 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by John Clare on July 10, 2000 at 17:42:25:
In Reply to: Re: I don't think that's correct. Can you site references? posted by jade on July 10, 2000 at 16:53:34:
As I recall, back in jolly old medieval times (no I wasn't there), the first anuran described as a "Frog" was the common
frog, Rana temporaria. As Geoff mentioned, it is the typical smooth skinned jumper. The first toad described was the
European common toad, Bufo bufo. Back then most people weren't on the whole very worried about different species - a frog
was a frog and a toad was a toad - pretty clear distinction as Geoff described, particularly if you lived in Britain where
there are only 3 "native" species (I say "native" because I think the only species that can be proven to have been in
Britain for more than several hundred years are Bufo bufo, Bufo calamita and Rana temporaria). When people started
distinguishing between different types of anuran, most of the species around seemed to fall cleanly into either the
warty+walk category or the smooth+jump category. Hence the Edible Frog (Rana esculenta), the Marsh Frog (Rana ridibunda),
the Green toad (Bufo viridis), the Fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina) [very warty compared to its Oriental relative],
the spadefoot toad (Alytes species), the Pool frog (Rana lessonae), etc etc. Things really only got complicated when
taxonomists started coming across exotic species (i.e. non-European). They had to reconcile the convention of an animal
being either a frog or a toad with animals that were something in between. Convention means a lot to many scientists, and
it also could have made life difficult to go back and change the whole system, so they just kept calling new species
whatever they thought it was closest to. They did a pretty good job really apart from a few exceptions, don't you think? :)
References? Don't be silly - it's fact, you'll have to take my word for it. I think some books recount a very similar
story.
-John
