# Anecdotal vs. Fact



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I thought I'd start up a post concerned with Anecdotal information and observation vs. fact. I have read a number of statements about Darts over the years that were Anecdotal statements written as hard facts. " Dart X must have running water to breed", "High ventilation and or high circulation is a must for Y frog", "Z frog will not lay in film cans when broms are present" and the like. I am interested in experiences that go against the anecdotal posted norms. My goal is to help eliminate a few of the Anecdotal "musts" with posts like ; "I have witnessed a group of my Pums lay in film cans as a preference, opposed to the many broms and leafs available, often."
I'll start off with the above last quote being mine.

Rich


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

Ive found that my Darklands have taken a liking to film cans for laying spots as of late, but they have also used leaves before so I don't think that it's a hard contradiction one way or another. 
I've also had castis that have bred in a 5 gallon temp contained with only leaf litter, one plant, and some film cans on their side... no running water.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I keep galact eggs in the light and have bred 3 types w/out any running water. Welcome Rich!


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

Yeah Rich, welcome. It's always fun to see "new" froggers talking here :lol: :roll: .


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

There is also the option of posting things as "in my experience," or as "in my opinion." But even when one does so, this often gets taken up by some others as gospel, and repeated as dogma. You have a good point. We don't always tend to document our sources accurately, but just repeat off the top of our heads when relaying information. As soon as we learn something new, we tend to give advice by repeating it. It's human nature, perhaps. We all love gossip and communication. 

I have witnessed orange galactonotus capture fish fry from the bank of my paludarium. I have also witnessed them swimming from leaf to leaf in the aquarium section to "fish" for fallen in fruit flies. This is anecdotal and doesn't mean that galactonotus require or even prefer a paludarium full of fish and water ways in an aquarium section. It's merely an experience with particular individual frogs in a unique and accidentally successful situation.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

The problem is that people will try things to get animals breeding or cure spindly or whatever and they lead to the wrong conclusion. Such as my leucs started breeding when I added a waterfall. That may be but they also might have reacted to the change in the viv or up in humidity because of the running water. There are too few pairs of most "morphs" being bred to do any sort of research. Experiences w/ one pair of grannies that have gone thru shipping stresses and multiple different vivs cannot lead to any real facts. the sample is too small to even do a control. 
Things such as Iodine curing spindly can be tested as long as there is a control of tads that still get spindly. If you just add Iodine to all your tads and the spindly goes away it could have just ran its course and cured itself.
I`m not saying it`s malicious, everyone just wants to help and gets excited when they "figure" something out or cure something. It is human nature. Sometimes it can hurt more than it helps though.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I agree with Patty and Aaron. I think we need to realize that almost all of the information we use to improve husbandry is anectdotal and is usually presented as such originally but becomes dogma and portrayed as "fact" in the retelling. Like Aaron said, we typically don't have the resources to do replicated studies or controlled experiments. But even if we did, I think it is important to remember that the results of these types of science are presented as statistical probabilities and are not the kinds of "facts" that most people seek. They can tell you things like "there is a 60% probability that pumilio will deposit tads in small bromeliad cups when given a choice of sizes". But that hardly suggests that larger sizes are not preferred by some, or that even those that seem to prefer smaller cups are always faithful to that choice.

I think the strongest anectdotal inference I've ever witness was when a lethargic and starving pumilio froglet was exposed to UVA light and within a minute of the exposure became active and began feeding. But without replication or controls, all I can infer from this is that UVA radiation may provide some sort of behavioral stimulus but it might just as well have been coincidence.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I agree that the vast majority of information we have shaped our hobby around is anecdotal. This is why I am looking for factual statements such as " My X will breed without running water" , or "My Y will lay on leaf litter" or "The females in my group of Z will all obligately,communally feed any tad found that has been transported". 
My goal is to break down a few of the anecdotals that are presented as hard fact. For instance , if I was new to Pums and read that they never chose to lay or deposit in film cans when given the choice between leaves, broms, or film cans I may very well not include any film cans in my pum vivs. My factual statement would be that I have a group of Pums that prefer to lay in films can as opposed to live plants (lots of live plants are in-viv to give them the option) at a ratio of about 10:1.
We may not have the ability to do many truly scientific studies due to many factors but I think we can help eliminate some of the anecdotal "musts" .

Rich


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

slaytonp said:


> I have witnessed orange galactonotus capture fish fry from the bank of my paludarium. I have also witnessed them swimming from leaf to leaf in the aquarium section to "fish" for fallen in fruit flies.


 :shock: :shock: That must be fun to watch.

-edited to add the below-
I like your idea Rich, and it bothers me when i see new froggers (I being more or less one) reprimanding others (in some cases very experienced froggers) for their or choices actions saying, "you can't do that!", when they have little or no experience with said situation. This however is a very broad topic. Would it be possible to take on topics one by one, like a series. "Pumilio and Film Canisters - What is Your Experience?" I would like something like that. For instance, I have a Suriname Cobalt who climbs, so I shouldn't tell someone, "they won't climb", even though I have in the past before I saw it first hand.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

I can even go one step further and say that one of my pairs likes to lay in film canisters horizontally on the ground, not just mounted up.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I like what you are trying to do here Rich. I also agree we might get farther taking it one topic at a time since there is such a vast amount of dogma to overcome.

As for pumilio in film cans. I can say that I use to have a half dozen film cannisters in my blue jeans viv which were never used except as hangouts for the adults. So I removed them. I've seen eggs laid on rather broad and smooth leaves such as Monolima pumilifera and Philodendron scandens. But my current pair (same male, different female) seems to lay almost exclusively in the leaf litter. At least all of the clutches I've actually observed are in the litter. But I doubt I ever see even 25% of the clutches actually laid.

A much easier way to deal with the "anectdotal musts" might be to just declare the simple fact that once you think you can perfectly predict what frogs will do, they will prove you wrong.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

> My goal is to help eliminate a few of the Anecdotal "musts" ...





> My goal is to break down a few of the anecdotals that are presented as hard fact.


Rich,
Exactly, which anecdotals are you looking to break down and help eliminate? It might be more productive to have a discussion about each specifically, rather than hoping to from a consensus from broad brush, anecdotal observations.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I guess what I am looking for are husbandry facts that have been witnessed that go against what may be a popular anecdotal belief. A list that will help our husbandry go forward with (possibly) little known "exceptions to the rule" facts. Success stories of husbandry that does the undoable. If we state facts such as " I have fed my terribilis nothing but melanogaster FFs (and the random hitchhiker) for the past four years and they produce good clutches about once a week", we now have blown away the "must" that terribilis will not survive ( much less thrive) unless fed larger foodstuffs.
If debates spin off and the thread gets highjacked too bad we can always start new threads but if we keep our posts to actual factual experiences getting off topic will be less likely.

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> I guess what I am looking for are husbandry facts that have been witnessed that go against what may be a popular anecdotal belief. A list that will help our husbandry go forward with (possibly) little known "exceptions to the rule" facts. Success stories of husbandry that does the undoable. If we state facts such as " I have fed my terribilis nothing but melanogaster FFs (and the random hitchhiker) for the past four years and they produce good clutches about once a week", we now have blown away the "must" that terribilis will not survive ( much less thrive) unless fed larger foodstuffs.
> If debates spin off and the thread gets highjacked too bad we can always start new threads but if we keep our posts to actual factual experiences getting off topic will be less likely.
> 
> Rich


I think this is good for defining limits of what can be done, but I do think a probability aspect to the observations needs to be taken. I mean, if we focus only on those cases where observations are counter to dogma, then we could end up with and equally skewed view of what works and what doesn't. So if 10 people tried to breed terribilis being fed only melangastor, then all ten observations really need to be reported. If only one out of the 10 reports success, that means something entirely different than if 1 out of 1 reports success.

I think dogma often starts as a reasonable interpretation of observed patterns that get taken to an absolute, and absurd extremes. So I don't think dogma is nessarily swept away by a single, or even a few, exceptions since the general pattern may still hold true. But I do think there is a lot of dogma that is based on pure nonsense and based on little fact (like spiny plants will kill frogs, or RO water is bad for frogs and tads). Both of these are based on a grain of truth that is pretty irrevelant in the real world of keeping frogs.

I really like this idea of debunking myths. It seems like the most information would be gleaned by stating the hypothesized "fact" and then inviting observations that both support or reject that claim. That would provide a measure of the strength of a claim beyond just whether or not there are exceptions. There could be a whole myth busters segment to the forum.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

I think one big problem to this whole idea is that every frog is different and just because something works for me, it may not work for ANYONE else. This will have everyone saying that I am off and that what I said is not possible, but it actually is for my frogs, eventhough noboody else can replicate it. No specific example I am referring to, just saying. I'll add onto Brent's idea from above and say that just when you think that you've foudn a new technique that works well, nobody else can do it and it turns out that the reason it worked for you was just a particular quirk of your own frogs. In short, what works for one individual frog may not (or will not) work for all.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > I guess what I am looking for are husbandry facts that have been witnessed that go against what may be a popular anecdotal belief. A list that will help our husbandry go forward with (possibly) little known "exceptions to the rule" facts. Success stories of husbandry that does the undoable. If we state facts such as " I have fed my terribilis nothing but melanogaster FFs (and the random hitchhiker) for the past four years and they produce good clutches about once a week", we now have blown away the "must" that terribilis will not survive ( much less thrive) unless fed larger foodstuffs.
> ...



It is the one guy out of ten that I want to talk to. How the heck did that one guy have success when the other nine failed? There has to be some other subtle fact that most observers missed. 
It will be very hard to disprove Darts can not be killed be spiny plants but very easy to believe someone trusted who has actually watched a frog jump and become impaled upon a spiny brom spike .I was told second (and third) hand that this has happened (actually been viewed) and trust the person who told me and I therefore have no real spiny broms . The relevance of one single death may be minute in the grand scheme of things but knowing that at least one spiny brom has been the death of at least one Dart has made up the decision for me and I sleep just a tad better knowing I will not have any spiky deaths to worry about.
Maybe instead of supporting or rejecting the claim we should take the claim at face value and delve deeper into what made the "busted must" happen? Again, disproving something stated as viewed can not really happen.
Maybe a Mythbusters/Dirty Jobs combo....... :wink: 

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > I guess what I am looking for are husbandry facts that have been witnessed that go against what may be a popular anecdotal belief. A list that will help our husbandry go forward with (possibly) little known "exceptions to the rule" facts. Success stories of husbandry that does the undoable. If we state facts such as " I have fed my terribilis nothing but melanogaster FFs (and the random hitchhiker) for the past four years and they produce good clutches about once a week", we now have blown away the "must" that terribilis will not survive ( much less thrive) unless fed larger foodstuffs.
> ...


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

WOW, not sure why I am having so much trouble quoting...
Brent wrote:


I think this is good for defining limits of what can be done, but I do think a probability aspect to the observations needs to be taken. I mean, if we focus only on those cases where observations are counter to dogma, then we could end up with and equally skewed view of what works and what doesn't. So if 10 people tried to breed terribilis being fed only melangastor, then all ten observations really need to be reported. If only one out of the 10 reports success, that means something entirely different than if 1 out of 1 reports success. 

I think dogma often starts as a reasonable interpretation of observed patterns that get taken to an absolute, and absurd extremes. So I don't think dogma is nessarily swept away by a single, or even a few, exceptions since the general pattern may still hold true. But I do think there is a lot of dogma that is based on pure nonsense and based on little fact (like spiny plants will kill frogs, or RO water is bad for frogs and tads). Both of these are based on a grain of truth that is pretty irrevelant in the real world of keeping frogs. 

