# Split: re mixing from the perfect background thread



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

*Moderator's Note: This thread was a split from...

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/75793-perfect-background-6.html#post671263
*



Ed said:


> The opinion I'm getting from your post is that it would be better to ignore the chance to gain some empirical evidence (even though it is anecdotal) and continue on with the dogma that it is inappropriate to attempt to house multiple zoogeographically correct taxa together. Is this correct?
> 
> Some comments,
> 
> Ed


My opinion is that there is really nothing to be gained by doing this. Sure Ray is very well equipped to handle the challenge. But why? What happens if the froglets fail to thrive? We learned from it? That is a poor excuse considering the way others are attacked for even suggesting mixing to ANY capacity. I guess my real problem is an overt double standard that in fact does hinder progress, if that were the goal. Dogma is always mentioned, and I get the point, but when things are posted, corroborated, and continue to be a basic belief within the hobby, how could I, as a non owner of any Pums, be so insightful to see beyond what appears to be the common thought? Further more no one has addressed the concern I originally posted concerning froglet competetion for food in the lower/ground layer. Sure Ray can provide a niche to accomodate, but will the allure of a lay out trump instict? And if so, wouldn't that just support that the species are not behaving naturally once again? I really do appreciate the feedback! 

JBear


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

*Re: The Perfect Background*

Let's also contrast the size of this Viv vs the average size of proposed vivs in most of the mixing threads. Then let's compare level of planning, experience with captive husbandry, knowledge of wild population dynamics, etc etc etc and we can clearly see this is a well thought out design. Instead of saying it's a bad example to set for noobs, let's instead look at it as an example of the kind of research and planning more people should be putting into the hobby before they start telling others what is right and what is wrong


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



frogparty said:


> Let's also contrast the size of this Viv vs the average size of proposed vivs in most of the mixing threads. Then let's compare level of planning, experience with captive husbandry, knowledge of wild population dynamics, etc etc etc and we can clearly see this is a well thought out design. Instead of saying it's a bad example to set for noobs, let's instead look at it as an example of the kind of research and planning more people should be putting into the hobby before they start telling others what is right and what is wrong


I agree with you the circumstances make success more favorable. I never said it was "bad", "right", or "wrong".

JBear


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



stemcellular said:


> Ed, you raise an interesting point. How do we contrast what we know about behavior in natural habitat vs. what we observe in captivity and how should we respond?
> 
> You are dead on about nutrition. Also, I think experimentation by some with different substrates, ie. clay, lighting, microfauna, definitely leads us in a good direction toward better husbandry.


\

The best thing we can do at this time is learn as much about the frogs both behaviorally and physiologically as possible. If we know what the normal behaviors are for the species/population, then behaviors that are not consistent with those behaviors should be considered abnormal and thought should be provided towards how to work towards normal actions. 

One of the most important things is for the hobby to work towards correct interpretations of behaviors (such as males calling "the female to feed tadpoles") and to not encourage abnormal behaviors. 

I guess it's been awhile since I posted it here but typically animals go through the following process in captivity 

1) simply keeping the animal alive 
2) breeding the animal in question
3) breeding the animal enough that enough are produced to replace those that die
4) median life span shifts towards and eventually approaches maximal life span
5) all of the above while maximizing natural behaviors 

It should be noted that 3 and 4 are interchangable but in general the hobby is typically somewhere between 2-4... 

Ed


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

*Re: The Perfect Background*

But this is exactly the reason a mixed Viv is so rarely suggested as a good idea... Most people just don't have the level of experience to plan out a Viv scenario that will cater to both species so thoroughly. 
To quote the red hot chili peppers... " if you have to ask, you'll never know" 
People like ray planning these projects aren't noobs asking for advice for what are basically poorly planned projects attempting to throw a lot of brightly colored frogs into a ten gallon viv. The people who are doing it right have already worked with the species involved individually and can better predict their needs in a mixed species Viv.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



jbherpin said:


> My opinion is that there is really nothing to be gained by doing this. Sure Ray is very well equipped to handle the challenge. But why? What happens if the froglets fail to thrive? We learned from it? That is a poor excuse considering the way others are attacked for even suggesting mixing to ANY capacity. I guess my real problem is an overt double standard that in fact does hinder progress, if that were the goal. Dogma is always mentioned, and I get the point, but when things are posted, corroborated, and continue to be a basic belief within the hobby, how could I, as a non owner of any Pums, be so insightful to see beyond what appears to be the common thought? Further more no one has addressed the concern I originally posted concerning froglet competetion for food in the lower/ground layer. Sure Ray can provide a niche to accomodate, but will the allure of a lay out trump instict? And if so, wouldn't that just support that the species are not behaving naturally once again? I really do appreciate the feedback!
> 
> JBear


If you are going to make the claim of double standards then I'm going to point you towards my first thread here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/3449-mixing-multispecies-exhibits.html,.... 

Is there anything as a non-pumilio owner that prevents you from learning about the behaviors and needs outside of learning about them on a forum? 

Competition with the froglets for food is making several assumptions that I have yet to see be substantiated in the hobby.. these are 
1) that the froglets are less efficient foragers 
2) that the froglets and the other species are automatically going to be foraging for the same foods 
3) that the other species hypothesized are going to be affected negatively through aggressive behaviors
4) that supplementation of the feeders in the enclosure won't meet the foraging needs of the froglets. 
5) that the froglets will only forage in the leaf litter 
6) that the more terrestrial species defend food resources


As we currently understand resource defense in dendrobatids, food resources do not tend to be defended, instead, calling sites, tadpole deposition sites (in some species), access to one sex (such as demonstrated by tinctorius females), and egg clutches are the things that are defended. In addition, as I understand the design of the enclosure, there are going to be multiple sight and foraging areas which is going to provide multiple foraging areas. 

In addition, I haven't seen anywhere that Ray wouldn't simply pull the froglets... it is dogma that requires pumilio froglets to remain in the parental enclosure although a number pull them with great success due to other issues such as aggression by the males... 

Ed


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

*Re: The Perfect Background*

PLEASE don't read this as an attempt to prolong a disagreement, I just want some clarification as to what the goal is? Is it simply to see if these frogs can cohibitate? Is it to see if pums will take on different parental activities while in the company of a seperate species? Is it to test a design(Viv), etc. 

All my thanks! Like I said in my initial post... Whatever you decide to do, I look forward to the pics...

JBear


----------



## evannave (Jan 23, 2009)

*Re: The Perfect Background*

First I would like to say thanks to stem for posting more amazing pictures your flickr account is amazing.

I hope all involved in this conversation are giving each other the benefit of the doubt. 

J is doing what I think makes this board so good which as ask questions because he clearly care about the well being of all frogs not just his own. 

Stem is also helping the board by providing raising interesting points as well as giving us a great deal of inspiration for our own vivs. 

I frankly don't think we know enough details about your plan one-way or another to even begins to say whether it is a good idea or not.

As this viv has been mentioned as an opportunity to challenge dogma and or gain some new insight into the hobby. I have some questions that popped into my head at seeing this viv start to take shape.

1. While you mentioned that you would be designing this you would do so by creating different niches for the different species. I would be interested in knowing what are you designing differently than you would other with a large tank for a single species. To clarify I at least try to create as many different hiding areas and levels a possible to allow for different territories for different of one species frogs what considerations are making you would not otherwise.

2. Dense population in the wild is an interesting point but I am unclear how this is being addressed, as it seems that you are keeping a wider variety not a denser population or did you mean denser population of frog across species. I do not understand the reference this pertaining to this tank.

3. While these frogs exist together do they interact with one another, compete with one another for food or do they prey upon different foods 

4. In keeping them together in there a hope for it to have a beneficial effect on the frogs behavior i.e. like dither fish in freshwater used to draw out shy fish. 

5 If no added benefit is anticipated for the frogs and it is more for viewer rather than the animals it might be neat to invite boy scouts or other groups to see a slice of the forest might help justify the combination like they often do at zoo.

6. While clearly the tank cannot be really any empirical evidence of much as there is no control or really anything required for a real experiment. One thing that I would be interested in would be comparing breeding rate of a pair or groups when keep with other frogs or by them selves. It would have to be the same pair or group measure number of eggs layed, tadpoles, frog reaching adult hood. Do you have any plan to measure these things?

7. Last, as you are clearly an expert as any one who has seen your wonderful frog room video. It would be helpful to folks with less experience for you to explain what criteria would cause you to split up the frogs and get an excuse to build more beautiful tanks'

To be clear I have a great deal respect for your clear skill and the volunteer work you do for the board. As such I am only asking question to hopefully learn more and expand the discussion to allow the hobby to grow not to challenge you skill or motives. I think one of the great ways to challenge the dogma you were mention is to challenge all assumptions and asking questions is part of that. 
Evan Walsh


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



evannave said:


> First I would like to say thanks to stem for posting more amazing pictures your flickr account is amazing.
> 
> I hope all involved in this conversation are giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> ...


Not to imply you had agreed with my positions, but this is a fantastic summary of what I was fumbling to say. Thank You!

JBear


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

*Re: The Perfect Background*

I have to ask - to those of you who are asking what the benefits are of a mixed tank, what are the benefits of keeping frogs in glass boxes?


