# P. terribilis. Is the seller being honest on toxicity level?



## shawn13 (Sep 21, 2006)

I see various types of darts for sale. Given the fact that one type in which I plan on getting is the P.terribilis how can I rest assured that they have indeed lost their toxicity? How do I nknow wheather or not the seller's being honest? Do I need to only buy from large reputable breeders and not individuals? Although, I don't plan on handling the frogs, I do, however, plan on spot cleaning the tanks periodically.
Thanks,
Shawn


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Lick it, then you will know for sure!
Just kidding.
Yeah, you should be good to go.
As terribillis come from Columbia, one of the "hottest" places for an american to be, it would be very doubtful that you would be getting any wild caught, or even long term captive frogs.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

It's generally accepted that all captive bred pdfs do not have the toxicity they do in the wild.


----------



## Josh_Leisenring (Jun 19, 2005)

Dancing frogs said:


> As terribillis come from Columbia, one of the "hottest" places for an american to be, it would be very doubtful that you would be getting any wild caught, or even long term captive frogs.


Agreed. I'm pretty much under the impression that the vast majority of terribilis available in the hobby by now have been captive bred for a long time. I'm considering getting a group myself in the near future, and, honestly, the possibility that I would end up with some toxic frogs hadn't even crossed my mind. I think you can be pretty confident that, at this point, any terribilis you would get a hold of are perfectly safe. Good luck! 

- Josh


----------



## OneTwentySix (Nov 11, 2004)

I don't know the exact papers, but I remember reading that they typically lose most toxicity within a year or two.

But if you look at the fact that few people take the kinds of precautions that would probably be necessary with WC terribilis, the fact that the seller is still alive is probably testament enough.


----------



## PoohMac (Aug 22, 2006)

I have a group of CB Adult Mints and froglets. I never had any reason to think they where still toxic. There has a time that I've rubbed my eye after handling one and thought to [email protected]@@!!!. Then I realized that there is nothing to worry about. I still recommend whenever you handle any frog to wash your hands. I'm still here so there you go.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

*Re: P. terribilis. Is the seller being honest on toxicity le*

Treat them (all darts/frogs) as though they have the potentiality of being toxic. Act accordingly by maintaining the least (to no, when possible) contact.

Not so much as a worry of you becoming poisoned but more the thought of inadvertantly poisoning the frog yourself.

It is possible for captives to regain toxicity (some [at least one/and no, it wasn't me] has/have found out the hard way when assuming it to be impossible) by taking in feild sweepings near or on the wrong plants.

For cleaning the glass (if your really concerned on this), buy some magnet cleaners. I use these for some of my tanks and they help keep 'your/my' hands out as much as possible.


----------



## shawn13 (Sep 21, 2006)

Thank you all for clearing this up for me and for giving me alot more security. If I did decide to take precautions would latex gloves be fine?
Thanks,
Shawn


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Latex gloves are more than sufficient overkill. Just make sure to either use the powderless ones or rinse them off before you put your hand in the tank to prevent the powder from irritating the frogs. 

Ed


----------



## black_envy (Aug 12, 2006)

I'm just curious, why do you think there is a reason for not trusting the vendor? I'm not flaming, I just think if you have a bad feeling about someone's integrity, you probably shouldn't buy from them. Hopefully that's not the case ^_^


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Putting aside the fact that captive bred dart frogs don't possess the toxicity their wild counterparts do, you won't be man handling your frogs anyway. Besides, even if you had to catch a wild caught dart, the simple precaution of hand washing and avoiding contact with eyes, nose, etc. should be sufficient to avoid a real problem.

BTW I've had to catch a WC adult dart before by hand and it never even occurred to me that it was dangerous. I regretted the necessity to use my hands in the capture, worrying more about damage to the frog, than any concern that I might be exposed to poison. But in fairness, in my scientific career, I've worked with substances and organisms that make batrachotoxin look like rock candy so perhaps I'm jaded :roll: 

As mentioned, you are good to go on the terribilis and yes they are just as awesome in person (perhaps more) as they appear in photos...

Bill


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

elmoisfive said:


> As mentioned, you are good to go on the terribilis and yes they are just as awesome in person (perhaps more) as they appear in photos...
> 
> Bill


Highly agree with that...especially stunning in a small colony.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

elmoisfive said:


> Putting aside the fact that captive bred dart frogs don't possess the toxicity their wild counterparts do, you won't be man handling your frogs anyway. Besides, even if you had to catch a wild caught dart, the simple precaution of hand washing and avoiding contact with eyes, nose, etc. should be sufficient to avoid a real problem.


I guaratee you haven't hand caught a terribilis in the wild or you wouldn't be around to type on DB. Wild terrbilis are truly nasty critters and potent enough to give you a lethal dose just by absorbing through the skin.

The reason people urge caution is because the evidence suggests that dart frogs are somewhat flexible in their ability to sequester or modify the alkaloids they consume in their diet. Alkaloids are abundant in the plant world, not just in the tropics. I guarantee everyone reading this lives within a block or two of an alkaloid producing plant, even if you live in the heart of the city. So - given the potential lethality of a toxic terribilis and the incomplete understanding of how and where they get their toxins, it is just plain prudent to treat them with respect even though the odds are incredibly low of there ever being a problem. Wasting money on latex gloves is a small price to pay for insurance that your nervous system won't go batballs after brushing against a frog.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "The reason people urge caution is because the evidence suggests that dart frogs are somewhat flexible in their ability to sequester or modify the alkaloids they consume in their diet."endsnip

There is some evidence that while they do lose thier alkaloid toxicity in captivity (although keep in mind that this time an be variable due to recycling of the alkaloids by consuming thier skin as it sheds) these are by no means the only toxins produced by the frogs. All amphibians to one extent or another produce a number of peptides that have various levels of toxicity. If these get onto a mucous membrane or through a cut, you may have some unpleasent reactions (for a older review of these and thier effects see Amphibian Biology: Volume 1 Integument Harold Heatwole and George T. Barthalmus 1994 )


Ed


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

bbrock said:


> I guaratee you haven't hand caught a terribilis in the wild or you wouldn't be around to type on DB. Wild terrbilis are truly nasty critters and potent enough to give you a lethal dose just by absorbing through the skin.


True enough that I haven't been running around in the wilds of Columbia grabbing terribilis with my bare hands. Nor given the current political/military situation do I think that is likely in the near future. However IF I owned a WC terribilis (I don't) and it somehow escaped and I had no other option than to grab it by hand, I would not hesitate to do so. 

Why do you ask? Batrachotoxin as an steroidal alkaloid has a log P that is not terribly conducive to rapid absorption and transport across an intact epidermal layer. Now if you have cuts, lesions, etc. that's a different story. Or if you left the frog slime sitting on your hand for an extended period of time - yeah big problem.

But a quick grab, deposit in a safe place and thorough washing of one's hands? Maybe I'd get a nice burning sensation. But death or serious complications under those circumstances? Highly unlikely. Having 
worked with substances far more dangerous (and more readily absorbed btw) than batrachotoxin, I respect the potential danger of this compound 
but I'm not going to wet myself by the mere thought of being exposed to it on my skin. I still a learner in the frog hobby but after 25 years associated with discovery and development of pharmaceuticals, I know my drugs :wink:

Having said all that, if I was out sweating in the jungles of Columbia getting scraped and cut up as we hacked through the foliage, the last thing I would do is touch, let alone grab a terribilis (or most other plants and animals for that matter). So I would not be surprised if some individuals have enjoyed less than wonderful experiences under those circumstances. Clearly the indigenous people understand this risk as they avoid handling them directly as would I if I was romping around rounding up a bunch to produce the next round of darts.



bbrock said:


> Wasting money on latex gloves is a small price to pay for insurance that your nervous system won't go batballs after brushing against a frog.


Latex gloves unfortunately provide minimal protection against chemical passage due the variable size and distribution of the pores in the latex polymer. So I'm not certain I would attach great confidence in the ability of latex gloves to safeguard you. A false sense of security can be a dangerous thing.

Bill


----------



## shawn13 (Sep 21, 2006)

Thank you all. You've all gave me a lot to think about.
The reason for this concern was some of the sellers, such as in "Kingsnake" in which some people are quite leery on, have occasional sellers that don't even get the names correct. Some though, seem accurate. You're right, as long as I get with a reputable vendor then all should be well. So, this takes care of the glove ordeal. Besides...as stupid as it sounds, I really don't want to wear gloves all the time. The only reason I even thought about gloves was usage in the cleaning. Not to handle the frogs. They're more of a display animal. That's what I appreciate about them.
Thank you all. You've been a big help in this decision.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

shawn13 said:


> Thank you all. You've all gave me a lot to think about.
> The reason for this concern was some of the sellers, such as in "Kingsnake" in which some people are quite leery on, have occasional sellers that don't even get the names correct. Some though, seem accurate. You're right, as long as I get with a reputable vendor then all should be well. So, this takes care of the glove ordeal. Besides...as stupid as it sounds, I really don't want to wear gloves all the time. The only reason I even thought about gloves was usage in the cleaning. Not to handle the frogs. They're more of a display animal. That's what I appreciate about them.
> Thank you all. You've been a big help in this decision.


Although you always want to deal with a reputable breeder, it isn't going to really make a difference in this case. The bottom line is that PDF, including terribilis, lose their potent toxins in captivity and it is clear that their ability to produce these toxins is related to diet. Nobody knows for sure how to "make" a captive PDF toxic again so you are pretty darn safe. But the fact that we don't know how to make them toxic also indicates we don't know WHAT might make them toxic so there is always that slim chance.

As far as the batrachotoxin goes, I don't know that much about it except that one of Daly's papers indicated that the molecule size found in terribilis was small enough and concentrated enough to give a lethal dose through human skin. That was enough for me to take it seriously. But that said, I pretty much sucked at chemistry so most of what Daly writes goes over my head.

I probably should mention that at least one fool hobbyist has touched his finger to his tongue after handling a stressed out captive bred terribilis and had a pretty scary (although not fatal) reaction. Like Ed said, people like to talk about PDF losing their toxins in captivity but that isn't exactly true. They lose the really potent toxins that make them famous but they have plenty of soup on their skin to ward off fungus and bacteria as well as the foolish handler who attempts to lick them.


----------



## ccc (Nov 22, 2006)

If you lick you PDF, you deserve whatever bad might happen to you. Licking frogs is wrong some how.

ccc


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Daly is correct that batrachotoxin will travel through the skin, albeit at a fairly slow rate provided an intact epidermal barrier. The tongue however presents no biological barrier and is in fact designed for rapid acquisition of molecules to facilitate taste. So next to an open wound, it's probably one of the worst places to be exposed. Had the terribilis in question been producing batrachotoxin, my guess is that the frogger would not be alive to report the experience. Even a very tiny exposure would be lethal when delivered via that route. Very fortunate that he only got dosed with other less lethal but no less concerning compounds.

Bill


----------



## shawn13 (Sep 21, 2006)

Your letter is very well written. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think I realized that they may contain a small percentage of toxins. But, I'll try to resist licking them. L.O.L. I realized that they loose some of their toxicity level in due time with W.C. species. And C.B. may not contain them at all. I also read where they probably extract something from the insects on which feed on toxic plants. I agree, this is just theorized but very probable. What were the lickers thinking, an instant high or just curiosity? People do crazy things. I'm not just talking about weird and unorthodox...I'm that. I mean, dimension X come get me. Lingering somewhere far out there, lying somewhere between the realm of the lab rats, and I can see the light.
As long as we exist I believe people will always do regretful things. If they can live to even regret it. Hopefully, people will do their homework before they venture. 
It sounds like W.C .P. terribilis are extremely rare. It’s a real oddity.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

From what I've heard/been told is that in the one instance the person went into anaphalatic shock was when he ASSUMED that his frogs were rendered incapable of producing these toxins and used his bare hands to place them in a temp enclosure. He didn't touch anything (eyes/ears/mouth) before washing and later nearly died. It was found out later he had been taking feild sweepings off or near night shade plantings in his garden.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

There are a lot of urban tales about captive dart frog poisonings, that under close scrutiny don't really pan out to be much more than basic human stupidity, or some of them may even be just a mental "trip" by a flakey person already on other chemical stuff. If you avoid handling them at all with your hands, as you should do for their sake, not yours, there's no problem. If you have to pick one up bare-handed, because it has escaped, have no time to "glove up," just wash your hands after, and rinse the frog off, as well. All will be well unless you have open fresh wounds on your hands when you do it, and in case the captive frog even has any major toxins left, which it probably doesn't. Anyone stupid enough to lick a frog as an experiment for a drug rush, deserves to die, anyway. Hopefully, he will put the frog back into its habitat before he keels over from either an imaginary or true rush of toxins that will land him paralyzed, then deader than a door nail, like a monkey out of a tree just shot by a dart from a Columbian Indian with a blow gun, or if it is imaginary, wake up saying something idiotic, like "Wow Man, I just saw God, and he called me an ass hole."


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

I remeber the article with the guy who touched his tongue. From what i remember reading the guy was a doctor or some type of proffessional who did this as an ad-hoc experiment.

