{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023117569352708058, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010568031704095112, 'mean_word_length': 5.536690647482015, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A global problem requires a global multifaceted solution

Amphibians are disproportionately threatened and ex situ programmes are often considered the last line of defence against amphibian population and or species extinction. Biega et al. (2017) examined whether zoos and other ex situ partners house amphibian species that are considered priorities for conservation. The authors recommend that zoos continue to increase their holdings of threatened amphibian species; a recommendation that echoes that of Dawson et al. (2015) who also examined zoo holdings of threatened amphibian species. We feel that this recommendation is overly simplistic as there are a number of important considerations other than threat status that should be considered when selecting whether a species is suitable for a conservation breeding programme (CBP). Considerations include species biology, existing husbandry knowledge, ability to obtain enough founding stock to support genetically robust populations, political support and stability in founder countries and exit strategies (Tapley et al., 2015); range-restricted habitat specialists may not always be the most suitable species for CBPs. Amphibian Ark (AArk), the international body established to co-ordinate the captive breeding components of the Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (Wren et al., 2015), endorses the establishment of captive facilities within range countries (Zippel et al., 2011) as opposed to hosting conservation programmes for threatened amphibians in zoos elsewhere. The acquisition of more threatened amphibians for CBPs, especially non-native taxa, may not reflect the optimal scenario for the ex situ management of amphibians. The IUCN has produced ex situ management guidelines, which suggest that ex situ programmes should only be undertaken when the expected positive impact on the conservation of the species in question outweighs the potential risks to, or negative impact on, the local population, species, habitat or ecosystem, and when it will be a prudent use of resources (IUCN/SSC 2014). Developing CBPs for threatened amphibians in zoos outside of range countries instead of the development of programmes in range countries, where such programmes are logistically possible, likely goes against this guidance. This is due to the risk of pathogen transfer and the disproportionate costs involved. Most of the pathogens that have played a significant role in amphibian declines have been detected in cosmopolitan captive collections and not all of these pathogens can be reliably detected with existing screening protocols and treatment options may be complex or non-existent. Chytridiomycosis (a disease caused by the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) was detected on Mallorca after zoo-bred toads were released; they had been infected before the disease had been identified and diagnostic tools developed (Walker et al., 2008). Captive individuals of a focal species may not be clinically affected by a given disease, but the same pathogen may negatively affect sympatric species at release sites. With increasing numbers of non-sympatric threatened amphibians and their native pathogens and parasites held in a single CBP facility or location, which would be much more likely in a zoo setting, the risk of transferring novel pathogens to naive amphibian populations destined for release increases. This reinforces AArk’s stance on in versus out of country captive breeding programmes. The number of programmes involving threatened amphibians hosted outside of zoos is increasing and the proportion of amphibian CBPs in such facilities is now larger than those in zoos (Harding, Griffiths & Pavajeau, 2015). The zoo community is nonetheless key in supporting many of these programmes, particularly with regard to building regional amphibian husbandry capacity (e.g. Gagliardo et al., 2008) through training, mentorship, ongoing technical advice and financial support. Apart from disease, there are financial implications resulting from choice of host institution for conservation breeding (Gagliardo et al., 2008; Zippel et al., 2011). Husbandry expertise is generally associated with economically developed countries while amphibian conservation need is biased toward less economically developed regions. Funding for amphibian conservation is limited and maintaining amphibian CBPs in a zoo in more economically developed regions is disproportionately expensive (Tapley et al., 2015). Zoos have proven themselves capable of acting to prevent imminent