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



zBrinks said:


> I have to ask - to those of you who are asking what the benefits are of a mixed tank, what are the benefits of keeping frogs in glass boxes?


At the core, line management, at the outterskirts, self enjoyment.

JBear


----------



## evannave (Jan 23, 2009)

*Re: The Perfect Background*

Keeping frogs hopefully help to prolong a the species either through keeping them going when they have disappeared in the wild or by letting people who are outside of the hobby see the wonder of natural world and change how they think about conversation as a whole. As a child I had the privilege to see the golden toads in Costa Rica it was a magical experience that sticks with me and haunts me even today. If they had been persevered in some manner it would have meant a lot to me
Evan Walsh


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



zBrinks said:


> I have to ask - to those of you who are asking what the benefits are of a mixed tank, what are the benefits of keeping frogs in glass boxes?


Oh indeed Zach...indeed, quite the thought provoking, insightful question one would expect from one of your caliber. A question which probes the very recesses of ones dart frog keeping soul, a window perchance to view an alternate more perfect utopian reality. A provacature of the highest level, answered by Michelangelo, Einstein, Freud....to live...perchance to dream..in a glass box is all I ask.


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



markpulawski said:


> Oh indeed Zach...indeed, quite the thought provoking, insightful question one would expect from one of your caliber. A question which probes the very recesses of ones dart frog keeping soul, a window perchance to view an alternate more perfect utopian reality. A provacature of the highest level, answered by Michelangelo, Einstein, Freud....to live...perchance to dream..in a glass box is all I ask.


Mark you kill me.....LOL


----------



## kickedinthevader (Jan 30, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that post belongs on a t-shirt.


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

*Re: The Perfect Background*



jbherpin said:


> ...I just want some clarification as to what the goal is? Is it simply to see if these frogs can cohibitate? Is it to see if pums will take on different parental activities while in the company of a seperate species? Is it to test a design(Viv), etc.
> 
> JBear


So what is the goal? What do you hope to learn from this? I only repeat myself because it was never answered...

JBear


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Sentiment from another thread, the goal...to have a really nice mixed display in an amazing tank?? That would be a great goal, nothing more need be necessary. Everything in this hobby does not have to adhere to what a few have implied as rules we all must follow!!


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

markpulawski said:


> Sentiment from another thread, the goal...to have a really nice mixed display in an amazing tank?? That would be a great goal, nothing more need be necessary. Everything in this hobby does not have to adhere to what a few have implied as rules we all must follow!!


I know what you are saying. I am not cattle that follows the leader/masses. I am of a sound mind and feel capable of forming and holding my own opinion(s). It happens to be my position that this experiment has nothing to do with the health and happiness of the captives, which should be paramount.

JBear


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

One problem w/ the experiment is that there are numerous hours for frogs to wrestle when no one is watching. Some, not all, frogs don't wrestle when another "predator" is close by or if food is being dumped into the tank. Since animals usually don't show signs of bullying until it's pushed the frogs past a "healthy" point, there are risks. I didn't write a paper or video it but this is what happened to me w/ pumilio and imitators where the imitators withered and the pumilio thrived. I've also watched my mixed froglets tanks from a distance w/ a scope and witnessed auratus riding the backs of azureus into the communal pond and not letting go for minutes at a time. i never saw this activity when walking around the room. Not to mention parasite or other bacteria/pathogen transfer which could favor one type over another(be more pathogenic). 
That said, your right, they're his frogs. This is the reason I don't do it. Cause even though I keep frogs in plastic boxes doesn't mean I don't want what's best for them.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

I don't think a display always has to bean an expirement, what's wrong with looking at the frogs and enjoying the for what they are...humanizing them satisfy's you, not them. I would say creating a mixed display in nice size tank does not equate to cruel and inhumane treatment. It would take a lot of ..."see these frogs died" evidence for me to agree with you.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Aaron what size tank were those in...and I have to say mixing thumbs and Pumilio would be a poor choice in my opinion. I think Ray's tank which would be Lugubris and Pums may work, 85 gallons is a bit small for me but with enough diversity in terrain and hide spots it may work out great. I would suggest very aboreal Pums which my BJ's would be considered would work with terrestrial larger species like Lugubris. I don't think an occaisional spat of territoriality is unhealthy, constant battle into submission would be. I say good luck to Ray and I hope his display works out, I will be anxious to hear of his updates.
Aaron both of your examples are of similar sized species that exist in the same areas of the tank, Ray's model is different, one which provide a much more favorable combination. Again the mixes you describe don't seem to make much sense.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jbherpin said:


> I know what you are saying. I am not cattle that follows the leader/masses. I am of a sound mind and feel capable of forming and holding my own opinion(s). It happens to be my position that this experiment has nothing to do with the health and happiness of the captives, which should be paramount.
> 
> JBear


I was trying to answer this and don't think I did a good job. There are a lot of dogmatic ideals around this topic. We know that 

1) the hobby has issues in duplicating anuran communities that occur in the wild (both within species and between species)

2) the impression that if it isn't a positive for the frogs then it has no merit 

3) As long as the frogs are breeding, then leave well enough alone as this signals that all is well with the frogs. 

Lets look at issue one. Right off the bat, we have issues with frogs in even maintaining them at densities we see in the wild. That indicates that there is something in the design of the enclosures that is either increasing abnormal behaviors or not supplying them with the correct habitat to start off with. Too often when someone posts pictures on the forum, the enclosures are heavily planted with a wide diversity of plants with little open areas with leaf litter on the bottom of the tank. Bromeliads are often stratified across across the tank in aesthetic mixes. These enclosures are maintained through routine prunings to keep all of the plants in an esthetic balance. In many of these enclosures, the generalized needs of the tank are secondary to the needs of the frogs. Open space in the tank typically translates into more space for a different plant instead of needed space for the frogs. 

with respect to issue number 2... too often people fail to recognize that a neutral impact on the frogs is just that neutral. Arguing that only positives are of value is blocking a huge amount of information that actually is of value in housing the frogs. If we know the data that is of neutral value then that helps define out what is actually a negative stressor or a positive stressor. 

When people tend to come into this forum and discuss making a multispecies enclosure, they are typically looking to make an enclosure dynamic like one sees in a mixed community of tropical fish. The tank is not specifically designed for the targets species and typically the poster does not have first hand knowledge of the habitat of those animals nor do they typically have a good working knowledge of the behaviors of those species. This is one of the reasons the hobby signfiicantly frowns on the mixing of multiple taxa, in addition, there is often the risk of hybridization of the morphs or species which in the original thread is not an issue. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

With respect to issue "1", these frogs are seen in the densities they are in the wild because of freedom to move. We cannot duplicate these densities because they are trapped and succumb to stresses. To include food, security, cleanliness. The Earth is much better at cleaning the frog's habitat than we are with vivs.

Issue "2", This is a good point.

Issue "3", That is making the assumption everyone new to darts is an idiot, or cannot research, or have never lived in a country with darts, etc. If mixing is a good idea toward the progression of captive husbandry, everyone should be encouraged to test theories. If the frogs die, at least we learned, right? That is the way I see it. 

I thank you for taking the time to illustrate your position. 

JBear




Ed said:


> I was trying to answer this and don't think I did a good job. There are a lot of dogmatic ideals around this topic. We know that
> 
> 1) the hobby has issues in duplicating anuran communities that occur in the wild (both within species and between species)
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jbherpin said:


> With respect to issue "1", these frogs are seen in the densities they are in the wild because of freedom to move. We cannot duplicate these densities because they are trapped and succumb to stresses. To include food, security, cleanliness. The Earth is much better at cleaning the frog's habitat than we are with vivs.


This indicates a lack of understanding of resource defence population behaviors and is one of the dogmatic issues tossed around. It actually can have nothing to do with the ability to escape or not and this is actually the implication of the behaviors we see documented in the wild populations. Did you read any of the articles I linked to in the earlier post on changes in the population with increased resources? Do you have a copy of Lotters etal? 



jbherpin said:


> Issue "3", That is making the assumption everyone new to darts is an idiot, or cannot research, or have never lived in a country with darts, etc. If mixing is a good idea toward the progression of captive husbandry, everyone should be encouraged to test theories. If the frogs die, at least we learned, right? That is the way I see it.


There is a significant difference in seeing how a species lives in the wild as part of a community and working to replicate it in captivity and the multiple mixing threads posted on the forum. I suggest reviewing a number of those as the differences should be very clear from the beginning..... 
The way to describe the average post looking at multispecies enclosures are not based on establishing a community as it is found in the wild but are more like the tropical community tank. The niches are not being designed for those exact species and mimicking the habitat as viewed in the wild. 

I'm getting a little terse as your arguing from dogma. 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

jbherpin said:


> *With respect to issue "1", these frogs are seen in the densities they are in the wild because of freedom to move*. We cannot duplicate these densities because they are trapped and succumb to stresses. To include food, security, cleanliness. The Earth is much better at cleaning the frog's habitat than we are with vivs.
> 
> Issue "2", This is a good point.
> 
> ...