His Terribilis female was injured and he was applying a topical antisceptic cream to a wound on her leg. He was well aware of the risks of this frog and it was a CB frog. Whilst applying the cream the frog started to struggle and became stressed and thus produced a mucus film/froth from around the ventral surfaces.

He then applied this to his tongue to see what would happen knowing his frog was CB and didn't carry (or believed didn't carry) the renowned Barachotoxins at full strength.

The end result was it made him sick and gave him a bad headache for a while but he survived and so concluded that although not able to kill a human it still carried a defense system that was still quite strong.

Still, not the sort of thing i would try, not even after copious amounts of Jack Daniels!!!

Regards

Steve


----------



## shawn13 (Sep 21, 2006)

I don't plan on handling it. I wasn't certain wheather or not any toxins can accumulate on plants, glass, etc. Given the fact, I quite often have cuts on my hands due to my job, this was a concern I thought I'd investigate.
My tongue will be virgin to the frog. No licking here. And certainly no curiosity. Curiosity killed the cat. What are they doing it for? The good of manking? Grant it, they taught us the adverse side effects, but at what cost , possibly their lives? What good does that do them? Too risky. The monkeys in the rainforest are that example. Although, I do relize that toxicity levels are extremely low or non-existant within the cb species, and more then likely deplete considerably with the wc species in due time.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

from the frognet archives 

http://lists.frognet.org/htdig.cgi/frog ... 13412.html

snip "I then went back to applying more medication, and going over the frog pretty thoroughly. She of course, did NOT like this at all, and really began to struggle, until all of a sudden, she pulled all her limbs in close, and got really slimy. Almost immediately, It felt like I had a bleach residue on my fingers.
>
> No way, I am thinking. To refine something, you have to have a start
> product to get an end product. carefully, I touched one of my fingers to
> the tip of my tongue, and for those in the NW familiar with the hot sauce
> known as "The Man" (You have to sign a release to buy it) I got an instant reaction. YUCK!! It burned, and I mean burned to the point that I went and checked my tongue for a physical reaction. (There was none.) Even now, I am sweating and feeling light headed, and a little sick to my stomach. 
>
> For years, I have held that not even Terribilis can inflict any damage or
> poison after being captive bred. Now, I thik I may say that terriblis, and
> possibly bicolor, aerotaenia, and lugubris may have the ability to make
> something from the crickets and wax worms that we feed them.
>
> Anybody have any thoughts? I am going to go lay down, cause I actually feel sick. endsnip


Ed


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

> For years, I have held that not even Terribilis can inflict any damage or poison after being captive bred. Now, I thik I may say that terriblis, and possibly bicolor, aerotaenia, and lugubris may have the ability to make something from the crickets and wax worms that we feed them.


This would be funny if the potential outcome wasn't so tragic. To your point Ed, frogs produce quite a few nasty things for defense so even in the absence of the infamous 'dart frog poisons' the darn things can release some pretty nasty substances. I really can't imagine what would possess someone to try this experiment, particularly if the frog was 'foaming up', a clear warning sign that toxin release was occurring :roll: 

Bill


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Good god, I need to learn to keep my mouth shut on this forum so that new urban legends don't get started. I never said anyone licked a terribilis but I did make a joke about frog lickers. Ed correctly extracted the incident I referred to earlier that led some to apparently conclude that someone had licked their terribilis. A stressed frog was handled and the person touched a finger to his toungue afterward and reported symptoms. As Bill pointed out, if there was batrachotoxin present, we likely would have never heard about these symptoms because the guy would be dead. The story serves to illustrate that pdf (as do all amphibians) have numerous anti-microbial compounds on their skins and the majority of them are toxic. So just because dendrobatids lose their batrochotoxin, pumiliotoxin, histrionicotoxin or epibatotoxins in captivity does not mean they are completely non-toxic and safe to consume.

However, there is a photograph in an old National Geographic showing John Daly doing exactly what several here have said only an idiot would do. He is licking a poison dart frog. Apparently it is a very simple test of whether they still contain the potent toxins that make them famous. The caption of the photo does stress that he wouldn't do that with the Phyllobates though.

The bottom line with captive dendrobatids is that we can assume they are relatively safe to handle but we should treat them all as if they are wild caught anyway. But even wild caught, only a few species of Phyllobates pose any serious risk.


----------



## shawn13 (Sep 21, 2006)

You have a point. By thinking as if they're non-toxic enables us to concure a fear, yet treating them as if they're stll wc's allows us to take that extra safety precautionary action for seurity measures.


----------

