Talk:Leopard frog

Chemical sensitivity

After reading a comment that saying someone developed a Multiple Chemical Sensitivity after Malathion spraying of their home, I read the article about that chemical and it said this:

"Although current EPA regulations do not require amphibian testing, a 2008 study done by the University of Pittsburgh found that "cocktails of contaminants", which are frequently found in nature, were lethal to leopard frog tadpoles. They found that a combination of five widely used insecticides (carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan, and malathion) in concentrations far below the limits set by the EPA killed 99% of leopard frog tadpoles" reference http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111183041.htm

"Endosulfan appears to be about 1,000-times more lethal to amphibians than other pesticides that we have examined,” Relyea said. “Unfortunately, pesticide regulations do not require amphibian testing, so very little is known about endosulfan's impact on amphibians, despite being sprayed in the environment for more than five decades"

It's not clear if that's specific to the leopard frog though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Egg Size

"tadpoles emerge approximately 65–83 mm in length" -- Seems to be an enormous overstatement. I've seen a lot of tadpoles of the Northern species, and I've seen the egg masses from which they've emerged. Even at a few weeks old, the tadpoles aren't more than 5 mm long. There's no way the tadpoles emerge 65 mm long. I doubt, even, that they ever get that large--I've seen many adults smaller than that. For perspective, 63 to 88 mm = 6.3 to 8.8 cm = 2.5 to 3.5 in. --The Berzerk Dragon 03:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

redirect?

Why does Northern Leopard Frog redirect to this page, yet all the other leopard frogs such as the Southern Leopard Frog do not? If no one objects I will create a new article for the Northern Leopard Frog, and remove the redirect.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 08:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone and created the new article for Northern Leopard Frog.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 10:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Decline

I removed (as several have before me) the sentence

The frogs of the reserve offen get caught by little native boys and thats whats bring these frogs down

I believe this should be cited and may represent original research. Thoughts or references on this? --TeaDrinker 16:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) As there is no citation, no locality of any kind, and no context, I would suggest simply deleting this comment. FrogO Oeyes (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

leopard frog

When you buy a Leopard frog from the pet store you would fine that they like to dig in the dret. That is clled breowing.When they breowing you shuold leave them alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.78.5 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New Frog in Manhattan

A new species of Leopard frog was discovered in Manhattan of all places. Seems like a peculiar enough story, perhaps worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.197.145 (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Publications concerning this species report that it is a sibling to the pickerel frog, a species which is related to leopard frogs, but not included in this entry. Consequently, the new species should be excluded from the entry, or pickerel frogs should be added. FrogO Oeyes (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic Bias in Leopard Frog Entries

The statement in Taxonomy: "Lithobates, however, is no longer recognized as a genus by most authors.[1][2][3]" is false and represents an institutional bias, in that all of the relevant references come from a single lab responsible for previously rejected name changes, whereas the Center for North American Herpetology and many [most or all? I have not surveyed] government agencies in North America now use Lithobates. viz - http://www.cnah.org/Default.aspx Likewise - http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/?action=references&id=25055 While the latter can be considered a source of opposing bias, this bias provides balance for that already entrenched in this entry. Furthermore, Frost has frequently altered his listings to reflect accepted and contradictory views rather than those which are essentially his own [such as use of Ascaphidae and Nasikabatrachidae in the previous list, as opposed to previous proposals to include these in Leiopelmatidae and Sooglossidae respectively]. FrogO Oeyes (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening of Article

The statement: "They are also found in Europe." is not supported by a reference. This species group is endemic to North America and does not naturally occur in Europe. The article contains no citation of European populations, native or introduced.

It appears that a large number of recognized species have not been included in this entry: Lithobates brownorum, Lithobates chichicuahutl, Lithobates dunni, Lithobates forreri, Lithobates lemosespinali, Lithobates megapoda, Lithobates montezumae, Lithobates spectabilis, Lithobates tlaloci, http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/?action=references&id=25055 Separate headings for a small number of species are listed as Lithobates, while most are under Rana still. FrogO Oeyes (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leopard frog. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528131608/http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/215.pdf to http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/215.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)