as a tadpole. The tadpole is a growing stage mostly herbivorous, grazing algae, filtering rotatoria etc., depending on tadpole species and food availability. When the tadpole turns into a froglet it has to eat itself and use the matter and energy from the tissues it no longer needs to make the new structures, this actually takes only a day, and a few more days to resorb the tail (more thyroxin needed for tail resorption). After that the froglet can start eating small insects and such, that is why the metamorophosis is quick, while the tadpole stage is rather long (Some specimen stay tadpoles during the winter to metamorphisize the next year.). I dont quite agree with the above answer, because amphibiand and especially frogs are not that big. Of course the large larvae of the bullfrog and garlic toad take a bit longer. The common frog and the common toad mate around the same time and leave the water about the same time also, toad larvae and toadlets being smaller then common frog larvae and froglets, so probably the greater size is not that important, because of higher feed uptake and efficience for the larger tadpoles (garlic toads prefer eutrophic waters for instance, dont know about bullfrogs).

Viridiflavus (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Circulatory System[edit]

What are their circulatory system like ? Describe.

As above, you should refer to more specific articles (such as Frogs) as certain systems may vary from amphibian to amphibian. Some general characteristics of the amphibian circulatory system are described on the Frog article, yet many of the characteristics are shared by other tetrapods. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and this is obviously an incomplete article. When you find the answer, why not add it yourself? That's how it works! - Slow Graffiti 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive[edit]

Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement[edit]

If amphibians have mastered the arctic, maybe we can put the name of one or more who live in that environment. Baiter 05:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wood frogs live in the artic circle - they survive the coldest seasons by burying and freezing themselves. This is also mentioned on the Frogs article. Is it necessary to include here? - Slow Graffiti 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

When was this Class designated?[edit]

When was this Class designated? I ask because I remember watching an old television show from the 1950's where they called frogs reptiles. I'm forced to conclude that it was either a very silly mistake, or that Amphibian class was designated only relatively recently. Siyavash 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Must have been a mistake, as Amphibia was named by Linnaeus in 1758.Dinoguy2 18:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Linnaeus did not distinguish reptiles from the animals which we today call amphibians. I have the impression that only after the deaths of Cuvier and Lamarck (around 1830) some unrecognized genius finally made the distiction between these two classes. Only from the second half of the 19th century, biologists generally made a clear distinction between these two classes.

Lignomontanus 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was possibly John Edward Gray, who first distinguished "amphibians" as we understand the term today from reptiles (1825)

Lignomontanus (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Britannica (1878 ed), the two groups where beginning to be separated by the early 19th century, first formally described as two groups by Alexandre Brongniart in 1803. The current use of the two units as classes came as an amalgam of Thomas Henry Huxley and Richard Owens work in the 1860ies. 83.108.130.13 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion.[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could add to this page whether or not Amphibians regulate their temperature or they are regulated by their environment, like reptiles. I was looking through the page and I did not see any information concerning the topic (it is a pretty important fact, after all). I may be overlooking something, but if it truly isn't there, I would appreciate if it was added (my guess is ectotherm, but I could be wrong). Thank you. ~Regulus.

They are ectothermic, I will add it now. --liquidGhoul 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "poikilothermic" (in contrast to "homeothermic," like those of us who maintain a constant body temperature using energy from food) is the most current description for this lifestyle. (These crazy biologists can't seem to decide what to call things!) Mia229 (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What are caecilians[edit]

So are caecilians tetrapods (by some stretch of the term), or is the lead in this article wrong? --liquidGhoul 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes-Tetrapoda is a group, and just because some sub-groups lost some or all of their four legs doesn't mean they are no longer tetrapods. Snakes, legless lizards, caecilians, etc. are still tetrapods.Dinoguy2 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Thanks alot --liquidGhoul 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Derivation of word "Amphibian"[edit]

'"from Greek αμφις "both" and βιος "life""'

The above clause had got lost in the middle of the opening paragraph. I've moved to to inside the first set of brackets - is this the clearest place?

