# Toxic poison dart frogs



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2010)

Reading up on it it seems that poison dart frogs can only give off toxins when they eat insects of there natural habitat that have been grazing on the plants they would. So has anyone managed to recreate this?


----------



## Wolfenrook (Jul 2, 2010)

More importantly why would you? Oh and not forgetting the ever present ethical should you?

Ade


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2010)

from a scientific point of view i think it would teach you alot about the frogs, wether they could make toxins by consuming just the right insects, whether the plants in their natural habitat play a bit part in it. As for ethical point of view sure it's more ethical to keep a frog in as close to its natural habitat as possible. We all have or have had live planted vivs to keep it as natural as possible and aslong as its with responsible owners there shouldnt really be an issue. Even if a DWA was required. 
Have you never been tempted?


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

On a purely practical level, how could you possibly do it? We don't have the prey species (mostly ants, I believe) *or* the plants available in this country. That's totally aside from the 'natural' arguement, which I'm not totally sure I agree with, anyway.


----------



## Wolfenrook (Jul 2, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> from a scientific point of view i think it would teach you alot about the frogs, wether they could make toxins by consuming just the right insects, whether the plants in their natural habitat play a bit part in it. As for ethical point of view sure it's more ethical to keep a frog in as close to its natural habitat as possible. We all have or have had live planted vivs to keep it as natural as possible and aslong as its with responsible owners there shouldnt really be an issue. Even if a DWA was required.
> Have you never been tempted?


Not for one second, and I would question the validity of the 'science' argument given that science already knows what it is that they eat in the wild that gives them their toxicity. Nothing there you can't find in books if you look hard enough.

As to the keeping things as natural as possible, I have to agree with Ron here once again. The poison is a response to the need for protection from predators, are we then going to also house these frogs with these same predators in order to make things as natural as possible? I think not. No predators, no need for the toxins. So you aren't doing the frog any favors at all giving them food from which they can derive toxins. It's just not necessary.

That leaves the only, and far more to the point, reason for wanting to do this. To satisfy the keepers curiosity. This is treating the frogs as toys to be experimented with, which is not at all ethical and totally needless. The bit about a DWA license seems to me to just support this as the reason, given as from what I can see most folks who keep dangerous animals do so because they think that owning something that can kill them so easily is "cool".

I keep dart frogs because I find them beautiful, fascinating and feel blessed in some way to be able to recreate a piece of an environment I am unlikely to ever be able to visit in my home. Not because I think the poison bit in their name is cool. Making them poisonous wont make them happier, wont make them healthier, wont make them any more beautiful or fascinating. It will just make them dangerous both to me and my family.

Ade


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

I know the poison seems to be less toxic in captivity, but are they still dangerous?


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> I know the poison seems to be less toxic in captivity, but are they still dangerous?


In a word; No. Wild-caught frogs lose it fairly quickly without the constant top-ups, while captive-bred don't develop it in the first place. It's an interesting contrast to fire-bellied toads, who seem to develop their toxins regardless of what they eat.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Ron Magpie said:


> In a word; No. Wild-caught frogs lose it fairly quickly without the constant top-ups, while captive-bred don't develop it in the first place. It's an interesting contrast to fire-bellied toads, who seem to develop their toxins regardless of what they eat.


Yeah so in theory then, the worlds most poisonous animals become less toxic than a fire bellied toad once in captivity! 

I keep two fire bellys which i've been advised to clean out regulary incase of toxic build up


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

WC dart frogs can keep there poison for up to 5 years! They mostly eat ants in the rainforest. Mantelas get the poison mostly from tiny millipedes which themselves are toxic.


----------



## kevhutch (Feb 18, 2010)

FrogNick said:


> WC dart frogs can keep there poison for up to 5 years! They mostly eat ants in the rainforest. Mantelas get the poison mostly from tiny millipedes which themselves are toxic.


does this mean they can be fed ants in captivity


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2010)

I am impressed Ade, thanks for your answer. It wasnt that I was going to try it but that I have always been curious. If wc ones can keep there poison for up to 5 years out of captivity surely they should come with a DWA? Id rather chat about something i find interesting to do with frogs then what shall i put in this sized exo terra. Also if the poison remains for 5 years does this make them harmful to the cb ones that have never made the poison or do they all ready have a built up immunity even though they have never come into contact with it?


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

90% of the Dartfrogs in captivity are captive bred.Sometimes pumillio and tinctorious are available that are "captive farmed".Most keepers will quaranteen their new frogs for a number of months and then they probably will not introduce them to existing frogs anyway.
I dont think that the D.W.A. is an issue as people do not handle their frogs both for the frogs sake as well as the human.You could say all snakes need to be D.W.A.as recntly most species have been found to have venom glands but they are not harmful to humans.


