Europeans succeed with Ambystomatid spec.

Hello all,

I'm currently reading this thread (http://www.caudata.org/forum/f1173-...eastern-tiger-salamander-largest-species.html) , which evolved into something impressive although I think Vesp shouldn't be allowed to keep any living creature . Unfortunately my english is too bad to compete for my item-centered view (I hope this is the correct expression). Good to know FrogEyes and Azhael fight for the same principles as I would - thanks for that!

But to get to my topic now:
Vesp stated that breeding Ambystomatids can only be achieved with the help of hormonal therapies.
The european keepers really do care very good for their Ambystomatids, so I wanted to tell you about successes from the last three years that came to my mind. I think there also are more but unfortunately I don't know anyone and often forget about something

Following species were bred during the last three years (without mexicanum and andersoni):
Ambystoma mavortium mavortium (2x)
Ambystoma mavortium diaboli (1x)
Ambystoma tigrinum (4x)
Ambystoma opacum (4-5x, maybe even more often)
Ambystoma maculatum (minimum 3x)
Ambystoma californiense (1x)
Ambystoma macrodactylum (3x)

These are the Ambystoma species that are most common in Europe. All other species are very rare (ok, A. californiense is very rare too) and often keepers can't find sexual partners for their animals.

Many species come to Europe without important locality data so it's a challenge to find the perfect conditions for every group of animals - especially for those wide-ranged species like opacum/mavortium/tigrinum.

In my opinion the key is to be encouraged. Ambystoma aren't that difficult. Most keepers simply don't care about perfect conditions. In the US most keepers keep the species they find around their house and it should be child easy to match these conditions. Once you got it, breeding should be repeatable.

The problem for US-americans is, that almost all native species can be bought cheap and easy so no one cares. This makes me sad!

Just my two (Euro )-cents,
Mario

And guess who's got some of that diaboli offspring!

Niels D said:

And guess who's got some of that diaboli offspring!

Click to expand...

Hum let me guess... Coenraad van Biezenmortel?

In my opinion the key is to be encouraged. Ambystoma aren't that difficult. Most keepers simply don't care about perfect conditions. In the US most keepers keep the species they find around their house and it should be child easy to match these conditions. Once you got it, breeding should be repeatable.

The problem for US-americans is, that almost all native species can be bought cheap and easy so no one cares. This makes me sad!

Just my two (Euro )-cents,
Mario

Click to expand...

Mario, you are right in so many levels.

I think this hobby have always revolved and will always revolve on Europe.
Europe's the core of all things Caudata. We had the very first hobbyists and people studying caudates with a strong heavy scientific base, we got the top hobbyists and breeders there are in the planet today. The biggest and most knowledgeable-rich meetings of the kind happen in Europe too, Gersfeld to be precise.
We got breeders and hobbits that besides keeping and breeding a huge deal of species have written some of the most important and more recognized scientific papers and exist up to date and are true authorities on the subject.
The average European hobbyist domains a considerable amount of taxa, and other taxonomic criteria and give full priority of scientific nomenclature over the common names.
We have and forever will, domination on this hobby. The background is already the best there is so we can only go up and up from now on.
One of the only interests other nations pose on this subject is that they are major source of species. We got the hobby, the science and the breeders.
Oh and we also breed 90% of our native species more times than can be counted

Cheers

eljorgo said:

We got breeders and hobbits

Click to expand...

Interesting.... How much does a hobbit cost in the EU and are they CITES ?

Vesp stated that breeding Ambystomatids can only be achieved with the help of hormonal therapies.

Click to expand...

I didn't state that at all - but it is the easiest way. It is documented on this forum you can do it other ways, but it is not nearly as easy, and "on demand" as it is to use something such as Ovopel to get it so the terrestrial ambystomatids both produce gamates at the same time and breed.

I think the most important thing to focus on, when people try to breed these is understanding their hormone cycle, and what causes them to go into breeding. If you try to do it via non-hormones, it is likely you will need to do it outside, or in an area that is very close to being outside - and they would likely only breed once per year per male salamander.
Also, I believe they really risk drowning using the more natural means, and I personally think hormone use is a faster, cheaper, and less dangerous method for terrestrial salamanders as opposed to keeping them outside in a mostly water filled tank (or trying to replicate the temperature, lighting, etc changes that induce breeding behavior)

So pumping them full of artificial chemicals is somehow safer than mimicking their natural cycle? You'll still need to put them into water to get them to actually fertilize eggs. Using hormones isn't going to negate that in any way.

So pumping them full of artificial chemicals is somehow safer than mimicking their natural cycle? You'll still need to put them into water to get them to actually fertilize eggs. Using hormones isn't going to negate that in any way.

Click to expand...