AWO 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cladistic approach and modern tetrapoda[edit]

Shouldn't all tetrapoda be classified as amphibia as well? Gbnogkfs 5 January 2007 16:17 UTC

Not really. Traditionally Class Amphibia has included all basal tetrapods, yes. However cladistic definitions of amphibia usually limit that group to the stem clade containing modern amphibians. Benton (2004), which I've advocated using as a standard guide for Linnaean ranks here, basically follows this. Basalmost tetrapods are not within any class, stem amphibians are in Class Amphibia, and Lepospondyli + Reptiliomorpha are in an "Unnamed Class", paraphyletic with respect to Amniota. Dinoguy2 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm remaining more and more surprised (I'm no biologist) by this monophyletic approach to classification that I've been discovering in the past months: very pragmatic approach. thanks for clarification :) Gbnogkfs 7 January 2007, 17:22 UTC

Speaking of phylogenetic systematics, I kept encountering a pet peeve of mine in this article: "reptiles and birds." Can we try to make this more accurate? So many people still have this idea that birds are this separate group and I hate the thought that Wikipedia should be keeping them misinformed. Mia229 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention required[edit]

Recent updates from anonymous users have changed numbers in the article. Please can an expert check the information is still correct? Thanks, Mallanox 00:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have reverted, and also updated to current figures. --liquidGhoul 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Amphibians Characteristics[edit]

This site needs more of the Amphibian's characteristics, to tell people that amphibians do things like lay their eggs in the water, are herbivores and that they have special openings for their ears.

Not all amphibians lay eggs in water, most are carnivores, and there is no opening for their ear. The tympanic membrane is on the outside, no hole whatsoever. --liquidGhoul 08:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true... Some amphibians lay their eggs in moist soil, and if you think about it, you always see pictures of frogs eating flies, not fruit.  :-) Dancing Angel 95 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How many in a top 10?[edit]

I only see 9 species listed in the "Top 10" in the second paragraph of the Conservation section, and some are only vaguely identified. It would be helpful to have a more complete list. 70.57.152.81 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between amphibians and lizards[edit]

The reason I am looking on here is for the difference in amphibians vs. lizards. Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.139.60 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lizards are reptiles, and therefore more closely related to things like snakes, turtles, crocs and tuataras. Lizards have scaled skin, whilst amphibians have a porous skin. Amphibians lay soft eggs, with no shell whereas lizards lay shelled eggs or have live birth. There are lots and lots of differences, as they are quite seperately related. --liquidGhoul (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Amphibians are a class and lizards are whatevers after a class.... i can't remember... anyway they're not at the same level. Dancing Angel 95 (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

double life?[edit]

Ok, I may just be crazy, but doesn't amphibian mean "double life" and not "both life"? Thanks! Dancing Angel 95 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have my (rather battered) old copy of Liddell & Scott from my university days right here (comes in handy more often than one would expect)...amphi ('αμφί) literally means "on both sides" (it can also mean "on all sides," "around," or "about," but I think here it's pretty well-accepted that it is a reference to "both" ways of living) and bios (βίος) of course means "life" or "manner of living, livelihood." So amphibians are our little friends who live in both ways, on land and in the water. Mia229 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

lead[edit]

Someone had tagged the lead as too long. I re-orged and created a short lead that summarizes the topic. I'm sure more details could go here, and I wouldn't be surprised if something's wrong, so please take a look. Remember: a lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the page (WP:lead).

respiration[edit]

i DONT KNOW IF ANYONES NOTICED BUT THERES NO RESPIRATION! will someone please fix this now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.225.40 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed section.
The article is missing several sections, including sections on the circulatory, respiratory, excretion, nervous and respiratory system. -- Ec5618 21:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Advertisements on the Taxobox Image[edit]

