Talk:Gray treefrog

	Gray treefrog 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture

I have a picture of a gray tree frog--probably a female as the throat lacks dark throat colouration and it was quite big--climbing on a window. You can clearly see the entire ventral side, with yellow leg markings and also the throat. If you would like to use it on this page, please contact me and I'll be happy to submit it. The picture was taken in southwest Michigan, by the way. Foxi tails (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added tag above. Was surprised to find out how many articles do not have this tag when they should. Runa27 23:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics of Hyla versicolor

I was surprised that the Wikipedia article makes no mention of the fact that H. versicolor is a tetraploid daughter species of H. chrysoscelis, though that is mentioned prominently in the page for H. chrysoscelis. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isolating Barrier?

Does anyone know what the prezygotic isolating barrier(s) are between H. vericolor and H.chrysoscelis? Mating call is mentioned, but is that ethological barrier the only one? Also, are they considered different species under the ecological species model?... I'm curious if this is an example of reproductive isolation being a byproduct of different ecological niches, specifically diet. --Mike Spenard 05:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food in Captivity?

This section mentions "other small mammals" as a potential food source. I'd like to know what kind of small mammal a frog the size of a large grape could possibly eat... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.55.244 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Rotflmfao look for the information that doesnt belong[reply]

They eat crickets at least that's what i feed mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.51.198 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weenir Tribe of Saskatchewan?

You MAY want to look at a certain edit on this page.... here's a hint: look for the word Saskatchewan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.160.131 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gray tree 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/20100904045722/http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/glfc-amphibians/hyla-versicolor to http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/glfc-amphibians/hyla-versicolor

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) 03:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article title change

Me3420 You moved this article to Gray tree frog (two words), I assume as a result of the move discussion at Talk:Tree frog? That discussion applies only to that article - it doesn't have any bearing on this article, so I've undone the move. I appreciate that it might seem inconsistent, but consistency within the article is also important - the article uses 'treefrog' as one word throughout, as do all of the sources that I just checked. You can start a discussion here about changing it at this article if you like, but someone would need to go through the prose as well and change all the instances in the article, not just change the title. If you want to establish some sort of project-wide consensus on which to use, a wider discussion would be needed that a talk at one article - perhaps a discussion at the relevant WikiProject? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an afterthought, it's possible that the English language is inconsistent on this. I haven't checked, but I can imagine it might be possible that 'tree frogs', when referred to generally, get two words more commonly, but that specific species like the Gray treefrog, only get one word. That would be worth investigating before embarking on a 'change them all' project. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does look like although "tree frog" is the more popular term overall, see Google Ngrams, some specific species - including Gray Treefrog - use "treefrog" as just one word. It would probably be best to leave it as one word for the species where that is more popular, but have it as two words on general pages. I'll take a look at specific species and make proposals on their individual talk pages if the more common term is not used. Me3420 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has a lot of strengths. At first glance the article is extremely well organized with headers and its bar to the right includes a nice photo, displays, and information. I think the sources are fairly reputable and scholarly articles. I see many articles from JSTOR or what seems like science journals and books. The most interesting fact that I have learned about the gray tree frog is that it has the ability to camouflage. It does change color slower than a chameleon however it can change colors from gray to green to brown depending on its surroundings which is fascinating. This page seems to be missing a taxonomy section, an ecology and life history section, diet section, and or a reproduction or conservation section. I think when speaking about frogs or any species in general having a taxonomy section helps one understand the origins of the species, its nomenclature, and its evolution. I think it is essential and helps a reader understand the species better. I also think ecology and life history helps provide general background that will provide information on its growth rate and its historical facts that pertain to how it became the species it is today. Lastly I think a diet section and reproduction section help one understand what the animal eats and its prey and helps one put together an ecosystem of sorts for the species as well as details about its birth rate and its fertility facts. The article is rated C class and low importance. I believe that is because it is very short and lacks a lot of information and details. It seems as if the article was started and never finished, many section only include a sentence or two. The talk page has comments regarding this where individuals state seemingly important facts and pieces of information on the species that were left out which is why the article received such low ratings that I agree with. - SISHIR YARLAGADDA WUSTL 2023 - Behavioral Ecology 2022

General Article Comments

Article is coming along nicely. I just edited for ease of readability and included more sources for the information currently provided. I also removed the previous mating section as the new sections cover the same material in greater depth.Britneys99 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I edited the wording of sentences in each of the sections and subsections of the article. I also made many grammatical changes and added italics for each of the species names. I also made sure to change around some incorrect information that was listed (under the inter-species interaction section). I also deleted some information that was incorrect based on the source listed. I searched for the correct information, but I was not able to find it in some cases. Overall, this article is good, but could benefit from a larger variety of topics covered, as the information provided about the calling behavior was repetitive. ShawnMohammed (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Peer Review

I think this article is well written and has a lot of information. Additionally, the images that are placed on this page are informational and relevant to the article. I think some more information can be added, such as information regarding interactions with humans, diet, and life cycle. There is also mention throughout the article regarding predators but there are no specifics regarding, so I imagine that there must be some information about the frog’s enemies. There should probably be a section regarding cryptic coloring. I also changed some sentences due to redundancies within the sentence. For example, “As males get closer to one another in a given calling space, the chance for aggressive encounters increases due to the infiltration of each others calling space.” I changed it to “when males get closer and there is infiltration of each others territories, there are increased chances of aggressive encounters.” It may be interesting to have a separate section specific to calling. Friedaloo (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]