Actually you would be surprised by how little ability animals have to move in the wild in cases of high population density. Moving means that you are forced to either compete with another frog for an established territory or move into a suboptimal habitat. Studies have show time and time again that many smaller vertebrates actually have very small territories in the wild. In fact many of the limitations on population in dendrobates is not predation but lack of suitable breeding sites and territories since every suitable piece of suitable land is fiercely defended by it's current occupant.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It was a 30 tall and the pums stayed mostly on the ground and the imitators up near the top. I never witnessed aggression and enough food crawled up to the top. It could've been an unknown parasite, could've been the imitators were to intimidated to actively hunt. Either way I surmised, for me, I couldn't watch enough to see what was happeneing and the frogs can go downhill fast. I never wanted to try it again, my story and why "I" wouldn't do it. I put the thought in and had a dense upper canopy and watched how the pumilio behaved before introducing the imitators.
Don't you remember the bj piggybacking on an auratus 10 times his size in jewels, I think? Just sayin you never know. People can do what they want. I also wish him luck and yes, it should work if there isn't any constant harassment. I also think there would be a better chance with subadults who havent started heavy territoriality yet.


markpulawski said:


> Aaron what size tank were those in...and I have to say mixing thumbs and Pumilio would be a poor choice in my opinion. I think Ray's tank which would be Lugubris and Pums may work, 85 gallons is a bit small for me but with enough diversity in terrain and hide spots it may work out great. I would suggest very aboreal Pums which my BJ's would be considered would work with terrestrial larger species like Lugubris. I don't think an occaisional spat of territoriality is unhealthy, constant battle into submission would be. I say good luck to Ray and I hope his display works out, I will be anxious to hear of his updates.
> Aaron both of your examples are of similar sized species that exist in the same areas of the tank, Ray's model is different, one which provide a much more favorable combination. Again the mixes you describe don't seem to make much sense.


----------



## Neontra (Aug 16, 2011)

How about we just not mix?


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

How about we not tell each other what to do - especially when *we* are a noob. 

And you'll have to forgive the attitude here. I'm not especially impressed with an 18 year old (and if I look at your old profile, you might even be younger) with less than a year in the hobby trying to lay down the law.

-o-

Now - having said that - in general, I agree with not mixing. 

My issues with it mainly have to do with the possibility of hybridization. These frogs cannot interbreed. We have a builder who has spent time where the frogs live and has a tank with at least the minimum size needed to possibly attempt this.

Personally - I will not ever tell someone, especially someone experienced and who has given proper thought to the idea (and *that* is the key here) what not to do.

And you know what - even if some idiot somewhere hybridizes, if they do it in the privacy of their own home, and do not *lie* about their frogs if/when they go to sell - it's none of our business. This isn't about hybridization - but it is about the ability to do what you want in the privacy of your own home.

Personally I think Ray is a little nuts to mention it here. 

s



Neontra said:


> How about we just not mix?


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

> ''Collectors Hybrids Ya'll, Collectors Hybrids?''


Couldnt help it,

Michael


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

mantisdragon91 said:


> Actually you would be surprised by how little ability animals have to move in the wild in cases of high population density. Moving means that you are forced to either compete with another frog for an established territory or move into a suboptimal habitat. Studies have show time and time again that many smaller vertebrates actually have very small territories in the wild. In fact many of the limitations on population in dendrobates is not predation but lack of suitable breeding sites and territories since every suitable piece of suitable land is fiercely defended by it's current occupant.


This while generally accurate leaves out some important points with respect to the frogs. Calling and territorial defence as energetically expensive and can compete with foraging which over time reduces the ability of the male to defend the territory. Over the course of time, a male may be displaced from being the dominent male multiple times. In the wild this doesn't mean that the male that lost is expelled from the territory, as we know that males are often not aggressive towards non-calling males (at least in the wild). 

Ed


----------



## Cfrog (Oct 28, 2011)

:O






BTW the background sounds amazing.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

Ed said:


> This while generally accurate leaves out some important points with respect to the frogs. *Calling and territorial defence as energetically expensive and can compete with foraging which over time reduces the ability of the male to defend the territory. *Over the course of time, a male may be displaced from being the dominent male multiple times. In the wild this doesn't mean that the male that lost is expelled from the territory, as we know that males are often not aggressive towards non-calling males (at least in the wild).
> 
> Ed


You know this brings up an interesting point I haven't seen talked about. Could it be that because the frogs in captivity tend to have to spend less time and energy foraging for food, they have more resources to devote to squabbling for dominance/territory?


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Scott said:


> Personally I think Ray is a little nuts to mention it here.
> 
> s


Haha, np, Scott. Its rather helpful in figuring out whom to associate/not associate with in this hobby. Otherwise, agree with your sentiment w/ regard to the topic at hand.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

stemcellular said:


> Haha, np, Scott. Its rather helpful in figuring out whom to associate/not associate with in this hobby. Otherwise, agree with your sentiment w/ regard to the topic at hand.


Hey if there's mixing group I want to know about it. Is it hidden? The way the male glass frogs eyeing our female imis fat ass somethings going to happen, Anyone for see through darts? 

Michael


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

mantisdragon91 said:


> You know this brings up an interesting point I haven't seen talked about. Could it be that because the frogs in captivity tend to have to spend less time and energy foraging for food, they have more resources to devote to squabbling for dominance/territory?


Absolutely. I'll have to see if I can find the reference but there was a study done with some hylids (see for example (not free access but the abstract is clear) ProQuest Document View - The energetics of sexual selection in the grey treefrog, Hyla versicolor) 

Ed


----------



## winstonamc (Mar 19, 2007)

Someone mentioned that this isn't a mixing pretty colors build but in response to the why do it question, I think it's worth starting wt the fact that this is a biotope build. These are sympatric species (that can't cross-breed). In other words, it is "natural" for them to be in the same space. 

Moreover, while keeping single species setups is maximizing the frogs ability to behave normally, it's not natural in itself. I think the behavioral issues pointed out by Ed highlight the challenges of these constructed spaces we make for frogs. There ends up being a trade off, where it is easiest for us to provide the best conditions with single species (+micro-fauna) set up but its a kind of newtonian idealization: a frog and a log in a vacuum. The behavior of each species has been conditioned by the presence of (the behavior of) other sympatric species. Its a best-practice scenario where the standard best practice has certain limitations.

So, as to why do a set up like this, I would say that the most advanced of keepers should mix sympatric species in biotope setups because with added experience there is actually a potential to maximize natural behavior beyond a single species setup. 

It just requires the conceit that only those who are most fluent in "natural" behavior and whatever feedback mechanisms in the environment moderate it undertake such setups. Otherwise it'd be like giving a 5 yr old kid a can of great stuff and asking him to insulate the house.


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

winstonamc said:


> ...I think it's worth starting wt the fact that this is a biotope build. These are sympatric species (that can't cross-breed). In other words, it is "natural" for them to be in the same space...


I think this is a very good point, and would add that IMHO, you would need a very substantial footprint... Maybe 5' X 5' X 5'.

JBear


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jbherpin said:


> I think this is a very good point, and would add that IMHO, you would need a very substantial footprint... Maybe 5' X 5' X 5'.
> 
> JBear


And what is that spatial requirement based on? 

Ed


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

Ed said:


> And what is that spatial requirement based on?
> 
> 
> Ed


Honestly, that is based on what *I* would be comfortable with if designing a mixed enclosure.

JBear


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

Ed said:


> When people tend to come into this forum and discuss making a multispecies enclosure, they are typically looking to make an enclosure dynamic like one sees in a mixed community of tropical fish. The tank is not specifically designed for the targets species and typically the poster does not have first hand knowledge of the habitat of those animals nor do they typically have a good working knowledge of the behaviors of those species. This is one of the reasons the hobby signfiicantly frowns on the mixing of multiple taxa, in addition, there is often the risk of hybridization of the morphs or species which in the original thread is not an issue.
> 
> Some comments,
> 
> Ed


I think this paragraph perfectly describes why mixing is so discouraged in the hobby. It's not that ANY mixed tank is necessarily a negative.... it's that a random smattering of animals in a tank built purely for form (and without regard for the needs of the individual species) has a high chance of failure, and those are the most typical mixed tanks we hear questions about. 

Really, it breaks down into three categories:

The good- 
A frogger who has been around for a few years or more, has kept and bred multiple species successfully, and clearly understands the related concepts (signs of stress/aggression, breeding sites and which species will compete directly for them, nutrition, signs/symptoms of illness or parasites, visual barriers, and niches to name a few) wants to plan out a mixed biotope with all the proper fixins. 

Chance of a successful enclosure? Quite high IMO.

The bad-
A newer guy has a few frogs and is keeping them (more or less) properly, has done a bit of research and wants to put a mixed enclosure together... yet can't tell the difference between breeding behavior and aggression, has one dead springtail culture, knows his frogs are from "somewhere in Panama," thinks moss > leaf litter, and wouldn't know a visual barrier if he was standing at a urinal. 

Chances? 50/50, at best. 

