Talk:Amphibian/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Axl (talk · contribs) 09:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll review it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "The three modern orders of amphibians are the Anura (frogs and toads), Caudata (salamanders and newts) and Gymnophiona (caecilians, limbless amphibians that resemble large earthworms with jaws)." The reference names the salamander order Urodela, not Caudata. I don't mind which name is used, but the reference must support the use of that name. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded this sentence and added a new source which shows that the two terms are interchangeable.

From "Evolution", paragraph 2: "An affinity between the amphibians and the teleost fish is the labyrinthic structure of the teeth." What does "labyrinthic" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.

From "Evolution", paragraph 3: "In the late Devonian and early Carboniferous, the seas, rivers and lakes were teeming with life but the land was the realm of early plants and devoid of animal life." I presume that the land was also "teeming with life", just that it was plant life, not animal life. How about changing the sentence to "In the late Devonian and early Carboniferous, the seas, rivers and lakes were teeming with animals but the land was the realm of early plants and devoid of animal life." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, later in the paragraph, insects are said to be present on land. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have clarified this.

From "Evolution", paragraph 4: "the most recent molecular study, based on multi-locus data, suggest a Late Carboniferous – Early Permian origin of extant amphibians." Is this study the same as molecular phylogenetics? What is "multi-locus data"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced it with a wikilinked phrase.

The diagram of putative phylogenetic trees in the "Evolution" section includes the clade "Salientia". I presume that this is the same as "Anura"? Given that "Salientia" is not mentioned in the text, it may be better to remove the diagram from the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the "Classification" section expands on this. Still, it is rather confusing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is confusing. I wrote the article on Salientia and corresponded with David Cannatella of the Tree of Life Web Project on the subject. He told me that different authors use the term to refer to different groupings of amphibians.

The diagram is in the "Evolution" section. Neither that section, nor the preceding sections mention the word "Salientia". Also, "Salientia" is defined in the "Classification" section as a superorder comprising all three orders. This contradicts the diagram. Please consider deleting the diagram. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Evolution", last paragraph: "There are large gaps in the fossil record but the discovery of a batrachian from the Early Permian in Texas in 2008 provided a missing link with a lot of the characteristics of modern frogs." What is a "batrachian"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Batrachian is another ill-defined term. I have changed the wording.

From "Classification": "Order Anura (frogs and toads): Jurassic to recent—5,602 recent species in 48 families." How about "Order Anura (frogs and toads): Jurassic to present—5,602 current species in 48 families". Ditto for the next two lines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.

• Thank you for taking on this review. I have now dealt with the points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In the "Classification" section, the drawing of Karaurus sharovi contains several clashing colours. However, given that the species is known only through its fossilized remains, surely the colour pattern is unknown. The colour pattern used is comical; it looks like a child was over-enthusiastic with a colouring set. Also, I am concerned by the depiction of four digits on the forelimbs. From looking at Google images, the main fossil image is somewhat damaged and shows only the left forelimb, with four digits on it. Did Karaurus really have only four digits on its forelimbs? In any case, the speculative, garish colouration makes this picture unsuitable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it.

In "Classification", I don't understand why "Family Albanerpetontidae" is directly below "Subclass Lissamphibia" and above "Superorder Salientia". Similarly, why is "Genus Triadobatrachus" below "Superorder Salientia" and above "Order Anura"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "Classification" section seems to explain this. I presume that Albanerpetontidae was in a separate order? (The Wikipedia entry indicates Allocaudata.) However the Triadobatrachus entry indicates Anura. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article Triadobatrachus is wrong, see here. I was going to alter the taxobox but found it was an automatic one, altering which is a skill I have not yet mastered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. However the current layout is confusing. Perhaps either indent the Albanerpetontidae and Triadobatrachus lines another notch, or remove them altogether from the list. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Albanerpetontidae and Triadobatrachus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Classification", the picture of Triadobatrachus seems to show four digits on the forelimb. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Frogs and most salamanders have 4 digits on the forelimb so I see no reason to doubt it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 1: "The amphibians are tetrapods, a class of vertebrate animals with four limbs." Shouldn't this be a superclass? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a class, alongside Mammalia, Reptilia etc. See here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That "reference" barely mentions tetrapods and certainly doesn't define them. Also, it looks like some guy made a Powerpoint presentation about chordates for a group of students. It is not suitable as a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a better reference and one for "Amniota". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the problem lies with the parsing of the sentence. Does the word "class" refer to "amphibians" or "tetrapods"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 1: "They are non-amniotes, which means that their eggs are not surrounded by the several membranes, some impervious, which enable mammals, reptiles and birds to reproduce on land." Is "non-amniote" a scientifically defined word? Or does it simply mean "not an amniote"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any significant change. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it was done but the change was made by you. I have now rephrased that part and added some references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the "non-amniotes" text. However with the new text, (most) mammals don't have eggs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few extra words but I am not sure that they are an improvement. Mammals may not lay eggs but they still have amniotic membranes surrounding the foetus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this paragraph again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of the first paragraph of "Characteristics" is more suitable for the "Evolution" section. I accept that there may be some overlap. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved part of it and agree it is better under "Evolution".

