# pumilio tadpole transplant



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

One of my breeding black jeans pair seems to be doing great up until its time to transport....I have been. Contemplating transplanting tads into tanks with some of my cery active and prolific breeders.....whoever has done this, will you share your method and experience and success rate?


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

I've never tried this but have considered it. If you do it, let us know how it goes.


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

Well this morning I spread 5 tads into my almirantes tank since They are very dedicated parents and active . And right away I noticed the male calling over every brom I placed tads in, the the female folliwed and inspected.....I have a feeling Ill soon see froglets walking out. These guys come through everytime.


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

Rmelancon has done a bit of work with raising obligates through surrogates, search some of his posts if you want more info like this one http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...lternatives-raising-obligate-egg-feeders.html . He even had a thread about how he raised sylvatica tadpoles with pumilio. 
Good luck,
Bryan


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> Rmelancon has done a bit of work with raising obligates through surrogates, search some of his posts if you want more info like this one http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...lternatives-raising-obligate-egg-feeders.html . He even had a thread about how he raised sylvatica tadpoles with pumilio.
> Good luck,
> Bryan


Much appreciated response. Sylvatica through pums..thats impressive.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> Rmelancon has done a bit of work with raising obligates through surrogates, search some of his posts if you want more info like this one http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...lternatives-raising-obligate-egg-feeders.html . He even had a thread about how he raised sylvatica tadpoles with pumilio.
> Good luck,
> Bryan


Beat me to it Bryan. 

Ed


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

Its cool to see hiw he too opted for almirantes as surrogates....they are by far the most commited parents in my opinion....


----------



## randommind (Sep 14, 2010)

Very interesting stuff.....a couple questions to start:

Do the 'Almirante' currently have their own tads in the water? if so..How recently were they transported?

And correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that you randomly dropped tads into vacant brom axils and the male found said tads and called the female over to check it out? 

looking forward to following this. Good Luck!!!


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

I too am anxious to see how it works out for you. Keep us posted.


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

randommind said:


> Very interesting stuff.....a couple questions to start:
> 
> Do the 'Almirante' currently have their own tads in the water? if so..How recently were they transported?
> 
> ...


Actually
My almurante already have 6 froglets growing for about a month now, but tgey recently laid a hatched clutch again, and what I did was replace their tads with the black jeans tads and simply put the almirante tads in a liwer brom, and to my surpruse all were transported.. I then put 3-4 more tads my black jeans neglected in two more broms and the male almirante immeditaely called and the female folliwed. So I think theyll actually do it.


----------



## randommind (Sep 14, 2010)

Alright,... well now what i need for you to do is just place a webcam inside that viv and label each axil according to tad type... j/k but keep us posted!


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

Update!!!
Totally insane thing happened. So after planting a few black jean tads in almirante tanks, I left three tads right on the tip of a brom axle alongside with a clutch of recently hatched almirante tads. About 2-3 hours ago they were all still there......checked up on them one minute ago and all are gone! Did they just hide them from me, or did they transport to their permanent grow out spot? I guess we will see in a few months.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Most people use basti, mainly bc you ,might, not be able to tell apart an ugly BJ from a particularly nice Almirante in a couple months. 

Putting the tads next to their own clutch was a good idea though

Like i said to you bf some have actually placed tads on the pums backs at night, although i have yet to be able to pull that off

Tad for tad transfers work the best btw

Good luck!


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

I was shocked to see them pick up the whole clutch including black jeans....and youre right....hahaha it didnt occur to me that I wont be able to tell them apart for a while...the thing was that their own clutch wasnt ready to be transported but black jeans of course were. Hopefully they noticed it and dropped blk j tads in broms and hid their clutch


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

hey guys
so here is a little update about my little experimenting I did with three black jean tads that were forgotten by the parents. as I stated before, I found a tank with developing clutches and simply placed older tads over this clutch, and to my surprise...they were gone within a day. after a few nights of spying around the viv I was able to spot 2 of the three tads in water and knowing for a fact it was them since their own clutch didn't get moved until the following week. so a few days ago, these three froglets walked out of the exact cups I had spotted the tads in...and after some more sneaking around the viv at night...we found the remaining 5 froglets with full coloration but tails not absorbed yet with maybe a week tops to walk out..... here is a pic of one of the fellas to first come out. did the transplant work? now the challange will be to maintain these froglets alive....


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

I understand why people do this - but I really don't like it.

In my mind - if you have a line of pumilio that are not good parents, and you artificially get their offspring raised - are we not just "encouraging" bad parenting traits (genetic) in the offspring?

If the parents do not do well with their offspring - their line doesn't deserve to move forward. 

Maybe it's time to consider swapping a male or female out and see if things are any better? 

s


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

Scott said:


> I understand why people do this - but I really don't like it.
> 
> In my mind - if you have a line of pumilio that are not good parents, and you artificially get their offspring raised - are we not just "encouraging" bad parenting traits (genetic) in the offspring?
> 
> ...


Interesting thought, but is "bad parenting" really a genetic thing? I don't know if it is or not; I always assumed it was more of matter of adapting to breeding in captivity vs. wild, but I'm not sure.
Bryan


----------



## MrFusion (Jul 18, 2011)

Bad parenting isn't necessarily the result of something being wrong with the frog itself. If instinct is genetic, then the environment will mediate the effects of those genes. In other words, bad parenting may be the result of the environment not being ideal for triggering their parenting instincts. It's hard to recreate nature! With so many variables at play I think it would be a mistake to keep them from breeding. 

Well done and good luck, Cairo!


----------



## cairo11 (Jan 8, 2011)

Thanks mr fusion!

In all honesty....there was 11 tads 8 of whom were transported, which are oow now! These three were obviously left behind since these parents had more than they could handle. In my opinion, this a very good practice...lets sayd the mom went missing,died etc... Then I know exactly what to do and what pair to go to and thankfully I figured it out....last time I checked, black jean adults werent available at the snap of my fingers.....no harm done....8 black jeans walked out ,3 more walked out w surrogates plys 5 of their own....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> Interesting thought, but is "bad parenting" really a genetic thing? I don't know if it is or not; I always assumed it was more of matter of adapting to breeding in captivity vs. wild, but I'm not sure.
> Bryan


Yes and it can be bred out of an animal... look at all of the strains of chickens that do not brood. They have had the cues bred out of them. In multiple taxa, parenting (breeding behaviors) are genetically based. In some taxa, there are often experience factors as well (more experienced parents successfully produce more offspring). 

Ed


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Exactly. I don't think we should be doing the parenting for these frogs. It takes a bad situation (frogs not breeding properly) and perpetuates (allows the line to continue when this branch of the line might not otherwise).

s



Ed said:


> Yes and it can be bred out of an animal... look at all of the strains of chickens that do not brood. They have had the cues bred out of them. In multiple taxa, parenting (breeding behaviors) are genetically based. In some taxa, there are often experience factors as well (more experienced parents successfully produce more offspring).
> 
> Ed


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

Scott said:


> Exactly. I don't think we should be doing the parenting for these frogs. It takes a bad situation (frogs not breeding properly) and perpetuates (allows the line to continue when this branch of the line might not otherwise).
> 
> s


Yeah, but I can certainly understand why there is the desire to go to these lengths to make this work. In theory, the threat of pums that wouldn't transport/raise tads would be minimized or eliminated as long as this wasn't a constant practice. In other words, if Cairo breeds these black jeans with blakc jeans from different parents that DO transport/raise tads in the future then those offspring would also learn these behaviors. If these traits are genetic, then the chances would probably be diluted with every generation, assuming this is not a dominant genetic trait.

Scott, I will say that this does have that feeling of 'playing god,' but this isn't exactly a natural environment either so my feelings are mixed on this one...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

cbreon said:


> Yeah, but I can certainly understand why there is the desire to go to these lengths to make this work. In theory, the threat of pums that wouldn't transport/raise tads would be minimized or eliminated as long as this wasn't a constant practice. In other words, if Cairo breeds these black jeans with blakc jeans from different parents that DO transport/raise tads in the future then those offspring would also learn these behaviors. If these traits are genetic, then the chances would probably be diluted with every generation, assuming this is not a dominant genetic trait.
> 
> Scott, I will say that this does have that feeling of 'playing god,' but this isn't exactly a natural environment either so my feelings are mixed on this one...


This was seen in some critical species recovery plans at a couple of zoos in other taxa. The current thoughts are shifting to allow as much parental rearing as possible when dealing with a limited gene pool, you can easily amplify an undesirable trait.. Now many institutions that have programs that used to rely solely on hand rearing alternate rearing by allowing the parents to rear at least one offspring for each one pulled. 

As a hypothetical example, you have two different pairs of pumilio, one is a good parent the other is a bad parent, if you are pulling eggs from the bad parents, and using the good parents to rear them, then you are shifting the number of tadpoles reared away from the good parents (as they are putting a lot of those resources into offspring that aren't their own) towards bad parents (and are even putting pressure against being a good parent) so we can't assume that the dilution of the bad genes is going to occur as the bias is actually towards the bad genes based on number of offspring produced... 

Ed


----------



## MrFusion (Jul 18, 2011)

True, but is the difficulty in breeding black jeans truly a genetic issue or is it a matter of environment and is it ethical to discontinue breeding an animal based on speculation? 

As I understand it, most people have difficulty breeding black jeans, but again, we can't definitively pinpoint why. However, through my personal discussions with Cairo he pointed out that he tried many different environmental situations before stumbling upon the proper conditions to get this pair to breed. I believe this is the first clutch from this particular pair. If that is indeed the case, then as we all know, it can sometimes take several clutches before the parents successfully rear their own young. Sure, that may be the result of bad parenting, but is one generation of fostered frogs really going permanently taint parenting instincts? Probably not.


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

Ed said:


> This was seen in some critical species recovery plans at a couple of zoos in other taxa. The current thoughts are shifting to allow as much parental rearing as possible when dealing with a limited gene pool, you can easily amplify an undesirable trait.. Now many institutions that have programs that used to rely solely on hand rearing alternate rearing by allowing the parents to rear at least one offspring for each one pulled.
> 
> As a hypothetical example, you have two different pairs of pumilio, one is a good parent the other is a bad parent, if you are pulling eggs from the bad parents, and using the good parents to rear them, then you are shifting the number of tadpoles reared away from the good parents (as they are putting a lot of those resources into offspring that aren't their own) towards bad parents (and are even putting pressure against being a good parent) so we can't assume that the dilution of the bad genes is going to occur as the bias is actually towards the bad genes based on number of offspring produced...
> 
> Ed


I figured you would have some more specific info Ed. Thanks for sharing


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

MrFusion said:


> True, but is the difficulty in breeding black jeans truly a genetic issue or is it a matter of environment and is it ethical to discontinue breeding an animal based on speculation?
> 
> As I understand it, most people have difficulty breeding black jeans, but again, we can't definitively pinpoint why. However, through my personal discussions with Cairo he pointed out that he tried many different environmental situations before stumbling upon the proper conditions to get this pair to breed. I believe this is the first clutch from this particular pair. If that is indeed the case, then as we all know, it can sometimes take several clutches before the parents successfully rear their own young. Sure, that may be the result of bad parenting, but is one generation of fostered frogs really going permanently taint parenting instincts? Probably not.


Mr. Fusion, as far as I know black jeans are breeding similarly to other pums in terms of productivity. But the nature of obligates and their inherently limited breeding production will naturally limit their prevalence and availability until they are more established in the hobby. As far as I know there have only been limited numbers of black jeans imported and there are only a small number of breeding pairs currently active. As for Cairo's pair, sometimes pairs are stubborn, sometimes it takes them longer to begin mating, but I don't think that's necessarily indicative of the morphs overall resistance to breeding.

As for using surrogates to produce more offspring, there certainly has to be something to be said for a bunch of institutions coming to the same conclusion. That doesn't make it fact, but certainly something to consider...


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Scott said:


> I understand why people do this - but I really don't like it.
> 
> In my mind - if you have a line of pumilio that are not good parents, and you artificially get their offspring raised - are we not just "encouraging" bad parenting traits (genetic) in the offspring?
> 
> ...


You know, there is always a lot of bad talk about selective breeding, but people don't realize that they do a lot of unconscious selective breeding for domestication. We are always selecting for frogs that are able to survive and reproduce well in captivity -- it is these frogs that will be able to pass their traits on to the next generation, including any traits that help surviving in captivity.

The pair of frogs might be very healthy and have raised their offspring wonderfully in the wild. I think limiting which offspring get "raised" is only diminishing the gene pool.

Oh, and because everyone loves articles, here are two on the subject of unconscious domestication (most people will only be able to see the abstracts):
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3572528m4u81728u/
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=71619


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

hypostatic said:


> You know, there is always a lot of bad talk about selective breeding, but people don't realize that they do a lot of unconscious selective breeding for domestication. We are always selecting for frogs that are able to survive and reproduce well in captivity -- it is these frogs that will be able to pass their traits on to the next generation, including any traits that help surviving in captivity.
> 
> The pair of frogs might be very healthy and have raised their offspring wonderfully in the wild. I think limiting which offspring get "raised" is only diminishing the gene pool.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the links.. I know that I keep pointing it out.... 

Ed


----------



## Zoomie (Jul 3, 2011)

This thread is quite fascinating to me because it really started me thinking.

I am amazed that the OP made an attempt at using surogates and did so successfully. Congrats Cairo !

As for the perspective of genetics potentially driving parentling skills, this really got me thinking because of something unrelated I did the other evening.

Found two Leuc eggs stashed in the leaf litter. Because they were close to hatching out, I elected to leave them in the tank. The male has already transported in the past and I felt confident that he would do so again. I took this chance simply because I have found that eggs hidden and left to incubate in with the parents produces bigger, heartier tads than those in which I pull and allow to hatch outside of the tank. 

I guess that my point is that it was easy for me to make this decision as I was dealing with a ubiquitous species, and not Black Jeans which is not exactly readily available. If I were intelligent enough to come up with the idea of using surrogates, I know that I would have made an attempt on a rarer species. Not saying that it's right or wrong, but I certainly understand how the OP got here.

Really hoping that Cairo records where these go to see if in fact we see any evidence of poor parental care by them.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I should point out that there isn't anything inherently wrong with trying it to see if it works. It isn't like it hasn't been done in other taxa (like using bantem chickens to brood exotic species). It really only becomes a risk when there are one or more of the following factors in play,

1) small founding population
2) it becomes widespread 

In the first case, with a small number of founders, the issues with amplifying bad genetic traits are well known. In this case there is a lot of risk to the long-term health of the population unless it is very carefully managed for population diversity. The prognosis for the long-term outlook of an unmanaged population with less than 50 animals is extremely poor (and this is well before we factor in boom and bust cycles). 

In the second case, if it becomes a wide spread habit to rear these using other species/morphs to rear the froglets then not only are you selecting for bad parenting skills in one morph/species, you are selecting for better skills in the other which can dramatically change the genes of the population. Either of those directions can significantly change the behaviors of the frogs. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any egg feeder that we could really call established in the hobby (as compared to other more widespread species/morphs). I suspect that if Panama does shut down on the exports, we will see a reduction in the population of those frogs with in the next 3-8 years. We are already seeing abnormal behaviors in pumilio from husbandry practices such as breeding while rearing tadpoles. 

To sum it up... it is acceptable practice but with strong caveats 

1) it can be down to help increase small populations but care must be taken to prevent it from impacting the populations of surrogates 
2) ideally both surrogates and the frogs being fostered are allowed to breed naturally (in most other cases like people using society finches for surrogates for rarer birds, they keep several pairs for each pair they want to foster) for most of thier reproductions to prevent selection for traits. 
3) Using one of the tracking programs to make sure that one or more pairs of frogs do not become the dominent source of the captive populations (TWI's ASN or Frogtrax are two examples) If only a few frogs end up producing most of the frogs in the hobby, then there is no avoiding problems with the population given that the hobby does not practice good management of the genes. 

There are others but those are the ones that come into my head at the moment. 

Ed


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Always like to hear what people are doing with my techniques. In terms of it ever being widespread, it is a hell of a lot of work (to do more than a few animals) and requires a large collection of obligates to be a viable alternative. Even then, I use the term "viable" loosely, you will add a few animals to the available pool but by no means will you flood the gene pool with animals raised by alternative means. You could MAYBE make an impact if you were say surrogating a bunch of bastis or something along those lines, even then, the percentages would balance out to a fraction of what is out there. Just some thoughts.
Robb


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

That was my thought as well Rob...

Good luck Cairo, I am all for more black jeans!


----------



## Robert.hallam (Oct 26, 2012)

Seriously these posts about how this is a bad thing to do is utter bullsh*t, if you havent realized, we remove the eggs from tincs......why? So the parents dont step on them and destroy them, right? Im sorry is this what happens in the wild? Are these feogs carrying this horrible (made up) bad parenting gene that youre talking about as well? 

Dude if this method works for you and the froglets grow up healthy then more power to you man and i congradulate you. We force feed the elderly the same way we force feed snakes who would let themselves die, and guess what? In humans, reptiles, amphibians, even fish, SOMETIMES the artificial method works and then recovery occurs and the special care lets them survive on their own. 

Bad parenting gene....come on....


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

Robert.hallam said:


> Seriously these posts about how this is a bad thing to do is utter bullsh*t, if you havent realized, we remove the eggs from tincs......why? So the parents dont step on them and destroy them, right? Im sorry is this what happens in the wild?