I am not sure if this is happening to everywhere on Wikipedia, but the image slot for the taxobox is infected with annoying advertisements. I should really be seeing the western spadefoot toad, not some advertisement. I honestly think this will seriously hurt the professionality and encyclopedic value of this article if the image is not going to represent an amphibian, but rather, an annoying "YOU ARE THE 999,999TH VISITOR TO THIS PAGE!!!! CLAIM YOUR NONEXISTENT PRIZE!!!!". Who's idea was it to put the advertisements in the image slot anyway? It is a bad idea. Or is my computer infected with adware? Hmm... I don't see this in any other article though. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're the only one with the funky banner. The article history shows no vandalism to the images, and the image histories themselves show no spurious changes either. I've seen malware that replaces images on website with crud ads; that may be what is happening to you. — Coren (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have studied the history of this article, though. But anyway, I just took care of the problem by doing a system restore. I am sorry if I wasted anyone's time. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad introduction paragraph...[edit]

"Amphibians are Ecological indicators so In recent decades, there has been a dramatic decline in amphibian populations around the globe and many species are now threatened or extinct. Scientists do not agree on the cause, but it is widely believed to be a direct result of the amount of water pollution made from industrial factories and other similar sources"

Could anyone fix this? The first sentence is vague and sounds bad. The second one could use a source citation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.31.115.114 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Amphibians[edit]

amphibians are four-legged vertebrates. They can adopt to a land environment. However, they remain dependent upon water, which means need moist environment. They may live in or nearbodies of water or stay in moist burrows. Amphibians also depend on water for reproduction. Their eggs have no shells. They lay eggs in a pond, swamp, or stream to avoid drying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.207.106 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Batrachia[edit]

Batrachia redirects here, with no explanation of why; in fact, the word appears only in the compound from Triadobatrachus, which someone unfamiliar with the term Batrachia and Greek etymologies might not even notice as related. My feeling is that if you're redirected, you should be able to see why in the first paragraph. This subject matter is not something I'm comfortable with, so I hope someone can clarify this. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Amphibians are NOT an ecological indicator[edit]

Second paragraph currently says "Amphibians are ecological indicators". Extinction in our times - Global Amphibian Decline Collins, Crump (2009, Oxford) says (pp 23-26) amphibians fail to meet most criteria for such, and considering them such "canaries", outsisde of popular press, was a brief transient two decades ago. Perhaps a cite request tag should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.72 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article citing crump and coming to opposite conclusions. The author conclude that amphibians are good indicators in the Florida Wetlands (abundance, easy sampling etc.)

Waddle, J, USE OF AMPHIBIANS AS ECOSYSTEM INDICATOR SPECIES

Viridiflavus (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Septa link wrong[edit]

(Under "respiration") I don't even know what "septa" is, so I don't know how to correct... Marco

Fixed it. Septa is the plural of septum. The way to find this out (if you didn't know it), is to look for the hatnote at the top of the SEPTA page (This article is about the transit agency. For anatomical term, see Septum.), then septum leads you to Alveolar septum. --catslash (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresh Water and Oxygen questions[edit]

Re: the section involving reproduction and water phase. If amphibians do not habitate in salt water and require fresh water for reproduction then isn't it logical that way back in time, when they began to emerge from water to a terrestial adult phase, that water must also have been fresh? And, taking it back one more logical step, the fish they evolved from should clearly have been fresh water fish. It seems that the mantra, 'From the sea did all life come' may not be referring to an actual (salty) sea, but large bodies of fresh or slightly brackish water, larger than any that exist on earth today. One of the more interesting features of earth today is how little fresh water is actually in the tropics, where evolutionary opportunism and genetic diversity are most prevalent. Fresh water today is most common in the upper lattitudes. That said, atmospheric moisture is (and may always have been) higher in the tropics, on a more consistent basis.

