Category talk:Pelophylax esculentus

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

The right spelling is Pelophylax esculentus, not P. esculenta. Moreover, as the name is not yet widely accepted, the "Category Rana esculenta" should always be used beside this. -- Fice (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Rana esculenta Linnaeus, 1758 and Pelophylax esculentus Fitzinger, 1843 are synonyms of Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) or Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771). So, it should be moved to Pelophylax (genus).--DPC (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Rana kl. esculenta Dubois and Günther, 1982, Rana (Pelophylax) kl. esculenta Dubois, 1992, Rana (Rana) kl. esculenta Dubois, 1987 are synonyms of those. See ASW. --DPC (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The moving/redirecting of Rana esculenta (or Rana kl. esculenta or Pelophylax esculentus) to Pelophylax lessonae should be cancelled!!! Rana/Pelophylax lessonae is a "true" biological species, while Rana esculenta/Pelophylax esculentus is the result of a "hybridogenious hybridization" between P. lessonae and P. ridibundus. Specimen on photographs identified as Rana esculenta/Pelophylax esculentus doesn't really fit to an article or category Pelophylax lessonae! Those frogs should still have their own article and category, despite Frost et al. don't accept them as a "real" species! Pelophylax esculentus "uses" chromosomes of Pelophylax lessonae to reproduce themselves. But this also works without the presence of any P. lessonae specimen in the same habitat. In Central Europe, P. esculentus seems to be much more abundant than P. lessonae. Both forms of waterfrogs shouldn't be mixed up and should not taken as one single species (although the correct determination sometimes is difficult to realize). So please, restore the article and the category Pelophylax esculentus! -- Fice (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)