In their comment to our recent paper (Ficetola & De Bernardi 2005), Hettyey and Pearman outline two main weakness of our observational study: our sample size was too small and our data did not allow us to test the possibility of non linearity of the relationship between species ratio and egg fertility. The issue of our sample size has already been addressed in our paper, but we stress that, despite our small sample size, our effect size was very small. Our power analysis shows that, given the observed effect size, a disproportionate number of populations would need to be sampled in order to obtain a significant result. For example, the estimated number of populations required to detect an effect significant at a 1⁄4 0.05 with power 0.8 was 1015 populations, a number greater than the number of known Rana latastei populations (Grossenbacher 1997). Hettyey and Pearman suggest a second weakness of our paper. The relationship between the abundance of heterospecifics and the fertility of R. latastei is expected to be nonlinear and our test is biased as the reduction of fertility could be observable only at very high abundance of heterospecifics. In this regard, we stress that there is a difference between a nonlinear relationship and a relationship that has an effect only after a given threshold (Huggett 2005). Under outdoor laboratory conditions, the effect of heterospecific abundance on fertility of R. latastei is depicted by Fig. 2 in Hettyey & Pearman (2003). It is difficult to draw conclusions about the shape of this relationship, given the small number of different heterospecific densities tested (n 1⁄4 4), but this relationship seems to be monotonic and there is no evident threshold effect, since fertility always decreases as heterospecific abundance increases. Indeed, in their paper Hettyey & Pearman (2003, p. 297) state that ‘Mean embryo viability declined with decreasing abundance of conspecific males’, and a model with a linear decline provides an adequate fit to their data (Pearson’s correlation based on the values of Fig. 2: r 1⁄4 0.959, n 1⁄4 4, p 1⁄4 0.041). The above pattern is completely different from those in Fig. 3 of our paper. When heterospecifics outnumber R. latastei, the difference in fertility between egg masses laid in plastic wading pools and in nature is pronounced and cannot be overlooked as Hettyey and Pearman do in their comment. Under skewed species ratio (1:5), the average egg fertility was 90% in the 32 egg masses we collected in nature (SE 1⁄4 2.7) and approx. 14% in the four egg masses laid during the Hettyey and Pearman’s experiment (SE @ 12). Despite similar species ratio, the overlap of fertility ranges between the two studies is close to zero and the fertility observed under natural conditions is much higher than those observed in the laboratory study (Z test: Z 1⁄4 5.1, p < 0.0001). Hettyey and Pearman suggest that raising embryos could create biases in the observed hatch rate, but we would be very surprised to observe a hatch rate of 90% from egg masses having <15% of fertility when they were laid. In their comment, Hettyey and Pearman do not discuss the main point addressed by our paper. The main question that we addressed was whether the social interaction observed under laboratory conditions is important for the reproductive outcome of natural populations. Species are not randomly distributed in nature and therefore we wonder why Hettyey and Pearman suggest a random selection of populations. Our populations were selected from a large database (Bernini et al. 2004), to be representative of the situation in an area encompassing approx. 12% of the range of R. latastei. In these populations, there are no obvious trends of fertility in relationship to the presence/abundance of heterospecifics and there is no evidence of drop of fertility under very skewed species ratio (Ficetola & De Bernardi 2005). Moreover, the difference in egg fertility Ethology