Talk:Edible frog

Comments

• "kl." is not a species name nor part of one, so it must not be capitalized. I'll fix this in a minute.
• Let's see… the English language comes from Europe. Rana clamitans is exclusively North American. How can "green frog" possibly be incorrect for Rana synklepton esculenta?
• Bad article in general. Highly incomplete. Someone with time on their hands, please… :-}

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:45 CEST | 2006/06/05

Contradictions with German Wikipedia article

The corresponding German article says that there are, in fact, pure edible frog populations, and that they are the norm in many areas. It goes on to say that some edible frogs are triploid, having a complete set of chromosomes of one parent species and half a set of the other. And that these special triploid edible frogs, and not pure parent species animals (which are much rarer anyway) are the key individuals in procreation. If that (sourced) info is correct, this article is plain wrong and needs to be fixed. -- 92.229.143.190 (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelophylax esculentus genetics/reproduction is weird (hence the denotation as a klepton, which is more than just a fertile hybrid). IIRC, there is also more than one cytotype. We need a summary based on the primary literature. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong citations?

I don't see anything about Pelophylax esculentus either in the Amphibian Species of the World Online Reference or in the Frost et al. paper cited. Could this be confusion with Pyxicephalus edulis? Nadiatalent (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: all pages moved. (procedural close) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• Edible Frog → Edible frog
• Moor Frog → Moor frog —  Done
• Perez's Frog → Perez's frog
• Pool Frog → Pool frog

– Invert the redirections as the consensus and guidelines recommend not to capitalise the common (vernacular) names of species. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Coreyemotela (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support a speedy close Red Slash 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment "Edible frog" is a rather poor name, and seemingly representing WP:systematic bias. Various frog species are eaten across the globe by humans, and most frogs have predators, so are edible by some creature or other, or are scavenged, have parasites, or are decomposed and thus "eaten" if they don't have predators. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Frogs legs shows many different species are eaten, thus are edible. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, Should be Edible frog. OccultZone (Talk) 05:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on July 9, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The edible frog (Pelophylax kl. esculentus) is a fertile hybrid of the pool and marsh frogs which is commonly found in Europe. The species is commonly used in food, including the French delicacy frog legs.Photograph: Grand-Duc; edit: Niabot

Conversion automatic taxobox

Hey @Plantdrew: or @NessieVL: uh, help? What's the procedure for kleptons/hybridogenesis? Would the species be written as kl. esculentus in the species box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsandwhales (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starsandwhales:, I would leave this with a manual taxobox. Automatic taxoboxes can't reproduce the formatting used in the manual taxobox in this article (especially the link kl.).

I was actually thinking about mentioning that we shouldn't necessarily be going for 100% use of automatic taxoboxes in the thread at WikiProject Amphibians & Reptiles, with this article as an example (I've brought it up in previous discussions about leaving some articles with manual taxoboxes).

It's not really worth the effort to program automatic taxoboxes to support unusual formats that only show up a handful of times on Wikipedia. There are three articles that link klepton. There are three articles on graft-chimaeras (e.g. +Crataegomespilus). 9 articles use manual taxoboxes with |binomial2= (e.g. Nairobi fly); adding support for |binomial2= to automatic taxoboxes would be fairly easy since the code already exists for manual taxoboxes, but the better solution is to not have articles covering 2 species in the first place). There are a couple hundred articles under Category:Undescribed species, but it's questionable how many of them should have articles at all (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on species having been described). On the other hand, if we're not going to go on a spree deleting undescribed species, retaining manual taxoboxes for them helps to document the need for a new feature in automatic taxoboxes (that is, not italicizing the provisional name of an undescribed species).

BTW, your ping didn't work; I have this page on my watchlist. You forgot to sign, and the ping doesn't work when the post is unsigned (but re-signing a post is a way to fix a ping that didn't work if you misspelled a user name). Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Should we make a note of these kinds of exceptions on the wikiproject? starsandwhales (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Green frog (Pelophylax esculentus complex) Danube delta.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 1, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-08-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The edible frog or green frog (Pelophylax kl. esculentus) is a common European frog species that occurs naturally from the northern half of France to western Russia and from Estonia and Denmark to Bulgaria and northern Italy, and is also an introduced species in other parts of the continent. It is a fertile hybrid of the pool frog (Pelophylax lessonae) and the marsh frog (P. ridibundus) and reproduces using hybridogenesis, a process in which one parental genome is excluded. The species is used as food – particularly in France, as well as Germany and Italy – as the delicacy frog legs. This edible frog was photographed in the Danube delta east of Tulcea, Romania.

Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Recently featured:

• Gowanus Canal
• Hass avocado
• Northern mockingbird

Copulating, no!

Photo caption needs amending: frogs do not copulate!--94.175.86.173 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)