----------



## sambridge15 (Nov 22, 2009)

indeed they lose there toxicity very quickly not 5 years!!!do you really think dartfrog could sell wc animals that could kill on touch?

also i think by no means under any circumstances should you attempt to retoxify some of the worlds most deadly animals there is plenty of research into how they produce there toxins .....the sillyness of this idea baffles me :lol2:


----------



## sambridge15 (Nov 22, 2009)

colinm said:


> 90% of the Dartfrogs in captivity are captive bred.Sometimes pumillio and tinctorious are available that are "captive farmed".Most keepers will quaranteen their new frogs for a number of months and then they probably will not introduce them to existing frogs anyway.
> I dont think that the D.W.A. is an issue as people do not handle their frogs both for the frogs sake as well as the human.You could say all snakes need to be D.W.A.as recntly most species have been found to have venom glands but they are not harmful to humans.


i dont think any dwa handlers handle there animals so dartfrogs if they did maintain there toxcity for a number of years would undoubtedly require a licence or more that likely be illegal due to the potential illegal uses eg murder wouldnt take much to poke somebody with a stick that had been dabled onto a terrebilis:lol2:


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

sambridge15 said:


> indeed they lose there toxicity very quickly not 5 years!!!do you really think dartfrog could sell wc animals that could kill on touch?
> 
> also i think by no means under any circumstances should you attempt to retoxify some of the worlds most deadly animals there is plenty of research into how they produce there toxins .....the sillyness of this idea baffles me :lol2:


Terribils can produce toxins for up to 5 years from WC this has been tested in Aquarium in Baltimore where they get a variety of WC frogs for research!

nearly all of DF's dendrobates are CB so that not a issue!

Kill on touch? Really? only 3 frogs are deadly to us and those you can't get WC as Colombia doesn't allow you to legally export them...


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

kevhutch said:


> does this mean they can be fed ants in captivity


they don't seem to like our native ants, just spit them out.


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

kevhutch said:


> does this mean they can be fed ants in captivity


Hell no.

They may eat them, but the last thing you want is ants in your viv.


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

FrogNick said:


> Terribils can produce toxins for up to 5 years from WC this has been tested in Aquarium in Baltimore where they get a variety of WC frogs for research!
> 
> nearly all of DF's dendrobates are CB so that not a issue!
> 
> Kill on touch? Really? only 3 frogs are deadly to us and those you can't get WC as Colombia doesn't allow you to legally export them...


Yeah I read this aswell.

What are the three. P Bicolor, terribilis and another phyllobates?

I wouldn't recommend going around licking CB dart frogs though, or any frog.


----------



## radicaldave (Sep 25, 2009)

:2thumb: thats definatly one for the signature...


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

Ha thanks.


----------



## REDDEV1L (Nov 27, 2008)

FrogNick said:


> they don't seem to like our native ants, just spit them out.


Our native ants must be awful because not even our native phibs will eat them up here !! Tried it as an alternative foodsource when I was raising my bufo bufo but they weren't interested.
Eventhough according to books, ants made up 45% of the diet of the toads they tested.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Fresh ant eggs are good for lizards though.


----------



## kevhutch (Feb 18, 2010)

FrogNick said:


> they don't seem to like our native ants, just spit them out.


maybe because of size? mine do that to crickets and bean weevils that i think are too big


----------



## kevhutch (Feb 18, 2010)

colinm said:


> Fresh ant eggs are good for lizards though.


any ant eggs, red or brown from this country?


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

kevhutch said:


> maybe because of size? mine do that to crickets and bean weevils that i think are too big



It's not size it's mostly there acid they produce.


----------



## richie.b (Oct 27, 2008)

sambridge15 said:


> indeed they lose there toxicity very quickly not 5 years!!!do you really think dartfrog could sell wc animals that could kill on touch?
> 
> also i think by no means under any circumstances should you attempt to retoxify some of the worlds most deadly animals there is plenty of research into how they produce there toxins .....the sillyness of this idea baffles me :lol2:


never mind touch terribilis in the wild only got to look at you and thats your arse :whistling2:
seriously though Nicks right in studies its shown it can take up to eight years for terribilis to lose there poison in captivity, but your not likely to get wc terribilis anyway. You can however buy cf imported tincs that are used to bring new bloodlines into the hobby, and in my understanding these are pretty much the same as wc only bred especially for the hobby :gasp:


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

richie.b said:


> never mind touch terribilis in the wild only got to look at you and thats your arse :whistling2:
> seriously though Nicks right in studies its shown it can take up to eight years for terribilis to lose there poison in captivity, but your not likely to get wc terribilis anyway. You can however buy cf imported tincs that are used to bring new bloodlines into the hobby, and in my understanding these are pretty much the same as wc only bred especially for the hobby :gasp:


You can get WC auratus, at least you can in the states.

Apparently the WC tincs are huge.


----------



## chulainn (Nov 29, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I am impressed Ade, thanks for your answer. It wasnt that I was going to try it but that I have always been curious. If wc ones can keep there poison for up to 5 years out of captivity surely they should come with a DWA? Id rather chat about something i find interesting to do with frogs then what shall i put in this sized exo terra. Also if the poison remains for 5 years does this make them harmful to the cb ones that have never made the poison or do they all ready have a built up immunity even though they have never come into contact with it?


no this is not the case dwa is mainly for animals in my understanding that could be dangerous to humans eg bite from rattle snake but hing like blue ringed octoupus are not on dwa as they are nota threat nor are many sharks as the can not get out th only way these could kill you is if you lick you fingers or they escape in ethier case you should be shot plus if they ecasped they would need to roll in you food yum azzures on toast :mf_dribble:


----------



## chulainn (Nov 29, 2009)

mind you it would be a bit expensive toast haha


----------



## richie.b (Oct 27, 2008)

Morgan Freeman said:


> You can get WC auratus, at least you can in the states.
> 
> Apparently the WC tincs are huge.


yer they are saw them at one of my suppliers last year all fully grown and all starting at 150 euros, in fact was offered a load last month but turned them down not many people in this country wants to pay that money for tincs when they can get them from £25 for cb ones


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

richie.b said:


> yer they are saw them at one of my suppliers last year all fully grown and all starting at 150 euros, in fact was offered a load last month but turned them down not many people in this country wants to pay that money for tincs when they can get them from £25 for cb ones


Do you get offers frequently?

Oh and, can you still get those misting pumps?


----------



## skyrat (Feb 20, 2010)

I think the last "dangerous" species is P. aurotaenia, I rememebr reading there was talk of including them on a ban of dangerous wildlife in canada. They were being including with stuff like alligators and 20ft pythons :whistling2:

Personally i dont think you'd manage to recreate a darts diet enough for poison transfers and if you did how would you test it? :crazy:

I've had occasion to handle terriblis for medications in the past and i'm still here to tell the tale, darts are normally such a hands off pet it wouldnt bother me if they were toxic, it wouldnt make much difference to the day to day care.

lee


----------



## richie.b (Oct 27, 2008)

Morgan Freeman said:


> Do you get offers frequently?
> 
> Oh and, can you still get those misting pumps?


 
i can get the tincs most of the year but it would either be when i go to hamm or would have to go to holland to get them

i can still do the basic misting system with pump and holder and 4m of 4mm tube, 1mt of inlet tube 1 tee and 2 misting heads for £75 if thats what you mean
and stop hijacking this thread :whistling2:


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

richie.b said:


> i can get the tincs most of the year but it would either be when i go to hamm or would have to go to holland to get them
> 
> i can still do the basic misting system with pump and holder and 4m of 4mm tube, 1mt of inlet tube 1 tee and 2 misting heads for £75 if thats what you mean
> and stop hijacking this thread :whistling2:


You hijacked by replying, although I guess I'm older and should know better! : victory:


----------



## bronz (Feb 1, 2008)

Yeah it's the aurotaenia that are the third dangerous species. I think it was a the Baltimore Aquarium that they had a problem once with wc animals regaining their toxicity from their diet, turned out to be because the plants in the enclosure were also imported from the wild and had some of the relevant bugs along with them. I've handled cb terribilis and failed to keel over.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

But you do get a slight tingling and I wouldnt rub your eyes. :blush:


----------



## Ben W (Nov 18, 2008)

Batrachotoxin is the steriodal toxin produced by the phyllobates genus, and comes in 3 forms, all produced by the frog through is diet.
In the case of the kokoe (aurotaenia) its produces about 0.2mg poison, enough to kill roughly 1000 mice, terribilis on the other hand can produce 500mg, or enough to kill 9 adults or 3 African bull elephants.

The poison is 5000 times more potent than cyanide, and works by blocking sodium docks on the nerve endings causing them to remain constantly contracted, resulting in death, it wont transfer through skin unless its broken.


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

Ben W said:


> Batrachotoxin is the steriodal toxin produced by the phyllobates genus, and comes in 3 forms, all produced by the frog through is diet.
> In the case of the kokoe (aurotaenia) its produces about 0.2mg poison, enough to kill roughly 1000 mice, terribilis on the other hand can produce 500mg, or enough to kill 9 adults or 3 African bull elephants.
> 
> The poison is 5000 times more potent than cyanide, and works by blocking sodium docks on the nerve endings causing them to remain constantly contracted, resulting in death, it wont transfer through skin unless its broken.


A bit of a badass then.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2010)

That is pretty amazing, something so little needing such a potent toxin.


----------



## Wolfenrook (Jul 2, 2010)

The age old case of hit em hard enough and others learn from the mistakes made, hence the effectiveness of their bright warning coloration, and so many other animals imitating it despite not been toxic, or less toxic.

What would put you off more, a slap or a punch in the face? 

Oh and Bobby, for the record I didn't mean to dig at you, I was trying to enter into the spirit of the debate.  I doubt if you even are pro, more likely you just wanted to stimulate some good conversation, as you have said. I too get utterly bored of "what can I put in my tiny glass box" and "what supplements do you use?" threads. lol

Ade

Ade


----------



## sambridge15 (Nov 22, 2009)

wow that is intresting im amzed they can hold there toxcity for so long! i really want to get some terreblis next just for the sake of having one if not the most deadly animal on the planet:lol2: !ill just have to be sure it cb or at least 9:lol2:


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

I'm not totally convinced about the five and eight year periods. Did the research say what level of toxicity was left after certain times? I rather doubt the frogs were super-toxic for exactly five years then suddenly lost it.


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

Ron Magpie said:


> I'm not totally convinced about the five and eight year periods. Did the research say what level of toxicity was left after certain times? I rather doubt the frogs were super-toxic for exactly five years then suddenly lost it.



no of course not, even in the rainforest the Indian who use the frogs for hunting say that the frogs aren't as potent as they used to be, probably due to the lack of biodiversity in there diet due to deforestation.

Also bear in mind there poison last about a year on there darts so you can understand why it takes so long for the frog to lose it all.


----------



## yasminnnn (Mar 20, 2010)

very interesting thread. :grin1:


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

FrogNick said:


> no of course not, even in the rainforest the Indian who use the frogs for hunting say that the frogs aren't as potent as they used to be, probably due to the lack of biodiversity in there diet due to deforestation.
> 
> *Also bear in mind there poison last about a year on there darts so you can understand why it takes so long for the frog to lose it all.*


So, we are talking about the dried, prepared residue, rather than the toxin actually present in the living frogs? Not being snarky, mate, just trying for clarification.


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

Ron Magpie said:


> So, we are talking about the dried, prepared residue, rather than the toxin actually present in the living frogs? Not being snarky, mate, just trying for clarification.


I don't think so I just think its takes a long time to complete remove it from there system, I don't really have enough information to tell you exactly if that's the case. But what i can say is that in captivity there are very prone to skin infection as in the wild there poison covers there whole skin which protects them from any infections, hence why I wouldn't recommend them as beginner frogs.


----------



## Wolfenrook (Jul 2, 2010)

FrogNick said:


> I don't think so I just think its takes a long time to complete remove it from there system, I don't really have enough information to tell you exactly if that's the case. But what i can say is that in captivity there are very prone to skin infection as in the wild there poison covers there whole skin which protects them from any infections, hence why I wouldn't recommend them as beginner frogs.


You're the only one who wouldn't then Nick, as every site you go on to terriblis are recommended as ideal frogs for beginners. Or are you referring to another member of the 3 here? It's very hard to tell.


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

Wolfenrook said:


> You're the only one who wouldn't then Nick, as every site you go on to terriblis are recommended as ideal frogs for beginners. Or are you referring to another member of the 3 here? It's very hard to tell.



No just generally speaking they are very prone to skin infection that's the only reason apart from that they are easy to keep. I know of at least 2 other people plus my myself that have had problems with there skin. Just because they are big and eat most things doesn't justify there are good for beginners you need to take account of other factors as well.

Unfortunately you see allot of people getting into the hobby spend allot of money on some of the more expensive frogs and if they die it puts people off the whole thing which is a shame.


----------



## soundstounite (Sep 6, 2009)

Real interesting debate this, I have also read what Nick is referring too,Greg and Amanda Silher(hope I have got their names right) refer to this in their book,and I think I'm right in saying(sorry been looking everywhere for said book but can't put me hand on it), that they have had more problems with terribilis than any other frogs and he sights the lack of toxin as a possible reason for this.I wonder if terribilis are quoted as easy because they can eat such a variety of prey,wish I could back this up with other than reading


----------



## Wolfenrook (Jul 2, 2010)

Fair enough Nick. Just a lot of myths start like that, and from my understanding the trick with terribs is just not to keep them in soggy conditions, which isn't really difficult. Heck you read enough posts from people who's frogs develop sores from been kept to wet, as some folks seem to confuse wetness for high humidity. I don't keep them though, I just don't find them that attractive.

But then I actually consider many darts to be good beginner frogs full stop. I feel that there are a heck of a lot of myths out there, generated by people who want the dart frog hobby to be an elitist one. You get that in a lot of hobbies though.

Ade


----------



## FrogNick (Jul 2, 2009)

Wolfenrook said:


> Fair enough Nick. Just a lot of myths start like that, and from my understanding the trick with terribs is just not to keep them in soggy conditions, which isn't really difficult. Heck you read enough posts from people who's frogs develop sores from been kept to wet, as some folks seem to confuse wetness for high humidity. I don't keep them though, I just don't find them that attractive.
> 
> But then I actually consider many darts to be good beginner frogs full stop. I feel that there are a heck of a lot of myths out there, generated by people who want the dart frog hobby to be an elitist one. You get that in a lot of hobbies though.
> 
> Ade


well I wouldn't want my first hand experience to start any myths! I said enough on the topic now anyway.


----------



## richie.b (Oct 27, 2008)

FrogNick said:


> well I wouldn't want my first hand experience to start any myths! I said enough on the topic now anyway.


Exactly Nick first hand experience not read in a book or on google, besides its well known about the skin problems terribilis get, or so i thought :whistling2:


----------



## Wolfenrook (Jul 2, 2010)

Funny thing with first hand experience. There are people with first hand experience of mealworms eating their way out of herps, dart frogs deliberately drowning themselves...

Sorry, this is the internet, lots of people talk rubbish on it. Sorry if you dislike folks questioning your first hand experience, I am sure you would much rather they just did as you tell them, unquestioning, like mindless zombies, because you are such a guru.....

As to your books comment richie, try that one at a University, and enjoy your failure. Books are an established source of information, as are research papers by those with the correct qualifications etc. What some guy said on the internet is called anecdotal evidence.

If you want yes men, look elsewhere, I question things. Ok you say you had first hand experience, and richie you say it's a well known problem, so post your sources, as so far all you have posted is much the same as "everybody knows" or "people say...". Who is everybody? What people?