There is also the issue of free oxygen, which must have been higher in the ages when fish became tetrapods. Size alone explains that, right? Not only fish, amphibians and the dinosaurs, but arthropods all were larger. Given the higher oxygen levels, respiration would also have been easier to accomplish. Are there any reliable data for oxygen levels during this era? Also, and by way of tying up two loose ends, is there a relationship between atmospheric oxygen and relative humidity? Today, given tropical temperature levels and current oxygen saturation, an RH of 100% translates to four percent water vapor. Increase oxygen to, say, 28%, and does the 4% figure change? If it were to increase, that might explain some things about terrestial evolution.Bdgriz56 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on fossil evidence, the ancestors to tetrapods were indeed freshwater/brackish organisms, but those fish had oceanic ancestors (much as we see today, particularly with freshwater fish on oceanic islands).
As far as oyxgen levels, they were indeed much higher. Here's a paper on the topic, covering the last 550 million years: [1]
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much oxygen level influences maximal humidity, but some folks on the chemistry pages should be able to help. Mokele (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening section[edit]

I came here to combat vandalism, and the vandalism caused me to notice that the first paragraph is organized horribly. That first sentence just went on and on. I tried to fix it (and make it match other classes more closely), but I'm not sure if this is the best way to organize it. Well, if anybody has any ideas on how to better organize this, go ahead. 216.80.140.25 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The axolotl article says that it fails to undergo metamorphosis. This means that not all amphibians metamorphose, so it should not be one of the main characteristics. It should be mentioned in the opening paragraph, but not in the first sentence. I'm guessing that amphibians and metamorphosis is like mammals and giving birth to live young: most do it, but not all. So, what are the best ways to characterize Amphibians? 216.80.140.25 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I took care of it. If anybody sees any improvements to be made, go ahead! 216.80.140.25 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What are Batrachians?[edit]

I followed a link to Batrachia, which redirects to this page, but that term isn't explained or even used here. Batrachian, on the other hand, redirects to Frog, which also doesn't explain the term. (There is one use of the word there, in reference to "an Early Permian stem-batrachian", but with no actual definition or explanation given). Wardog (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Both now redirect to frog. --Khajidha (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of expansion[edit]

I looked at the Spanish version which has a link on this talk page and while I can't understand every word I will try to model this article after that one, because this article is surprisingly lacking, despite the fact that amphibians are a major group of organisms. I will be adding the following sections and over time expanding on them (when I have time). Anyone seeing this who can help out would be greatly appreciated. Here is the to-do list for this article:

  • Expand upon evolution and classification using citations

Add the following sections:

  • Morphology
  • Skin
  • Skeleton
  • Digestion and excretion
  • Circulatory and nervous systems
  • Growth and development (life cycle)
  • Diet

I'm hoping I'm not alone on this, but it seems no one has cared about this article for a while so I may well be. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cadiomals (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the article with regard to the points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amphibian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Axl (talk · contribs) 09:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll review it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "The three modern orders of amphibians are the Anura (frogs and toads), Caudata (salamanders and newts) and Gymnophiona (caecilians, limbless amphibians that resemble large earthworms with jaws)." The reference names the salamander order Urodela, not Caudata. I don't mind which name is used, but the reference must support the use of that name. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded this sentence and added a new source which shows that the two terms are interchangeable.

From "Evolution", paragraph 2: "An affinity between the amphibians and the teleost fish is the labyrinthic structure of the teeth." What does "labyrinthic" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.

From "Evolution", paragraph 3: "In the late Devonian and early Carboniferous, the seas, rivers and lakes were teeming with life but the land was the realm of early plants and devoid of animal life." I presume that the land was also "teeming with life", just that it was plant life, not animal life. How about changing the sentence to "In the late Devonian and early Carboniferous, the seas, rivers and lakes were teeming with animals but the land was the realm of early plants and devoid of animal life." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, later in the paragraph, insects are said to be present on land. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I have clarified this.

From "Evolution", paragraph 4: "the most recent molecular study, based on multi-locus data, suggest a Late Carboniferous – Early Permian origin of extant amphibians." Is this study the same as molecular phylogenetics? What is "multi-locus data"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced it with a wikilinked phrase.

