# Site-specific frogs: is it possible?



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

This is a continuation from this thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/49822-pumilio-i-d-2.html#post433555 

I'm fully aware that outfits such as Understory Explorer offers _extremely_ site-specific frogs and does so using a code system, similar to the killifish hobby...and this is fantastic.

However, in regard to frogs from countries like Panama (primarily _Dendrobates auratus _and _Oophaga pumilio_), hordes of them come in with vague (at best) or cryptic information regarding where they were collected, what population they might have been from, etc. and hobbyists are usually forced to group and find breeding animals based purely on phenotypic similarities (which may or may not be the best indicators of same-population frogs). For instance, there are numerous "Blue and Black" auratus populations in Panama, some of them several hundred kilometers apart. To only give the country of origin is not sufficient for responsible captive management...and relying on importations isn't fully reliable as frogs may be collected from different populations and over a wide range, then put in the same box and exported all together.

This has caused much frustration within the hobby, yet has never been improved. Most hobbyists are unaware that the situation will never improve, and more specific locale and collection info will never be taken and/or given, unless pressure is applied by them to the collectors, ex/importers, and distributors. 

Exploring exactly _how_ to bring about this change, as well identifying current problems that exist within the system, is the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Spot on.

The importer that does this and proves locale evidence, as well as sustainable collection and even conservation is the one to support 

Everyone is very attuned to imports these days due to the current events out of Texas.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I think that the easiest way to get that to change is to get someone with the mind to do it to actually do it. Right now, importers are happy just grabbing frogs and not bringing them in with any data, and hobbyists will buy them without any qualms, especially if they're something new and rare (e.g. "El Dorados").

I think that if a person actually brought in frogs in enough numbers with site data like what Understory is doing, and started saturating the market with those frogs, the change in hobbyist mentality would slowly come. I mean, take, for example, the imitators. Many/most of them morphs in the hobby can be traced back to a particular site, and because of that, you see a lot of people advertising lines and actually know where their frogs came from. I would guess that if imitators were brought in like pumilio were brought in, people wouldn't be as willing to buy them because there's no data associated with them.

I think that that is really what needs to happen in Panama. Right now, in regars to pumilio, the only frogs with true site data are those that Rich Frye has, and that is such a small population that you're lucky to get pumilio with true site data. As is evident from the constant "what morph is this" threads, I'm fairly convinced that the frogs that are coming in are simply IDed when imported and don't actually have data associated with them. It might be as simple as "Bastimentos, Chiriqui Grande, and Cayo de Agua" in this shipment, and then guessing what is what.

And even if there are data actually associated with individual frogs, it's incredibly generalized, especially in areas where it is critical to make distinctions. I mean, I know of 5 or so phenotypically distinct populations occurring on Bastimentos island, so having frogs coming in simply labeled as "Bastimentos" is not sufficient.

Personally, I'd love to do an import to start the process, but I don't know that it would be financially possible for me nor do I think I could bring enough in to make a huge difference. And ideally, I'd like to do what Mark is doing and actually distribute captive bred animals from wild caught ones rather than pass out wild frogs.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

In regards to the site data, how is Rich the only person who has figured out how to get accurate site data? Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but maybe he would be the best place to start in this quest.


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

I think what needs to happen is easy: No more purchasing frogs without specific locality information.

It's implementing it that will be tough. It means getting folks to do the right thing, and not the easy thing. Or the cheap thing. 

Another question I would add to the thread is "what is the function of a site specific ID, in the absence of a conservation program to protect the sites?" I would argue it has none. INBICIO and Understory are actively conserving land and it's associated frogs. Breeding from protected wild stock and then flooding the market to reduce the value of poached frogs and produce revenue to add to preservation efforts. This certainly isn't going on in Panama with the pumilio. You can sub-group Bastimentos (for example) frogs into as many "morphs" or "populations" as you like, but it is only of value in the stamp collecting sense- and has done nothing to stop all the "Red Frog" Condos... Just look at the Escudo de Veraguas frogs.... a mad rush to buy wild caught frogs a few years back, and ZERO conservation attempts for the island. 

The reality is that captive-bred hobby frogs will not be suitable for reintroduction efforts, should it come to that. The greatest impact froggers can have on the frogs is by supporting the companies that are trying to turn a profit in conservation based frog farming (Understory), the NGO's that actively work in the field (TWI etc.)...

and here is the hard part.... 

Not buying wildcaught frogs, frogs from lineages we know were smuggled, or dubious "farms" (that are probably just a cover for massive wild exploitation... gee not looking at all those Escudo or anything...). 

If frogs aren't coming in from Conservation projects, then all the locality codes in the world don't matter.

Cheers,

Afemoralis


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Its a fantastic idea, and when I start purchasing frogs where site location is of such importance I will surely ask for and keep track of all the pertinent data. 

What then happens to all the "lines" already in the states? What about all the blue and black auratus, "bronze" auratus, leucs, etc. Are these animals simply to be undervalued, only because they aernt site specific? From a true collectors standpoint I guess they are.

If outits like UE were the only importers of these animals then there wouldnt be an issue. But "grab and go" importation is going to continue until naive people quit buyng cheapr animals offerd by these outfits. 
Kingsnake is a PERFECT example of this, not only with darts, but everything. Lots of different sects of the herp hobby value site specifi morphs, colors, etc. I see numeros queries on arachnoboards, and in regards to grey banded kingsnakes about the TRUE location information. Yet the site is overloaded with "blue jean" pumilio for $60 a piece, not to mention all kinds of our native herps dubiously offered by people.I know in WA you can't legally sell wildlife thats native to the state, but I see native salamanders for sale on there all the time, with no notice about not allowing sales w/in state
So, whats to be done? Discourage "grab and go" importation every chance you get. Support quality outfits that provide the info you want. 
Get a reccomendation about a supplier before purchasing from them. 

And I guess just be happy with no location display animals, or just pair up frogs based on looks and sell them as yellow w/ white leg pumilio or whatever and not try to deduce locality info based solely on phenotype.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Afemoralis said:


> Another question I would add to the thread is "what is the function of a site specific ID, in the absence of a conservation program to protect the sites?"


Just to include another dynamic to the discussion, I think it's important to realize that not every decision has to be made on the basis of conservation (and this is coming from someone who is a strong advocate of conservation). For many people this will never be anything more than simply enjoying some tropical frogs in a tank in their living rooms, and that's okay. For these same people, simply having and enjoying an auratus that originated from somewhere in Costa Rica is enough, so we have to realize that there is still value to the non-site-specific animals already in the hobby.

However, as a hobbyist, I am personally extremely interested in the specificity of a frog's origin. To me, one of the fascinating things about these amphibians is how they've evolved and adapted so specifically and uniquely to (and along with) their unique environments...so part of the interest and fun for me is knowing their locales. Knowing that the pumilio from the Salt Creek area of Isla Bastimentos are different from the Red Frog Beach area from the cemetary, etc. is part of what continues to draw me into this hobby and personal research and fuels my fascination.

Some thoughts...


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

frogparty said:


> Its a fantastic idea, and when I start purchasing frogs where site location is of such importance I will surely ask for and keep track of all the pertinent data.
> 
> What then happens to all the "lines" already in the states? What about all the blue and black auratus, "bronze" auratus, leucs, etc. Are these animals simply to be undervalued, only because they aernt site specific? From a true collectors standpoint I guess they are.
> 
> ...


Well said. While I am clearly in support of obtaining site specific frogs we also have to consider that most frogs that are imported (and many that we produce for sale to others) ultimately end up in the general pet trade. Some of the folks that acquire these frogs get interested and do more research, acquire more frogs, etc. and in the process develop an appreciation for locality data and an appreciation of the conservation aspects of the hobby (supporting TWI and UE). However, sad as it may be, that will likely always be a very small subset of those who maintain poison frogs, even among those that participate on DB and other forums. 

Now what does that mean? Personally, I have frogs that are both site specific (UE/INIBICO/SNDF) and frogs that are known only by import date and/or import line, as well as some that have no locality at all. Clearly, we should work to preserve what currently exists in the hobby by whatever means we can (import date, phenotype, etc) and just manage those frogs by the data that we have available (much like how those of us working with Mantella sp. currently manage the captive populations since site data is non-existent) while at the same time doing our best to acquire future species with site data. In my opinion, having both old line frogs and new line frogs with site data isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

frogparty said:


> What then happens to all the "lines" already in the states? What about all the blue and black auratus, "bronze" auratus, leucs, etc. Are these animals simply to be undervalued, only because they aernt site specific? From a true collectors standpoint I guess they are.


These frogs still have function in that they can serve as "trial and error" animals in keeping them in captivity. Non-site-specific frogs can help elucidate needs of site specific frogs when they come in.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> Just to include another dynamic to the discussion, I think it's important to realize that not every decision has to be made on the basis of conservation (and this is coming from someone who is a strong advocate of conservation). For many people this will never be anything more than simply enjoying some tropical frogs in a tank in their living rooms, and that's okay. For these same people, simply having and enjoying an auratus that originated from somewhere in Costa Rica is enough, so we have to realize that there is still value to the non-site-specific animals already in the hobby.
> 
> Some thoughts...


Having non site-specific frogs in the hobby in ways helps to conserve some of the wild populations. Take your average keeper who just wants the pretty frog in a vivarium. He's not going to care which locality his animal is from as long as it's pretty. Keeping a steady supply of these animals in the hobby through captive breeding helps to ease the losses by beginners working with wild caught animals and allows the more dedicated hobbyist to work with the site-specific animals. In many ways this could also lessen the demand for wild frogs being imported over time. It would really be a shame to see people perceive "green and black" auratus as a devalued animal and lose it in the hobby because of a lack of site data.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

frogparty said:


> So, whats to be done? Discourage "grab and go" importation every chance you get. Support quality outfits that provide the info you want.


This sounds great, but the reason this thread was started is exactly because there currently _isn't_ any outfit that functions out of Central America that provides the desired info, there isn't anyone TO support in this regard. UE is, for the most part, an anomoly in the Dendrobatid hobby and amphibian collection industry as a whole.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> This sounds great...but the reason this thread was started because there currently _isn't_ any outfit that functions out of Central America that provides the desired info. In other words: there isn't anyone currently out there to support in this regard. UE is, for the most part, an anomoly in the Dendrobatid hobby and amphibian collection industry as a whole.


Not to get too into what SNDF does, but isn't this what Marcus and Valentina have essentially begun to do? I know that for a number of their frogs site data does exist (well, at least they know the locales).


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

stemcellular said:


> Not to get too into what SNDF does, but isn't this what Marcus and Valentina have essentially begun to do? I know that for a number of their frogs site data does exist (well, at least they know the locales).


I'm not sure their info is any more specific than "Bastimentos" or something like that. For instance, they offer frogs called "Capira"...which is in the Campana area, and that region has TONS of variation in its auratus populations, both within populations and between populations (some of which are only a few km apart). And, from what I understand, some of them probably mix and create intergrade frogs between populations. Camo, Kahlua and Cream, Capira...these are all found in general relation to one another. So Capira doesn't really help me, personally, any more than "Bastimentos" does. It's obviously better than a "Panama" label, but not what we should be aiming for, in my opinion.

There's also the issue of creating designer morphs and lines: a large importation of bronze auratus came in through SNDF a few years ago. Of the coupe hundred that came in, about a dozen or so looked a bit different, and were pulled out and bred together. The result is what we currently call "Super Blue" auratus. However, I know people who received frogs from this shipment and kept/bred them all together because they all came in together and it figured it was most likely natural variation within the population (this was based on the assumption that collectors only collected from a single population). Is either one of them a better option? We can really only guess as no one actually knows where the frogs were from, whether or not they existed together in the wild or not.

The case with "El Dorado" pumilio comes up a lot: it was originally stated that they did not give out the collection information on those frogs because they didn't want smugglers to come in and hit the population. The ironic thing is that pictures of these pumilio started hitting the internet, and people were able to say "Hey, I know where those frogs are from...they're the southern extant of BriBri pumilio." You could look at European websites and see images of this pumilio form labeled by locale. Now I'm not calling SNDF out (and to continue this thread, I think we need to proceed respectfully), but in discussing this issue with folks who have spent quite a bit of time in Panama, they have said that it is such a relatively small country and that there are so many people traveling there and looking for things, it's practically impossible to keep something like this secret. So in the end, I'm not sure I personally see the value in creating cryptic labels for frogs, other than for marketing purposes (like the Regina/Giant orange debate).


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> I'm not sure their info is any more specific than "Bastimentos" or something like that. For instance, they offer frogs called "Capira"...which is in the Campana area, and that region has TONS of variation in its auratus populations, both within populations and between populations (some of which are only a few km apart). And, from what I understand, some of them probably mix and create intergrade frogs between populations. Camo, Kahlua and Cream, Capira...these are all found in general relation to one another. So Capira doesn't really help me, personally, any more than "Bastimentos" does. It's obviously better than a "Panama" label, but not what we should be aiming for, in my opinion.
> 
> There's also the issue of creating designer morphs and lines: a large importation of bronze auratus came in through SNDF a few years ago. Of the coupe hundred that came in, about a dozen or so looked a bit different, and were pulled out and bred together. The result is what we currently call "Super Blue" auratus. However, I know people who received frogs from this shipment and kept/bred them all together because they all came in together and it figured it was most likely natural variation within the population (this was based on the assumption that collectors only collected from a single population). Is either one of them a better option? We can really only guess as no one actually knows where the frogs were from, whether or not they existed together in the wild or not.
> 
> The case with "El Dorado" pumilio comes up a lot: it was originally stated that they did not give out the collection information on those frogs because they didn't want smugglers to come in and hit the population. The ironic thing is that pictures of these pumilio started hitting the internet, and people were able to say "Hey, I know where those frogs are from...they're the southern extant of BriBri pumilio." You could look at European websites and see images of this pumilio form labeled by locale. Now I'm not calling SNDF out (and to continue this thread, I think we need to proceed respectfully), but in discussing this issue with folks who have spent quite a bit of time in Panama, they have said that it is such a relatively small country and that there are so many people traveling there and looking for things, it's practically impossible to keep something like this secret. So in the end, I'm not sure I personally see the value in creating cryptic labels for frogs, other than for marketing purposes (like the Regina/Giant orange debate).


Thanks for the background, Ron. From speaking with Marcus my understanding was that 'Capira' auratus (which I am actually working with) are from a specific locale known by him. Same goes with some of the newer pumilio that he is bringing in. So yes, calling the locale Capira can be interpreted as misleading if it is a pseudonym for an actual site (gps coordinates, etc) however, I suppose I don't really see it that way. What is the difference between calling something 'Capira' from SNDF which has specific site locale behind it and calling something S-1234 which directly refers to the gps of the locale? For example, I assume that my INIBICO frogs are from specific locales which are known (by someone?) but it seems enough to know that being INIBICO they represent site based populations. 

That said, this assumes that all these site specific names are actually backed up by real site data (whether or not we know the actual coordinates). For example, and I hope the mods are fine with this, but in the past SNDF advertised a few site specific pumilio morphs (bottom of ad). Is this not what we should be encouraging? 

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/frog-classifieds/33252-peru-panama-colombia-suriname.html


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

It's possible, it is just not probable. We are so far removed from where any of these frogs are being collected it is little more then faith that the frogs actually come from where they are said to come from. Unless I personnally catch the frog I find it hard to believe that the location of any frog I purchase has it lineage traced back to the exact location of capture. Yes, there are truthful collectors and importers but they are the rare breed.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

stemcellular said:


> That said, this assumes that all these site specific names are actually backed up by real site data (whether or not we know the actual coordinates). For example, and I hope the mods are fine with this, but in the past SNDF advertised a few site specific pumilio morphs (bottom of ad). Is this not what we should be encouraging?


Saying it does not necessarily mean that it's true, but just a selling point. And it also goes to what you consider to be site specific; "Bastimentos" could be considered "site specific" even though, as we discussed, that is not enough. I guess, personally, I remain skeptical about it because of the whole "farm raised" stuff that Afemoralis had mentioned. The same claims have been made about full grown frogs coming in being farm raised.

But that's a different topic. I guess, for me, the point is that since validity of that claim remains unclear and potentially a point of untruth, the claim of "site specific" might also be the same. Especially given that that ad went up after a big discussion about site data.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

MonarchzMan said:


> Especially given that that ad went up after a big discussion about site data.


What ad?.....


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

The link that Stem posted.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

stemcellular said:


> So yes, calling the locale Capira can be interpreted as misleading if it is a pseudonym for an actual site (gps coordinates, etc) however, I suppose I don't really see it that way. What is the difference between calling something 'Capira' from SNDF which has specific site locale behind it and calling something S-1234 which directly refers to the gps of the locale?


I see what you're saying, and you make a good point, Ray. But where does "Capira" start and end? Were they on the edge of town? Within 2 km of it? Within 20 km of it? Are there valleys that seperate/isolate populations of auratus within 20 km of town? 50 km? Conceivably, another collector could come along, gather up animals from a different valley and isolated population from the group sold by SNDF, then name and sell those frogs "Capira" because that's the closest town. So those and the SNDF frogs could originate from completely isolated populations, but once they got to the states would be mixed by hobbyists because they're all "Capira." JP can probably comment to this, but I assume the likelihood of the above situation is pretty great when dealing with pumilio.

Even calling it "Capira 1A" might be better (i.e. they wouldn't need to give away the specific GPS coordinates), and if a new group of Capira-collected auratus came in, info from the that distributor could be gathered (or the two could communicate to see if the frogs were collected from the same place or not...if so, perhaps then call the new ones "Capira 2B" or something). But this is also assuming there would be some transparency in the process and that distributors would communicate with one another, but given that these are businesses and competition is involved, it might be nothing but wishful thinking.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> I see what you're saying, and you make a good point, Ray. But where does "Capira" start and end? Were they on the edge of town? Within 2 km of it? Within 20 km of it? Are there valleys that seperate/isolate populations of auratus within 20 km of town? 50 km? Conceivably, another collector could come along, gather up animals from a different valley and isolated population from the group sold by SNDF, then name and sell those frogs "Capira" because that's the closest town. So those and the SNDF frogs could originate from completely isolated populations, but once they got to the states would be mixed by hobbyists because they're all "Capira."
> 
> JP can probably comment to this, but I assume the likelihood of the above situation is pretty great when dealing with pumilio.


But wouldn't folks be able to differentiate between SNDF Capira and say others being called by that moniker? I suppose I just don't see the difference between that approach and the approach frequently taken with the UE frogs (ie. avoiding mixing UE frogs with INIBICO line, Tor line, etc) even though all are Caranaichi valley, etc. 

But again, yes, that assumes that Capira is indeed site specific and that such designations aren't fabricated (I'm not saying that they are at all, just making the point).


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

stemcellular said:


> But wouldn't folks be able to differentiate between SNDF Capira and say others being called by that moniker?


Sure they would, and traditionally that's how we've handled things: not knowing if the frogs from X importation were collected from the same place as the frogs from Y importation, they were kept seperate. However, inserting the counterpoint: what if the two Capira auratus were actually collected from the same population? This would be a great opportunity to increase the captive genetic pool of those frogs...but it doesn't happen because no one knows for sure where they came from and they are kept seperate.



> But again, yes, that assumes that Capira is indeed site specific and that such designations aren't fabricated (I'm not saying that they are at all, just making the point).


I don't think the locale name is made up at all on this frog...I just don't know _where_ in relation to Capira they were collected. Let's take this in the case of fish: what if there are 3 isolated lakes in New Guinea, all of them around Town X. In each lake swims the same species of rainbowfish, but they are all seperate populations/morphs. People collect, on seperate occasions, fish from each lake. Since Town X was the closest locale marker, they are all imported and given the morph name "Town X"...but they aren't actually the same fish. I guess my point is, although something like Capira is good, unless they are collected within the city limits, so to speak, or that population of auratus is the ONLY obvious one surrounding that town within a reasonable distance, it keeps the door open to all sorts of captive management problems. I think we need a more specific system in place.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

stemcellular said:


> But wouldn't folks be able to differentiate between SNDF Capira and say others being called by that moniker? I suppose I just don't see the difference between that approach and the approach frequently taken with the UE frogs (ie. avoiding mixing UE frogs with INIBICO line, Tor line, etc) even though all are Caranaichi valley, etc.


I don't think that folks would necessarily be able to tell the difference. Look at the Almirante pumilio versus Man Creek pumilio. Those populations are many miles away from one another, but they have been lumped together often.

It is important to keep in mind that these frogs can change significantly over very small distances in some instances and in others, they can be rather constant. My concern is that importers know this. And then you can have this situation with Super Blue Auratus where a select few frogs in the population can be picked out and sold as a different morph when, in reality, they're not.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Who`s to say these super blue auratus wouldn`t have bred together in the wild? How would you divide up a bunch of different looking auratus if you didn`t know where they were all collected from or how many different places they were collected from?

If you start subdividing a "population" of auratus into bunches of sub-populations, don`t you run the risk of having more dart frog sub-divisions than there are hobbyists?



MonarchzMan said:


> I don't think that folks would necessarily be able to tell the difference. Look at the Almirante pumilio versus Man Creek pumilio. Those populations are many miles away from one another, but they have been lumped together often.
> 
> It is important to keep in mind that these frogs can change significantly over very small distances in some instances and in others, they can be rather constant. My concern is that importers know this. And then you can have this situation with Super Blue Auratus where a select few frogs in the population can be picked out and sold as a different morph when, in reality, they're not.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> Who`s to say these super blue auratus wouldn`t have bred together in the wild? How would you divide up a bunch of different looking auratus if you didn`t know where they were all collected from or how many different places they were collected from?


That's precisely the problem we're talking about: irresponsible import of frogs leading to line bred animals. It's quite possible that the Super Blue auratus bred with each other just as it's quite possible that they bred with the bronze frogs they came in with.

And as long as hobbyists are okay with that, we're going to see "what pumilio morph is this" and "what auratus morph is this" threads happen for the foreseeable future. Simply, it takes letting importers know that that is not acceptable.



> If you start subdividing a "population" of auratus into bunches of sub-populations, don`t you run the risk of having more dart frog sub-divisions than there are hobbyists?


Populations should only be divided if and where necessary. Since these Super Blues came in with Bronze frogs, that was an irresponsible division. Just like the Gold Dust, Green Dust, Orange, and Red divisions were irresponsible for Bastimentos frogs until we realized that they intermingled. However, if given enough space and divisions, then populations should be considered separate.

I highly doubt that we'd run out of hobbyists given that there are how many species and how many morphs already in the hobby? And how many folks specialize on one morph in one species? Very few, it would seem.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

quote stemcellular: But wouldn't folks be able to differentiate between SNDF Capira and say others being called by that moniker? I suppose I just don't see the difference between that approach and the approach frequently taken with the UE frogs (ie. avoiding mixing UE frogs with INIBICO line, Tor line, etc) even though all are Caranaichi valley, etc.

Wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to mix UE and INIBICO lines if you know both are from Caranaichi valley? I think diversifying bloodlines is of upmost importance in perpetuating genetics, and if both lines have accurate locale info wouldn't it be good to combine? Is the area that large and diverse that these frogs are different enough to warrant seperation?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

frogparty said:


> Wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to mix UE and INIBICO lines if you know both are from Caranaichi valley? I think diversifying bloodlines is of upmost importance in perpetuating genetics, and if both lines have accurate locale info wouldn't it be good to combine? Is the area that large and diverse that these frogs are different enough to warrant seperation?


It would come down to getting that information from these two outfits...or having the two communicate and verify where they collected their stock (and determining whether or not it was from the same population). If they were, then there shouldn't be any problem in combining frogs from both sources, and it would actually increase the genetic diversity in the captive population.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> It would come down to getting that information from these two outfits...or having the two communicate and verify where they collected their stock (and determining whether or not it was from the same population). If they were, then there shouldn't be any problem in combining frogs from both sources, and it would actually increase the genetic diversity in the captive population.


I vaguely recall reading that a few species (maybe variabilis?) that were introduced by both UE and INIBICO should be mixed since they represent the same contiguous population of frogs. However, in other circumstances such as with the 'Black' bassleri, UE's group of frogs were collected much further south than where the INIBICO black bassleri were collected. Hence, in this situation I think keeping both lines separate is justified.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree Ray: very rarely do blanket rules apply to these captive management issues, and each situation has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. 

As far as the variabilis, I'm sure it's mentioned in the TMP if that is the case. If not, then it would be good to look into.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> Just like the Gold Dust, Green Dust, Orange, and Red divisions were irresponsible for Bastimentos frogs until we realized that they intermingled.


The problem here is that we KNEW that these were intermingled well before the different color morphs began to come in. It wasn't until later that people chose to ACCEPT it. Yet, hobbyists still insisted on separating them (and still do). 

Unfortunately, those of us who are interested in preserving wild type frogs are in the vast minority in this hobby (same goes for conservation). The best that we can do is to make sure that we follow best practices and only deal with others who follow the same ideology. 

So is it possible? At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, I have to say I think the probability is low. While importers may show some interest, I highly doubt that exporters ever will. Even if they did, how reliable is the information they get from the 12 yo kid that just collected the frogs?

I'd say that many exporters (and perhaps importers), if pressured, will tell us what we want to hear and just slap some BS locality data on them. In my mind, this would be worse than what we currently have. My suspicion is that this is already happening. To say I'm dubious of current locality data on Panamanian imports would be an understatement ... I'll leave it at that.

INIBICO and UE are unique in the fact that they are not "exporters" just out to make a quick buck. The overarching agenda of both of these operations is based in science and conservation, not the pet trade. Until we see organizations such as these pop up in places such as Panama, I think we're stuck with the status quo.

Then again, maybe I'm just a pessimist after all.


----------



## AlexRible (Oct 16, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> Populations should only be divided if and where necessary. Since these Super Blues came in with Bronze frogs, that was an irresponsible division. Just like the Gold Dust, Green Dust, Orange, and Red divisions were irresponsible for Bastimentos frogs until we realized that they intermingled. However, if given enough space and divisions, then populations should be considered separate.


Even if these are intermingled in the wild, does necessarily mean they are breeding in the wild? I seem to remember reading somewhere that pumilio prefer to mate with others of the same color. Who's to say the super blues where not the same way. If there was two morphs living in the same area.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

AlexRible said:


> Even if these are intermingled in the wild, does necessarily mean they are breeding in the wild? I seem to remember reading somewhere that pumilio prefer to mate with others of the same color. Who's to say the super blues where not the same way. If there was two morphs living in the same area.


That's true enough, but I can't say that I've heard of two morphs of the same species coexisting and NOT breeding with one another. I mean, for the Bastimentos pumilio where multiple color forms exist within a population, I've seen orange frogs courting orange frogs or green frogs or yellow frogs or red frogs. In that population, there may be some preference, but it doesn't appear as though it's strong. 

In regards to the pumilio paper you refer to, I personally have issue with it because I don't think that it controlled for frog bias. By that, I mean that if you pluck a green frog from a population of green frogs, it stands to reason that it is going to prefer green frogs since that is all it's seen.

It's possible, but I would say highly unlikely.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

edwardsatc said:


> INIBICO and UE are unique in the fact that they are not "exporters" just out to make a quick buck. The overarching agenda of both of these operations is based in science and conservation, not the pet trade. Until we see organizations such as these pop up in places such as Panama, I think we're stuck with the status quo.


I think that's a connection I hadn't made yet, and is a good point...that the outfits that have provided specific locale information are based more in science and conservation rather than the more standard amphibian trade. And I would agree with you: until an organization like one of these decide to operate in Panama, the situation most likely will not improve.



AlexRible said:


> Even if these are intermingled in the wild, does necessarily mean they are breeding in the wild? I seem to remember reading somewhere that pumilio prefer to mate with others of the same color. Who's to say the super blues where not the same way. If there was two morphs living in the same area.


I believe the study you're referring to was the one that seemed to show that, given the choice, female pumilio seemed to prefer males that were lighter in color. However, I don't believe it showed or proved that they wouldn't mate at all with other males, but that pressure seemed to favor males of a lighter color.

As far as there being "two morphs living in the same area"...I think that's a fallacy. They are all the same "morph" (e.g. population). And I think for this discussion, we are better off using the term population to refer to isolated groups of animals that breed and reproduce with one another. The hobby tends to think of morphs as "frogs that are different in color and appearance"...which has actually led to some of the problems we're dealing with.


----------



## AlexRible (Oct 16, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> That's true enough, but I can't say that I've heard of two morphs of the same species coexisting and NOT breeding with one another. I mean, for the Bastimentos pumilio where multiple color forms exist within a population, I've seen orange frogs courting orange frogs or green frogs or yellow frogs or red frogs. In that population, there may be some preference, but it doesn't appear as though it's strong.


It stands to reason that, an orange basti would be the hybrid of a yellow and a red, but what of the other combinations? It has to be somewhat strong, right? To keep these color morphs separate in the same population?



skylsdale said:


> As far as there being "two morphs living in the same area"...I think that's a fallacy. They are all the same "morph" (e.g. population). And I think for this discussion, we are better off using the term population to refer to isolated groups of animals that breed and reproduce with one another. The hobby tends to think of morphs as "frogs that are different in color and appearance"...which has actually led to some of the problems we're dealing with.


