Talk:Darwin's frog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Darwin's frog 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Extinction[edit]

Why am I reading news articles claiming the species has been wiped out by a fungal infection of the skin while the status on this page is merely Vulnerable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Because apparently the article is out of date. I added the info, but I don't think the infobox should be changed because [1] still lists them as threatened. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't clear which species is extinct: it uses the common names "Northern" and "Southern," but, which is used for which species?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's the Northern. I found another source that's more clear, and have changed the reference to use that source. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I replaced what I presume was your most recent information, as it still seemed to indicate that this species (R. darwinii) was likely extinct, when it is R. rufum that hasn't been seen since 1980. Both species are referred to as Darwin's frogs, creating some confusion. I also cited the original open-access study, rather than the National Geographic article; in general, I would be cautious citing modern-day Nat Geo as a credible source. Agyle (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thanks...I guess I didn't read the article closely enough. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The article was less clear than the journal article, and it looks like around a third of mainstream media articles based on the study confused the species in some way, reporting things like both species are now officially extinct, and many blogs and youtube videos then parroted these articles. Agyle (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics[edit]

The phrase "It is sometimes taken as a pet." is in the characteristics section, what does this have to do with what the frog looks like and does? 17adavis7 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Name disambiguation?[edit]

Both Rhinoderma darwinii and Rhinoderma rufum are commonly referred to as two species of Darwin's frogs. Some form of disambiguation between this species (R. darwinii), and the family of both species, may be warranted. The species R. rufum is typically referred to as Northern Darwin's frog, or Chile Darwin's frog. The species R. darwinii is typically referred to as Southern Darwin's frog, or simply Darwin's frog. Agyle (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the alternate names to the articles, but I think we should go a step further. (See below). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. After two listing periods there are no further supports other than the nom, and the points by User:Agyle and User:Apokryltaros that the "southern" name hasn't taken official hold, and this one is still the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic seems to be valid objections. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Darwin's frogSouthern Darwin's frog – I think, given the tendency for news articles to not distinguish between the two species, that the article currently at Darwin's frog should be moved to Southern Darwin's frog, and Darwin's frog should redirect to Rhinodermatidae. Anyone else? Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it more, it seems like people (including in scientific journals) refer to the pair of them as "Darwins frogs" (with the plural frogs), and historically refer to the species R. darwinii as "Darwin's frog" (with singular frog) and R. rufum as "Chile Darwin's frog". "Southern" and "Northern" prefixes is much clearer, but seems to be a recent invention without official sanction. EDGE/Zoological Society of London used Northern/Southern in a page Google says is from Feb 2008 (though that could be way off, since it's a non-static php page). A few blogs sporadically used the convention, until the Nov 20 2013 PLOS One journal article used it, and it was then used in dozens or perhaps hundreds of mainstream media articles based on that journal article.
Given that this seems like an unofficial name, I'd leave this article name as is. The plural Darwin's frogs should be added and redirected to Rhinodermatidae, and the first paragraphs for both that page and this one should probably clarify the possible source of confusion. Example rewrite of current opening sentence: Darwin's frog (Rhinoderma darwinii) is one of two members of the Rhinodermatidae family of frogs collectively referred to as Darwin's frogs. Sometimes called the southern Darwin's frog, it is native to the forest streams of Chile and Argentina. Agyle (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be better to make "Southern Darwin's frog" a redirect to this page, as the majority of texts refer to Rhinoderma darwinii as simply "Darwin's frog." Plus, I've already made "Darwin's frogs" a redirect to Rhinodermatidae.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.