Regards


----------



## richie.b (Oct 27, 2008)

Wolfenrook said:


> Funny thing with first hand experience. There are people with first hand experience of mealworms eating their way out of herps, dart frogs deliberately drowning themselves...
> 
> Sorry, this is the internet, lots of people talk rubbish on it. Sorry if you dislike folks questioning your first hand experience, I am sure you would much rather they just did as you tell them, unquestioning, like mindless zombies, because you are such a guru.....
> 
> ...


theres nothing wrong with questioning people thats how we all learn, but theres a difference between questioning people and pretty much telling them theyre talking crap which is how you come across at times not just on this forum either, dont know whether you mean it or thats how you are, like you say people talk rubbish on the internet but you choose what to listen to
Let me give you an example if i wanted to know about shrimps ide ask you because of your experience, frogs no i wouldnt because you havent had the experience yet. As for books of course theyre a good source of information that and first hand experience is all i had for over 30 years untill i got a pc, but at the end of the day a book is written by someone with there experience which could be different to the next mans experience a bit like on here really, so its up to you to decide who you listen to
as for the terribilis skin problems this is something i learnt years ago from people in the dartfrog world, but im sure if you read a book or google it youll find your answer


----------



## Wolfenrook (Jul 2, 2010)

Sorry richie, but that is rubbish. I didn't even outright challenge here, I just asked a question, pointing out that care sheets etc all suggest terriblis as ideal beginner darts, which contradicted Nicks statement that they aren't a beginner frog. I didn't even say I disagreed, I just asked for clarification and evidence for this, given the huge number of myths that circulate the internet. As to your dig, the few times I can thing of where I outright challenged, well one of them was actually a discussion about tree frogs where a self styled dart expert told me that parasites hadn't killed it, despite the fact that I had seen it happen with my own eyes.. So you defending this guy and suggesting I was out of order, despite your support of 'first hand experience' here? I am even willing to accept that some folks have had problems with terriblis having skin problems, however I would also point to the 100s of people who haven't, and suggest that it's not as simple a matter as saying it's because they aren't coated in the poison they would be in the wild, and far more likely a combination of factors working together. ALL that I questioned was the assertion that they weren't a good frog for beginners, and guess what every website I have ever been on says they are, that's not me stating I know this, it's me saying that those with a lot more experience than myself say they are.

If you don't like my manner, that's your problem, not mine. Believe me, when I tell somebody they are talking rubbish I tell them just that. Heck I wasn't even questioning your opinion here, but a totally different person, but heh nice of you to jump on your trusty steed and ride in to defend your friend...

Please understand, it's not that I am saying you are not telling the truth about having 30 years of experience with these frogs, I am just saying that you could just as easily be some 12 year old kid with zero experience and a big ego. Hence I question, and yes learn. I am not even sure why you brought up the fact that I am new to keeping darts, heck I regularly state this myself. I never claimed to be an expert, I just find it irritating when others do, it's all too easy to just say "in my experience" rather than "this is a fact, and everybody should believe it".

Oh and by the way, I did google it, all I found were posts by a few folks who's frogs had developed skin problems, I found no research to say that it was a proven species specific problem, or even that it was linked to the lack of toxins on the skin. I can find just as many posts about tincs, tree frogs etc etc having skin problems.

I'm done arguing this with you, I asked my questions, and didn't really get decent answers (just more "people" and "everybody"), so there is little point in continuing a discussion that is off at a tangent to the topic anyway. Especially as I'm not even particularly interested in terriblis.

Incidentally when I entered the shrimp hobby I experienced just as much elitism and mythos, it was really holding back the growth of the hobby here in the UK as it was putting new keepers off. I fought against it in that hobby as well, and now shrimp keeping in the UK has really bloomed, benefiting everybody, more experienced keepers and newbies alike. I am NOT telling you you are talking rubbish, but what I am telling you is that you seem to be rather an elitist. Not something that is going to help the hobby that you, and yes I, love so much.

Regards


----------



## richie.b (Oct 27, 2008)

Wolfenrook said:


> Sorry richie, but that is rubbish. I didn't even outright challenge here, I just asked a question, pointing out that care sheets etc all suggest terriblis as ideal beginner darts, which contradicted Nicks statement that they aren't a beginner frog. I didn't even say I disagreed, I just asked for clarification and evidence for this, given the huge number of myths that circulate the internet. As to your dig, the few times I can thing of where I outright challenged, well one of them was actually a discussion about tree frogs where a self styled dart expert told me that parasites hadn't killed it, despite the fact that I had seen it happen with my own eyes.. So you defending this guy and suggesting I was out of order, despite your support of 'first hand experience' here? I am even willing to accept that some folks have had problems with terriblis having skin problems, however I would also point to the 100s of people who haven't, and suggest that it's not as simple a matter as saying it's because they aren't coated in the poison they would be in the wild, and far more likely a combination of factors working together. ALL that I questioned was the assertion that they weren't a good frog for beginners, and guess what every website I have ever been on says they are, that's not me stating I know this, it's me saying that those with a lot more experience than myself say they are.
> 
> If you don't like my manner, that's your problem, not mine. Believe me, when I tell somebody they are talking rubbish I tell them just that. Heck I wasn't even questioning your opinion here, but a totally different person, but heh nice of you to jump on your trusty steed and ride in to defend your friend...
> 
> ...


for a start i didnt know we were argueing, another thing i cant recall saying terribilis dont make good first time darts, if anything with the fact they eat larger food items that makes them easier in some respect what i was saying is that theyre known for there skin problems. this doesnt mean to say i think any dartfrog is a good first frog for inexperienced ambhibian keepers. Also this is not about me standing up for a mate i think hes quite capable of doing that himself. 
your right i could be 12 with zero experience and just read a few books or i could be in my 20s with zero experience and read a few books and have a big ego, works both ways.Difference is i know i only know fraction of whats to learn and im still willing to take advise off people that have experience so i dont really think its me thats an elitist i think that fits you more.
and by the way an auratus is not a treefrog but then you know that