I agree and I am all for more location data, but how specific should we be? If the frogs are collected from two different sites does it make it a different population? 

I shudder to think about all the "green and Black" auratus and "Suriname Cobalts" that got mixed together only based on looks.....


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

It could be that, at least in the Bastimentos population, that skin color is very much like skin color in humans in that the results are a function of additive alleles (e.g. the more "dominant" alleles a frog has, the more red it will be). And in the Bastimentos population, all of the colors we see really are along the Red-Orange-Yellow spectrum (even the green frogs are very pale in comparison to "true" green frogs like Cayo de Aguas).

Alternatively, the genes for each color is mixed within the population and due to more or less random mating, the colors don't get weeded out entirely. I would doubt that frog color is simply a one locus allele, but likely many loci. I do seem to recall folks that have bred Bastimentos frogs saying that an orange pair could throw any color.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

AlexRible said:


> I agree and I am all for more location data, but how specific should we be? If the frogs are collected from two different sites does it make it a different population?


No, not if they're from the same population. A genetically closed population (e.g. isolated) could inhabit a river valley, and frogs could be collected from throughout that river valley and those frogs could most likely be bred together (unless there appears to be some obvious clinal variation that occurs from one end of the valley to the other). That's why we need to get beyond thinking in terms of "morphs," or color groups...and instead start thinking in terms of populations (groups of organisms of the same species living in the same space and able to interbreed) and biogeography.

For example, the "El Dorado" pumilio are just frogs from the southern extant of the BriBri pumilio population. Apparently there is a river near the Costa Rica/Panama border that actually seperates the "El Dorados" from the rest of the BriBri population, making them their own population (e.g. they can't interbreed with any frogs on the other side of the river). However, even if the river wasn't there, what we know to be BriBri pumilio still shouldn't be bred with "El Dorado" pumilio because, even though they are from the same population, they are from two opposite ends...so much so that it's probably safe to say they would not interbreed with one another in the wild. This is reinforced by the fact that both types tend to produce pretty phenotypically similar frogs (e.g. Lighter colored El Dorado frogs don't produce the dark rust, black spotted frogs common in the northern part of the population).


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

edwardsatc said:


> INIBICO and UE are unique in the fact that they are not "exporters" just out to make a quick buck. The overarching agenda of both of these operations is based in science and conservation, not the pet trade. Until we see organizations such as these pop up in places such as Panama, I think we're stuck with the status quo.


We can change the status quo by not buying into it. Your dollar is a vote. Vote against the exploitation by not buying wild-caught frogs without conservation programs.

That is one thing this community could do loud and clear- make it known that wild-caught frogs are unnacceptable within the standards of the community. But instead how many are signing up hand over fist to purchase shady frogs? (New import of Mantellas anyone?)

Afemoralis


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I said a log time ago that I wish there was more control over who got to do the actual import/export of these animals. If there were more outfits like INIBICO/UE offering cb to the public from wc breeding stock that would be IDEAL in my eyes. I think wc should only be available to breeders looking to establish breeding populations to then offer offspring from. Prices would go up a bit,sure, but then beeders supplying demand would make a bit more, not necessarily a bad thing. It would be great too in this situation if the offspring available had a breeder pairing # ccompanying it. For instance, if importer/breeder X has 6 different pairs of frogs breeding, woudn't it be great to get that info? Then the likleyhoodof pairing up cousins/siblings could be reduced or eliminated. I know there are people looking to get "new" genetics from wc animals, and not just in the frog hobby, but a more systematic, organized and conservation minded approach overall would sure go a long way towards achieving the goals a lot of us are talking about


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Frogparty, the latter part of your post is what TWI's Amphibian Steward Network is all about. It would be nice if major breeders/suppliers registered and tracked their stock accordingly, and we have encouraged it. Depending on the size of collection and the number of frogs leaving the facility, however, it might require a significant amount of work and organization...and would only really be successful if those obtaining the frogs did the same, etc.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I realize TWI/ASN is all about that. Im saying that breeders should be doing something similar. I realize it could be a little extra work but I think it would really be worth it, and if people started asking for this kind of info, aybe more breeders would attempt to supply it and that would be awesome.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Absolutely. But you hit on the major crux of the whole thing:



> ...and if people started asking for this kind of info...


Afemoralis has said this, and it's the same point I started this entire thread with in the first place: it comes down to the hobbyist/consumer. It comes down to them requesting this info, and exercising _restraint_ in purchasing (or not purchasing) frogs that only allow such a system to persist.

However, I've been in this hobby long enough, and participated on this board long enough, that I know the hobby is a fickle thing. For the most part, people on here will cry out for conservation and demand better collection and locale information on the frogs they want--enough to make you think these things are occuring more than they actually are--but the instant they're presented with something new and shiny (or that no one else has), regardless of how much or little info associated with it, they snatch that frog right up.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I feel you on that for sure.
But we can always have hope that things will improve.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

People have been hoping for quite a long time. Hope without the substance needed to turn it into reality is...I don't know...delusion?

I guess my point is that we can hope for it to change (and don't get me wrong, I would really like it to), and we can talk about it...but so far, in my experience at least, all we ever do is talk about it. And I think by just talking about it all the time, we start to fool ourselves into thinking it's actually happening.

TWI was the first tangible step toward something different, and at least with the ASN program, attempting to more responsibly manage the animals already in captivity, as well as those that might someday be introduced. But there is the other side of it that needs improving: the system that introduces those animals into the hobby in the first place.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

very interesting topic! almost all of my frogs are from UE. im happy to buy ONLY from importers like them because they are site specific frogs that were brought in legally. ive noticed its quite difficult to find site specific pumilio, why is that? i dont mean new morphs either. i mean the same ones rich has. i never see his pumilio available except by him. seems like nobody has his lines and everyone has the unknowns.

also, in regards to SNDF. in that link, it showed that one type of pumilio (unnamed) that was site specific also said there were 3 color morphs. not only that, but the red "morph" was more expensive than the orange spot and orange stripe "morphs". that seems like its going to make line bred frogs. also, on their website, they separate frogs by every phenotype possible. again, furthering line bred problems.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> I believe the study you're referring to was the one that seemed to show that, given the choice, female pumilio seemed to prefer males that were lighter in color. However, I don't believe it showed or proved that they wouldn't mate at all with other males, but that pressure seemed to favor males of a lighter color.


If one chooses to look into the literature on fish, birds and to a lesser extent reptiles, there is a extensive and growing body of literature that discusses carotenoid based signaling (which is part of this whole system) of fitness for reproduction. The mate choices may not be really based on color but on the ability of a male frog of that color to sequester high levels of carotenoids (a sign of fitness). It is possible that the frogs are utilizing a different method for signaling than the one we think we are detecting...

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

any color can throw any color. Frogs from the same clutch of reds, yellows, oranges or mixed would throw golddust, orange red and yellow, etc. in the same clutch. It`s humans that value different colors or patterns differently, making for different prices for different individuals in varied populations. Just because someone buys a WC pair of super blues and breeds them together is no different than breeding a super blue and green and bronze together if they are WC. It`s up to the f1 line to breed from a different pairing, not siblings and then your not line breeding. Breeding 2 wc frogs is not line breeding. Breeding cb siblings to increase consistency of pattern and color is line breeding.



MonarchzMan said:


> It could be that, at least in the Bastimentos population, that skin color is very much like skin color in humans in that the results are a function of additive alleles (e.g. the more "dominant" alleles a frog has, the more red it will be). And in the Bastimentos population, all of the colors we see really are along the Red-Orange-Yellow spectrum (even the green frogs are very pale in comparison to "true" green frogs like Cayo de Aguas).
> 
> Alternatively, the genes for each color is mixed within the population and due to more or less random mating, the colors don't get weeded out entirely. I would doubt that frog color is simply a one locus allele, but likely many loci. I do seem to recall folks that have bred Bastimentos frogs saying that an orange pair could throw any color.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

The following images are of a friend's auratus that he received in a general import of Panamanian frogs a couple years ago:














































Since they came in the same shipment, some logic would say keep and breed them all together (as we have with some auratus shipments before). But, they are obviously pretty different in phenotype. My guess would be that they are from the Campana region and perhaps west...the top two are an extremely dark camo type frog (they look black without the flash...but aren't Chorrera as you can see their pattern). The third frog looks like Campana del Norte...and the final two are perhaps from a bit west toward El Cope. But really...who knows? Some logic would say seperate them and keep them seperate, which creates a bunch of lone individual auratus (except for maybe the first two dark frogs, but I'm thinking they're the same sex). 

Neither situation is a good one or really beneficial for the hobby or the frogs: without positive breeding pairs of known provenance, more frogs will be collected to supply hobby demand. Even more, it could cause problems if tried pawning the top two frogs off as being from La Chorrera...which no one has any way to accurately prove or deny.


----------



## decev (Dec 3, 2009)

Newbie here with a question...

So it sounds like the best way to support the "good guys" is to buy from only them. In order to do that, do you intend to not purchase any Pumilio or Auratus? Is there a "correct" way to obtain frogs from Central America?


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

I think an alternate is to just avoid buying Wild Caught frogs that are not from the conservation projects. Many lineages in the hobby are long-term. Do some research and find out. Join TWI/ASN. If you buy home-grown and kick into the conservation attempts from here, you'd be doing good by the frogs. 

-Afemoralis


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Does anyone know whether UE has site data for the pumilio and auratus that they sell? For example, from their upcoming shipment:

D. auratus – turquoise & bronze (El Cope) 
D. auratus – microspot 
D. auratus – reticulated
D. auratus – blue & bronze
D. auratus - camouflage


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Since conservation has been mentioned could we clarify the relationship between it and site-specific frogs (in reference to the hobby)? Organizations like UE and INIBICO offer ways to purchase animals that supports conservation because a portion of the sales go to protect the habitat and the animals are sustainably harvested. The fact that the animals are site-specific is just a by product of their documentation (a good thing of course), it is mainly because of the former reasons that we are doing something for conservation by purchasing these site-specific animals rather than the fact that they are site-specific animals.

If the animals were going to be returned to the location of origin for conservation purposes, then we could argue that any site-specific animals help this cause, but most likely none of the animals in the hobby will ever be used for this purpose so it's not a valid argument. We could also argue that having site-specific animals makes it easier for us to manage them in captivity which then links back to conservation, but really it only makes it easier for us to write a management plan for them, to actively manage them in captivity (and all that happens after the management plan is written) still requires the same effort and resources as frogs that lack site-specific data. Maybe if we took an economic perspective and said that increasing the market demand for site-specific animals will then increase revenue for organizations like UE/INIBICO, but then we would have to look at the hobby as a whole rather than just the groups which attend shows or post in communities like these (and when I say hobby I mean anyone who owns a frog).

As a hobbyist, I do prefer to know the origin of my animals, but I also recognize that it's just a personal desire of mine and doesn't do much for the animal itself (short of giving my business to organizations that use the money in areas that I support). But maybe there's some perspectives I'm missing that would change my opinion?


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

I've been thinking about that same question (see page 2 of this thread), and I haven't come up with any. 

There is a certain amount of a "stamp collecting" mentality involved in most non-interactive "pets". (Collect the whole set! Impress your friends and relatives! Oh, a rare one!) Much of it seems to be innate in the personality type. I think site ID's outside of a conservation perspective play into this.

Perhaps, at a stretch, site-specific ID's play some role in developing an appreciation for the diversity and range of phenotypes that compose our species of interest... they link us to a fundamental part of biology (variation) not often encountered in day to day thought. For me, that variability draws deeper questions about evolution and the genetic processes underlying such a range.

But I think that the value of site specific ID's (at this point) is that it allows us to separate the folks who are doing right by the frogs from those who are participating in shady frog'sploitation. Saying this frog for sale is an "Imitator Veradero, from this parent, from this legal importation, from this project," lets us make a judgement call about who is selling the frog, and their level of responsibility to the frogs and the hobby.

There are a few folks on this board who sell frogs from groups they have been working with for over 20 years. This is where I see "line" information being of value. Knowing a line is associated with a reputable individual carries a lot of weight with me (i.e. Tor). I love that I can currently do the same thing with localities- if it hasn't got a specific locality and importation number I can track, I think it was a "grab and go" and didn't comply with the "do no harm to the wild frogs" emphasis I inflict on my hobby.

So I don't know if the localities themselves have much value to conservation. But perhaps they are indicators of a few other qualities that lead many to conservation.

-Afemoralis.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

While I see, understand and agree with the idea that it is very practical and desirous of the hobby at large to have breeders/importers/suppliers offer us frogs with extravagant labeling systems… what’s in it for them?

If I finance an importation… keeping multiple wild mated pairs together… Sell F1 offspring with exact locale data… including details of which pair your purchase came from… offering information as to which pairs came from a single population (ignoring differences in appearance)…

Then I am giving my customers the ideal opportunity to become breeders…

Sure I could sell my F1 frogs for 200% the going rate, and they would be well worth it… to anyone who wants to breed them, or anyone who wants to pay the mark up as a way to thank me for my contribution… But the elevated price would prevent the vast majority of potential customers from buying from me…

Plus a year later my original customers would have breeding pairs of my F1 frogs making F2 offspring available from verified non-sibling pairs… which would all but put me out of business…


While I agree I would love for breeders/importers/suppliers to make such lavish labeling available, I just don’t see why they would… Unless they do so as a donation to the hobby…


(Regarding my interest in D Auratus Panamanian) Thus I see myself being forced to make a choice… A) Buy a group of frogs from a single source and be confident they are of a single population and inbreed them… or B) Grow out a few groups from different suppliers and make pairs between groups…


While I understand and respect the desire for “locale pure” strains, I do not see myself keeping such “purity” at the cost of excessive inbreeding. For this reason I am planning to grow out a few groups of frogs of the same species from different suppliers (likely from slightly different locales)… and attempt to pair up the nicest frogs from each group.

From my experience in fish breeding I see this as the most responsible approach I can take, with what I currently have available. But from the comments I commonly see on this forum (not limited to this thread) it seems my offspring would be viewed as ‘low class’ by many or even ‘hybrids’ by some.


I thoroughly agree with promoting and supporting conservation minded collectors and will do so when and were I can. But in the mean time what else is a guy supposed to do?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

As far as I know there is no INIBICO anymore.
As far as site specific frogs, the people that do it do it for a contribution for the hobby. I`m sure wholesalers do just as much business w/ selling non locale specific frogs. The people who get and give locality or lines do it for the frogs as it doesn`t make you anymore money and people generally don`t ask.


Corpus Callosum said:


> Since conservation has been mentioned could we clarify the relationship between it and site-specific frogs (in reference to the hobby)? Organizations like UE and INIBICO offer ways to purchase animals that supports conservation because a portion of the sales go to protect the habitat and the animals are sustainably harvested. The fact that the animals are site-specific is just a by product of their documentation (a good thing of course), it is mainly because of the former reasons that we are doing something for conservation by purchasing these site-specific animals rather than the fact that they are site-specific animals.
> 
> If the animals were going to be returned to the location of origin for conservation purposes, then we could argue that any site-specific animals help this cause, but most likely none of the animals in the hobby will ever be used for this purpose so it's not a valid argument. We could also argue that having site-specific animals makes it easier for us to manage them in captivity which then links back to conservation, but really it only makes it easier for us to write a management plan for them, to actively manage them in captivity (and all that happens after the management plan is written) still requires the same effort and resources as frogs that lack site-specific data. Maybe if we took an economic perspective and said that increasing the market demand for site-specific animals will then increase revenue for organizations like UE/INIBICO, but then we would have to look at the hobby as a whole rather than just the groups which attend shows or post in communities like these (and when I say hobby I mean anyone who owns a frog).
> 
> As a hobbyist, I do prefer to know the origin of my animals, but I also recognize that it's just a personal desire of mine and doesn't do much for the animal itself (short of giving my business to organizations that use the money in areas that I support). But maybe there's some perspectives I'm missing that would change my opinion?


----------



## spinycheek (Jan 26, 2010)

Doesn't the isolation of a few pairs of breeding adults constitute a genetic shift from the wild population, therefore making captives lines a genetic deviation from their wild counterparts? Seems to me that keeping "pure-breds" would actually cause more inferiority than mixing individuals from populations. I completely agree that the most logical way to preserve wild populations is through support of organizations like Understory Enterprises. I highly doubt any captive lines within the hobby will ever be considered for re-population efforts, at best preservation of "pure-breds" is beneficial to the hobby alone, not to wild stocks.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

spinycheek said:


> Doesn't the isolation of a few pairs of breeding adults constitute a genetic shift from the wild population, therefore making captives lines a genetic deviation from their wild counterparts?


More like freezing the population in time, so to speak, at the point from which specimens removed from the wild. 



> I highly doubt any captive lines within the hobby will ever be considered for re-population efforts, at best preservation of "pure-breds" is beneficial to the hobby alone, not to wild stocks.


Captive lines in the hobby will not ever be considered for repopulation efforts, primarily due to reasons of biosecurity (this includes many zoos and associated institutions as well). This and other issues were hashed out in this thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/47324-conservation-hobby.html


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

spinycheek said:


> Doesn't the isolation of a few pairs of breeding adults constitute a genetic shift from the wild population, therefore making captives lines a genetic deviation from their wild counterparts?





skylsdale said:


> More like freezing the population in time, so to speak, at the point from which specimens removed from the wild.


When viewing this as a single generation of removal, I agree.

But when a few pairs are removed from the wild, then put into captive breeding programs... survival of the fittest is no longer a factor the way it is in their natural environemnt, as human beings are nurturing every single specimen drastically increasing the survival rate... Then over generations, these "less than fittest" are not only given the chance to breed, but to breed with each other, and not only breed with each other, but inbreed with each other.

Thus if a few breeding pairs were removed from the wild and put into common hobby breeding conditions without outcrossing them to any other frogs... I would expect them to digress to some degree...

Survival of the fittest and natural selection are things we cannot ignore at having a considerable impact...


----------



## ZEW (Oct 28, 2008)

This is the biggest issue, that as soon as you remove frogs from the special environment that created them, you remove the selective presure that created those traits in the first place. As soon as you start selecting breeders based on color, and health based on which ones eat the most fruit flies, you start adapting the frogs (and their genes) to captivity.

But I have to ask why is this a problem? People keep saying in this thread and others "well it doesn't mater since captive frogs will never be used for reintroduction". In fact, it would not surprise me if frogs from certain populations were used for real repopulation efforts someday. Who knows what could be possible. What if we could genetically engineer a chytrid resistant frog and release them? Should we? Anyway, I am getting off topic...

Tons of research in tons of different species from frogs to tigers has shown that when you release captive bred animals into the wild that their intitial fitness is poor but if a few survive, that original fitness and survival rates return very quickly when placed back into the original selective environment. So yes, I do think that there is a value in local specific frogs. If there was a disaster that whiped out a population, they could be very important.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

However, regarding repatriation, as I mentioned above...the issue isn't just locale-specific genetics, but biosecurity (pathogens, diseases, parasites, etc.). How many hobbyists keep ONLY one species from only one site, and do so away from all possible other animals and avenues of cross-contamination from native (although now foreign) pathogens? Many zoos aren't even set up this well...so the possibility of using animals for reintroduction drops to nil because the host country won't take the risk of foreign pathogens being introduced into their ecosystems. Last I heard, not even _Atelopus zeteki_ that have been housed and bred in U.S. zoos will ever by considered for repatriation efforts in Panama exactly because of these issues.

We're starting to get off track from the original intention of this thread, but in regards to amphibian conservation, the preferred method now is in-country projects. For these topics, this thread is the better forum: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/47324-conservation-hobby.html


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

ZEW said:


> This is the biggest issue, that as soon as you remove frogs from the special environment that created them, you remove the selective presure that created those traits in the first place. As soon as you start selecting breeders based on color, and health based on which ones eat the most fruit flies, you start adapting the frogs (and their genes) to captivity.


In regards to pumilio, captive frogs may be "super frogs" for reintroduction. In the wild, they're ridiculously successful, but in captivity, they're moderately so (compared to other species), so if we could get a population to do well in captivity, it'd almost certainly do well in the wild.



> But I have to ask why is this a problem? People keep saying in this thread and others "well it doesn't mater since captive frogs will never be used for reintroduction". In fact, it would not surprise me if frogs from certain populations were used for real repopulation efforts someday. Who knows what could be possible. What if we could genetically engineer a chytrid resistant frog and release them? Should we? Anyway, I am getting off topic...


I honestly think that the hobby is the only hope these dart frogs have for conservation. And by that, I mean conservation of the genetic variability of species. Zoos look at pumilio or auratus or tinctorius as a species, not individual populations like the hobby does. Part of that, I would guess, is tradition and part of it is logistics. Zoos would have an incredibly difficult time if they had to look at these dart frogs in terms of individual populations because then they'd have to devote time and space to each population. And, as far as I know for herps especially, zoos are strapped for space (blast mammal-centric thinking!).

Personally, I would love to see someone import some of the Pelican Key pumilio and pass them out to TWI/ASN for management. That population is from a very small island, and I would venture to guess that at least 50% of the usable habitat has been deforested, and there is continuing deforestation going on the island, so I would guess that the population could face extinction in the next 5 years.

And this would be the prime example of a reintroduction program being led by the hobby because I doubt zoos would/could take such a project on (especially given that pumilio, as a species, is just fine).



> Tons of research in tons of different species from frogs to tigers has shown that when you release captive bred animals into the wild that their intitial fitness is poor but if a few survive, that original fitness and survival rates return very quickly when placed back into the original selective environment. So yes, I do think that there is a value in local specific frogs. If there was a disaster that whiped out a population, they could be very important.


That's why reintroduction programs tend to inundate a system with individuals. I mean, they're looking to reintroduce the Spray Toad by releasing a ton. Many will likely die, but hopefully some will hang on.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

So I think we all agree... for species such as Auratus... in places such as Panama...

If a locales population is completely wiped out, and after the fact conservation mend the environment to again be suitable to host dart frogs... the conservatinoalists are going to capture wild frogs from a near by area and release them, not look to the hobby for specimen for reintroduction...

Therefore within this group and other groups that would fall under the same circumstances... can we agree that we keep locale specific strains simply for our own pleasures? I am by no means saying this is wrong, bad or unimportant... I'm just trying to acknowledge it for what it is...


Coming from a long background in SA/CA fish, I agree whole heartedly at avoiding hybridization at the level of crossing two different species to make a fish that is different from either parent species... but I do not support (nor oppose others who) avoiding hybridization at the level of breeding two specimen that are the same species but from slightly different locales. 

As described above, when we remove an animal from it's natural environment and artificially nurture them, artificially select breeding partners, and subject them to artificial environments/stresses... We are genetically changing them from their locale standard.


So you will never catch me allowing the offspring of a Plum & a Tinc to be raised or distributed from my tanks... but I see no harm in allowing a Auratus spawn with an Auratus just because their ancestors were native to different river valleys a few dozen miles apart...


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> If a locales population is completely wiped out, and after the fact conservation mend the environment to again be suitable to host dart frogs... the conservatinoalists are going to capture wild frogs from a near by area and release them, not look to the hobby for specimen for reintroduction...


I think that the entire purpose of TWI is to show that conservation can be done by the hobby. If we use a management plan like ASN sets up, there really would be no reason why the hobby couldn't supply specimens for reintroduction.



> As described above, when we remove an animal from it's natural environment and artificially nurture them, artificially select breeding partners, and subject them to artificial environments/stresses... We are genetically changing them from their locale standard.


Again, if we were to follow a management plan like TWI (adopted from zoo standards), this would be minimal. Right now, we treat frogs as individual populations within our own frog rooms, but if we treated them as an entire population and traded individuals between breeders, we would keep such genetic problems kept to a minimum. We get selection when we don't have random mating (which is the norm right now).




> So you will never catch me allowing the offspring of a Plum & a Tinc to be raised or distributed from my tanks... but I see no harm in allowing a Auratus spawn with an Auratus just because their ancestors were native to different river valleys a few dozen miles apart...


By doing that, you'd be destroying the genetic integrity of the morph. And, not only that, but if you did that, it would dishonest to sell offspring as purebred morph X.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

We need to have an accurate representation of the wild animal available for future generations of hobbyists. There are future hobbyists that will want to view and study the animal as closely as possible to the wild population.

We need to be good stewards of the animals and the hobby.

Hybrid and line breeding muddy that water and it can never be undone. We can never go backwards.

Just because the likelyhood of repatriation / reintroduction is slim, that should not give anyone a moral free pass for any other issue.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> By doing that, you'd be destroying the genetic integrity of the morph. And, not only that, but if you did that, it would dishonest to sell offspring as purebred morph X.


One could factually say that by not enforcing 'survival of the fittest' in potential breeders you are destroying genetic integrity...

One could factually say that by not allowing 'natural selection' you are destroying genetic diversity...

One could factually say that by limiting potential partners to a very small group of specimen (and it's direct descendants) that were removed from the native population you are destroying their genetic integrity...

One could factually say that by removing a specimen from it’s natural environment we are ensuring further generations will have their genetic integrity destroyed… unless we learn to perfectly replicate their natural environment and every single one of it’s stresses.


I accept that my suggested breeding pattern is imperfect in the attempts to recreate a specimen that fully reflects it’s wild counterparts… I hope others learn to be as rational/factual while evaluating theirs.


This is not to criticize anyone’s programs, projects or efforts. It is simply acknowledging the factual details that apply to captive breeding programs…


So to pull my post more specifically on topic, while I believe that it is completely possible to establish a “locale pure” captive population, I see doing so to come at a certain cost. A) By altering the environment from it’s native environment to a nurturing artificial environment, we are encouraging different genetic features and behavioral traits from thriving and thus continuing… and B) We are limiting the ’genetic diversity’ that the entire native population would have at it’s disposal.

For an example of B… There have been some breeding populations of D Auratus in Panama that have green/black & blue/black frogs that coexist and interbreed within the same natural population (this has been observed in a few as well as found within the green/bronze & blue/bronze specimens that have been imported). Therefore if a handful of wild green/black pairs were brought in from a single locale/population and those pairs coincidentally did not produce blue/black frogs… the natural/native quality of these two “morphs” being from a single population could be lost.

We could replace any number of genetic traits that will exist in a population with this color difference. It would be naive to assume that removing even a dozen naturally formed adult pairs from a locale/population they would contain all genetic potentials that the natural population contains.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Philsuma said:


> We need to have an accurate representation of the wild animal available for future generations of hobbyists. There are future hobbyists that will want to view and study the animal as closely as possible to the wild population.
> 
> We need to be good stewards of the animals and the hobby.
> 
> ...



The details have already been covered that that explain how currently no breeding project produces offspring that offers “accurate representation” of wild populations and that it is nearly if not literally impossible to do so. So you are suggesting that we “need” to do something that none of us are doing… that none of us (nor us as a group) are capable of doing… 

While we can never undo hybridization & line breeding we have to be equally honest when admitting we cannot undo inbreeding or the breeding of genetically inferior specimen.

I feel that many people are misunderstanding (or promoting a misunderstanding of) the differences between hybridizing different species and ‘hybridizing’ two neighboring locales that are of the same species, in almost (if not) exact environments, with almost (if not) exact traits, qualities, habits, behaviors, appearance, size, etc… 

The term “hybrid” can be manipulated to suggest any and every genetic difference between two individuals is “hybridizing”… and since no two individuals are every truly genetically exact… it could be misconstrued that all breeding is in fact hybridization… Thus the definition of the term hybridization must be agreed upon by individuals within a debate for the term to have any real use or value within a debate. 

I feel that describing breeding two captive bred specimen of the same species from the same region/country whose ancestors are from different wild breeding populations as “taking a free moral pass” is muddying this topic/debate far more than not honoring locales in extended breeding projects. 

As thoroughly described… captive breeding alters the genetic purity of a wild population… Thus by creating a breeding project you are inherently defeating your own goal…


Again, I have complete respect and appreciation for the locale pure breeding projects. I am just pointing out the imperfections or challenges of captive breeding as a whole, and requesting we set aside arrogance or condescending judgments of those who embrace different priorities in establishing a healthy breeding stock.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> As thoroughly described… captive breeding alters the genetic purity of a wild population… Thus by creating a breeding project you are inherently defeating your own goal…


Actually, it doesn't. 

Proper captive management simply freezes in time the genetics from the point at which those individuals were removed from the wild. Proper management _maintains_ the genetic integrity of the captive population and attempts to minimize those factors that would cause it to "move" in a different direction from the wild population (at least at the time from which they were collected). Evolutionarily speaking, if a reintroduction effort was then conducted with those collected and CB frogs 3-5...even 10 years later, I don't think either would have diverged evolutionarily all that much, if at all.


----------



## spinycheek (Jan 26, 2010)

It is unlikely that it would freeze a population in time. A population is kept consistent just as the others have said, by environmental/natural selection. Genetic code is continually changing with each generation, but if conditions remain the same, those changes come back around to match the environment. Captive environments are extremely different from wild ones, so it is nearly, if not completely, impossible to maintain the same genetics. And lets say you remove a few frogs from a population, and those frogs have a rather unique characteristic among the wild population such as laying 4 eggs instead of 8. Now the entire captive population only lays 1/2 as many eggs as the wild ones and are hence genetically different from the normal wild population. This is what genetic shift is all about. Isolation is what leads to speciation.

