Talk:Xenopus

	Xenopus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Should this article be merged with "African Clawed Frog"? It's the same species and text.Pstevendactylus 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the African Clawed Frog is a species within the genus: Xenopus. At the moment no-one has written any articles of other speices within this genus, but someone probably will in the future. If you look at Litoria, there are about 7 articles of species within that genus. Only a few months ago there were none! --liquidGhoul 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All referenced material started out as personal experience

For all we know RainbowCrane has never seen a Xenopus while I've observed a living, swimming, breathing, carnivorizing specimen for 18 years. Darwin wrote whole articles about finches based on observations that extended to mere months. Furthermore, RainbowCrane admits that he was unable to find much information about Xenopus as pets. Having found the first contribution to a fascinating scientific dialogue he removes it as casually as one of his forebearers might have burned the manuscript of The Origin of Species. Oh, the humanity. . .! (Sully Augustine BS Econ, MBA, self taught and self awarded PhD in the field of Xenopus as a Pet) 14:05, 14 August 2006

Darwin didn't publish his findings in an encyclopedia. He wrote The Origin of Species first, and then his findings wound up in an encyclopedia. JSarek 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet section removed

I removed the entire section below due to it being personal experience rather than referenced material. I found internet sources for some information on these frogs, but not much on the keeping of them as pets. RainbowCrane 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pets

Xenopus are sold as tadpoles for pets. If kept in a large goldfish bowl after they turn into frog they can live and remain quite vigorous for at least 18 years (so far) by my personal observation. They apparently do not make good tankmates if ours is a typical example since it dismembered and ate a local tadpole twice its size and later did the same to a couple of large snails that we tried as tankmates in the mistaken belief that it would not be able to pry them off the glass. It is a bad idea to provide them with a rock protruding above the water line in their bowl since they can jump quite forcefully if provided with such a launch platform and are capable of knocking the screen off the top of their bowl in furtherance of escape. During one such episode I observed our specimen doing standing broad jumps of approximately 6 feet with maximum height of approximately 3 feet. They are hindered by lack of stamina and are thus subject to fairly expeditious recapture if their escape does not extend to the out of doors.

While not affectionate Xenopus specimens do have some advantages as pets. While young our specimen was sometimes fed various forms of protein (in addition to the ill-fated bowlmates mentioned above, but for about 10 years our specimen has subsisted on 2 to 4 pellets of Reptomin per week. Reptomin is quite inexpensive and two medium sized containers will feed a Xenopus for more than 18 years. Reptomin is also apparently a very complete Xenopus diet since the observed specimen has subsisted exclusively on the product for many years. Xenopus are also convenient since they survive extended periods between changes of water (2 months maximum interval tested) and without food (2 weeks maximum tested) as long as they are given a couple of extra pellets before the fast. They can be quite excitable when fed after such a fast and will actually leap out of the water to take a pellet from between fingertips. They can also be a bit moody. The observed Xenopus has been known to sulk under his rocks at the bottom of the bowl for significant periods of time after the water in his/her? bowl is changed, a somewhat undignified procedure which sees him frantically trying to escape but firmly bound by surface tension to the porcelain of the sink.

Removed cleanup tag

Now that the above section has been removed, there's no need for cleanup really.

Information Left Out

I cannot find a source, maybe someone else can, but the Xenopus is often used in animal alphabet books as X. Not an anon anymore!!!! Yeah!!!! 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge Silurana here

Looks like the genus Silurana is a synonym for Xenopus. I think the content of the Silurana pages ought to be merged into the Xenopus pages. 128.174.87.139 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the genus Silurana is not a synonym for Xenopus. Species in the genus Silurana have 20 or 40 chromosomes, whereas species in the genus Xenopus have multiples of 18 chromosomes (36, 72, or 108). Together these groups form a clade so the recognition of these names at the genus level is discretionary. In any case, they represent distinct evolutionary lineages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennybenbenbenny (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silurana is a Xenopus species, with the scientific name of Xenopus tropicalis. See http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/xtropicalis/ 193.144.6.246 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)AlexR[reply]

There's not just one species of Silurana; S. tropicalis is just one of them. As far as I know, S. is currently recognized more often than not; I need to check, but if it is, I'll split the pages again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Marjanović (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List to prose

Should the section "Key Characteristics of Xenopus" be a prose? If there is no objection I don't mind changing it to such. KimiNewt (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea. Marcosk496 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On it. KimiNewt (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hopefully I've done it well enough. KimiNewt (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew???

In the Hebrew language the genus name literally means "Medical frog".[7]

Now, I can't read the source, which is in Hebrew... but... this strikes me as rather ridiculous. The word is a Greek composite, as explained at the very beginning of the article. Is the idea that it's a pun on something Hebrew? Or does the source simply say "is the medical frog"?

David Marjanović (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]