----------



## richie.b (Oct 27, 2008)

here you go found this in poison dart frogs by amanda and greg sihler page 122 it reads
p.terribilis is considered the true poison dartfrog it is reportedly used by native indian populations in creation of deadly darts. in captiverty they are stripped of its deadly armor and can become a frog who is easily susceptible to skin infections because of this. it also goes onto say about that in the wild they use there skin as a secondry immune system and also that as they eat there skin it could be effectve in purging the frogs of any internal parasites. theres more but i think you get the point.
now i dont expect you to believe this or really care to be honest but then why wouldnt you after all theve been using books in universities for ever, you asked for proof and not just 'peoples' say so now youve got both
But at the end of the day im still going to take advice off people that have had first hand experience and been in the hobby for years rather than someone whos read a few books and kept darts for 3 weeks, which is pretty much the point i was making in the first place


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

richie.b said:


> here you go found this in poison dart frogs by amanda and greg sihler page 122 it reads
> p.terribilis is considered the true poison dartfrog it is reportedly used by native indian populations in creation of deadly darts. in captiverty they are stripped of its deadly armor and can become a frog who is easily susceptible to skin infections because of this. it also goes onto say about that in the wild they use there skin as a secondry immune system and also that as they eat there skin it could be effectve in purging the frogs of any internal parasites. theres more but i think you get the point.
> now i dont expect you to believe this or really care to be honest but then why wouldnt you after all theve been using books in universities for ever, you asked for proof and not just 'peoples' say so now youve got both
> But at the end of the day im still going to take advice off people that have had first hand experience and been in the hobby for years rather than someone whos read a few books and kept darts for 3 weeks, which is pretty much the point i was making in the first place


I have this book and read the same thing, not that it adds anything to the debate, but there ya go! *goes back to read rest of thread*


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

Oh, Ade, have you ever thought of joining the Diplomatic Corps? If Wikileaks is anything to go by, you'd be a gold-plated natural!:lol2::lol2:

Joking aside, there are points to all sides of the 'debate'; lot's of (sometimes very respected) books still base some of their material on the equivalent of 'this bloke told me this dahn the pub, so it must be true!'- just like web-posters do. And even personal experience can vary; as I've said oodles of times on here, in all my years of herp keeping, I've never come across a real problem I can genuinely attribute to impaction, but one of the Shelled guys (Graham or Stephen, can't remember which) posted an x-ray illustrating this very thing dramatically in a turtle.

My fave book example is from a lovely book on tropical frogs, translated from the German, and (mostly) full of very useful hands-on tips, where the author warns about the dangers of wax moths escaping and 'getting into your woolens'!:lol2: He manages to completely miss the *real* danger, in that they are a devastating pest of bee-hives. Ho, hum...:whistling2:


----------



## skyrat (Feb 20, 2010)

On the subject of books getting it wrong my best example is a book my dad gave me last year on frog care in general, which must date back to the early days of dart keeping as it stated darts must be fed every day. 
It gave the only option for dart keepers was to make day trips and dash back to feed their frogs before they starved to death! I had to laugh, as at that point i had been away for 3 days :gasp: luckily the book was wrong.

I keep terriblis and i must say i will agree with nick as i certainly wouldnt consider them as good a beginer frog as say leucs or a tinc pair. Most new frog keepers will mist the hell out of their tank everyday i know i did with my leucs and that will bring on the skin problems. i've found with terriblis that the tendancy to go for bigger prey isnt much of a advantage as its out weighed for me at least by a a refusal to go for smaller prey and as the only bigger prey is mostly crickets which i wont feed. Feeding a varied diet turns out to be more of a headache strangely.

I hear people talk about the elitism of the dart hobby now and again and for me thats the biggest myth of dart keeping, I've met an awful lot of dart keepers over the last 3/4 years and without exception they've all been really good guys, all willing to have a good frog chat and share tips prehaps that just doesnt come across on the internet as much.
That said i do think theres fine line between the myth of darts being very hard and people not doing even basic research which leads to people not bothering to answer silly questions which are asked constantly and may lead to the impression of aloofness in the hobby for examples of that see dendroboard some of the stuff asked on there is just crazy.

cheers
lee


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

skyrat said:


> On the subject of books getting it wrong my best example is a book my dad gave me last year on frog care in general, which must date back to the early days of dart keeping as it stated darts must be fed every day.
> It gave the only option for dart keepers was to make day trips and dash back to feed their frogs before they starved to death! I had to laugh, as at that point i had been away for 3 days :gasp: luckily the book was wrong.
> 
> I keep terriblis and i must say i will agree with nick as i certainly wouldnt consider them as good a beginer frog as say leucs or a tinc pair. Most new frog keepers will mist the hell out of their tank everyday i know i did with my leucs and that will bring on the skin problems. i've found with terriblis that the tendancy to go for bigger prey isnt much of a advantage as its out weighed for me at least by a a refusal to go for smaller prey and as the only bigger prey is mostly crickets which i wont feed. Feeding a varied diet turns out to be more of a headache strangely.
> ...


