Talk:New Zealand primitive frog

New Zealand primitive frog
Sum of parts. --Avenue 10:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Does it mean any frog from New Zealand which is also primitive? Primitive in what way? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a crap definition, but doesn't seem to be sum-of-parts to me. SemperBlotto 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I interpret this from the wikipedia article as any primitive frog that lives in North America and New Zealand - primitive as in not as developed in the evolution chain as modern frogs. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 10:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of Wikipedia article:
 * Family Leiopelmatidae = New Zealand and North American primitive frogs
 * Genus Ascaphus = North American primitive frogs
 * Genus Leiopelma = New Zealand primitive frogs
 * However, this does not seem to be a universally accepted naming standard for these frogs. Freedictionary uses the words in another order: "primitive New Zealand frog". On the other hand the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand maintains an excellent site, which does not even mention the term "New Zealand primitive frog". Instead they speak of native New Zealand frogs of the genus Leiopelma (a.k.a. pepeketua) which exhibit a number of primitive traits. Based on this very limited background research I would suggest "New Zealand primitive frog" is not an established zoological nor common language term. Rather, it is simply a phrase, New Zealand + primitive + frog, appearing in Wikipedia. Several other websites have copied these words from there. My conclusion is delete. --Hekaheka 02:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. If anything, "New Zealand primitive frog" seems like worse English than "primitive New Zealand frog", and variants of "New Zealand native frog" would be more common. None of these phrases deserves an entry here, in my view. --Avenue 08:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)