Talk:Litoria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not nonsense, but no content. The genus Litoria is a genus of tree frogs, L. caerulea is indeed known as "White's Tree Frog". I'd advocate adding Litoria to a "clear up redlinks" project. Tonywalton 13:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help if you have the time![edit]

I am going to have an entire list of the species on here. The up to date version of all species of Litoria is found here (at the bottom of the page) [1]. If anyone has the time, could you please add some (in alphabetic order). It doesn't matter if you only put the binomial name in, just whatever will save me time. If you would like to add the common name, then click on the species on the site I mentioned, it is under "English names". Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 08:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The french wiki has completed all frog species, genera, subfamilies etc. Se [2] where you can copy all the latin names. Isfisk 10:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the describer's names are ONLY set in parentheses if the species was placed in a different genus in the description than where it is placed now! Maybe something was synonymized into it, but it seems odd. Have added "expert attention" tag. Dysmorodrepanis 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are all in parentheses because of style, not convention. I am starting to think it would be a better idea to change it back. Although, I think it would be good to leave such conventions to Wikispecies, and keep the encyclopaedia as simple as possible. Thoughts? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it would be good to leave such conventions to Wikispecies" - no, this is not a convention but a mandatory rule of the ICZN - the use or non-use of parentheses contains important taxonomic information.
For animals, put parentheses around the describer/date IF AND ONLY IF the original description uses a different genus from the genus the animal is placed in now. Anything else is just as wrong as writing "the genus Tyrannosaurus Rex".
"They are all in parentheses because of style" - I always put the author/date in small font when working through such lists. It suits both style and the ICZN demands.
I also remove author/date information of species that have an article, after checking that it's in the taxobox there. Because that is the proper place for it. Technically it's not wrong to have it in the list, but it increases the maintenance work immensely. This list had 5 or so species where the information in the list differed from that on the species pages! Again, the taxobox is the appropriate place for such information, and if it is kept the ONLY place, this is probably best. Except in cases of complex synonymy, homonymy and so on, but you don't have to worry about these. Specialists will take care of them. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Australasian Tree Frogs" is the right name?[edit]

This page used to be at Litoria, is "Australasian Tree Frogs" really the right name for it? It only gets 9 google hits. [3] Kappa 13:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be a case where the scientific name is used more commonly than the common name. I hadn't realised that it was so unpopular (only 9 google hits) when I moved it. I got it from here, which is a very reputable resource. It is just that it is never actually used. I actually would rather it the old way now. --liquidGhoul 14:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back to Litoria, thanks for bringing it up, I don't know what I was thinking. --liquidGhoul 10:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to "Copland"[edit]

Does anyone know anything about the Australian herpetologist "Stephen J Copland" who discovered some of these tree frogs? Tiki2099 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the etymology of Litoria[edit]

I need to know what's the etymology of Litoria.--Jaguarlaser (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does Litoria mean?--Jaguarlaser (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Litoria. 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: 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) 07:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Litoria. 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: 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) 18:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Litoria&oldid=1195584171"