User talk:LiquidGhoul

Banksias again..and wren

Man, that is an ace photo of the wren. But I digress, as far as cool stuff in your area. Catherine Hill bay, - Flowers Drive just south east of the old church (and about 2-3km north of the village of Catho), there is a windblasted haeth leading down the hill between flowers drive and the ocaen where there are amazing prostrate Banksia spinulosa collina (30cm high and sprawling) that is well worth looking at. I've been there a few years ago and the wohle place is threatened with development. You should get some amazing photos there, and probalby some good bird shots too. cheers Cas

Sorry Evan, I moved your Banksia integrifolia monticola pic to the integrifolia page so as all 3 subspecies are there together. I needed to get a bigger inflorescence closeup on the page. But I figured having the 3 subspp. together looks cool to. cheers Cas Liber 06:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLC nom

Yeah, advertising the nomination on the relevant wikiproject is always good (and even encouraged, as to avoid situations like this one). Your list has no major issues anymore so a renomination as early as this weekend should do the trick this time. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Getting used to this stuff - OK am trying signature now. PS: Will get up some more snaps of banksias so you can figure them out. If you see any, let us know and I can ID 'em pretty easy. Also our ASGAP webpage has loads on them... cheers Casliber

Re: Scars

That L. phllyochroa had nothing compared that L.fallax. This is the L. phllyochroa pic.

Ascaphus and Cordylus

The frog could definitely be Ascaphus, but it's hard to tell. It could be a Leiopelmatid, and I don't know how to tell them apart unless you see the "tail" in the males. Usually this isn't a problem because Ascaphus are N. American, Leiopelmatids are from New Zealand.

The lizard is definitely a Cordylid, but I've never seen these guys before and would have no idea where to start with the species ID.

Sorry it took me so long on the Ascaphus ID, things are crazy these days. Pstevendactylus 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

l. latopalmata page

I was wondering why you changed the image order around, I just wrote up a section on the spawn and tadpoles to go with the new photo and thought that it would be more logical to have the egg photo under that same heading as that paragraph and to have the frog under the description heading.--Tnarg 12345 10:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz hands photo

Done. Mariano(t/c) 06:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution Maps

Where did you get the map of Australia from for the White's Tree Frog article? I want to make some distribution maps for some of the Australian frog articles, however I need a base map to work on.--Tnarg 12345 07:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Tnarg 12345 08:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Froglet

Looks like were heading for another taxonomy discussion on Australian frogs. This time the Moss Froglet. Whether it belongs in Crinia or its own genus Bryobatrachus. I know that the majority of the sites that we use for taxonomy class this frog as being in Crinia, however this frog is often classed in its own genus. Tadpoles of South Eastern Australia by Marion Anstis classes this frog in its own genus, as well as the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife webiste (this is probably worth considering seeing it is a Tasmanian species), when I went up to Hartz Mountains (the discovery site) in Tasmania there were a few signs, all calling this frog Bryobatrachus nimbus. The reasons for it being in a different genus than Crinia are pointed out very clearly in the tadpole book, the tadpole development is completely different from all other frogs in Crinia. You probably know this but this species eggs (total of 4-16) are laid in moss nests and tadpole development is entirely terrestrial. No frog in Crinia comes even close to this form of development. In fact the only tadpole pointed out in the book as being remotely similar to this species is Assa darlingtoni, and that species is not (although once was) classed in Crinia. No other genus that I know of shows so much difference in embryo and tadpole development.--Tnarg 12345 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The classing of Bryobatrachus nimbus back to Crinia from my interpretation of the paper seems like unlucky timing. Basically because Rounsevell described the differences between the Moss Froglet and the genus Ranidella so when Ranidella was merged into Crinia it meant that the differences between the the Moss Froglet and Ranidella (which then became Crinia) were no longer valid. So according to the paper taxonomically Bryobatrachus and Crinia are currently the same, basically because no one has gone and repeated the work of Rounsevell but this time between the Moss Froglet and the genus Crinia. So the Moss Froglet at the moment can't be considered in its own genus. I guess that on wikipedia it sould still be left in Crinia, however when someone gets around to writing the article for the Moss Froglet (I would do it but I have exams all this week and don't have much time) it should be made clear that there are very strong differences between this frog and the rest of the Crinia genus and the synonym of Bryobatrachus nimbus should be in the taxobox, also it is probably worth noting that on the Crinia page.--Tnarg 12345 10:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the paper yet, but what was the "thing" that prompted them in merging Bryobatrachus back into Crinia. Froggydarb 11:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arenophryne

