Talk:Pool frog

Binomial name

I think this frog is now Pelophylax lessonae. --Mummymonkey (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edible Frog which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Geographical bias

This article only talks about the pool frog in Britain yet the frog is found throughout europe. There's also little information about the frog's behaviour, habitat, etc. Fourdots2 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible find

"We’ve also had possible evidence of pool frog, which is exciting… It’s not something that we usually find archaeologically. .. In my research, I’ve only found two Saxon sites with single bones on each. They’re a frog that was only found in East Anglia that died out in the 1990s, possibly due to habitat loss, but has recently been reintroduced." Alberge, Dalya (12 June 2022). "Mass frog burial baffles experts at iron age site near Cambridge". the Guardian. Retrieved 12 June 2022. .. dave souza, talk 14:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pool frog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Will take a while, but here my first comments:

• the pool frog is a predator that feeds mainly on invertebrates as an adult, but begins its life as a tadpole with a herbivorous diet – Write "The adult pool frog", because tadpoles are not predators.

Done. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Most notably, northern clade – remove this bit? If it wouldn't be the most notable, it shouldn't be the only example mentioned in the lead.

Done. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Two years later, Camerano would adopt the concept of subspecies, – Does the source really say he adopted the concept and in that particular year?

I don't actually know Italian but if the translation software I used isn't way off base, he spends the first several pages going into detail about how other authors have classified different variants of animals and then says he's going with the subspecies system before describing any species. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:59, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• he did not designated any one of them – "he did not designate any of them"?

Changed to that. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• was later designated as a lectotype in 1986 – "later" is superfluous

Removed. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Both of these names were declared as junior synonyms of Rana lessonae in 1994.[15] – I am wondering if a variation or subspecies can be a junior synonym of a species?

At the time Rana lessonae was still mostly considered a monotypic taxon with bergeri being treated as a separate species so there wasn't a subspecies to lump them into. I suppose now they'd be treated as synonyms of P. l. lessonae but it may be borderline OR to add that since I can't find a source listing synonyms of subspecies. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following; what names precisely were declared as junior synonyms in the 1994 paper? On which page? (general note: I suggest to use rp-templates or similar to specify page numbers when adding information; it makes it so much easier for subsequent editors to maintain the article). Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Edited the sentence to specify the synonyms and added page numbers. Olmagon (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• This was first proposed in 2004 based on a study involving electrophoretic data – Explain term

Added explanation. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Identical in appearance and only distinguishable by location – So why are they subspecies? Should be different at least genetically?

Added a source supporting genetic distinction. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Dufresnes et al. (2024) – suggest to avoid technical notation and write "and colleagues". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Done. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• are usually brown, with have a pale stripe – "and have"

Changed to that. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:33, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• The exact underside pattern of each individual is unique – Pattern of what? You just said it has no spots, so what makes the pattern?

Added some elaboration (the source for that particular sentence was about a population in which most individuals have spots). Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• on warmer years – "in"

Changed to that. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• their cold tolerance is enough to survive overnight freezing between 8 and 12 hours, – But in much of its range, it can be freezing for weeks during winter?

As mentioned in the paragraph before that sentence, they choose hibernation sites that are warmer than the surrounding soil so they don't need to tolerate being frozen for weeks, just on the particularly cold nights during which the temperatures in even the warmer areas drop below freezing. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Can we say anything about longevity?

• Pool frogs reproduce during the summer, with the breeding season generally occurring from May to June. – First sentence part seems superfluous

Personally I prefer specifying both the seasons and months considering that the seasons are in different months between the northern and southern hemispheres and that readers from the one other than a page's main focus may just instinctively get the wrong impression if only one is mentioned (this actually happened to me during another GA review on a page for a species living mainly in the Southern Hemisphere, and a reviewer thought "September to April" meant throughout the winter rather than summer, so I know these people exist and it isn't just hypothetical). Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Tadpoles with larger fathers tend to hatch at a larger size (likely due to genetic reasons) – Can it be anything else than genetic? Is the bracket needed?

Edited the bracket and "likely" away. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• higher tail muscles – What do you mean with "higher"?

Changed to deeper (the source does say both "higher" and "deeper" interchangably). Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• exposure to triphenyltin – Explain the relevance? What is it?

Added that it's a pesticide. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Like other frogs, this species is predatory – You just stated that the frog hunts, so this statement is superfluous

Removed. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• and measures to prevent it feeding on the frogs have been considered during conservation projects – Merely considered, or have they been implemented?

The source merely states that it "may be required" (and it's a project proposal plan so it was written before they actually did anything), I have not found any later sources stating whether they actually did anything about the herons. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• with the grass snake being the primary reptilian predators – Plural/singular mismatch

Removed the plural part. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• what was then Aust-Agder county (now merged with Vest-Agder to form Agder county) – minor point, but I would keep it simple and just write "Agder county", or, if needed, "in what is now Agder county". If the old name has to be provided, a footnote would be the solution, but I'm not sure it has to.

Originally I used "what is now Agder" but decided to change it to that because the following paragraph mentions the "county governor of Aust-Agder and Vest-Agder" and felt like it should be explained that modern-day Agder was two separate counties during much of the time period being discussed. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• and would have once been widespread in the East Anglia region of England – Why "would have"? Was it, or was it not?

Changed to "was". Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:45, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• it would have been the only remaining northern pool frog population – same as above

Changed this too. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:45, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, – we generally avoid editorializing like this. I think it can be safely removed.

Changed to "However". Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• led to the local extinction of the northern clade of the species from England – I would simplify to "led to the extinction of the species in England". Otherwise it can be misleading: Only the northern clade went extinct, so other clades still exist in England; only locally in England and not in the whole country, etc. That's too ambiguous.

Funnily enough, the first "misleading" example is actually what I meant. Added an extra sentence specifying that non-northern pool frogs of no conservation value are present in the UK. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:47, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• translocate them to introduction site near Thetford. – "the" missing

Added. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:47, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• allowing the English population of pool frogs to recover more rapidly. – I don't think we can call it a "recovery", because a population cannot "recover" from extinction. It is a new, introduced population. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Changed to "increased". Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:47, 26 September 2026 (UTC)