Mislabeled Yellow Spotted Climbing Toad?

I just got a really exciting couple of boxes from Kelly that I am slowly sorting through, and this peculiarity cropped up! Two Play Visions tropical frogs, both are the Yellow Spotted Climbing Toad, but one of them is labeled as Dyeing Poison Frog. The normal one has the scientific name like the others in the set, but the mislabeled one has the common name. Both are labeled PV 1998. What's going on here?

Thanks!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

PV mislabeled this model indeed, the real species is Boulanger's Asian tree toad (Pedostibes hosii), not Harlequin or Dyeing poison frog. 
Sometimes taht kind of things happen with PV. 

I didn't even check the accuracy of the scientific name, ha! What do most people's Yellow Spotted Climbing Toads say?

Sorry, I do not have any Pv frogs.
And I mean, I am REALLY sorry, because that frog is gorgeous

Those are my personal notes from STS posts.
There are two editions of tropical frogs.
1996 with Latin names
1998 with English common names

This model is number 5
Rentapia hosii is also the best identification in my opinion.

Mislabeling was known but I was not aware of 1998 models with Latin names.

Play Visions sold the same models in several different sets with different amounts of figures. I am not sure it could explain some incongruities.

Fernando's model on TAW, marked 1996 Dendrobates histrionicus
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Andreas called the file of his model as PV Deying
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Beatrice introduced her model as Play Visions Deying Poison Frog
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thank you, okay, I looked a little closer and the scientific name one is 1996 (that almost looks like an 8 ) and the common name one is 1998, and they match the way other people have described theirs, so looks like I just have one of each and that they were all given the wrong species from the beginning.

SUSANNE wrote:

Sorry, I do not have any Pv frogs.
And I mean, I am REALLY sorry, because that frog is gorgeous

They are really nice! It's a very nice set all around, if inaccurately labeled, haha.

I have the latin named model in my collection now.

I don't know about the accuracy of the labels per say (frogs easily confuse me in terms of speciation) but I noticed these 3 of mine have alternate stamps and niw realize the one across the chest of the animal is the common name and the ones along the belly are scientific...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The paint work on these duplicates are ever so slightly different also.

Interesting to see the slight variation between the duplicates - if it was just the paintwork I'd think maybe they'd changed suppliers for their paints and had a little redesign to accommodate the difference in colour or application (I know that happened with at least one horse brand I collect, you can tell exactly which are 'old paint' and 'new paint' models from the finish, even though it was the same one person painting them all!).
But changing the stamping on the mould from Latin to English is a weird choice and couldn't be incidental, someone's decided to do that

Also it amuses me that the PV frogs are so lovely and anatomically accurate, yet their horses are so adorably wonky and not realistic!

I always wondered if maybe my 'Blimey, that horse is bad' reaction to sculpts in ranges which cover a huge spread of species, was a similar feeling an expert in some other group of animals would be feeling about an animal I thought looked roughly ok. Like, I can recognise a flawed equine anatomy being bungled by a sculptor who doesn't understand what they're looking at, a kind of improvising cos as long as it looks roughly horse shaped it'll sell, right, but would I recognise an equally dubious rendition of a frog, or a rhino, or a fish, and overlook crucial anatomical flaws, cos they're not my area of experience?

But no, I think it's just that some people who sculpt horses really shouldn't have been given that task, and the other animals really are as decent as they seem at first glance, cos I've seen frogs before and this is how they look

You're observing correctly, George. Play Visions has mainly two distinct quality levels. The highest one and the one which defines the company and the lowest one with the Horses & Minis.
A subject that can be seen in both quality levels is domestic cats. Their differenc ein quality is not as obvious as the wild animals.
- Bulk series
- Mini series

There's no horses among their bulk series. Just a set of minis and a set with slightly larger Toy Major models.
Though, there is a horse among their bulk sets. It is a draft horse from the Farm Animals bulk.

Play Visions models were also used, as you remember, by National Geographics brand (remember the National Geographics blister cards and box pictures I provided for TAW?). Those models are marked PV on their belly with their common english names. But I also noticed that the paint jobs often vary from the 1996 original releases and the 1999 National Geographics releases (Serval, Puma, Finless Porpoise). So, this variation in the frogs does not surprise me that much.