Something is wrong with the Arenophryne link on the Myobatrachidae, I'm not sure how to fix it. Could you please have a look at it. Thanks. Froggydarb 07:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter it's alright. Froggydarb 07:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megistolotis lignarius vs. Limnodynastes lignarius

Here we go again...Should the Carpenter or Woodworker Frog be in the Limnodynastes page or should it have its own as Megistolotis lignarius. Until recently I had never even thought that this species had been considered in Limnodynastes until I saw it on the Limnodynastes page and here, here and on AMNH. However the Northern Australian Frogs Database classes it under the monotypic genus Megistolotis. Physically this species is quite different to other Limnodynastes, as with this species the tympanum is very distinct and in Limnodynastes the tympanum is indistinct. I was wondering if you have any papers on the work of Schauble, Moritz and Slade (2000) that justifies the moving of the species from Megistolotis to Limnodynastes.--Tnarg 12345 06:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whites Tree Frog

Evan,

First and foremost I commend you on taking the time and effort to write an article.

I'm also in Newcastle. I'm aware of how Wikipedia works, but personally I'd rather let the creator take ownership of major edits of the page. I honestly don't have time to rewrite or substantially edit articles, but I'll help whenever I can.

As a warning, be very careful of what you read on the web regarding Australian frogs. Most of it is crap that has been transferred out of US pet keeping books by college students who needed to write an article as part of a course.

There are very few good books on keeping Australian frogs. Much of the info refers to similar species imported from New Guinea or Indonesia. Ones by Bartlett or de Vosjoli are among the better ones.

The White's Tree Frog article needs a fair bit of work, but much of the correct information can be found in a book by Tyler called "Frogs as Pets". Try to track down a copy, if you're unsuccessful email me privately. Another good one for some trivia on GTF's is a journal article by Tyler and Dobson that deals with the type specimens of Litoria caerulea (Herpetologica 29(4), 373-375). Did you know that King Louis XVI heard of the "blue" frogs and sent an expedition to Australia to bring some back? Or that although the description is credited to John White (the ship's surgeon on Cook's Endeavour), it's most likely it is the work of Shaw on a specimen collected by Joseph Banks? Twenty years elapsed between the specimen's collection in 1770 and it's description in 1790.

FWIW, I've had GTF's on and off for 35-odd years, and they are by far and away my favourite frog. I've written a few articles for newsletters and websites regarding frogs, especially GTF's, and would really like to help make yours a truly superb and accurate article.

I do have some photo's of frogs. What species or poses were you after?

Cheers,

Steve

Stevew139 01:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evan,

$40 for Tyler's book is extortion, and definitely not value for money. I bought it for about $15 five or six years back, and thought that excessive, since I already had most of the info. But since I collect books on Litoria caerulea, I had to have it.

You may not have noticed but the small frogs in the centre of the "blue frogs" painting are Crinia signifera, so you may want to add a viewing link at some stage to the Crinia article.

Best of luck with your exams, I'll leave you alone after this. When your exams are over I look forward to doing some editing.

Regards,

Steve

Stevew139 06:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of amphibian families

Yeah, that list was just something basic I did to fill in one of the red links on the WP:AAR page. I just made it in the same format as the List of reptiles, you can do what ever you want with it.

