# Thumbnail frogs, what does it refer to and are vents non obligate egg feeders?



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I wanted to split this from another forum.
Do vents egg feed as in dropping an egg or 2 every day or 2 per tad or do they eat anything, including sibs, fertilized eggs on the side of their pool etc. It`s been over 10 years since I bred them and never had individual egg feeding from the fg vents that I remember.

Next question, from old hobby terminology what are thumbs? Did it include quinguivittatus and castaneoticus before the reclassification?
Thank You.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

From "Poison Frogs: Biology, Species, and Captive Husbandry":



> According to the observations made by H. Zimmermann & E. Zimmermann (1988), the male would relocate the hatched larvae, one or two at a time, to a water-filled leaf axil of a bromeliad and release them individually. The female would lay further eggs in the axil or on the leaf. The tadpoles are cannibalistic and feed on the eggs or other larvae that hatch from these eggs and slide into the water, but also on the plant matter. Only one larva will develop per leaf axil.


As for thumbnails, like I said, there are a large number of small frogs not included as thumbnails. Castis and Quinqs are a good example, but there are many more. If it was, in fact, size alone, why are the very large number of Colostethus species, most of which are very small, not included in such a term? They, after all, are small, not obligate egg feeders or Epipedobates. I've never seen them referred to as thumbnails.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Again, using science to explain a HOBBY term. To a hobbyist they are small terrestrial or arboreal frogs available in the HOBBY that are not epis or obligate egg feeders. We were not scientists when we started breeding these guys and this is a term we used to describe small frogs, not epis because they are stronger, ground dwelling frogs and obligate egg feeders because they were in a different category level of breeding. We did not group them on how they were related but how big they were and their HABITS. I know it`s hard for you to understand since your a "scientist" and not a hobbyist. You don`t look at it the same way.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> From "Poison Frogs: Biology, Species, and Captive Husbandry":
> 
> 
> 
> As for thumbnails, like I said, there are a large number of small frogs not included as thumbnails. Castis and Quinqs are a good example, but there are many more. If it was, in fact, size alone, why are the very large number of Colostethus species, most of which are very small, not included in such a term? They, after all, are small, not obligate egg feeders or Epipedobates. I've never seen them referred to as thumbnails.


That quote just tells me they`ll lay more fertilized clutches and the tads will eat anything, that`s not egg feeding. It doesn`t say she`ll return and lay unfertilized eggs on a regular basis.
You`ve got your sources, I`ve got mine. I`ll wait till someone who`s currently breeding them chimes in.


----------



## rjmarchisi (Feb 16, 2004)

I have kept vents in the past and have never had them eggfeed any tads and the only reason I can see people thinking they are eggfeeders is their voracious breeding behavior and lack of suitable places to deposit other clutches. 

So what may seem like eggfeeding is actually the frogs running out of places to lay. I have only had them in the past for 2 years and that is my observation on them.

rob


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/18133-species-considered-thumbnail-darts-2.html

Here`s an old conversation and Brent`s take on it.

In the old days frogs in what was known as the quinquivittatus group were considered thumbnails. This included the vents, retics, fantasticus, imitator, variabilis, etc. I don't know if the "vanzolini group" has now replaced the "quinquivittatus group" in the terminology or not but there was a reason why the term thumbnail didn't just apply to small frogs. This group of frogs tends to have very similar life histories and husbandry requirements so it was convenient to lump them together for discussion purposes. Sometime around 2000 some clowns decided that "thumbnail" should refer to any small species of frog and started lumping pumilio and the like in with them. Of course this completely ruined the utility of the term since you had people using the term in two different ways, and the new way was no longer connected to the taxonomy of the frogs or their care requirements. I commend Kyle for trying to keep the terminology straight. If we use the term "thumbnail" as just a description of size, then it becomes as worthless as creating a group of frogs known as "red frogs". Well duh! I can see they are red. How does that label help be understand their needs? 

Note, used to be quinq group and similar life histories.