I don't think most people remove eggs so that the parents don't step on them, but rather so they can raise more offspring. If you pull eggs, the parents will often lay new clutches, but if you leave them in the tank, the adults will transport the tadpoles and (depending on the species) may feed the tadpoles before laying more eggs. 
You can't really compare pulling pumilio tadpoles to tinctorius tadpoles because the two species are programmed to have different types of parental care. Tinctorius drop off their tadpoles and that's it- the tads are on their own. Pumilio, on the other hand, deposit tadpoles and then the female goes back every few days and lays infertile eggs. 
It may be possible to artificially raise pumilio, but I've never seen anyone find a way to do so that is as efficient or more efficient than letting the parents do it (and if I'm wrong, I'd be genuinely interested in seeing someone's techniques!)
Bryan


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> I don't think most people remove eggs so that the parents don't step on them, but rather so they can raise more offspring. If you pull eggs, the parents will often lay new clutches, but if you leave them in the tank, the adults will transport the tadpoles and (depending on the species) may feed the tadpoles before laying more eggs.
> You can't really compare pulling pumilio tadpoles to tinctorius tadpoles because the two species are programmed to have different types of parental care. Tinctorius drop off their tadpoles and that's it- the tads are on their own. Pumilio, on the other hand, deposit tadpoles and then the female goes back every few days and lays infertile eggs.
> It may be possible to artificially raise pumilio, but I've never seen anyone find a way to do so that is as efficient or more efficient than letting the parents do it (and if I'm wrong, I'd be genuinely interested in seeing someone's techniques!)
> Bryan


This can still impart a selection. Since it is very common for people to pull eggs we probably do not have a good sense for how many tinctorius will actually transport or raise the tads now. Plus we are selecting not for frogs that can successfully raise a clutch on their own but rather those that just pump out the most eggs in the least amount of time. While the second selection does not necessarily exclude the first it could. 

I wont make a stand one way or the other on this issue in the end it will be up to the buyer and the honesty of the breeder to decide what is important. IMO a tank raised froglet should be worth more money than a froglet of any other rearing method from surrogates to pulled eggs.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Robert.hallam said:


> Seriously these posts about how this is a bad thing to do is utter bullsh*t, if you havent realized, we remove the eggs from tincs......why? So the parents dont step on them and destroy them, right? Im sorry is this what happens in the wild? Are these feogs carrying this horrible (made up) bad parenting gene that youre talking about as well?
> 
> Dude if this method works for you and the froglets grow up healthy then more power to you man and i congradulate you. We force feed the elderly the same way we force feed snakes who would let themselves die, and guess what? In humans, reptiles, amphibians, even fish, SOMETIMES the artificial method works and then recovery occurs and the special care lets them survive on their own.
> 
> Bad parenting gene....come on....


 I AGREE!

I can tell you with mouthbrooding cichlids that many hobbyists will pull the eggs from a mouthbrooding female and then raise them artificially. In western Europe, this is a big no-no, as it is believed by many western European hobbyists that doing so takes away valuable imprinting and therefore the the fry when raised to adulthood, will not be good "holders". Of course, they are wrong.

The thing is, I have seen fish that were multiple generations removed from parents that were allowed to raise the fry to term using mouthbrooding. When those fry were raised to adulthood were given the opportunity to hold the eggs long term, they did so without a hitch.

Our arrogance leads us to believe that our vivariums mimic nature. The truth is, it's far from it. These little glass boxes we keep our frogs in are nothing like nature. For anyone here to expect that our frogs would behave in the same manner in these little glass boxes as they would in nature reeks of human arrogance.

The OP could use this cuckoo method for his frogs over generations and it still will not effect the parenting skills of say F4 froglets.

For those of you who want to contradict this point, then think about this. *What negative genetic consequences do we have by not allowing our frogs to be subject to natural predation?* We have almost eliminated survival of the fittest in our little glass boxes. How many genetically week frogs we are allowing to reach adulthood and then have their own tads and then only to have us allow it again and again?



Ed said:


> To sum it up... it is acceptable practice but with strong caveats
> 
> 3) Using one of the tracking programs to make sure that one or more pairs of frogs do not become the dominent source of the captive populations (TWI's ASN or Frogtrax are two examples) If only a few frogs end up producing most of the frogs in the hobby, then there is no avoiding problems with the population given that the hobby does not practice good management of the genes.


 If you believe this is a good idea, then I think you already missed the boat on this one. By your rationale, most of the frogs in the hobby are already genetically weak.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ecichlid said:


> Our arrogance leads us to believe that our vivariums mimic nature. The truth is, it's far from it. These little glass boxes we keep our frogs in are nothing like nature. For anyone here to expect that our frogs would behave in the same manner in these little glass boxes as they would in nature reeks of human arrogance.


So we shouldn't attempt to encourage or maximize natural behaviors since it would simply be human arrogance? 

The goal should be to maximize behaviors that have been documented to occur in the wild as opposed to attempting to maximize those that do not... for example, what benefit is there to a male pumilio to carry and place a tadpole since the male doesn't engage in any form of parental behaviors once the female transports the tadpole? (and it is documented that females in the wild do not care for tadpole that have been displaced by as little as one inch..) 





ecichlid said:


> For those of you who want to contradict this point, then think about this. *What negative genetic consequences do we have by not allowing our frogs to be subject to natural predation?* We have almost eliminated survival of the fittest in our little glass boxes. How many genetically week frogs we are allowing to reach adulthood and then have their own tads and then only to have us allow it again and again?





ecichlid said:


> If you believe this is a good idea, then I think you already missed the boat on this one. By your rationale, most of the frogs in the hobby are already genetically weak.


I'm not sure why you feel the need to flag my comments with a negative implication when your own argument supports my point... 
The vast majority of the frogs in the hobby have gone through multiple factors that are encourage massive inbreeding.. in no particular order we have 
1) repeated interbreeding of siblings 
2) father/daughter or mother/son crosses
3) very small founder populations 
4) population expansions and crashes due to popularity with each cycle typically reducing the representation of founders.... 
5) little to no attempt by the hobby at large to maximize genetic diversity... 

Where does this cause issues?... people often assume that inbreeding results in genetically caused developmental abnormalities (examples in people cases of familial polydactylism or familial hemophelia). In reality, those are the actual rarities, the first and foremost impact inbreeding has is on those genes that assist in disease/parasite resistance, specifically the major histocompatibility complexes. 

As for the whole argument about the potential impact of pulling eggs for artificial rearing, then I suggest that you should consider the impacts that this has had on some domestic species... for example, we can look at multiple breeds of domestic poultry where we not only have populations(morphs) where they totally lack any brooding tendencies, but demonstrate increased egg laying rates.. we can also look within these populations to find within morphs variations with both brooding and egg laying rates... If you are putting a selection pressure on the adults via pulling eggs, then you will eventually see the impact of it.. Now we know that in at least several taxa, these behaviors are due to the actions of more than one gene... so you could be impacting the gene frequencies but not in a way you may be able to easily detect without quantifiable tests... 