And color, size etc. is not a good indicator of genetic similarity as is blatantly evidenced by different species mimicking each other. Other things that are not visible to us such as immune response, calling pitch, fecundity, and many thousands of other traits are involved with species identification.


On another point about inbreeding and hybridization, in The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, it discusses a natural reversion to the wild phenotype when two breeds or genetic lines, separated by selective breeding, are bred together. Example, crossing two different breeds of hobby pigeons will inevitably create a standard rock pigeon within a few short generations. Would the same not hold true for frogs? If a genetic line is spoiled because of isolation or inbreeding, would it not be largely reversible by breeding with other spoiled lines?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

skylsdale said:


> Actually, it doesn't.


I have to respectfully disagree… 

As described thoroughly above by Spinycreek, by changing the pressures, stresses, etc of the environment when moving them from the widely diverse ecosystem of Central America to the controlled micro systems of captivity… Some natural characteristics are lost and other unnatural characteristics prevai 

The qualities that choose one frog to live and another die are changed… The qualities that are evaluated to select breeders are changed… The pressures that cause characteristics to develop are changed... thus, the frogs are changed…


Please describe what “Proper Captive Management” details would prevent evolutionarily changes from taking place? Outside of denying that evolution exists, I just can’t imagine it being possible (shy of perfectly replicating nature, which is literally impossible).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

spinycheek said:


> It is unlikely that it would freeze a population in time. A population is kept consistent just as the others have said, by environmental/natural selection. Genetic code is continually changing with each generation, but if conditions remain the same, those changes come back around to match the environment.


The way to manage the captive population is by managing the frequency of alleles in the captive population. If you manage the frequency of the allele distribution to be as close as possible as the moment the group was brought into captivity (or in case of the hobby at the moment where mangement begins) then the change in the genetics of the population will be minimal and be as close as possible to the wild population. This is well supported by captive conservation science and proper management based on initial populations allows for projections on how long a population should remain viable if managed. This is documented and well explained by the ASN manual. 



spinycheek said:


> Captive environments are extremely different from wild ones, so it is nearly, if not completely, impossible to maintain the same genetics. And lets say you remove a few frogs from a population, and those frogs have a rather unique characteristic among the wild population such as laying 4 eggs instead of 8. Now the entire captive population only lays 1/2 as many eggs as the wild ones and are hence genetically different from the normal wild population. This is what genetic shift is all about. Isolation is what leads to speciation.


However genetic shifts can be managed in captive populations through management of the allele frequency. It is only when the populations' allele frequency is not managed that the scenario you indicate is going to occur. 



spinycheek said:


> And color, size etc. is not a good indicator of genetic similarity as is blatantly evidenced by different species mimicking each other. Other things that are not visible to us such as immune response, calling pitch, fecundity, and many thousands of other traits are involved with species identification.


If you are referring to the habit that some keepers engage in aquiring animals of unknown origins and then assigning them based on visual characteristics, this would be true if most of the dendrobatids consisted of cryptic species like many caudates.. however based on the current standard of information keeping frogs within groups based on importations is not unreasonable. The tools in the hobby have not caught up to the science and even within major conservation organizations, this understanding is not more than a few decades old... (look at the history of orang conservation in captivity as an example...) When the tools become available to the hobby to determine degrees of relatedness it may show that some "morphs" are admixtures of different morphs (much like the population of tigers held by non-AZA institutions.. virtually all of them are outcrosses between bengel and Amur (siberian) tigers) and at that time, the hobby will be able to make a determination on whether to continue working with those animals but that choice will never occur unless at some level a portion of the population is managed in a way to assure it will still be around for that day to come. 




spinycheek said:


> On another point about inbreeding and hybridization, in The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, it discusses a natural reversion to the wild phenotype when two breeds or genetic lines, separated by selective breeding, are bred together. Example, crossing two different breeds of hobby pigeons will inevitably create a standard rock pigeon within a few short generations. Would the same not hold true for frogs? If a genetic line is spoiled because of isolation or inbreeding, would it not be largely reversible by breeding with other spoiled lines?


The correct terminology for this is outcrossing. There is a problem with the examples given as both of those are species that do not show distinct and stable morphological/pattern differences based on specific allele frequencies that were determined by mate choice and probably predation (mate choice appears to be the main driver of stable pumilio pattern differences in Panama). Once the allele frequency is changed by outcrossing them to a different morph, the potential uniqueness of that locality is gone and would not be recoverable from that group. For an example with a subspecies check out the ruling on the Dusky Seaside Sparrow which was attempted to be saved by crossbreeding with a closely related subspecies.... 

Ed


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

spinycheek said:


> It is unlikely that it would freeze a population in time.


The opposite is obviously, that the genetics are irretrievably mixed and "gone" .That is not debatable. So that while the assumption is that there may be no "True" representation of the population.....

It IS the BEST we can do.

That's all we can do....our "best" shot. Possibly imperfect, but still the most responsible.

What's your alternative? "Open the floodgates" ?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> I have to respectfully disagree…
> 
> As described thoroughly above by Spinycreek, by changing the pressures, stresses, etc of the environment when moving them from the widely diverse ecosystem of Central America to the controlled micro systems of captivity… Some natural characteristics are lost and other unnatural characteristics prevai
> 
> ...



The way to avoid the selection is to manage the allele frequency. This is the foundation on all of the captive reintroduction programs in existance and are supported by the success of those programs. For example see the management program for Przewalski's Horse.. or Wyoming toad, or Atelopus zeteki or the California condor, or the Puerto Rican crested toad. This is well outlined and explained in the ASN manual (available here Become an ASN Steward - Page 2) . 

See my post above... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> The details have already been covered that that explain how currently no breeding project produces offspring that offers “accurate representation” of wild populations and that it is nearly if not literally impossible to do so. So you are suggesting that we “need” to do something that none of us are doing… that none of us (nor us as a group) are capable of doing…


I've not seen the information that contradicts the established methods for reintroductions currently in use for many captive breeding programs... I'll work back through the thread and address some of the other comments... 



Toby_H said:


> While we can never undo hybridization & line breeding we have to be equally honest when admitting we cannot undo inbreeding or the breeding of genetically inferior specimen.


However we can minimize the effect on populations long established in captivity. This has been shown to be successful in other taxa (like the Przewalski's Horse where the founder population was 13 animals and there are now succesful reintroduction programs). The problem with this stand is that it also does not take into consideration the life span of the frogs, Dendrobates are known to live for 20 plus years and ages well over ten are not uncommon with many people. There are founder animals still alive and producing offspring which if brought into a mangement program allows the allele frequency to be captured for long term maintance... 




Toby_H said:


> I feel that many people are misunderstanding (or promoting a misunderstanding of) the differences between hybridizing different species and ‘hybridizing’ two neighboring locales that are of the same species, in almost (if not) exact environments, with almost (if not) exact traits, qualities, habits, behaviors, appearance, size, etc…


If you are dealing with two different localities of the same species, then the correct phrase is outcrossing. 



Toby_H said:


> The term “hybrid” can be manipulated to suggest any and every genetic difference between two individuals is “hybridizing”… and since no two individuals are every truly genetically exact… it could be misconstrued that all breeding is in fact hybridization… Thus the definition of the term hybridization must be agreed upon by individuals within a debate for the term to have any real use or value within a debate.


There isn't any need for an argument if the correct terms are used... see above. And no one is arguing that two animals from the same population that breed together are hybrids... 



Toby_H said:


> As thoroughly described… captive breeding alters the genetic purity of a wild population… Thus by creating a breeding project you are inherently defeating your own goal…


Only if the allele frequncies are not managed in a manner to ensure that the maximal allele frequency as seen in the collected animals is sustained. Again see the various breeding programs or the ASN manual. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> If a locales population is completely wiped out, and after the fact conservation mend the environment to again be suitable to host dart frogs... the conservatinoalists are going to capture wild frogs from a near by area and release them, not look to the hobby for specimen for reintroduction...


If the area was close enough to allow for natural repatriation it is unlikely that transport would be done. Currently the hobby does not meet the standards used for repatriation of any animals and as such is not a possible choice. Now this does not mean that this would be the case if one or more people in the hobby adopted and managed specific criteria with respect to specific localities, however most in the hobby are unwilling to adopt these requirements (locality specific populations within a structure, biocontainment to prevent exposure to non-local specific pathogens..etc). 



Toby_H said:


> Coming from a long background in SA/CA fish, I agree whole heartedly at avoiding hybridization at the level of crossing two different species to make a fish that is different from either parent species... but I do not support (nor oppose others who) avoiding hybridization at the level of breeding two specimen that are the same species but from slightly different locales.


Even if it destroys gentically determined stable phenotypes? So you don't see anything wrong with crossing the different morphs of annual killifish? What about the different rainbow darters from different water sheds? 



Toby_H said:


> As described above, when we remove an animal from it's natural environment and artificially nurture them, artificially select breeding partners, and subject them to artificial environments/stresses... We are genetically changing them from their locale standard.


Management of allele frequency resolves this issue. There is a lot of information on it.. see for example Preserving Population Allele Frequencies in Ex Situ Conservation Programs 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> In regards to pumilio, captive frogs may be "super frogs" for reintroduction. In the wild, they're ridiculously successful, but in captivity, they're moderately so (compared to other species), so if we could get a population to do well in captivity, it'd almost certainly do well in the wild.


Not necessarily. This has not been supported by practical experience in other taxa. For example hatchery raised fish are very poor at surviving in the wild. 





MonarchzMan said:


> And this would be the prime example of a reintroduction program being led by the hobby because I doubt zoos would/could take such a project on (especially given that pumilio, as a species, is just fine).


The problem is that the hobbyists engaged in such a program would have to manage the population in a way to meet the following criteria
1) house the animals in a biosecure enviroment and ideally not house any other species that can be a disease vector in the same building
2) manage the allele frequency in a manner that the allele frequency should show little to no variation for some time interval (usual minimal standards used by institutions are 100-500 years).

The majority of the hobby is unable to meet these criteria (and most institutions do not meet these criteria which does limit some reintroduction programs). Amphibians (and reptiles) are undergoing more rigerous requirements due to the potential of novel pathogen transmission as there can be transmission of novel pathogens both to and from feeder insects, potentially vertical transmission, as well as transmission between the species. A lot of these potential pathogen may pass unremarked in captivity. For example, there have been several disasterous disease transmissions from the release which caused significant mortality not only within that species but several other species as well. 
It is a learning process but until we have to tools needed to readily monitor for these pathogens, these are the criteria that need to be met. 





MonarchzMan said:


> That's why reintroduction programs tend to inundate a system with individuals. I mean, they're looking to reintroduce the Spray Toad by releasing a ton. Many will likely die, but hopefully some will hang on.


If there is a extant population releasing a large number of captive bred animals has been shown to have a deleterious effect. (see JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) If there isn't any population remaining then a large number of animals can be released with no harm as the native population is extinct. 
While the goal is to release spray toads there are a number of barriers in the way that may be insurmountable... chytrid, other anurans inhabiting the habitat (displacement due to modifications of the habitat), invasive plants, the design for the sprayer has been shown to not be appropriate... 

Ed


----------



## spinycheek (Jan 26, 2010)

I was unaware of allele frequency monitoring. Although this is apparently successful, how is it at all possible to monitor the thousands upon thousands of unknown alleles in these species, which I'm presuming have unmapped genetic codes? Or are they only monitoring specific alleles which distinguish them from parents/siblings, etc. 

Although I'm sure captive programs can get close, or even very close with allele monitoring, I don't see how it's possible to maintain the same genetic variety and diversity found in nature with the limited parent stock those programs begin with.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> Not necessarily. This has not been supported by practical experience in other taxa. For example hatchery raised fish are very poor at surviving in the wild.


Right, it's just an idea, but in regards to the hatchery fish, hatchery fish are often done with species that are "sensitive" like salmonids. It's not all encompassing, no, but I think as far as pumilio go, I would compare them to something more like a centrarchid (when compared to other dart frogs). But that's me  



> The problem is that the hobbyists engaged in such a program would have to manage the population in a way to meet the following criteria
> 1) house the animals in a biosecure enviroment and ideally not house any other species that can be a disease vector in the same building
> 2) manage the allele frequency in a manner that the allele frequency should show little to no variation for some time interval (usual minimal standards used by institutions are 100-500 years).
> 
> ...


I totally agree. If hobbyists were to want to take on a possible reintroduction effort, significant changes would have to be made.



> If there is a extant population releasing a large number of captive bred animals has been shown to have a deleterious effect. (see JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) If there isn't any population remaining then a large number of animals can be released with no harm as the native population is extinct.
> While the goal is to release spray toads there are a number of barriers in the way that may be insurmountable... chytrid, other anurans inhabiting the habitat (displacement due to modifications of the habitat), invasive plants, the design for the sprayer has been shown to not be appropriate...
> 
> Ed


I look with interest to the Spray Toads, but the reintroduction is probably going to be ugly.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Just a couple more comments to what Ed said



Toby_H said:


> One could factually say that by not enforcing 'survival of the fittest' in potential breeders you are destroying genetic integrity...
> 
> One could factually say that by not allowing 'natural selection' you are destroying genetic diversity...


As Ed has said, proper breeding programs don't remove genes. They keep the captive population in a snapshot in time. Survival of the fittest and natural selection both act on the concept of differential fitness between alleles, so some will be selected for and some will be selected against. So, one could make the argument that by definition that survival of the fittest and natural selection decrease genetic diversity (it's through mutation and immigration that you get new stuff).



> One could factually say that by limiting potential partners to a very small group of specimen (and it's direct descendants) that were removed from the native population you are destroying their genetic integrity...


This is true if you are talking about the average hobbyist who maybe has 4-6 individuals of a particular morph, but if you have a combined population of 50, 100, 200, etc, that won't happen.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

spinycheek said:


> I was unaware of allele frequency monitoring. Although this is apparently successful, how is it at all possible to monitor the thousands upon thousands of unknown alleles in these species, which I'm presuming have unmapped genetic codes? Or are they only monitoring specific alleles which distinguish them from parents/siblings, etc.
> 
> Although I'm sure captive programs can get close, or even very close with allele monitoring, I don't see how it's possible to maintain the same genetic variety and diversity found in nature with the limited parent stock those programs begin with.


Ed will be able to provide better details for this, but it doesn't require knowing the genetic code, but just a few assumptions of population genetics. In a stable population, genetic diversity tends to be the highest, meaning that heterozygous alleles are going to be most common and homozygous alleles will be least (unless they've become fixed in the population). With many homozygous alleles, you tend to have issues (inbreeding, deleterious alleles, etc). So if individuals are kept from breeding with parents/siblings/half-siblings/etc which are methods to increase homozygosity, you maintain the heterozygosity within the population. These come from the assumptions of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium which state conditions for a population not to evolve. The only real part of the HWE breeders cannot control is mutation, and in relatively short periods of time, that would likely have minimal effect.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

spinycheek said:


> I was unaware of allele frequency monitoring. Although this is apparently successful, how is it at all possible to monitor the thousands upon thousands of unknown alleles in these species, which I'm presuming have unmapped genetic codes? Or are they only monitoring specific alleles which distinguish them from parents/siblings, etc.


One of the ways can be through statistical probability. This is the method used in some programs (including but not limited to Atelopus zeteki, Bufo baxteri, and was/is currently used for black footed ferrets). This is the method that does work (as shown by the success of the blackfooted ferret reintroductions,(and other programs)). If you want to know how, I suggest reviewing the literature... there is a fairly extensive amount of it.. The references are available through google scholar as well as the ASN manual.. 



spinycheek said:


> Although I'm sure captive programs can get close, or even very close with allele monitoring, I don't see how it's possible to maintain the same genetic variety and diversity found in nature with the limited parent stock those programs begin with.


This of course depends on the number of founders and their relatedness but the models are pretty well accepted that a very close approximations of a wild population can be maintained with for a minumum of 100 years and with good care at least 500 years. Given your level of skeptism, I suggest that you review the literature on this topic. This should give you a good start and the types of keywords to use ILAR Journal Online, Volume 38(2) 1997: The Role of Computational Models in Animal Research 

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I have no complaints or criticisms of anyone who wishes to attempt to create a ‘locale specific’ breeding project… and I definitely respect the Breeding Guidelines laid out by TWI, thank you for the link Ed. 

But… 

While the Breeding Guidelines laid out by TWI may be “the best we can reproduce”… I do not agree that perfectly following them would justify claiming after several generations the progeny of the project would be a “genetically frozen” representation of the wild type frogs of a locale/population… 

- We cannot ignore the influence of “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection”…

- We cannot ignore the fact that environmental stresses and pressures in captive enclosures are total different worlds than their native environments…

- We cannot not ignore the fact that when frogs that would have died in the wild survive to propagate… these substandard genes that should have died off are left to thrive, which influences/changes it’s offspring and their descendants…

- We cannot ignore the fact that during “infancy” or the tadpole stage the specimen is very susceptible to influence by minor factors (temperature, PH, TDS and far more than I am aware of) that will trigger, or fail to trigger, development. 

- Thus to genetically “freeze” a captive population for multiple generations a perfect replication of their native environment, stresses and pressures must be mimicked… and their native environment, stresses and pressures are far to dynamic for this to be done…


While the TWI Guidelines start with what they suggest is a wide variety (97.5%) of the genetic variety of the original population… the stresses and pressures of their natural environment will ‘weed out’ many of the offspring produced via survival of the fittest and natural selection that will not be weeded out in the TWI breeding approach… 

The TWI breeding approach will allow any and every offspring to have equal potential to propagate… where in natural conditions only the “fittest” per that specific environment will survive to spawn…


So while I do not agree that the TWI approach will “genetically freeze” a given population, I do understand that it is a very impressive standard to be applied to a breeding program. I commend anyone and everyone who applies these strict standards to their projects…


But we must note that there are a great number of details in these Guidelines and compromising any one will lesson the result. So if you are not starting with 20 WC founders, and have not established 7, preferably 12, breeding offspring of each of those founders and if you are not rotating available partners in a breeding group and you are not avoiding any pairing of second cousin or closer and, and, and… Then your program is compromised. Just because you didn’t compromise on “locale purity” doesn’t mean your project is not anymore compromised than someone whose is. 

Compromised is compromised… 


I’m perfectly willing to give credit where credit is due… but I’m not willing to give credit to those who cut every single corner except compromising locale…


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> As Ed has said, proper breeding programs don't remove genes. They keep the captive population in a snapshot in time. Survival of the fittest and natural selection both act on the concept of differential fitness between alleles, so some will be selected for and some will be selected against.


A virtually unlimited number of traits/qualities exist in subdominant or recessive states. In the event that the right conditions/parentage allows this trait/quality to express itself… the animal dies due to survival of the fittest.

In this way survival of the fittest can act to preserve a population without change…

When this same situation takes place upon being moved into a captive breeding project… The individuals that exhibit these traits/qualities not found in mature individuals are not only found in mature individuals, but found in breeding stock. 

This would make a rare quality that is not ever detected in adults likely to become a common trait in adults…

Thus altering the captive bred progeny from the wild type population…



Genetics is far more complex of a subject than it is being given credit………


An example of the above… consider Albinism which follows Mendelian Genetics…

It may be quite common for an individual to be “het for Albino” looking completely normal and not being compromised in any way… 

The only way the “het for albino” animal will create an albino is if A) it makes with an albino resulting in 50% albino offspring, or B) mating with another “het for Albino” resulting in 25% Albino…

If, in nature, “survival of the fittest” prevents an Albino frog from surviving… there will be no adult Albinos… 

But since “het for Albino” bred with “het for Albino” results in 50% “het for Albino” offspring… it is likely that this quality will be maintained within a breeding population in a “recessive” or non expressed state. 

But when you remove the founder stock from the wild, if a few are “het for Albino” they will produce Albino offspring that are kept alive due to human nurturing and due to a removal of most natural stresses/pressures.

Thus the captive breeding population would have Albinos in it, where the wild breeding population does not…

I make the example of Albinism as it is easy to see and track… but there are countless traits/qualities that are passed via Mendelian Genetics that could be completely non existent in adult wild stock… but can become common when “survival of the fittest” is removed…


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> - We cannot ignore the influence of “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection”…
> 
> - We cannot ignore the fact that environmental stresses and pressures in captive enclosures are total different worlds than their native environments…
> 
> - We cannot not ignore the fact that when frogs that would have died in the wild survive to propagate… these substandard genes that should have died off are left to thrive, which influences/changes it’s offspring and their descendants…


The whole point of a captive breeding program is to maintain allele frequencies equal to those of the wild populations. If frogs that wouldn't make the cut in the wild survive to reproduce, it wouldn't change the frequency of alleles within the population. Those substandard genes more likely than not did not pop up solely within the captive population, but were present within the wild population as well. So keeping them within the captive population, as long as they are in the same frequency, should not affect the wild population should frogs be reintroduced. It's when you start inbreeding that the frequencies start changing.



> - We cannot ignore the fact that during “infancy” or the tadpole stage the specimen is very susceptible to influence by minor factors (temperature, PH, TDS and far more than I am aware of) that will trigger, or fail to trigger, development.


While I see what you mean here, I would ask for examples of this. Oftentimes, we tend to think things are more complex than they actually are, and complex processes can often be related to only a few major triggers.



> - Thus to genetically “freeze” a captive population for multiple generations a perfect replication of their native environment, stresses and pressures must be mimicked… and their native environment, stresses and pressures are far to dynamic for this to be done…
> 
> While the TWI Guidelines start with what they suggest is a wide variety (97.5%) of the genetic variety of the original population… the stresses and pressures of their natural environment will ‘weed out’ many of the offspring produced via survival of the fittest and natural selection that will not be weeded out in the TWI breeding approach…
> 
> The TWI breeding approach will allow any and every offspring to have equal potential to propagate… where in natural conditions only the “fittest” per that specific environment will survive to spawn…


Again, I think that you're missing the point. We do not know what natural selection necessarily acts on in a wild population, so what is most important for a captive population is maintaining allele frequencies of the wild population, both "good" and "bad" alleles. For example, Peppered Moths of England. Prior to the industrial revolution, black would have been bad, but after it, white was bad. It is important for a population to have that genetic diversity so that they can adapt. So in a captive population, it is important to maintain everything and even allow what you may consider to be the bad to survive.



> But we must note that there are a great number of details in these Guidelines and compromising any one will lesson the result. So if you are not starting with 20 WC founders, and have not established 7, preferably 12, breeding offspring of each of those founders and if you are not rotating available partners in a breeding group and you are not avoiding any pairing of second cousin or closer and, and, and… Then your program is compromised. Just because you didn’t compromise on “locale purity” doesn’t mean your project is not anymore compromised than someone whose is.
> 
> Compromised is compromised…
> 
> ...


As stated, it's pretty rigorous to do such a program, and in order for it to be successful, there can't be compromises.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> But…
> 
> While the Breeding Guidelines laid out by TWI may be “the best we can reproduce”… I do not agree that perfectly following them would justify claiming after several generations the progeny of the project would be a “genetically frozen” representation of the wild type frogs of a locale/population…


I suggest reviewing the literature that led to the ASN manual. As I noted for Spinycheeks, there is a pretty extensive basis for the literature (this should give a foundation as well as idea of where else to look ILAR Journal Online, Volume 38(2) 1997: The Role of Computational Models in Animal Research



Toby_H said:


> - We cannot ignore the influence of “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection”…


Explain how you get from this point if the allele frequency is maintained in the captive populations? 



Toby_H said:


> - We cannot ignore the fact that environmental stresses and pressures in captive enclosures are total different worlds than their native environments…


Explain how maintaining the distribution of the alleles in the collected population doesn't resolve this issue. 



Toby_H said:


> - We cannot not ignore the fact that when frogs that would have died in the wild survive to propagate… these substandard genes that should have died off are left to thrive, which influences/changes it’s offspring and their descendants……


Again, how does maintaining allele frequencies within a population not address this? 



Toby_H said:


> - We cannot ignore the fact that during “infancy” or the tadpole stage the specimen is very susceptible to influence by minor factors (temperature, PH, TDS and far more than I am aware of) that will trigger, or fail to trigger, development.


Are you now arguing that even in managed populations enviromental factors change allele frequency? 



Toby_H said:


> - Thus to genetically “freeze” a captive population for multiple generations a perfect replication of their native environment, stresses and pressures must be mimicked… and their native environment, stresses and pressures are far to dynamic for this to be done…


Can you explain why this has not been the case with multiple taxa in captivity so far? There are multiple reintroduction programs based on long standing captive populations that do not seem to be suffering from these problems as the populations have been managed... ex.. black footed ferrets.. California condors, Wyoming toads (which are often kept on rubber mats, in white plastic tubs (not very naturalistic) yet are released and do well until chytrid kills them off...




Toby_H said:


> While the TWI Guidelines start with what they suggest is a wide variety (97.5%) of the genetic variety of the original population… the stresses and pressures of their natural environment will ‘weed out’ many of the offspring produced via survival of the fittest and natural selection that will not be weeded out in the TWI breeding approach…
> 
> The TWI breeding approach will allow any and every offspring to have equal potential to propagate… where in natural conditions only the “fittest” per that specific environment will survive to spawn…


The reason is that there is a allele frequency in the population, and based on those frequencies it gets a chance to breed as those negative traits were in the wild population and obviously expressed (or they wouldn't be establised as part of the allele frequency). To do otherwise would be to artificially select them to lack those traits. Those traits may actually provide enhanced survivial under certain conditions or be linked to certain gene clusters that provide enhanced survivial when in heterozygous groupings.. which if we maintain them at the frequency seen in the wild then they will do what they are supposed to do... 




Toby_H said:


> But we must note that there are a great number of details in these Guidelines and compromising any one will lesson the result. So if you are not starting with 20 WC founders, and have not established 7, preferably 12, breeding offspring of each of those founders and if you are not rotating available partners in a breeding group and you are not avoiding any pairing of second cousin or closer and, and, and… Then your program is compromised. Just because you didn’t compromise on “locale purity” doesn’t mean your project is not anymore compromised than someone whose is.
> 
> Compromised is compromised…


This is only a problem if you ignore the potential reproductive life span of the frogs.... given that with decent care it is not unusual for the frogs to live at least 10 if not 15-20 years, it isn't that difficult to eventually capture the other potential founders. 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> A virtually unlimited number of traits/qualities exist in subdominant or recessive states. In the event that the right conditions/parentage allows this trait/quality to express itself… the animal dies due to survival of the fittest.
> 
> In this way survival of the fittest can act to preserve a population without change…


Again, survival of the fittest, in essence, deals with removal of unfit individuals from a population, and then removal of genes from a population. How does doing that preserve a population without change?



> An example of the above… consider Albinism which follows Mendelian Genetics…
> 
> It may be quite common for an individual to be “het for Albino” looking completely normal and not being compromised in any way…
> 
> ...


You're right, albinos likely will not survive in the wild (although there are documented case of albinos surviving), but that gene is important in allowing for diversity within the population, and it being good or bad is entirely conditional on the surrounding environment. For example, what if a stream frog species has a population that specializes in living in cascades where being white and overlooked as rushing water can be beneficial? It's important to look at populations objectively and not pass judgment on what is good or bad because that is entirely conditional on environmental conditions. And by deeming captive individuals unfit artificially removes alleles from a population thereby changing the frequencies.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> A virtually unlimited number of traits/qualities exist in subdominant or recessive states. In the event that the right conditions/parentage allows this trait/quality to express itself… the animal dies due to survival of the fittest.
> 
> In this way survival of the fittest can act to preserve a population without change…


This is assuming that those traits are consistently needed for survivial.. there can be traits that are not expressed or demonstrated until conditions require it (such as the change in body size in marine iguanas when undergoing starvation). Traits that are beneficial now can be a negative in some cases.. look at the effects of sickle cell anemia. 



Toby_H said:


> When this same situation takes place upon being moved into a captive breeding project… The individuals that exhibit these traits/qualities not found in mature individuals are not only found in mature individuals, but found in breeding stock.
> 
> This would make a rare quality that is not ever detected in adults likely to become a common trait in adults…


Not necessarily... issues that cause infant mortality in anurans are usually pretty drastic.. 





Toby_H said:


> An example of the above… consider Albinism which follows Mendelian Genetics…


Albanism is not always straightforward nor is it always genetic in anurans. A disruption via damage, infection etc can cause abnormal coloration that is not genetic (I suggest a review of the appropriate sections of Amphibian Biology, The Integument would be appropriate). 




Toby_H said:


> If, in nature, “survival of the fittest” prevents an Albino frog from surviving… there will be no adult Albinos…


This is not supported in the literature see for example Genetic and developmental studies of albino chorus frogs -- Corn 77 (3): 164 -- Journal of Heredity




Toby_H said:


> But when you remove the founder stock from the wild, if a few are “het for Albino” they will produce Albino offspring that are kept alive due to human nurturing and due to a removal of most natural stresses/pressures.
> 
> Thus the captive breeding population would have Albinos in it, where the wild breeding population does not…
> 
> I make the example of Albinism as it is easy to see and track… but there are countless traits/qualities that are passed via Mendelian Genetics that could be completely non existent in adult wild stock… but can become common when “survival of the fittest” is removed…


The problem is that in anurans, this does not have to obey simple mendalian laws. Furthermore, if the albino frogs are bred in a manner to maintain the frequency of albinism in the population and not line bred to set the pattern then it will not appear with any more frequency than in the wild populations. The above link, documents that up to 7-12% of a wild population of breeding albino frogs... If the adults are reaching adult hood and reproducing we can't assume that it is automatically a negative fitness....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> You're right, albinos likely will not survive in the wild (although there are documented case of albinos surviving), but that gene is important in allowing for diversity within the population, and it being good or bad is entirely conditional on the surrounding environment. For example, what if a stream frog species has a population that specializes in living in cascades where being white and overlooked as rushing water can be beneficial? It's important to look at populations objectively and not pass judgment on what is good or bad because that is entirely conditional on environmental conditions. And by deeming captive individuals unfit artificially removes alleles from a population thereby changing the frequencies.


Actually there are populations of wild anurans where the adult population contains 7-12% successfully reproducing albino adults (see link above). I wouldn't jump on the band wagon that it is automatically a negative survivial trait. Albinism shows up fairly frequently in anurans as well as other reptiles (particularly snakes) and is not as associated as a negative trait as it can be for mammals. 

Ed


----------



## spinycheek (Jan 26, 2010)

Thanks for the link Ed, I haven't had time yet to read it, but I will once I get a little more time. I will make an assumption here and guess you're an ecologist??? I'm not trying to sound overly skeptical about captive programs, just trying to have a constructive discussion, maybe I should use more smilies.... I have seen some pretty epic fails (Hawaiian crow comes to mind), hence the skepticism. So this is rather encouraging that a successful plan has been implemented in other species.

So, I suppose the conclusion is that site specificity can be maintained in captivity, with a considerable amount of care, for possible reintroduction. However, the dart frog hobby will most likely not be pioneering that endeavor. 

This is great thread


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Your/TWI’s version of “Managing Allele Frequency” is to let every individual have an equal opportunity to propagate… but in nature not every individual has an equal opportunity to propagate… Please explain how this major difference does not make a difference… 


In my example of Albinism via Mendelian Genetics… while I agree with you that Albinism can occur via damage, infection etc… and while I can accept that in some cases Albinism may not be a detrimental mutation… You dodged the point…




MonarchzMan said:


> Originally Posted by Toby_H
> A virtually unlimited number of traits/qualities exist in subdominant or recessive states. In the event that the right conditions/parentage allows this trait/quality to express itself… the animal dies due to survival of the fittest.
> 
> In this way survival of the fittest can act to preserve a population without change…
> ...


As the Mendelian Genetics/Albinism example described, there are any number of qualities/traits that will exist in a recessive / subdominant state but are occasionally expressed.

If these conditions are not beneficial, that individual will likely not thrive. Thus in the wild survival of the fittest will remove them from the potential breeding population, yet the same trait will continue in a recessive/subdominant state by others (het).

If the captive conditions allow this individual to survive due to the failure to apply survival of the fittest, this individual will breed thus increasing rte at which this condition is expressed.

Albinism is the easy example… but if weak lungs, poor immunity, intolerance to heat/cold periods, etc were the “condition” this could be detrimental to a breeding project. 


So survival of the fittest removes the expressed version of a quality, but allows the quality to remain in a recessive, hidden, subdominant state… Removing survival of the fittest allows this condition to run rampant in the population…


And to reiterate… I’m not saying that “locale pure breeding doesn’t work” or “is bad”… I’m just shooting holes in the “genetic snapshot” theory.


----------



## spinycheek (Jan 26, 2010)

Toby, it does seem you have a valid point about that. I think artificial survival versus natural survival would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to measure because it's full of countless "what ifs?", but it seems almost inevitable that it would be different, even if that difference is slight and unimportant. However, this kind of genetic change, in a relatively slow breeding species such as dart frogs, would probably take a very long time to occur.

For example, and please excuse my not remembering where this is published, there was an experiment involving E. coli where a culture was started and allowed to reproduce, and reproduce, and reproduce with no mutagens or crossing with other outside cultures. This experiment went on for years just seeing what happens to the culture's genetics over time. After several years, the E. coli all on their own developed into a new strain, significantly different from the original. Statistically, allele frequency should have remained the same, especially in a population consisting of billions of bacteria, but time allowed evolution. This is the inevitability of isolation, it just may take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years, but it happens. Maybe this is why Ed was referring to a population being sustainable for 100-500 years, which is a very short time considering the lifespan of frogs.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> Your/TWI’s version of “Managing Allele Frequency” is to let every individual have an equal opportunity to propagate… but in nature not every individual has an equal opportunity to propagate… Please explain how this major difference does not make a difference…


You're making the assumption that like individuals would be paired up with like individuals (e.g. albinos with albinos), but that wouldn't happen in a captive population. Every individual would have equal chance at reproduction thereby maintaining allelic frequencies. By removing the differential fitness that natural selection acts on, you ensure that no trait has a selective advantage, which would alter ratios of alleles.



> In my example of Albinism via Mendelian Genetics… while I agree with you that Albinism can occur via damage, infection etc… and while I can accept that in some cases Albinism may not be a detrimental mutation… You dodged the point…


I don't see what point I dodged.



> As the Mendelian Genetics/Albinism example described, there are any number of qualities/traits that will exist in a recessive / subdominant state but are occasionally expressed.
> 
> If these conditions are not beneficial, that individual will likely not thrive. Thus in the wild survival of the fittest will remove them from the potential breeding population, yet the same trait will continue in a recessive/subdominant state by others (het).


This is true, but it changes allele frequencies. For example, let's say we collect 50 individuals that are heterozygous for trait A (so they're all Aa). So the starting ratio is 50:50. These individuals breed, and produce 25 AA, 50 Aa, and 25 aa individuals, but aa is selected against, and those individuals die, so we're left with 25 AA and 50 Aa. Selection has acted, and now we have 100 A alleles, but only 50 a alleles, so the allele frequency has changed. The condition does still stay in the population, but it has changed in frequency. In a captive population, we would allow those 25 aa individuals to survive, which would maintain the allele frequency of the wild population, maintaining that genetic snapshot. Remember, one of the definitions of evolution is change in allele frequency over time, and we don't want evolution to happen in a captive populations. 



> If the captive conditions allow this individual to survive due to the failure to apply survival of the fittest, this individual will breed thus increasing rte at which this condition is expressed.
> 
> Albinism is the easy example… but if weak lungs, poor immunity, intolerance to heat/cold periods, etc were the “condition” this could be detrimental to a breeding project.


But as I've demonstrated, those conditions are present within the population, and the goal of a captive program is to keep the allele frequency unchanged. If we don't allow such animals to survive to reproduce, we act with artificial selection and DO change that genetic snapshot.



> So survival of the fittest removes the expressed version of a quality, but allows the quality to remain in a recessive, hidden, subdominant state… Removing survival of the fittest allows this condition to run rampant in the population…


Again, you're assuming that captive populations will breed like with like, but that's not the case. Breeding programs mix individuals around, removing selection on what characteristic is beneficial.



> And to reiterate… I’m not saying that “locale pure breeding doesn’t work” or “is bad”… I’m just shooting holes in the “genetic snapshot” theory.


I don't think that you're understanding the concept behind the genetic snapshot. You're looking at traits at good or bad, and if a breeder does do that, then yes, you're right, (s)he would not maintain a genetic snapshot, but if you remove that and have every individual have equal fitness, the genetic frequency won't change.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

spinycheek said:


> Thanks for the link Ed, I haven't had time yet to read it, but I will once I get a little more time. I will make an assumption here and guess you're an ecologist??? I'm not trying to sound overly skeptical about captive programs, just trying to have a constructive discussion, maybe I should use more smilies.... I have seen some pretty epic fails (Hawaiian crow comes to mind), hence the skepticism. So this is rather encouraging that a successful plan has been implemented in other species.
> 
> So, I suppose the conclusion is that site specificity can be maintained in captivity, with a considerable amount of care, for possible reintroduction. However, the dart frog hobby will most likely not be pioneering that endeavor.
> 
> This is great thread


Not an ecologist... actually a biochemist by training.. and a professional zookeeper by avocation, so I have a odd admixture of skills that have been applied for a long time to my job. 
There have been epic fails (and not a few of them), and there will continue to be epic failures. This is in large part because this is an emerging field. It was only about 30-40 years ago when people were simply trying to keep a lot of these species alive and breeding and had little though about reintroducing them. The initial reintroductions of golden lion tamarins were epic failures. They took animals from captivity that were accustomed to foraging on the ground (where keepers could easily scatter food and place dishes) which placed them into the reach of predators, were unable to climb on branches and vines that shifted under them (because in zoos they were always solidly affixed) and fell as a result and so on. .. now, they reacclimate the animals to what they need to do to survive and condition them to no longer come down to the ground to forage and the program has been doing well. 

Correct the dart frog hobby is not pioneering it but it could be a part of it. If you check with AARK, (and the literature analyzing the space available in Zoos) one will find that there may be space for the private individual to get involved in future projects. The reason, is that they can't do it with the current space in institutions as the number of species exceeds the holding capacity of all institutions in the world. More space has to be found somewhere, but until we as a hobby show that we can handle ourselves like an instition does, we won't be allowed to help by holding animals. That is in part what ASN is moving forward to establish. There is a good chance, that by showing stewardship for animals in captivity we can demonstrate the ability to help with future programs. Then we would be able to help..but it would require some sacrifices on the part of the individual. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> Your/TWI’s version of “Managing Allele Frequency” is to let every individual have an equal opportunity to propagate… but in nature not every individual has an equal opportunity to propagate… Please explain how this major difference does not make a difference…


The frogs are registered into TWI with thier own numbers. This number is then entered into the same software used by Zoos to monitor population in captivity including relatedness of the various animals. A report can be generated that shows all of the animals and how they are related. Breeders can then be notified as to which animals should be concentrated on for reproductions as well as to which animals are the best possible pairing. It is the same as how the zoos do it with the exception that the zoos limit reproduction due to limited space while TWI surplus offspring are sold to the hobby at large. Unless they are registered to TWI they would be reproductively dead for the purpose of the program. 





Toby_H said:


> In my example of Albinism via Mendelian Genetics… while I agree with you that Albinism can occur via damage, infection etc… and while I can accept that in some cases Albinism may not be a detrimental mutation… You dodged the point…


So how would you demonstrate that albinism is always a negative trait and should not be maintained in captivity at the same rate it appears in the wild population? 




Toby_H said:


> As the Mendelian Genetics/Albinism example described, there are any number of qualities/traits that will exist in a recessive / subdominant state but are occasionally expressed.
> 
> If these conditions are not beneficial, that individual will likely not thrive. Thus in the wild survival of the fittest will remove them from the potential breeding population, yet the same trait will continue in a recessive/subdominant state by others (het).


Survivial of the fittest only works when you are dealing with a genetically diverse population that allows the population to adapt to changes in the enviroment. The animal that is "most fit" today may not be the animal that is " most fit" tomorrow, next week or next year. This is why maintaining the allele frequency at the moment of inception of the program is important as one cannot predict what will be most fit. One cannot argue "survivial of the fittest" is nullified in captivity when the allele frequencies and managed as fitness changes over time with the enviroment. In addition, one cannot assume that the "most fit" individual will survive to reproduce as one has to look past the individual to the allele frequency. 

Again I ask how would this not work if the allele frequency is maintained at the moment of inception of the program? 



Toby_H said:


> If the captive conditions allow this individual to survive due to the failure to apply survival of the fittest, this individual will breed thus increasing rte at which this condition is expressed.
> 
> Albinism is the easy example… but if weak lungs, poor immunity, intolerance to heat/cold periods, etc were the “condition” this could be detrimental to a breeding project.


Again, I ask how is this not addressed if the allele frequency is maintained? If one is attempting to select future animals by choosing those that appear to be most fit (which is going to be biased based on the observer), then we are directly selecting the frogs away from the population's allele frequencies. 




Toby_H said:


> So survival of the fittest removes the expressed version of a quality, but allows the quality to remain in a recessive, hidden, subdominant state… Removing survival of the fittest allows this condition to run rampant in the population…


See my comment on survivial of the fittest above... 

Ed


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Ed said:


> Then we would be able to help..but it would require some sacrifices on the part of the individual.
> 
> Ed


Could You explain this point , Ed? What would be needed by the individual?

Thanks


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfreak said:


> Could You explain this point , Ed? What would be needed by the individual?
> 
> Thanks


It depends on the requirements of the program. For example a number of ex-situ programs require a contained space that does not house any animals that are not from that exact locality with some level of biosecurity (both in and out) to prevent novel pathogens from coming into the frogs, and out from the frogs. 
Most hobbyists maintain varied collections in the same room much less the same facility and do not treat any of the materials in a way to prevent contamination of the animals (swapping cuttings, going from enclosure to enclosure without washing hands)... this allows for pathogens to be passed back and forth between animals.. These animals would have to be cared for before all other animals, and some level of biosecurity would have to be maintained (clean clothes, foot baths etc). 

There are other standards but that is one of the main ones at this time (but keep in mind that most institutions also do not meet those standards). 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

As a side, for those who may be unfamiliar with the ASN process of managing captive populations:

The first step is creating a Taxon Management Plan (TMP). This is done by volunteers who work as a team to collect information, import dates, and gain a solid idea as to what exists within the captive hobby (at least in the U.S.). A TMP is then created, which is a blueprint as to how the species should be successfully managed...with a minimum goal generally being 100 years. Completed TMP's can be viewed and downloaded here: Taxon Management Plans

The second step is to gather together enough ASN stewards keeping the species (or specific population) to provide a large enough founding stock to attain the captive management goal. Once those hobbyists are found and the number of frogs acquired, the population enters an "Actively Managed" phase, which means people are actively breeding and managing the designated frogs within this captive population according to the various guidelines Ed mentioned above (trading unrelated animals with one another in the group, etc.). Once a group becomes actively managed, it is also closed to all outside animals to prevent undesired mixing or having animals introduced from unknown provenance or lineage history. If animals are shown to be otherwise, however, they can be introduced into the managed population.

This will ensure that there will always be a supply of wild-type frogs of maximum genetic diversity within the captive hobby. Even if hybridization and outcrossing becomes more prevalent, actively managed ASN populations of amphibians won't be impacted or influenced by these trends.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

The short version of this post…


No human nor man made environment can cull to the same standards as “Survival of the fittest”…

Nature does have a culling program and it is commonly referred to as survival of the fittest.

TWI suggests not using any culling program.


To “manage allele frequency” in a way that replicates nature, one would have to cull to the same standard as survival of the fittest, which is impossible. Any other form of culling, including TWI’s “no culling” approach, will allow for genetic alteration.


Since conditions that are lethal in the wild may not be lethal in captivity, the lack of survival of the fittest will alter the allele frequency in a captive program that does not cull.


Following is the long version explaining that same point in many ways in response to other individual’s posts/questions/comments. Please forgive me for repeating myself below.




MonarchzMan said:


> You're making the assumption that like individuals would be paired up with like individuals (e.g. albinos with albinos), but that wouldn't happen in a captive population. Every individual would have equal chance at reproduction thereby maintaining allelic frequencies. By removing the differential fitness that natural selection acts on, you ensure that no trait has a selective advantage, which would alter ratios of alleles.


Nope, I didn’t assume either way. I based my thoughts on the TWI Guidelines which instructed us to rotate members of a breeding group essentially giving each member of the stock opportunity to breed with each member of the stock. So if you have two or three individuals that are het (heterogeneous) it is quite likely they will spawn with each other thus expressing that condition.

If in the wild that expressed condition would have been fatal, but in captivity it is not fatal, then the survival and later spawnign of this (these) individual(s) will offset the attempt to manage alleles to match allele frequency in the wild.




MonarchzMan said:


> I don't see what point I dodged.


Sorry for the confusion, I was suggesting Ed dodged my point. My point was how an survival of the fittest could eliminate every individual born with a certain condition, but that condition could remain present in a breeding group in a heterogeneous state… But when that group was put into a protected environment where survival of the fittest was eliminated the individuals with that condition would survive and the condition would move into an expressed state. 

Thus expressing a condition in the captive population that was not expressed in the wild population… thus ruining the concept of the captive population being a true reflection of the wild population.

Ed made side tracks about other methods that could cause Albinism and Albinism not always being a lethal mutation. Albinism was the example, not the point.




MonarchzMan said:


> This is true, but it changes allele frequencies. For example, let's say we collect 50 individuals that are heterozygous for trait A (so they're all Aa). So the starting ratio is 50:50. These individuals breed, and produce 25 AA, 50 Aa, and 25 aa individuals, but aa is selected against, and those individuals die, so we're left with 25 AA and 50 Aa. Selection has acted, and now we have 100 A alleles, but only 50 a alleles, so the allele frequency has changed. The condition does still stay in the population, but it has changed in frequency. In a captive population, we would allow those 25 aa individuals to survive, which would maintain the allele frequency of the wild population, maintaining that genetic snapshot. Remember, one of the definitions of evolution is change in allele frequency over time, and we don't want evolution to happen in a captive populations.


In your example you said “but aa is selected against, and those individuals die”… What if the aa condition was lethal in the native environment, but was not lethal in the protected environment of the captive breeding program. 

When this is the case, the aa’s die in nature, but survive to spawn in the captive program. Thus this defies attempts to “maintain allele frequency”.




MonarchzMan said:


> Again, you're assuming that captive populations will breed like with like, but that's not the case. Breeding programs mix individuals around, removing selection on what characteristic is beneficial.


According to the TWI breeding Guidelines, individuals are mixed around, but it is not based on what is beneficial, it is based on random (or arguably natural selection). This is the logic I based my point on like will breed with like… as everyone will be given the chance to breed with everyone, and there will be no culling process to replace survival of the fittest.




MonarchzMan said:


> I don't think that you're understanding the concept behind the genetic snapshot. You're looking at traits at good or bad, and if a breeder does do that, then yes, you're right, (s)he would not maintain a genetic snapshot, but if you remove that and have every individual have equal fitness, the genetic frequency won't change.


There is obviously a difference in our views/understandings… but do not mistakenly assume it’s my misunderstanding. 

When survival of the fittest in nature removes certain individuals from the breeding stock… but a “no culling” rule is applied to a captive breeding programs… Then individuals who would not have a chance to pass their genetic code in nature, would have the chance to pass their genetic code in the captive program. Thus the theory of “managed allele frequency” is put in imbalance.

While I understand the conditions are genetically "there" (heterogeneously), by allowing them step up to an expressed state in the breeding population, the "frequency" in which they occur will increase with each generation. 

So it doesn't matter if it's "good" or "bad"... it's different, which is what is what you are avoiding...





spinycheek said:


> Toby, it does seem you have a valid point about that. I think artificial survival versus natural survival would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to measure because it's full of countless "what ifs?", but it seems almost inevitable that it would be different, even if that difference is slight and unimportant. However, this kind of genetic change, in a relatively slow breeding species such as dart frogs, would probably take a very long time to occur.


I’m not suggesting there is going to be mass change in a short period of time. I am only suggesting that over the course of a few captive bred generations, allowing individuals who would not have bred in the wild, to breed in captivity, would allow a shift in expressed alleles.

While this would not make major alterations within a population, it is very realistic to suggest it could create a comparable different to the differences between two neighboring (but separate) breeding populations of a single species. 

If that is true, then keeping “locale pure’ breeding programs becomes far less important… as the captive “locale pure” strain would be just as different from the wild “locale” as the neighboring wild locale. 





Ed said:


> Originally Posted by Toby_H -
> Your/TWI’s version of “Managing Allele Frequency” is to let every individual have an equal opportunity to propagate… but in nature not every individual has an equal opportunity to propagate… Please explain how this major difference does not make a difference…
> 
> Ed - The frogs are registered into TWI with thier own numbers. This number is then entered into the same software used by Zoos to monitor population in captivity including relatedness of the various animals. A report can be generated that shows all of the animals and how they are related. Breeders can then be notified as to which animals should be concentrated on for reproductions as well as to which animals are the best possible pairing. It is the same as how the zoos do it with the exception that the zoos limit reproduction due to limited space while TWI surplus offspring are sold to the hobby at large. Unless they are registered to TWI they would be reproductively dead for the purpose of the program.


I’m not arguing that what you explained is not an asset…

But my point is that in nature, not every frog survives to spawn… But when survival of the fittest is removed, every frog has an opportunity to spawn. This difference (removing survival of the fittest) creates an imbalance that causes the captive stock to develop differently than the wild stock.

If you disagree please explain the fault in that explaination.




Ed said:


> Originally Posted by Toby_H -
> In my example of Albinism via Mendelian Genetics… while I agree with you that Albinism can occur via damage, infection etc… and while I can accept that in some cases Albinism may not be a detrimental mutation… You dodged the point…
> 
> Ed - So how would you demonstrate that albinism is always a negative trait and should not be maintained in captivity at the same rate it appears in the wild population?


I hope my comments to MonarchzMan clarified this. Albinism was but the example, not the point.

In short, the point was how Mendelian genetics can/will/does allow a condition to exist in a population unexpressed when that condition is detrimental to life in the wild. But if that condition is not lethal to live in captivity, it can become expressed and then common in a captive population. 

Thus causing an imbalance in your attempt to "manage allele frequency"




Ed said:


> Originally Posted by Toby_H
> As the Mendelian Genetics/Albinism example described, there are any number of qualities/traits that will exist in a recessive / subdominant state but are occasionally expressed.
> 
> If these conditions are not beneficial, that individual will likely not thrive. Thus in the wild survival of the fittest will remove them from the potential breeding population, yet the same trait will continue in a recessive/subdominant state by others (het).
> ...


I’m beating a dead horse at this point… but in the wild many (most) individuals who are born do not survive to spawn… in the captive program outlined by TWI most (ideally all) individuals born will spawn… Thus this format does not “manage allele frequency” to match the wild population. 

This approach gives every allele an equal opportunity to express itself in the population… but in nature, pressures of the environment prevent many of these conditions from existing in an expressed state, but allows them to exist in a heterogeneous state.

And my repetitive point is that while TWI’s approach is a respectful attempt to manage allele frequency, it does not replicate the wild populations allele frequency simply because it does not (and can not) apply the same environmental pressures as the native environment. 




Ed said:


> Originally Posted by Toby_H
> If the captive conditions allow this individual to survive due to the failure to apply survival of the fittest, this individual will breed thus increasing rte at which this condition is expressed.
> 
> Albinism is the easy example… but if weak lungs, poor immunity, intolerance to heat/cold periods, etc were the “condition” this could be detrimental to a breeding project.
> ...


In all of your arguments you are relying on “managing allele frequency” in captivity to be equal to the allele frequency in wild population. But allowing every individual that is born to grow up and spawn creates a distinct difference.

I agree that even the most expert human can not selectively cull in a way to replace survival of the fittest. But you are not arguing that TWI’s approach is better than selective breeding. You are arguing that TWI’s approach provides a genetic snapshot of the current wild population.

I have not proven that TWI’s approach is not a good approach. I have stated several times it is a very respectful approach. But I have shown that there is distinct opportunity for genetic deviation from the wild population over the course of several generations when following TWI's breeding guidelines... thus it is not a "genetic snapshot"...


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> But I have shown that there is distinct opportunity for genetic deviation from the wild population over the course of several generations when following TWI's breeding guidelines... thus it is not a "genetic snapshot"...


The management guidelines in the handbook were based on published papers in conservation genetics, if you give me your email I can send some of them over for you to read. Then perhaps you could contact the paper authors and get their feedback on any questions or flaws you find in their management guidelines.

You mentioned "survival of the fittest" a few times, which is a reference to evolution. If you have evolution in captivity, you have domestication, so captive breeding projects in conservation don't attempt to mimic wild conditions because if they did there would be evolution. You are just trying to maintain a representative example of the population when it came to you (i.e. exported from the wild), you are not trying to mimic wild selection pressures or "keep up" with the wild population that is constantly evolving (since obviously that is impossible).


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Ed said:


> It depends on the requirements of the program. For example a number of ex-situ programs require a contained space that does not house any animals that are not from that exact locality with some level of biosecurity (both in and out) to prevent novel pathogens from coming into the frogs, and out from the frogs.
> Most hobbyists maintain varied collections in the same room much less the same facility and do not treat any of the materials in a way to prevent contamination of the animals (swapping cuttings, going from enclosure to enclosure without washing hands)... this allows for pathogens to be passed back and forth between animals.. These animals would have to be cared for before all other animals, and some level of biosecurity would have to be maintained (clean clothes, foot baths etc).
> 
> There are other standards but that is one of the main ones at this time (but keep in mind that most institutions also do not meet those standards).
> ...


Thanks.

I could see feeder insects being a huge problem. What could you do to solve that problem?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> Nope, I didn’t assume either way. I based my thoughts on the TWI Guidelines which instructed us to rotate members of a breeding group essentially giving each member of the stock opportunity to breed with each member of the stock. So if you have two or three individuals that are het (heterogeneous) it is quite likely they will spawn with each other thus expressing that condition.
> 
> If in the wild that expressed condition would have been fatal, but in captivity it is not fatal, then the survival and later spawnign of this (these) individual(s) will offset the attempt to manage alleles to match allele frequency in the wild.


No, you really don't understand. A captive breeding program is not designed to mimic environmental pressures and environmental selection. It is designed to keep whatever the genetic diversity of the population is constant at the time of collection. Freezing the population as it were. That keeps all allele frequencies constant and imposes no artificial selection.



> Sorry for the confusion, I was suggesting Ed dodged my point. My point was how an survival of the fittest could eliminate every individual born with a certain condition, but that condition could remain present in a breeding group in a heterogeneous state… But when that group was put into a protected environment where survival of the fittest was eliminated the individuals with that condition would survive and the condition would move into an expressed state.
> 
> Thus expressing a condition in the captive population that was not expressed in the wild population… thus ruining the concept of the captive population being a true reflection of the wild population.
> 
> Ed made side tracks about other methods that could cause Albinism and Albinism not always being a lethal mutation. Albinism was the example, not the point.


If 10% of the population carries albinism, whether hidden or expressed, it is still 10%. Whether it is heterozygous or homozygous for it is irrelevant as it won't change the frequencies of the alleles. It's when you interject your own bias and say "this is beneficial and this is not" that the allele frequencies change, and the captive population diverges from the wild population.



> In your example you said “but aa is selected against, and those individuals die”… What if the aa condition was lethal in the native environment, but was not lethal in the protected environment of the captive breeding program.
> 
> When this is the case, the aa’s die in nature, but survive to spawn in the captive program. Thus this defies attempts to “maintain allele frequency”.


No, it doesn't. If we collected 50 individuals from a population, the captive population will represent a pretty good portion of the genetics available within the wild population, assuming that individuals were collected randomly. So, up until the point of collection, the A and a alleles were in equal abundance, WITH natural selection killing off those aa individuals. If in a captive program, we select against aa, then we end up changing the allele frequencies within the population and diverge from the wild population, as I have demonstrated. And that will not be good for the population because genetic variability allows for adaptation to a variety of environmental stimuli, and if we artificially manipulate what we think to be good and bad, we change the genetic variability within a population.

Of what if the heterozygote is more fit than either homozygote (and one of the homozygotes is lethal in the wild)? If we artificially say that aa is bad, then we decrease the fitness of the population as a whole.



> According to the TWI breeding Guidelines, individuals are mixed around, but it is not based on what is beneficial, it is based on random (or arguably natural selection). This is the logic I based my point on like will breed with like… as everyone will be given the chance to breed with everyone, and there will be no culling process to replace survival of the fittest.


Natural selection isn't random. Individuals are spread around at random so that there is no natural selection. Culling involves removing individuals (on at the genetics level, genes) from the population, thereby changing allele frequencies. The precise thing that a captive population is trying to avoid.



> There is obviously a difference in our views/understandings… but do not mistakenly assume it’s my misunderstanding.
> 
> When survival of the fittest in nature removes certain individuals from the breeding stock… but a “no culling” rule is applied to a captive breeding programs… Then individuals who would not have a chance to pass their genetic code in nature, would have the chance to pass their genetic code in the captive program. Thus the theory of “managed allele frequency” is put in imbalance.


Do the Mendelian genetics. There is no imbalance in maintaining allele frequencies. If you have 50 individuals that are heterozygous for Aa or 25 individuals that are homozygous for AA and 25 individuals that are homozygous for aa, the allele frequencies are the same. If you say that aa is bad and therefore remove it, then you do have an imbalance in the allele frequencies between the captive population and wild population.



> While I understand the conditions are genetically "there" (heterogeneously), by allowing them step up to an expressed state in the breeding population, the "frequency" in which they occur will increase with each generation.


If there is no selection and people truly pair up frogs randomly, how does this happen? I suggest going back to Mendelian genetics and doing some Punnett squares. Take away a homozygous recessive and see how that changes the A:a ratio. I'm confident that you don't understand.



> I’m not suggesting there is going to be mass change in a short period of time. I am only suggesting that over the course of a few captive bred generations, allowing individuals who would not have bred in the wild, to breed in captivity, would allow a shift in expressed alleles.


Again, how?



> But my point is that in nature, not every frog survives to spawn… But when survival of the fittest is removed, every frog has an opportunity to spawn. This difference (removing survival of the fittest) creates an imbalance that causes the captive stock to develop differently than the wild stock.
> 
> If you disagree please explain the fault in that explaination.


We've been showing faults in the explanation over and over. If you maintain constant conditions, including allele frequencies, how does this cause a developmental change from the wild stock? Only, and I repeat only, by artificially selecting individuals to breed and not breed will you change those frequencies and have a divergence from the wild population.



> In short, the point was how Mendelian genetics can/will/does allow a condition to exist in a population unexpressed when that condition is detrimental to life in the wild. But if that condition is not lethal to live in captivity, it can become expressed and then common in a captive population.
> 
> Thus causing an imbalance in your attempt to "manage allele frequency"


I think that we both got albinism was an example, but the point was that the beneficial quality of it is only dependent on the environment that the animal is in. Right now, albinism may be bad in the current environment, but if we artificially remove albinos from the captive population, we also remove the alleles from a fixed population so that, if in the future the albinism is selected for, rather than against, the population won't have the alleles for it in the frequencies that the wild population had.




> I’m beating a dead horse at this point… but in the wild many (most) individuals who are born do not survive to spawn… in the captive program outlined by TWI most (ideally all) individuals born will spawn… Thus this format does not “manage allele frequency” to match the wild population.
> 
> This approach gives every allele an equal opportunity to express itself in the population… but in nature, pressures of the environment prevent many of these conditions from existing in an expressed state, but allows them to exist in a heterogeneous state.
> 
> And my repetitive point is that while TWI’s approach is a respectful attempt to manage allele frequency, it does not replicate the wild populations allele frequency simply because it does not (and can not) apply the same environmental pressures as the native environment.


How? If the allele frequency of A was 50:50 A to a of the wild population, and the founder stock had the same, how do you maintain that frequency by removing "unfit" individuals? How do you keep the captive population from drifting from that 50:50?



> In all of your arguments you are relying on “managing allele frequency” in captivity to be equal to the allele frequency in wild population. But allowing every individual that is born to grow up and spawn creates a distinct difference.


How?



> I agree that even the most expert human can not selectively cull in a way to replace survival of the fittest. But you are not arguing that TWI’s approach is better than selective breeding. You are arguing that TWI’s approach provides a genetic snapshot of the current wild population.


A genetic snapshot is the frequencies in which the alleles occur. What TWI's program suggests doing will maintain exactly that.



> I have not proven that TWI’s approach is not a good approach. I have stated several times it is a very respectful approach. But I have shown that there is distinct opportunity for genetic deviation from the wild population over the course of several generations when following TWI's breeding guidelines... thus it is not a "genetic snapshot"...


The only way that TWI's approach would drift from the genetic snapshot is if there was any selection occurring, which is not what TWI's approach does.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> The short version of this post…
> 
> 
> No human nor man made environment can cull to the same standards as “Survival of the fittest”…
> ...


No, evolution is referred to as "survivial of the fittest". A population that is evolved for its enviroment doesn't undergo "survivial of the fittest" evolution as long as the enviroment is stable. Unless something disrupts gene flow, the allele frequency remains static. 




Toby_H said:


> To “manage allele frequency” in a way that replicates nature, one would have to cull to the same standard as survival of the fittest, which is impossible. Any other form of culling, including TWI’s “no culling” approach, will allow for genetic alteration.


Actually no it doesn't. The captive population is remaining static with respect to evolution of the population. No culling is needed if the goal is to keep the allele frequency static. 




Toby_H said:


> Since conditions that are lethal in the wild may not be lethal in captivity, the lack of survival of the fittest will alter the allele frequency in a captive program that does not cull.


Actually as long as the allele frequency is maintained, it doesn't matter whether or not the allele combination is lethal or not in captivity. 




Toby_H said:


> Nope, I didn’t assume either way. I based my thoughts on the TWI Guidelines which instructed us to rotate members of a breeding group essentially giving each member of the stock opportunity to breed with each member of the stock. So if you have two or three individuals that are het (heterogeneous) it is quite likely they will spawn with each other thus expressing that condition.


This is an inexact and limited understanding. See Mike's suggestion. 



Toby_H said:


> If in the wild that expressed condition would have been fatal, but in captivity it is not fatal, then the survival and later spawnign of this (these) individual(s) will offset the attempt to manage alleles to match allele frequency in the wild.


Part of the problem is that you are presupposing the differences constitute a change in allele frequency in captivity. 



Toby_H said:


> Sorry for the confusion, I was suggesting Ed dodged my point. My point was how an survival of the fittest could eliminate every individual born with a certain condition, but that condition could remain present in a breeding group in a heterogeneous state… But when that group was put into a protected environment where survival of the fittest was eliminated the individuals with that condition would survive and the condition would move into an expressed state.


See the various comments on evoltion and goals of a management program. 



Toby_H said:


> Thus expressing a condition in the captive population that was not expressed in the wild population… thus ruining the concept of the captive population being a true reflection of the wild population.


 So what are your real life examples? 



Toby_H said:


> Ed made side tracks about other methods that could cause Albinism and Albinism not always being a lethal mutation. Albinism was the example, not the point.


Albinism was used as an example of a supposed 100% lethal trait when expressed in the homozygous form based on your wording. I was showing that this is not the case and as such is an inexact example. So if we were managing that population of frogs (the ones provided by my link), it would appropriate for approximately 7-12% of the total population of the frogs to demostrate albinism in a captive program at any one time. 




Toby_H said:


> According to the TWI breeding Guidelines, individuals are mixed around, but it is not based on what is beneficial, it is based on random (or arguably natural selection). This is the logic I based my point on like will breed with like… as everyone will be given the chance to breed with everyone, and there will be no culling process to replace survival of the fittest.


If we mixed animals based on our perception of beneficial then we are selecting the frogs.. this is the opposite goal of maintaining allele frequencies. The goal is to not allow the population to evolve. 




Toby_H said:


> When survival of the fittest in nature removes certain individuals from the breeding stock… but a “no culling” rule is applied to a captive breeding programs… Then individuals who would not have a chance to pass their genetic code in nature, would have the chance to pass their genetic code in the captive program. Thus the theory of “managed allele frequency” is put in imbalance.


"Survivial of the fittest" is not a constant... it depends on the conditions of the enviroment which changes from day to day, week to week and year to year. Assumptions for the frog that is the fittest today, are not the same for the frog next week or next year. This is why allele frequency needs to be maintained as close as possible as the goal is not to evolve the frogs but to keep the genetic diversity stable. 



Toby_H said:


> While I understand the conditions are genetically "there" (heterogeneously), by allowing them step up to an expressed state in the breeding population, the "frequency" in which they occur will increase with each generation.


Only if you are practicing relaxed selection. This is not what is outlined in the program. 




Toby_H said:


> I’m not suggesting there is going to be mass change in a short period of time. I am only suggesting that over the course of a few captive bred generations, allowing individuals who would not have bred in the wild, to breed in captivity, would allow a shift in expressed alleles.


Only if the ratio of those alleles changes in proportion to the total number of animals in the program. If the population increases proportionally then the increased survivial doesn't matter as the proportion of those alleles remains the same in the population. 




Toby_H said:


> But my point is that in nature, not every frog survives to spawn… But when survival of the fittest is removed, every frog has an opportunity to spawn. This difference (removing survival of the fittest) creates an imbalance that causes the captive stock to develop differently than the wild stock.


See above. 



Toby_H said:


> In short, the point was how Mendelian genetics can/will/does allow a condition to exist in a population unexpressed when that condition is detrimental to life in the wild. But if that condition is not lethal to live in captivity, it can become expressed and then common in a captive population.
> 
> Thus causing an imbalance in your attempt to "manage allele frequency"


My response was indicated to demonstrate that as managers of a captive population, we cannot assume what is a detrimental trait or is a beneficial trait. If 7-12% of a population is expressing albinism as a reproductive adult, then there is survivial aspect to albinism in those animals/population otherwise "survivial of the fittest" should have eliminated all of those animals before they reproduced.. 




Toby_H said:


> I’m beating a dead horse at this point… but in the wild many (most) individuals who are born do not survive to spawn… in the captive program outlined by TWI most (ideally all) individuals born will spawn… Thus this format does not “manage allele frequency” to match the wild population.


If this is the case, then you are stating that the programs that have been successfully used in managing allele frequency in multiple taxa are incorrect. Can you demonstrate why your logic chain contradicts established conservation science? 


I'm done arguing back and forth as the argument continues on the method despite a considerable amount of peer reviewed evidence to the contrary. I won't be responding further to this argument. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfreak said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I could see feeder insects being a huge problem. What could you do to solve that problem?


Clean cultures kept isolated from other herps and potential vectors such as rodents and cockroaches. 

Ed


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Toby,

Have you read the management plan outlined in the ASN handbook? Have you read the scientific literature? It doesn't sound like you have. The methods and models used are well (nearly universally) accepted by the conservation, ecology, and evolution communities. There are mountains of literature on this, this isn't just something that the frog community and TWI concocted. It is well based in the science. This stuff is taught in the most basic of Ecology courses.

Do you have any more specific argument, other than "survival of the fittest"? Can you point specifically to where the management plan or the methods and models described in the literature are wrong or deficient? Can you provide any empirical evidence to support your position? 

I don't say this to offend and apologize if I'm wrong, but to be honest, your continued use of the term "survival of the fittest" and the context in which you use it makes me wonder if you really understand the concept of natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is a very broad, general term that novices usually apply to to natural selection and doesn't really describe anything in specific.

To be honest, I had a long rebuttal to your comments prepared, but with the level of understanding demonstrated so far, it seemed like a waste of time. Additionally, if you haven't read and understand the management plan and the supporting literature, this discussion seems irrelevant.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I agree the quote for quote back and forth has gotten off track… I think keeping my point direct and concise will allow for clarity in understanding and response…




It is suggested we do not cull because culling differently than nature will alter the allele frequency… but “no culling” is still deviating from nature’s culling process…

How is “no culling” and “nature’s culling standard” offer the same results…


A lot of text above was spent arguing that we cannot cull to the same standard as nature, which I agree with. But this does not in any way explain how “no culling“ offers the same result as “nature‘s culling standard”. 



It was suggested I review the Punnet Square Chart and I have… This is very simple so even if your not fluent with the chart feel free to follow along…


We are comparing a captive breeding program with a wild population, so we’ll need two charts…

Start both charts with the same breeding population that contains no aa’s and a few Aa’s…

Now on the wild chart, every time an aa is created, erase it. This will reflect the condition being lethal in natural environments thus these individuals do not survive to spawn… but in the captive chart do not erase it, apply it… 

You don’t have to go very far to realize that eliminating something makes changes…

This will directly alter the allele ratio…


So in the case that a condition is lethal in wild population but is not lethal in captive environments… please explain how this example is inaccurate.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> How is “no culling” and “nature’s culling standard” offer the same results…
> 
> A lot of text above was spent arguing that we cannot cull to the same standard as nature, which I agree with. But this does not in any way explain how “no culling“ offers the same result as “nature‘s culling standard”.


They don't offer the same results, that's exactly the point we are trying to make. In a conservation genetics when a captive population is managed in captivity we are not trying to mimic the selection pressures which exist in nature. We are just trying to retain as many of the original alleles as possible from the founder stock.


----------



## spinycheek (Jan 26, 2010)

What if you can't get every frog to pair up? Allele maintenance seems to make the assumption that all animals will participate in breeding, but often, it seems individuals just aren't interested. Is there a way to squeeze out gametes like they do with salmonids?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

With the few atelopus that seem to prove resistant to chytrid, is it a genetic resistance? How is the wild allele frequency going to look between the cb and wild pops in 50 years when those few individuals left in the wild start a new population? Aren`t you assuming there is no catastrophic change going on that will change the population or environment to a point where the cb stock won`t be good for repatriation efforts? Isn`t that exactly WHY were holding on to wc genes because they (pops and the environment)are changing?
Plus this shifting pairs, isn`t that dangerous? If there happens to be the next chytrid getting into one animal, over the time it will be transferred to all just like any sexually transmitted disease.
By chytrid I mean any disease that animals can act as a carrier for.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> So in the case that a condition is lethal in wild population but is not lethal in captive environments… please explain how this example is inaccurate.


It's a genetic snapshot. This is a real life snapshot, not a Harry Potter snapshot, so once it's taken, nothing changes, nothing moves. That's the definition of a snapshot. So when we take a founder population out of a wild population, we want to keep the genetics constant. Not change them because we will see a number of selective forces in nature, but we will miss many, many more. But that said, allele frequencies don't tend to change wildly in a wild population. It take a good amount of time to change frequencies, which is why maintaining a captive population that has the same genetics as the wild population at time of collection is good.



spinycheek said:


> What if you can't get every frog to pair up? Allele maintenance seems to make the assumption that all animals will participate in breeding, but often, it seems individuals just aren't interested. Is there a way to squeeze out gametes like they do with salmonids?


That only is a problem if you have a very small founder population. If you have 50 individuals, for example, from the founder population, you can easily manage the population and alleles within it. I believe that you can do so down to 12 or 13 individuals and still maintain a very high proportion of the representative genetics of the population.



frogfarm said:


> With the few atelopus that seem to prove resistant to chytrid, is it a genetic resistance? How is the wild allele frequency going to look between the cb and wild pops in 50 years when those few individuals left in the wild start a new population?


If the population is small enough, you're going to have a genetic bottleneck which can be just as bad for the population. As Ed said, it's largely dependent on the situation. How many are reintroduced depends on how many are in the wild. If there's nothing, the population can be totally resupplemented from a captive population. But if there is an existing population, it can be supplemented from a few individuals in the captive population. Enough to genetically rescue the population, but not enough to totally change the dynamic of the wild population.



> Aren`t you assuming there is no catastrophic change going on that will change the population or environment to a point where the cb stock won`t be good for repatriation efforts? Isn`t that exactly WHY were holding on to wc genes because they (pops and the environment)are changing?


If a reintroduction program maintains the same genetics that the wild population had when the founder population was initially collected, then the captive bred frogs will have the same tools available to them to use as the wild frogs.



> Plus this shifting pairs, isn`t that dangerous? If there happens to be the next chytrid getting into one animal, over the time it will be transferred to all just like any sexually transmitted disease.
> By chytrid I mean any disease that animals can act as a carrier for.


Yes, it's a potential issue, as Ed had pointed out. In order to do a reintroduction program, there needs to be an overhaul on many aspects of keeping frogs, including biosecurity.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

spinycheek said:


> What if you can't get every frog to pair up? Allele maintenance seems to make the assumption that all animals will participate in breeding, but often, it seems individuals just aren't interested. Is there a way to squeeze out gametes like they do with salmonids?


If necessary, yes. Hormonal induction of reproduction in anurans has been well studied and used in multiple species. 

Ed


----------



## spinycheek (Jan 26, 2010)

Nice! I always wondered if anyone had perfected using hormones to instigate breeding.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> With the few atelopus that seem to prove resistant to chytrid, is it a genetic resistance? How is the wild allele frequency going to look between the cb and wild pops in 50 years when those few individuals left in the wild start a new population? Aren`t you assuming there is no catastrophic change going on that will change the population or environment to a point where the cb stock won`t be good for repatriation efforts? Isn`t that exactly WHY were holding on to wc genes because they (pops and the environment)are changing?
> Plus this shifting pairs, isn`t that dangerous? If there happens to be the next chytrid getting into one animal, over the time it will be transferred to all just like any sexually transmitted disease.
> By chytrid I mean any disease that animals can act as a carrier for.


At this time, there isn't any indication that this is a genetic resistance as in some populations of other hard hit anurans in which there are adults with active infections, recruitment is below that needed to sustain the populations (in some cases it is zero). There are also different rates of mortality depending on the strain of chytrid infecting the individual animals (see http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2005/68/d068p047.pdf for some examples). It is possible that they are infected with a less virulent or a avirulent strain. It is also possible that the adults in those populations have to date been able to manage the infection through behavioral changes (basking for example) keeping the chytrid out of the lethal temperature zone but in these cases, again recruitment tends to be below that needed to sustain the population. 
Now I hope it is a genetic resistence to the fungal infection but I'm enough of a realist to understand that the odds are not in favor of genetic resistance. 

As a further complication attempts to immunize anurans against chytrid have failed but this may be due to the fact that this is a relatively new field. 

With respect to transmission between collections, basic quarantine procedures and testing would eliminate the risk. The risk isn't any different than adding a new frog to a collection and breeders and hobbyists are doing that all the time.... 

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Corpus Callosum said:


> They don't offer the same results, that's exactly the point we are trying to make. In a conservation genetics when a captive population is managed in captivity we are not trying to mimic the selection pressures which exist in nature. We are just trying to retain as many of the original alleles as possible from the founder stock.


If the underlined sentence above is true, this is the misunderstanding that allowed the discrepancy…

“Managing allele frequency”, genetic “Snapshot” and genetic “Freeze” indicate keeping the same allele ratio as the wild population. In the quote above you suggest ‘Preserving Genetic Diversity’ not “Frequency”. It does not preserve the allele ratio of the wild stock, but does in fact preserve the diversity. 


While I can see this as a valid approach when the goal is future reintroduction, I wish terminology would have been more accurate/clear to better express this much earlier in the conversation. 


Michael, thank you very much for clarifying this detail… Skylsdale, my apologies for my line of questioning and the resultant debate derailing your thread. I only entered into it as it is an interesting topic and I hope flows further.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

No worries, Toby...conversations like these are extremely important for us all to engage in. I hope the thread continues as well...whether it contines discussing captive population management or locale-specific frog collecting, either is very much worth discussing.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> If the underlined sentence above is true, this is the misunderstanding that allowed the discrepancy…
> 
> “Managing allele frequency”, genetic “Snapshot” and genetic “Freeze” indicate keeping the same allele ratio as the wild population. In the quote above you suggest ‘Preserving Genetic Diversity’ not “Frequency”. It does not preserve the allele ratio of the wild stock, but does in fact preserve the diversity.


No, we're maintaining *frequency*. For example, if we have two phenotypes on the same allele, and in the wild population the phenotypes occur in equal ratios: 50:50. If we let a captive population change get that ratio to 50:1, it still has the same _diversity_ but the frequencies are vastly different from the wild population. And if we were to allow that to happen the captive population would be very different from the wild population. But if we maintained frequencies at 50:50, even if the wild population deviated to 51:49, the captive population would be fairly similar to the wild population. Much more than if we let the captive population get to 50:1.

I don't know where you're getting that snapshot or freeze are not _static_. Those names inherently mean things do not change. And by that, we mean we do not want to change the frequency of alleles from the wild population *at time of collection*.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> I don't know where you're getting that snapshot or freeze are not _static_. Those names inherently mean things do not change. And by that, we mean we do not want to change the frequency of alleles from the wild population *at time of collection*.


I did not say that "snapshot" or "freeze" are not static. 

On the contrary, I am suggesting that the breeding Guidelines under discussion do not maintain the ratios (or frequency) as you suggest. Please review the following to see how...



Toby_H said:


> It was suggested I review the Punnet Square Chart and I have…
> 
> We are comparing a captive breeding program with a wild population, so we’ll need two charts…
> 
> ...



In post #99 Ed confirmed the above quote would in fact disrupt allele ratios…



Ed said:


> Toby_H said:
> 
> 
> > I’m not suggesting there is going to be mass change in a short period of time. I am only suggesting that over the course of a few captive bred generations, allowing individuals who would not have bred in the wild, to breed in captivity, would allow a shift in expressed alleles.
> ...


In the above quoted scenerio, removing the aa's from the wild population and not removing the aa's in the captive population alters the ratio of big A's to little a's when comparing the two populations...

Please note: when I say "remove the aa's from the wild population" I am not suggesting human culling. This represents a condition being lethal in native condition, which was stated as criteria originally. Not removing the aa's in the captive population represents no human culling which is per the TWI guidelines.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> In the above quoted scenerio, removing the aa's from the wild population and not removing the aa's in the captive population alters the ratio of big A's to little a's when comparing the two populations...
> 
> Please note: when I say "remove the aa's from the wild population" I am not suggesting human culling. This represents a condition being lethal in native condition, which was stated as criteria originally. Not removing the aa's in the captive population represents no human culling which is per the TWI guidelines.


I wasn't going to get drawn back into this conversation but given that I am being quoted out of context, I don't have any choice. Toby you are selecting the first portion of the sentence and ignoring the second part of the sentence. The survivial of the homozygote that you purport would be culled in the wild is immaterial in captivity as long as the total allele numbers don't change with respect to the entire population. Increases in the number of homozygote of the non-lethal combination would balance this out. The number of animals carrying each allele is the important factor. It doesn't matter if they are (for a simplistic descripton) AA, Aa, or aa as long as the ratio of A to a in the total captive population is as close as possible to the original frequency. If the frequency of aa or AA or Aa gets too high, then those surplus animals can be deaccessioned from the program to get the correct gene frequency or the numbers of animals carrying the balancing alleles AA, Aa and/or aa can be increased to get the ratio back into balance. One of the reasons it doesn't matter what phenotype is expressed as long as the ratio of alleles in the total population is maintained, is that selective pressures will resolve the issue in the wild. The important thing is that those genes be maintained in the correct frequencies in the total population. 

One of the problems with your argument is that you are continually presupposing that the combination of the one (or more) phenotypic expression(s) will always have no survivial value in the wild population or that (as noted in the albino example) it will not have a survivial value as a smaller part of the population. When managing a captive population, we cannot make the assumption that this would be the case as the genes are still present in the population for a reason. If there was that large of a negative survivial value on the phenotype (for the purported alleles) then the population would be eliminating those gene combination(s) and this would be easy to manage as the number of animals in the population with those genes would be very small. This would require only a small number of reproductions to manage as a part of the total population but one has to keep in mind that it is the ratio of those alleles in the total population. 

I strongly suggest reviewing the current literature on captive conservation... 

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

This has stopped being fun so long ago… I got so happy when I thought it was over…



Ed said:


> One of the problems with your argument is that you are continually presupposing that the combination of the one (or more) phenotypic expression(s) will always have no survivial value in the wild population or that (as noted in the albino example) it will not have a survivial value as a smaller part of the population.


You are stating that the criteria of my example is a problem. I admit if you choose to ignore the criteria of my example you will get a different result.

Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no possibility of anything being lethal in wild population and not lethal in captive populations?

A severe allergy to a native plant. 

Or are you suggesting that something that is not beneficial is not possible to exist in a wild population. Google “genetic disorder” and to make it even more fun add “list” to that search field.


Had you stated that you are not accepting the criteria of my example a long time ago it would have prevented a lot of this debate.

The Punnet Square example above does prove my point if my criteria is allowed.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> In the above quoted scenerio, removing the aa's from the wild population and not removing the aa's in the captive population alters the ratio of big A's to little a's when comparing the two populations...


This is not the comparison we're making. The wild population has a ratio of A to a (to emphasize my point, we'll say the ratio is wA:wa to indicate that this is the wild ratio of alleles A and a). We pull a founder population from the wild population, so this captive population has the same ratio of A to a (we'll call this cA:ca).

What we want is wA:wa to EQUAL cA:ca. And in this instance wA:wa ONLY refers to the frequency of alleles of the wild population when we collected the founder stock. We realize that the wild population will change, but in a large enough population (and "large enough" can be a very small number of individuals), these changes are slow. Even in small populations, changes are slow if environmental conditions are constant. The ratio of ratios that you're talking about doesn't make sense.

A ratio is a fraction. We want an equals sign in our equation when comparing captive and wild populations. We only use a division sign (ratio) when we compare allele frequencies WITHIN a population (whether it be the captive population or the wild population).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> You are stating that the criteria of my example is a problem. I admit if you choose to ignore the criteria of my example you will get a different result.


No your understanding of why it doesn’t matter is a problem

Your position has been that maintaining allele frequencies is impossible as frogs with certain phenotypes that would not survive to reproduce in the wild will do so in captivity. 



Toby_H said:


> Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no possibility of anything being lethal in wild population and not lethal in captive populations?


No and that has not been the focus of your argument to my recollection… your position was that phenotypes that would not survive in the wild are allowed to do so in captivity and thus will skew the genetic representation of the population. Are you attempting to change your position? 



Toby_H said:


> Or are you suggesting that something that is not beneficial is not possible to exist in a wild population. Google “genetic disorder” and to make it even more fun add “list” to that search field.


I’m not suggesting that either. As I have repeatedly stated, we cannot know this and as such have to maintain the allele frequency regardless as what is a perceived negative today may be a positive tomorrow.
Contrary to your allusion I have a very strong foundation in genetics between college and what I do for a living… 




Toby_H said:


> The Punnet Square example above does prove my point if my criteria is allowed.


No, actually it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what portion of the population is AA, Aa or aa as long as the ratio of A to a is the same as when the program was started. A punnet’s square only tells you what the ratio of a given cross would be which is immaterial provided the population is kept at the appropriate ratio of A to a. That is where tracking relatedness and representation in a population resolves this issue.

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Ed said:


> Toby you are selecting the first portion of the sentence and ignoring the second part of the sentence.


This is incorrect. When you accept my criteria, the Punnet example above verifies that the allele ratio is not equal in captive & wild populations after 1 generation and is further out of ratio in each consecutive generation. 

When you ignore the criteria of my example and replace it with your own… well you can make it out to do whatever you want it to…




Ed said:


> The survivial of the homozygote that you purport would be culled in the wild is immaterial in captivity as long as the total allele numbers don't change with respect to the entire population.


But, the total allele numbers do change with respect to the entire population.

If the homozygote (aa) is culled in the wild it directly alters the total allele ratio in respect to the entire population. 

This can be verified by running the Punnet Squares I recommended above, provided you do not reject my criteria. 




Ed said:


> Increases in the number of homozygote of the non-lethal combination would balance this out.


It’s not very complicated to understand removing all of the aa’s in the wild population and not removing them in the captive population… will result in less a’s in the wild population (because you removed some!)



Ed said:


> The number of animals carrying each allele is the important factor. It doesn't matter if they are (for a simplistic descripton) AA, Aa, or aa as long as the ratio of A to a in the total captive population is as close as possible to the original frequency.


but the ratio of A to a in the total captive population is not as close as possible to the original frequency... unless you ignore the criteria of the example...




Ed said:


> If the frequency of aa or AA or Aa gets too high, then those surplus animals can be deaccessioned from the program to get the correct gene frequency or the numbers of animals carrying the balancing alleles AA, Aa and/or aa can be increased to get the ratio back into balance.


This one really blows me away. You have argued for several pages that the frequency will not change… yet you describe what to do when it does…

What do you do if you cannot “see” the expressed condition (aa). With albinism it’s easy, the frog is white. What if aa is a lung condition? What if it is an allergy? What if it is a deficiency in immunity? What if it is a deficiency to an immunity to something present in the wild environment but not in the captive environment (oh yea, that’s my example!)

I can't believe you just said when the captive population falls out of frequency you simply cull it back into frequency. 




Ed said:


> One of the reasons it doesn't matter what phenotype is expressed as long as the ratio of alleles in the total population is maintained, is that selective pressures will resolve the issue in the wild.


What is "the issue" that selective pressures resolve? Other than an imbalance of allele ratio ijn comparison to the founding stock.


You have all of these "as long as" requirements that your process does not live up to. 

Essentially you are arguing that the allele ratio is in balance as long as the allele ratio is in balance...

and you are ignoring the criteria I suggest that puts it out of balance...


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Watch it, there is no reason for this conversation to not remain civil.

Ed, can you suggest some literature to review on the topic? I have a feeling that may be found helpful.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I apologize for my lack of civility… I let frustration get the best of me…


MonarchMan… for some reason it clicked that time. The flaw in my “Punnet Square Comparison” was that I made Punnet Squares for both captive breeding and wild breeding. Instead only the captive population should have been put through a Punnet Square and then compared (per ratio) to the founder stock.

Thank you for helping me see the flaw in my example…


Ed I apologize the frustration that was expressed in my responses to you.


I will make this point one time and will leave it to others to accept or reject…


My previous example was proven inaccurate by displaying that every allele born into the captive population will be needed to sustain allele frequency or the allele ratio.

So if aa is a lethal allele combination… or aa x aa is a lethal cross… Then the loss of these little a’s without a proportionally equal loss of big A’s… the allele ratio in comparison to the founder stock is disrupted…

A real life example I can make:

I breed “Electric Blue Jack Dempseys” (A rare color morph of a common Central American Cichlid/fish). The Blue phenotype (aa) is not lethal… but spawning Blue (aa) with Blue (aa) is a lethal cross. 

If the TWI breeding Guidelines were applied to a founding stock of wild Jack Dempseys and a portion of them were Heterogeneous for Blue (Aa), and in that captive population two aa’s were born… and they spawned with one another… which they would eventually have to due to the constant rotation of partners… The aa x aa cross would fail to produce the required aa offspring allowing a deficiency in the “Blue allele” (little a) per the ratio of the founding stock…


I will not debate this new example at length…


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I'm glad you see what we meant. All of the discourse was worth it, then  Allele frequencies change very slowly in wild populations (in general), so if we can maintain allele frequencies of a founder population, then we can maintain (hopefully) the genetics of the wild population.

It's certainly not a perfect system, but it's about as perfect as we can get.


----------



## NorthernFrogguy1976 (Apr 7, 2009)

Wow very interesting thread.. 
The future seems bleak for alot of species out there, I imagine the only future some species have is to exist only in captive programs such as TWI and such. I geuss before reintroduction is even an option, the reason the species went extinct in the first place must be fixed... in some cases that seems impossible. Can't be dumping bunchs of frogs out in a coffe bean field..


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobatesrichardii said:


> Wow very interesting thread..
> The future seems bleak for alot of species out there, I imagine the only future some species have is to exist only in captive programs such as TWI and such. I geuss before reintroduction is even an option, the reason the species went extinct in the first place must be fixed... in some cases that seems impossible. Can't be dumping bunchs of frogs out in a coffe bean field..


If one looks at the history of the region and deforestation, there are strong indications that previous civilizations deforested extensive areas to support thier economies and the regions were able to recover when left alone... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> I breed “Electric Blue Jack Dempseys” (A rare color morph of a common Central American Cichlid/fish). The Blue phenotype (aa) is not lethal… but spawning Blue (aa) with Blue (aa) is a lethal cross.


Looked it up.... looks to be a interesting negative additive gene effect of a probable mutation in chromatophore development... as it isn't really the recessive homozygote that results in the lethal effect (as all aa would fail to develop in that case regardless of the parents). 

Ed


----------



## NorthernFrogguy1976 (Apr 7, 2009)

Ed said:


> If one looks at the history of the region and deforestation, there are strong indications that previous civilizations deforested extensive areas to support thier economies and the regions were able to recover when left alone...
> 
> Ed


herein lies our problem. And I'm not sure about the Nazca who cleared a forest in Peru a thousand or so years ago, that place is a desert now...


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Getting this thread somewhat back to its original intent...

I mentioned a few pages ago that we in the hobby tend to think/categorize purely in terms of visual differences and phenotypes, but that we need to start thinking and speaking in terms of populations.

Something should be said about the term "morph": people tend to think it means the same as popolution...but it doesn't. It simply means a visual form. This is extremely important to understand because I have seen, for example, frogs from the Escudo de Veraguas population of pumilio split into 3 seperate morphs. These frogs all come the same island that is only about 6 miles long and a couple miles wide--it has no rivers or other geographical features that would isolate the island-wide population into various isolated ones. They all interbreed and intermix, and the population has a high degree of phenotypic diversity.

The problem is that when these frogs are split up and then sold as red/blue, blue, blue/red forms...people tend to think that they must all come from seperate populations, when in fact they don't.

So, we have to realize that the terms "morph" and "population" do not mean the same things, and if we attempt to use them interchangeably (whether we are aware of it or not), the result can be a lot of needless confusion, and quite possible the genetic bottlenecking of a lot of captive frogs.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

skylsdale said:


> Getting this thread somewhat back to its original intent...
> 
> I mentioned a few pages ago that we in the hobby tend to think/categorize purely in terms of visual differences and phenotypes, but that we need to start thinking and speaking in terms of populations.
> 
> ...


hm, interesting. so is it safe to assume that the escudos we have are all site specific then? since the island is so small and there are no geographical features. i am still very curious to know why SNDF splits everything up as much as they do. i mean, they split up el dorados into solid and spotted "morphs".


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

thedude said:


> so is it safe to assume that the escudos we have are all site specific then? since the island is so small and there are no goegraphical features.


Yes, but only by sheer coincidence and the nature of their locale (a tiny island 10 miles off the coast of Panama).



> i am still very curious to know why SNDF splits everything up as much as they do. i mean, they split up el dorados into solid and spotted "morphs".


I can't speak as to why specifically they do anything...but it's probably the same reason anyone splits up things like "Microspot" azureus. Maybe to claim to have something no one else does? More likely than not it comes down to marketing: creating a perceived value for something supposedly more rare or uncommon, or diversifying the type of stock you have and options available to customers. 

But, as I said above, it should be known that "morphs" in this case doesn't necessarily mean seperate/isolated breeding populations of Escudo or La Delicia/El Dorado pumilio, but rather different appearances of frogs within the same population.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> I can't speak as to why specifically they do anything...but it's probably the same reason anyone splits up things like "Microspot" azureus. Maybe to claim to have something no one else does? More likely than not it comes down to marketing: creating a perceived value for something supposedly more rare or uncommon, or diversifying the type of stock you have and options available to customers.


I'd say that that's precisely the reason. It "diversifies" the market and allows customers to get more "variety."



> But, as I said above, it should be known that "morphs" in this case doesn't necessarily mean seperate/isolated breeding populations of Escudo or La Delicia/El Dorado pumilio, but rather different appearances of frogs within the same population.


See, personally, I feel I'm pretty good at being consistent. For me, morph refers to a population and there may be different forms within the population (Red Bastimentos, Orange Bastimentos, etc). I think that in the literature, morph and population are synonymous (I'm not certain, as I can't say that I've looked for that dichotomy specifically), and it's in the hobby where perhaps the confusion comes in. Scientists may refer to morphs and populations synonymously, then when an importer advertises the Blue Escudo morph or the Red/Blue Escudo morph, people assume that they're different populations when in fact, they are not.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Skylsdale, I completely agree with your point that we need to understand the difference between "morph" and "population". As they are completely different words...




skylsdale said:


> thedude said:
> 
> 
> > i am still very curious to know why SNDF splits everything up as much as they do.
> ...


I don't agree that it is (only) a means of trickery...

I'm sure a lot of people buy frogs and want the one with little spots, not the one with big spots... or they want the red and blue ones, not the solid red ones... etc...

So labeling them with the morph description makes sense and is a valid form of labeling...


It's the potential breeders job to learn what is what and what "morphs" come from the same breeding population.


This does make it quite complicated when we begin dealing with species that have multiple seperate breeding populations within a general region that do not have distinct visual differences. I've been struggling with this situation regarding the Panamanian Auratus...


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

skylsdale said:


> But, as I said above, it should be known that "morphs" in this case doesn't necessarily mean seperate/isolated breeding populations of Escudo or La Delicia/El Dorado pumilio, but rather different appearances of frogs within the same population.


yes that was why i used quotation marks. im like jp on this one though, i always say morph meaning a population with whatever color or pattern variation being included in the morph. like, i would call escudos a morph with red/blue, red, and blue all color variations within that population. but i do see what you mean about it being confusing so ill probably be saying population from now on.


toby,

i see your point but for the point of keeping captive populations diversified as in nature it would still be better to sell them all together, otherwise you could be breeding for traits. for example, if i have a male el dorado that is solid, to keep the alleles diversified it would be a good idea to breed him with a female that has spots. i may prefer the solids more, but to keep their offspring close to that of wild offspring it would be better this way. that is of course, if you are concerned with that sort of thing. like ASN.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

thedude said:


> toby,
> 
> i see your point but for the point of keeping captive populations diversified as in nature it would still be better to sell them all together, otherwise you could be breeding for traits. for example, if i have a male el dorado that is solid, to keep the alleles diversified it would be a good idea to breed him with a female that has spots. i may prefer the solids more, but to keep their offspring close to that of wild offspring it would be better this way. that is of course, if you are concerned with that sort of thing. like ASN.


This is completely logical and true when applied to people who have the intention of breeding and distributing offspring...

But...

There are a large number of individuals who simply want a cool looking frog. And those individuals may have specific traits they are looking for in that frog. For these individuals having a specific look available is wonderful. 

And for the potential breeder, it's our job to educate ourselves to know what steps we should be taking to give ourselves the "best" breeding pair possible/practical.

Anyone of us who intend to breed and raise offspring shuold be taking steps to avoid genetic bottlenecking, whether our goal is preserving a locale or simply producing healthy animals.

Even if a single supplier can supply a variety of different looking frogs that can be found within a single locale, if they are all siblings, they wouldn't be very good potential breeding partners.


I just believe that the vast majority of individuals who purchase frogs are doing so with absolutely no intention of ever producing offspring... thus the appearance of the specimen is important and it's breeding potential holds no value (to that person).


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> I just believe that the vast majority of individuals who purchase frogs are doing so with absolutely no intention of ever producing offspring... thus the appearance of the specimen is important and it's breeding potential holds no value (to that person).


This is probably true, but if that's the case then folks looking for how a frog looks should be looking for how a frog looks (e.g. ask for pictures of frogs, see them in person), and not be going off of written descriptions as they tend to be very subjective. I mean, "Spotted El Dorado" could mean anything from flecking to spots like those you see in Bastimentos.

So if persons are interested in looks, then they should be asking for pictures, at minimum, so that they can see what a frog looks like. And given that, then there really would/should be no need to distinguish frogs by spotted/solid or red/orange/green and so on as separate "morphs." Or advertisers should say the locale and then in a description describe the frog (e.g. 4 months out of the water, showing yellow coloration with light flecking of black through body).


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

My intention at this point was to simply give a rational reason for why a seller would give an accurate description of the specimen they have for sale. Doing so best serves many potential customers… I felt it was unfair to only point out devious motives.

I equally agree that I’d love to see as accurate as possible background on frogs available. Whether that was locale information, their line of parentage, their parent or their lines import info, etc, etc… but often this information is not readily available. 

Also providing this information to buyers is setting customers up to become competition. Breeders/distributors often put tons of time, effort, energy and money into establishing their breeding projects. I don’t think we should expect to set up with similar breeding pairs for the going rate of two frogs…


So while I agree I’d love to see such details shared about ever frog listed for sale… I can’t blame the sellers for not putting in this extra effort.

My apologies if I sound ‘argumentative’… I’m just trying to represent ‘the other side’ of the conversation…


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> I think that in the literature, morph and population are synonymous (I'm not certain, as I can't say that I've looked for that dichotomy specifically), and it's in the hobby where perhaps the confusion comes in. Scientists may refer to morphs and populations synonymously, then when an importer advertises the Blue Escudo morph or the Red/Blue Escudo morph, people assume that they're different populations when in fact, they are not.


I just did some reading so we can be sure, and from what I can gather, the terms "morph" and "population" are _not_ the same, nor can they correctly be used interchangeably.

Morph literally means "shape" or "form" and is sometimes used interchangeably with the term _phase_. The term _morph_ is most commonly used to refer to forms of animals, even individuals within the same breeding population (such as polymorphism, when two or more different morphs/forms/phenotypes exist within the same population of a species).

Ye ol' Wikipedia states:



Wikipedia said:


> The use of the words _morph_ or _polymorphism_ for what is a visibly different _geographical race or variant_ is common, but incorrect.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I see where you're coming from but you have to keep in mind the proclivities of the hobby. For example, we have green and black, blue and black, and 6-spot auratus which are descriptive names, but also refer to distinct morphs (or Terribilis morphs). So when you use new descriptive names, it is the first assumption of people in the hobby that it's a new morph not just the variation within a population.

I would argue that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle: not completely benign but not completely "malicious" either. I think that sellers use it as a selling point, but don't necessarily realize (or they do) that they may be making new populations where there are not new populations.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I don’t think it can be said “they” (sellers) are creating ‘new populations’… I think it would be better put to say that when “we” (buyers) make assumptions, we risk making mistakes… I don’t think fault can be assigned to the seller for giving an accurate physical description of the item/animal they are selling…




MonarchzMan said:


> For example, we have green and black, blue and black, and 6-spot auratus which are descriptive names, but also refer to distinct morphs (or Terribilis morphs).


I believe here you used the term “morph” in the way that Skylsdale is suggesting the term “population” should be used… 

If I understood you correct, then I suggest that the name “green and black” is a horrible name for a population. Since there are dozens of separate populations that are in fact green and black.


If we want clarity in our labeling, it only makes sense that we make a labeling system that can easily be followed.

Anyone who has a D. Auratus that is green and black in color, should be able to state “this is a green and black auratus” without being in conflict with our labeling system.



As for terminology… I‘ve always heard & used the same wording that Skylsdale is suggesting with “morph” being a physical description and “population” being in reference to a group of individuals that interbreed regardless of physical similarities or differences… .


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> I don’t think it can be said “they” (sellers) are creating ‘new populations’… I think it would be better put to say that when “we” (buyers) make assumptions, we risk making mistakes… I don’t think fault can be assigned to the seller for giving an accurate physical description of the item/animal they are selling…


I think the blame falls on both parties because I would think that it is very obvious the proclivities of the hobby is to not mix different morphs with one another, and to sell a frog as "Spotted El Dorado" plays at that. It's the fault of the buyer for not researching and finding that Spotted "El Dorados" are no different from solid ones. But that assumption would not be made possible without sellers' misleading ads.



> If I understood you correct, then I suggest that the name “green and black” is a horrible name for a population. Since there are dozens of separate populations that are in fact green and black.


You're preaching to the choir, hence why I don't like the name "El Dorado"


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> You're preaching to the choir, hence why I don't like the name "El Dorado"


ill second that. what would be their common name otherwise though? "southern bri bri"?


anyway, toby, your argument makes sense, but i did mention that what i was saying was only if you were concerned with that kind of thing. so we agree!

hey skylsdale,
as several of my professors have said, wikipedia is not a reliable source  just kidding, i see what you mean. ill try and switch over to what your saying. it does make things less confusing.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

thedude said:


> ill second that. what would be their common name otherwise though? "southern bri bri"?


I have seen them also referred to as "Changuinola" pumilio, which would make sense as it's still in the Bocas region and fairly close to the Costa Rican border (and SE of BriBri): changuinola panama - Google Maps



> hey skylsdale,
> as several of my professors have said, wikipedia is not a reliable source just kidding, i see what you mean. ill try and switch over to what your saying. it does make things less confusing.


What?! You mean they aren't fans of the peer-review process? How ironic.  Wikipedia was the quickest source at-hand when I posted, but I believe an even more thorough review of literature would yield the same results.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Changuinola are solid red frogs as I understand (if there are even any frogs there anymore with all of Chiquita's bananas going up there). The El Dorados are likely from Las Delicias which is more northern and on the Panamanian side of Bri Bri.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Good to know, JP. However, the picture of a Changuinola pumilio on Dendrobase.de is pretty pale.

Is there a chance the whole range runs through both places?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> Changuinola are solid red frogs as I understand (if there are even any frogs there anymore with all of Chiquita's bananas going up there). The El Dorados are likely from Las Delicias which is more northern and on the Panamanian side of Bri Bri.


atleast pumilio fair pretty well in disturbed areas. it wouldnt surprise me if remnant populations managed to tough it out. but you would know way better than me on this subject. speaking of which, do you have any pictures of the changuinola pumilio? the one on dendrobase looks like an orange solarte. says their SVL is 19mm which is pretty big. isnt that what the el dorado are about?

heres a nice quote:
"be the change you wish to see in the world" - Ghandi

therefore, lets start calling them las delicias!


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

The pics of Delicias on here look pretty "El Dorado": Oophaga pumilio Morphguide


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

ya the 2nd and 3rd pictures do, but ive never seen one like in the first picture.do some have entirely grey back legs like that?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> Good to know, JP. However, the picture of a Changuinola pumilio on Dendrobase.de is pretty pale.
> 
> Is there a chance the whole range runs through both places?


It's possible, although I don't know how probable it is. Las Delicias is 25 miles away as the crow (or macaw) flies. If you look at google maps, you can see that Changuinola is severely dominated by banana plantations, which extend almost up to Las Delicias. They go right up to the foothills of the mountains, so I suppose it's possible that pumilio could have a stronghold in those foothills, but I highly doubt that there is good gene flow (if any at all) between the two populations.

As for pictures, I don't have any. I haven't visited the Changuinola population, so I can't comment on actual color or size, but my understanding is that they're on the larger side and that they're mostly solid red/orange. 19mm is large, but not huge for pumilio. Bastimentos are around 19mm, for example. But once you get into Costa Rica, frogs get bigger and pass the 20mm mark.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> It's possible, although I don't know how probable it is. Las Delicias is 25 miles away as the crow (or macaw) flies. If you look at google maps, you can see that Changuinola is severely dominated by banana plantations, which extend almost up to Las Delicias. They go right up to the foothills of the mountains, so I suppose it's possible that pumilio could have a stronghold in those foothills, but I highly doubt that there is good gene flow (if any at all) between the two populations.


If a single wild population has recently (recently in evolutionary terms) been divided by mankind (such as clearing their environment for banana fields)... Should it be seen as two separate populations?

If the point is to preserve what nature created, it seems we should be working to prevent mankind's actions from making changes, not preserving those changes...


If there is a single population that covers a large range, how beneficial is it to break this single population into "sub-populations". It is valid to suggest that a population that stretches over 25 miles probably has very little genetic exchange between it's ends, but it is still a single population...


I also wonder how important it is to look at two neighboring populations as "different populations", when they are indeed separate populations, but were probably at one time of the same population and both exist in almost exact environmental pressures.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> If a single wild population has recently (recently in evolutionary terms) been divided by mankind (such as clearing their environment for banana fields)... Should it be seen as two separate populations?
> 
> If the point is to preserve what nature created, it seems we should be working to prevent mankind's actions from making changes, not preserving those changes...
> 
> ...


i dont think he was saying that....


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> If a single wild population has recently (recently in evolutionary terms) been divided by mankind (such as clearing their environment for banana fields)... Should it be seen as two separate populations?
> 
> If the point is to preserve what nature created, it seems we should be working to prevent mankind's actions from making changes, not preserving those changes...


Managers grapple with this problem all the time, and it really comes down to the fact that humans are part of the environment, so we need to manage wildlife in respect to that. I would love to manage the Changuinola population as a single population, but it likely will not happen because it is doubtful that the banana will disappear and forest will be allowed to rebound in the near future. And that would have to happen soon too. I mean look at the Hawaiian Auratus and how they changed in the, what, 50 years they've been on the island? Genetic bottlenecking and drift can quickly change a population, and it would be more responsible to manage for that.

Taking an example closer to home, the Eastern Fox Snake and Western Fox Snake were once considered to be subspecies of the same species, and one of the reasons for splitting them into full species was the fact that the land separating them was so developed that the likelihood that they meet up and mix is minimal.



> If there is a single population that covers a large range, how beneficial is it to break this single population into "sub-populations". It is valid to suggest that a population that stretches over 25 miles probably has very little genetic exchange between it's ends, but it is still a single population...


By that logic, one could argue that pumilio as a species is one population, or at minimum, populations like Almirante and Uyama are one population and therefore shouldn't be kept separate. One of the requirements for a population is to have gene flow among its individuals. If there are blocks, man-made or otherwise, they should be considered separate populations unless a corridor can be made, at which point we need to consider the likelihood that a 2cm long frog will travel 25 miles. 

There are a number of populations that for distinct phenotypes in relatively short distances (e.g. Popa North and Popa South)



> I also wonder how important it is to look at two neighboring populations as "different populations", when they are indeed separate populations, but were probably at one time of the same population and both exist in almost exact environmental pressures.


It's very much gray area, but you have to consider that if there is something phenotypically different between neighboring populations, then there was a selective force that caused them to diverge. I go back to the Popa populations which are phenotypically distinct from one another. There may be the same environmental pressures on them, but for whatever reason, at one end of the island, female frogs liked small, green/brown and blue and at the other end of the island, females liked large, green, yellow, and spotted, and over time, that selective force caused a divergence in the populations even though they're neighboring.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Great conversation  and please note, just because I make a point I am not implying you are making an opposing point. We’re just having a friendly logical conversation 


I don’t think the “Hawaiian Auratus” are a good example here. They were removed from one environment and placed into a completely different environment. This puts evolution on the fast track and considerable changes in a short time should be expected…


In the event that a single population is “cut in half” by mankind building a divider in their territory (such as clearing for banana fields) the environmental pressures in the undisturbed areas should not be changed. So evolution is uninterrupted. It was stated elsewhere in this thread that evolution is “static” provided the environment is unchanged.


I do see where you are coming from in saying that humans are part of the environment. While human intervention is generally seen as “unnatural”, it is happening none the less therefore we need to consider it’s impact. 

Whether humans artificially create a barrier, or geological evolution creates a new river, populations are being cut in half none the less. But unless the change that split’s the population otherwise alters the environmental pressures, we shouldn’t expect to see any signs of evolution for a very very long time.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Toby_H said:


> In the event that a single population is “cut in half” by mankind building a divider in their territory (such as clearing for banana fields) the environmental pressures in the undisturbed areas should not be changed. So evolution is uninterrupted. It was stated elsewhere in this thread that evolution is “static” provided the environment is unchanged.


The clearing of land for banana fields directly changes the environment so evolution from that point on may not remain "static". These changes could bring new predators and prey into the environment through "natural" means or hitchhiking with fieldworkers which would have a direct impact on environmental pressures.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> I don’t think the “Hawaiian Auratus” are a good example here. They were removed from one environment and placed into a completely different environment. This puts evolution on the fast track and considerable changes in a short time should be expected...
> 
> In the event that a single population is “cut in half” by mankind building a divider in their territory (such as clearing for banana fields) the environmental pressures in the undisturbed areas should not be changed. So evolution is uninterrupted. It was stated elsewhere in this thread that evolution is “static” provided the environment is unchanged.


The Hawaiian auratus are good example because they demonstrate a bottleneck and drift which is what cutting a population in half could/would do, and that such changes can happen relatively quickly.

Making a divider would change the environmental factors acting on the frogs, though. For example, putting a banana field in the middle of a continuous piece of habitat would isolate two populations from one another (and genes). Not only that, but it would increase the amount of light available to frogs along the edge of such a field (thus there may be a selective pressure to be more/less conspicuousness). Not only that, but it would also increase the amount of wind that could penetrate the forest possibly causing the forest to try out (especially higher up), so there may be a selective pressure to specialize on understory plants for tadpole deposition as opposed to venturing to the top of trees to use bromeliads. That could have morphological implications (e.g. smaller toe pads since climbing isn't as necessary).



> I do see where you are coming from in saying that humans are part of the environment. While human intervention is generally seen as “unnatural”, it is happening none the less therefore we need to consider it’s impact.
> 
> Whether humans artificially create a barrier, or geological evolution creates a new river, populations are being cut in half none the less. But unless the change that split’s the population otherwise alters the environmental pressures, we shouldn’t expect to see any signs of evolution for a very very long time.


We would expect to see changes. See above.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> The Hawaiian auratus are good example because they demonstrate a bottleneck and drift which is what cutting a population in half could/would do, and that such changes can happen relatively quickly.


I still don’t agree that the Hawaiian Auratus is a good example here. Not only was a portion of a population split from the main group, as in the example here… but they were transported almost 5,000 miles away to a different continent.

The relocation to a totally different environment gives ample explanation to the quick steps in evolution… and the current example is only providing minor changes to a small portion of the environment…




jubjub47 said:


> The clearing of land for banana fields directly changes the environment so evolution from that point on may not remain "static". These changes could bring new predators and prey into the environment through "natural" means or hitchhiking with fieldworkers which would have a direct impact on environmental pressures.


Importation of new predators is something I hadn’t considered… and to add to that the importation of new prey… The introduction of new flaura is less likely but just as possible...




MonarchzMan said:


> Making a divider would change the environmental factors acting on the frogs, though. For example, putting a banana field in the middle of a continuous piece of habitat would isolate two populations from one another (and genes). Not only that, but it would increase the amount of light available to frogs along the edge of such a field (thus there may be a selective pressure to be more/less conspicuousness). Not only that, but it would also increase the amount of wind that could penetrate the forest possibly causing the forest to try out (especially higher up), so there may be a selective pressure to specialize on understory plants for tadpole deposition as opposed to venturing to the top of trees to use bromeliads. That could have morphological implications (e.g. smaller toe pads since climbing isn't as necessary).


The impact on things such as light and wind would only be applicable to the edges of the population range that collide with the new barrier. Since we have been talking about a range of 25 miles, it’s unlikely this would have considerable impact on the population as a whole…

Though naturally many details of the specific geography would need to be considered, and here we are simply having a 'theoretical' discussion...

The interruption of the flow of genes/alleles is valid and brings up the concern… how large should a population be before we consider “sub-populations”? At what point should distance alone be seen as a barrier within a continuous population?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> I still don’t agree that the Hawaiian Auratus is a good example here. Not only was a portion of a population split from the main group, as in the example here… but they were transported almost 5,000 miles away to a different continent.
> 
> The relocation to a totally different environment gives ample explanation to the quick steps in evolution…


I agree that the Oahu auratus aren't a good example...at least in the way many people use them (i.e. showing "quick steps" in evolution taking place now that they have been isolated from the original population). You have a smaller founding population, so some characteristics are supposedly occuring in the Oahu population (reticulation, etc.). 

To me, this doesn't indicate any sort of evolutionary different or divergent steps occuring. Of course, given the different environment, isolation, and genetic bottleneck, evolutionary steps occuring more quickly are _possible..._but I have yet to see anything that would indicate it has already occured.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> I still don’t agree that the Hawaiian Auratus is a good example here. Not only was a portion of a population split from the main group, as in the example here… but they were transported almost 5,000 miles away to a different continent.
> 
> The relocation to a totally different environment gives ample explanation to the quick steps in evolution… and the current example is only providing minor changes to a small portion of the environment…


Check out the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Basically, species stay constant until something changes, then changes can happen quite rapidly to change. That's the point of the Hawaiian Auratus example: that change can happen quickly in a population. You are making the assumption that what you perceive to be a small change is a small change to the frogs. For a diurnal, aposematic species, a slight change in lighting can be quite significant.



> The impact on things such as light and wind would only be applicable to the edges of the population range that collide with the new barrier. Since we have been talking about a range of 25 miles, it’s unlikely this would have considerable impact on the population as a whole…


Look at the map. The banana plantations are very extensive and the effects of wind and light could be pervasive. And the entire point of the example is that there will be differential selective pressures on various areas through the population and as a result, you will get divergence.



> The interruption of the flow of genes/alleles is valid and brings up the concern… how large should a population be before we consider “sub-populations”? At what point should distance alone be seen as a barrier within a continuous population?


This is a gray area that many researchers have difficulty defining. But it can be looked at in regards to gene flow. Almirante and Uyama are right next to each other, but given their significantly different phenotypes (and the influence of female mate choice on the species), even though they're "continuous" there is probably little gene flow between them.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

The TWI/ASN Pocket Guide says:



> Twenty unrelated founders should capture 97.5% of wild alleles.


http://www.treewalkers.org/treeftp/GlobalConservation/ASN/public/ASN_PG_v1.pdf

I’ve read that the Hawaiian population was started with a founder stock of right around 200 frogs. Shouldn’t this be more than enough to give a full genetic representation of the original population?

This is why I was attributing any perceived difference between the Hawaiian population and the original population to a complete change in environment… and did not acknowledge the effects of bottlenecking or a disproprtionate allele ratio in the original stock...

I am also not debating whether there is or is not a difference in the two populations. I am simply going by what appears to me to be accepted by the bulk of the hobby (that these 'locales' shoudl be kept seperate in captive breeding programs). 


I have been using a ‘theoretical’ example of a population inhabiting a 25 mile wide range that was split by banana fields. If we are using a literal example please share a link to the map you are referencing… I did a google search and found Popa Island, but no maps that display the banana fields nor outlined the range of dart frogs in question. 

Although I’m sure the same ‘theoretical’ example can apply to different populations being split elsewhere… thus keeping the conversation theoretical allows it to be cover other details…


Seeing the maps may change my opinion, but for now it’s hard for me to see plowing a strip in the middle of a range and relocating 5,000 miles to a different continent comparable "environmental changes"… 


Also, if human activity created an environmental change that sparked a quick evolutionary step… should we be looking to preserve a population before or after that change? While I agree we cannot ignore that human activity is creating change, I thought the point of conservation was to minimize such change…


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Again, the point of the auratus example was that rapid change can happen quickly.

I'm not talking about Popa being split by banana fields. I'm talking about Changuinola and Las Delicias being split.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

Moving on…

I understand the desired goal of establishing a “locale pure” stock for the idea of future reintroduction…

There is a valid argument that it is unlikely that even if a group of hobbyists were able to do this, these frogs would be used for reintroduction due to the possible foreign pathogens, etc they may have contracted. It seems more likely wild caught frogs from a nearby, but yet different, locale would be used (if/when possible)…

I would personally like to set that debate aside for right now… both sides of the debate have valid details to back up their ideas…


When it comes to breeding programs whose sole intent is to produce frogs to be kept by hobbyists…

There is a very common approach to buy a small group of frogs and grow them out to establish a pair. All to often the frogs in this “group” are full siblings from the same clutch. I accept with amphibians, this happening one time isn’t that big of a deal, but if it happens 2, or 3, or 4 generations in a row, the quality or health of the animals could easily digress.

Since wild imports of many species are limited, it is very likely that buying “locale X” frogs from two different suppliers will still be closely related frogs.


So to remove ourselves from this potential, I see value in mixing frogs of the same species but from different locales. This offers “genetic diversity” to the offspring. The benefits of such out crossing is documented, as is the negatives ongoing inbreeding.


Please keep in mind I am not promoting or justifying crossing different species with the intent of making a “new frog”. That is a complete different discussion.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> Please keep in mind I am not promoting or justifying crossing different species with the intent of making a “new frog”. That is a complete different discussion.


 Personally, I don't see the idea of mixing two isolated, separate populations really any different than mixing two species. A mix of two separate locales that do not exchange genes in the wild is just as much a "new frog" as the mixing of two species, as it would not occur in the wild.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

> Twenty unrelated founders should capture 97.5% of wild alleles.
> 
> I’ve read that the Hawaiian population was started with a founder stock of right around 200 frogs. Shouldn’t this be more than enough to give a full genetic representation of the original population?


