new fire bellied toads

[Natemass]

i just got 2 fire bellied toads 1 female 1 male. this is the first toads ive owned besides WC fowlers and american toads around my house.ill post some pics in my pic thread later but any tips on these guys?

thanks

Nate

 

[Arachnophilist]

well first the arent actually toads they are just called toads cause they are bumpy.(though I wouldnt be surprised if someone said otherwise) I have mine in a 10 gallon tank with a filter and about 6" of water. they are very chatty and seem quite pleased with the setup. I have a couple of rocks that serve as land spaces for them to rest out of water.. and I just drop the crickets in and watch em dive for them Im sure you could use a smaller tank if you wanted to.. I have also seen far less aquatic setups.. but mine seem happy so I am stickin with it.

 

[roach dude]

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=85189

link to a pic of my set up.

They seem happy, have changed through many setups, from rocks/water (50/50) And compostry stuff as subtrate find this moss setup the easyist though!

 

[Frogsarethapoop]

Yup they are toads.
I have found this useful several times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-bellied_toad

 

[skinheaddave]

well first the arent actually toads

Yup they are toads.

Next, we should decide whether Opistophthalmus whalbergi is a "Tri-coloured burrowing scorpion" or a "Yellow clawed creeping scorpion" or a "Bowler-hat wearing land crab." The truth is, the term "toad" is basically just a victim of the common name syndrome. It could have legitimate taxonomic backing if it were restricted to Bufonidae, but it is used for all sorts of things. As such, outside of that family, it may as well be interchangeable will frog.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Frogsarethapoop]

Well yes and no. Technically all toads are frogs, but only to an extent. They both comprise the Order Anura. But the terms frog and toad cannot properly be used interchangeably. Other than them both having 4 legs and both hopping, the main morphological difference is that toads have a parotid gland which exudes toxin when they are stressed. Frogs do not have a parotid gland. Toads have short stubby legs for "walking" whereas frogs generally have long legs for jumping or toe pads for climbing. Toads lay eggs in a long string whereas frogs lay eggs in clusters. Toads are usually warty while frogs are usually smooth. Toads are more adapted and usually found in dry environments where frogs are mostly found in wet environments. And there are skeletal differences between the two also, being that the chest cartilage of toads is quite different from that of frogs. Just like two different mice are not the same, and a coyote and a wolf are not the same, a frog and a toad are not the same. And anyone who has kept both frogs and toads can vouch for a great difference in their temperament. Toads are much more relaxed and "laid back" if you will, while frogs are basically schizos.

 

[skinheaddave]

You mentioned parotoid glands. Parotoid glands are only found in Bufonidae. Your fire belly "toad" doesn't have them. You mention long legs for jumping and aquatic habits. Where does that leave your fire belly "toad"? You mentioned chest cartiladge. Although there are anurans outside of Bufonidae that have toad-like skeletal structure, your fire belly "toad" is not one of them. If you want to make an argument that the term "toad" should be applied only to Bufonidae then that is fine and I can support you to some degree. I think it would be great if people would stop calling Phrynosoma spp. "toads." I think it would be great if people would stop calling a bunch of different carp and catfish "sharks."

But to make this argument a mere two days after you say .. and I quote:

Yup they are toads.

seems a bit inconsistent, don't you think? Make your choice. Chose to stick to a taxonomically valid argument or resign yourself to the fact that common names are loosey-goosey and as such both unassailable and undefensable.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Frogsarethapoop]

Hmm I thought firebellied toads had parotoid glands (I don't own any of these). Frog and a toad are not common names. An example of a common name would be firebellied toad or northern leopard frog or bearded dragon or northern scorpion or lake sturgeon. Frog and toad is like fruit and vegetable. Anyone who is anyone should know that there are exceptions to every rule, here being that firebelly toads prefer moist environments over dry environments, big deal. I could get into the classical argument with you which has been going on for decades amongst the scientic community (ie. people with pHD's) about "true toads" only being members of the Bufonidae(which actually has been changed to the genus Anaxyrus for North American "true toads") and "true frogs" only being members of the Ranidae(which has also recently been changed to the genus Lithobates for North American "true frogs"), but I won't. I do agree with you that it is accepted that all members of the "bufonidae" are know as the true toads. But being that Bombina species have warty skin compared to smooth skin they more, for lack of a better word, "better" fit in witht the definition of a toad than a frog. In the end it all depends on which herpetologist you talk to, they aren;t all in agreeance, and it isn't worth anyones time to argue over it in a forum as amateurs when even the professionals don't agree.

 

[skinheaddave]

Hmm I thought firebellied toads had parotoid glands (I don't own any of these).

They do not. Only members of Bufonidae do.

Frog and toad is like fruit and vegetable.

A tomato is a fruit that is called a vegetable. Whether you want to consider "terms outside of the scientific lexicon which are used in common parlance to indicate individuals of a certain group, whether taxonomically distinct or not" to be common names or not is your business. That is how I'm using it in this context.

about "true toads" only being members of the Bufonidae(which actually has been changed to the genus Anaxyrus for North American "true toads") and "true frogs" only being members of the Ranidae(which has also recently been changed to the genus Lithobates for North American "true frogs"), but I won't.

You're mixing up family and genera. You meant to say that Bufo has been changed to Anaxyrus and Rana to Lithobates. Since we were talking about distinctions at the family level and Ranidae and Bufonidae are still valid taxons, recent genus-level changes do not affect this debate.

But being that Bombina species have warty skin compared to smooth skin they more, for lack of a better word, "better" fit in witht the definition of a toad than a frog.

That's funny, because in this thread you call some Ceratophrys "horned frogs" despite their bumpy skin, short walking legs and terrestrial habits. If you're going to start lecturing me on taxonomy, you ought to at least be consistent based on your own criteria.

it isn't worth anyones time to argue over it in a forum as amateurs when even the professionals don't agree.

A few points here. First of all, it was you who started the argument by stating that they WERE toads. Secondly, I agree with you that it isn't worth the effort. Hence my saying:

It could have legitimate taxonomic backing if it were restricted to Bufonidae, but it is used for all sorts of things. As such, outside of that family, it may as well be interchangeable will frog.

In other words, if you want to call a baseball bat a "toad" you are more than welcome to, as long as it is clear to me what you are talking about. As I said before, as soon as you depart from established taxonomic grounds, you may as well make the terms interchangeable. I don't like it, but I'm not about to condone a debate based on your whimsical notions of what constitutes a frog and a toad.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Frogsarethapoop]

I have never called a tomato a vegetable. It is very much a fruit like is an apple. A horned frog is definately a frog and not a toad, and a firebelly toad is a toad. Just to keep it simple.

 

[nickbachman]

"Bowler-hat wearing land crab."

Cheers,
Dave

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[skinheaddave]

I have never called a tomato a vegetable. It is very much a fruit like is an apple. A horned frog is definately a frog and not a toad, and a firebelly toad is a toad. Just to keep it simple.

Okay. So it is simplicity you want. So is that the simplicity that comes with being accurate (tomato being a fruit, horned frog being a frog) or the simplicity that comes with following convention (firebelly toad being a toad .. but making a tomato a vegetable) or do you just arbitrarily decide what things are and then expect the world to follow along?

Incidentally, I decided to have a look at frog phylogeny again. It has been a good number of years since I had to deal with it in herpetology and I never followed up because I'm not that keen on amphibians in general. Anyhow, Bombinidae/Discoglosidae aren't even in the same superfamily as Bufonidae. Several types of Archaobatrachidae seem to be called "toads" at times, but then some of Bufonidae are called frogs. Regardless of disagreements between herpetologists, I doubt that any of them are going to argue a change in superfamily for a family based on skin wartiness. Thus, this looser definition of toad really has not taxanomic validity.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Frogsarethapoop]

Umm a tomato is a fruit no matter what you wish to say. Im not sure why you mentioned Discoglosidae, because Bombina species are no longer a part of that, and they haven't been for quite some time. Your right, a horned frog is a feline and not a frog at all.:?

 

[Arachnophilist]

Umm a tomato is a fruit no matter what you wish to say.

exactly.. much the same as a Bombina sp. is a frog no matter what you wish to say.. look back at what you said about frogs being jumpers and aquatic.. lol wanna see my firbelly tank? I dont think toads would like it anyways..I dont really need to get into it. I just think what you are saying is contradicting itself and you should read it over and think about it a little.This was a great read. Thanks Dave :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[skinheaddave]

Umm a tomato is a fruit no matter what you wish to say.

much the same as a Bombina sp. is a frog no matter what you wish to sy

Hey! Someone gets it. Absolutely amazing. :clap: :clap: :clap: Yes, a tomato is technically a fruit regardless of what else you say. A firebelly is technically a frog regardless of what else you say. So you can chose to be a stickler and correct those that call tomatoes vegetables (the majority, in this case) and firebellies taods or you can chose to let it slide, since where precision is needed it will generally be used -- in most cases by abandoning common parlance and relying on more definitive terminology. Those are your options.

Now Frogsarethapoop -- this is the key bit I want you to read really carefully a few times over:

What you cannot do without contradicting yourself is to state that a tomato is a vegetable and then if someone corrects you start listing off the properties of fruits and vegetables in order to defend your statement.

Your right, a horned frog is a feline and not a frog at all

When/if you get to post-secondary school (my apologies if I'm wrong on this count, but you do sound like you're still in high school) and start taking science courses, you may want to take a course in logic as well. They are offered by the philosophy department of most universities. What you have just done is created a strawman -- suggesting that I am saying that horned frogs are cats because that is an easy argument to win. Instead, what you should have done is focused on what I actually said and explained to me why Ceratophrys is exempt from your own personal toad/frog classification scheme?

Cheers,
Dave

 

[TNeal]

Interesting, a clash of two wannabe know it alls. LOL Just kidding folks.

I have kept fire belly toads for a long time. They were kept in a set up that is pretty much aquatic. They were maintained in a 125 gallon tank filled up normally. The toads (frogs) had the top of the water covered 1/2 with drift wood and wooden cutting boards. (Please don't tell my wife) One half of this tank was also covered by a thick layer of floating aquatic plants. The other half was open water.

This tank also contained tons of fish. The tank, as I said earlier, was filled full. The frogs (toads) loved it. They sang all of the time. They mated constantly. I never saw any eggs, but I am sure they were there, but the fish got to them before I could see them.

 

[Arachnophilist]

The toads (frogs) had the top of the water covered 1/2 with drift wood and wooden cutting boards. (Please don't tell my wife)

That is hilarious lol hahaha got any enclosure pics Nate? and how many frogs did you get?