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 1: "Amphibians are restricted to moist habitats because ... they need to produce copious amounts of dilute urine." Really? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well apparently this is so but I have removed the statement as the matter is covered in greater detail in the section "Digestive and excretory systems". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", last paragraph: "Amphibians breathe by means of a bucco-pharyngeal pump." Is there an appropriate link to explain the phrase "bucco-pharyngeal pump"? Otherwise, can it be simplified? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded and explained this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "buccopharyngeal membrane" is the right link, but thank you for the better explanation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Skin", last paragraph: "The colour change experienced by many species is caused by secretions from the pituitary gland." Perhaps "displayed" rather than "experienced"? The following sentence implies that the colour change is relatively slow. Is this because the pituitary controls the colour by hormones? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Circulatory system": "They have a heart that consists of a ventricle and two atria (it may be considered a single atrium if not at least partially divided) that pumps oxygenated blood through arteries and deoxygenated blood through veins to the lungs." Through (pulmonary) arteries to the lungs, surely? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This was a bad error. I have rephrased the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "bad error". Don't be too harsh on yourself. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Digestive and excretory systems", paragraph 2: "the liver functions as the central metabolic organ that regulates blood sugar." I am wary of the use of the word "regulate". The pancreas detects the blood glucose level and responds by releasing regulatory hormones. These hormones affect metabolic activity in the liver, which then releases or removes glucose from the blood. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From the same sentence, the liver doesn't transport the final metabolic products through the vascular system. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this whole paragraph. (I checked to see whether these circulation and digestion errors pre-dated my involvement with the article and I was glad to find that they did. I thought I had been through all the sections but apparently I had not.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Digestive and excretory systems", paragraph 2: "Fat bodies are another important means of storing energy and are found in the abdomen." Perhaps "adipose tissue" rather than "fat bodies"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Reproduction", most of the last paragraph would be better placed in "Life cycle". Also, the paragraph lacks a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph which contained little information that wasn't elsewhere in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle": "For this reason tadpoles can have horny ridges for teeth, whiskers and fins." I am uneasy with the word "whiskers", which implies hair—a mammalian feature. Perhaps put the word in "inverted commas"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Eggs", paragraph 1: "Most eggs contain the pigment melanin which raises their temperature." I presume that the melanin absorbs the sun's light which raises the temperature? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Parental care", paragraph 1: "Nevertheless, it is estimated that up to twenty percent of amphibian adults play some role in the care of the young." Does this figure refer to all adult amphibians, male and female? Or is it the proportion of species that have some parental involvement? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Parental care", paragraph 2: "The black mountain salamander does this, the mother brooding the eggs and guarding them from predation as the larvae feed on the yolks of their eggs. They eventually break their way out of the egg capsules and disperse." Aren't they called larvae only after hatching? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Parental care", paragraph 3: "When they are ready to undergo metamorphosis, she regurgitates them and they hop away from her mouth." Wouldn't they be hopping only after metamorphosis? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Feeding and diet", paragraph 3: "They typically have small hinged pediceled teeth. These have bicuspid conical crowns attached by a pedicel to the jaw and are replaced at intervals." What does "pediceled" mean? What are "bicuspid conical crowns"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased and expanded this to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Vocalization", paragraph 2: "Each call is characteristic of the species, the presence of which in an area may be easier to detect by its voice than by a fleeting glimpse of the animal itself." Can this sentence be simplified please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Territorial behaviour" a subsection of "Vocalization"? Only the third paragraph implies that vocalization is important, and this is only in frogs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty illogical, I agree. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Territorial behaviour", paragraph 2: "It was found that 91% of marked individuals which were later recaptured were within a metre (yard) of their original location (foraging behaviour would have given a different result at night)." Does this imply that most individuals stay within their own small territories? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far they go when they forage but I have added a bit more information from this study. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text. What conclusions did the researchers draw? Do these salamanders have small, well-defined territories? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added information on territory size from AmphibiaWeb. This has quite a bit more information on the territorial behaviour specific to this species which I could add if you want. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The text is fine now, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Territorial behaviour", paragraph 3: "Other fighting methods include... splashing and ducking him and seizing him by the head." Is "splashing and ducking him" a single technique, or is "ducking him and seizing him by the head" a single technique? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have adjusted the syntax. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Defence mechanisms", paragraph 1: "A dose of 0.0002cc of skin was sufficient to kill a mouse in ten minutes." It is odd that the dose is measured in cc—a unit of volume. Shouldn't the measurement of skin, which isn't a liquid or gas, be in micrograms? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It does seem odd but it's what it says. It's in the brief abstract at the beginning of the paper. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The reference is a primary source from 1968. If there is no recent source with sensible units, it would be better to delete the statement and the reference. From looking through the list of references, I see that there are a few old references, including one from 1942 (Gilbert, "Observations on the eggs of Ambystoma maculatum"). Such references are questionable, especially when they are primary sources. If the information isn't stated in a recent secondary source, it has questionable authority and is probably being given undue weight for a general encyclopedia article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Defence mechanisms", the text implies that only one species of amphibian actually uses tetrodotoxin for defence. If this is the case, far too much emphasis is given to this, occupying most of the first paragraph. Most of this should be deleted, leaving only a brief mention that the rough-skinned newt uses tetrodotoxin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence using the cc unit and some other information on tetrodotoxin. I have added other information and a more up to date source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I still think that there is too much emphasis on tetrodotoxin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Defence mechanisms", paragraph 2: "These warning colours tend to be red or yellow combined with black, with the fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) being an example." Since the fire salamander is specifically called out, perhaps move the picture of the fire salamander from the "Anatomy and physiology" section to this section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Defence mechanisms", paragraph 3: "Their bodies writhe and they raise and lash their tails which makes it difficult for the predator to avoid contact with their granular glands." What are "granular glands"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. They were explained in the skin section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", paragraph 2: "A reduction in the number of tadpoles or their absence might lead to algal overgrowth and possibly eutrophication, resulting in the water becoming depleted of oxygen when the algae die and decompose." "Eutrophication" seems to be a response to increased chemical introduction into the environment. It is more likely that eutrophication leads to algal overgrowth, depletion of oxygen, and death of tadpoles. The loss of tadpoles would create a positive feedback mechanism causing even more algal growth. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to "eutrophication". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", last paragraph: "On January 21, 2008, Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE), in a statement made by chief Helen Meredith, identified nature's most endangered species." I don't see why the date is relevant, nor why Helen Meredith is named. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed these details and rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", last paragraph: "In 2008, the conservation organisation Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) stated that each amphibian on their list had a unique evolutionary history and amongst them were some of the "most remarkable and unusual species on the planet and yet an alarming 85% of the top 100 are receiving little or no conservation attention." " I am concerned by the weighting of this rather alarmist statement. Also the claim "that each amphibian on [the] list [has] a unique evolutionary history" is meaningless drivel, designed to fool the unwary. Every species has a "unique evolutionary history"—that's part of the definition of "species". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Conservation", last paragraph: "The top 10 EDGE listed species include the Chinese giant salamander, etc." Is it really necessary to list them all? Also, I presume that this list is amphibian species only? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the offending paragraph in its entirety. I think EDGE is particularly concerned about ancient lineages with one extant species, but the references were newspaper articles dating back to 2008 so not necessarily still relevant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind one neutral sentence, but deletion is fine too. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The article is well-written. The text is clear.
2. The article is fairly accurate. I have an ongoing concern about the implication of "mammalian eggs" in "Characteristics", paragraph 1. The references are generally of good quality. However there are several old references, including one from 1942.I have rephrased the sentence about mammal eggs - I had not previously understood what you were getting at. I note what you say about old references and will try to find newer ones.
3. The whole topic is covered with appropriate weighting of different aspects.
4. The article is neutral.
5. There is no edit war.
6. The illustrations have changed a little since I first started this review. My main concern now is the collage of four photos in the infobox. FunkMonk questions the source and has nominated the collage for deletion. Also, there is a new photo in "Life cycle", subsection "Larvae", subsection "Salamanders" of a Brooke salamander larva and adult. This black-and-white photo is somewhat grainy and a poor representation. In addition, in "Life cycle", subsection "Larvae", subsection "Frogs" there is a sequence of photos showing metamorphosis. The thumbnails are tiny and need to be clicked through to allow reasonable viewing. I also question whether the scale is really the same for every photo in the sequence. Otherwise, the photos are good and illustrate the topic well. They have free licenses and are hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

I am putting the article "on hold" until the outcome of the collage is resolved. In any case, my thanks to Cwmhiraeth for his work on the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll replace the bw image, enlarge the metamorphosis one, and I've found another free collage for the taxobox (with proper sourcing), and might make a new one before long. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your thorough review and to FunkMonk for help with the images. I had worked extensively on the text but not given the images much thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

The "mammalian egg" is also implied in the lead section, last paragraph.

Another point that I forgot to mention before is that there are a couple of places where a singular phrase is implied and inappropriately linked to a plural phrase:-

• From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Skeletal system and locomotion", paragraph 1: "They possess a cranium, spine, rib cage, long bones."
• From "Anatomy and physiology", subsection "Skeletal system and locomotion", paragraph 1: "They have four limbs."

However this is a relatively minor point. Overall, the article meets the GA criteria. My thanks and congratulations to Cwmhiraeth. Also, my thanks to FunkMonk for fixing the images. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed these points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)