Something that's been bugging me.

Kyle Barker · 05-11-03, 01:26 AM

Ever since I started reading about Caecilians, and finding out more interesting things, I have had a hard time talking to people about them (or finding people to talk about them with). Very few people seem to know what they are (including universities, and so called "Amphibian Experts". I have a hard time understanding this because they are SO unique, and have quite a lot of scientific significance. Incase you are unfimiliar with them, here are some main points:

*Most have scales
*first animal to have amniote egg (like reptiles/birds)
*most are FULLY terrestrial
*some born as completly formed babies (no larval stages once born)
*have live young and eggs
*beleived to be older than any other known living amphibian
*some are VERY toxic(similar to dart frogs)
*And there is over 150 species (probably way more that wait to be found)

I would of thought that because they are basically the exact opposite of any other amphibian that they would have been studied extensivly.

Anyone else have any thoughts on these? I would also love to get more RELIABLE information on any of the terrestrial species.

Kyle

Jeff_Favelle · 05-11-03, 02:55 AM

Most have larval stages. Even if there is no eggs, the larval stage is within the female, and then born alive. Much like the Alps Salamander (Salamander atra).

Lots of amphibians are live-bearing:

http://www.iubs.org/test/bioint/41/13.htm

http://www.caecilian.org/taxonomy.html

Kyle Barker · 05-11-03, 03:21 AM

Ya, sorry what i meant was they were born already developed (larval stage within female). I was told that certain sp. fully developed within the female, then when born are ready to start burrowing and eating etc, without gills. The main reason i dont understand why pepole arn't looking at them more, is they are the first Amniote eggs, and they have scales. Those to me are so strange, i thought there would be way more info just for those 2 reasons, never mind how they move or how some mothers take care of their eggs. However there are a few zoos that seem to know a fair bit (thanx for the contact mark).

thanx for the links, i dont like the caecilian.org site just like the caecilian forum

Any ideas where i can find the caecilian books by Taylor?

Mark Pepper · 05-12-03, 06:25 PM

Hey Kyle,

I have often wondered the same thing, and have come up with this...My opinion on the matter is that caecelians just dont appeal to most people, even amphibian enthusiasts. They are fascinating, primitive, and largely still a mystery, yet to appreciate that you have to look past what most people see first, a worm-like largely fossorial animal. Now to most people thats not entirely interesting, or atleast not interesting enough to provoke a deeper look. However those who do study them deeper may find out what you already know, how fascinating they really are, and truly underappreciated.

Why they are not studied more by academics probably boils down to the same, when applying for grants, i belive you are more likely to recieve a grant for an animal that more people will relate to, recognize, or appreciate, or one that will have a greater influence/benefit or whatever to humanity.

I applaud your interest in them, and good luck finding some, let me know if you ever do, i will be ineterested to hear all about them. Too bad you were not at last years International Amphibian Day in baltimore, Ed Kowalski of the Jersey zoo gave a great talk on them.

this is all of course just my opinion...

mark

Kyle Barker · 05-13-03, 11:09 AM

That does make perfect sense, but once you start reading about them you just cant get enough of them. But i can certainly see how people dont like their appearance, and just ignoring them. I will be meeting up with a guy in washiongton in the summer, and hopefully getting some more. He has TONS, and is going down to Guatemala (spelling?) to go looking for some, be interesting to see what he finds (if anything).

Kyle