I know that, but it seems to me that mimicking their natural environmental conditions for breeding is just more difficult and time consuming. IIRC some peoples breeding tactics involved keeping them in a tank full of water with very little land for long periods of time (several days to weeks) Not saying that is the only way it can be done, but clearly that is risky as they might drowned.

Giving them some hormones, if done properly, doesn't hurt them very much if at all, and it is common practice in the lab for all sorts of amphibians and fish. The techniques are well documented, and they sell hormones specifically for the purpose of breeding such creatures.

Anyone working with A.mavortium or A.macrodactylum would serve these species well by working with animals from known localities.

At least one undescribed species is still included in A.mavortium, this being found in southwestern Colorado.

The A.macrodactylum complex appears to contain at least seven or eight distinct species, but work remains to work these out. The current subspecies names are reasonably close matches to clusters of species, although those clusters don't necessarily consist of close relatives. So-called columbianum actually has a wider range which includes some of what is included in krausei and macrodactylum, but is itself composed of two unrelated species. The one with a wide distribution lacks a name, while the other may actually have an older name from near a contact zone with A.krausei. A.macrodactylum, A.croceum, and A.sigillatum form a group, and A.macrodactylum may itself be two species. While there was a recent formal adjustment of names and ranges, one of those name changes was wrong, and more recent data suggest that the names and ranges demand further revision. The changes I have mentioned above have not been formally proposed yet, although A.krausei has been used in print at least once in a thesis. Eventually I will get the time to post further on this subject.

FrogEyes, is there any current genetic work being done with the western Ambystoma species?

Yes. The A.macrodactylum complex [about which I will probably post after I move to MN - I've mostly written it up already] is in ongoing study in multiple labs. The A.tigrinum group has been studied in its entirety or with focus on western or Mexican populations, but I'm not aware of what work might be going on right now. I may have posted some links when John requested references on this subject. The A.californiense complex has been studied a couple of times, enough to know there are 3-5 species potentially involved, but again what work is currently underway, I don't know. As far as I know, A.gracile has not been taxonomically reviewed in a couple decades, but there were a couple studies which compared genetic variation with morphological variation over a limited geographical area. As I recall, this probably wouldn't be especially useful to determine if subdivision is appropriate in any way.

FrogEyes Wrote:

Anyone working with A.mavortium or A.macrodactylum would serve these species well by working with animals from known localities.

At least one undescribed species is still included in A.mavortium, this being found in southwestern Colorado.

I couldn't agree more.

I've read most of Schaffer's publications on the tigrinum-complex. Do you happen to have any of the A. "macrodactylum" literature available (or that regarding any other Ambystomatid ecology and phylogenetics)? I realize this request should probably go in the publication request forum, but this seems to be a nearly equally appropriate place for it.

Here are a few photos:

Ambystoma mavortium - Yellowstone County, Montana


Ambystoma mavortium - Sheridan County, Wyoming


Habitat shot of the above location in Sheridan County, Wyoming


Thanks,
-Cole

eljorgo said:

Hum let me guess... Coenraad van Biezenmortel?

Click to expand...

Yup! Well done.

It´s fantastic to see at least an aproximation of ambystomatid breeding success in europe, Mario, i can´t wait to see the numbers grow in the next few years.
The problem of not knowing where many animals come from is a significant one. I hope that the people who are working with these species and being successful are using animals of known localities and that those who might be enamored with the idea, but have animals of unknown origin, would think it through.

It´s also great to know that there are more people who have the same principles, by the way, hopefully our numbers will increase too xD

Hello Rodrigo,

I can see them growing right now - a few at least :bowl:

The most successful breeders bred and still breed animals of known localities.
My macrodactylum are from Ugene, Oregon; A. tigrinum from Chicago, Illinois, and so on!
I know that some mavortium bred in the last years came from Texas and ??? (I don't know anymore).
So success mostly comes with knowledge about the animals home range.
The last years nobody managed to import bigger numbers of animals with known locality so we europeans have to hold a protective hand over our animals.

Unfortunately there are no or nearly no mabeei, barbouri, texanum, talpoideum,...
Too few people care about the smaller, secretive and less colourfull Ambystomatids.

Regards,
Mario

Are there people breeding A.laterale? Just curious.

I'm cooling down my diaboli (not the offspring I bought) from Saskatchewan and my A.m.mavortium without a known locality. Of course I prefer to now where the animals come from, but the mavortiums I'm trying to breed have similar patterns. We Europeans don't have the luxurity not to try breeding the animals without locality if you ask me. The only downside is that this will (possibly) result in offspring without locality as so many wc specimen currently in the hobby.

@Mario: Do you know if the diaboli offspring has a locality? I completely forgot to ask, because my brain was still dehydrated from the night before....

Oh, I forgot Vesp's post:

Vesp said:

I didn't state that at all - but it is the easiest way. It is documented on this forum you can do it other ways, but it is not nearly as easy, and "on demand" as it is to use something such as Ovopel to get it so the terrestrial ambystomatids both produce gamates at the same time and breed.

Click to expand...

Do you think it is wise to use hormones instead of keeping a animal exactly the way it is used to be in nature?
Why has breeding to be "easy" or has to be managed on demand?
Adult Ambystomatids, especially females need months to gain weight after spawn. After that they naturally calm down in winter which elongates their lifetime and makes them ready for spring.
I can't find reasons for doing anything else.

As far as I know nobody bred A. laterale so far - nowhere.

Your diaboli come from North Dakota I think. But you better ask the breeder himself

Regards,
Mario

I believe you're right. Now you mention it I seem to recall North Dakota. I shall confirm this to be sure of course. Thanks Mario!

MarioR great success! Of course the few serious US keepers envy your success. Maybe newt/salamander hobbyists here aren't so determined to breed Amybystoma because they can be purchased seasonally or collected as you mentioned. I may suffer from this lack of determination also. I've kept Tiger Salamanders and other Ambystoma for years and have never tried to breed them. But anything exotic I'm all over it.

Recently saw a video of California Tiger Salamanders breeding and laying eggs. It was motivational! Maybe you seen the video also?....... Ha I'm sure you did.

Keep it up! Some may read this post and feel demoralized but its motivational to me. Just don't rub it harshly!

Cole Grover said:

I've read most of Schaffer's publications on the tigrinum-complex. Do you happen to have any of the A. "macrodactylum" literature available (or that regarding any other Ambystomatid ecology and phylogenetics)? I realize this request should probably go in the publication request forum, but this seems to be a nearly equally appropriate place for it.

Click to expand...

I do, but as indicated, I will post about it when I have time. I am in the process of moving 2000 km between countries, with a small stack of livestock and a lifetime of possessions. Paperwork, packing, cleaning...I shouldn't really be logging in here at all right now!

Probable identities:
Ambystoma mavortium - Yellowstone County, Montana
Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum, which is likely just variation of A.m.mavortium

Ambystoma mavortium - Sheridan County, Wyoming
Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum, which is likely just variation of A.m.mavortium

diaboli come from North Dakota I think
Ambystoma mavortium diaboli, which is likely just variation of A.m.melanostictum, itself probably just variable A.m.mavortium

macrodactylum are from Eugene, Oregon
Ambystoma macrodactylum sensu stricto, even after splitting all other known lineages

A. tigrinum from Chicago, Illinois,
Ambystoma tigrinum, however, this MAY be composed of two species. I'd have to review the data.

mavortium from Texas
Ambystoma mavortium mavortium sensu stricto

diaboli from Saskatchewan
Ambystoma mavortium diaboli or A.m.melanostictum, which either way probably means Ambystoma mavortium mavortium.

I think the jury is still out on the forms west of the Rockies. I expect diaboli and melanostictum will disappear into mavortium, while nebulosum and stebbinsi may be synonymized or elevated, leaving at least one species to be chopped out of mavortium/melanostictum and named.

FrogEyes wrote:
Probable identities:
Ambystoma mavortium - Yellowstone County, Montana
Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum, which is likely just variation of A.m.mavortium

Ambystoma mavortium - Sheridan County, Wyoming
Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum, which is likely just variation of A.m.mavortium

I agree, and hence didn't include a subspecific epithet... not that they're a valid concept these days, anyway. In short, I knew which nuclear and mitochondrial clade the animals I posted belonged to, though if we do away with A. mavortium subspecies (like "we" should), we can no longer refer to any population as A. m. mavortium. All of the data I've seen supports a evolutionarily cohesive unit comprised of our current A. mavortium, minus a particular group in southern Colorado (though I'd like to see more data on that, too). Interestingly enough, there's a local population of mavortium that has both terrestrial and faculative neotene "adults", depending on annual precipitation. I'm super curious to see what would happen if our local highland populations (i.e.; those at the Axolotl Lakes) were raised at conditions that mirrored those of our "lowland" (3,000 - 4,000 feet elevation) populations. I really dig the plastic natural history of them - I suppose that's why I've searched them out throughout Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Though I'll have to check some literature, I believe (damn, I hate using that phrase) that Texas supports populations assignable to both A. mavortium and tigrunum.

FrogEyes wrote:
I do, but as indicated, I will post about it when I have time. I am in the process of moving 2000 km between countries, with a small stack of livestock and a lifetime of possessions. Paperwork, packing, cleaning...I shouldn't really be logging in here at all right now!

No problem, amigo. I just found several of the articles I was looking for already saved to one of the PDF archive folders I have. Thanks for the reply, though. I'd appreciate anything you come across, just in case I don't have it! I hope you enjoy it here in the US. Mind if I ask where you're going and why?

thanks,
-Cole