Cheers. Froggydarb 08:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family maps

I just finished my exams on Friday, so I have some more time on my hands. I should be able to do some of the family maps, but I would need a reference to work off-do you have a website where I would be able to get an idea of the distribution of each family?--Tnarg 12345 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at a few as well. Froggydarb 02:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did the map for the Leiopelmatidae family, however the distribution is very hard to see even in full resolution, should the image be cropped to just NZ or should the distribution be pointed out or circled?--Tnarg 12345 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Amphibiaweb

I noticed that it says that the photos on amphibiaweb can be used as thumbnails under fair use license on this page. It also says that larger images can be used with permission. I know Dr. Jean-Marc Hero (I am working with one of his students on a wallum frog project) and he is the author of over 150 photos on that website (many are photos of frogs that are difficult to get photos of). I could ask him for permission to use these photos on wikipedia. Do licenses on wikipedia cover this types of images usage?--Tnarg 12345 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the choice of the editors of the article"

Remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia articles - people don't own them. See WP:OWN. I see the point with specific names (capitalise Great White, don't capitalise shark). But that just confirms the platypus article is wrong to capitalise. If you read it, notice it's not even consistent itself. So do you mind if I edit your article now? Proto||type 06:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

littlejohni

Me and user:froggydarb were out at Darkes Forest tonight, it's the only site near Sydney where they are, we had been planning on going out there for a while but we waited until after the rain which fell this week. There is also littlejohni around the watagans which is closer to newcastle.--Tnarg 12345 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't just 1 or 2 either, there was at least 10 calling. Froggydarb 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you haven't heard of Darkes Forest before, its probably one of the best frogging sites near Sydney, with something like 22 species of frogs. Normally we go to another part of Darkes forest, however we were looking for littlejohni last night so we had to walk something like 6kms total when it was like 5 degrees when we finally heard something calling we found they were calling from a creek, which was actually quite deep and all the frogs were on the opposite side of the creek from us, so I had to wade out in freezing cold water just to get one. But it was worth it, I had never seen one before that night (even though I had attempted to find them before) and I did get a call recording at close range to the lot of them. We only found 1 other species, I'm sure you could guess what it was, however they were mostly calling from a small dam near the start of the walk, and I think there was only 1 calling from were we got the littlejohni's.--Tnarg 12345 22:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range maps

The maps on the Bombinatoridae (map is there but it can't be larger then it's current size), Littlejohn's Tree Frog and Jervis Bay Tree Frog pages don't appear in the taxobox, a link is given instead. Do you know how to fix the problem?

Thanks. Froggydarb 06:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

family maps

If you, me and froggydarb are all going to work on the family maps we should probably co-ordinate it so that none of us are working on the same family at the same time, as it would waste a lot of time and effort if we discovered that someone has just finished a map of a family at the same time that someone else was working on. Can you suggest any sort of system for this?--Tnarg 12345 09:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I striked out the ones that have been done, I also left a similar message on user:froggydarb's page.--Tnarg 12345 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the family maps only be based on native distribution? ie. if Bufonidae was going to be worked on you wouldn't include the area inhabited by the Cane Toad in Australia--Tnarg 12345 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I thought it would be best to only include native distribution, as it would get ver complicated with some species.--Tnarg 12345 11:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus

I don't understand why Platypus should not be capitalised. It is a specific name, there is only one Platypus

No, a platypus is a type of animal, like a cow, or a mouse, or a bear. The fact there is only one specific species of platypus doesn't mean it's a special case that overrules grammar. Proto||type 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congrats

Nice to see Cane Toad promoted! Cheers. Tony 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Australian Froglist

Yeah I have a pic of an Assa. I am thinking of writing something in the intro (of the froglist) before I upload it though, should be up by the weekend. Froggydarb 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Sac

I have a pic of a L.chloris with a fully inflated vocal sac if you want it for the page. My only concern is that the page would then become a bit cramped. This is the link. Froggydarb 09:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Agree these are not now stubs, I have now removed them. Probably weren't to start with. Cheers GrahamBould 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives