Pacific Tree frogs laid eggs - now what??

I have long-term captive PTFs that are just dropped 2 small masses of eggs in a waterbowl. I am pretty sure there was fertilization and would like to try hatching these eggs but have no idea what to do..

How do I preserve the eggs? How do I hatch the eggs? and how long does it take eggs to hatch? Or should I just put the eggs in a separate container and let whatever happens, happens?

Breeding was not planned as these guys are not only native but parents are from different states...Male was caught in California - 8 YEARS AGO...While there will be legal issues with actual froglets, there is nothing prohibiting me from hatching them..and/or giving the egg mass to a science center for study.

On the upside..I must have done something right to get frogs happy enough to breed

Thanks in advance,

I won't address your main questions, particularly since those answers would be somewhat influenced by the actual ancestry of your tadpoles.

Regarding that ancestry, you almost certainly have hybrids, but of which two species is very much in question. Most of Oregon is inhabited by Pseudacris sierra, and P.regilla is only found in the northwestern coastal/cascades portions. The actual distribution and means of distinguishing them still needs work. California is inhabited by P.cadaverina, P.sierra, and P.curta. Each of these inhabits different climate regimes (P.curta, for instance, often inhabits desert oases; P.regilla only occurs in the strictest definition of "Pacific Northwest").

Interesting, it appears the "splitters" have been hard at work on poor 'ole "Hyla regilla", thanks for the taxonomic update frog eyes.

@ The OP, the eggs will hatch fully submerged, as opposed to advice i saw given to you on another forum. Do not keep them airborne, they are not dendrobatids. Good luck! JVK

jkooiman said:

as opposed to advice i saw given to you on another forum.

Click to expand...

The reason I post here! Frog folks are good but get things wrong sometimes... I've seen native phibby breeding sites...Frogs (and sallies) get out of the water long before the water disappears.

I am kind of excited about the eggs. first frog breeding ever... but may have to get permits to give away the froglets if I succeed.

Thanks

and thanks frogeyes for the lesson.. I had no idea about subspecies.

Billie

No problem. They're actually species, each being genetically and geographically distinct and rarely interbreeding with one another naturally. They were recognized about 50 years ago as subspecies, along with several others (two of which may be valid subspecies or species as well), and largely ignored thereafter due to the lack of reliable means to tell them apart. It was no surprise when recent genetic work confirmed that most of the named forms were actually distinct lineages, and that no less than three were separate species. You could be in luck - most of Oregon would be inhabited by P.sierra, as would at least part of northern California, in which case there's a good chance that all of your animals are P.sierra sierra. Further east, P.sierra palouse could be recognized, but the ranges of this group are so great that an awful lot of sampling will need to be done to properly identify and separate them all. In northwestern Oregon, however, true P.regilla occurs. The type locality is Fort Vancouver, which is walking distance from the Portland fairgrounds. I love chorus frogs, especially the regilla group. It's too bad they're not legal here

So how do I identify which is what? 2 of these frogs were caught in Multnomah county, mid oregon. 1 male was caught in southern oregon, and the old male I caught in southern california (Palms springs area) almost 10 years ago.. The breeding pair was a mid-oregon and the so cal ptf...

Are they species pattern markers or something that tells them apart? I did notice that my frogs were somewhat different then a group I just rehomed - caught in the Springfield area. Skin was smoother, the typical markings were spots not squares and the black nose line was more pronounced then my guys. And then there was the calls...much louder and clearer compared to the backtalk from the cali frog...

Is there a photo guide to these species available on the internet? I live in southern oregon, southeastern Oregon to be exact. The habitat is high desert. Plant shipments I receive from the Willamette Valley are often filled with frogs, which escape from our nursery and undoubtedly interbreed with the "natives" as we are located right next to a seepage full of "regilla" choruses in the spring. The morphology seems identical, though the frogs from the "valley" do seem to be bigger perhaps. I've lived and herped on the west side of the cascades as well, all the "Pacific Treefrogs" I saw/heard/collected all seemed identical. Is this classification purely based on DNA work?

@ Billie, I'm dying to see pics of your individual frogs! How are the eggs doing?JVK

You will not be able to identify the species by means of photos or other casual morphological means.

DNA was used to establish that there are four distinct taxa involved. All four (including three additional subspecies names) were recognized decades ago on the basis of morphometry [relative body measurements], call differences, and other traits. The DNA confirmed the seven currently recognized subspecies belonged to three populations which do not normally interbreed with one another [species]. Because the entire ranges were not tested, the exact boundaries are still uncertain, and there are currently no easy-to-use methods to differentiate them from one another.

In southeastern Oregon, as well as Idaho, Montana, much of California, and probably southeastern BC, the species is P.sierra.

Most of the OR Cascades and coast, and points north and northeast are P.regilla.

Those from Palm Springs would be P.hypochondriaca hypochondriaca.

Until recently, the recognized forms were:
Pseudacris regilla regilla
P.regilla pacifica
P.regilla curta
P.regilla hypochondriaca
P.regilla sierra
P.regilla palouse
P.regilla cascadae
Recent field guides generally make little mention of these, except those dealing with the southernmost forms P.regilla curta and P.regilla hypochondriaca.

The recent relevant paper is here:
http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/511.pdf
Recuero, E., Í. Marínez-Solano, G. Parra-Olea, and M. García-París. 2006a Phylogeography of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 39(2):293-304.

One critical error to account for in this paper, which the authors later corrected, was misplacing the type locality of P.regilla in northern California. The type locality had previously been identified as Fort Vancouver, WA. Thus, what they call P.pacifica is corrected to P.regilla. What they call P.regilla is corrected to P.sierra.

The correction:
http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/599.pdf
Recuero, E., Í. Marínez-Solano, G. Parra-Olea, and M. García-París. 2006b. Corrigendum to “Phylogeography of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement.” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41(2):511.

The forms now recognized are:
Pseudacris regilla [composed of the former P.r.regilla and P.r.pacifica, and at least some P.r.cascadae]
Pseudacris sierra [composed of the former P.r.sierra, and P.r.palouse, and probably some P.r.cascadae]
Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca
Pseudacris hypochondriaca curta

Some websites have updated the names and distributions already:
P.sierra
Sierran Treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) - FactSheet
P.hypochondriaca
Baja California Treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) - FactSheet
P.regilla
Northern Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) - FactSheet

I need this, as it may help to determine the ranges of P.regilla and P.sierra more precisely, especially in Canada, where P.sierra is not yet recorded formally:

Ripplinger, J. I., and R. S. Wagner. 2004. Phylogeography of northern populations of the Pacific treefrog, Pseudacris regilla. Northwestern Naturalist 85(3):118-125.

I have this as a photocopy, and haven't found it online as a pdf. It's the paper which established the various subspecies, using largely morphological data:

Jameson, D. L., J. P. Mackey, and R. C. Richards. 1966. The systematics of the Pacific tree frog, Hyla regilla. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, Fourth Series 33(19):551-620.

Just wanted to say how incredibly thankful I am for all the up to date information in your previous post, really appreciative, thanks Frogeyes! JVK