Talk:Amphibians of Australia

Amphibians of Australia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Amphibians of Australia is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota High‑importance

	Australia portal Amphibians of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Suggestions

Here are my suggestions for this article. Firstly, we move it to Amphibians of Australia (like Birds of Australia), so it is a daughter article of Fauna of Australia. This would then require a small explanation stating that Anurans are the only amphibians in Aus. Secondly, the best photos should be used for each genus. Most are good, but I think a few have better alternatives:

Limnodynastes photo is too dark, and you cannot see it as a thumbnail. I prefer Fir's image of Lim. dumerili for thumbnail size.
Mixophyes; I prefer my image, current one is pretty dull, is it from a film camera?
Uperoleia. Don't know which one to replace it with, but at that size, it looks like a black sqaure.

Thanks --liquidGhoul 07:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be moved, List of Australian Amphibian Genera is just too long to write. I would suggest using the Uperoleia tyleri image over the one that is already there.--Tnarg 12345 08:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested above, it looks better. Froggydarb 09:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships

This section is something I would like to work on in the next couple weeks. It needs a lot of structure to get the best information possible, and I am currently working that out. The best way to structure it would be chronologically, through the geological time periods, and the splitting (and merging) of each continent or sub-continent since Pangea (as this was the evolution of the proto frog). If we use this structure, the section can also be called "Origins of Australian amphibians". This is the most complicated section of the entire article, so there is no reason to rush. I will start to contribute to it in the near future once I have figured everything out. Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Froggydarb 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you read up on the "Origins" chapter of Australian Frogs A Natural History by Michael Tyler. It has heaps on Australian frog fossils and I'm sure it will be useful for this article.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 09:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was planning on re-reading it tonight. Thanks --liquidGhoul 10:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally rewrote the relationships section, and called it "origins". Although it is currently not finished, this is the structure I was speaking of. All that is left now is to beef it up, the backbone is there. I have also omitted the references. I couldn't be bothered at the moment as I have been working on this for over an hour. I may have left some of your stuff out. It can be added back in, you just need to find the most appropriate spot. Thanks --liquidGhoul 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Suggestions

I would suggest that a section on taxonomy needs to be added to the article. Not as in what is described in the orgins, but more along the lines of controversy over taxonomy, for an example the Philoria vs. Kyarranus issues and similar.

Also some more on the declines would be good, it reads a bit like some species that are critcal should be classed as extinct. For example, L. castanea has not been seen since 1980 and is only classfied as critcal, where R. vitellinus has not been seen since 1984 and is classifed extinct. A way to solve that problem could be a paragraph stating surveying and distribution, as Rheobatrachus was surveyed intensively over a small area and L. castanea occurs over a very large area and has not been surveyed throughout its entire range.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your latter point calls for a footnote rather than material for the main body of text. That said, I don't know how you would visually differentiate between references and other footnotes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second point can be contained in the text, just state why they are not extinct after you have listed all those species it applies to. e.g. "Although xxx have not been sighted for over xx years, extensive surveying has not been undertaken." Or something similar. As for the first point, I don't agree. That type of thing should be kept to the family, genus or species article. There is no need to repeat this information throughout the encyclopaedia. --liquidGhoul 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, I just thought that seeing how many issues there are with the Australian frog taxonomy it may have been better to include it all in one place.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more suggestions

Split climate info from the lead into it's own section, called habitat, or range or distribution (or similar).

Done, will probably expand on it more if I can think of what to write about. --liquidGhoul 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could remove some info from origins on unrelated continents - the parts on India, Madagascar and Seychelles, New Zealand, Antarctica, for example.

That is the point, they aren't unrelated, they are very related and it is relevant to their origins. --liquidGhoul 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you say declining - do you mean in population, or in number of species?

Cleared up the prose to help this out. Generally, declining means populations, but obviously there has been such dramtic declines, that some species have become extinct, and there is a decline in species diversity. --liquidGhoul 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iorek85 10:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Iorek, you have given me some ideas. I have added a todo up top (in the grading section). --liquidGhoul 01:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heleioporus

What's that stuff about Heleiops laying their eggs under ground? Heleioporus tads are one of the slowest to develop out of all Aus frogs. -- Froggydarb ^croak 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heleiops often lay the eggs in burrows, so its not underground, but its not above ground, know what I mean? And they are relavtiely slow developers, but not as slow as Mixophyes.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly referring to Heleioporus eyeri, but I made a change in the last minute which made it sound like all species. I don't know if it occurs throughout the genus. It should have been worded better, to just include the trait of suspended eggs in burrows (and yes, burrows are underground). I tried to kill two birds with the one stone to have better flow (by having Heleioporus have both traits), but it is probably wrong. --liquidGhoul 10:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you wrote (about suspended development) does apply for all Heleioporus but the part about being underground sounds like they are concealed. I'm pretty sure that the eggs are laid at the entrance of a burrow, so it isn't really undergound. -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't it is in the bottom of the burrow, see the second result in this search (don't click, just read the blurb). --liquidGhoul 10:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other amphibians

As the author of this article has pointed out to me, there are other amphibians. Oh, and I made a couple of minor changes in this article. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs are the only amphibians in Australia, this is mentioned in the first line of the article. --liquidGhoul (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amphibians of Australia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Conservation issues before Chytrid

Expand on distribution (seperation of WA from similar climate in Vic/NSW etc.)
External copyedit of Origins section.

Substituted at 04:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of amphibians of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive species

There is an unreferenced throwaway line in the opening paragraph that Cane toads are the only invasive species in Australia.

This isn't remotely my area of expertise, so I don't know how many there are, but Smooth Newts are also invasive: https://phys.org/news/2014-06-european-newts-invade-australia.html

Quarrel (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the alarm. I have edited the article to include smooth newts & citations to go along with it. It's a little odd that it has taken this long as a large portion of the article for the species itself is dedicated to this subject. Oh well, better late than never. I also took the liberty to add it to the List of invasive species in Australia. Monsieur X (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]