The diagram of putative phylogenetic trees in the "Evolution" section includes the clade "Salientia". I presume that this is the same as "Anura"? Given that "Salientia" is not mentioned in the text, it may be better to remove the diagram from the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the "Classification" section expands on this. Still, it is rather confusing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is confusing. I wrote the article on Salientia and corresponded with David Cannatella of the Tree of Life Web Project on the subject. He told me that different authors use the term to refer to different groupings of amphibians.
The diagram is in the "Evolution" section. Neither that section, nor the preceding sections mention the word "Salientia". Also, "Salientia" is defined in the "Classification" section as a superorder comprising all three orders. This contradicts the diagram. Please consider deleting the diagram. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Done.
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Evolution", last paragraph: "There are large gaps in the fossil record but the discovery of a batrachian from the Early Permian in Texas in 2008 provided a missing link with a lot of the characteristics of modern frogs." What is a "batrachian"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Batrachian is another ill-defined term. I have changed the wording.

From "Classification": "Order Anura (frogs and toads): Jurassic to recent—5,602 recent species in 48 families." How about "Order Anura (frogs and toads): Jurassic to present—5,602 current species in 48 families". Ditto for the next two lines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.
  • Thank you for taking on this review. I have now dealt with the points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In the "Classification" section, the drawing of Karaurus sharovi contains several clashing colours. However, given that the species is known only through its fossilized remains, surely the colour pattern is unknown. The colour pattern used is comical; it looks like a child was over-enthusiastic with a colouring set. Also, I am concerned by the depiction of four digits on the forelimbs. From looking at Google images, the main fossil image is somewhat damaged and shows only the left forelimb, with four digits on it. Did Karaurus really have only four digits on its forelimbs? In any case, the speculative, garish colouration makes this picture unsuitable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it.

In "Classification", I don't understand why "Family Albanerpetontidae" is directly below "Subclass Lissamphibia" and above "Superorder Salientia". Similarly, why is "Genus Triadobatrachus" below "Superorder Salientia" and above "Order Anura"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "Classification" section seems to explain this. I presume that Albanerpetontidae was in a separate order? (The Wikipedia entry indicates Allocaudata.) However the Triadobatrachus entry indicates Anura. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the article Triadobatrachus is wrong, see here. I was going to alter the taxobox but found it was an automatic one, altering which is a skill I have not yet mastered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay. However the current layout is confusing. Perhaps either indent the Albanerpetontidae and Triadobatrachus lines another notch, or remove them altogether from the list. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I have removed Albanerpetontidae and Triadobatrachus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Classification", the picture of Triadobatrachus seems to show four digits on the forelimb. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Frogs and most salamanders have 4 digits on the forelimb so I see no reason to doubt it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 1: "The amphibians are tetrapods, a class of vertebrate animals with four limbs." Shouldn't this be a superclass? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a class, alongside Mammalia, Reptilia etc. See here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
That "reference" barely mentions tetrapods and certainly doesn't define them. Also, it looks like some guy made a Powerpoint presentation about chordates for a group of students. It is not suitable as a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I have provided a better reference and one for "Amniota". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the problem lies with the parsing of the sentence. Does the word "class" refer to "amphibians" or "tetrapods"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 1: "They are non-amniotes, which means that their eggs are not surrounded by the several membranes, some impervious, which enable mammals, reptiles and birds to reproduce on land." Is "non-amniote" a scientifically defined word? Or does it simply mean "not an amniote"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any significant change. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Well it was done but the change was made by you. I have now rephrased that part and added some references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the "non-amniotes" text. However with the new text, (most) mammals don't have eggs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added a few extra words but I am not sure that they are an improvement. Mammals may not lay eggs but they still have amniotic membranes surrounding the foetus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I have rephrased this paragraph again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of the first paragraph of "Characteristics" is more suitable for the "Evolution" section. I accept that there may be some overlap. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved part of it and agree it is better under "Evolution".
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 1: "Amphibians are restricted to moist habitats because ... they need to produce copious amounts of dilute urine." Really? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well apparently this is so but I have removed the statement as the matter is covered in greater detail in the section "Digestive and excretory systems". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", last paragraph: "Amphibians breathe by means of a bucco-pharyngeal pump." Is there an appropriate link to explain the phrase "bucco-pharyngeal pump"? Otherwise, can it be simplified? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded and explained this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "buccopharyngeal membrane" is the right link, but thank you for the better explanation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Skin", last paragraph: "The colour change experienced by many species is caused by secretions from the pituitary gland." Perhaps "displayed" rather than "experienced"? The following sentence implies that the colour change is relatively slow. Is this because the pituitary controls the colour by hormones? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Circulatory system": "They have a heart that consists of a ventricle and two atria (it may be considered a single atrium if not at least partially divided) that pumps oxygenated blood through arteries and deoxygenated blood through veins to the lungs." Through (pulmonary) arteries to the lungs, surely? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This was a bad error. I have rephrased the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a "bad error". Don't be too harsh on yourself. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Digestive and excretory systems", paragraph 2: "the liver functions as the central metabolic organ that regulates blood sugar." I am wary of the use of the word "regulate". The pancreas detects the blood glucose level and responds by releasing regulatory hormones. These hormones affect metabolic activity in the liver, which then releases or removes glucose from the blood. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From the same sentence, the liver doesn't transport the final metabolic products through the vascular system. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I have rephrased this whole paragraph. (I checked to see whether these circulation and digestion errors pre-dated my involvement with the article and I was glad to find that they did. I thought I had been through all the sections but apparently I had not.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Digestive and excretory systems", paragraph 2: "Fat bodies are another important means of storing energy and are found in the abdomen." Perhaps "adipose tissue" rather than "fat bodies"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Reproduction", most of the last paragraph would be better placed in "Life cycle". Also, the paragraph lacks a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph which contained little information that wasn't elsewhere in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle": "For this reason tadpoles can have horny ridges for teeth, whiskers and fins." I am uneasy with the word "whiskers", which implies hair—a mammalian feature. Perhaps put the word in "inverted commas"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Eggs", paragraph 1: "Most eggs contain the pigment melanin which raises their temperature." I presume that the melanin absorbs the sun's light which raises the temperature? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Parental care", paragraph 1: "Nevertheless, it is estimated that up to twenty percent of amphibian adults play some role in the care of the young." Does this figure refer to all adult amphibians, male and female? Or is it the proportion of species that have some parental involvement? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Parental care", paragraph 2: "The black mountain salamander does this, the mother brooding the eggs and guarding them from predation as the larvae feed on the yolks of their eggs. They eventually break their way out of the egg capsules and disperse." Aren't they called larvae only after hatching? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Parental care", paragraph 3: "When they are ready to undergo metamorphosis, she regurgitates them and they hop away from her mouth." Wouldn't they be hopping only after metamorphosis? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Feeding and diet", paragraph 3: "They typically have small hinged pediceled teeth. These have bicuspid conical crowns attached by a pedicel to the jaw and are replaced at intervals." What does "pediceled" mean? What are "bicuspid conical crowns"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased and expanded this to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Vocalization", paragraph 2: "Each call is characteristic of the species, the presence of which in an area may be easier to detect by its voice than by a fleeting glimpse of the animal itself." Can this sentence be simplified please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Territorial behaviour" a subsection of "Vocalization"? Only the third paragraph implies that vocalization is important, and this is only in frogs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty illogical, I agree. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Territorial behaviour", paragraph 2: "It was found that 91% of marked individuals which were later recaptured were within a metre (yard) of their original location (foraging behaviour would have given a different result at night)." Does this imply that most individuals stay within their own small territories? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far they go when they forage but I have added a bit more information from this study. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have adjusted the text. What conclusions did the researchers draw? Do these salamanders have small, well-defined territories? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have added information on territory size from AmphibiaWeb. This has quite a bit more information on the territorial behaviour specific to this species which I could add if you want. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The text is fine now, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Territorial behaviour", paragraph 3: "Other fighting methods include... splashing and ducking him and seizing him by the head." Is "splashing and ducking him" a single technique, or is "ducking him and seizing him by the head" a single technique? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have adjusted the syntax. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Defence mechanisms", paragraph 1: "A dose of 0.0002cc of skin was sufficient to kill a mouse in ten minutes." It is odd that the dose is measured in cc—a unit of volume. Shouldn't the measurement of skin, which isn't a liquid or gas, be in micrograms? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It does seem odd but it's what it says. It's in the brief abstract at the beginning of the paper. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The reference is a primary source from 1968. If there is no recent source with sensible units, it would be better to delete the statement and the reference. From looking through the list of references, I see that there are a few old references, including one from 1942 (Gilbert, "Observations on the eggs of Ambystoma maculatum"). Such references are questionable, especially when they are primary sources. If the information isn't stated in a recent secondary source, it has questionable authority and is probably being given undue weight for a general encyclopedia article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Defence mechanisms", the text implies that only one species of amphibian actually uses tetrodotoxin for defence. If this is the case, far too much emphasis is given to this, occupying most of the first paragraph. Most of this should be deleted, leaving only a brief mention that the rough-skinned newt uses tetrodotoxin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence using the cc unit and some other information on tetrodotoxin. I have added other information and a more up to date source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I still think that there is too much emphasis on tetrodotoxin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Defence mechanisms", paragraph 2: "These warning colours tend to be red or yellow combined with black, with the fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) being an example." Since the fire salamander is specifically called out, perhaps move the picture of the fire salamander from the "Anatomy and physiology" section to this section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Defence mechanisms", paragraph 3: "Their bodies writhe and they raise and lash their tails which makes it difficult for the predator to avoid contact with their granular glands." What are "granular glands"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. They were explained in the skin section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", paragraph 2: "A reduction in the number of tadpoles or their absence might lead to algal overgrowth and possibly eutrophication, resulting in the water becoming depleted of oxygen when the algae die and decompose." "Eutrophication" seems to be a response to increased chemical introduction into the environment. It is more likely that eutrophication leads to algal overgrowth, depletion of oxygen, and death of tadpoles. The loss of tadpoles would create a positive feedback mechanism causing even more algal growth. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to "eutrophication". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", last paragraph: "On January 21, 2008, Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE), in a statement made by chief Helen Meredith, identified nature's most endangered species." I don't see why the date is relevant, nor why Helen Meredith is named. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed these details and rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", last paragraph: "In 2008, the conservation organisation Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) stated that each amphibian on their list had a unique evolutionary history and amongst them were some of the "most remarkable and unusual species on the planet and yet an alarming 85% of the top 100 are receiving little or no conservation attention." " I am concerned by the weighting of this rather alarmist statement. Also the claim "that each amphibian on [the] list [has] a unique evolutionary history" is meaningless drivel, designed to fool the unwary. Every species has a "unique evolutionary history"—that's part of the definition of "species". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", last paragraph: "The top 10 EDGE listed species include the Chinese giant salamander, etc." Is it really necessary to list them all? Also, I presume that this list is amphibian species only? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the offending paragraph in its entirety. I think EDGE is particularly concerned about ancient lineages with one extant species, but the references were newspaper articles dating back to 2008 so not necessarily still relevant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind one neutral sentence, but deletion is fine too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. The article is well-written. The text is clear.
  2. The article is fairly accurate. I have an ongoing concern about the implication of "mammalian eggs" in "Characteristics", paragraph 1. The references are generally of good quality. However there are several old references, including one from 1942.I have rephrased the sentence about mammal eggs - I had not previously understood what you were getting at. I note what you say about old references and will try to find newer ones.
  3. The whole topic is covered with appropriate weighting of different aspects.
  4. The article is neutral.
  5. There is no edit war.
  6. The illustrations have changed a little since I first started this review. My main concern now is the collage of four photos in the infobox. FunkMonk questions the source and has nominated the collage for deletion. Also, there is a new photo in "Life cycle", subsection "Larvae", subsection "Salamanders" of a Brooke salamander larva and adult. This black-and-white photo is somewhat grainy and a poor representation. In addition, in "Life cycle", subsection "Larvae", subsection "Frogs" there is a sequence of photos showing metamorphosis. The thumbnails are tiny and need to be clicked through to allow reasonable viewing. I also question whether the scale is really the same for every photo in the sequence. Otherwise, the photos are good and illustrate the topic well. They have free licenses and are hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