Thanks Robb. That`s what I thought I remembered of them.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> Again, using science to explain a HOBBY term. To a hobbyist they are small terrestrial or arboreal frogs available in the HOBBY that are not epis or obligate egg feeders. We were not scientists when we started breeding these guys and this is a term we used to describe small frogs, not epis because they are stronger, ground dwelling frogs and obligate egg feeders because they were in a different category level of breeding. We did not group them on how they were related but how big they were and their HABITS. I know it`s hard for you to understand since your a "scientist" and not a hobbyist. You don`t look at it the same way.


So scientific names, such as _Ranitomeya ventrimaculata_ are not used at all in the hobby? That is hardly science. It's just terminology referring to a particular species.

So now you're amending your definition? You said that it was based on size. You said nothing initially about habits. Now you're getting into classification that you denounce as being "science." So what is it? Is it just size? If so, why aren't Colostethus considered thumbnails? If you are throwing habits into the ring, what are the habits you're referring to? The facultative egg feeding? You realize that that between those two characteristics, you've narrowed it down to Ranitomeya species.

And I would guess that most people would agree that I am a hobbyist *and* a scientist (no quotes there, bud, I'm a scientist).

And in regards to the Lotters book, you've got a pretty weak argument there. You're basing your argument on, the translated version no less, that they didn't specifically say that the female returned to lay eggs doesn't mean that they're egg feeders even though it specifically says that the female will lay eggs that the tadpoles will eat (which I guess would mean that she is feeding eggs to tadpoles?). Unless there's some sort of rule that they have to feed their tadpole X number of times over the course of the tadpole's development to be considered egg feeders. Part of the definition of non-obligate egg feeders, remember, is that the tadpoles do not need the eggs to survive, so it would stand to reason that the parents might not be as vigilant on feeding as the obligate egg feeders are.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

The term thumbnail refers to the size of the frog, or else they would have called them widgets.
No, I said we weren`t scientists. They were thought to be the Quinq group, even scientists thought they were closer related and we used the term to group similar sized frogs w/ similar life history for our descriptions. It would seem silly to group galactanotus in w/ castis and quinqs for our care and breeding purposes in the hobby. The term reflected scientific thoughts of the day and like it or not, the grouping of similar life histories and sizes is a better classification, still, of reference for our needs in caring for them. Castis still have more in common w/ thumbs requirements than they do w/ galacts. As do quings and the like.

Yes the unfertilized laying of eggs for food is considered egg feeding, the intention of it is food as they are not fertilized. Egg predation or egg eating is the description you listed. It`s because they`re there that they eat them, they aren`t specifically laid for them to eat or their would be less/axil and they would be unfertilized and evenly distributed.



MonarchzMan said:


> So scientific names, such as _Ranitomeya ventrimaculata_ are not used at all in the hobby? That is hardly science. It's just terminology referring to a particular species.
> 
> So now you're amending your definition? You said that it was based on size. You said nothing initially about habits. Now you're getting into classification that you denounce as being "science." So what is it? Is it just size? If so, why aren't Colostethus considered thumbnails? If you are throwing habits into the ring, what are the habits you're referring to? The facultative egg feeding? You realize that that between those two characteristics, you've narrowed it down to Ranitomeya species.
> 
> ...


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> The term thumbnail refers to the size of the frog, or else they would have called them widgets.
> No, I said we weren`t scientists. They were thought to be the Quinq group, even scientists thought they were closer related and we used the term to group similar sized frogs w/ similar life history for our descriptions. It would seem silly to group galactanotus in w/ castis and quinqs for our care and breeding purposes in the hobby. The term reflected scientific thoughts of the day and like it or not, the grouping of similar life histories and sizes is a better classification, still, of reference for our needs in caring for them. Castis still have more in common w/ thumbs requirements than they do w/ galacts. As do quings and the like.


You keep on amending your definition. Species are not classified as thumbnails based solely on size (just like egg feeders are not solely classified by egg feeding). That was my original point. To say that thumbnails only relate to size of the species is incorrect. That was my original point of posting. There are specific ideas relating to thumbnails relating to their care. If it were size alone, you couldn't tell anything about care requirements (as I've pointed out, a number of species are small that are not considered thumbnails, obligate egg feeders, or epipedobates). You continue to amend your definition as it's flaws are revealed. At this point, you are arguing the same thing that I am, so I don't know why you continue.



> Yes the unfertilized laying of eggs for food is considered egg feeding, the intention of it is food as they are not fertilized. Egg predation or egg eating is the description you listed. It`s because they`re there that they eat them, they aren`t specifically laid for them to eat or their would be less/axil and they would be unfertilized and evenly distributed.


Now you're going into a scientific classification. Evolutionary theory would favor species making sure their offspring survived to the next generation. It would make little sense for parents to lay eggs where competitors are. Sure, I'll grant that occasionally other frogs might accidentally lay eggs on an occupied axil, but to suggest that the parents would and would consistently? That just doesn't make sense evolutionarily.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Reread this quote from brent from 07 which explains the reason for the term.

In the old days frogs in what was known as the quinquivittatus group were considered thumbnails. This included the vents, retics, fantasticus, imitator, variabilis, etc. I don't know if the "vanzolini group" has now replaced the "quinquivittatus group" in the terminology or not but there was a reason why the term thumbnail didn't just apply to small frogs. This group of frogs tends to have very similar life histories and husbandry requirements so it was convenient to lump them together for discussion purposes. Sometime around 2000 some clowns decided that "thumbnail" should refer to any small species of frog and started lumping pumilio and the like in with them. Of course this completely ruined the utility of the term since you had people using the term in two different ways, and the new way was no longer connected to the taxonomy of the frogs or their care requirements. I commend Kyle for trying to keep the terminology straight. If we use the term "thumbnail" as just a description of size, then it becomes as worthless as creating a group of frogs known as "red frogs". Well duh! I can see they are red. How does that label help be understand their needs? 


Your original point was that quinqs and castis can no longer be called thumbs, and I argued that and it led into this.

you win! You explain to people why castis and quinqs used to be considered thumbs and aren`t now, even though their life histories still classify them as thumbs. (quinquivittatus group) 
I`m not amending my definitions you`re confusing 2 arguments, do vents egg feed and that the Quinq group used to be thumbs. Thumbnail, the term, refers to their small size, i never said that was a sole consideration for inclusion.



MonarchzMan said:


> You keep on amending your definition. Species are not classified as thumbnails based solely on size (just like egg feeders are not solely classified by egg feeding). That was my original point. To say that thumbnails only relate to size of the species is incorrect. That was my original point of posting. There are specific ideas relating to thumbnails relating to their care. If it were size alone, you couldn't tell anything about care requirements (as I've pointed out, a number of species are small that are not considered thumbnails, obligate egg feeders, or epipedobates). You continue to amend your definition as it's flaws are revealed. At this point, you are arguing the same thing that I am, so I don't know why you continue.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're going into a scientific classification. Evolutionary theory would favor species making sure their offspring survived to the next generation. It would make little sense for parents to lay eggs where competitors are. Sure, I'll grant that occasionally other frogs might accidentally lay eggs on an occupied axil, but to suggest that the parents would and would consistently? That just doesn't make sense evolutionarily.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

A lot of the frogs that go around as thumbnails actually don't fit on my thumb, my nail is a bit oddly shaped. I'd like to propose we change the term to toenail. I think most of the thumbs will fit on my big toe's nail.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

my understanding has always been taht thumb nails are not refered to any genus or species, but just based on size.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Personally I don`t see any reason to have a hobby term reflect exact scientific classification or reclassification for that matter, that`s what the new term ranitomeya is for. Why even use thumbnail if they are all ranitomeya? Can we make up a new term to group thumbnail size frogs that include quinqs castis and excidobates, that all have similar size and life history?
Why don`t we call those toenails?


----------



## Bob Fraser (Nov 21, 2007)

"Toenails" works for me, without the Cheese Please!!


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> Personally I don`t see any reason to have a hobby term reflect exact scientific classification or reclassification for that matter, that`s what the new term ranitomeya is for. Why even use thumbnail if they are all ranitomeya? Can we make up a new term to group thumbnail size frogs that include quinqs castis and excidobates, that all have similar size and life history?
> Why don`t we call those toenails?


well said, it seems like every few months lately everything is being reclassified.


----------



## Ed Holder (Sep 26, 2008)

I have to agree with you on this one also Julio. I have only been in the hobby for maybe 4 months and all the re-classifications are driving me nuts!
It can be quite confusing to beginner level hobbiests.

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed Holder said:


> I have to agree with you on this one also Julio. I have only been in the hobby for maybe 4 months and all the re-classifications are driving me nuts!
> It can be quite confusing to beginner level hobbiests.
> 
> Ed


Welcome to scientific naming. Taxonomists have to publish papers, and I'd guess that after so long, they get antsy and have to mix the groups. If it's been more than 5 years and names haven't changed in some fashion, taxonomists aren't doing their jobs.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Frogs referred to as thumbnails were always done so based on size, never feeding or parental care requirements. Early on (or at least for the last 15 years or so) the hobby went from lots of Tincs, Luecs and Auratus to many small species starting with Vents (which many frogs were called) to the more exotic as more species were imported from Europe. To try and put some type of scientific classification on a hobbyist term is a bit rediculous as there is no scientific basis to a common name for a genreic group of frogs based on their size.
As more species have come into the limelight there then become some that are tweeners, there sure is no right or wrong to the description other than a small frog is likely called thumbnail.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

markpulawski said:


> Frogs referred to as thumbnails were always done so based on size, never feeding or parental care requirements. Early on (or at least for the last 15 years or so) the hobby went from lots of Tincs, Luecs and Auratus to many small species starting with Vents (which many frogs were called) to the more exotic as more species were imported from Europe. To try and put some type of scientific classification on a hobbyist term is a bit rediculous as there is no scientific basis to a common name for a genreic group of frogs based on their size.
> As more species have come into the limelight there then become some that are tweeners, there sure is no right or wrong to the description other than a small frog is likely called thumbnail.


I'm hearing a number of different accounts on what it means. Some say size, some say size and habits, some say size, habits, and parental care, so what is it? I understand that it's a hobbyist term, but it's a hobbyist term based on more specific information than simply size.

I keep on asking a question, a simple question, and no one answers it. If it is based on size alone, why aren't species like Colostethus or Pumilio considered thumbnails? They aren't considered thumbnails because there are other criteria implied with the name (such as being non-obligate egg feeders). And it's those other criteria isolate thumbnails referring to Ranitomeya species.

I don't know why there is such an attack going on for someone clarifying the misinformation that thumbnail is simply reference to size. I guarantee if I called pumilio a thumbnail, people would be quick to correct that.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Colostethus are called rocket frogs, that`s why they`re not called thumbnails and pumilio are obligate egg feeders which requires different care and setup than thumbnails. Pumilio are thumbnail sized frogs. And if non obligate egg feeding was a requirement then quinquivittatus and castis wouldn`t have been in the group to start if they don`t egg feed, and vents are still in, which don`t egg feed.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Then thumbnails does not simply refer to size, hence my original point. And the literature says that there is some degree of egg feeding in vents. It may not be to the degree that other species egg feed, but it says that they do.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Egg feeding in small species has nothing to do with the term thumb nail frog, it was merely a matter of several small species gaining in popularity at a time when the predominance of dart frogs were larger species.
Thumb nail is merely a simple term to loosely group a bunch of like species together that at a time were relatively new to hobbyists here.
Pumilio being what they are and imported in great numbers then were not new and never grouped with these species because they were already categorized as egg feeders and most everyone understood what they were.


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Didn't have time to read the whole thread....however as far as vents go....I have pulled froglets out of the tank before and have pulled some decently along tads out as well. Where I found the tads was not where thye were laying clutches....can't say for sure on where the froglets were if it was just an egg clutch or actual feeding, however I did continue to pull eggs during the time leading up to the froglets.

Unfortunately, the froglets that were pulled from the tank had SLS. 

Not sure if that helps or anyone has had similar experiences. Sorry if this has been covered.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

From the frognet archives (see post in the original ID thread for link to the post by Chuck Powell 

quote "Are you new to frogs or Dendrobatids? In either case the 
quinquivittatus species group is not the place to start. endquote

That was posted in 2003, so its based on that understanding of the group at that time not the current change due to the revision in the literature. 

According to the literature, there are two types of egg feeding that can go on with vents depending on whether you keep them in a group or not. The literature does show that they will facultatively egg feed (biparental care) (females provide eggs to the tadpoles) as was referenced earlier in Lotters (Poison Frogs). In addition, the male will lure other females in to deposit eggs to feed those tadpoles. This is a form of facultative egg feeding that is also a resource hedge on the part of the male as he will fertilize the eggs. In this way if something happens to the current tadpole inhabitant of that spot he will still have offspring hatch there. This to my knowledge is the only example of social parasitism in anurans (see Behavioral, ecological, and molecular genetic analyses of reproductive strategies in the Amazonian dart-poison frog, Dendrobates ventrimaculatus -- Summers and Amos 8 (3): 260 -- Behavioral Ecology). 

At work I have had vents provide care in both ways. 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> Welcome to scientific naming. Taxonomists have to publish papers, and I'd guess that after so long, they get antsy and have to mix the groups. If it's been more than 5 years and names haven't changed in some fashion, taxonomists aren't doing their jobs.


That's a silly thing to say. I consider myself a taxonomist (among other things) and can tell you that it isn't due to boredom that we revise taxonomy. As time goes on and people do more sampling and more extensive studies, the knowledge base grows. Taxonomy constantly needs to be updated so it reflects this new information accurately. The alternative is to maintain polyphyletic groups like Colostethus sensu lato and ignore new data as it is received.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ric Sanchez said:


> That's a silly thing to say. I consider myself a taxonomist (among other things) and can tell you that it isn't due to boredom that we revise taxonomy. As time goes on and people do more sampling and more extensive studies, the knowledge base grows. Taxonomy constantly needs to be updated so it reflects this new information accurately. The alternative is to maintain polyphyletic groups like Colostethus sensu lato and ignore new data as it is received.


Sorry, it was meant as a joke. I know that they're justified (by and large, at least). It just seems like they change them so much just to keep everyone on their toes. It wouldn't surprise me if a number of the species names out there today get changed in some fashion within the next 5 years (in large part because of what you said about more research and all).


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

frogfarm said:


> That quote just tells me they`ll lay more fertilized clutches and the tads will eat anything, that`s not egg feeding. It doesn`t say she`ll return and lay unfertilized eggs on a regular basis.
> You`ve got your sources, I`ve got mine. I`ll wait till someone who`s currently breeding them chimes in.


The quote as posted doesn't make any reference to the female laying more fertilized eggs. It states that she will return to the deposition site and lay a clutch of eggs. It could be possible based on what Ed says for the male to return and fertilize them, but the quote from the book also states that any eggs or hatched larvae then become food for the tadpole. It doesn't make any mention of returning to feed at other times, but it may be possible that the clutch of eggs laid could provide enough food for much of the tads time in the water be it eating eggs or tadpoles that may hatch from it.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

jubjub47 said:


> It doesn't make any mention of returning to feed at other times, but it may be possible that the clutch of eggs laid could provide enough food for much of the tads time in the water be it eating eggs or tadpoles that may hatch from it.


I agree, partially. The first set of nutritive eggs might help the larvae get the initial kick-start that they need to survive (after all, if you can grow fast, you'll have better chance than individuals that cannot grow quickly), but I doubt that they would last the several months it takes vents to morph out.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

I guess I was more referring to the eggs in the chance that some of them hatched. Tads in the water would not have the problem of rotting, but could be a meal in waiting for when eggs and such are gone.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

As food for thought, with respect to facultative feeding, on a quick check I couldn't find any reference that says the female has to do it multiple times or that it is only the female that has to make sure eggs are provided to the tadpoles. 

The male actually gets other females (ideally un-related) to deposit at the site to feed the tadpole(s). This is actually a benefit to the male because if something happens to the older tadpole, the male will still be passing on his genes at very little cost to himself. Its a good hedge bet. 

Ed


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

I've read about that somewhere in the past, but cannot remember where it was. It's kind of like dropping seeds. Sure there are too many, but the more you have out there the better your chances are of getting offspring.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It seems to me they are a lower step in the process to obligate egg feeding. They lay huge clutches compared to imitators. They also lay smaller eggs and seem to fertilize, not specifically feed. It seems they aren`t as caring as imitators and probably do it more by chance. given another couple thousand years and the right influence I think they or a branch of them may go from opportunistic egg eaters to "more" of an egg feeder. It seems they(vents) don`t remember so much where each tad is rather than guard an area and get as many eggs laid as possible in that area and fertilize them all.
I`m not saying that isn`t a form or step of egg feeding but not as "advanced" as some other non-obligates.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Aaron,

Actually parasitism behaviors are pretty complex.. 
It has been shown that the males will definetly attract females to deposit eggs where tadpoles he deposited are located to feed them. In the wild, there is a preference to select unrelated females to lay in that site as opposed to related females. That is a pretty complex behavior and given that they are the only known anuran to do so, its a good argument that they are not that simple. 

Its probably as complex as obligates but in a different manner as there is selection for kinship along with the feeding... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I see. I guess I always thought of it as obligate egg feeders being the highest wrung of the evolutionary ladder of egg feeding. I guess there are more strategies than i realized.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Aaron,

I'm not going to say that evolutionarily that obligate egg feeders are not more advanced as a specialization as it allows for utilization of a wide variety of habitat in which the tadpoles can be reared including some very small ones (like some of the reported ones in Diffiebachia or Heliconias) which is a pretty advanced option. 

Even though the social parasitism added to the inital provisioning is simply going in a different direction so its possible the obligates are more advanced.... its going to take are real review to make that determination.... 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

It's a common mistake. Evolution, keep in mind, is not a "ladder" meaning that one rung doesn't lead onto the next. It's a bush, so the ventrimaculatus is simply a side branch of egg feeding strategy. Obligate Egg Feeders, according to the Santos (2003) paper are more closely related to Dendrobates than they are Ranitomeya. It appears as though the egg feeding strategy evolved a couple of times.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ed said:


> Hi Aaron,
> 
> I'm not going to say that evolutionarily that obligate egg feeders are not more advanced as a specialization as it allows for utilization of a wide variety of habitat in which the tadpoles can be reared including some very small ones (like some of the reported ones in Diffiebachia or Heliconias) which is a pretty advanced option.
> 
> ...


It would seem to me that "remembering"
where you put your offspring is more advanced than defending an area and breeding w/ any females and differentiating unrelated females. I don`t know about monogamy in obligate egg feeders but we seem to deem that more advanced than multiple partners.
Rich has noted social tendancies in his pumilio, where females will communally raise all tads in the tank. This might suggest they aren`t remembering where they are. In the wild this "remembering" may be more evident if there is a much larger area?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> It seems to me they are a lower step in the process to obligate egg feeding. They lay huge clutches compared to imitators.
> 
> 
> > Just on a side note. I wouldn't use clutch size necessarily as a determinate who is more advanced in faculatative egg feeders as there can be other pressures pushing clutch size up and down.
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> It would seem to me that "remembering"
> where you put your offspring is more advanced than defending an area and breeding w/ any females and differentiating unrelated females. I don`t know about monogamy in obligate egg feeders but we seem to deem that more advanced than multiple partners.
> Rich has noted social tendancies in his pumilio, where females will communally raise all tads in the tank. This might suggest they aren`t remembering where they are. In the wild this "remembering" may be more evident if there is a much larger area?


The males (vents here) do remember where the tadpoles were placed and this is where they get females to deposit the eggs. There is a selection on not only where the eggs get deposited but by whom in what location. So the males are not only tracking the location of the tadpoles but who they are related to and getting females that are not related to those tadpoles to provide eggs to them. 
The fact that the eggs are fertlized is an adaptation that favors the passing on of his genes if the tadpole in that site dies or gets old enough to stop feeding as his genes continue to be passed onto the others. 

(with the pumilo) Providing insufficient depostion sites could be the reason that the females are communally raising the tadpoles. The constant cues from the tadpoles (and there could be airborn cues) maybe acting as a superstimulis to the females. If the sites were further apart of there were many more deposition sites, or even if there was a greater turn over of the air then you might see different behaviors. 

Ed


----------