That is only if the population is managed properly, so it doesn't apply to the Hawaiian population, which is not a managed population, it's a population that is left to the selection pressures of the Hawaiian environment it's in.



> I understand the desired goal of establishing a “locale pure” stock for the idea of future reintroduction…


As far as the hobby goes, that's not really a goal, since it's most likely never going to happen with our frogs.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> So to remove ourselves from this potential, I see value in mixing frogs of the same species but from different locales. This offers “genetic diversity” to the offspring. The benefits of such out crossing is documented, as is the negatives ongoing inbreeding.
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind I am not promoting or justifying crossing different species with the intent of making a “new frog”. That is a complete different discussion.


Frogs are imported, generally, in sizable numbers that as long as breeders seek to mix blood when getting new frogs, there shouldn't be a big issue with inbreeding.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> Frogs are imported, generally, in sizable numbers that as long as breeders seek to mix blood when getting new frogs, there shouldn't be a big issue with inbreeding.


This is wonderful for those breeders who have access to wild imports and wish to keep wild frogs. But there are many of us who want to be able to put together a pair of frogs that produce quality offspring that do not have access to such imports and do not wish to keep wild frogs.

Should all hobbyists not interested in keeping wild frogs or who do not have access to such frogs simply stop breeding? Or should we evaluate our resources and make the wisest and most responsible choice we have available. 




zBrinks said:


> Personally, I don't see the idea of mixing two isolated, separate populations really any different than mixing two species. A mix of two separate locales that do not exchange genes in the wild is just as much a "new frog" as the mixing of two species, as it would not occur in the wild.


But there is a difference, and it’s a calculable one as well…

When a single population is naturally divided into two separate populations but each separate population evolves along the same lines in the same, yet separated, environment… and each population is virtually indistinguishable… they remain the same species…

When a single population is naturally divided into two populations for extremely long periods of time and each population evolves along different lines in different environments… and each population is independently distinguishable… they have become different species.

While “Naturally interbreeding” is a detail worth considering… it is not the _only_ detail worth considering… 



I can agree that ‘mixing locales’ is from an angle a “compromise”… But I think it is neglectful to criticize it as a compromise while overlooking every other compromise to the standards promoted in the TWI/ASN Guidelines.

When there are captive bred frogs readily available that are produced to the full standards of TWI/ASN, my suggestions may change. But until such time I prioritize mixing genes which is a tested and proven way to produce healthier animals... Sincle producing healthy animals is my goal...


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

I think one thing you are neglecting is the amount of generations the frogs are bred in captivity. With the exception of a few frogs, I know most of my frogs are F1 or F2. With a lifespan of 10 years or greater, there is no need to 'outcross' frogs to others from a different locale - frogs that are separated from their wild counterparts by only a generation or two are readily available if one is willing to look. 

Now, I could see potentially feeling the need to 'outcross' if the only frogs available were, say, F10, half their original size, and sickly, but I cannot think of any situations where this is the case.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> This is wonderful for those breeders who have access to wild imports and wish to keep wild frogs. But there are many of us who want to be able to put together a pair of frogs that produce quality offspring that do not have access to such imports and do not wish to keep wild frogs.
> 
> Should all hobbyists not interested in keeping wild frogs or who do not have access to such frogs simply stop breeding? Or should we evaluate our resources and make the wisest and most responsible choice we have available.


You don't need to get the wild frogs to benefit from the number of wild frogs initially brought in. F1s and F2s from these frogs still can be very diverse genetically, so as long as a breeder is responsible and doesn't pair up frogs that come from the same parent pair, there won't be any real issue with inbreeding in most cases.



> But there is a difference, and it’s a calculable one as well…
> 
> When a single population is naturally divided into two separate populations but each separate population evolves along the same lines in the same, yet separated, environment… and each population is virtually indistinguishable… they remain the same species…


Depends on which species concept you favor. I can tell you that there are some that would separate these different morphs into full species.



> When a single population is naturally divided into two populations for extremely long periods of time and each population evolves along different lines in different environments… and each population is independently distinguishable… they have become different species.


How long is long enough? 1 year? 100 years? 10,000 years? I would say that 10,000 years is a long time. It also happens to be the length of time that pumilio have been separated. But they're all considered to be the same species.



> While “Naturally interbreeding” is a detail worth considering… it is not the _only_ detail worth considering…


What are the chances that frogs from Bastimentos will be able to interbreed with frogs from Isla Colon? Or frogs from La Selva be able to breed with frogs from Almirante? A definition of a population is that it's interbreeding. If two groups are not interbreeding, then they're different populations. You seem to be talking about the _ability_ to interbreed. Which if you look at that, then you open up the possibility of mixing different species like auratus and leucomelas.



> I can agree that ‘mixing locales’ is from an angle a “compromise”… But I think it is neglectful to criticize it as a compromise while overlooking every other compromise to the standards promoted in the TWI/ASN Guidelines.


Like what compromises?



> When there are captive bred frogs readily available that are produced to the full standards of TWI/ASN, my suggestions may change. But until such time I prioritize mixing genes which is a tested and proven way to produce healthier animals... Sincle producing healthy animals is my goal...


Your argument seems to be that Joe Schmoe doesn't necessarily care about maintaining genes by TWI/ASN standards, so why would Joe even care about inbreeding, since inbreeding depression, generally, takes many generations of inbreeding to happen? And how many frogs out there are F4s or F5s or greater generations than that?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

zBrinks said:


> I think one thing you are neglecting is the amount of generations the frogs are bred in captivity. With the exception of a few frogs, I know most of my frogs are F1 or F2. With a lifespan of 10 years or greater, there is no need to 'outcross' frogs to others from a different locale - frogs that are separated from their wild counterparts by only a generation or two are readily available if one is willing to look.
> 
> Now, I could see potentially feeling the need to 'outcross' if the only frogs available were, say, F10, half their original size, and sickly, but I cannot think of any situations where this is the case.


I understand and respect where that thinking is coming from…

I’ve found very few sources that list an F# on their frogs and just like it’s unwise to assume frogs are from the same locale, I’m not willing to assume frogs are of a low F#.

I’ve sent inquiries to a few breeders/suppliers but their responses seemed vague and were simply seeking the sale. I don’t blame them for their response but at the same time I’m not going to invest in a vague notion.

I’m not promoting breaking ‘locale purity’… I’m just trying to consider it’s literal repercussions in comparison to other ‘imperfections’ in captive breeding techniques. 




MonarchzMan said:


> Depends on which species concept you favor. I can tell you that there are some that would separate these different morphs into full species.


I’m just working with the species breakdown currently accepted…

I accept your above quoted statement is true, but I find it a hard stretch to separate by species two populations that are indistinguishable from one another and live in neighboring near identical environments. This is the level of out crossing I am justifying.




MonarchzMan said:


> What are the chances that frogs from Bastimentos will be able to interbreed with frogs from Isla Colon? Or frogs from La Selva be able to breed with frogs from Almirante? A definition of a population is that it's interbreeding. If two groups are not interbreeding, then they're different populations. You seem to be talking about the _ability_ to interbreed. Which if you look at that, then you open up the possibility of mixing different species like auratus and leucomelas.


I believe you misunderstood the point I was pursuing.

I was responding to the notion that there is no real difference in mixing locales vs. mixing speices. I pointed out while in either case, populations not interbreeding is true… there are a number of other details that draw lines between these two ‘breeding techniques’ (hybridization vs. out crossing).

You and I have been using the same terminology in regards to terms like population, morph, etc… I made no reference to the ability of species to interbreed…




MonarchzMan said:


> Like what compromises?


TWI/ASN Guidelines list a very respectable standard for breeding. One of these standards is (paraphrased) ‘do not mix locales’. Compromising any one of the standards suggested in the TWI/ASN Guidelines will compromise the result. Since ‘preserving allele ratio’ of a locale is not my goal, but producing healthy frogs is, crossing locales has a smaller interference with my goal than compromising other standards they list




MonarchzMan said:


> Your argument seems to be that Joe Schmoe doesn't necessarily care about maintaining genes by TWI/ASN standards, so why would Joe even care about inbreeding, since inbreeding depression, generally, takes many generations of inbreeding to happen? And how many frogs out there are F4s or F5s or greater generations than that?


I'm suggesting that I don't care if my frogs are a "genetic snapshot" of a particular location on a particular date... but I do care that I produce quality animals.

Just like TWI/ASN members suggest it is unacceptable to "assume" frogs that look the same are from the same local, I'm unwilling to assume that frogs are not inbred... and I'm not willing to assume that inbreeding one more time won't be a compromise.


In my background of keeping/breeding fish (and dabbling in reptiles) I’ve come to the opinion that we should minimize the importation of wild caught animals and should limit wild caught specimen to enhancing breeding programs. One way I support this principal is to avoid making compromises in my breeding methods that compromise the health of my offspring. This includes taking steps to avoid inbreeding…

But since preserving locale purity to a specific location on a specific date is not my goal, but producing healthy animals is, I don't mind outcrossing between 'identical' but seperated populations.


I’ve heard the KilliFish fans share their concepts on keeping locales separate… and I’ve heard the Flowerhorn fans share their concepts to justify hybridization… I feel both concepts stretch the reality to defend their goal and my opinion lies in the balance of the two…

That’s where I get the justification that it’s acceptable to cross locales of virtually indistinguishable populations of the same species… but I do not support inter species hybridization.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> I understand and respect where that thinking is coming from…
> 
> I’ve found very few sources that list an F# on their frogs and just like it’s unwise to assume frogs are from the same locale, I’m not willing to assume frogs are of a low F#.
> 
> ...


So, let's make the assumption that it takes a frog 2 years to produce viable offspring that will survive to adulthood. Yes, I know that some species can breed sooner than that, but that does not necessarily mean that they will produce offspring that will survive to adulthood. It's possible, yes, but I think that on average, it takes most frog species 2 years to get to that point.

Inbreeding has bad effects with many generations of inbreeding. If we go under the assumption that full siblings were constantly bred which would have the worst effects of inbreeding, you'd still need to have a decent number of generations to have those effects. For ease of argument, we'll say 5.

So if we go by that, it would be 10 years for that line to get to F5 _and_ those generations would all have to be full sibling breedings. And I'm not sure how many deleterious effects you'd have after 5 generations. 10? Perhaps, but then you're looking at 20 years. How many lines of frogs that are still present in the hobby are from 2000? Or 1990? Not many to my knowledge. And then you get to the point of how likely is it that, of those lines, they were completely inbred all the way to F5 or F10? That there never was a unrelated individual thrown in there. Not very likely.



> I’m just working with the species breakdown currently accepted…
> 
> I accept your above quoted statement is true, but I find it a hard stretch to separate by species two populations that are indistinguishable from one another and live in neighboring near identical environments. This is the level of out crossing I am justifying.


If we go by that, then Cope's Gray Tree Frog and Eastern Gray Tree Frog would be the same species.

But they're not, they're genetically different, just like if two populations live next to one another but have been separated for one reason or another. If they are a continuous population, then yes, there's no reason to keep them separate.



> I believe you misunderstood the point I was pursuing.
> 
> I was responding to the notion that there is no real difference in mixing locales vs. mixing speices. I pointed out while in either case, populations not interbreeding is true… there are a number of other details that draw lines between these two ‘breeding techniques’ (hybridization vs. out crossing).


Such as?



> TWI/ASN Guidelines list a very respectable standard for breeding. One of these standards is (paraphrased) ‘do not mix locales’. Compromising any one of the standards suggested in the TWI/ASN Guidelines will compromise the result. Since ‘preserving allele ratio’ of a locale is not my goal, but producing healthy frogs is, crossing locales has a smaller interference with my goal than compromising other standards they list


You didn't really answer my question. You said that there were many compromises promoted by the TWI/ASN Guidelines.



> I'm suggesting that I don't care if my frogs are a "genetic snapshot" of a particular location on a particular date... but I do care that I produce quality animals.
> 
> Just like TWI/ASN members suggest it is unacceptable to "assume" frogs that look the same are from the same local, I'm unwilling to assume that frogs are not inbred... and I'm not willing to assume that inbreeding one more time won't be a compromise.


I would say that what is unacceptable is your buying frogs from people who don't keep good records if you are worried about inbreeding, not that it's unacceptable to assume that frogs are not inbred.

Unless importers are more open about where frogs come from, all breeders can do is assume that they come from different locales. Inbreeding is a very easy thing to track, and if you cannot/are not willing to track it, I would say that you're the one at fault. For virtually any species/morph, it is not that difficult to track back where the line came from and how "inbred" it is.



> In my background of keeping/breeding fish (and dabbling in reptiles) I’ve come to the opinion that we should minimize the importation of wild caught animals and should limit wild caught specimen to enhancing breeding programs. One way I support this principal is to avoid making compromises in my breeding methods that compromise the health of my offspring. This includes taking steps to avoid inbreeding…


We're in agreement that importation should be limited, but I don't see how, if that happens, why those specimens should not be incorporated into breeding programs of the same locale. It's just introducing new blood which would help the captive population if there is any inbreeding going on.



> But since preserving locale purity to a specific location on a specific date is not my goal, but producing healthy animals is, I don't mind outcrossing between 'identical' but seperated populations.


They're not identical, though. Like with the Gray Tree Frog example, they look alike and even live in the same area, but they're not the same genetically. It is a big mistake to just look at what two frogs look like and deem them "identical" because there are plenty of characters that are not visible.



> That’s where I get the justification that it’s acceptable to cross locales of virtually indistinguishable populations of the same species… but I do not support inter species hybridization.


There's no difference between breeding of different populations that are separate from one another than hybridization.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I hate when this tit for tat, quote for quote form of discussing things comes about… 



MonarchzMan said:


> So, let's make the assumption that it takes a frog 2 years to produce viable offspring that will survive to adulthood. Yes, I know that some species can breed sooner than that, but that does not necessarily mean that they will produce offspring that will survive to adulthood. It's possible, yes, but I think that on average, it takes most frog species 2 years to get to that point.
> 
> Inbreeding has bad effects with many generations of inbreeding. If we go under the assumption that full siblings were constantly bred which would have the worst effects of inbreeding, you'd still need to have a decent number of generations to have those effects. For ease of argument, we'll say 5.
> 
> So if we go by that, it would be 10 years for that line to get to F5 _and_ those generations would all have to be full sibling breedings. And I'm not sure how many deleterious effects you'd have after 5 generations. 10? Perhaps, but then you're looking at 20 years. How many lines of frogs that are still present in the hobby are from 2000? Or 1990? Not many to my knowledge. And then you get to the point of how likely is it that, of those lines, they were completely inbred all the way to F5 or F10? That there never was a unrelated individual thrown in there. Not very likely.


In the above you are making some assumptions I am not willing to make…

As I said in my previous post, since inbreeding is bad practice, I choose to avoid inbreeding… Please note in the TWI/ASN Guidelines it does not suggest to avoid sibling to sibling inbreeding for 5 or more generations in a row, it suggests to avoid sibling to sibling, or even first cousin to first cousin inbreeding…

Thus you are justifying the compromise of inbreeding in a way that your book does not...




MonarchzMan said:


> If we go by that, then Cope's Gray Tree Frog and Eastern Gray Tree Frog would be the same species.
> 
> But they're not, they're genetically different, just like if two populations live next to one another but have been separated for one reason or another. If they are a continuous population, then yes, there's no reason to keep them separate.


Your argument is that every separate population is an individual species and that is not supported by those who define each species. It’s hard to debate with someone who writes their own rule book.

You could take your logic a step further and say that a single connected population that covers a large region is two separate species. Or maybe three. Where does it end? The line has to be drawn somewhere and the line you suggest is not the line promoted by the experts in the field, or at least not the same as the curent naming system reflects.




MonarchzMan said:


> Such as?


Here you are asking me to site what criteria experts use to draw the line between same species and different species… While I cannot put it in a nice pretty list, rest assured it exists. Your argument seems to be with them and forgive me if I accept their conclusion as opposed to yours.




MonarchzMan said:


> You didn't really answer my question. You said that there were many compromises promoted by the TWI/ASN Guidelines.


I really didn’t answer your question because your question was based on a misunderstanding of what I said. Thus I clarified my previous point you misunderstood.

Though imperfect, I’ve repeatedly complimented TWI/ASN Guidelines. They are so rigid, from what I understand there are very few, if any, breeding projects that actually live up to these standards. Thus any breeding program that does not fully live up to these standards, is compromised. And if a compromise is going to take place, I suggest taking the one that lends to the least ill result. Previous comments have been made building off of this idea.




MonarchzMan said:


> I would say that what is unacceptable is your buying frogs from people who don't keep good records if you are worried about inbreeding, not that it's unacceptable to assume that frogs are not inbred.
> 
> Unless importers are more open about where frogs come from, all breeders can do is assume that they come from different locales. Inbreeding is a very easy thing to track, and if you cannot/are not willing to track it, I would say that you're the one at fault. For virtually any species/morph, it is not that difficult to track back where the line came from and how "inbred" it is.


You speak as if every frog purchased comes with a family history. That is not my experience when shopping around. Please do share your list of breeders who provide such detail.




MonarchzMan said:


> We're in agreement that importation should be limited, but I don't see how, if that happens, why those specimens should not be incorporated into breeding programs of the same locale. It's just introducing new blood which would help the captive population if there is any inbreeding going on.


According to the common standard, every time an import is received it should be treated like a separate population from all other imports. Thus making using “new” imports to diversify existing projects to unreliable. I don’t agree with this concept, but it seems to me to be the accepted theory.

I agree that better information with every import would be beneficial. But we have to live in the reality we are in.




MonarchzMan said:


> They're not identical, though. Like with the Gray Tree Frog example, they look alike and even live in the same area, but they're not the same genetically. It is a big mistake to just look at what two frogs look like and deem them "identical" because there are plenty of characters that are not visible.





MonarchzMan said:


> There's no difference between breeding of different populations that are separate from one another than hybridization.


I’m not currently interested in arguing against the experts about what lines they use to differentiate one species from another. But I do see that you are drawing different lines than the experts are, or at least the current names reflect.

Not every inherited trait demands it’s own species…


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> In the above you are making some assumptions I am not willing to make…
> 
> As I said in my previous post, since inbreeding is bad practice, I choose to avoid inbreeding… Please note in the TWI/ASN Guidelines it does not suggest to avoid sibling to sibling inbreeding for 5 or more generations in a row, it suggests to avoid sibling to sibling, or even first cousin to first cousin inbreeding…
> 
> Thus you are justifying the compromise of inbreeding in a way that your book does not...


My point was that the worst form of inbreeding will not have deleterious effects immediately. And if we looked at a relatively short period of generation time, it's much longer than most of the lines in the hobby now have been around. And then you would have to assume that there was no outcrossing in the 10-20 years that the line has been in the hobby. All in all, it makes it rather unlikely that there was sustained inbreeding.



> Your argument is that every separate population is an individual species and that is not supported by those who define each species. It’s hard to debate with someone who writes their own rule book.
> 
> You could take your logic a step further and say that a single connected population that covers a large region is two separate species. Or maybe three. Where does it end? The line has to be drawn somewhere and the line you suggest is not the line promoted by the experts in the field, or at least not the same as the curent naming system reflects.


No, my argument is that isolate populations are not exchanging genes. So, effectively, by mixing isolated populations, you'd be doing the same by hybridizing two species that also do not exchange genes. Just because they can interbreed does not mean that they should interbreed. While we don't know yet, there are experiments that are being done now looking at hybrid fitness between different morphs of pumilio, there is the possibility that breeding two different morphs (visually different or not) actually DECREASES fitness of offspring. That is something that you're not taking into account. You're making the, likely erroneous, assumption that populations that have been separate for thousands of years will breed and result in higher fitness offspring.

I am not making the argument that they are separate species. I'm making the argument that like full species, isolated populations are not exchanging genes. 

And by the way, if you follow the literature on these frogs, most herps, and I would guess most taxa, you'll find that the experts rarely agree on what makes a species a species and that there are constant changes to species classifications. I mean, we're potentially looking at a reversion of Grant et al (2006) classifications of dendrobatids.



> Here you are asking me to site what criteria experts use to draw the line between same species and different species… While I cannot put it in a nice pretty list, rest assured it exists. Your argument seems to be with them and forgive me if I accept their conclusion as opposed to yours.


No, I'm asking for the different details you mentioned between the "breeding techniques." I know what scientists use to parse out species.



> I really didn’t answer your question because your question was based on a misunderstanding of what I said. Thus I clarified my previous point you misunderstood.
> 
> Though imperfect, I’ve repeatedly complimented TWI/ASN Guidelines. They are so rigid, from what I understand there are very few, if any, breeding projects that actually live up to these standards. Thus any breeding program that does not fully live up to these standards, is compromised. And if a compromise is going to take place, I suggest taking the one that lends to the least ill result. Previous comments have been made building off of this idea.


TWI/ASN is pretty much in its infancy. There are a few projects just now starting up that will use these guidelines, but it's rather unreasonable to be so critical of the guidelines when they haven't been used for large scale projects yet. You seem to be making the assumption that all compromises are equal, but I would argue that crossing of different populations is far more egregious than inbreeding because you can breed back to unrelated individuals within the population to correct inbreeding depression (and relatively few individuals are needed to correct that). You cannot correct crossing of different populations once it's been done.



> You speak as if every frog purchased comes with a family history. That is not my experience when shopping around. Please do share your list of breeders who provide such detail.


All it takes is tracking where frogs came from. Asking the breeder where they got the parent frogs, and so on. Most responsible breeders that I know keep that information.



> According to the common standard, every time an import is received it should be treated like a separate population from all other imports. Thus making using “new” imports to diversify existing projects to unreliable. I don’t agree with this concept, but it seems to me to be the accepted theory.
> 
> I agree that better information with every import would be beneficial. But we have to live in the reality we are in.


That's why I said "from the same locale." Right now, data are not coming in from importers so we have to assume that populations came from separate areas. Otherwise, we do have the issues we've been discussing. A classic example was Man Creek and Almirante mix up that happened. These two populations are visually identical, but they are 30 miles apart from one another WITH several phenotypically different populations in between them, so it's safe to assume that those two populations are isolated. Going by your mentality, it would be okay to mix them when it really is not.



> I’m not currently interested in arguing against the experts about what lines they use to differentiate one species from another. But I do see that you are drawing different lines than the experts are, or at least the current names reflect.
> 
> Not every inherited trait demands it’s own species…


You are completely missing the point. Two species won't mix genes. Two isolated populations won't mix genes. They are, in that sense, effectively the same. Therefore, breeding two populations together and breeding two species together is not different.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> That’s where I get the justification that it’s acceptable to cross locales of virtually indistinguishable populations of the same species… but I do not support inter species hybridization.


the baja huallaga imitators can look like many other populations of imitators even though they are geographically isolated from eachother and dont interbreed. are you saying you think it would be perfectly fine to interbreed them as long as they share the same phenotype?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> My point was that the worst form of inbreeding will not have deleterious effects immediately. And if we looked at a relatively short period of generation time, it's much longer than most of the lines in the hobby now have been around. And then you would have to assume that there was no outcrossing in the 10-20 years that the line has been in the hobby. All in all, it makes it rather unlikely that there was sustained inbreeding.


The effects of inbreeding is documented as a downward spiral… I support not putting my animals down that downward spiral… 

TWI/ASN Guidelines promote not inbreeding anything closer than second cousins. I respect that minimum standard and I believe you are making some irresponsible assumptions to promote ignoring that standard.




MonarchzMan said:


> No, my argument is that isolate populations are not exchanging genes. So, effectively, by mixing isolated populations, you'd be doing the same by hybridizing two species that also do not exchange genes. Just because they can interbreed does not mean that they should interbreed. While we don't know yet, there are experiments that are being done now looking at hybrid fitness between different morphs of pumilio, there is the possibility that breeding two different morphs (visually different or not) actually DECREASES fitness of offspring. That is something that you're not taking into account. You're making the, likely erroneous, assumption that populations that have been separate for thousands of years will breed and result in higher fitness offspring.
> 
> I am not making the argument that they are separate species. I'm making the argument that like full species, isolated populations are not exchanging genes.
> 
> And by the way, if you follow the literature on these frogs, most herps, and I would guess most taxa, you'll find that the experts rarely agree on what makes a species a species and that there are constant changes to species classifications. I mean, we're potentially looking at a reversion of Grant et al (2006) classifications of dendrobatids.


Just because two neighboring populations of the same species do not currently exchange genes, does not demand they are considerably “genetically different”. If/When both populations are branches of a common ‘parental population’ (starting with same genes) and they live in separate yet identical environments (evolving under same pressures), why do you insist they are exceptionally different?

The suggesting that breeding completely different species is the same as breeding separate yet indistinguishable populations is just false.




MonarchzMan said:


> No, I'm asking for the different details you mentioned between the "breeding techniques." I know what scientists use to parse out species.


TWI/ASN Guidelines share a rather detailed and rather elaborate breeding standard. That is the standard I’ve made reference to…

Compromising any one of the details in that standard will compromise the breeding project as a whole. Following the full standards as they are written is an imperfect, yet very respectable breeding program. But in the event that you cannot live up to it as a whole, I suggest we consider each compromise logically and make the compromises that least compromise our project.

As remaining “local pure” is your goal, that obviously cannot be compromised by you. Since producing healthy offspring is my goal, I may choose prioritize differently.




MonarchzMan said:


> TWI/ASN is pretty much in its infancy. There are a few projects just now starting up that will use these guidelines, but it's rather unreasonable to be so critical of the guidelines when they haven't been used for large scale projects yet. You seem to be making the assumption that all compromises are equal, but I would argue that crossing of different populations is far more egregious than inbreeding because you can breed back to unrelated individuals within the population to correct inbreeding depression (and relatively few individuals are needed to correct that). You cannot correct crossing of different populations once it's been done.


If you were to actually read the comment you were responding to: “And if a compromise is going to take place, I suggest taking the one that lends to the least ill result.”

To suggest I view all compromises as equal displays you are not even attempting to understand what I am saying… you’re just arguing against the guy that doesn’t agree with you… 

I can accept that the TWI/ASN breeding standard is a young program. I can also understand that when a project is compromised in it’s infancy then it will never be able to provide the “genetic snapshot” nor “manage allele ratio” both of which are it's goals…

I am not criticizing anyone who peruses the goal of TWI/ASN nor utilizes their standard as an ideal. But to suggest anything and everything besides this standard is bad breeding, is fanatical, irrational and arrogant. Especially when this standard is not being met by anyone. 




MonarchzMan said:


> All it takes is tracking where frogs came from. Asking the breeder where they got the parent frogs, and so on. Most responsible breeders that I know keep that information.


Repeat: You speak as if every frog purchased comes with a family history. That is not my experience when shopping around. Please do share your list of breeders who provide such detail.




MonarchzMan said:


> That's why I said "from the same locale." Right now, data are not coming in from importers so we have to assume that populations came from separate areas. Otherwise, we do have the issues we've been discussing. A classic example was Man Creek and Almirante mix up that happened. These two populations are visually identical, but they are 30 miles apart from one another WITH several phenotypically different populations in between them, so it's safe to assume that those two populations are isolated. Going by your mentality, it would be okay to mix them when it really is not.


Can you please supply some reasons why it is not okay to mix two populations that are identical?

Please note: saying that you feel safe assuming they do not intermix in the wild is not a “reason” It may be a fact, but just not every ‘fact’ is a reason for your opinion to be true. They look the exact same, that is also a ‘fact’, but you reject it as a ‘reason’ that it’s okay to mix them.

Please state the effective result of mixing them that makes it “not okay”…




MonarchzMan said:


> You are completely missing the point. Two species won't mix genes. Two isolated populations won't mix genes. They are, in that sense, effectively the same. Therefore, breeding two populations together and breeding two species together is not different.


I get the point quite clearly. If two populations come from the same ‘parent population’ (starting with the same genes)… and each population evolves in identical environments (same environmental stresses)… you are pretending they are thoroughly and completely different, even when they are genetically the same…

I get it, you are drawing imaginary lines between populations based on assumption and speculation… 

I do accept that some separate populations of the same species are genetically different enough to justify segregation… You are demanding too much assumption to insist this to be true in every single case. 




thedude said:


> the baja huallaga imitators can look like many other populations of imitators even though they are geographically isolated from eachother and dont interbreed. are you saying you think it would be perfectly fine to interbreed them as long as they share the same phenotype?


“Can look like many others” sounds pretty darn vague to me… I have used terms such as “identical”… not “can look like”…

The bulk of my investigation has been in regards to Auratus, primarily those of Panama… So I have no specific opinion on the species you mentioned…


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Toby, 

In what sense are you using the term identical? Identical looking, identical genetic makeup, identical color, size, etc? I don't believe that two non-interbreeding populations, even if they begin 'identical' and are exposed to 'identical' pressures (which I don't believe is possible), will create two populations that are identical. What about the degree of randomness inherent to genetic recombination?

Also, if you look at different, non-breeding populations, I think plenty of subtle differences would become evident, such as clutch size, call, etc.