To be honest, that could be said about the whole 'phib hobby, not just the 'Klameron' snotty dart frog peeps lol2; But it can get a bit tedious answering the same questions over and over again ('what is a good beginner frog'- 'look at the stickie above'. Can FBTs be kept with everything' - 'look at the thread above' 'My frog hasn't eaten for two whole seconds' - 'look at the thread above' 
Before this enormous wealth of information we did all have to learn the hard way- when 'I was a lad' the hard way was hard-learnt experience, or even *thinking*...:gasp: Nowadays people could even try googling for an aswer, so really silly questions can be hard to take seriously.
Grumpy old Rant over...:lol2:


----------



## REDDEV1L (Nov 27, 2008)

I don't think there's ever a right answer to most things in this hobby, Everything is someone elses opinion or down to their own personal experiences. What might work for one person may not for another and bear in mind each amphibian is different. 
Going off T.Beebee's Frogs and Toads book, when juvi my bufo's should've devoured ants as ants were found to make up 70% of toads diet when they checked stomach contents, and yet mine didn't want to know at all!!
One thing I've seen mentioned time and time again is the size of food items...No bigger than the space between the eyes. I've never taken much notice of this rule, and have fed full size roaches and adult locusts to my 3.5" cane, generally feed my bufo bufo and house rana adult black crickets and my b.reg eats locusts 3/4 its own bodylength without a problem. And yet they've never once had any problems with impaction or any trouble passing stool. (Touch Wood)


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

REDDEV1L said:


> I don't think there's ever a right answer to most things in this hobby, Everything is someone elses opinion or down to their own personal experiences. What might work for one person may not for another and bear in mind each amphibian is different.
> Going off T.Beebee's Frogs and Toads book, when juvi my bufo's should've devoured ants as ants were found to make up 70% of toads diet when they checked stomach contents, and yet mine didn't want to know at all!!
> One thing I've seen mentioned time and time again is the size of food items...No bigger than the space between the eyes. I've never taken much notice of this rule, and have fed full size roaches and adult locusts to my 3.5" cane, generally feed my bufo bufo and house rana adult black crickets and my b.reg eats locusts 3/4 its own bodylength without a problem. And yet they've never once had any problems with impaction or any trouble passing stool. (Touch Wood)


Now you're just being reasonable to make me look bad!:lol2:
What can I say? it's been a long day- 5am start, need more sleep...

As I said somewhere (Here? Too tired to check!) written, net and book advice is going to vary alot- based on heresay, plagiasm, personal experience, etcetc- all we can all do is try to provide the best for our animals, based on available information and our own common sense.


----------



## soundstounite (Sep 6, 2009)

RON,
5AM start 11.53...still helping us........ totally:notworthy:....oh and a house of commons "here here" to your last post.
oh and for the heathen wannabe dartkeeper(oi me!!!) what does "KlammeRON" mean? It just can't be a cross betwixt you and David, confused I am


----------



## berksmike (Jan 2, 2008)

Theres a great range of toxins that "dartfrogs" produce. Most of these are alkaloids and around 24 different structural classes of alkaloid toxins have been isolated from species of dartfrogs comprising over 800 individual alkaloid toxins predominantly histrionicotoxins, pumiliotoxins, allopumiliotoxins decahydroquinolones and izidine alkaloids.
The most potent toxin is batrachotoxin which is a cardiotoxic and neurotoxic steroidal and works as has been said works by irreversibly opening voltage-gated sodium channels. Some of these alkaloids such as histionicotoxins are much less potent but still act as a deterrant to predators as they are unpleasant and have effects on mouth tissue.
What characterises dart frogs is they sequester their toxins from their food and whilst ants do provide some of it other sources have been identified in oribatid mites (in which 11 of the 24 identified alkaloid toxin classes have been identified), melyrid and coccinellid beetles and siphonotid millipedes.
Not all ants have these toxins and so you would need to feed the specific ant species for the frogs to sequester the toxin.
Interestingly in some studies they have restored toxicity to captive dartfrogs by feeding fruit flies dusted with alkaloids.


----------



## sambridge15 (Nov 22, 2009)

well this has got a bit lizard sectionesque for my liking.....we are supposed to tut and shake our heads when we disagree in the phib section common now guys :lol2:

but i do disagree(tuts and shakes head) darts are not really good beginner frogs just because you need to breed your own foods a difficult task for any1 who has never kept a herp before maintain a planted tank keep humidity high watch for stress all things a begginer would struggle with ,though id hardly call them difficult to keep id say there very easy if you have the knowledge 

experience is vital to there successful keeping and this easily rules them out as being a good beginner species .....although they where my first frog:lol2: i did read up on dendroworld, dendroboard and here and had kept geckos before hand: victory:


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

You can always practise the fruit flies and get the tank sorted before you buy. Like, ya know...for 18 months or something :whistling2:


----------



## sambridge15 (Nov 22, 2009)

Morgan Freeman said:


> You can always practise the fruit flies and get the tank sorted before you buy. Like, ya know...for 18 months or something :whistling2:


yea but who would do that?:lol2:


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

Who knows.


----------



## manda88 (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm going to ask this in here cos I can't be bothered to make a new thread, but carrying on with the misting and skin infection conversation, how often should a tank be misted? Both our leuc and fantastica tanks are at a constant humidity of 80% plus, and we've been spraying at least once a day to keep the moss and plants going, do we need to be spraying that much?


----------



## Morgan Freeman (Jan 14, 2009)

manda88 said:


> I'm going to ask this in here cos I can't be bothered to make a new thread, but carrying on with the misting and skin infection conversation, how often should a tank be misted? Both our leuc and fantastica tanks are at a constant humidity of 80% plus, and we've been spraying at least once a day to keep the moss and plants going, do we need to be spraying that much?


