frog
Enable an agent to recognise a frog, distinguish its taxonomic identity from an individual or population, assess its condition and habitat, and choose appropriate observation or intervention.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
Researched by: Codex
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
5 bundles · 9 layers · 17 findings · 27 questions
Frog identity and boundaries Establish what frog denotes and which biological subject each record describes.
Registry and taxonomic meaning
Resolve the registered concept against documented naming and taxonomic sources.
Frog name boundary
Record whether frog covers Anura broadly or a narrower common-language grouping, with supporting evidence.
- What does vr.tr.frog-q2923720 denote in its originating source, and does that meaning include animals called toads? definition
- Which neighbouring registry entries or existing world models overlap this meaning? boundary
Subject and identification
Separate the observed organism from the taxon or population to which it may belong.
Supported frog identification
Attach evidence and confidence to identification rather than treating a common name as a verified species.
- Does this record describe a frog taxon, a local population, an individual or an observation of uncertain individuals? boundary
- Which morphology, call, locality or genetic evidence supports the identification, and which authority supplies the accepted name and identifiers? provenance
Development and reproduction Interpret frog form and needs through development and reproductive mode.
Developmental pathway
Establish the taxon's developmental sequence and the observed individual's position within it.
Stage-specific body plan
Use a suitable staging reference and distinguish observed development from an assumed universal life cycle.
- Does the identified taxon have free-living larvae, direct development or another documented developmental mode? definition
- Which visible features establish the observed stage, and which length or mass measurement is appropriate for it? measurement
Breeding evidence
Interpret sex, reproductive behaviour and reproductive sites using taxon-specific evidence.
Reproductive state and success
Separate evidence of calling or mating from evidence of egg production, development and recruitment.
- Which documented traits support sex or reproductive-state identification for this species and season? provenance
- What observations distinguish breeding activity from successful development to later life stages? measurement
Habitat and population Connect frog occurrences to habitat use, environmental conditions and population evidence.
Microhabitat and connectivity
Identify the places used for shelter, activity and development and the connections among them.
Stage-dependent habitat use
Assess habitat against the identified frog's life history rather than assuming permanent dependence on a pond.
- Which aquatic, terrestrial, arboreal or subterranean microhabitats are used at each documented life stage? definition
- Where relevant, how long does breeding water persist, and what barriers separate breeding, feeding and shelter sites? measurement
Occurrence and conservation
Separate distribution evidence, local survey results and scoped conservation assessments.
Population evidence and status
Record survey limitations and the authority, date and geographic scope of each status claim.
- What evidence establishes native, introduced or uncertain occurrence at this locality? provenance
- How do survey timing, weather, calling activity and effort affect interpretation of detections or apparent absence? measurement
- Which conservation assessment applies to the identified taxon, for what geography and assessment year? provenance
Condition and intervention Assess the frog's observed condition and establish evidence-based limits on intervention.
Condition and exposure
Relate visible signs to environmental observations while preserving diagnostic uncertainty.
Observable frog condition
Describe skin, posture, movement and responsiveness without treating any single sign as a diagnosis.
- Which skin changes, injuries, posture or movement differences are observed relative to the expected stage and species? measurement
- What temperature, moisture or contaminant exposure evidence is available, and what would require specialist examination? action
Handling and movement decisions
Choose observation, handling, sampling or movement according to purpose and applicable evidence.
Justified intervention
Make any intervention conditional on taxon, stage, welfare needs, biosecurity guidance and jurisdiction.
- Can the objective be met through photographs, call recordings or observation, and what evidence would justify handling or sampling? action
- Which current species-specific handling, equipment hygiene and legal requirements apply before contact or movement? action
- If relocation or release is proposed, what establishes origin, destination suitability and disease-risk assessment? provenance
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Identifiers and schemes
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Standards and regulation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Typical measurements
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of frog this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Physical world and living systems
- Entry kind
- thing
- Plane
- PHY
- Domain
- PHY.OBJ
What it is Filled
A frog is an amphibian of the order Anura, including animals commonly called toads, characterized in adulthood by the absence of an external tail and a body plan usually adapted for jumping.
In scope
- The meaning of frog in this registry and its relationship to Anura and animals called toads
- Identification of frog taxa, populations and individuals with explicit confidence
- Life stages, reproductive modes and species-dependent sexual differences
- Individual condition, behaviour and environmental exposure
- Population occurrence, breeding habitat, threats and conservation context
Out of scope
- Salamanders, newts and caecilians as independently modelled organisms
- Frog meat, prepared food and other derived products
- Pet ownership, commercial breeding businesses and animal trade transactions
- Wetlands and other ecosystems as complete environmental models
- Pathogens and diseases as independently modelled biological entities
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to recognise a frog, distinguish its taxonomic identity from an individual or population, assess its condition and habitat, and choose appropriate observation or intervention.
Distinguishing features Filled
- For a suspected adult, assess the combined body plan, including absence of an external tail and limb configuration; do not make hopping ability a universal requirement.
- Distinguish a suspected tadpole from fish and other amphibian larvae using stage-appropriate morphological evidence rather than aquatic habitat alone.
- Do not separate frogs from toads solely by dry versus moist skin; establish the naming and taxonomic convention being used.
- Distinguish similar frog species using a supported combination of locality, morphology, calls or genetic evidence rather than colour alone.
- Identify whether a record concerns a taxon, local population, individual or life-stage observation before attaching condition or conservation claims.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Handle, collect or move frogs without the licence, hygiene precautions and welfare care required.
- Move animals, water or equipment between sites in ways that spread amphibian disease.
- Disturb breeding sites, spawn or protected habitat.
- Keep or trade protected species, or release captive animals into the wild.
Only with a human decision
- Any handling, collection or relocation of wild amphibians.
- Research or teaching use of live animals.
May
- Identify frog species from images, calls and locality data, and report protection status.
- Survey and monitor populations using methods approved by the relevant wildlife authority.
Moral aspects Filled
- Amphibians are among the most threatened groups, hit by disease, habitat loss and trade.
- Frogs feel pain and stress, and handling causes real harm through their permeable skin.
- Disease spread by careless fieldwork has wiped out whole populations.
Who is affected
- Wild frog populations
- Fragile wetland habitats
- Researchers and keepers
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody owns wild frogs; wildlife authorities protect them and keepers answer for captive animals.
Master systems
- Biodiversity occurrence databases
- Protected species and CITES permit records
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- Q17586681 - registry parent class
- Q7063059 - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.frog-q2923720
- Wikidata: Q2923720 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2923720)
Direct properties required Filled
- Record subject: taxon | population | individual | observation of unresolved individuals
- Taxonomic identification: accepted name, rank, authority and date, taxonomic source, GBIF or NCBI identifier where verified, identification confidence
- Developmental stage: egg or embryo | larva | metamorphosing individual | juvenile | adult | unresolved; staging reference where applicable
- Body size: snout-vent length in mm where appropriate; larval body or total length in mm with method stated; mass in g
- Sex and reproductive state: sex unknown or supported identification; reproductive state and supporting species-specific evidence
- Microhabitat occupancy: observed substrate, shelter, vegetation, waterbody and position within them, with date and location
- Environmental exposure: air or water temperature in °C, relative humidity in %, and water chemistry with units and sampling context where relevant
- Observed condition: skin appearance, posture, movement, responsiveness, injury and body condition; observation separated from diagnosis
- Range and conservation context: native or introduced occurrence evidence; assessment authority, geographic scope, category and assessment year
Recognition required Filled
- A tailless adult amphibian with long hind limbs and moist or warty skin.
- Bulging eyes and visible eardrum region on many species.
- Species-specific calls and spawn form are often decisive.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Document a frog through photographs, recordings and locality evidence while recording identification uncertainty.
- Track development, activity and condition using methods appropriate to the life stage.
- Evaluate whether observed shelter, moisture and breeding habitat support the identified taxon.
- Plan repeat observations of calling, egg deposition or larval development with explicit limits on abundance inference.
- Determine whether handling, sampling, captive care or movement requires specialist involvement and local authorization.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Population collapse from fungal disease spread between sites.
- Skin damage and stress injury from dry or rough handling.
- Toxic skin secretions in some species affecting handlers and pets.
Standards and interfaces required Filled
- The REACH Regulation, issued by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, restricts certain substances in garment fastenings placed on the European Union market according to their materials and use.
Context of use required Filled
- A frog fastening closes a garment using an ornamental knot or button that engages a matching loop.
- It is encountered on jackets, coats, ceremonial clothing and costumes where the closure also provides decoration.
Sources Filled
- Wikidata item Q2923720: frog - identity and sense of the item
- Wikipedia: Frog (fastening) - general description of the item
Open questions
- Does the originating record for vr.tr.frog-q2923720 denote Anura broadly, a common-language subset excluding toads, or another concept?
- Does an existing Vercy world model already cover this concept and therefore provide its authoritative publication?
- Which taxonomic authority and verified external identifiers should anchor the resolved registry concept?
- Which developmental, reproductive and habitat variations require explicit branches rather than a typical frog life-cycle assumption?
- Which taxon and locality must be resolved before attaching native-range claims, dated conservation assessments or intervention guidance?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-q2923720/spec.json