The ugly- 
Hi, i like frogs they are relly pretty. I want a green one and a red one and a yellow one. I has my brothers cage from his dead ferret and put some dirt in it and a water bowl. i took the dead ferret out first tho. they will be happy rite? i tryed to put in my moms tomato plant but it dieded. i think they will be really cool friends with my leperd gekos if i hold them enuff. i don't like flys can i feed them grapes and lettuce like a turtle? 

also i have these bean beetles n gave them a burrito but i think it did something bc they only had lots of baby flys. 

Chances? 

The latter two happen enough that it's pretty easy to forget that there are still people out there who can make it happen and make it work. Zach's Madagascar biotope is just one example of this, and I won't be surprised at all to see Ray's CR tank become another. Admittedly, it took me a while to figure that fact out myself, as the majority of the info we have focuses on the bad and the ugly. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to make a good one, it just takes the right person with some solid experience, know-how, and a genuine regard for the well-being of the animals....


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

I agree Ed 2 trains of thought, first is to mix a bunch of pretty colors in a tank to see all spectrums of the rainbow....pretty much a kid's or a noob's approach to keeping something they don't understand very well but like the looks of. 
The second and the one I would hope most everyone would graduate to is creating an environment that closely mimics nature where the animals occur, a biotope tank that incorporates plants and animals. Again enclosure size greatly limits our ability to do this, trying to put more than 1 species in a 20 or 30 gallon tank is a disaster in the making. 
I think if this was done in 75 to 100 gallon tanks (and bigger) on a semi regular basis by those with some decent experience you would see as many successful enclosures as you would failures, getting the mix right likely would require ongoing adjustment until the right balance was found. It seems mixed enclosures are fairly common in Europe and I have heard of no horror stories coming out related to those (though I am sure there have been some epic failures).
I would love to know more about where in nature mixed species accounts do exist, obviously Costa Rica and Panama have big/small coexisting species. How about Tincs...thumbs from Peru...Ecuador, are there any areas where Triv/Bassleri/Pepperi and Vents live for example. Perhaps those that went with MarK P on hir last tour can let us know if they found areas where different dart species lived in close proximity (all I rememeber was that even thumbs lived 200 feet away from one another).


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

markpulawski said:


> I would love to know more about where in nature mixed species accounts do exist, obviously Costa Rica and Panama have big/small coexisting species. How about Tincs...thumbs from Peru...Ecuador, are there any areas where Triv/Bassleri/Pepperi and Vents live for example. Perhaps those that went with MarK P on hir last tour can let us know if they found areas where different dart species lived in close proximity (all I rememeber was that even thumbs lived 200 feet away from one another).



This part opens a whole new can of worms too, because there are species (mostly thumbnails, as well as some rarer obligates, that i know of) that can hybridize in captivity that live in sympatry in the wild. By definition, a tank incorporating those species would still be a biotope.... 

I would personally draw the line before that point, but my guess is that if biotopes were commonplace, that would be the next discussion on the list.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jbherpin said:


> Honestly, that is based on what *I* would be comfortable with if designing a mixed enclosure.
> 
> JBear


So the choice of size is arbitrary? 

The thing all of those size recommendations and suggestions of "comfort" totally miss is that size is less relevent than the distribution of the resources utilized by the frogs (or other animals). The distribution of the resources is what determines the carrying capacity of the enclosure/ecosystem. The arbitrary choices of "minimal" size and "comfort" have little to do with success of an enclosure other than luck. 

I do not suggest nor do I condone housing animals into the smallest space possible but arbitrary size recommendations do little to help the hobby. 

As I've stated in the past, as an extreme example (to make the point) you can have a 30 foot by 30 foot by 30 foot enclosure but if all of the resources are in a small are (hypothetically say 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot) then you are going to be extremely limited in the number of animals that can go into that enclosure as they are all going to compete for the same resources. This will also occur in enclosure of virtually any size. The size of the enclosure is not the primary determinent of success, the distribution of resources is the primary factor that determines the success. Size is much further down the list for success. This requires the hobbyist to understand resource distribution for the various species. 

As I've stated before and will again I'm sure in the future, bigger enclosures are better but the arbitrary suggestions of "minimal" spatial volumes are in effect a method of discouraging and excluding people by making the requirements so out of reach that they effectively bar the attempts. 

It would be of more value to the hobby if people actually learned about the resource needs, behaviors based on those needs, and physiological requirements, and make the suggestions of spatial needs on resource distribution instead of arbitrary volume decisions which do nothing to suggest appropriate resource distribution. It is just as easy to have improper resource distribution in a small enclosure, as a medium enclosure as a large enclosure. That is the real underlying reason that some succeed and some fail... we can even see this as part of the problems reported with abnormal behaviors, that I've mentioned in posts above this one. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tclipse said:


> This part opens a whole new can of worms too, because there are species (mostly thumbnails, as well as some rarer obligates, that i know of) that can hybridize in captivity that live in sympatry in the wild. By definition, a tank incorporating those species would still be a biotope....
> 
> I would personally draw the line before that point, but my guess is that if biotopes were commonplace, that would be the next discussion on the list.


Obviously in enclosures, there are factors that can break down the barriers that prevent hybridization in the wild. Those potential mixes should be discouraged until a better understanding of the barriers that prevent the hybridization in the wild are understood. 

Ed


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

markpulawski said:


> are there any areas where Triv/Bassleri/Pepperi and Vents live for example.


Don't know about that combo, but here are a few:

-altamazonica/pepperi/trivittata
-altamazonica/bassleri/P. tomopterna
-benedicta/imitator/vents
-fantastica/imitator/vents
-reticulata/iquitos vents
-R. defleri/vents
-R. claudiae/pumilio
-imitator/species they imitate

edit- called them all vents because TBH I still have no idea which became amazonica and which became variabilis.... and I'm obviously not suggesting that these species be mixed, just stating that they live in sympatry in certain areas.


----------



## swampfoxjjr (Nov 13, 2007)

Stem,

I appreciate the bravery in posting a thread like this here. Also, I wish you the best of luck with the endeavor and hope you will share the results with the community. I think this represents a perfect example of a hobbyist doing what they wish with the resources they have. 

Unfortunately, I also think it is a perfect example of a bunch of noobs and forum thugs issuing directives and opinions on subject matter that far exceeds their level of competence and husbandry.

To those seeking a point, Stem can and will do whatever he wants with the animals in his keeping and there is nothing you can do about it. He should also be free to post about it without dealing with five pages of your opinions. 

Even if Stem eventually comes to the conclusion that this was ill-advised, his findings are worth more than all of the "three morphs of tincs in a 10 gallon vert with heating pad" threads on this board. The hobby gets no advancement from noob failure. We learn and we grow from the capable experimenting and sharing. Anyone who relates an experienced frogger attempting a sustainable biotope viv to condoning mixing/hybridizing for the newer hobbyists is just being dense. Grow up. There are no frog police.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

One of my points is not housing animals together that have similar size, temperment (this may be difficult), breeding activity, area preference which is why I mentioned big/small. A Triv living on mostly the ground may go well with a Vent living mostly in the canopy...you know the real high up canopy, 12" to 18" from the bottom of the viv (jk here of course). But you get my point, frogs very dissimilar in thier size and requirements, I would suggest that would be the only type of mixed enclosure I would advocate. And as Ed mentoned an enclosure that spreads the resources evenly throughout, plants, food, water & hide and breeding deposition spots. 
Putting Imi's and Fants together would be a big risk though I personally know of one guy that has a 135 with Variabilis and LL Fants that both breed prolifically, he tells me they do not intermix though I can not verify that statement. His tank is filled with a ton of variation and he has seemed to create and environ that works for this combo, though if he had asked me I would have told him not to do it. Perhaps this combo is terrestrial and arboreal and that's why it works. But even here is an example of a similar sized mix viv that is successful.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Thats why Ive been thinking Bajo Huallaga canyon trivs and imis! It seems like with a viv with enough size like the one referenced in this thread you could create MORE than enough suitable space for both species. You could even have a stream for the trivs if you wanted to. These two species are from the same part of the same canyon, obviously occupying different niches, but still living in the same space. Im my opinion, with a 90 gallon viv, making a viv that caters to both would be easy.


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

Very great thread. I have seen a viv @ the AMNH with a huge mix of speices. The Viv was very big and all of the frogs were adults. The frogs have been on display there a while and seem to be doing good. However I do understand why not to MIX. When someone does come and start a mix thread they can expect to be shot down in public, but at the end of the day people are going to do what they want with their property. I would'nt say that I'm experimenting, it just doesn't sound good to me. I wouldn't want anyone to take me to a lab and experiment on me.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> . And as Ed mentoned an enclosure that spreads the resources evenly throughout, plants, food, water & hide and breeding deposition spots.


I think this actually needs some more discussion. If I was setting up a tank with several groups of anurans in an enclosure of about the same size as Ray's I wouldn't evenly spread the calling and deposition sites. I would clump them into patches where one or more calling sites were associated with each clump of deposition sites. What may look like an even distribution to us, may not play out the same way to the frogs (or other animals as this applies to multiple taxa) resulting in conflicts even when it looks like there is room for all. The other method would be to swamp the enclosure with calling and deposition sites (say mimicking a pile of cacao husks (which is similar to that seen in Poison frogs). 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Slightly random thought about dart frog husbandry and providing natural habitats, and I'm a newbie to dart frogs, but is anyone aware if anybody (zoos, aquariums, scientists, researchers, collectors etc) has made any attempts to raise arthropods endemic to the regions of specific dart frog locales? Has any research been done in this area as to how endemic arthropods would affect the dart frogs state in captivity? 

Obviously the arthropods responsible for the frogs toxicity in the wild would not be suitable...


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

B-NICE said:


> I have seen a viv @ the AMNH with a huge mix of speices. The Viv was very big and all of the frogs were adults. The frogs have been on display there a while and seem to be doing good.


Are you referring to the Frogs exhibit? I believe that tank is temporary.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Importing the vast majority of the wild feeder invertebrates is prohibitive as all of the species that feed on plants would require a permit from the USDA and would have to be contained within a secure enclosure with security to prevent them from escaping the room. They would also be prohibited from being transferred to the hobby unless the hobbyist also possessed a permit for those invertebrates. All surplus would have to be frozen or autoclaved before being disacarded as would all excess substrate... 

Basically the best you could hope for is that all non-plant pests/pathogens could be imported but this would also require a review by the USDA (which means filing the permit ahead of time) of each species to determine if there was a chance that it would be a plant pest (or an animal pest). 

In general, it isn't feasible. 

There were early studies done with the frogs to look at the sources of the toxins in country of the native frogs and the introduced D. auratus in Hawaii. 

On top of this, there isn't a lot of evidence to indicate that the natural diet is of value when compared to properly supplemented feeders. 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Makes sense. Don't want another introduced species fiasco...

Have any studies been done in the countries they originate from? I'm not even sure if this idea has any merit, but I was wondering if there are any trace nutrients that may be being omitted from their diets. They are not producing the toxins in captivity, and since the toxins are derived from their diet I was wondering if anything else could be missing. 

The reason I ask is because this thread is discussing mixed species tanks and biotopes, and spatial and feeding dynamics were mentioned but not the diet makeup. Just wondering...


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I think he just answered that above. Diet is not as important as proper supplementation
Id be more interested in incorporating solacryl or starphire glasss along with a UVB generating bulb than introducing foreign bugs just to try to recreate that aspect of the biotope


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

jacobi said:


> Are you referring to the Frogs exhibit? I believe that tank is temporary.


Yea, I know it goes down sometime in Jan. I have to get back there for another viewing. All most all of the non Dart frogs look fake to me lol. Frogs look really different up close and personal.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

frogparty said:


> I think he just answered that above. Diet is not as important as proper supplementation


From a medical and nutrition standpoint in humans, different vitamins and minerals have different absorption rates, as well as the potential to not be metabolically converted to a nutritionally useful form without the presence of other minerals ans/or nutrients. So is there a possibility that it could make a difference? Not necessarily to a mixed species enclosure. I personally have no idea. Just wondering. It isn't really related to this thread so I'm gonna leave it at that.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Ed said:


> I think this actually needs some more discussion. If I was setting up a tank with several groups of anurans in an enclosure of about the same size as Ray's I wouldn't evenly spread the calling and deposition sites. I would clump them into patches where one or more calling sites were associated with each clump of deposition sites. What may look like an even distribution to us, may not play out the same way to the frogs (or other animals as this applies to multiple taxa) resulting in conflicts even when it looks like there is room for all. The other method would be to swamp the enclosure with calling and deposition sites (say mimicking a pile of cacao husks (which is similar to that seen in Poison frogs).
> 
> Ed


Exactly, Ed. While there will be some scattered sites I am going to have the mud section (ie. streambed, etc) clustered with sights for the lugs and a good cluster of heliconia and broms, possibly, for the pumilio.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

B-NICE said:


> Yea, I know it goes down sometime in Jan. I have to get back there for another viewing. All most all of the non Dart frogs look fake to me lol. Frogs look really different up close and personal.


I enjoyed it, but was a little disappointed. They didn't have that many species, and the cost for one person was enough to get me into most zoos (and then the reptile house!  )


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

Sure are over priced. Frogging always seems to be costly.


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

jacobi said:


> Has any research or experiments been done by anyone showing UVB to be beneficial to pdf's? (I apologise if that seems a little rudely put, I just wasn't sure how to phrase the question. I'm bad at typing.)


Yep, helps them synthesize D3 as with other herps.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Truth be told...I've successfully keep a dual species tank for several years now. In my very overgrown 33gal tank are a pair of Intermedius and a trio of Leucomelas. The Leucs have bred, the Intermedius have not. Both call at different times and conditions. My choice had nothing to do with colors or what I thought would look cool. Most times you can't even see them.

I gave it a fair amount of thought before hand and have watched the group for a long time now. The Leucs mostly ignore the Intermedius, the male calls, and the two female Leucs spend hours wrestling one another. The Intermedius are much more active and the male chases the Leucs around too while calling. 

The Leucs are all over the tank and the Intermedius stay mostly up high. 

It's impossible to say what would be different if they weren't in the same enclosure.

I've kept both seperately before and chose those two species because I knew they wouldn't inter-breed, their temperments were about the same, and they typically feed at different levels within an enclosure, with the same basic level of feeding aggression. This was an important factor IMO. I was trying minimize the competition for food. Both of these species are not what I would call, aggressive feeders. Not like small Philos or Epis. I also toss in food, both low and high.

While I can't provide any concrete negatives so far, I do expect to seperate these two groups to see how things change for a truer comparison. 

I've not kept P. Lugubris so I can't comment on their feeding or other behaviours. I have kept P. Vittatus and consider them somewhat aggressive. I've also kept a pair of Pums. Both of these are very territorial and both use all of their tanks. I'd consider the P.Vittatus aggressive feeders and the Pums less so and more deliberate. 

I realize P.Vittatus are not P.Lugubris and not all Pums are created equal. Given that, I would not create a dual species tank with Pums and P.Vittatus, based on what I know about the habits and behaviours I've seen. Take that for what it's worth.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

tclipse said:


> Yep, helps them synthesize D3 as with other herps.


Grrr... I'm too frustrated to respond eloquently. 

http://aark.portal.isis.org/ResearchGuide/Amphibian zoo studies/Amphibian UV-B and Vitamin D3.pdf

I just found this. Why don't care sheets mention uvb as a requirement for pdfs? I understand that supplements can help, but supplements can't replace light...

Are there any good threads on this?

And... Found one. Funny. Ed posted the same link I did. Thanks Ed!


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Because it's not needed, even though it has been shown that they can utilize it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jacobi said:


> From a medical and nutrition standpoint in humans, different vitamins and minerals have different absorption rates, as well as the potential to not be metabolically converted to a nutritionally useful form without the presence of other minerals ans/or nutrients. So is there a possibility that it could make a difference? Not necessarily to a mixed species enclosure. I personally have no idea. Just wondering. It isn't really related to this thread so I'm gonna leave it at that.


If one looks at the literature (or it's reviews in Leaf Litter), then it quickly becomes apparent that invertebrates are a poor source of vitamin A (since for the very large part the only presence is as rhodopsin in the eye), and vitamin D3 (they do not utilize D3 at all except possibly as a precursor for cholesterol. Many invertebrates store tocopherols (vitamin E) potentially to hundreds of times (or more) the level found in the food source. Vitamin D2 is found in some invertebrates but this form is useless to the frogs as it doesn't enable the uptake of calcium (and is often the source of vitamin D in human vitamins as it is less expensive than D3). 

The main thing that it is apparent that the frogs lack from the natural diet is a diversity of carotenoids but specifically astaxanthin, canthaxanthin, lutein, beta-cryptoxanthin, zeaxanthin, lycopene and beta carotene (as these are some of the most common carotenoids on analysis of the body of the frog. There is little evidence that frogs can convert beta carotene into a retinoid (they may be like felids in that respect). This lack of diversity in the diet is finally catching on among the hobby and has been a topic of real interest in institutional collections. This can now be rectified to some extent through the use of supplements that provide those carotenoids to the frogs. 

These carotenoids are important for multiple functions in the metabolism of the frogs potentially some may be organ specific (as on analysis the certain carotenoids are associated with specific organs) but in general, they are important for fertility, immune health and as antioxidents and may affect cholesterol levels in the blood. 

There are a number of threads that discuss the nutritional aspects of the frog husbandry including more than a few references........ 

Ed


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

pl259 said:


> Truth be told...I've successfully keep a dual species tank for several years now. In my very overgrown 33gal tank are a pair of Intermedius and a trio of Leucomelas. The Leucs have bred, the Intermedius have not. Both call at different times and conditions. My choice had nothing to do with colors or what I thought would look cool. Most times you can't even see them.
> 
> I gave it a fair amount of thought before hand and have watched the group for a long time now. The Leucs mostly ignore the Intermedius, the male calls, and the two female Leucs spend hours wrestling one another. The Intermedius are much more active and the male chases the Leucs around too while calling.
> 
> ...


Nice, Eric...enjoy the hate mail. 

As a disclaimer, I keep and have bred every Phyllobates species. In my experience with two different groups of P. lugubris, Panamanian and Costa Rican, they are quite different in behavior than other members of the genus, including vittatus. The typical "hurl the body at anything that moves" is much more measured. Also, as many of you have never likely seen a P. lugubris, size is smaller or equivalent to a mainland pumilio like those in CR. But what do I know compared to someone that hasn't worked with either species or visited their habitat... 

P. vittatus also does not overlap with O. pumilio in its habitat so I would not recommend a mixed species tank in this case. P. vittatus does overlap, however, with many other species, including O. granulifera.


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

Did you honestly receive hate mail? That's a bit crazy... It's one thing to have a debate and a small disagreement, but to be attacked for it... I apologize to you if I caused that. You do not deserve that, nor should you have to defend your freedom of choice. Good luck to you.

JBear


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jbherpin said:


> Did you honestly receive hate mail? That's a bit crazy... It's one thing to have a debate and a small disagreement, but to be attacked for it... I apologize to you if I caused that. You do not deserve that, nor should you have to defend your freedom of choice. Good luck to you.
> 
> JBear


Hate mail is common in these threads. When I posted my first thread discussing how to set up mutlispecies enclosures I routinely got hate mail from more than a couple of people for quite awhile...... 

Ed


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Ed said:


> Hate mail is common in these threads. When I posted my first thread discussing how to set up mutlispecies enclosures I routinely got hate mail from more than a couple of people for quite awhile......
> 
> Ed


Look in you inbox, Ed.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfreak said:


> Look in you inbox, Ed.


I just had a pm but it wasn't a hate pm. 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

stemcellular said:


> But what do I know compared to someone that hasn't worked with either species or visited their habitat...


Ouch! No need to get snippy Ray. I have no objections to your plan. 

I'm only suggesting, based on my experience with co-locating the species that I have, that you and anyone else should also consider how aggressive each species feeds and where within their enclosure they do most of their feeding. This is an aspect that I have not seen mentioned yet. Maybe I missed it.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

pl259 said:


> Ouch! No need to get snippy Ray. I have no objections to your plan.
> 
> I'm only suggesting, based on my experience with co-locating the species that I have, that you and anyone else should also consider how aggressive each species feeds and where within their enclosure they do most of their feeding. This is an aspect that I have not seen mentioned yet. Maybe I missed it.


My point wasn't directed to you at all, Eric. Just the first part about enjoying your PMs...

You actually raised a legitimate question w/regard to P. vittatus. With the comment you cite above I was speaking more generally about what we see everyday on this board (not necessarily w/regard to this topic) - ie. folks with little or no actual experience or knowledge pontificating about one thing or another. I never before understood all the chatter about why old school froggers no longer post, etc. but have to admit that over the last couple days I totally get it. How Ed is able to constantly answer asinine questions over and over and over is incredible to me. 99% of the threads are redundant stuff and everytime someone tries to actually have an interesting conversation (ie. not generally me as I always post pretty mundane stuff) it spirals off topic, out of control, etc. 

Anyway, I recall seeing your mixed tank and thinking it was pretty well designed. I also remember thinking your P. vittatus enclosure was sick (in the best way)...how many did you have in there, including froglets, 15-20? Just goes to show what an appropriate design and good husbandry can do.

Also, with regard to aggressiveness, I agree completely. I think proper designs of biotopic enclosures must include niches developed to each species specifications. Unlike some on this board, I don't find aggression during courtship to be a negative thing. Heck, it part of the reproductive biology of many of the species we keep in the hobby. However, being able to defend territory and retreat is essential as I believe Ed noted earlier in this thread. Having worked with many Mantella sp. I can tell you that attention to creating many suitable territories, often scattered pieces of wood, cork, etc. allows for multiple males to court and out compete one another without causing undue stress. Now you are thinking, short of a stress test how do I know whether or not they are stressed? Well, all remain healthy, eat, have remained at a consistent weight for years, and I have had in situ metamorphosis, egg to tadpole to froglet. Without looking for blood biomarkers of stress that sounds about the best we can have, eh?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I didn't know there was a paper specific to darts that said they can turn uvb to vit. d.



tclipse said:


> Yep, helps them synthesize D3 as with other herps.


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

I was under the impression that since darts are native to very dense coverage, UV in general wasn't vital in the absorption of vitamins and minerals. This is not to say it has no impact...

JBear


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

I have 3 tanks that get at least an hour of indirect sunlight each day and the frogs usually stay in the sunlit area during the duration. A pair of Powder Blues, A pair of Sipps, and a pair of Yellow Backs.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I didn't know there was a paper specific to darts that said they can turn uvb to vit. d.


Hmm well since we know that anurans can't use D2 as a source of vitamin D (Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry), so they can't get it from ingesting invertebrates that have fed on fungi, yeasts or plants that contain D2, invertebrates don't store or utilize D3 nor do the dendrtobatid frogs consume vertebrates that have preconverted D3 stores so that pretty much only leaves UVB conversion. 

There is good data being recorded in a variety of taxa that indicates that shade dwelling herps are able to synthesize D3 from a lower exposure of UVB than comparative species that are heliothermic and bask in the direct sunlight (see for example http://people.hofstra.edu/jason_d_williams/HUML/Handbooks/Ferguson.pdf (free access)). We also know that some anurans including some dendrobatids modify thier behavior to avoid excess exposure to UV light, which is a good indication that like other herps they can behaviorally regulate thier exposure and circulating D3 levels. 

One of the things that is coming out in studies of other herps is that a number of them routinely keep levels of circulating D3 above that seen when the only source is the diet. This includes some taxa that up until now were considered to not need any supplementation or exposure to UVB (such as snakes) (not free access Voluntary exposure of some western-hemisphere snake and lizard species to ultraviolet-B radiation in the field: how much ultraviolet-B should a lizard or snake receive in captivity? - Ferguson - 2009 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library and the book at An ultraviolet light survey of three ... - Andrew Michael Brinker, Texas Christian University - Google Books) 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So, is that a no, there isn't a paper, we're just theorizing? Is there vit d in organic material in soils?

And Bill, they only get heat from sunlight thru a window then thru a glass tank. They wouldn't be able to sense uvb even if they had the receptors(since there is none). They are probably basking to warm up.

I wonder if the reticulatus was scurrying trying to get out of the light when it was left in there 45 mins.? 



Ed said:


> Hmm well since we know that anurans can't use D2 as a source of vitamin D (Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry), so they can't get it from ingesting invertebrates that have fed on fungi, yeasts or plants that contain D2, invertebrates don't store or utilize D3 nor do the dendrtobatid frogs consume vertebrates that have preconverted D3 stores so that pretty much only leaves UVB conversion.
> 
> There is good data being recorded in a variety of taxa that indicates that shade dwelling herps are able to synthesize D3 from a lower exposure of UVB than comparative species that are heliothermic and bask in the direct sunlight (see for example http://people.hofstra.edu/jason_d_williams/HUML/Handbooks/Ferguson.pdf (free access)). We also know that some anurans including some dendrobatids modify thier behavior to avoid excess exposure to UV light, which is a good indication that like other herps they can behaviorally regulate thier exposure and circulating D3 levels.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> So, is that a no, there isn't a paper, we're just theorizing? Is there vit d in organic material in soils?
> 
> And Bill, they only get heat from sunlight thru a window then thru a glass tank. They wouldn't be able to sense uvb even if they had the receptors. They are probably basking to warm up.


Not a theory..so we're not theorizing. No, it isn't available as an "organic" in the soil. The only natural source of D3 is found in vertebrates that utilize UVB to convert provitamin D to D3. If the frogs cannot use D2 but can use D3, then they are using UVB to convert it since they obviously are not consuming other vertebrates that convert provitamin D to D3. This is a heavily conserved trait across multiple vertebrate taxa... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Then how do nocturnal amphibs get it if they never come out during daylight hours and only eat insects and dirt? What about cave dwelling salamanders, blue spots, etc.

Just found this paper about bird eater spiders w/ d3 in their system that surmised they could get it from their diet, I don't understand why a dart couldn't. Not to mention that undigested food in the tract of the insects could carry vit d3 into their diet.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...JAwlK7&sig=AHIEtbSG-Ujokv1a33MhjVKzCwMRCYN1xg



Ed said:


> Not a theory..so we're not theorizing. No, it isn't available as an "organic" in the soil. The only natural source of D3 is found in vertebrates that utilize UVB to convert provitamin D to D3. If the frogs cannot use D2 but can use D3, then they are using UVB to convert it since they obviously are not consuming other vertebrates that convert provitamin D to D3. This is a heavily conserved trait across multiple vertebrate taxa...
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Then how do nocturnal amphibs get it if they never come out during daylight hours and only eat insects and dirt? What about cave dwelling salamanders, blue spots, etc.


Are we talking about those animals here or were we discussing dendrobatids?..... 

As another comment on D3 being available in dirt... it is documented that D3 can be absorbed through the skin of anurans, and if dirt supplied D3 then why do we have to worry about them getting it through dusting thier food items or ratios of A to D3 to E or all of the literature documenting metabolic bone disease..... or for that matter why isn't it suggested that people ingest dirt to get D3? 

How about you do a little research on your own.. I posted a couple of sources of information that you can read through and then follow up with the references in those articles and see if you can answer your own questions since your not going to bother believing anything I post even when it comes with documentation. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Here, this should be of use in your research ScienceDirect - Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology : Ultraviolet radiation and Vitamin D3 in amphibian health, behaviour, diet and conservation


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Who said I didn't believe anything you post? It just doesn't satisfy my idea of proof.
Well, if there is a way that those other amphibs and such get sufficient d3 from other means than the sun, I don't understand why darts couldn't esp when uvb is significantly reduced in cloud forests and some of these darts live under triple canopy. If there aren't specific papers that prove darts have the ability then your theorizing they do from work with other animals. Do they have the receptors to detect uvb or is it just that they modify their behaviour because heat accompanies the uvb?

I'll read the papers if I don't have to pay for them. And i'm doing the searching on my own to see if arachnids, crustaceans and springtails(all not insects) contain significant levels of d3 but it's not an easy search.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Sorry, can't afford the $31.50 for that one. Is this the gist of it?
Although, there is a lack of literature concerning Vitamin D3 requirements and calcitriol synthesis in amphibians, amphibians are likely to have similar Vitamin D3 requirements and metabolic processes as other vertebrates due to the phylogenetically conservative nature of calcitriol biosynthesis.



Ed said:


> Here, this should be of use in your research ScienceDirect - Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology : Ultraviolet radiation and Vitamin D3 in amphibian health, behaviour, diet and conservation


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Hey Aaron,

If you need some papers, just pm a list of them and I can share a dropbox with you. Might take me a few days but I should be able to pull any thing from Hollis.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

umm because we have vitamins that taste better? Maybe the vit manufacturers are conspiring to sell d3 when it's not needed? I used calc w/out d3 for a year w/out realizing it and still had good breeding and health. Besides how many people actually put dirt in their viv? There could be lots of little goodies in an active, living soil that aren't in abg mix. I just skipped an article that said lichens had hi levels of d3.
Just trying to figure out why some things don't jive w/ prescribed d3 needs. I used vits w/ no vit a, just beta carotene for years w/ good success also. If they can't synthesize vit a from beta carotene, the d3, a e levels should've been all off. Why do only certain animals seize/get mbd when everyone is fed the same diets in most collections? I think some of these mbd, seizing problems are more related to stress/hierarchy/bacterial infections or whatever else offsetting their needs more than what is in their food or any uvb therapy. That's just my theory though.



Ed said:


> Are we talking about those animals here or were we discussing dendrobatids?.....
> 
> As another comment on D3 being available in dirt... it is documented that D3 can be absorbed through the skin of anurans, and if dirt supplied D3 then why do we have to worry about them getting it through dusting thier food items or ratios of A to D3 to E or all of the literature documenting metabolic bone disease..... or for that matter why isn't it suggested that people ingest dirt to get D3?
> 
> ...


----------



## Cfrog (Oct 28, 2011)

Why do I feel like I need popcorn and I'm watching womens boxing. Hey 98% just want to do what's right by our frogs, we care enough about our frogs to ask question and be criticized. Now there is a 2% but so for no one on this thread counts in that %. I am glad to see a discussion going on. It allows us to gain wonderful knowledge from others who share our passion. I may not agree with everyones posts on this topic but I do have a an utmost respect for each one of you. Thank you for taking the time to post your knowledge & experience in this thread. 

Crystal


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

We dont need women's boxing... We have the lingere football league now you know.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> umm because we have vitamins that taste better? Maybe the vit manufacturers are conspiring to sell d3 when it's not needed? I used calc w/out d3 for a year w/out realizing it and still had good breeding and health. Besides how many people actually put dirt in their viv? There could be lots of little goodies in an active, living soil that aren't in abg mix. I just skipped an article that said lichens had hi levels of d3.
> Just trying to figure out why some things don't jive w/ prescribed d3 needs. I used vits w/ no vit a, just beta carotene for years w/ good success also. If they can't synthesize vit a from beta carotene, the d3, a e levels should've been all off. Why do only certain animals seize/get mbd when everyone is fed the same diets in most collections? I think some of these mbd, seizing problems are more related to stress/hierarchy/bacterial infections or whatever else offsetting their needs more than what is in their food or any uvb therapy. That's just my theory though.


 
So there is some mythical organism that dwells in the soil and by some strange happenstance secretes D3 into the enviroment... Sorry but if you even bothered to read through the literature on sources of vitamin D you would find that 
1) plants, fungi and yeasts produce D2 which cannot be utilzed by anurans. 
2) no bacteria, fungi or yeasts, or plants produce D3. 

You want to pick a fight on a topic of which you are demonstrating a huge ignorance and refusal to even look at the multiples of papers documenting the sources of those two vitamins.,.... hint try google scholar..... 

Actually no, the vitamin D3 and E levels would not have been off.. despite having discussed this multiple times with you, you clearly did not understand the process and how it works. The ratio of the vitamins to prevent conditional deficiences is 10 to 1 to 0.1 of A to D3 to E but if there is no A (and beta carotene doesn't compete for uptake with D3 or E), then the ratio just has to be 10 to 1 of D3 to E..... The vitamin A is going to be supplied by other carotenoids. 

All because you used vitamins with beta carotene without "seeing" any problems doesn't mean that the frogs were not deficient in vitamin A..... This is clearly spelled out in the recent literature.. 

Sick or stressed animals are going to have a higher metabolic demand for specific vitamins such as some of the fat soluble vitamins including A and D3 (as both are important parts of the immune system).... Keep in mind that the necropsies and literature has been trending towards widespread deficiencies of vitamin A in multiple genera of anurans in which the dietary source of vitamin A was beta carotene... there is little to no data showing that this was actually a sufficient source of vitamin A and no data showing that beta carotene is actually converted at all into vitamin A (this is known to occur in other vertebrates such as felids (they absorb beta carotene, but it isn't converted). They actually have alternate pathways of carotenoid metabolism to produce vitamin A.. such as astaxanthin into retinol (published in Leaf Litter, TWI magazine) which is a main source in tadpoles of vitamin A (other than deposited in the eggs by the female during oogenesis) and of one of the forms of vitamin A important for anuran vision. 

It is all in the literature if you care to look... so you wouldn't have to take my word on it. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Who said I didn't believe anything you post? It just doesn't satisfy my idea of proof.
> Well, if there is a way that those other amphibs and such get sufficient d3 from other means than the sun, I don't understand why darts couldn't esp when uvb is significantly reduced in cloud forests and some of these darts live under triple canopy. If there aren't specific papers that prove darts have the ability then your theorizing they do from work with other animals. Do they have the receptors to detect uvb or is it just that they modify their behaviour because heat accompanies the uvb?
> 
> I'll read the papers if I don't have to pay for them. And i'm doing the searching on my own to see if arachnids, crustaceans and springtails(all not insects) contain significant levels of d3 but it's not an easy search.


Good luck finding any insects that produce D3... if it is provided to them, many like Drosophila convert it to cholesterol. Some crustaceans can use it if it is provided in the diet (artificial supplementation) but also can use D2 readily. See for example http://www.biolbull.org/content/152/3/337.full.pdf 
Juvenile Lobster (Homarus americanus) Do Not Require Dietary Ascorbic Acid - Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 



As the link I provided on shade dwelling species aptly demonstrated, they convert sufficient D3 through exposure to less UVB.... The feedback mechanism doesn't have to be receptors that "detect" UVB, they can behaviorally modify thier behavior through feedback mechanisms that track circulating levels of D3. This was demonstrated with chameleons..... 
See for example JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (not free access) (the link will still work). the references and discussion in this article is of value http://www.megaray.co.uk/downloads/artificial-ultraviolet-exposure-chameleon.pdf and one of the snake ones I was looking for earlier http://vetmed.illinois.edu/mmitch/pdf/corn%20snake.pdf

Beneficial impact on a hylid http://www.academicjournals.org/JPAP/PDF/pdf2011/July/Verschooren et al.pdf the discussion is of particular interest as it discusses how dietary supplementation may not be sufficient. They do speculate slightly on nocturnal or fossorial species but don't provide an answer.... 

An analysis on a locust used as a feeder can be found here Nutritional Metabolic Bone Disease in Juvenile Veiled Chameleons (Chamaeleo calyptratus) and Its Prevention note that the D3 level of the unsupplemented insect was 0.... 

Refusing to pay for access to *any* articles is simply a choice to remain ignorant. I've got a very limited budget yet I still shell out cash for articles that further my understanding as needed. 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

stemcellular said:


> My point wasn't directed to you at all, Eric. Just the first part about enjoying your PMs...


Accepted. It was hard to tell where you were coming from since all your comments followed my quoted post.

I learned several other things that you should think about. Creating niche locations for each species is great. A split vertically makes a lot of sense and was one of the main reasons I put the Intermedius in with the Leucs. In my case, it solved an immediate space issue and let me explore the possibility of keeping additional species within the limited corner of my office.

One of the problems I found was that fruit flies don't know what the heck a niche is. Our tanks are not like the forest floor in the respect. Without controls, fruit flies, our main feeders, when dropped in will spread out, head for the hills, and go everywhere. The frogs will follow. There's no such thing as a ground dwelling frog in a 3ft glass cube with FFs everywhere. 

That's one of the reasons why, in my larger species tanks, I feed from those small, dusted ceramic bowls you've seen. They help to control the FFs and keep the bigger frogs near the bottom. The same could be accomplished with pieces of fruit, or clever use of ground cover and leaf litter. 

The second reason for the bowls is that, as we all know, FFs spread out and climb atop the nearest thing they can and proceed to clean the suppliments off. The dusted bowls keep them confined and dusted longer. 

I'm not saying you should do the bowl thing. It's frankly a pain in the arse. But from my experience, you should strongly consider how you're going to manage FF spread. Low ground cover is good, as is larger leaf litter. I found that live oak leaves, while they look good, tend to lay flat and not prevent FFs from spreading out. Larger native oak leaves were better in that they gave raised surfaces and edges that the FFs stopped climbing and gathered on. None of these natural solutions prevent the FFs from de-dusting themselves. 

Another consideration is that niches mean nothing when a male is looking for the highest place to call from. Breeding behavior can trump many well thought out plans.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I did'nt say I was looking foir insects that produced d3, i was looking for insects that contain d3. I have a good enough understanding of the ratios Ed as I've been breeding and keeping darts for over 15 years and have no major problems. That's as much as I need to understand. I ask you questions because I like to converse and what your saying doesn't seem to follow what I've witnessed. If you want to throw a bunch of articles at me that I have to pay for, well, I could do that myself. If you don't have an answer as to why fossorial species can get vit d3 somewhere other than the sun and darts aren't proven to be able to utilize uvb then our conversation is done.

I'll read the nutritional analysis of the one locust they did, but if it had nothing in its gut then I wont be satisfied that they can't carry d3 in their gut to another organism. And 1 locust does not cover thousands of different insects, arachnids, crustaceans and springtails. Ants may have been a better analysis w/ gut contents intact and done from multiple ants feeding on different things.

What can I say, I'm a doubting Thomas.



Ed said:


> Good luck finding any insects that produce D3... if it is provided to them, many like Drosophila convert it to cholesterol. Some crustaceans can use it if it is provided in the diet (artificial supplementation) but also can use D2 readily. See for example http://www.biolbull.org/content/152/3/337.full.pdf
> Juvenile Lobster (Homarus americanus) Do Not Require Dietary Ascorbic Acid - Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

No plants atr all?
r. Walsh said that they met with the company and that they were satisfied that the D3 in their product is vegan. Vitashine claims to get the D3 from lichen.

I then found a study that confirmed that at least some species of lichen grown in some locations contain vitamin D3:

Wang T, Bengtsson G, Kärnefelt I, Björn LO. Provitamins and vitamins D2 and D3 in Cladina spp. over a latitudinal gradient: possible correlation with UV levels. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2001 Sep 1;62(1-2):118-22. Abstract | PDF

Jack Norris RD» Blog Archive » Vegan D3: Apparently So



Ed said:


> 1) plants, fungi and yeasts produce D2 which cannot be utilzed by anurans.
> 2) no bacteria, fungi or yeasts, or plants produce D3.
> 
> You want to pick a fight on a topic of which you are demonstrating a huge ignorance and refusal to even look at the multiples of papers documenting the sources of those two vitamins.,.... hint try google scholar.....
> ...


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

What the hell is wrong with you 2, this thread was split from another for hijacking a background thread, please take your Vit D UV thread to thunderdome so you both can get real nasty and entertain the heck out of all of us.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I'm done. Internet is about to be shut down for the day to resume digging.

Ed, you've shown some species in lo light levels can make d3 from uvb(I didn't see any reference specifically to darts). You've shown they surmise how nocturnal animals get d3 but haven't proven. You've not PROVEN that darts don't share a way to accumulate d3 thru diet or other means like nocturnal and probably some diurnal species. I asked if there was a paper proving d3 from uvb in DARTS yet and you've shown me a bunch of other papers that say it very well could be w/ darts but you haven't proven it. You just want me to come to the same conclusion as you and not look for any other means. And then you try to ridicule me and say I'm choosing to be ignorant instead of discussing the actual question.

I'm out. 



markpulawski said:


> What the hell is wrong with you 2, this thread was split from another for hijacking a background thread, please take your Vit D UV thread to thunderdome so you both can get real nasty and entertain the heck out of all of us.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Oh, and thanks Ray. I may take you up on it. I have a hard time opening most of these papers w/ my acrobat reader. For some reason it displays a blank page. Others the links are broken. I just don't have the time to do leisure research at the moment. Maybe over the long winter I will. Thanks.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Aaron I know you think I am picking on you but you and Ed always get in these 2- 3 page pissing matches (usually about something only remotely related to the thread), you 2 are like an old married couple. Your experience is highly valued here but sometimes it's better to make your point and then let it go.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Sorry Mark, I try. I asked a simple question: if it had been proven in darts. A simple no it hasn't but everything points to that being true would suffice. I didn't even ask Ed the question and i didn't say darts couldn't I was only looking for other possible ways. Then I get responses like "if you want to be ignorant" and "I pay for articles why can't you". All those articles had nothing to do w/ the question, has it been proven in darts though. I try to stay away from these arguments because it's a complete waste of time but I guess I'll try harder next time.



markpulawski said:


> Aaron I know you think I am picking on you but you and Ed always get in these 2- 3 page pissing matches (usually about something only remotely related to the thread), you 2 are like an old married couple. Your experience is highly valued here but sometimes it's better to make your point and then let it go.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

markpulawski said:


> Aaron I know you think I am picking on you but you and Ed always get in these 2- 3 page pissing matches (usually about something only remotely related to the thread), you 2 are like an old married couple. Your experience is highly valued here but sometimes it's better to make your point and then let it go.


''Collector thoughts ya'll, Collector thoughts?''


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Really old ya'll...really old.

John


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

poison beauties said:


> ''Collector thoughts ya'll, Collector thoughts?''


I bet Mark has nightmares about being tied in a chair in front of a TV with nothing but Paula Deen reruns.

Two pounds of butter yall....


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

who has time for TV these days, too much fun on DB...also busy squishin BJ's


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

As fun as this was... I think this horse has been beaten. I appreciate all contributors as we as a hobby were able to provide a good dialog that seperates two(+) positions, and ultimately contributes to the bettering of husbandry in general.

JBear


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I'm done. Internet is about to be shut down for the day to resume digging.
> 
> Ed, you've shown some species in lo light levels can make d3 from uvb(I didn't see any reference specifically to darts). You've shown they surmise how nocturnal animals get d3 but haven't proven. You've not PROVEN that darts don't share a way to accumulate d3 thru diet or other means like nocturnal and probably some diurnal species. I asked if there was a paper proving d3 from uvb in DARTS yet and you've shown me a bunch of other papers that say it very well could be w/ darts but you haven't proven it. You just want me to come to the same conclusion as you and not look for any other means. And then you try to ridicule me and say I'm choosing to be ignorant instead of discussing the actual question.
> 
> I'm out.


Okay Aaron, flip it. Lets see the data that demonstrates dendrobatid frogs are different from multiple other taxa.... the consensus in the literature is that the conversion of provitamin D to D3 is heavily conserved across multiple vertebrate taxa. 

I'm very interested in seeing the data that "proves" that dendrobatids have a different system of aquiring D3 particularly in-situ. 

As for the comments about remaining ignorant, you have repeatedly in the past stated that since you couldn't access the article, you didn't believe it. That is a statement that idicates that you are actively choosing to remain ignorant over possibly learning some new information. 

As I stated above, your claiming I haven't demonstrated that they do convert provitamin D to D3 through the use of D3, but you have yet to provide a single shred of proof that they don't act in the manner I've documented despite the fact that the conversion of provitamin D to D3 is considered as general knowledge to occur in multiple taxa (and particularly in diurnal species).... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I did'nt say I was looking foir insects that produced d3, i was looking for insects that contain d3. I have a good enough understanding of the ratios Ed as I've been breeding and keeping darts for over 15 years and have no major problems. That's as much as I need to understand. I ask you questions because I like to converse and what your saying doesn't seem to follow what I've witnessed. If you want to throw a bunch of articles at me that I have to pay for, well, I could do that myself. If you don't have an answer as to why fossorial species can get vit d3 somewhere other than the sun and darts aren't proven to be able to utilize uvb then our conversation is done.
> 
> I'll read the nutritional analysis of the one locust they did, but if it had nothing in its gut then I wont be satisfied that they can't carry d3 in their gut to another organism. And 1 locust does not cover thousands of different insects, arachnids, crustaceans and springtails. Ants may have been a better analysis w/ gut contents intact and done from multiple ants feeding on different things.
> 
> What can I say, I'm a doubting Thomas.


Ahh so you ignore the fact that D3 is produced by vertebrates.... And that D2 is produced by plants, microbes and fungi. So if the insects don't produce it themselves (or store it instead of converting it to cholesterol) then where do the frogs get it? 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

I, for one, am glad to see this debate brought up again. Keeps people off my back for throwing garbage into my pumilio tanks...


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

skylsdale said:


> I, for one, am glad to see this debate brought up again. Keeps people off my back for throwing garbage into my pumilio tanks...


Nah you're safe, that's the only way to introduce vitamin G into a diet.


----------

