Misplaced Pages

Talk:Frog: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:51, 17 September 2007 editDerHexer (talk | contribs)Administrators91,786 editsm Reverted edits by Chadricketts (talk) to last version by GimmeBot← Previous edit Revision as of 18:36, 20 September 2007 edit undoAnshelm '77 (talk | contribs)471 edits →Smallest species: new sectionNext edit →
Line 38: Line 38:


Why is there a photo of two ] mating on a page about frogs? There may not be an available photo of frogs mating, but it's still inaccurate. -] 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Why is there a photo of two ] mating on a page about frogs? There may not be an available photo of frogs mating, but it's still inaccurate. -] 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

== Smallest species ==

I'm putting my comment here, as it concerns three species. The ] article on the ] discovery in 1996 specifically stated that it was the '''second smallest''' amphibian at 3/8 in (9.5 mm) length. According to the article the smallest species was a Brazilian frog measuring 11/32 in (8.7 mm, this would be the ]), but that ''E. iberia'' would be the smallest species on the Northern Hemisphere, with the previous record belonging to another Cuban species of 13/32 in (10.3 mm) length (the ] – ''Sminthillus limbatus'' is a synonym for this, right?). Over the years Guinness has fluctuated between ''B. didactylus'' and ''E. limbatus'' as the smallest amphibian with lengths of 10 mm and 8.5–12 mm respectively; I think they've even had the former credited as the smallest amphibian, while the latter was listed as the smallest frog in the same edition! Also, I don't remember Guinness ever acknowledging ''E. iberia'' at all. --] 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:36, 20 September 2007

Featured articleFrog is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 27, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconAmphibians and Reptiles FA‑class
WikiProject iconFrog is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Misplaced Pages a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:PastACID

To-do list for Frog: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

  • Archive 1 - August 2004 to November 2005
  • Archive 2 - big gallery discussion with lots of pictures slowing down load times, November 2005 to February 2006
  • Archive 3 - November 2005 to February 2006
  • Archive 4 - February 2006 to December 2006

Wait...

...shouldn't their be at least passing mention of the fact that "Frog" is a derogatory reference to Frenchmen? 68.39.174.238 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Disambiguation page is for! Hydrostatics 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reproduction image

Why is there a photo of two toads mating on a page about frogs? There may not be an available photo of frogs mating, but it's still inaccurate. -Hobbesy3 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallest species

I'm putting my comment here, as it concerns three species. The National Geographic article on the Monte Iberia Eleuth discovery in 1996 specifically stated that it was the second smallest amphibian at 3/8 in (9.5 mm) length. According to the article the smallest species was a Brazilian frog measuring 11/32 in (8.7 mm, this would be the Brazilian Gold Frog), but that E. iberia would be the smallest species on the Northern Hemisphere, with the previous record belonging to another Cuban species of 13/32 in (10.3 mm) length (the Yellow-Striped Pygmy Eleuth – Sminthillus limbatus is a synonym for this, right?). Over the years Guinness has fluctuated between B. didactylus and E. limbatus as the smallest amphibian with lengths of 10 mm and 8.5–12 mm respectively; I think they've even had the former credited as the smallest amphibian, while the latter was listed as the smallest frog in the same edition! Also, I don't remember Guinness ever acknowledging E. iberia at all. --Anshelm '77 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: