Talk:Common frog

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)

"Over winter they hibernate in the mud on the bottom of ponds." Surely this is an old wives' tale? Unlike early stage tadpoles frogs lack gills and are airbreathers, if the statement in the article is correct then they'd have to be able to hold their breath for several months while hibernating. Sharm 20:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually true that they do hibernate in the mud at the bottom of ponds. I have personally cleaned out ponds in winter, and when you scoop them out with the mud, they initially seem dead, but as they warm up they suddently come to life. I guess when hibernating they do not need to breath. Obviously we need some scientific backing, but i believe the article as it is is misleading saying that it is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.145.13 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Many amphibians can and will hibernate at the bottom of ponds or even small waterholes (1 m2). I found some dead common frog in a concrete bucket that size used for drinking water for cattle. If they die it is from poisoning with hydrogen sulfide, produced by anaerobic bacteria in the bottom, because the metabolism of the amphibians at 4 °C is really low and they can take up oxygen through their thin skin. Some frogs and newts don't even have lungs because of the cold oxygen rich cold streams or lakes they inhabit instead their body is flattened and the skin has many folds.Viridiflavus (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"It has been introduced to Ireland"

The introduction of this species to Ireland is held by some to be the origin of the species in that country after the last Ice Age. However as yet there is no scientific evidence to confirm that the species is non-native. I ask that this statement either be removed from the article or modified to reflect the uncertainty of the species' origin in Ireland. Mavortium 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm making this change myself. Mavortium 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

general data...

This page has no data about number of tadpoles per clump of spawn, tadpole mortality, specie lifespan and other such information. I have just looked in my nature handbook (the obsevers book of british wildlife) to find some data:

spawn is laid in clumps of 1000-2000 each egg is 1/10 of an inch to start with and swells to 1/3 of and inch which results in the density change and resultant floating. the success rate is roughly 6 per thousand survive to the autumn. it was introduced to ireland early in the 18th century.

hope this helps towrds the article... i dnt know the rules about what suffices as a source otherwise i wd have added it straight away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Frogs don't only hibernate when it's frozen

There were two sentences in "Habits and habitat which said "Common frogs are active almost all of the year, only hibernating when it gets very cold and the water and earth are consistently frozen. In the British Isles, common frogs typically hibernate from late October to January" The first sentence was uncited and clearly wrong as the ground in Britain is almost never frozen for all of this period so obviously they also hibernate when the ground is not consistently frozen. I changed the first sentence to "Common frogs are active for much of the year, only hibernating in the coldest months, sometime between August and early June depending on latitude and altitude." and added a citation but, it was changed back with the comment "Common frogs are not only in Brittain also at high altitudes like in Pyrenees" Well thank you for that but "sometime between August and early June depending on latitude and altitude" makes it quite clear I was aware of that already and Britain was only an example that shows that the first sentence is not strictly true. Now it may be that frogs only hibernate when the ground and water is frozen and wake up as soon as the temperature gets to +1C but I doubt it. If you want to change the sentence to something else please find a reference first. Richerman (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, we should find a reference, because I even think it is not strictly true, that they are active most of the year. Common toads are active when they are breeding, but after breeding in March they retreat in their burrows again and will start foraging again when the temperature is more agreeable. Probably the same thing is the case with the common frog. In the colder months however there are many observations of common frogs when the ice starts disappearing, sometimes even under the ice. I just dont understand why you say the ground in Brittain is almost never frozen. In the text I think they just mean the lightly frozen top layer of the soil,during a colder period. Anyway te whole article needs a revision the reproduction stops here with the mating for instance. There is not much on land habitat etc.. I just did not like the phrase between august and early june because that is very much out of the normal range (november to february). Let me look into it for a few references. I am a member of RAVON , the volunteer nature protection organizion overhere that surveys and tries to protects amphibians, reptilians and fishes and so I get the magazine for 15 years already, and from that I know about these winter observations during mild periods.(frogs becoming active at 1C).Viridiflavus (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have missed this reply so my response is somewhat late. I didn't say that the ground in Britain is almost never frozen - I said it is almost never frozen for all of this period - i.e. October to January Richerman (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservation status

Some info on bacterial diseases has just been replaced after removal because of no previous talk. I must say it is indeed superfluous information that can (better) be found in the info on the bacterial disease itself. On the species level the extra information is not relevant I think and is only making the wikipedia bigger. I therefore propose to remove it again, after checking if there is anything relevant that should be moved to the disease article.Viridiflavus (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The information you removed says "Loss of habitat and the effect of these diseases has caused the decline of populations across Europe in recent years. It is thought that the spread of the Chytridiomycota fungus has been facilitated by the effects of global warming". How is this not relevant to the article? The article isn't particularly long and removing these two sentences about a serious threat to frog populations seems somewhat excessive. Richerman (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:European Common Frog Rana temporaria.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:European Common Frog Rana temporaria.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 20, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The common frog (Rana temporaria) is found throughout much of Europe. Adults have a body length of 6 to 9 cm (2.4 to 3.5 in) and vary in colour, with the ability to lighten and darken their skin to match their surroundings. They will feed on any invertebrate of a suitable size and, apart from the breeding season, live solitary lives.Photo: Richard Bartz

Average Lifespan?

? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of "temporaria"

The article says "The frog's skin also secretes temporin... for which the latter part of its scientific name is denoted translated in Latin." Apart from the fact that this is gibberish, it suggests that "temporaria" is derived from "temporin" rather than the other way round (as stated in the Wiktionary entry for temporin, and as would be consistent with the way substances derived from living things are named in general, e.g. cocaine is named after coca not vice versa). Since "temporaria" means "temporary" (who would have guessed, eh?) I'd imagine it is probably derived from the fact that frogs (in climates where they hibernate) are only seen for part of the year, but this is pure guesswork - does anybody know? 82.28.107.46 (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The following backs your suggestion about the origin of the name: The Latin name ‘temporaria’ refers to the ‘temporary’ nature of this frog, often seen in large spawning aggregations, then not again until the following spring, spending the summer months widely dispersed in the countryside.

The temporin article makes the point about the peptides being derived from the common frog, but gives no source. This one might be suitable: Temporins, antimicrobial peptides from the European red frog Rana temporaria ([1]).   Jts1882 | talk  14:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

On BBCs Springwatch last week, an amphibian expert said that the term temporaria refers to the fact that these frogs tend to favour temporary ponds that dry up every so often as they tend to be devoid of fish that will eat the tadpoles. She went on to say that toads prefer deeper ponds as their tadpoles are poisonous and so do not get eaten by fish. This would seem to be a risky strategy but it does explain why I often find frogspawn laid in small puddles that obviously won't last the summer. I haven't, however been able to find a citation for this . Richerman (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

An alternate thought: could temporaria refer to the dark, triangular temple spot, as in tempus+aria= of or pertaining to the temple? The temporal spot seems to be a feature of this frog, as well as some other members of Rana Vivek572 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. One user gave weak un-reasoned support for retaining the redirect, no other comment was given in that regard Zindor (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Rana temporaria temporaria into Rana temporaria. I think the content in the subspecies page can easily be explained in the article on the main page, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Bar.Fourdots2 (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Eric ^talk 12:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've left a comment at the other article. Zindor (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

To paraphrase myself, merge usable content and redirect. Athough given the similarity of the name i wouldn't lose sleep if there was no redirect. Zindor (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Merge - it absolutely makes sense because we're generally always talking about Rana temporaria temporaria unless we're talking about one or the other of the other two very obscure subspecies...of which Rana temporaria parvipalmata appears to have been recently separated into its own taxon as Rana parvipalmata (according to this). Separate articles on the other two subspecies might theoretically be justified, but not on the nominotypical subspecies unless there is very good reason. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Fourdots2:Hi, enough time had passed so i closed the discussion. You're all clear to go ahead with the merge. Zindor (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't really know how to do that to be honest. I'll have a look  :) Fourdots2 (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done it by following the instructions  :) Fourdots2 (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

'Common frogs are farmed'

Does anyone have any information on this? As far as I am aware they are not edible - is this for frogspawn to go in gardens? Fourdots2 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The cited source by Ferrie et al (2015) states they are in commercial production but it doesn't provide any more context other than linking to Miles et al, 2004. I gave the Miles et al paper a quick skim and it uses the term ranaculture (article idea?) to describe the raising of [presumably] frogs of the Rana genus. It does however state that getting frogs to eat is a limitation in farming and also states that most frogs eaten in France are collected from the wild. This ties in with this anecdotal article from the WSJ which says that Rana temporaria doesn't do well being farmed and illustrates that some [French] people poach them from the wild for their legs.

I think that it's worth addressing this aspect of farming/edibility in the article but not in the way the text currently is.

Regarding edibility i haven't found any direct statements but the implication is that they are edible, collected for eating and on a limited scale farmed for that purpose too. Here is also a paper about Rana temporaria remains on an Eneolithic (3000–2800 BC) site in the Czech Republic; it suggests the legs were eaten but again isn't conclusive on edibility. Might make a little bit of interesting prose though, i think a saw another paper relating it to Mesolithic Bohemian diet too when i was searching. Zindor (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There's the edible frog which is eaten in France (and I guess other places?) I've never heard of anyone eating a common frog and was under the impression that they weren't. Could be interesting though! Fourdots2 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

yeah, that's the 'green frog' referred to in the WSJ article. The 'red frog' is i believe short for 'European red frog' aka Rana temporaria. Interestingly though when you approximate it in French (crapaud rouge i guessed) you get results for Dyscophus antongilii. So it would seems 'red frog' is possibly an American term, and a confusing one at that. Zindor (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Commentary on entry Sep/22/2022

The Lead Section is much more comprehensive (and still concise) than any of the other frog entries I’ve read. I thought it was super cool that this frog’s range covers Eurasia (ther are subspecies). The subsections are written in language that appeals to a general audience and still manages to include depth as well as breadth. Albeit, the subsections are the not in any way long, they make the entry easy to navigate. Many of the main subsections are covered. One additional subsection could be written on Mutualisms. Aside from a short bit on predation, much of the frog’s relationships with other species are missing. It would also be interesting to see the frog’s relationship to humans and humanity. A subsection on Human Interactions could delve into any cultural significance the Common Frog may pose such as gastronomy. A third subsection could dive in on Physiology. The entry mentions some of the frogs striking abilities e.g. the ability to detect worms via smell. It would be interesting to see the mechanisms that grant the frog these abilities. This article has a C-Class ranking and is of Mid-Importance. While this entry is arguably better than the other four entries mentioned in this assignment, this entry has an appropriate ranking. The entry covers many subheadings although briefly as a reference source should; it does not however, provide enough detail to “satisfy a serious student or researcher” which would grant it a mere B-Class ranking. The article is appropriately of Mid-Importance due to how common the frog is. The discussion on the Talk page are thorough and they point out erroneous technicalities.--Elwhoelwu (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Entry Peer Review

I thought that the writing was very well done throughout the article. Phrases were written in an articulate and concise manner. I made some minor grammatical and syntax edits throughout the paper. Some areas of concern I had were that in some instances, the final sentence of a paragraph did not have a citation. I found instances of this in the 'Genetic Population Structure' subheading and 'Diet' heading. This can pose a plagiarism issue that should be resolved as soon as possible. Some scientific names (genus species) were also not italicized. I edited every instance in which I found this to be the case. The biggest issue I found with this entry was the lack or organization. The headings and order of those headings did not follow the suggested Wikipedia outline. This caused some confusion as information was placed out of order. For example, I edited the 'Conservation' heading to be placed under 'Habitat and Distribution' rather than at the end of the article. I changed the headings as much as I could in order to fit the correct outline. --Anikavarsani (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is well written and extremely detailed. It included all of the notable sections from the provided outline. The lead paragraph is also thorough and gives a good summary to the information in the rest of the article. The previous peer reviewer did a good job at ensuring all the headings were in the proper order, one small change I made was changing the "Development" section to read "Life Cycle," and changed "Reproduction and Life Cycle" to read "Reproduction and Mating Patterns" to more accurately reflect the information included. Mashal Naqvi (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review Edit

I rephrased a few repetitive wordings such as “similar to its close cousin, the moor frog (rana arvalis), the common frog exhibits no territoriality during breeding seasons – throughout the Spring months.” and “Due to the lack of territoriality, there is no physical fighting between males to secure a mate.[1]” into “Like its close cousin, the moor frog (R. arvalis), R. Temporaria does not exhibit territoriality which leads to lack of physical fighting among males. I also corrected a few grammars errors and reorganized the page into outline template. I also combined information that was scattered in paragraphs under subheadings like mating and diets.   Emily486103 (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Minor Peer Review

This was a very thorough entry and very well done! The organization was well layed out and I didn’t have any comments there. I had a couple edits that were mostly stylistic like ensuring the subspecies names were italicized in the proper Genus species format. “There are 3 subspecies of the common frog, R. t. temporaria, R. t. honnorati and R. t. palvipalmata. R. t. temporaria is the most common subspecies of this frog. One of the common frog’s most pervasive predators is the red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans), which is the most invasive species of turtles in the world. Contrary to Lithobates sylvaticus (wood frogs), common frogs do not have the ability to freeze protect themselves by increasing their levels of blood glucose to serve as a cryoprotectant.

I also clarified some run on sentences like this “The adult common frog has a body length of 6 to 9 centimetres (2.4 to 3.5 in)[3] its back and flanks varying in colour from olive green[2] to grey-brown, brown, olive brown, grey, yellowish and rufous ” to The adult common frog has a body length of 6 to 9 centimetres (2.4 to 3.5 in).[3] In addition, its back and flanks vary in colour from olive green[2] to grey-brown, brown, olive brown, grey, yellowish and rufous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebullfrogwhisperer (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Style and wording problems

The above gushing "peer review" posts of 2022 notwithstanding, sections of this article have wording and sentence structure problems that appear be the result of either rough translations from another language, or of writing exercises by editors who are not fluent in English. One example would be the wording of this section: Common_frog#Competition_among_males, which makes the material difficult to comprehend. It would be helpful if someone familiar with both the subject matter and the English language were to go over the article. Eric ^talk 04:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)