I really like this idea of debunking myths. It seems like the most information would be gleaned by stating the hypothesized "fact" and then inviting observations that both support or reject that claim. That would provide a measure of the strength of a claim beyond just whether or not there are exceptions. There could be a whole myth busters segment to the forum.
_________________
Brent

And I answered:

It is the one guy out of ten that I want to talk to. How the heck did that one guy have success when the other nine failed? There has to be some other subtle fact that most observers missed. 
It will be very hard to disprove Darts can not be killed be spiny plants but very easy to believe someone trusted who has actually watched a frog jump and become impaled upon a spiny brom spike .I was told second (and third) hand that this has happened (actually been viewed) and trust the person who told me and I therefore have no real spiny broms . The relevance of one single death may be minute in the grand scheme of things but knowing that at least one spiny brom has been the death of at least one Dart has made up the decision for me and I sleep just a tad better knowing I will not have any spiky deaths to worry about. 
Maybe instead of supporting or rejecting the claim we should take the claim at face value and delve deeper into what made the "busted must" happen? Again, disproving something stated as viewed can not really happen. 
Maybe a Mythbusters/Dirty Jobs combo....... 

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

sbreland said:


> I think one big problem to this whole idea is that every frog is different and just because something works for me, it may not work for ANYONE else. This will have everyone saying that I am off and that what I said is not possible, but it actually is for my frogs, eventhough noboody else can replicate it. No specific example I am referring to, just saying. I'll add onto Brent's idea from above and say that just when you think that you've foudn a new technique that works well, nobody else can do it and it turns out that the reason it worked for you was just a particular quirk of your own frogs. In short, what works for one individual frog may not (or will not) work for all.



But again, there is a reason that one thing works for one frogger and not the next. It may be the frog itslef but it also may be a husbandry issue not thought of by the person who says "must". If one person posts "it" can be done and has seen "it" happen, "it" can happen. If ten people say "it" can not happen those ten people may not be able to make "it" happen but "it" can happen none the less. What exactly made "it" happen is what I want to find out.
Also, husbandry may be the issue a generation from the frog that did "it". Health of the parents may be as important as the viv we place the new frogs in.....yet another can of worms.

Rich

Rich


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Many of us either have large, single species/population, collections and/or work in research facilities that do...
It would be informative to said individuals (who may be willing to contribute time and/or effort to debunking these myths) if there were a list posted...anyone want to start a sticky somewhere?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

^^^^^ Sure, sticky them here vvvvv :lol:


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Here's one for you Rich.. when I first started working at the Zoo back in the early 1990s, I bred D. tinctorius, D. auratus, and E. tricolor all in groups in smallish enclosures (as high as 0.0.5 or 0.0.6 in a 20 long for the tincts) and did so for years without having frogs kill each other etc... 

Ed


----------



## frogman824 (Aug 10, 2005)

My male Standard Lamasi (from you Rich) has a louder call than either of my male Intermedius in the next viv over. I always thought of Lamasi to have a quiter call, or at least that's what I've been told. I know for a fact it was the Lamasi too because I witnessed his throat bloating out as the cage door was open and obviously heard it as well.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Interesting topic Rich... 

We have had some threads on specifics going in the science section on similar topics:
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24280
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24279
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24282

I think many of the "standards" that in my opinion came from early books and some websites contributed to much of the false data. Simple things like tadpole bites as opposed to cheap fish food or algea in my opinion has made a large difference in the quality of frogs.

So one is algea as a primary tadpole food. In my opinion it is a fine food but not as the only thing that is fed.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> So one is algea as a primary tadpole food. In my opinion it is a fine food but not as the only thing that is fed.


And that one is really interesting to me because when I started in the hobby, high quality fish food was the standard. Aquarian brand Vitamin and Mineral Flake was all the rage and caused quite a stir in the community when it was discontinued. Then sometime later, spriulina based flake came into vogue but most folks I knew stuck with high quality animal-based protein flake.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed said:


> Here's one for you Rich.. when I first started working at the Zoo back in the early 1990s, I bred D. tinctorius, D. auratus, and E. tricolor all in groups in smallish enclosures (as high as 0.0.5 or 0.0.6 in a 20 long for the tincts) and did so for years without having frogs kill each other etc...
> 
> Ed


Ed,
So the "must" that we are going against would be the tank size or the number of frogs in the 20s? Or that the species can be kept together and bred without adult losses?
Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

frogman824 said:


> My male Standard Lamasi (from you Rich) has a louder call than either of my male Intermedius in the next viv over. I always thought of Lamasi to have a quiter call, or at least that's what I've been told. I know for a fact it was the Lamasi too because I witnessed his throat bloating out as the cage door was open and obviously heard it as well.


I have experienced that standard lamasi call louder as they mature.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> kyle1745 said:
> 
> 
> > So one is algea as a primary tadpole food. In my opinion it is a fine food but not as the only thing that is fed.
> ...


I use nothing but the two algea combo with the obvious FF falling in the morph cups. I would love to know the mophs the "need" animal protiens, as I am sure there are some morphs that do better with a bit of animal protiens. Anyone working with yellow fants have input on this?


Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one for you Rich.. when I first started working at the Zoo back in the early 1990s, I bred D. tinctorius, D. auratus, and E. tricolor all in groups in smallish enclosures (as high as 0.0.5 or 0.0.6 in a 20 long for the tincts) and did so for years without having frogs kill each other etc...
> ...


Hi Rich,
I think that this is a yes to both of those.. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> kyle1745 said:
> 
> 
> > So one is algea as a primary tadpole food. In my opinion it is a fine food but not as the only thing that is fed.
> ...


And if you go back into the husbandry articles in the 1980s and early 1990s, algae and nettle powder were where a lot of people started and then there were the big waves of SLS which lead to people moving to fish flakes, various live foods and other higher protien sources and it appears to have moved full circle again to the algae and then back into the high quality prepared foods. 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

OK here's one...

I've kept a pair of 06 Christo Pums in a temp 10G horiz for a few months now as they've tended to tads. They lay good eggs all over the place, on broms, leaves, film canisters here, film canisters there. The tank has LECA, LFS and Pothos. That's it. No leaf litter. There's at least one froglet boppin around in there. (I stink at raising pum froglets but I'm getting better.)

Go figure!


----------



## pigface (Apr 28, 2006)

I don't know about everybody else , but with my Pumilio when they lay eggs in a film cannister almost 95% of the clutches go bad . I think I have only had two clutches that lasted long enough to be transported . This is out of almost 15 pairs . They have much more luck when they lay on a brom or plant leaf . I've never found eggs in the leaf litter . Not that they haven't I just have never found any . 
Those of you that have had success with film cannisters , how are they oriented ? Level , slightly tilted , very tilted , vertical ?
I've noticed if they are tilted even only slightly the eggs seem to flow together and croud each other , I don't know if it's that or lack of air circulation , misting water that collects on the eggs or something else that causes them to go bad . 
This has happened in the tanks that have the internal air circulation fans and those that don't .


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Some time ago I ran some tests on various foods, granted a rough test from a non scientist. In those tests it was clear some foods produced larger more active froglets, which came out of the water quicker. Now in my own defense I hosed the second larger test by losing some of the data so it was never shared as I felt it was not complete. The first test was admittedly a small test. I think there are a number of aspects of the test which could be taken much further. For example the quality of the algea used. In some cases I think some brands of algea may cause issues. I had run a rather small test with the algea I had vers someone else's and had issues with one and not the other.

What I feel is rather interesting with many aspects of this hobby is that many things work, and in most cases we have no clue what is ideal.

Like many froggers I continue to tweak my practices from time to time, but the following changes have produced rather steady results with multiple species.
- Feed tadpole bites and supplement with brine shrimp, blood worms, and cyclop-eeze
- Keep tads a constant temperature 73-75
- Add leaves, and riccia to tadpole container
- I no longer change tadpole water but top off when needed
- I use remineralized RO water for my tadpoles




Rich Frye said:


> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> > kyle1745 said:
> ...


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Refereing to the size of viv "musts", I am not sure that we have got to the point where people think it is now a must to have larger vivs to get Darts to breed or survive. When I got into the hobby not that long ago the 10gal standard was pumping out many, many frogs from Leucs to Pums. I just think now we understand that if you have the choice it is almost aways better for the frogs and offspring in the longrun to give them as large an environment as practically possible. I can add that I have had standard lamasi lay while shipping and pumilio lay in the 1.5 quarantine tubs, alone, while waiting for fecals to come back.
As far as the tad food issue goes, I'd love to get some input as to what tads do better with an animal based protein diet versus the algae diet. I have often wondered if some of the slower, tougher morphers may do better with animals stuffs, but absolutely hate changing water at a high rate.

Rich


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

Then don't change the water! I have noticed that many people are going to the low or no water change idea lately and only topping off the water and have had good results. I have even started trying it and used to be anal about water changes and it seems to actually work better than when I used to do frequent water changes. Maybe it's less stress on the tads without water changes, maybe most are adding things (leaves, moss, algae) to the water that is making them do better. There's another anecdotal one for ya!


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

It's been about three years since I did a true water change but have always used aglae as food. The animal stuffs will not polute the water if not consumed? I'd be interested in feeding tips from those who use solely animals stuffs.

Rich


----------



## frogman824 (Aug 10, 2005)

I have another one that doesn't really go against the norm, but just an unusual situation. Last year I had a trio of Intermedius shipped to me in the winter months from another DB member. When they arrived they were all frozen and none of the three had any movement or signs of life. 

I set them aside in my apartment and contacted the person. About 3-4 hours later, 1 of the 3 had some vital signs and I placed it in a 190oz quarantine container for about a month. She is now in a viv with 1 other female and 2 males and successfully raising/producing healthy tads/froglets (7 so far that I'm aware of). 

Rich, you said you had some Lamasi lay while shipping. That's crazy, were they in the same container of did the female lay an infertile clutch in her own transport container?

Edit: I was reimbursed for 2 of the frogs, they were going to reimburse me for all 3 but told them to only do it for 2 since 1 was showing some signs of life.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

I use a combo of several different things... tad bites, algae, and a fish flake that is a specialty product made of beef heart I believe that has naturose in it (the real reason I use it). If you don't go overboard with the tad bites of fish flakes I haven't had a problem. Some tend to do the way overfeeding route to get larger morph outs and I doubt that would woek with tthe no water change method, but in moderation it works fine.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

That's cool. That busts the "must" I had of mandatory water changes with animals stuffs. 
Could you PM me with some brand names Stace.
Thanks
Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

If you search the frognet archives, some people have used the only top off method for a number of years... It was even discussed by Ian Hiller at a IAD talk. 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Thanks Ed.

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Along with this anecdotal topic with a very small group of vent tadpoles (3 of them) I kept them together and tested the idea of cannibalism if a protien source was constantly available. I used live black worms and there wasn't any cannibalism with the tadpoles. This is not only anecdotal but a very small sample size. 

The addition of animal protiens goes back a long way.. some people about 15 years ago used tubifex but had some problems with disease but I remember seeing blackworms being used by the Cincinnati Zoo to feed multiple species of tadpoles about 13 years ago. I believe there was also some discussion in the American Dendrobatid publications. 


Ed


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I agree on the tadpole thing that it was done but at least when I started in the hobby everyone was using algae. 

Rich, Tadpole bite seem to hold up rather well and do not pollute unless they are really overfed. 

The tank size thing is a tough one as one thing we were seeing a lot of here is new people to hobby building mass amounts of 10gal verts and then trying to put tincs, luecs and auratus in them. While I agree a properly manged 10gal can be fine with a pair of frogs or even a small group of thumbs. I think in some cases bacteria build up due to lack of drainage and or room can cause issues, as well as a 10vert just being a very low amount of sloor space. Also the ideas around pumilio in such small enclosures has come up which again can be done, but with a larger amount of floor space it would appear the froglets have a better chance of survival with possibly more internal food sources.


----------



## littlefrog (Sep 13, 2005)

I only raise auratus and tincs from eggs (I'd do more if my other frogs would just start breeding already...). But I've had very good luck with alternating powdered algae and tadpole bites. Just a little tap of algae (maybe that is 1/8 of a tsp) or about half a dozen tadpole bites per feeding. I feed twice a week. I never change water, just top up a few times as necessary. Total water volume is about 32oz (~950ml), one tad per container, and I use plain old tap water (from a ground source) that is aged for a few days. Lots of iron in the water. When I have it, I put a bit of java moss in, and I think the tads with moss do better than the ones without. I use recycled vented fruit fly cup lids on top of the tadpole cups (they fit the 44oz drink cups very well, actually).

I don't know where my local pet store gets their frogs, but mine morph out about twice as big as the ones they sell. I presume either I'm doing it right, or they are doing it poorly. Probably some combination of both. 

Oh, here is my observation. I don't move tads to a separate morph out container. I let them climb the (effectively vertical and smooth) sides of the plastic drink cups. If I see them on the side, and completely out of the water, they come out regardless of how much tail they have. I've never lost a froglet that could do that. I did lose a few (two or three so far, out of well over a hundred) froglets that can't seem to get out of the water. These appear to be otherwise healthy (no spindly leg or obvious defects). I've taken to thinking of that as the first test of viability, if it can't get itself out of the water I don't want to select for that phenotype.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Refereing to the size of viv "musts", I am not sure that we have got to the point where people think it is now a must to have larger vivs to get Darts to breed or survive. When I got into the hobby not that long ago the 10gal standard was pumping out many, many frogs from Leucs to Pums. I just think now we understand that if you have the choice it is almost aways better for the frogs and offspring in the longrun to give them as large an environment as practically possible. I can add that I have had standard lamasi lay while shipping and pumilio lay in the 1.5 quarantine tubs, alone, while waiting for fecals to come back.
> As far as the tad food issue goes, I'd love to get some input as to what tads do better with an animal based protein diet versus the algae diet. I have often wondered if some of the slower, tougher morphers may do better with animals stuffs, but absolutely hate changing water at a high rate.
> 
> Rich


I have observed (at Blk Jungle for instance) their breeding pums are kept in 15 gal tanks, for years, successfully breeding away...

I have observed that one month after adding Dendrocare into the alternating FF dusting regimen [Repcal products Herptivite and Ca+2] 3 case of 'seizures' amongst 3 species of frogs, adults and froglets alike....

I have successfully bred and raised 5 Yellow terribs (2.5 y/o Adult breeders now) on 99% ff's alone...watching the eat crickets is fun, but is rarely done under my care...

S


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Another one about big cages (and btw, I *definitely* think big cages are generally better, but here's an interesting note):

By far my best microfauna-rich tank is a 10 gallon vert with a pair of intermedius. For some reason, that tank cranks out three varieties of springs and some soil mites as though it is connected to the world's biggest compost pile. I have 65 gallon tanks that don't seem to have as dense a population.

I'll say the obvious, that of course there's something small going on here with the habitat or conditions, and that big tanks in general should do better with microfauna. 

But it does go to show that smaller tanks, even with frogs, can support good microfaunal populations.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Shawn? are you sure the dendrocare was not bad? I have used it off and on in my rotation with no issues.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Kyle,
well it is simply my observation, not a scientific fact. Many things could be POSSIBLE causes.

the supplement however was brand new, from BJ. Whether or not it went bad, I'll have no way of knowing. [it tasted fine to me] 

anyway, was just an observation, but I havent seen a sz for years!! and to have 3-4 in a couple weeks, well....suspicious. Was my only conscious change.

Perhaps the change by ADDING it to an established regimen?, or perhaps it had NOTHING to do with it? In the spirit of pseudo-science though I am observing the collection back on my OLD methods, and MAY try a repeat exposure later on, perhaps to a select group.

Anyway, further discussion probably belongs elsewhere so I wont clutter this thread up.

S


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Here's one on the 'must' of changing paper towels used as substrate for quarantine tubs. I use nothing but paper towels for q-tubs and don't change them for ten days or more at a time. The exception would be for those Darts being treated for parasites. I just make sure that there is plenty of pothos in the tubs and light on them.

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

When using unbleached brown paper towels, I tend to change them every 5-8 days. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Here's one on the 'must' of changing paper towels used as substrate for quarantine tubs. I use nothing but paper towels for q-tubs and don't change them for ten days or more at a time. The exception would be for those Darts being treated for parasites. I just make sure that there is plenty of pothos in the tubs and light on them.
> 
> Rich


And this is one of those probability issues. When I was using paper towels in Kansas, if I didn't change them every 2 days, the tubs stank and frogs died. So I quit using them altogether and have been much, much happier.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one on the 'must' of changing paper towels used as substrate for quarantine tubs. I use nothing but paper towels for q-tubs and don't change them for ten days or more at a time. The exception would be for those Darts being treated for parasites. I just make sure that there is plenty of pothos in the tubs and light on them.
> ...


I am curious how the tubs were set up for them to stink and cause deaths after only two days. What did you feed? How often? How much of the tub was taken up by plants? How much light was on the tubs?

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> I am curious how the tubs were set up for them to stink and cause deaths after only two days. What did you feed? How often? How much of the tub was taken up by plants? How much light was on the tubs?
> 
> Rich


Actually, I said if I didn't change them every 2 days they would start to stink. The stink would be mild after 3 days and 4 days and increase. The comment about deaths was not intended to mean they died after two days. Rather, only that I had unacceptable losses during the brief period I tried using paper toweling. Increasing the frequency of changing the towels stopped the death losses but had to be done so often to keep the environment looking and smelling clean, that I quickly abandoned the practice. Typically the tubs had a large cutting of Pothos that occupied most of the tub and were fed ff. Light was just ambient light in the room. Mold would start growing around feces after 2-3 days. Where I lived, things just tended to rot fast. I suppose more lighting might have helped but switching to sphagnum allowed me to rear froglets completely with no problems and no substrate changes.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious how the tubs were set up for them to stink and cause deaths after only two days. What did you feed? How often? How much of the tub was taken up by plants? How much light was on the tubs?
> ...



Wow. I just can't see a tub starting to smell after just three days with lots of plants and ambient light unless the ambient light was very low and the frogs numbered more than one or two and eat (and/or poop) like terribilis. I put my tubs in ambient light also but am guessing the intensity is a bit higher than you had.
One of the reasons I don't use sphagnum is the contamination problem that happened to the Chilean Moss a couple years ago. A few of the froggers I know had a number of froglet deaths due (supposedly, anecdotaly, but most likely) to the moss contaminants and I suppose the NZ stuff is not above possible contamination. Also, I think it was Ed that posted some years ago about the possible beneficial cleansing bacteria that may be stifled by sphagnum being that it is a natural anti-bacterial agent. I know tons of people use it as substrate for froglets. I have just had no issues with the paper and have heard of several people with issues raising pumilio froglets on sphagnum, even NZ sphagnum. Only pum froglets (with higher issues than 'normal'). Pum froglets happen to make up about half of the froglets in my collection. White-ish paper also allows for easy poop pick-up for fecals and becomes a good "starter culture" of springtails when the tubs is due for a change.

Rich


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> One of the reasons I don't use sphagnum is the contamination problem that happened to the Chilean Moss a couple years ago. A few of the froggers I know had a number of froglet deaths due (supposedly, anecdotaly, but most likely) to the moss contaminants and I suppose the NZ stuff is not above possible contamination. Also, I think it was Ed that posted some years ago about the possible beneficial cleansing bacteria that may be stifled by sphagnum being that it is a natural anti-bacterial agent. I know tons of people use it as substrate for froglets. I have just had no issues with the paper and have heard of several people with issues raising pumilio froglets on sphagnum, even NZ sphagnum. Only pum froglets (with higher issues than 'normal'). Pum froglets happen to make up about half of the froglets in my collection. White-ish paper also allows for easy poop pick-up for fecals and becomes a good "starter culture" of springtails when the tubs is due for a change.
> 
> Rich


Okay, I have two questions arising out of this thread. 

(1) Why is there a sense here that anecdotal evidence is contrary to fact? If anecdotal evidence is not factual, why are we asking for more anecdotal evidence to contradict "frog folklore."

(2) Rich, do you really make starter springtail cultures from springtails that are in froglet containers? Do you use the paper towels in your springtail culture as well?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Homer said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > One of the reasons I don't use sphagnum is the contamination problem that happened to the Chilean Moss a couple years ago. A few of the froggers I know had a number of froglet deaths due (supposedly, anecdotaly, but most likely) to the moss contaminants and I suppose the NZ stuff is not above possible contamination. Also, I think it was Ed that posted some years ago about the possible beneficial cleansing bacteria that may be stifled by sphagnum being that it is a natural anti-bacterial agent. I know tons of people use it as substrate for froglets. I have just had no issues with the paper and have heard of several people with issues raising pumilio froglets on sphagnum, even NZ sphagnum. Only pum froglets (with higher issues than 'normal'). Pum froglets happen to make up about half of the froglets in my collection. White-ish paper also allows for easy poop pick-up for fecals and becomes a good "starter culture" of springtails when the tubs is due for a change.
> ...



Homer,

(1) Going back to page one , what I am really looking for is fact that goes against the anecdotal 'norm'. I'm not looking for anecdotal observances but hard facts. But as in almost all threads things get a bit hijacked or just meander off track a bit. I stated a number of factual examples a few pages ago.

(2) I do use the springtails from tubs where the frogs have tested clean. I save the wet poopy paper towles and by the time the frogs are ready to be placed in-viv there are usually enough springtails to drain off for a new culture. No paper in the new cultures. 
It may sound like smacking the bottom of a cetchup bottle for an hour to get the last nanogram of stuff out , but I suck at keeping springtail cultures going and use tons with the frogs I keep so I use whatever I can .

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

> (1) Going back to page one , what I am really looking for is fact that goes against the anecdotal 'norm'. I'm not looking for anecdotal observances but hard facts. But as in almost all threads things get a bit hijacked or just meander off track a bit. I stated a number of factual examples a few pages ago.


definition: snip "2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: "There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems" C. Claiborne Ray."endsnip (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotal ) 

Anecdotal results can be factual and even be based on or from "hard" facts but until they are documented in such a manner that they are 
consistant with a rigerous or scientific analysis they are nothing but anecdotes... 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Wow. I just can't see a tub starting to smell after just three days with lots of plants and ambient light unless the ambient light was very low and the frogs numbered more than one or two and eat (and/or poop) like terribilis.


I think we have hit a major difference. I think these were 12 quart tubs and housed well over 1-2 froglets. More like 6-10. These were froglet rearing containers and there is no way I could have maintained the number of tubs needed to house them in lower densities. I"m a very lazy frogger and I try to keep the mandatory maintenance chores of the entire collection to just a few minutes per day. I actually only spend about an hour per week maintaining the collection. The rest of the time is spent observing or scheming new ways to improve.

I actually haven't used sphagnum either for a long time. I switched to setting up planted vivs for rearing enclosures so animals were rotated in and out but only animals from the same parental breeding group entered the enclosure. Now I have become even lazier and have been transitioning to just letting the parents do all of the work and pulling froglets from the breeding enclosures as they become of age to be removed. I produce a lot fewer frogs that way but it suits my lazy lifestyle.


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Homer,
> 
> (1) Going back to page one , what I am really looking for is fact that goes against the anecdotal 'norm'. I'm not looking for anecdotal observances but hard facts. But as in almost all threads things get a bit hijacked or just meander off track a bit. I stated a number of factual examples a few pages ago.


That's my problem with this whole scenario. What is really being asked is to provide anecdote to disprove anecdote. However, only incorrect observations are being called "anecdotes" while contradictory observations are being called "fact."  "Hard facts" (as opposed to soft facts?) may indeed arise from anecdotal evidence, per Ed's post. I believe what you are really trying to do is identify improper conclusions that many have adopted as gospel. Because a lot of good information comes from anecdotal evidence (in fact, nearly all of the information we have on dart frog breeding is anecdotal in nature), I don't think we want to go down the road of demonizing anecdotal evidence . . . especially when we are disproving it with more anecdotes.



> (2) I do use the springtails from tubs where the frogs have tested clean. I save the wet poopy paper towles and by the time the frogs are ready to be placed in-viv there are usually enough springtails to drain off for a new culture. No paper in the new cultures.
> It may sound like smacking the bottom of a cetchup bottle for an hour to get the last nanogram of stuff out , but I suck at keeping springtail cultures going and use tons with the frogs I keep so I use whatever I can .
> 
> Rich


That makes sense, and I was just wanting to make sure I was reading you correctly. It just surprised me that you do that with all the other efforts you take to prevent cross-contamination in your collection. I can certainly appreciate that frogs can eat springtails faster than they can reproduce, if you let them.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Homer said:


> (as opposed to soft facts?)


Well if I remember correctly there are soft facts in philosophy but I don't remember the distinction off hand. 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Homer said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Homer,
> ...


That's my problem with this whole scenario. What is really being asked is to provide anecdote to disprove anecdote. However, only incorrect observations are being called "anecdotes" while contradictory observations are being called "fact." "Hard facts" (as opposed to soft facts?) may indeed arise from anecdotal evidence, per Ed's post. I believe what you are really trying to do is identify improper conclusions that many have adopted as gospel. Because a lot of good information comes from anecdotal evidence (in fact, nearly all of the information we have on dart frog breeding is anecdotal in nature), I don't think we want to go down the road of demonizing anecdotal evidence . . . especially when we are disproving it with more anecdotes.



> Homer,
> You are right when you say I am trying to "identify improper conclusions that many have adopted as gospel". We have pretty much all also stated that we agree with you as to the amount and importance of anecdotal information. And that there is undoubtedly a lot of fact in our anecdotal information in the hobby.
> There are plenty of facts that do not need to be scientifically proven in a lab to disprove or "identify improper conclusions". There are a few definitions of anecdote.
> So, rather than label my thread 'Anecdotal VS. Anecdotal' and ask for 'anecdotal fact' let's just keep going with factual observances that go against the 'musts'.
> ...


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. I just can't see a tub starting to smell after just three days with lots of plants and ambient light unless the ambient light was very low and the frogs numbered more than one or two and eat (and/or poop) like terribilis.
> ...


Makes much more sense with the higher density. Two-three times the number of frogs per gallon equals two-three times the frequency of paper changes.
I don't dig for eggs nearly as much as I used to . It is always very fun to find a non-pumilio froglet hopping around a viv. Blew my mind to find the first terribilis and reginas! 


Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Homer,
> You are right when you say I am trying to "identify improper conclusions that many have adopted as gospel". We have pretty much all also stated that we agree with you as to the amount and importance of anecdotal information. And that there is undoubtedly a lot of fact in our anecdotal information in the hobby.
> 
> Rich


But this was my issue from the start. The only way to really identify "proper conclusions" is to put our observations in the context of probability. Take cage size for example. Under this method people say that large cage size is better for species X which becomes dogma that I guess is where the "must" comes from. Somebody comes along and shows that they can breed species X in a peanut butter jar and we say that is a fact that disproves the dogma? Sure, it takes away the "must" which never should have been there in the first place. But suppose we enumerate the number of offspring produced by species X by vivarium size. Suppose we find that out of 100 offspring, 75 are produced in vivaria with more than 2 square ft of floor area and 75 gallons in volume. Only 25 were produced in vivs less than 75 gallons in volume but vivs of smaller size represented 80% of the samples. And of these, 1 froglet was produced from a peanut butter jar. Anecdotes are fine, but enough anecdotes combined with probability makes for some pretty powerful stuff for forming proper conclusions.

This was actually my point about the thorny bromeliads. I still have not heard a first hand account of a frog impaling itself on a thorny brom. I don't doubt that it has happened but hearsay evidence is not allowed in courts or science. So what are the odds that putting a thorny brom in a vivarium will result in a skewered frog 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000? Who knows? Yet this is one of those things that every newbie is warned against. Meanwhile, faulty vivarium tops kill far more frogs (anecdotally based on first hand accounts observed) than probably anything else.

I do think it is interesting to know the things they said never could be done, and yet they are done. It's never a bad thing to understand the real limits. But I think the only proper conclusion we can draw from those is that they can, indeed, be done. It tells us little about whether it is a best practice or something likely to achieve our goals.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I think some of us are going a bit overboard on the semantics issue.

Darts can impale themselves on spiny broms.
Sometimes Pumilio will lay in film cans when given the choice.
Terribilis can be raised and sustained on melanogasters alone.
Standard lamasi can lay in shipping transit.
Darts can be safely held in 1.5 gallon quarantine tubs with paper towels for over a week without paper changes. 
Tads being fed algae and animal proteins do not necessarily need to have water changes preformed.

The above are a few factual statements that go against 'musts'. Take away what you will from them. Conclude what you will after realizing that what you thought to be undoable is doable. And if any of the 'mustbusters' happen to be pertinent to a husbandry situation you have, delve more into that fact. Ask questions. Add too them.

I think we all know what I am looking for here. It is not to be baited into a semantics issue about the name of this thread.

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> I think we all know what I am looking for here. It is not to be baited into a semantics issue about the name of this thread.
> 
> Rich


Sorry, I'm not trying to be a pain, it just comes naturally. I have honestly been trying to figure out what you are after here. I understand the finding things that run counter to existing dogma. It's what we are to take away from the observations that concerns me. I just don't want to see exceptions to the rule twisted into a new form of dogma. 

And I'm still waiting for that eye-witness impaling account ;-)


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > I think we all know what I am looking for here. It is not to be baited into a semantics issue about the name of this thread.
> ...


You're not being a pain Brent . I would just hate to see this thread with more posts about the scientific definition of a word than facts that I am looking for.

Darts can impale themselves on spiny broms.....I take away from this that when given the choice I buy broms with smaller, softer spikes. Why take the chance? 
Sometimes Pumilio will lay in film cans when given the choice.......I now place film cans in each and every one of my pum vivs and make sure that some are orientated vertically. 
Terribilis can be raised and sustained on melanogasters alone........I now no longer fear my terribilis suffering because I am not meeting their food requirements. 
Standard lamasi can lay in shipping transit.......Not sure how to use this as a husbandry issue but I am guessing that the eggs were laid as a result of stress. Breeding frogs may not be as happy as we think. 
Darts can be safely held in 1.5 gallon quarantine tubs with paper towels for over a week without paper changes..........People that were swayed away from using paper towels due to the frequent changes may now embrase the wonder and joy of paperdom. 
Tads being fed algae and animal proteins do not necessarily need to have water changes preformed........My favorite! I will now add some animal protein to some of my tads feedings! 

No dogma. No twisting.

Oh, and one of the froggers who saw his Dart impaled is an old friend of yours who has been in the hobby for ever. Don't want to name names. But he does not post here. Very, very rarely on frognet. West Coast.........

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

There used to be posts of frog drownings due to fighting. With the winner pinning the dead frog's head under water until drown. From what I know, totally anecdotal, and never witnessed . Has anyone ever set up a video recording and actually seen this happen? Scientific study or otherwise?

Rich


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Wow this topic got interesting...

One thing I see often, and lets take Brent's tank size example. So a conclusion is made that a larger tank can produce more offspring. What is rarely discussed is what else is different? Rarely these claims come from the someone trying both with everything else the same. So things like the following are not compared:
- environmental (temps, humidity, light cycle, tank layout, temp changes)
- supplements
- age of animals
- relation of animals
- ratio of sexes if a group
- a list of things I will not think of off the top of my head
Whats not to say that the large tank and the peanut butter jar had some other variable that was related.

What I still think makes things tough is so many things are enough to get by, I think with many of them they are far from ideal, but perception of ideal is also arguable.

As for the smell from the paper towel containers which I have had as well, if I am not mistaken could this not be caused by bacteria? Are not warm and humid ideal conditions for this? So far my best luck for raising offspring has been coco chips, which seem to promote springtales very well.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

No video unfortunately but I've witnessed a wrestling match between tincs where the aggressor repeatedly smashed the head of his opponent into a piece of wood. Also some tumbling that ended up in the water bowl. My guess is that the 'drownings' are the result of the combatants landing in the water and the unlucky frog being pinned to the point where they drown as opposed to the aggressor deliberately holding them under water.

A photo of the dueling twosome pre-wood smashing










Bill

P.S. I did have a situation where a pumilio was wedged head down into a brom funnel and drowned...while I didn't see what had occurred, the body was so tightly jammed into the brom that I find it hard to believe that the frog did that himself....so I chalked it up to aggression (there was another male in the viv).


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

My guess is that some times when Darts are not well they go to water. Sometimes these frogs die and are found in water. Frogs are amphibians and can hold their breath for long periods of time, bashing heads on pieces of wood should produce more fatal fights than drowning.
I'm sure nobody would just sit around and watch a death match , involving water or wood, and video is not something I am holding my breath waiting for. I just thought I would throw it out there.
Another thing to remember is that very few 'fights' in the wild end in death. Almost all fights are too establish dominance and drive the loser away.

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> Wow this topic got interesting...
> 
> One thing I see often, and lets take Brent's tank size example. So a conclusion is made that a larger tank can produce more offspring. What is rarely discussed is what else is different? Rarely these claims come from the someone trying both with everything else the same.


An excellent point. Confounding factors are a real challenge. But with enough observations/samples, you can start to tease these things apart. It just requires multi-factor analysis. This is actually very common in scientific observational studies. Multiple factors are quantified for many different samples and then subjected to multi-way statistical analysis. The results indicate which factors appear to be significant in producing the observed results. The catch is that the more confounding factors you have involved, the more samples are needed to have the statistical power to tease them apart. And if you have truly confounding factors (multiple factors that have the same influence on the outcome), then you may never be able to tease them apart but at least may be able to identify them as co-variables.

And speaking of confounding factors, I think the water drownings may provide an example. I've had a couple of eye-witness accounts relayed to me of people observing pumilio fighting in water with one male apparently trying to pin the other's head to the ground. Of course my retelling it just makes it hearsay but I believe some of those accounts are in the frognet archives. But there are also many observations of ill frogs seeking water and expiring. So here we have an observation of a dead frog in the water, that can have more than one cause. However, I don't think that just because these are frogs we can assume that they have extraordinary breath holding abilities. Since the adults are almost entirely terrestrial, there is no evolutionary reason to think they woud retain a characteristic that really only serves an aquatic life style. I do know I had a perfectly healthy, and very reproductive, female drown because I was dumb enough to place a narrow florist's tube in the vivarium think it would make a good tad deposition site that I could observe. The female entered head first and the tube was too narrow to allow her to turn around. I found her with only her head underwater and mouth agape as if gasping for air.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

When I ran my simple tadpole test my goal was to keep all of the variables the same other than food. What I found was that out of all of the foods I tested algae seemed to be the worst yet it seemed to be the standard at the time. Now to be fair on my second test, which was a larger base I used some better quality algae and it did a bit better. It still was not as good as brine and tadpole bites. Im sure there are even better things to try but my goal was to prove to myself which worked better for me, and share that information, in hopes it helped someone else.

From things I have seen I think drowning is a possibility and possibly related to fighting. I still keep water in some of my tanks and in most cases do not have issues.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> kyle1745 said:
> 
> 
> > I've had a couple of eye-witness accounts relayed to me of people observing pumilio fighting in water with one male apparently trying to pin the other's head to the ground. Of course my retelling it just makes it hearsay but I believe some of those accounts are in the frognet archives. But there are also many observations of ill frogs seeking water and expiring. So here we have an observation of a dead frog in the water, that can have more than one cause. However, I don't think that just because these are frogs we can assume that they have extraordinary breath holding abilities. Since the adults are almost entirely terrestrial, there is no evolutionary reason to think they woud retain a characteristic that really only serves an aquatic life style.


I have read of a few accounts of the water fights. This is just one of those things we will probably never know. Nobody is going to sit and watch a frog being drown by another. And to catch one on video while 'away' will proably not happen either. 
I do find it interesting that just as very few witness other fatal terrestrial fights we have never walked in on the end of the fatal Dart fight. Never. Also being that they are frogs I still guess they can hold their breath longer than most other terrestrail animals . And I wonder how they (evolutionarily) got that water fighting instinct as a terrestrial animal.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

kyle1745 said:


> When I ran my simple tadpole test my goal was to keep all of the variables the same other than food. What I found was that out of all of the foods I tested algae seemed to be the worst yet it seemed to be the standard at the time. Now to be fair on my second test, which was a larger base I used some better quality algae and it did a bit better. It still was not as good as brine and tadpole bites. Im sure there are even better things to try but my goal was to prove to myself which worked better for me, and share that information, in hopes it helped someone else.
> 
> From things I have seen I think drowning is a possibility and possibly related to fighting. I still keep water in some of my tanks and in most cases do not have issues.



I am off to buy my tad bites today :wink: .


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Are there any Board memebers who have seen any part of a water fight? I am curious for details. From some video of (terrestrial) pum fights in the wild it seems like a very fast paced, 'all over the place' fight.
MonarchzMan, any of the fights involve water while working down there?

Rich


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I had a pair of cobalts(m,f 3 - 4 year old breeders) wrestle for a full 2 days after being placed into a new viv. I`d have to spray them for a break a couple times a day and they stopped to eat ff`s but both were"out of breath" everytime I sprayed them to break it up. I was genuinely afraid that one of them would die from exhaustion but let it go on because, well I don`t know why, curiosity, didn`t want to stop something that wouold probably start all over again if I broke it up. On day 3 they pretty much had enough and by day 4 I had a clutch in the honeymoon hut. 
They had nothing big enough to drown the other in. only a couple souffle(sp?) cups and a couple petri dishes w/ water in them. each day most of the water was splashed out. Never really saw either trying to drag each other to the water. It was mostly the female as the agressor. teh male would usually sit there and call at the start of the fight till he couldn`t take anymore of her riding him then he`d start in.


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > I think we all know what I am looking for here. It is not to be baited into a semantics issue about the name of this thread.
> ...


I hope I'm not now being accused of trying to bait you into a semantics issue, Rich. Just like Brent, I, too was just trying to clarify what you were after. On the other hand, I do think that it is important not to use words in a way that drastically alters their meaning, especially when we use the term "anecdotal" used so often with a negative connotation . . . when there is no reason fr such connotation.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Homer,
Is there now any issue as to what I am after?

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> And speaking of confounding factors, I think the water drownings may provide an example. I've had a couple of eye-witness accounts relayed to me of people observing pumilio fighting in water with one male apparently trying to pin the other's head to the ground.".


The point I haven't seen yet is that the "pinning/forcing" of the head towards the ground is part of the normal behavior in the wrestling matches. 



bbrock said:


> However, I don't think that just because these are frogs we can assume that they have extraordinary breath holding abilities. Since the adults are almost entirely terrestrial, there is no evolutionary reason to think they woud retain a characteristic that really only serves an aquatic life style. .


And they have not lost the ability to respire through thier skin. The item that is getting overlooked here is that amphibians have poor tolerance for the buildup of lactic acid and this can potentially be the bigger problem. 
[/quote]

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I had a pair of cobalts(m,f 3 - 4 year old breeders) wrestle for a full 2 days after being placed into a new viv. I`d have to spray them for a break a couple times a day and they stopped to eat ff`s but both were"out of breath" everytime I sprayed them to break it up. I was genuinely afraid that one of them would die from exhaustion but let it go on because, well I don`t know why, curiosity, didn`t want to stop something that wouold probably start all over again if I broke it up. On day 3 they pretty much had enough and by day 4 I had a clutch in the .


If neither party yields then the will continue until one yields.. this is not unknown in other animals like reptiles or mammals... 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed said:


> frogfarm said:
> 
> 
> > I had a pair of cobalts(m,f 3 - 4 year old breeders) wrestle for a full 2 days after being placed into a new viv. I`d have to spray them for a break a couple times a day and they stopped to eat ff`s but both were"out of breath" everytime I sprayed them to break it up. I was genuinely afraid that one of them would die from exhaustion but let it go on because, well I don`t know why, curiosity, didn`t want to stop something that wouold probably start all over again if I broke it up. On day 3 they pretty much had enough and by day 4 I had a clutch in the .
> ...


If you had to guess, what percentage of same sex ,mating prompted reptile or mammal fighting would you say ends in death Ed?

Rich


----------



## Android1313 (Dec 15, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> I had a pair of cobalts(m,f 3 - 4 year old breeders) wrestle for a full 2 days after being placed into a new viv. I`d have to spray them for a break a couple times a day and they stopped to eat ff`s but both were"out of breath" everytime I sprayed them to break it up. I was genuinely afraid that one of them would die from exhaustion but let it go on because, well I don`t know why, curiosity, didn`t want to stop something that wouold probably start all over again if I broke it up. On day 3 they pretty much had enough and by day 4 I had a clutch in the honeymoon hut.
> They had nothing big enough to drown the other in. only a couple souffle(sp?) cups and a couple petri dishes w/ water in them. each day most of the water was splashed out. Never really saw either trying to drag each other to the water. It was mostly the female as the agressor. teh male would usually sit there and call at the start of the fight till he couldn`t take anymore of her riding him then he`d start in.


I have seen the same thing happen, only with 2 Auratus females housed together with no male present. They were at it for 2 days straight! Every time I looked in the viv they were in there grappling with each other. I do have a small pond of water in the front of the viv, but they never went into it as far as I can tell, and both are still living together in the same viv with (seemingly) no problems months later.

I will add (for S&G`s) that I have never had a froglet come out with sls (so far, fingers crossed) out of over 100 froglets from one of my pairs of Auratus, and I raise all tads on fish flakes(w/naturose) and tad bites, and used mostly dechlorinated tap water. I also noticed a difference in the size of morphing froglets that had Java moss & Indian almond in their cups seem to morph larger as opposed to tads raised in cups with Blackwater extract & Java Moss, everything else being equal(or apperently so).
Regards,


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> If you had to guess, what percentage of same sex ,mating prompted reptile or mammal fighting would you say ends in death Ed?
> 
> Rich


In wild mammals, it really depends on the species. For most species with territorial contests, I would guess we are talking somewhere below 1% but still, given the number of contests, that's a lot of deaths. In wolves (and I know you were just waiting for it), deaths in territorial disputes are among the leading causes of death (ranking among humans, and getting kicked in the head by your prey). But humans aside, it is fairly safe to say the wolves kill more wolves than just about anything else. And it isn't always between packs. Alpha status is usually an iron fisted dictator affair and like most harsh dictators, their end often comes within and is violent.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

> did have a situation where a pumilio was wedged head down into a brom funnel and drowned...while I didn't see what had occurred, the body was so tightly jammed into the brom that I find it hard to believe that the frog did that himself....so I chalked it up to aggression





> Alpha status is usually an iron fisted dictator affair and like most harsh dictators, their end often comes within and is violent.


Who needs the Sopranos when you have nature?

Are we weakening the genepool by breeding animals that would be too weak to be dominate and breed in the wild? Not that I promote aggression. Sorry this is off-topic a bit.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > If you had to guess, what percentage of same sex ,mating prompted reptile or mammal fighting would you say ends in death Ed?
> ...


I agree with the less than 1% fatality guess and find the numbers of frogs found dead in water to be quite contrary to what may be expected if we plug 1% into the number of Dart fights witnessed. Also, I have to guess that the vast majority of deaths during these fights in the wild are accidental and death occurs well after the fight is over. 

Rich


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

The only thing I would not want to forget on the fighting to the death topic is that we can not forget that in the wild most animals can run away or hide. That is not the case in our small enclosures. So I would expect the death rate to be a bit higher than in the wild.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> I agree with the less than 1% fatality guess and find the numbers of frogs found dead in water to be quite contrary to what may be expected if we plug 1% into the number of Dart fights witnessed. Also, I have to guess that the vast majority of deaths during these fights in the wild are accidental and death occurs well after the fight is over.
> 
> Rich


This is why I harp on probility so much. We can establish that dart frogs can fight and potentially drown one another, but that doesn't mean that it WILL happen if you put water in a dart vivarium.

But it is not all that uncommon to find skeletons of dead ungulates with horns or antlers still locked in combat. As Ed mentioned, the greatest danger is when two equally matched rivals meet and there is no clear winner.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with the less than 1% fatality guess and find the numbers of frogs found dead in water to be quite contrary to what may be expected if we plug 1% into the number of Dart fights witnessed. Also, I have to guess that the vast majority of deaths during these fights in the wild are accidental and death occurs well after the fight is over.
> ...


Right. One of the reasons I started this thread. I did not expect someone to come out and say I watched this happen or have a video of it. But stranger things have happened. Video would mean can AND will happen.

Right again. And those would definately be accidental deaths. Would locked antlers be a sign of equality or just the fact that even a 200 lb buck will eventually die after having a 100 lb buck fixed to his head?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

[quote="Rich Frye] Right. One of the reasons I started this thread. I did not expect someone to come out and say I watched this happen or have a video of it. But stranger things have happened. Video would mean can AND will happen.

Right again. And those would definately be accidental deaths. Would locked antlers be a sign of equality or just the fact that even a 200 lb buck will eventually die after having a 100 lb buck fixed to his head?[/quote]

There is an item we are skipping over here.. often animals display a plasticity in captivity that isn't seen in wild animals when dealing with territorial issues. 

A couple of examples come to mind.. territoriality in crocodilians for example.. in both the wild and captivity, crocodilians (and alligators) will attempt to secure and defend territories with the potential to cause significant damage to one another yet, there is a threshold population density at which point, the crocs no longer attempt to secure or defend a territory. 

In fence lizards of the genus Sceloperus, in the wild males will secure and defend a pile of rocks or a tree trunk preventing other males from inhabiting the habitat yet in captivity, if provided with a pile of rocks, they form a hierarchy with the dominant male occupying the top of the pile and lower and lower subordinant males occupying lower and lower portions of the rockpile. 

If more than one rock pile is provided then there is a scramble to occupy the defend the rock piles. 

I am sure I can come up with other examples of differences in captive animals... 
These are obviously artificial behaviors that originate from the inability of the loser to escape the dominant animal. This is often exacerbated by the lack of visual barriers or other sight line disruptions for the animals (as these can also disrupt our ability to watch the animals or make an enclosure look "messy". 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Right again. And those would definately be accidental deaths. Would locked antlers be a sign of equality or just the fact that even a 200 lb buck will eventually die after having a 100 lb buck fixed to his head?


"Locked" was probably not the right term since it does not necessarily mean the two animals were entangled together and could not be extracted. Without doing some forensics on each case, all you could really deduce is that the animals died either during, or shortly following, some confrontation. Whether the deaths were the direct, or indirect result of confrontation is unknown.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Right again. And those would definately be accidental deaths. Would locked antlers be a sign of equality or just the fact that even a 200 lb buck will eventually die after having a 100 lb buck fixed to his head?
> ...


'Locked' I have heard of . What is of import is the intent of the combatants. Those two bucks had no intention of accidentally locking antlers and dieing together a slow painful death. 

Rich


----------



## housevibe7 (Sep 24, 2006)

Not sure but I think there is a tangent here but.... Rich, locked antlers have been known to happen. Even to the point where one animal dies and the other is resigned to dragging the other animal around by its antlers (which inevitably leads to its own death.) SO to answer your question, it definately could be both (either equally matched OR death by dragging another deer around.)

Here are some pictures... first and third are of deer, second is of two elk.
http://fultoncountyoutdoors.com/feature ... 0Bucks.htm
http://www.wyomingoutdoorsradio.com/elk ... 0ready.jpg
http://www.wyomingoutdoorsradio.com/Cop ... fight2.jpg


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

housevibe7 said:


> Not sure but I think there is a tangent here but.... Rich, locked antlers have been known to happen. Even to the point where one animal dies and the other is resigned to dragging the other animal around by its antlers (which inevitably leads to its own death.) SO to answer your question, it definately could be both (either equally matched OR death by dragging another deer around.)
> 
> Here are some pictures... first and third are of deer, second is of two elk.
> http://fultoncountyoutdoors.com/feature ... 0Bucks.htm
> ...


'Locked' I have heard of. I know it happens. I agree. But how does equally matched have anything to do with locked antlers? Locked to a 100 lbs or 200 lbs equals the same death. Accidental and unintentional. Those deer were not out to kill each other. Much less die together.


----------



## housevibe7 (Sep 24, 2006)

I gotcha... agreed, so to bring this back on track, your correlation here is that there is a very good chance that if two frogs are wrestling and one dies because its head is under water, this is very likely an "accidental" death?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

housevibe7 said:


> I gotcha... agreed, so to bring this back on track, your correlation here is that there is a very good chance that if two frogs are wrestling and one dies because its head is under water, this is very likely an "accidental" death?


My assumption is that very few Darts die from drowning. Fights would be one of the very few ways it may happen. But with Darts being terrestrial and the vast majority of fights are not to kill but to establish dominance and knowing that Darts will go to water when sick I would guess that if it were factually found that fight drowning was the cause of a Dart death that death would be accidental. Runonrunonrunon :shock: I keep bringing up the accidental thing because intent is just as important as outcome here.


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Homer,
> Is there now any issue as to what I am after?
> 
> Rich


Well, I guess I just have to say that no one can tell what you are really after here. First you want to disprove anecdote with fact, then you move on to battling anecdote with guesses. 



Rich Frye said:


> I agree with the less than 1% fatality *guess *and find the numbers of frogs found dead in water to be quite contrary to what may be expected if we plug 1% into the number of Dart fights witnessed. *[This isn't even anecdote . . . it's just flat out speculation.] *Also, I have to guess that the vast majority of deaths during these fights in the wild are accidental and death occurs well after the fight is over.
> 
> Rich


Exactly what are we trying to accomplish here? And why would we be so brash as to assume we know that two fighting deer have no intentions of killing one another? This sounds exactly like the beginnings of the sort of dogma this thread was started to "debunk."

Can we try to approach this one topic at a time if we're really going to debunk myths?


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> My assumption is that very few Darts die from drowning. Fights would be one of the very few ways it may happen. But with Darts being terrestrial and the vast majority of fights are not to kill but to establish dominance and knowing that Darts will go to water when sick I would guess that if it were factually found that fight drowning was the cause of a Dart death that death would be accidental.


What does it matter whether the death is "accidental" or intentional? The end result of both is that the frog is dead. If it can be factually established that dominance fighting can result in death by drowning, does the dead frog or the owner of the dead frog care whether the dominant animal killed on accident or on purpose? And why are we going past fact, beyond anecdote, out to assumption, guesses, and now trying to channel the true intentions of fighting animals?




> Runonrunonrunon :shock: I keep bringing up the accidental thing because intent is just as important as outcome here.


Why does it matter one iota? The end result is a dead frog in your scenario. What matters is how you prevent it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> housevibe7 said:
> 
> 
> > I gotcha... agreed, so to bring this back on track, your correlation here is that there is a very good chance that if two frogs are wrestling and one dies because its head is under water, this is very likely an "accidental" death?
> ...


Deaths in captive animals are often due to an inability of the animals to get away from (or out of the sight of) the other animal. With respect to dominance, I doubt that this is what the frogs are attempting to establish in the social structure sense.. but instead are attempting to do is chase a potential rival out of its territory. Often animals that have a social structure have a submission response hard wired into thier behaviors that can reduce or prevent a continuing escalation of the aggression. In animals that do not normally develop a social structure, there really isn't a shut off unless two animals can get away from one another (in visually dependent animals, often out of sight is sufficient but in scent oriented animals, (many caudates, snakes, varanids for example) simply out of sight isn't sufficient) unless there is some other plasticity that causes the aggression to be reduced (like in the croc example above). 

One of the items that has not been considered here in addition to stress is the effect of lactic acidosis on the frogs. Anurans in general have slow recovery times from bouts of lactic acid buildup due to exercise. Lactic acid in anurans (both temperate and tropical ) can trigger an attempt to behavioral hypothermia to assist in the recovery from the lactic acid buildup. The discovery of the frogs in the water could be in part an attempt of the frog to achieve a hypothermic condition which would allow it to repay the oxygen debt. An inability or an interruption of the ability to repay the oxygen debt could potentially contribute to death. 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Is anyone else out there finding my thoughts so confounding? And is it Just me or are you ticked off at me for some reason Homer?


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I think the tough thing is that with this hobby there is not a lot of, if any fact. So we are talking about none facts to try to prove facts... Im sure there is a better way to say that one.

Heck with that said is anything truly fact? I would argue very very few things. Most of what he have is theories and some that are more proven than others.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Homer said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Homer,
> ...


Exactly what are we trying to accomplish here? And why would we be so brash as to assume we know that two fighting deer have no intentions of killing one another? This sounds exactly like the beginnings of the sort of dogma this thread was started to "debunk."

Can we try to approach this one topic at a time if we're really going to debunk myths?[/quote:15kgff85]


Once again I will try to explain Homer. You see with this part of the thread I brought up 'frog drownings' to see if anyone had IN FACT witnessed or had tape of drownings. No one could help out so we began to discuss guesses, possibilities and such. Lots of speculation mixed with annecdote, mixed with guesses. VERY messy! It became so messy in fact that I had to pull myself away from the drowning issue and distract myself with thoughts of 'read those bucks minds Rich!! READ MAN!' 
So, while we unfortunately do not have as many 'I witnessed this' posts as I would like please allow me a bit of a meander or ever a tiny hijack in my thread. OK?
Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

Homer said:


> Why does it matter one iota? The end result is a dead frog in your scenario. What matters is how you prevent it.


IMO I belive this matters because if it is known that spiecies X will intentionally try to murder a competeing frog in a water feature it would be reasonable to say that, 

Spieces X should not be housed with competeing frogs in a viv with a water feature due to drowning from aggression. As this would prove very hard to prevent short of not adding a water feature at all. 

If this is a rare occurance it would be more reasonable to say, Care should be used when houseing spiecies X in a viv with a water feature, due to known possible drowning from aggressive behaviors. 

This being easier to prevent than an intentional act. (ok i know care should be used anyhow but you get the point) This may seem pretty similar but in reality is quite different due to possibility of prevention.

If everytime one of my friends drove a car on a certain road they were killed in an accident it would be reasonable to tell my friends (that are left) not to drive on that road or they will be killed. 

If two of my friends are killed on said strech of road it would make more sense to tell them to be carefull driving on that strech of road or they could be killed.

Personally i think this is how these dogmas get started. One person has an issue and tells a newcomer "Do not do this or your frogs will die" Said newcommer tells the next newcommer the same thing and so on. This same thing happens in the saltwater hobby. 

E.X. I was told "you cannot keep three clownfish in the same tank as two of them will gang up and kill the third" My tank currently has three true perc clowns who are the best of friends and there is no signs of bullying or seperatism. One of them has since become female and the males are fine and content just how they are. there is no sign of stress in fact quite the opposite. They are all three hosting a Condylactus anemone which is another dogma "Condys will eat clown fish do not put them in the same tank" As it turns out most of the people giving out this information had never owned a condy or even clownfish for that matter. Those that did and had these issues gennerally had large anemones and clowns that are barely more than fry. The peole that have, (success or not) sent me private messages due to the fact that they did not want to be attacked on the message board for being "irrisponsible hobbyists". IMO the irrisponsible hobbyists are the ones handing out information that they cannot verify and quite frankly have no idea what they are talking about.


I would like to add this is one of the best things about this site, more often than not people back what they have to say up with some knowledge at the very least pointing to a conclusion rather than just rehashing whatever they have heard.


----------



## roxrgneiss (Sep 30, 2007)

Howdy,

There doesn't seem to be anything confounding about the original idea to me:



> I am interested in experiences that go against the anecdotal posted norms. My goal is to help eliminate a few of the Anecdotal "musts"


However, the subsequent semantical arguements have been somewhat befuddling. I think that sharing unique personal experiences that are not widely experienced is a good one. I'm sure many could benefit from more unusual secrets to success and unusual negative experiences alike.

I haven't got a clue as to why the topic has gotten so far off course. The only thing I do know is that this is the age of uncertainty, where everything is up for closer examination and debate. No offense to anyone, just my observations. Maybe I missed something.... :wink: 


Mike


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> If everytime one of my friends drove a car on a certain road they were killed in an accident it would be reasonable to tell my friends (that are left) not to drive on that road or they will be killed.
> 
> If two of my friends are killed on said strech of road it would make more sense to tell them to be carefull driving on that strech of road or they could be killed.


The only problem with this is that scenario 1 is impossible with regard to pdfs. For example, if I take two adult female Azureus (a known aggressive pairing) and place them in a tank with a water feature I can not guarantee that they will kill each other. They may wrestle, and then again, they may not. There's too much gray area to use something that's as black and white as what you propose. In reality it's more like, "well, they have a tendency to be aggressive, but your mileage may vary".


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

Actually that was my point, in that case you would say something to that effect, rather than "If you put two female azureus together they will Try to kill each other." While if every single pair put together kill each other that would be reasonable.


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

Chano said:


> IMO I belive this matters because if it is known that spiecies X will intentionally try to murder a competeing frog in a water feature it would be reasonable to say that,
> 
> Spieces X should not be housed with competeing frogs in a viv with a water feature due to drowning from aggression. As this would prove very hard to prevent short of not adding a water feature at all.
> 
> If this is a rare occurance it would be more reasonable to say, Care should be used when houseing spiecies X in a viv with a water feature, due to known possible drowning from aggressive behaviors.


Whether it is an intentional drowning or unintentional drowning does not necessarily change the frequency with which the drowning occurs. My point was that if you know that there will be two competing frogs, and that there is a possibility that a dominant frog will kill the submissive frog by drowning or otherwise, why would you even subject the frogs to that type of situation?



> This being easier to prevent than an intentional act. (ok i know care should be used anyhow but you get the point) This may seem pretty similar but in reality is quite different due to possibility of prevention.


I don't follow you here, either. Whether the act was intentional on the part of the dominant frog or not does not change how you prevent the death. You either remove the dominant or submissive frog or the water feature that they could be drowned in. The intentions of the frog do not change the preventative measures.

I completely agree that this forum is a great one for helping hash out issues, and I think Rich's original idea of debunking myths is a good one. However, if we are not careful in how we discuss and draw our conclusions, we run the risk of creating more myths than we are debunking.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Homer said:


> Chano said:
> 
> 
> > IMO I belive this matters because if it is known that spiecies X will intentionally try to murder a competeing frog in a water feature it would be reasonable to say that,
> ...



Homer , Knowing the intent of the frog may not change the frequency of which the drowning occur. I believe that to be true due to my supposition that there are almost zero frog drownings. But if I knew for a fact that a frog drown as an accident I change nothing with my husbandry. If I knew it was the INTENT for any of my frogs to go out and purposely drown any of my other frogs I would certainly change my husbandry practices. If I have a murderer around I am changing something. Do you think it easier to prevent an accidental death or one you knew was a probability?

In the 100+ posts can you honestly cite an example of us 'creating more myths than we are debunking?' And is there any information you can/care to add to help with the goal of this thread?

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Let me join in and say that I think I do understand the original intent of this thread but the subsequent twists of conversation seem very confounding. Let me repeat my mantra. The problem here is that there is an attempt to create absolute rules from problems that are actually probablistic in nature. You simply can't do that. Would you ever say that it is impossible to flip a coin 10 times and have it land on heads 10 times? No! Of course not. We we say that it is very unlikely to land on heads all 10 times.

So here are some of the twists I've had a hard time following. We decided we didn't have enough observations about frog territoriality and deaths so we started discussing analogs of territoriality in other species. It was proposed that deaths from territorial disputes are rare which is general true but I provided one example of a species that kill the crap out of each other over territory and there are likely others. But that was for some reason ruled out so a tautology began to be formed but only assuming that frogs follow the rules for species that meet our preconceived assumptions about frog combat (not unlike cherry picking intelligence about WMD in certain countries). So then we focused on ungulates. I made the mistake of using the word "locked" for antlers or horns. I tried to clarify that what I intended was to consider all evidence where animals had died in combat, or apparently as a direct result of combat. This was intended to consider both truly "locked" situations and others as well. But because truly "locked" antlers are known to occur, we for some reason discarded all of the other circumstances that lead to death by combat and considered only "locked" situations as worth of further discussion. Then it was suggested that motive is important to consider which is fair enough were it not for the fact that motive was apparently not important when I brought up the throny problem of spiny bromeliads. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that frogs do not intentionally fling themselves into the air hoping they will be impaled on a bromeliad spine. So I suggest that if these occurences happen, they are accidents. I'm puzzled as to why low probability accidents involving spines warrant more caution and consideration than accidental deaths due to combat. Is anyone else confused? I certainly am.

In my book, misguided dogma is created when rules are formed that are disporportionate to the problems they are intended to solve. Dogma that when followed provides a high probability of providing a successful result, or a high probability of avoiding a negative result is not such a bad thing so long as the underlying probabilities associated with the dogma are understood. Dogma that causes people to expend a high amount of effort to address an extremely low probability problem, is not good dogma. And dogma that increases the probability of a negative result, or decreases the probability of a positive result, is the worst of all. Hence cautioning someone against using spiny broms or having water features in pumilio vivs is not terrible advice. Telling someone they should not supplement their frogs because too many vitamins or minerals cause problems, is not good advice at all.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Brent wrote:
"I'm puzzled as to why low probability accidents involving spines warrant more caution and consideration than accidental deaths due to combat. Is anyone else confused? I certainly am."



I knew that spiny brom thing would pop up again! The answer is very simple Brent. 
Substitute for spiny brom= non-spiny brom or film can or, or,.......
Substitute for water = ?
Known water deaths due to any fighting= 0
Known spiny brom deaths due to impalement= at least one more than water deaths caused by fighting.
Going off my title I simply posted that Darts can/have impaled themselves on spiny broms. It has been witnessed and water deaths have not.

The strict fact of the water issue is that we have zero proof either way. Shall we skip onto another issue ?

As soon as we reach a point that we are creating new myths or misguided dogma someone please step up. Until then. Can anyone please state something they have witnessed that goes against this hobby's 'must'.

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> I knew that spiny brom thing would pop up again! The answer is very simple Brent.
> Substitute for spiny brom= non-spiny brom or film can or, or,.......


But what about possible positive influences of spiny broms that we can't witness because we don't try? We know that pdf are found among spiny broms in the wild, presumably because they provide protection. Perhaps evolution has formed the pdf to feel more comfortable among spines.



> Substitute for water = ?


Substitute for water = no water. I think every book on keeping pdf I have read has stated that the vast majority of species kept in captivity do not require standing water.



> Known water deaths due to any fighting= 0
> Known spiny brom deaths due to impalement= at least one more than water deaths caused by fighting.
> Going off my title I simply posted that Darts can/have impaled themselves on spiny broms. It has been witnessed and water deaths have not.
> 
> The strict fact of the water issue is that we have zero proof either way. Shall we skip onto another issue ?


This is why it gets so confusing. Several people have provided evidence for water deaths that were at least as good as the 2nd hand account of an impaling. So why is the impaling evidence credible and the others are not? I'm sure Homer can tell us the problems of introducing hearsay evidence. And again, I'm not intentionally trying to be a pain. I'm just trying to understand the ground rules for what is admissable evidence and what is not.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > I knew that spiny brom thing would pop up again! The answer is very simple Brent.
> ...


This is why it gets so confusing. Several people have provided evidence for water deaths that were at least as good as the 2nd hand account of an impaling. So why is the impaling evidence credible and the others are not? I'm sure Homer can tell us the problems of introducing hearsay evidence. And again, I'm not intentionally trying to be a pain. I'm just trying to understand the ground rules for what is admissable evidence and what is not.[/quote:3uqeqpvz]


They may feel more comfy in spiny broms. I don't know either.They do not feel comfy with spines in them. 
With zero standing water what do tads get placed in? Do you let any frogs raise their tads in viv? 
Who exactly has provided ANY evidence of water fight deaths?? I don't know about you but saying a man's word is on par with nobody's facts of water fight deaths is a bit unsettling. Especially when the man who said he actually witnessed the impalement happens to be on the TWI steering committee. Witnessed fact is always admissible in my court. Baring that ,we always seem to slip off into anecdote and speculation topped with a nice hearsay cherry sprinkled with some guessing nuts. I am one of the guessing nuts for sure. I rarely find you a pain Brent.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

sports_doc said:


> [quote="Rich Frye":2axz86ya]
> 
> I have observed that one month after adding Dendrocare into the alternating FF dusting regimen [Repcal products Herptivite and Ca+2] 3 case of 'seizures' amongst 3 species of frogs, adults and froglets alike....
> 
> ...


[/quote:2axz86ya]

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS AN ANECDOTAL OBSERVATION AND IS IN NO WAY TO CONFUSED OR MISREPRESENTED AS FACT OR HARD DATA. ANYONE NOT WANTING TO BE EXPOSED TO INFORMATION NOT RECOGNIZED AS HARD FACT SHOULD NOW PERUSE ANOTHER THREAD.


My brother passed along some info he thought should be shared here. It has been his experience that a decent number (more than a couple) of 'seizures' have been reported to him after/while using Dendrocare. 

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> With zero standing water what do tads get placed in? Do you let any frogs raise their tads in viv?
> 
> The strongest drowning warnings are in association with pumilio which can rear their tads in leaf axils that, while technically is standing water, is not the kind we are talking about here. I personally ignore the warnings about water (although I have no standing water in my pumilio vivs but not because of fears of drowning) because they are a low probability event that can be made even lower by my keeping an eye on the social dynamics of the occupants.
> 
> ...


I'm not doubting anyone's word. If the TWI steering committee member comes forward with their first hand observation, then it becomes an eye witness account. But it has to come directly from the observer, not through a second hand retelling of events. No different than my telling you that I've read of drowning events.



> Witnessed fact is always admissible in my court.


The key being "witnessed" fact. If I didn't witness the fact, then what I say happened becomes hearsay and is generally not admissable. Same goes for science. If you say you saw a wolverine at X location, then that observation is reviewed and if it passes the review for a credible sighting, then it gets entered as a record. If you say your brother saw a wolverine at location X, then nothing gets entered unless your brother can be interviewed about the observation.



> Baring that ,we always seem to slip off into anecdote and speculation topped with a nice hearsay cherry sprinkled with some guessing nuts. I am one of the guessing nuts for sure. I rarely find you a pain Brent.


[/quote:3s1b7cnw]

It's actually constructive though I believe because what we are really getting at is the kernel of what creates bad dogma in the first place. We need to understand how to properly evaluate the relative weight of various lines of evidence to draw reasonable conclusions. A review of the ivory-billed woodpeckers sightings provides a very interesting example of how burdens of proof and various lines of evidence get weighed.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > With zero standing water what do tads get placed in? Do you let any frogs raise their tads in viv?
> ...


The key being "witnessed" fact. If I didn't witness the fact, then what I say happened becomes hearsay and is generally not admissable. Same goes for science. If you say you saw a wolverine at X location, then that observation is reviewed and if it passes the review for a credible sighting, then it gets entered as a record. If you say your brother saw a wolverine at location X, then nothing gets entered unless your brother can be interviewed about the observation.



> Baring that ,we always seem to slip off into anecdote and speculation topped with a nice hearsay cherry sprinkled with some guessing nuts. I am one of the guessing nuts for sure. I rarely find you a pain Brent.


It's actually constructive though I believe because what we are really getting at is the kernel of what creates bad dogma in the first place. We need to understand how to properly evaluate the relative weight of various lines of evidence to draw reasonable conclusions. A review of the ivory-billed woodpeckers sightings provides a very interesting example of how burdens of proof and various lines of evidence get weighed.[/quote:z21u6tos][/quote:z21u6tos]

Brent wrote:
"I think every book on keeping pdf I have read has stated that the vast majority of species kept in captivity do not require standing water. "


They do if you want to raise any tincs, phlos, or epips in-viv. Water in broms counts in my mind as they have already been cited as a possible drowning spots.


B. wrote:
"I stated earlier that I have read at least two accounts of apparent drownings"

OK, I am going to be a big stickler here because apparent don't cut it. There have been plenty of froggers posting they think their Dart drown and it was possibly from a fight. I need hard facts on those 'apparent' drownings because of no video OR witnesses who viewed those 'drownings'. 
And I have to say that if frogger 'x' tells me that he or she saw a wolf poopin' at such and such long/lat ,and they are absolutely sure of said poopin' facts, and I have absolutely zero reason the believe otherwise , I am chuggin' that right into the 'it did in fact happen file'. If Stace tells me he saw a frog pinned down until dead , 'happened file'. Homer tells me he has seen a tinc impale itself on a brom while attepting a tripple flip, 'happened'. I'm sorry but I am still of the belief that we do not need to prove absolutely everything in a court of law to have it fact. I am not talking about the 'whisper a story in a circle and see the different ending' stories. Stace, Homer, Todd, I, saw something with our own eyes. 'Happened'. Fact.

Rich


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

So are you saying someone needs to witness it to be fact? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there it still makes a sound... 

Even if 3-4-5 people have witnessed it does that make it fact? or even a true risk out of the 1000's of frog keepers?

I think at this point we are arguing aspects of this topic that are not answerable. So it is continuing on and on and on and on...

I can say I have witnessed 2 imitator males fight for what seemed like weeks. If they were separated they would find each other again within a day. This went on to the point where one had lost considerable weight and was clearly losing. I had to remove the now thin one, who quickly recovered after words. I can honestly say that if there had been water the one would have died for sure and one of the times I had removed them both from a brom. So I did not witness a death but the possibility that it could have happened. They were clearly not friends. 

I feel the base thought around this thread is rather interesting, but lets not argue finite details which even the best philosophers would not solve.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

kyle1745 said:


> So are you saying someone needs to witness it to be fact? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there it still makes a sound...
> 
> Even if 3-4-5 people have witnessed it does that make it fact? or even a true risk out of the 1000's of frog keepers?
> 
> ...


No Kyle, quite the opposite. I'm saying that if someboday DOES see it 'it' is fact. And yes , if three or four of us witness 'it', 'it' is fact. It's very simple. I believe someone when they straight forwardly state 'Rich, I saw 'x' happen with my own eyes'. I chalk it up as fact.

Rich


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I agree... all I am saying is that just because it is not seen does not mean it does not happen... but now we are way off topic. 

From what I have read here the closest I think we have is people finding frogs dead in water which I think we all agree could be from a number of things.

The closest I have witnessed were 2 pumilio trying to hide in the same section of a brom where one was under water and the other attempting to hide from me went in above the first pushing it down. In that case the lower one was able to get the other one out of the way and get out.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Just a tactical thought about broms and water fights. If I were a pumilio wanting to drown a competitor I would wait until I spyed my rival in a brom axle and ambush him forcing him down into the water. I can't imagine that not working for me. Cheap shot and all. I could learn this tactic in the wild or captivity and I imagine it would work just as well outside or in.
I am surprised at the extremely low number reported of adult pum deaths in the axils.

Rich


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

As I said some pages ago I think in the wild they run away... so our tanks create a situation which may not fit their instincts.

In the case I mentioned they were simply both in the same place and running from me.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

But what I am saying is that if I were in fact a killer pumilio ( I don't think yours are, nor mine) the sneek attack is the way to go and I can't really imagine the surprisee getting the upper hand in the described scenario, be it in the wild or other. It just seems like a great tactic for pums if they had an intention of killin'.  

Rich


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

Rich Frye said:


> But what I am saying is that if I were in fact a killer pumilio ( I don't think yours are, nor mine) the sneek attack is the way to go and I can't really imagine the surprisee getting the upper hand in the described scenario, be it in the wild or other. It just seems like a great tactic for pums if they had an intention of killin'.
> 
> Rich


Odd to think about really but a very good point at the same time. This could easily be observed with animals hunting. Or even domestic cats really (even thought they are convinced they are invisible if they cant see you). I have two cats and the smaller of the two will play toe to toe with the bigger one(and get her butt kicked), however if she really wants to get the bigger one she will hide and sometimes even make noise to attract the bigger one. When the bigger one is not looking BAM, she gets the jump on her and usually gets the better of her even if just for a moment. I would guess it is safe to assume if one frog really wanted to murder another it could find an oppertunity to strike with the advantage.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I'm going to take one last stab at this here and then I think I'll resign from the thread because it seems to be a continuation of convoluted logic.

Todd's name was mentioned as an eye witness to a "stabbing" event. But yet, I don't see Todd posting here anywhere. Therefore, he may have told you about an event, but he hasn't told me. So I have no way to evaluate the actual facts of the event other than your retelling of it. Which, in fact, is the same as whispering something in a crowd and is why it is generally not permitted in court or science. Yes, if YOU witnessed an event and reported it, then that holds a lot of weight. YOU telling me that SOMEBODY else saw something, only provides an idication that it might have happened but you really need to get the story straight from the horse's mouth.

Now as for apparent vs. "fact". Kyle has it right. If you want to get picky about witnessing actual events, then you had better document your event with hard evidence. Again, I present the case of the ivory-billed woodpecker which is currently steeped in controversy over whether several eye-witness sightings by very experienced professionals actually constitutes proof of existence. And if you are going to insist on this level of proof, you are going to have to toss out 99.999999999% of the evidence for any event because such hard evidence is extremely rare. Earlier I mentioned an drowning of one of my pumilio. She was found head down, with head under water in the bottom of a florist's tube. This was an "apparent" drowning because I did not actually witness the drowning. But the evidence is pretty strong for what happened. Kyle provided the classic example. People who have witnessed trees falling have observed that they make noise when they fall. Now we observe a tree that has "apparently" fallen because it is on its side on the forst floor and is broken off at the base. It can be reasonably deduced that the tree made a noise when it hit the ground by assembling what is known about tree falling behaior and aligning them with the evidence before us. This is not trivial semantics. This is logic which is the set of rules by which we assemble information to formulate useful constructs. In other words, if we don't follow sound patterns of logic to assemble our observations into meaningful husbandry recommendations, then there is really no point in sharing observations.

Finally, we need to be careful about projecting motive on observations. At some point we jumped to the conclusion that pumilio drowning was the result of intentionally try to murder one another by holding an opponents head under water. This is nonesense with absolutely no evidential basis. What we have is evidence that pumilio "apparently" try to pin opponent's heads to the ground when battling. That anurans are sensitive to lactic acid buildup and may become physically exhausted about prolonged bouts. And that captive pumilio likely (or should I say "apparently" cannot display escape behaviors they would in the wild. All of these things combined indicate that captive pumilio "apparently" would be likely to engage in prolonged physical contests that could lead to muscle exhaustion wherein opponents attempt to pin the other's head to the ground. Now if this contest happens to occur over water.... WALLA, we have a drowning. No motive need be invented to explain the drowning. It just happened. And how does this translate to husbandry recommendations? Well, it suggests what we have already known for a very, very, long time. Don't put two male pumilio together in a small vivarium unless you want them attempting to beat the crap out of each other all the time. That advice applies regardless of the presence of water.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Just to throw a bit more petro on.....I can easily argue that if a tree falls in a forest and there is nothing there to hear it fall it does not make a noise.
Sound is heard. Sound is a 'sensation', an 'auditory effect', 'recognizable'. If there is nothing there to sense the sound waves there is no sound. That tree made waves.
Let's agree to not and skip along.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Brent wrote:
" At some point we jumped to the conclusion that pumilio drowning was the result of intentionally try to murder one another by holding an opponents head under water."

I think you will have a very hard time citing that in this thread. I know that is the farthest from my beliefs. Toal and absolute nonesense.

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Brent wrote:
> " At some point we jumped to the conclusion that pumilio drowning was the result of intentionally try to murder one another by holding an opponents head under water."
> 
> I think you will have a very hard time citing that in this thread. I know that is the farthest from my beliefs. Toal and absolute nonesense.
> ...


I may have misinterpreted but if you read through the thread, you will see that you and Chano both mentioned motive and murder as an important consideration which I agree with so long as we don't rule out other types of drowning associated with combat that do not require motive.

And then there was this:


Rich Frye said:


> Just a tactical thought about broms and water fights. If I were a pumilio wanting to drown a competitor I would wait until I spyed my rival in a brom axle and ambush him forcing him down into the water. I can't imagine that not working for me. Cheap shot and all. I could learn this tactic in the wild or captivity and I imagine it would work just as well outside or in.
> I am surprised at the extremely low number reported of adult pum deaths in the axils.
> 
> Rich


It seemed to me that a lack of evidence for purposeful (motive driven) drowning was being used to debunk the "myth" of drownings in general. Which made me feel that evidence about combat behavior, flight responses, etc., that might make frogs prone to drowning in the presence of water was being devalued. It seemed like accidental drownings resulting from combat were not important, when, in fact, if they occur at a high enough frequency, they are just as important as intentional drownings. As Homer mentioned, regardless of motive, you have a dead frog on your hands.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Brent wrote:
> ...


I think you did misinterpret. 'Mentioning' motive and murder is FAR from concluding anything . I mentioned it ( murder) as being on the FAR end from probability. None of us jumped to that conclusion here. So, for the record, please put me down as a 'NO' guesser on killer pums.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> And then there was this:
> 
> 
> Rich Frye said:
> ...


Lack of occurance was being used actually. As a tool to point out what seemed obvious to me as a great stategy for killing IF I were a murderous pum. A tactic that I would speculate would produce tons of dead pums in the wild and just as many in any same sexed pum vivs with broms, spiny or not. 
Drownings , be they accidental or murder are important equally, obviously. Known murder will change my husbandy quite a bit. Accident will not.
I believe that the VAST majority of Darts found in water are due to health issues not being fight or drowning related. The small number of frogs found dead in water combined with the very small number of necropsies on 'drown' frogs (had one on mine done, not a drowning) with the 'guessed by us both small number of murderous animals out there' in conjuction with the lack of any viewed or taped evidence of drownings would to me leave the possibility that once in a blue moon a fight may occur and a frog may accidentally lose it's life.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

OK, a new one.
Fact, I have on many occasions hatched out yellow terribilis eggs as early in their development as five days after fertilization. With great survival rates. More so than letting them hatch on their own. Five days.....
Bump.

Rich


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

After taking care of three large frog collections (600 + animals) i think that it is anecdotal information that dart frogs need to be parasite free to live long healthy fecund lives.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Yes. Anecdotal. And the VS. Fact side would be.........


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Yes. Anecdotal. And the VS. Fact side would be.........


Yikes, I don't want to travel down this path again, but I would say the fact would be that many captive pdf have been observed to live apparently healthy lives with parasites in their bodies. And that's it for me as I have no interest in reliving past nightmares.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Anecdotal. And the VS. Fact side would be.........
> ...


agreed and
agreed

Rich


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

This was always an interesting thread. I have one I have wanted to post for awhile but just got the pictures uploaded.

It is often stated that there are "terrestrial" and "arboreal" PDF's. Often, people will give very finite definitions of what this means, example. "A Tinc is terrestrial and will spend all of its time on the ground". It is however anecdotal, not fact. In a tank only a few feet tall, there really is not a terrestrial space and an arboreal one in the true sense. In nature, an arboreal frog may literally live 10, 20, 30 or who knows how high off the ground. A terrestrial frog may in fact stay on the ground, but that does not mean it will not move off the forest floor. I have two Suriname Cobalts. One has always slept on the background. They recently moved into a 25" tall tank. The first still sleeps very high off the floor (within 3 or 4" of the top). The other recently learned how to get up there too and now spends a good part of the day in the top areas of the tank, even hunting up there some. The floor is well planted with many hide spots and they do spend much time there with one of them still sleeping on the floor, but both seem to enjoy climbing around and are not shy frogs.











I forgot too upload the shots I thought I had. I will post those later.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I think terrestrial is relative to where they spend most of their time. Anything with in a couple feet of the ground would still be terrestrial if I am not mistaken. The difference is where some frogs spend a good portion of their time in the trees and etc more than a couple feet off the ground. Also worth noting that are tanks are not comparable to their natural habitats so they may venture up more than normal in search of food or just plain exploring.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

You are right Kyle, and that was my point. In our tanks there really isn't a "terrestrial" section the same sense as in nature, so we can expect frogs that are terrestrial by nature to venture into higher portions of the tank from time to time. Tanks that were many feet tall might be a bit of an exception. I was thinking of it in terms of mixed tanks. Some will say frog A is terrestrial, and frog B is arboreal, so they won't really come into contact so mixing is fine. But this is not necessarily true. The opposite can be dais for many arboreal species.


----------