I am putting the article "on hold" until the outcome of the collage is resolved. In any case, my thanks to Cwmhiraeth for his work on the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll replace the bw image, enlarge the metamorphosis one, and I've found another free collage for the taxobox (with proper sourcing), and might make a new one before long. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I am very grateful for your thorough review and to FunkMonk for help with the images. I had worked extensively on the text but not given the images much thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Final comments[edit]

The "mammalian egg" is also implied in the lead section, last paragraph.

Another point that I forgot to mention before is that there are a couple of places where a singular phrase is implied and inappropriately linked to a plural phrase:-

  • From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Skeletal system and locomotion", paragraph 1: "They possess a cranium, spine, rib cage, long bones."
  • From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Skeletal system and locomotion", paragraph 1: "They have four limbs."

However this is a relatively minor point. Overall, the article meets the GA criteria. My thanks and congratulations to Cwmhiraeth. Also, my thanks to FunkMonk for fixing the images. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed these points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

There seems to be some copyright issues witha few of the images, I'll mention them here. If they're "easy fixes", I'll just replace them myself.

The main image has no sources: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lissamphibia.jpg We can make a new collage.

This image is a nonfree stock photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nextgen_frog_01.jpg

This one could be replaced with one where the identity of the animal is less ambiguous: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fossilised_frog.jpg

This one does not mention author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plethodon_cinereus.jpg

This image does not specify what species it depicts, could be replaced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kaulquappen_Tadpole_3.JPG

Maybe this drawing could be replaced by the neat development image used in Common Toad? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metamorphosis_frog_Meyers.png The images in the reproduction section generally seem a bit randomly placed.

Apart from this, it could be nice to have images in the behaviour sections (diet, territorial) that display the behaviour, instead of just single, static specimens, I'll see if I can find something. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Frog anatomy
I see you have made some useful image changes in the article. We could use this image but would need to annotate it. Here is my guess - what do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. Right atrium
  2. Lungs
  3. Aorta
  4. Egg mass
  5. Colon
  6. Left atrium
  7. Ventricle
  8. Stomach
  9. Liver
  10. Gallbladder
  11. Small intestine
  12. Cloaca
Good idea,you can see here inthe Dutch version what it refers to: [2] As for the image itself, I can maybe make a new version, it'spretty low res, eventhough it's based onthis high res one: [3] FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Darn, I had already painted most of the background out when I realised the photo was taken in the US. It is a sculpted model, so this means it is actually a copyright violation, since there is no freedom of panorama in the US... That museum is state owned though, so that might be a way out. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have adjusted the list above in accordance with the Dutch wikipedia article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice. And I see the model is fine to use[4], I'll finish the high res version. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I've made a new high res version, where the numbers are less intrusive. We can also add more numbers, if you wish. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

New genetic study[edit]

Might be relevant.[5] "This is the first molecular study to have signal supporting a paraphyletic Lissamphibia, allowing for the possibility of concordance between morphological and molecular data. If the paraphyletic hypothesis is true, caecilians and salamanders would be more closely related to humans and other amniotes than to frogs." FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Some edits coming up[edit]

Hi everyone,

As part of the FAC I'm going to have a run through of the article, probably making many edits. I haven't been active on wiki for years, so please be critical of my formatting etc cause it has likely to have changed since last I edited and I've also forgotten a lot of the mark-up. I'm trying, though. --liquidGhoul (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)