Talk:Pelophylax lessonae

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

Incorrect change[edit]

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)

Although I don't agree 100% with Fice, theese are categories of pictures in Commons, not species sensu stricto so I ask you (although it was my fault), Cookie, to restore the esculenta category as Pelophylax esculentus. Do you agree, Fice? --DPC (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I do — that's what I'm talking about ;-) Moreover, in all articles with the new taxonomy sensu Frost et al. the "old" names should be mentioned at least, for they are still in use by many people. By the way: In the German Wikipedia the website of Amphibiaweb (see: Family Ranidae) uses to be the first reference for amphibian taxonomy. Frost et al. are also very important there, but only "No. 2" — unfortunately both taxonomies are not really congruent (and both are changing all the time...). -- Fice (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know the site. If the very specialists don't match about systematics it is very difficult for us to be 100% agree! But we have to follow some of them. I think that The American Museum of Natural History should be a prestigious and firm reference. On the other hand, Wikispecies and the Spanish Wikipedia follow the Frost et al. (The American Museum of Natural History) systematic. That's why we have choosen Frost. The idea of leaving the "old" names is a good idea. I'll work on it. Thanks, nice to argue with you. --DPC (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if two biologists agree with keeping the former category I'm not going to oppose you at all :). Then, do I delete Pelophylax esculenta and create Pelophylax esculentus? do you both agree? If so I think it'd be useful if you explained in the new category the peculiarities of P. esculentus: "being a hybrid considered as a species by some specialists" or what you think it's the appropriate explanation. I'll wait for your reply to make the changes. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree on deleting Pelophylax esculenta or Rana esculenta, but, which one will you create: Pelophylax synklepton esculentus or just Pelophylax esculentus? I think the first one is more appropriate, but if it weren't well explained it would be unclear for common people. So I prefer the second one, just Pelophylax esculentus. Notice that there's a link from Pelophylax written "Pelophylax synklepton esculentus". --DPC (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just call it Pelophylax esculentus (article and category). The key word Rana esculenta then is to be edited as a redirect to Pelophylax esculentus. An additional explanation within the article/category should mention the following facts (proposal): 1. Pelophylax is a taxon understood either as a separate genus of True frogs (Ranidae), or as a subgenus (or synonym) of the genus Rana. 2. Pelophylax esculentus (Rana esculenta) represents not a "real" species but a hybridogenetic klepton (therefore also written "Pelophylax kl. esculentus / Rana kl. esculenta") as a result of hybridization between the parental taxa Pelophylax lessonae (Rana lessonae) and Pelophylax ridibundus (Rana ridibunda). 3. Contrary to most hybrids these ones are able to exist and reproduce themselves without the participation of specimen from the parental taxa. 4. In Central Europe, Pelophylax esculentus (Rana esculenta) is by far the most common and abundant form of waterfrogs. -- Kind regards to you both, Fice (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Category:Pelophylax esculentus created and its gallery, along with redirects corrected. Could you please check if everything is correct? I mixed up lessonae and esculentus files and the poor frogs were jumping here and there for a while :( but I hope they're all in the right place now.Cheers Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Good job, thanks. There have been some more pics of P. esculentus in an older version of the article Rana esculenta. Now moved to Pelophylax esculentus. -- Fice (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)