Chromoblastomycosis in two giant ditch frogs also known as mountain chicken frogs (Leptodactylus fallax)

Abstract

Because of sudden death of several frogs following the renewal of a terrarium, two giant ditch frogs (Leptodactylus fallax) were submitted for post-mortem examination. The animals displayed extensive erythematous to ulcerative skin lesions as well as multiple granulomas in the liver, kidney and skeletal musculature. In skin lesions as well as in the brownish granulomas, pigmented fungal sclerotic bodies were found in addition to pigmented hyphal structures, though less common. The fungal pathogen, although not further classified in this study was identified as the etiological agent for chromoblastomycosis (synonym: chromomycosis), a leading cause of fatal systemic disease in poikilothermic animals. It is also a cause of chronic skin disease in human beings and therefore a potential zoonotic agent.

Activity budgets, responses to disturbance and novel behaviours in captive mountain chicken frogs Leptodactylus fallax

“…Multiple captive populations were established, between 1998 and 2011, at Metro Toronto, Jersey and ZSL London Zoos and in a breeding centre in Dominica, as safety net populations and for conservation education. These populations did not ultimately contribute to conservation translocations (Gibson & Buley, 2004;Cunningham et al, 2008;Tapley et al, 2014;Jameson et al, 2019). In 2009, in response to disease mediated population collapses, 50 wild mountain chickens were collected from Montserrat and were distributed to multiple European institutions where breeding has produced frogs for translocations, and founded a separately managed non biosecure population for staff training and public education (Hudson et al, 2016).…”

“…Although successful captive breeding has led to an increase in this captive population size (Jameson et al, https://doi.org/10.33256/33.2.4354 2019), managing mountain chickens in captivity has proven problematic, mainly due to the highly specific conditions required by this species in captivity (Tapley et al, 2015;Donaldson, 2019;Jameson et al, 2019). The physiological requirements of captive mountain chickens are becoming better understood (Fitzgerald et al, 2007;Dierenfeld et al, 2008;King et al, 2011;Jaffe et al, 2015;Tapley et al, 2015;Jayson et al, 2018;2018b;Croci et al, 2019;Donaldson, 2019;Jameson et al, 2019;Ashpole et al, 2021;Michaels et al, 2021;White et al, 2021). Although very basic information on habitat use and activity patterns is known from wild populations (Schwartz & Henderson, 1991;Daltry, 2002; see Jameson et al, 2019), detailed information on activity budgets and patterns is lacking for both wild and captive mountain chickens.…”