The conversation was mainly related to Terribilis, who, down to their high toxicity in the wild seem to be more prone to skin infections in captivity. In the wild the toxins would take care of the infections, but they don't have this luxury in capitivity. Other frogs would be less likely to suffer as it's not the high toxicity of their skin that generally prevents skin infections, perhaps it's something else.

That's my take on the matter anyway.


----------



## soundstounite (Sep 6, 2009)

Morgan Freeman said:


> You can always practise the fruit flies and get the tank sorted before you buy. Like, ya know...for 18 months or something :whistling2:


:lol2::lol2::lol2: B:censor: and still got the tears in me eyes,and am still paranoid that we wont do right by em...absolutely cracking mate...THANKYOU,ahh man CRACKING!!!!


----------



## soundstounite (Sep 6, 2009)

berksmike said:


> Theres a great range of toxins that "dartfrogs" produce. Most of these are alkaloids and around 24 different structural classes of alkaloid toxins have been isolated from species of dartfrogs comprising over 800 individual alkaloid toxins predominantly histrionicotoxins, pumiliotoxins, allopumiliotoxins decahydroquinolones and izidine alkaloids.
> The most potent toxin is batrachotoxin which is a cardiotoxic and neurotoxic steroidal and works as has been said works by irreversibly opening voltage-gated sodium channels. Some of these alkaloids such as histionicotoxins are much less potent but still act as a deterrant to predators as they are unpleasant and have effects on mouth tissue.
> What characterises dart frogs is they sequester their toxins from their food and whilst ants do provide some of it other sources have been identified in oribatid mites (in which 11 of the 24 identified alkaloid toxin classes have been identified), melyrid and coccinellid beetles and siphonotid millipedes.
> Not all ants have these toxins and so you would need to feed the specific ant species for the frogs to sequester the toxin.
> Interestingly in some studies they have restored toxicity to captive dartfrogs by feeding fruit flies dusted with alkaloids.


 Mike wonderfull info,thanks dude,just as a Q where did ya find that?


----------



## soundstounite (Sep 6, 2009)

sambridge15 said:


> yea but who would do that?:lol2:


:Na_Na_Na_Na::Na_Na_Na_Na:Somebody thats completely mad i fear: victory:


----------



## berksmike (Jan 2, 2008)

soundstounite said:


> Mike wonderfull info,thanks dude,just as a Q where did ya find that?


Cheers mate
Had some papers from a few years back I used for some toxicology teaching and have just kept up with them since.
Can post some article links if I can find them


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

I'm giving my cane toad vanilla suplements, so when I lick him, he tastes of custard...


----------



## soundstounite (Sep 6, 2009)

Hmmm thats nice Ron does that mean as you start to feel a trifle :lol2:strange,PS not mine he he. 
Hear ya go then some dart frog poison madness.......Tincs are apparently used be the Wai -Wai tribe of Suriname to improve the scenting ability of their dogs,they simply rub a live frog on the dogs nose.:whistling2:
The Campa of Amazonia Peru eat darts, inculding Ameegra petersonii,which is only weekly toxic...it is salted wrapped in a leaf and roasted:mf_dribble:
There are a couple of species of birds that contain dart type toxins... Ifrita kowaldi....Pitohui kirhocephalus
Batrotoxin is a steroidal akyloid...its chemical formula is C31H42N2O6
Pitohui kirhocephalus comes from New Guinea
Source for all of the above Lotters et al (Poison Frogs)
Mike..... yes If it is totally not to much trouble would love to read that


----------



## igmillichip (Feb 7, 2010)

This started as an interesting read with an interesting question, but somewhere along the long thread it got a bit messy.

So, back to some of the first few pages of discussion...

It would not be 'scientific' for keepers to feed ants to see if one can reconstitute the toxins in PDFs unless the results can be judged scientifically ie having a MS or NMR etc etc.

And what would be the point?

Thousands of frogs have already been killed in the hunt for the in situ source of the toxins prior to someone having a brainwave of noticing that certain arthropds also contain identical alkaloids.

The information on exactly what is the source of all PDF toxins is not, however, found in books nor within the scientific literature.
There are lots of tentative links to arthropod food sources, but that does not mean that that cited arthropod is actually the source of a given alkaloid.

This subject is booming and expanding at an amazing rate. When I first started in this study, I could probably draw all known PDF alkaloids chemical structures off-by-heart (there were so few known)....but now I need a database to just keep up with the alkaloid classification !.

Just because a given alkaloid appears in a centipede does not mean it is the food source for a PDF. 

But there are still many interesting questions that off-the-cuff myths will simply smoother any further developments.

There are also the cases where the PDF can synthesise an alkaloid from a dietary source that is more toxic than the original dietary alkaloid.

What about non-alkaloid toxins eg tetrodotoxin seemingly produced by Vibrio. How does diet affect that production?
How does captive keeping or captive breeding affect that?

One of the key players in amphibian toxincology or toxicology has often admitted he was not quite right x-years ago on a number of occasions.
From what I can gather, he is still of a maturity (=an admirable scientist) to say that much is just unknown and lots is speculative.

Now....I also see some nuts stuff about snotty PDF keepers and experiencial this that and the other. 
What's that got to do with any good debate?

And.....I rather found the custard flavoured frog post to be a welcomed breath of fresh air here.  (mind you, I'm wonder which Vanilla was in mind.....hopefully not the literal translation)

ian


----------