Some comments 
Ed


----------



## Robert.hallam (Oct 26, 2012)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> I don't think most people remove eggs so that the parents don't step on them, but rather so they can raise more offspring. If you pull eggs, the parents will often lay new clutches, but if you leave them in the tank, the adults will transport the tadpoles and (depending on the species) may feed the tadpoles before laying more eggs.
> You can't really compare pulling pumilio tadpoles to tinctorius tadpoles because the two species are programmed to have different types of parental care. Tinctorius drop off their tadpoles and that's it- the tads are on their own. Pumilio, on the other hand, deposit tadpoles and then the female goes back every few days and lays infertile eggs.
> It may be possible to artificially raise pumilio, but I've never seen anyone find a way to do so that is as efficient or more efficient than letting the parents do it (and if I'm wrong, I'd be genuinely interested in seeing someone's techniques!)
> Bryan


But thats all im saying...? If it works for him then more power to him? Just like you said maybe you pull tinc eggs because it gets you the best results, if you can do the same with pums then thats awesome, right? Nobody should be bad talking his technique ESPECIALLY when he made it clear that it was indeed AN EXPERIMENT! Like seriously people need to be open for alternatives, dont shoot down ideas just because it never worked in the past for you, if his experiement is a success and catches on it could become the newly accepted standard for raising pumilios and i bet youll start doing it too once everyones dendoboard post is all for it lol (this comment isnt directed at anyone btw im just throwin it out there that the nature of experimentation is about learning new things and innovation, lets not jump to conclusions about personality trait genes and destroying the frogging hobby when you dont have a clue what will actually happen)


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Ed said:


> So we shouldn't attempt to encourage or maximize natural behaviors since it would simply be human arrogance?


 I think we should, for the sake of the animals and for our enjoyment. I wrote "For anyone here to expect that our frogs would behave..." So it is the *expectation* that I believe is human arrogance. Do you disagree?



Ed said:


> I'm not sure why you feel the need to flag my comments with a negative implication when your own argument supports my point...


 I do agree with what you wrote. Your strong caveat #3 is not a bad idea (although I think unrealistic to expect hobbyists to do it), it's just that not allowing natural predation and artificially allowing the majority of young frogs that we raise make it to adulthood, already does more "damage" then what the OP is doing with his frog rearing. 

You may be technically correct in what you wrote in caveat #3. But I think even the suggestion of such, supports the arrogance of us froggers. Not you. Us. 

I have seen this movie before. I have already seen the intellectuals championing ideas like carefully managing a species that recently became extinct in nature, in captivity, so as to reintroduce the animals back to the wild once the habitat they originally came from was "fixed". Not only did the species (certain cichlids from Lake Victoria, Africa) see morphological changes in the aquarium within just a few generations (after being carefully managed by the PhD's, no less!), but some of the other species in Lake Victoria that were deemed "not threatened" have evolved into something else within a few decades.

The best way to keep a species in captivity identical to it's wild brethren is to periodically introduce it's wild brethren back to the captive population. To suggest that it can be managed by human beings, has not been demonstrated often. Let's be realistic. *Scott*'s original concern is one that he really should have no concern of at all. The OP's froglets are fine and there is no reason he should need to disclose to *Scott* or anyone else how they were raised.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Robert.hallam said:


> Seriously these posts about how this is a bad thing to do is utter bullsh*t, if you havent realized, we remove the eggs from tincs......why? So the parents dont step on them and destroy them, right?


And... speaking of utter BS.. the whole thing about pulling clutches so the adults don't walk on them is part of that... In the wild, the males walk through, on, and into clutches are part of their care as it is required to water the egg clutches. 
The eggs can easily deal with the weight of the frogs. It has been shown that Xenopus eggs can deal with 5 atmospheres of pressure.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ecichlid said:


> I think we should, for the sake of the animals and for our enjoyment. I wrote "For anyone here to expect that our frogs would behave..." So it is the *expectation* that I believe is human arrogance. Do you disagree?


I do disagree... The assumption is that people are always going to use substandard husbandry care for the frogs. This may always be true for a segment of the hobby but to taint the whole group with the same brush is premature. 

We have seen significant husbandry improvements in the last ten years.. for example the move from moss covered substrates to deep leaf litter beds increased natural behaviors significantly.. We can also see changes due to different substrates, microfaunal availability, and so forth... 
The better we provide the correct conditions, the more natural behaviors are going to occur... 



ecichlid said:


> I do agree with what you wrote. Your strong caveat #3 is not a bad idea (although I think unrealistic to expect hobbyists to do it), it's just that not allowing natural predation and artificially allowing the majority of young frogs that we raise make it to adulthood, already does more "damage" then what the OP is doing with his frog rearing.


The issue that does the greatest damage isn't the lack of predation, it's going to be the deliberate inbreeding as the simplest method of acquiring breeding pairs. Natural predation doesn't tend to impact the genetic variation of the major histocompatibility complexes.. that is something that parasites and diseases impact. A highly inbred population generally has a very limited genetic immune response, and as a result is at greatest risk of severe damage due to disease/parasites. A famous example of this is the sensitivity of Rottweiler's to parvo virus. 




ecichlid said:


> I have seen this movie before. I have already seen the intellectuals championing ideas like carefully managing a species that recently became extinct in nature, in captivity, so as to reintroduce the animals back to the wild once the habitat they originally came from was "fixed". Not only did the species (certain cichlids from Lake Victoria, Africa) see morphological changes in the aquarium within just a few generations (after being carefully managed by the PhD's, no less!), but some of the other species in Lake Victoria that were deemed "not threatened" have evolved into something else within a few decades.


First off... you are confusing phenotypic plasticity with evolution.. Phenotypic plasticity isn't genetically fixed initially.. It takes a number of generations for those traits to become fixed (and they only become fixed if it is selected for by husbandry methods that favor certain animals over others). This has been seen in several other taxa as well such as certain pupfish. Second if the genetics are managed, the original genotype is still present and can be used for reintroductions... Outcrossing via the wild population isn't required since it is a variation in phenotype and not genotype. 
As for the cichlids evolving in the wild, this sort of microevolution is occurring all the time and is dependent on local conditions and selection pressures. I'm not sure why you think it is a valid argument here. 



ecichlid said:


> The best way to keep a species in captivity identical to it's wild brethren is to periodically introduce it's wild brethren back to the captive population.


Actually, this is false.. Take your point above based on phenotypic plasticity.. outcrossing with wild animals doesn't change that at all. The population is still non-viable for reintroduction if the husbandry remains the same. 
Occasional outcrossing can be a valuable tool when dealing with captive populations but it should be tightly controlled as it can also cause outbreeding depression with the result of the population becoming non-viable... The argument that all it takes is new blood is often used by hobbyists to justify acquiring new animals from the wild when the issue isn't a need for a genetic input, but instead a change in husbandry methods... For example with anurans see A brighter future for frogs? The influence of carotenoids on the health, development and reproductive success of the red-eye tree frog - Ogilvy - 2012 - Animal Conservation - Wiley Online Library one of the common justifications for acquiring wild caught animals in this hobby is because they are "inferior" to wild caught animals.. As can be seen in this case, this can easily be due to an artifact of captivity... 



ecichlid said:


> To suggest that it can be managed by human beings, has not been demonstrated often. Let's be realistic. *Scott*'s original concern is one that he really should have no concern of at all. The OP's froglets are fine and there is no reason he should need to disclose to *Scott* or anyone else how they were raised.


Actually it has been demonstrated quite frequently... It is routinely done in Zoological collections for a lot of taxa and the science on it is pretty well established. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ecichlid said:


> I can tell you with mouthbrooding cichlids that many hobbyists will pull the eggs from a mouthbrooding female and then raise them artificially. In western Europe, this is a big no-no, as it is believed by many western European hobbyists that doing so takes away valuable imprinting and therefore the the fry when raised to adulthood, will not be good "holders". Of course, they are wrong.


Slightly off topic but your western European brethren are on the right tract, see Early learning influences species assortative mating preferences in Lake Victoria cichlid fish AND Kocher Lab Home Page.... 



ecichlid said:


> The thing is, I have seen fish that were multiple generations removed from parents that were allowed to raise the fry to term using mouthbrooding. When those fry were raised to adulthood were given the opportunity to hold the eggs long term, they did so without a hitch.


This argument doesn't take into account a lot of the different behaviors that are known to occur in mouth brooding or even in non-mouth brooders that show parental care.. For example, there tends to be a viability threshold which if the number of good eggs or fry dips below, the clutch is either consumed by the parent(s) or abandoned... So you could be impacting the genetics but aren't testing the correct variables.. It is well known that the females consume infertile or dead eggs but also a proportion of viable eggs... It is possible that the genetic cues controlling which eggs are preferentially eaten comes into play... so they may rear viable clutches but not in the same numbers as wild caught parents... 

Some slightly off topic discussion points... 

Ed


----------



## Judy S (Aug 29, 2010)

whew.......


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Ed said:


> I do disagree... The assumption is that people are always going to use substandard husbandry care for the frogs. This may always be true for a segment of the hobby but to taint the whole group with the same brush is premature.
> 
> We have seen significant husbandry improvements in the last ten years.. for example the move from moss covered substrates to deep leaf litter beds increased natural behaviors significantly.. We can also see changes due to different substrates, microfaunal availability, and so forth...
> The better we provide the correct conditions, the more natural behaviors are going to occur...


 Fair enough. I have been called a pessimist more than once.



Ed said:


> The issue that does the greatest damage isn't the lack of predation, it's going to be the deliberate inbreeding as the simplest method of acquiring breeding pairs. Natural predation doesn't tend to impact the genetic variation of the major histocompatibility complexes.. that is something that parasites and diseases impact. A highly inbred population generally has a very limited genetic immune response, and as a result is at greatest risk of severe damage due to disease/parasites. A famous example of this is the sensitivity of Rottweiler's to parvo virus.


 Agreed, but I think you may have missed the point, which has become the subject of this post and what I stated is that "not allowing natural predation and artificially allowing the majority of young frogs that we raise make it to adulthood, already does more "damage" then what the OP is doing with his frog rearing." Your statement above while I believe is true, does not support or counter my point. 



Ed said:


> First off... you are confusing phenotypic plasticity with evolution.. Phenotypic plasticity isn't genetically fixed initially.. It takes a number of generations for those traits to become fixed (and they only become fixed if it is selected for by husbandry methods that favor certain animals over others). This has been seen in several other taxa as well such as certain pupfish. Second if the genetics are managed, the original genotype is still present and can be used for reintroductions... Outcrossing via the wild population isn't required since it is a variation in phenotype and not genotype.
> As for the cichlids evolving in the wild, this sort of microevolution is occurring all the time and is dependent on local conditions and selection pressures. I'm not sure why you think it is a valid argument here.


 "Phenotypic plasticity"? Interesting. I have never heard the term. I learned something today. Thanks. 



Ed said:


> Actually, this is false.. Take your point above based on phenotypic plasticity.. outcrossing with wild animals doesn't change that at all. The population is still non-viable for reintroduction if the husbandry remains the same.


 You have a very good point there.



Ed said:


> one of the common justifications for acquiring wild caught animals in this hobby is because they are "inferior" to wild caught animals.. As can be seen in this case, this can easily be due to an artifact of captivity...


 Instead of "is because they are "inferior" to wild caught animals.." did you mean to write "is because they are "superior" to captive bred animals.."? If not, I don't follow your logic with this statement. Would you please clarify or correct?



Ed said:


> Actually it has been demonstrated quite frequently... It is routinely done in Zoological collections for a lot of taxa and the science on it is pretty well established.


 Ecosystem preservation is the way to success. Human management of any species in captivity for the sake of reintroduction to the wild is rare. For every California Condor story, there is a thousand stories of species extinctions of less glamorous fauna. 

There is nothing you have stated that changes my position that the OP's froglets are fine and there is no reason he should need to disclose to anyone how they were raised. Perhaps we can agree that his creative solution of a surrogate addresses a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself, which in all likelihood is to due to an animal husbandry deficiency and is not something that is genetic. In other words, this pair of frogs that is having the problem may just require a much larger enclosure, etc.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ecichlid said:


> Agreed, but I think you may have missed the point, which has become the subject of this post and what I stated is that "not allowing natural predation and artificially allowing the majority of young frogs that we raise make it to adulthood, already does more "damage" then what the OP is doing with his frog rearing."


In the case you are raising, the issue isn't that as many of the frogs as possible are reaching maturity as that can preserve the frequency of gene distributions provided, pairings are made in a manner to preserve genetic diversity. Instead it is a much greater issue if the hobbyists begin to practice selective culling as this is a form of directed selection... This is also the case with the continued use of siblings as parental stock (this is also an form of directed selection). Another issue is that the hobbyists tend to practice a form of indirect selection by choosing pairs based on the perceived attractiveness of the frogs. All of these can/will take a much greater toll on the genetic diversity of the populations. 
These things all can be managed in a manner to take into account the lack of natural predation. The math on this is pretty well worked out...A example of the math is used in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium models. See HARDY-WEINBERG for a discussion and examples. 
The problem is that the hobby has little interest in managing a population for the long term via genetic management... This has been made clear repeatedly due to a lack of participation in more than one attempt to manage it. 



ecichlid said:


> "Phenotypic plasticity"? Interesting. I have never heard the term. I learned something today. Thanks.


Your welcome, it's an important topic when dealing with captive populations. 



ecichlid said:


> Instead of "is because they are "inferior" to wild caught animals.." did you mean to write "is because they are "superior" to captive bred animals.."? If not, I don't follow your logic with this statement. Would you please clarify or correct?


That's what I get for being in a hurry. You are correct. 



ecichlid said:


> Ecosystem preservation is the way to success. Human management of any species in captivity for the sake of reintroduction to the wild is rare. For every California Condor story, there is a thousand stories of species extinctions of less glamorous fauna.


This is due more to a lack of space in institutions than interest. The problem with habitat protection is that it only works if the locals can earn a living in the area. If they are not able to earn a living, then there is no local interest and the issue often becomes too expensive to effectively continue. See the discussion here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-2.html#post576511 and here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-4.html#post586940



ecichlid said:


> There is nothing you have stated that changes my position that the OP's froglets are fine and there is no reason he should need to disclose to anyone how they were raised. Perhaps we can agree that his creative solution of a surrogate addresses a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself, which in all likelihood is to due to an animal husbandry deficiency and is not something that is genetic. In other words, this pair of frogs that is having the problem may just require a much larger enclosure, etc.


There is a long history of attempted surrogacy in obligate egg feeders dating all the way back into the 1980s and possibly the 1970s... in general, there is a long history of either poor success or no success at all. I have no problems in trying different things (but people often try to reinvent the wheel).... in general, the person may want to hold onto them longer as there is the potential for variations in lipid profiles of the eggs and these can have long-term issues for the metamorphs. That should be sufficient to ensure that they are healthy. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## stu&shaz (Nov 19, 2009)

Ed your last paragraph:

There is a long history of attempted surrogacy in obligate egg feeders dating all the way back into the 1980s and possibly the 1970s... in general, there is a long history of either poor success or no success at all. I have no problems in trying different things (but people often try to reinvent the wheel).... in general, the person may want to hold onto them longer as there is the potential for variations in lipid profiles of the eggs and these can have long-term issues for the metamorphs. That should be sufficient to ensure that they are healthy. 


You mention holding on to "artificially" reared young for longer,could you be more specific please,just how long,would be acceptable,for an oophaga,are we talking up to an age where the young are fully mature(sexually even),or would those potential health issues present them selves earlier.

You also mention the differences (potential) in lipid profiles of the eggs being fed. would there be significant differences between two morphs of pumillio? 

Presumably greater differences would be shown by non obligates to the different species within the obligates group. I guess what i'm trying to quest for is if one was artificially rearing say a large obligate,which eggs might make the best food,or going further. If the supply of obligate eggs for feeding is short,which non obligate eggs might give one the chance for potential greatest success

I've read that often large obligates lay more eggs,than they might possibly be able to care for,ie when transport time comes,the female leaves tads behind sometimes. Now if one was to rear said left over tads, artificially,would the impact towards parenting skills in the artificially reared young,be of consequence? I'm trying to assertain if we have a scarce frog,that is perfectly capable of rearing her own young,has great parenting skills, whether trying to do something with her natural wastage,would carry the same implications,as where we have a pair,that are just not great parents,like Cairo's black jeans. I guess it boils down to where the parenting skills are picked up,at what stage ,is it totally genetic,or does tad learn something by being fed by mum,and if I rear that tad not mum,will anything potentially be lost?

Finally,can you give me a laymans version please of what exactly these lipid profiles are and what implications these confir to the next generations,you did use the word potential,so I would guess there is something not fully recorded,but it's worth me asking anyway.

Ed thanks,I'll probably have a head ache trying to understand the response ,but as usual,huge thanks for the patience and the thought provocation

best

Stu

PS Cairo good luck with them, i'm aware of the moral debates about doing this,but i've also made the choice to try this aswell. My first attempt ended in failure at the morphout stage unfortunately,but those skills I learnt,plus being able to see things such as the "tad dance" still made this a very rewarding experience. Damn hasn't it stood me in good stead for what happened recently when a brom leaf suddenly failed,dumping a part grown tad on the floor of the viv,his mum ignored him,when I returned him as close as I could. He's ootw 2 weeks now and feeding well,to my utter amazement,time will tell whether he makes it or not,but at least he's got a chance,where as a while back,things looked very grim for him.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

stu&shaz said:


> You mention holding on to "artificially" reared young for longer,could you be more specific please,just how long,would be acceptable,for an oophaga,are we talking up to an age where the young are fully mature(sexually even),or would those potential health issues present them selves earlier.


Depending on the breeder we occasionally see very young froglets for sale. Not really at the OP but at the Hobby in general. I would suspect that 5-6 months would be acceptable to minimize any risk. 



stu&shaz said:


> You also mention the differences (potential) in lipid profiles of the eggs being fed. would there be significant differences between two morphs of pumillio?


The answer is maybe. There is some argument on the taxonomy of pumilio that can indicate that there is actually more than one species of frog we call pumilio (see http://www.mvences.de/p/p1/Vences_A200.pdf). 



stu&shaz said:


> Presumably greater differences would be shown by non obligates to the different species within the obligates group. I guess what i'm trying to quest for is if one was artificially rearing say a large obligate,which eggs might make the best food,or going further. If the supply of obligate eggs for feeding is short,which non obligate eggs might give one the chance for potential greatest success


There have been multiple trials using eggs from other taxa with varying success. A good bit of the problem with these trials is that the tadpoles often don't recognize the eggs as a food source requiring that the eggs have the membranes around the egg removed. This changes the nutrient profiles of the eggs since there are ions and other nutrients in the liquid surrounding the yolk. 



stu&shaz said:


> I've read that often large obligates lay more eggs,than they might possibly be able to care for,ie when transport time comes,the female leaves tads behind sometimes.


One of the things that determines the number of eggs deposited in many frogs and toads, is how much fat is available to the female for egg production. In pumilio (the one studied so far in the wild), the females do not produce egg clutches for fertilization while they are feeding tadpoles. This indicates that this is probably an artifact of captive husbandry conditions. 



stu&shaz said:


> Now if one was to rear said left over tads, artificially,would the impact towards parenting skills in the artificially reared young,be of consequence? I'm trying to assertain if we have a scarce frog,that is perfectly capable of rearing her own young,has great parenting skills, whether trying to do something with her natural wastage,would carry the same implications,as where we have a pair,that are just not great parents,like Cairo's black jeans. I guess it boils down to where the parenting skills are picked up,at what stage ,is it totally genetic,or does tad learn something by being fed by mum,and if I rear that tad not mum,will anything potentially be lost?


I doubt the single act of artificially feeding the tadpoles will impact the parenting behavior of the frogs. Now if you are pulling tadpoles and rearing them over multiple generations, then you could begin to impact the behavior by changing the genes that code for that behaviors. 
The one potentially that would be a total guess is whether or not it could impact mate choice as occurs in some mouth brooding cichlids. I doubt it, but I'm leaving it out there are a theoretical possibility. 




stu&shaz said:


> Finally,can you give me a laymans version please of what xactly these lipid profiles are and what implications these confir to the next generations,you did use the word potential,so I would guess there is something not fully recorded,but it's worth me asking anyway.


Lipid profiles are the many different fats that are found in the yolks for nutrition. They are important for many things beyond energy as many of them could be incorporated into the structure of the cells or even be required as part of the absorption of certain nutrients (for example, carotenoids require fats to be able to pass through the gut wall). 
Different eggs have different fats in differing amounts. We can even see variations in chicken eggs based on the diet of the females see for one example Influence of source and percentage of fat added to diet on performance and fatty acid composition of egg yolks of two strains of laying hens 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## stu&shaz (Nov 19, 2009)

Hi Ed thanks for the time and the answers.

Here you state number of eggs might be dependent on fat reserves:
One of the things that determines the number of eggs deposited in many frogs and toads, is how much fat is available to the female for egg production. In pumilio (the one studied so far in the wild), the females do not produce egg clutches for fertilization while they are feeding tadpoles. This indicates that this is probably an artifact of captive husbandry conditions. 

Did the wild pums studied,ever leave tads behind? Could you give me a link to that study please? 

I realize from reading posts you have made in the past that producing fertile eggs, whilst a female is feeding is possibly due to overfeeding in captivity and not normal behaviour. But is producing more eggs than a pum,or any oophaga could potentially feed also a prerequsite of overfeeding, ie high fat reserves or do they do this in the wild?

I'm not actually sure of the number an oophaga can care for,is there any documentation,correlating to species, in the wild?

The frogs I have tried to rear artificially have recognised the "other eggs" as food,but the albumin seems to "get in their way" when they try to feed,so i've tried as best I can to remove this,i'm driven by what I see Ed, through doing,but I don't know if I'm interpreting what I see correctly,I thought feeder eggs came without albumin,is that correct?

I really appreciate your time and help Ed,
thank you

Stu


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

In addition to the genetic issues, I would considering that there would be some risk of spreading chytrid and rana through relocating the tads.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

stu&shaz said:


> Did the wild pums studied,ever leave tads behind? Could you give me a link to that study please?


Not that I've seen reported.. clutch size in wild populations runs between 3-5 eggs and averages reported for populations between 3.5 and 4.5 eggs. In this study, It breaks it down including the period of time the female is not producing eggs for fertile clutches (free access) http://evolutionsbiologie.univie.ac...oad/dep_evolutionsbiologie/Hödl/pröhl1999.pdf. Clutch size in this group averaged 4.6 eggs and and 22 tadpoles from ten clutches were documented.. Now there is some wiggle room since they didn't document how many eggs survived to hatching but given another study, it is highly probable that the females transported all of the surviving tadpoles. This indicates that females can rear up to 4 at a time (Population differences in female resource abundance, adult sex ratio, and male mating success in Dendrobates pumilio) which correlates highly with the average clutch sizes reported (3-5)... So we can make an assumption that in the wild, they don't produce more eggs than they can rear... 



stu&shaz said:


> I realize from reading posts you have made in the past that producing fertile eggs, whilst a female is feeding is possibly due to overfeeding in captivity and not normal behaviour. But is producing more eggs than a pum,or any oophaga could potentially feed also a prerequsite of overfeeding, ie high fat reserves or do they do this in the wild?


They don't produce fertile clutches that they can't rear... See the post and reference here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...thought-pumilio-egg-feeding-2.html#post431541



stu&shaz said:


> I'm not actually sure of the number an oophaga can care for,is there any documentation,correlating to species, in the wild?


See the discussions above. 



stu&shaz said:


> The frogs I have tried to rear artificially have recognised the "other eggs" as food,but the albumin seems to "get in their way" when they try to feed,so i've tried as best I can to remove this,i'm driven by what I see


Are you sure it's the albumin and not membranes? Anuran eggs have multiple membranes surrounding the actual egg (off the cuff in some taxa potentially seven) so that is much more likely to be why the tadpoles had problems with feeding on the eggs. 

Your welcome

Some comments 

Ed


----------