Especially in relation to Panamanian auratus, for the most part, you should not have a problem locating F1s or F2s. It may take more effort than just asking the breeder (ie find out who they got the frogs from, and contacting them, etc), but its doable. By doing so, I've been able to figure out my Costa Rican auratus are F2 (from an early 1990s import), as well as F1/2 leucomelas from a 1996 import (which, btw, have a very similar color/pattern to 'standard' leucs, but have a larger clutch size and larger adult size, as well as a slightly different call).


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> The effects of inbreeding is documented as a downward spiral… I support not putting my animals down that downward spiral…
> 
> TWI/ASN Guidelines promote not inbreeding anything closer than second cousins. I respect that minimum standard and I believe you are making some irresponsible assumptions to promote ignoring that standard.


You miss the point again. I am simply pointing out the unlikelihood that all of the frogs in the hobby are grossly inbred which seems to be your assumption.



> Just because two neighboring populations of the same species do not currently exchange genes, does not demand they are considerably “genetically different”. If/When both populations are branches of a common ‘parental population’ (starting with same genes) and they live in separate yet identical environments (evolving under same pressures), why do you insist they are exceptionally different?
> 
> The suggesting that breeding completely different species is the same as breeding separate yet indistinguishable populations is just false.


Two species, such as the Gray Tree Frogs, have an ancestral parent species. 

You seem to be making the assumption that the same environment will yield the same results, and that is simply not true for several reasons. No environment, not one at all, is "identical." If you look at two populations and say that "oh, they're in Panama only 5 miles apart, so they must be under the same environmental pressures" then you're making gross assumptions that are very problematic when concerning the evolution of a population. You ignore the fact that species composition of plants and other animals is not going to be the same between those two areas. You ignore that light penetration in the forest is going to be different. You ignore that the shape of the habitat is different and one population may be subjected to more edge or less edge. You ignore the fact that the elevation is likely different between the two populations. So on and so forth. All of these factors can have selective force of the evolution of a species, and unless the change in populations happen very recently (i.e. in the last decade or so), then there has been sufficient time for genetics to change within a population. Given that most isolation we talk about happens to be geographic, which means it's been around for a long time, so populations separated due to geographic barriers are unlikely to be "identical" even though they live in "identical" environments.



> TWI/ASN Guidelines share a rather detailed and rather elaborate breeding standard. That is the standard I’ve made reference to…
> 
> Compromising any one of the details in that standard will compromise the breeding project as a whole. Following the full standards as they are written is an imperfect, yet very respectable breeding program. But in the event that you cannot live up to it as a whole, I suggest we consider each compromise logically and make the compromises that least compromise our project.
> 
> As remaining “local pure” is your goal, that obviously cannot be compromised by you. Since producing healthy offspring is my goal, I may choose prioritize differently.


They're not mutually exclusive, yet you seem to think that they are.



> If you were to actually read the comment you were responding to: “And if a compromise is going to take place, I suggest taking the one that lends to the least ill result.”
> 
> To suggest I view all compromises as equal displays you are not even attempting to understand what I am saying… you’re just arguing against the guy that doesn’t agree with you…
> 
> ...


I am trying to understand your position, and perhaps I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in my assumptions, but to suggest that an irreversible change like breeding two different populations together is a smaller compromise than the completely fixable mistake of inbreeding is completely irrational to me.

And no, I'm not suggesting that anything but TWI/ASN is bad breeding. I'm suggesting that making irreversible changes to a line, like breeding two different populations, is bad breeding.



> Repeat: You speak as if every frog purchased comes with a family history. That is not my experience when shopping around. Please do share your list of breeders who provide such detail.


My experience has been the opposite, so perhaps you're not dealing with the correct people?



> Can you please supply some reasons why it is not okay to mix two populations that are identical?
> 
> Please note: saying that you feel safe assuming they do not intermix in the wild is not a “reason” It may be a fact, but just not every ‘fact’ is a reason for your opinion to be true. They look the exact same, that is also a ‘fact’, but you reject it as a ‘reason’ that it’s okay to mix them.
> 
> Please state the effective result of mixing them that makes it “not okay”…


Alright, so I have already covered possible decreased fitness of hybrids. As well as the fact that they are not identical if they live in environments that have been separated for a decent amount of time. 

But let's examine your completely subjective method of being "identical" and look at Costa Rican Green and Black Auratus and Panamanian Green and Black Auratus. You would probably would argue that they're identical so they should be able to be bred together. I would bet that you're only subjectively analyzing them, not objectively. Are they the same size? Are they the same weight? Are male/female size/weight ratios the same? Are pulse rates in the calls the same? Is the amount of reticulation the same? Is the hue of green and black the same? Is the ratio of green to black the same? Are they active at the same times during the day?

So on and so forth. I would bet that you have not made these assessments to determine if the frogs are the same, and while I would guess that you would pass this off as trivial information, it actually isn't. All of the information I just asked about play important roles in mating, and if you act as a selective force on your frogs, then you, over time, will separate them from the rest of the populations within the hobby, thereby causing that problem you're initially concerned about: inbreeding.



> I get the point quite clearly. If two populations come from the same ‘parent population’ (starting with the same genes)… and each population evolves in identical environments (same environmental stresses)… you are pretending they are thoroughly and completely different, even when they are genetically the same…
> 
> I get it, you are drawing imaginary lines between populations based on assumption and speculation…
> 
> I do accept that some separate populations of the same species are genetically different enough to justify segregation… You are demanding too much assumption to insist this to be true in every single case.


Again, there's no such thing as identical environments with the same environmental stresses. You have not demonstrated that isolated populations, while may be visually "identical" are genetically identical. If there is no gene flow between the two populations, then I would argue that that is a pretty bold assumption. Keep in mind that genetic drift does not really respond to environmental factors like selection does. Genetic drift, by definition, is random.



> “Can look like many others” sounds pretty darn vague to me… I have used terms such as “identical”… not “can look like”…
> 
> The bulk of my investigation has been in regards to Auratus, primarily those of Panama… So I have no specific opinion on the species you mentioned…


"Can look like" and "can look like many others" both seem very subjective to me. Especially when you're dealing with inherently variable species like Imitator and Auratus where individuals within the same population don't look identical, and if you look intrapopulation variability compared to interpopulation variability, you'll see considerable overlap.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> “Can look like many others” sounds pretty darn vague to me… I have used terms such as “identical”… not “can look like”…
> 
> The bulk of my investigation has been in regards to Auratus, primarily those of Panama… So I have no specific opinion on the species you mentioned…


sorry ill use more detail so you dont blow off my question this time.

baja huallaga imitators are extremely variable, i have 3 that all look IDENTICAL to 3 different populations of imitator in the wild. for example, one is identical to a tarapoto, one is identical to a cainarachi valley, and one is identical to a yumbatos. are you saying that you would be fine mixing these as long as their phenotype was identical? and dont say you work with auratus so you have no opinion. auratus can be in the same boat on this question. many isolated populations of auratus can be identical to eachother.

with whatever species you are talking about, you need to think of not just the phenotype, but also the genotype.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

A couple things:

First, the name of the organization isn't TWI/ASN. It's TWI...and the program within the org that handles the captive husbandry and management issues is the ASN. These labels underneath members' names seems to confuse folks about this--just a pet peeve of mine.

Second:



> So if we go by that, it would be 10 years for that line to get to F5 _and_ those generations would all have to be full sibling breedings. And I'm not sure how many deleterious effects you'd have after 5 generations. 10? Perhaps, but then you're looking at 20 years. How many lines of frogs that are still present in the hobby are from 2000? Or 1990? Not many to my knowledge. And then you get to the point of how likely is it that, of those lines, they were completely inbred all the way to F5 or F10? That there never was a unrelated individual thrown in there. Not very likely.


People always seem to think in terms of breeding animals ASAP and for as long as possible. But, if we're looking at preserving as much captive genetic diversity for as long as possible, it would actually be more preferable not to breed frogs until they are much further along in age so they don't "burn out" and we can actually extend the amount of time between generations, the number of captive generations, etc. This goes completely against the current mindset of the hobby...and perhaps requires a much more committed, longterm outlook and praxis in the hobby and with our frogs.

For example, I have Costa Rican auratus that are F1's from a WC pair that hawere 13 years old in captivity (who know how old they were when originally collected) when they laid the eggs. So we could very conceivably have 10-15 years between F1 and F2 generations of CB frogs, rather than the rate of 2-3 years the hobby currently functions at.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> But let's examine your completely subjective method of being "identical" and look at Costa Rican Green and Black Auratus and Panamanian Green and Black Auratus. You would probably would argue that they're identical so they should be able to be bred together. I would bet that you're only subjectively analyzing them, not objectively. Are they the same size? Are they the same weight? Are male/female size/weight ratios the same? Are pulse rates in the calls the same? Is the amount of reticulation the same? Is the hue of green and black the same? Is the ratio of green to black the same? Are they active at the same times during the day?


Outbreeding different populations is not always a benefit to a population. Outbreeding even within a species between populations can cause what is known as outbreeding depression.... 
I suggest those interested in it check out 
ScienceDirect - Fisheries Research : Heterosis and outbreeding depression: a multi-locus model and an application to salmon production 

and with specific respect to anurans... 
SpringerLink - Journal Article

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

CJO - Abstract - Supplementation or <em>in situ</em> conservation? Evidence of local adaptation in the Italian agile frog <em>Rana latastei</em> and consequences for the management of populations (and note the recommendation to manage different populations as discrete units based on adaptations....) 

There are more examples but I've got better things to do than hunt them all down... 

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

“Identical” may not be the right word here and I have also used the word “indistinguishable”…

Even frogs from the same clutch will not be “genetically identical“… and frogs within a single population will vary in traits to some degree… I think we should be able to easily agree that there is diversity within a single population…


TheDude, I didn’t mean to ‘blow off’ your question. I don’t have specific knowledge of the specific species/populations you were asking specific questions about. So I didn’t feel comfortable making specific comments…

I do not think that we should say “this individual looks like an X, so I’ll assume it is an X”. I think we should evaluate a population, a large group of frogs. And if there are no distinguishable differences between the two groups, it would be fine to allow them to interbreed. I fully accept that the offspring of these frogs should not use any locale specific term in it’s name/description.


Skysdale, sorry if I petted your peeve by misusing terminology. I mean no disrespect by it… and great point(s) on breeding…


Ed, I’ll read through the links you provided. I’m somewhat familiar with out breeding depression, and as I understand it intermixing separate populations risks creating an “average” of the two populations. When being large is advantageous to one population, and being small is advantageous to the other population, being medium is not advantageous to either population. 

Thus such outcrossed animals would not be a good selection to use in a repopulation program, but I/we’ve already made that acknowledgement. Since the animals will be kept in captivity, the advantages of size in their native environment is removed anyway.

Like I said, I’ll read though your links and I’m sure I’ll learn new aspects that better support your point.


Monarch, the tit for tat, quote for quote has run it’s course…

I didn’t miss your point on the inbreeding thing, You made a long example using some bold assumptions and I wasn’t interested in debating with you when you are taking the authority to make such assumptions. So I chose to point out that the group you support disagrees with you and leave it at that...

I get that there are subtle differences between environments that allow subtle differences in environmental stresses, heck even the influence of 'chance' will unbalance the allele ration between two populations… I also understand there are subtle differences within a single population… I’m not saying that separate populations are going to be “genetic snapshots” of one another as in reality no two specimen within a single population are “genetic snapshots“ of one another, I’m saying in cases when we cannot tell one population from the next, I don’t see the harm in mixing them and not using any locale title…

When two populations have distinguishable traits, I fully support keeping them separate… but when we cannot tell one population from the other, what harm is done mixing them?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I had limited access to the links Ed provided…

But in the cases where the negative effects of out breeding depression were noted, it seemed they were in relation to the outcrossed offspring not adapting to the natural environment they were placed in…

Since we have excluded the idea of using such outcrossed frogs for reintroduction, this point is moot. Instead any population in question, locale pure or mixed, will be living in a “foreign” environment (captivity), thus all of their traits which formed to thrive in their native population will no longer be advantages… unless by coincidence…


I do believe that “out breeding depression” is a valid concern for conversationalists who are involved in reintroduction efforts… but since the animals in discussion here will not be considered for reintroduction, that fact needs to be applied in the evaluation…


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> I didn’t miss your point on the inbreeding thing, You made a long example using some bold assumptions and I wasn’t interested in debating with you when you are taking the authority to make such assumptions. So I chose to point out that the group you support disagrees with you and leave it at that...
> 
> I get that there are subtle differences between environments that allow subtle differences in environmental stresses, heck even the influence of 'chance' will unbalance the allele ration between two populations… I also understand there are subtle differences within a single population… I’m not saying that separate populations are going to be “genetic snapshots” of one another as in reality no two specimen within a single population are “genetic snapshots“ of one another, I’m saying in cases when we cannot tell one population from the next, I don’t see the harm in mixing them and not using any locale title…
> 
> When two populations have distinguishable traits, I fully support keeping them separate… but when we cannot tell one population from the other, what harm is done mixing them?


I'm not suggesting that it's okay to breed half siblings or parents to offspring or whatever. I'm just providing the evidence that it is extremely unlikely that frogs are grossly inbred.

This goes back to your original problem of artificial selection. Just because we cannot tell a population from one another does not mean that they, in reality, are not different from each other. If there is no gene flow between a population, we have to assume that they are different whether not our limited imagination can distinguish them from one another.

And in regard to your outbreeding depression comment, why would you think that it's not equally applicable to captivity?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> I had limited access to the links Ed provided…
> 
> But in the cases where the negative effects of out breeding depression were noted, it seemed they were in relation to the outcrossed offspring not adapting to the natural environment they were placed in…
> 
> ...


Actually if one reads through all of the abstracts (better if one reads the articles but I don't have pdfs..) one notices that there are problems that do not arise from indeterminate morphological characteristics that cause problems, look at Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria; Conservation Genetics; Volume 6, Number 2 (205-211); where depending on the outcross performed there were increased rates of deformation of the tadpoles. 

In the article for the agile frogs, there are differences in growth rates programmed which can have a real impact on captive survivial as well as the genetics of the population (tadpoles which reach metamorphosis more rapidly within a clutch are more likely to reproduce at an earlier age and thus contribute more to the gentics of a captive population increasing the effects of loss of genetic variations. 

Outbreeding does have real impacts on populations as noted above regardless if they are going to be released or not, and dismissing it as being only relevent to animals that may be released is ignoring the known negative consequences. There is a lot of literature out there that indicates that crossing disparate populations with low rates of gene exchange is not in the best interest of the population(s).... Fish are currently just the poster children for this problem.... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> If there is no gene flow between a population, we have to assume that they are different whether not our limited imagination can distinguish them from one another.


Even if gene flow is very slow between populations breeding those two populations together may have significant effects on captive survival (See links above on tadpole malformations).. the effects between a population don't even have to be that obvious as a higher proportion of eggs that fail to develop could also occur, which would be a much more subtle factor to determine... 

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> Inbreeding has bad effects with many generations of inbreeding. If we go under the assumption that full siblings were constantly bred which would have the worst effects of inbreeding, you'd still need to have a decent number of generations to have those effects. For ease of argument, we'll say 5.





MonarchzMan said:


> I'm not suggesting that it's okay to breed half siblings or parents to offspring or whatever.


In the first quote you did suggest that it isn’t a big deal to inbreed and based your remaining argument on an assumption about compounding inbreeding. I removed myself from the debate pointing out TWI’s ASN guidelines disapprove of inbreeding any closer than second cousin to second cousin. (Brink’s, is that a better way to put it: TWI’s ASN guidelines?)

I’ve agreed that it is possible that available frogs are of a low F#… and I’ve stated that I’m not eager to simply “assume” this… You’ve also promoted not assuming on other topics (locale data) so I thought you’d understand… I’ve also asked for details on breeders/suppliers who make such information available… I’ve also stated I’ve made inquires without success… But you repeatedly ignore my points preventing the conversation from moving forward…





Ed said:


> Actually if one reads through all of the abstracts (better if one reads the articles but I don't have pdfs..) one notices that there are problems that do not arise from indeterminate morphological characteristics that cause problems, look at Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria; Conservation Genetics; Volume 6, Number 2 (205-211); where depending on the outcross performed there were increased rates of deformation of the tadpoles.


I understand with your profession you have access to articles/studies that I don’t have access to or you cannot share access to. I don’t hold that against you and instead value it. 

But are there other case studies that prove at other times the opposite is true? In my reading I find that inbreeding depression is readily accepted as a valid concern that is warned against… and out crossing has much less potential danger and the bulk of it’s dangers are in regards to loosing a trait that is environmentally specific (thus inconsequential to animals removed from that environment). Does the case study you referenced represent ‘the rule’ or ‘the exception’ to it? 



Also, I’m repeatedly being accused of overly assuming that out crossing holds possible benefits… but every argument in opposition is just as assumptuous. There are ‘related studies’ going both ways. If someone is going to take the privilege of assuming, they have to in turn give it… and if they are going to reject all statements containing an assumption, they have to stop making them...



I am not saying “locale specific” breeding projects are bad… I am saying there is more to a breeding project than being locale specific… and that when a perfect locale specific breeding project is not possible, out crossing between locales may be a better way to create healthy frogs than allow bottlenecking of a locale to occur. 

Repeatedly on this site I see posts which seem to use ‘locale purity’ to trump all other breeding standards. Yet I’ve read no evidence that this is in the best interests of the health of our frogs.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Toby,

If you're looking for low F#s of particular localities/import dates, let me know. It's really not all that hard to find them, it's just a matter of asking the right people. You may have to get on a list to wait for offspring, but if you're after non-inbred frogs, I can't see that being an issue. Post a list of what you're wanting to look for, and I'll be glad to help you out. I've never had an issue of tracking down low F# frogs when I've put in the effort.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

I've been reading through this entire thread and just want to make one comment on the lineage question that you keep bringing up. It's really quite simple so I'm surprised you haven't already come to this conclusion. You first contact the breeder you purchased your animals from. Ask them if they know the lineage. If they do not, simply ask them who they purchased from and contact that person. Keep repeating this process until you've found the info you're looking for. I've been able to find lineage data on all my frogs using this same process. It just takes a bit of work and is really not all that hard to do. 

As for the other stuff, I really don't care to be involved.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> But are there other case studies that prove at other times the opposite is true? In my reading I find that inbreeding depression is readily accepted as a valid concern that is warned against… and out crossing has much less potential danger and the bulk of it’s dangers are in regards to loosing a trait that is environmentally specific (thus inconsequential to animals removed from that environment).


Any peer reviewed literature? Citations?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Toby_H said:


> But are there other case studies that prove at other times the opposite is true? In my reading I find that inbreeding depression is readily accepted as a valid concern that is warned against… and out crossing has much less potential danger and the bulk of it’s dangers are in regards to loosing a trait that is environmentally specific (thus inconsequential to animals removed from that environment). Does the case study you referenced represent ‘the rule’ or ‘the exception’ to it?


In the past, there was a lot more emphasis put on outbreeding between populations to increase genetic diversity as it was percieved that the positives consistently outweighed the negatives for many species. This has carried over into the literature today however an increasing understanding (and increasing body of information across taxa) of locality/population genetics and gene flow between populations is changing those beliefs/assumptions on outcrossings. If you have a highly mobile population in which gene flow is relatively unimpeded you don't tend to have the problems seen in outcrossing depression and the effects of inbreeding depression are of greater concern, while populations that are not mobile or are insular to some degree which causes gene flow to be very slow are at much greater risk of outbreeding depression than inbreeding depression. One has to have an understanding of the pattern of distribution.. many anurans species (including dendrobatids) have a patchy distribution where there is a local population surrounding by a population sink (for example the last intergrading in D. tinctorius was about 10,000 years ago (see http://bnoonan.org/Papers/Noonan_Gaucher_06.pdf for example)) which severely restricts the rate of gene flow between the populations increasing the risk of outbreeding depression . 
One has to keep in mind that this is a currently increasing field of understanding. 

Along this discussion, (and I may have missed it), even the "Panama" auratus that are in the hobby that are the result on multiple imports over the last 25 years (or more) have a place in ASN. Thier population should be maintained in the hobby as well as those of known origins... 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Toby_H said:


> In the first quote you did suggest that it isn’t a big deal to inbreed and based your remaining argument on an assumption about compounding inbreeding. I removed myself from the debate pointing out TWI’s ASN guidelines disapprove of inbreeding any closer than second cousin to second cousin. (Brink’s, is that a better way to put it: TWI’s ASN guidelines?)
> 
> I’ve agreed that it is possible that available frogs are of a low F#… and I’ve stated that I’m not eager to simply “assume” this… You’ve also promoted not assuming on other topics (locale data) so I thought you’d understand… I’ve also asked for details on breeders/suppliers who make such information available… I’ve also stated I’ve made inquires without success… But you repeatedly ignore my points preventing the conversation from moving forward…


No, what I was suggesting is that inbreeding, in any substantial form, is unlikely to be in a random set of frogs. Now, it could happen, but unless it has been done progressively for many generations, the impact of inbreeding will be minimal, if at all noticeable. And as I've stated before, inbreeding can be corrected rather easily.

As for the low F#. I wasn't saying that all frogs in the hobby are a few generations in. I was say how the majority of the frogs in the hobby originate from sources that have been imported relatively recently with only a few exceptions. And for a line of frogs that has been in the hobby for 5 years, you're not going to get F5s out of that line. I don't care if you dust fruit flies with viagra, the frogs just are not going to reproduce that fast. So in order to get a lot of generations, you need to have a really long time in the hobby, and the fact of the matter is that most frog lines have not been in the hobby that long.



> I understand with your profession you have access to articles/studies that I don’t have access to or you cannot share access to. I don’t hold that against you and instead value it.


You can actually get a significant amount of information on peer reviewed literature from Google Scholar.



> But are there other case studies that prove at other times the opposite is true? In my reading I find that inbreeding depression is readily accepted as a valid concern that is warned against… and out crossing has much less potential danger and the bulk of it’s dangers are in regards to loosing a trait that is environmentally specific (thus inconsequential to animals removed from that environment). Does the case study you referenced represent ‘the rule’ or ‘the exception’ to it?


Where are you getting that outcrossing is bad in natural environments but not artificial ones?



> Also, I’m repeatedly being accused of overly assuming that out crossing holds possible benefits… but every argument in opposition is just as assumptuous. There are ‘related studies’ going both ways. If someone is going to take the privilege of assuming, they have to in turn give it… and if they are going to reject all statements containing an assumption, they have to stop making them...


Can you provide those studies that support your stance?

I guess I would look at it in that there is a chance that something bad can result from outbreeding, for reasons that Ed discussed and for literature already covered. It's foolish to assume that it's completely beneficial, so given that, why do it? The only breeding method that ensures that there are no depressions is locale-specific breeding.



> I am not saying “locale specific” breeding projects are bad… I am saying there is more to a breeding project than being locale specific… and that when a perfect locale specific breeding project is not possible, out crossing between locales may be a better way to create healthy frogs than allow bottlenecking of a locale to occur.
> 
> Repeatedly on this site I see posts which seem to use ‘locale purity’ to trump all other breeding standards. Yet I’ve read no evidence that this is in the best interests of the health of our frogs.


What population of frogs in the hobby is so constrained that there is absolutely no option but outcrossing or inbreeding?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

This article actually gives a good overview of both inbreeding risks and outbreeding risks... It took awhile to find a free online copy 

http://www.montana.edu/~wwwbi/staff/creel/bio480/edmands 2007.pdf

Edmands, Suzanne; 2007;Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks
of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management; Molecular Ecology 16, 463–475

Note; that inbreeding and outbreeding effects can be easily confused and the recommendations seen in the discussion section of the article on attempting to prevent the occurance of the effects of inbreeding/outbreeding effects. Both of these are significant risks and can have significant effects on the survivial of a captive population as the effects of either/both can reduce the ability of the animal to resist disease pathogens common in captive situations (like saprolegnia..) 

Ed


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I’m sorry for my part in allowing this “conversation” to turn into an “argument”…

The tit for tat, quote for quote, posting has created several half-relevant tangents and have drifted beyond ‘debating’ into fault finding and nit picking. I hope we can get back to sharing ideas and get away from ‘defeating’ one another. 


My point as a whole:

I’m in full support of pursuing the best standards we can in our breeding programs and I believe that TWI’s ASN guidelines could be considered ideal when no compromise is made. But if compromises are going to be made, if the goal of creating a reintroduction stock is not kept, I think that mixing locales is a reasonable option to consider.

To instantly suggest crossing locales will yield negative results is overly presumptuous. Also note I have not insisted that out crossing will yield better results. I proposed in the case compromise must be made, when reintroduction is not the goal, out crossing locales may have less negative impact on the frogs health than other compromises one may consider.

In the case where to small of a founder stock is available, you will not have the diversity necessary to reflect the allele ratio of the wild population. Therefore this will not yield a “genetic snapshot” of that locale. When using to small of a founding stock, it becomes more difficult to avoid inbreeding (an ASN guideline). Therefore allowing out crossing allows a larger ‘founder stock’ (though noted this will not be a locale specific project).



I know that some of you value “site specific” populations quite firmly. While I don’t want “designer frogs”, or completely unnatural hybrids, I don’t think I quite ‘get’ why having site specific frogs are so important. I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning…


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> I know that some of you value “site specific” populations quite firmly. While I don’t want “designer frogs”, or completely unnatural hybrids, I don’t think I quite ‘get’ why having site specific frogs are so important. I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning…


As for me personally, I talked about this on the very first page of the thread:



skylsdale said:


> Just to include another dynamic to the discussion, I think it's important to realize that not every decision has to be made on the basis of conservation (and this is coming from someone who is a strong advocate of conservation). For many people this will never be anything more than simply enjoying some tropical frogs in a tank in their living rooms, and that's okay. For these same people, simply having and enjoying an auratus that originated from somewhere in Costa Rica is enough, so we have to realize that there is still value to the non-site-specific animals already in the hobby.
> 
> However, as a hobbyist, I am personally extremely interested in the specificity of a frog's origin. To me, one of the fascinating things about these amphibians is how they've evolved and adapted so specifically and uniquely to (and along with) their unique environments...so part of the interest and fun for me is knowing their locales. Knowing that the pumilio from the Salt Creek area of Isla Bastimentos are different from the Red Frog Beach area from the cemetary, etc. is part of what continues to draw me into this hobby and personal research and fuels my fascination.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

hi Toby



Toby_H said:


> To instantly suggest crossing locales will yield negative results is overly presumptuous. Also note I have not insisted that out crossing will yield better results. I proposed in the case compromise must be made, when reintroduction is not the goal, out crossing locales may have less negative impact on the frogs health than other compromises one may consider.
> 
> In the case where to small of a founder stock is available, you will not have the diversity necessary to reflect the allele ratio of the wild population. Therefore this will not yield a “genetic snapshot” of that locale. When using to small of a founding stock, it becomes more difficult to avoid inbreeding (an ASN guideline). Therefore allowing out crossing allows a larger ‘founder stock’ (though noted this will not be a locale specific project).


Did you read the paper that discusses inbreeding and outbreeding risks that I cited above? The evidence is there and it is sufficiently strong enough to support the premise that outbreeding locales will result in in negative consequences to the population as a whole... 

In addition, depending on the population of origin in question, a small number of founders can easily capture the genetic frequency of that population so one cannot assume a priori that a small founder population 
1) does not capture an accurate genetic snapshot of that population
2) that it makes it more difficult to avoid inbreeding... 

These two positions are not supported by what is currently known in the conservation literature. I'm not going to engage in further argument over these points as they have been hashed and rehashed in this thread, I am instead going to state again, that they are not supported by the current body of literature for sustaining a population in captivity long term and that by outcrossing two locales that are isolated you may do as much harm (if not more) than multiple generations of inbreeding. For a start, I strongly suggest the reference I provided above... 

Ed


----------



## GreenJungle (Apr 14, 2011)

Hey everyone, 
I took a look at this thread, and while i have to admit I didn't dive into the depths of it, I did spend some time reading it. 
Our project in Costa Rica (where I am right now) hopes to begin exporting frogs by next year to the States and Europe. The goal of these exports is to raise money for our Indigenous capacity building programs (essentially a zoo-guided captive breeding farm). 
One of the keys to success in our minds is very specific locale based information with each frog sent. We plan on accomplishing this through an integration of information gathering and technology. 
In addition to location based data available on a per-animal basis, we will include members (a professional membership to our site) with daily environmental data. 
We are working with USDA APHIS to try to export organically grown and indigenous collected cacao leaves for the best terrarium substrate possible as well. 
I know this is a short and broad description of what we are implementing, and there will probably be questions and comments. I encourage you to go to our site if you are interested in receiving updates (just fill out the form on the link). 

Recently we received a Google Earth Pro grant. We will be launching a campaign to create dynamic maps of locale information as well. Our staff and volunteers have worked for more than four years developing our field applications and are proud that we are starting construction on our captive breeding facility in September of this year thanks in part to a grant from the Zoological Association of America.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, hope we can get this discussion back on track to effectively take our industry and conservation efforts to the next level..



Tom
Project Green Jungle


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Hi Tom,

Sounds promising !

Do you have any references? Your website seems fairly incomplete. You don't list your last name ?


----------

