# Ding Dong the Morph is Dead Part I



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

This is the first of a 3 part series I posted on frognet:

It seems a little quiet here in Lake Woebegone so I thought I'd try to shake things up a little. With the public debut of Tree Walkers International (and many thanks to those of you who have joined) providing an opportunity for frog hobbyists to apply their skills toward sustainable conservation, I propose it is time to finally lay to rest the "morph" as the unit of currency used to denote discrete breeding groups. As I've ranted before, morphs are pretty useless as a unit for managing genetic integrity of anything because they are based solely on morphological appearances rather than any true relatedness. The following article first appeared in BRITISH DENDROBATID GROUP NEWSLETTER NUMBER 47, SEPTEMBER 2002 and outlines the problems associated with assuming that frogs that look alike must be closely related or come from the same area: http://www.bbrock.frognet.org/popgen.pdf Simply put, morph designations are a conservation biologists nightmare and a con artists dream. Using morphs to select breeding pairs leads to either selective breeding, which removes natural morphological variability. Or inappropriate out crossing, because frogs that look alike do not necessarily belong to the same genetic group. They are a con artist's dream because most animal populations are naturally variable and all one needs to do is select a few animals that look different from the rest and proclaim them "a new morph" with a premium price to go along. The use of "lines" is really not much of an improvement from a morph. There are good intentions behind the use of lines but, as they've been practiced, they introduce the same problems as morphs. First there is confusion over what constitutes a line and what you are suppose to do with them. Is each breeding group a line? Is a line a collection of interrelated animals? Should you try to breed animals from different lines to prevent inbreeding depression? Or should you never cross lines - which tends to send frogs down alleys of narrower and narrower gene pools. In other words, even though the idea behind using lines is good, the result is still that frogs are inappropriately outcrosses or selectively bred.

In conservation science the smallest unit of genetic management is usually the population. A population falls below the species level and is more useful than subspecies designations. For the purposes of this argument, a population is defined as a group of animals that exchange genes with each other at a higher frequency than they exchange genes with animals from other populations. In order to have two populations, there must be some type of isolating mechanism that prevents animals from one population breeding with animals from the other more frequently than they can breed with individuals in their own population. For example, a river might separate two populations so that animals on each side of the river breed freely within their own populations but only rarely does an animal cross the river to co-mingle with the other population. These isolating mechanisms often, but don't always, result in morphological differences between the populations. However that doesn't mean that morphological traits aren't repeated in other isolated populations. However, it's important to note that distance can create an isolating mechanism. Suppose there is a species of frog with a contiguous range extending from Kansas City to El Paso. Clearly a frog from Kansas City isn't going to mate with a frog in El Paso unless it buys a little froggie Porsche and takes a road trip. So is there a Kansas City and an El Paso population? Not necessarily because all along the distance between KC and El Paso, frogs are breeding with each other and maintaining gene flow between the two places. So technically the entire range is composed of one population. But frogs in El Paso are going to be more closely related to other frogs in El Paso than they are with frogs in the distant Kansas City area. This can result in measurable genetic difference between frogs from distant locations that will tend to form a gradient across the entire range known as clinal variation. In cases of clinal variation, a "population" is a rather arbitrary thing because no matter what location you pick along the gradient, frogs in that location will be genetically different from frogs at distant locations. But the population concept for conservation is still useful because it simply directs us to create breeding groups by selecting individuals that originate from nearby locations. Of course defining "nearby" is a challenge. It depends on how much variability the species displays over a given distance or, in some cases, the variability of the habitat they occupy over their range. Species with a great deal of variability are more likely to be "locally adapted" and so breeding groups should form from individuals within a restricted locality. But if the species shows little variability across its entire range and always seems to occupy the same type of habitat, then the consequences of breeding animals across large distances is less severe. Of course the conservative approach is to always breed individuals within a locality.

But the real beauty of using the population as the unit of management is that it is flexible and can encompass all other concepts of breeding segregation (such as morphs and lines). The population concept directly ties the breeding decision making process with the evolutionary mechanisms that generate the traits we wish to preserve. Why do we like to breed within morphs or lines? Because we have a desire to maintain the genetic integrity of our frogs as they come to us from the wild. A morph is really just a poor substitute of convenience to make a guess at populations. But it is an error prone substitute because you can't tell the complete story about a group of frog's relatedness simply by looking at them. The line concept at least attempts to tie the decision making process to breeding lineage but it too has problems. The first of which is that the term "line" is difficult to define and has been interpreted many different ways. Really, any division of inheritance could be considered a "line". The population concept is more robust and could even be used to bring some sanity to the unknown and mixed blood populations we have in the hobby now. But as I said in the beginning of this rant, this is the unit of currency used in modern conservation science. We need to get comfortable with this concept if the Amphibian Steward Network is to realize its full potential.


----------



## dragonfrog (Feb 16, 2006)

Brent,
Thanks so much for bringing this to Dendroboard. I read it on frognet and thought it was VERY enlightening. It really makes you stop and think. I cannot agree with you more. I am by no means an expert in this hobby and have quite a few years to go before the powers to be will even consider me as such!!

The main question I have with this train of thought is this:
How do we as a hobby "get back to the quality of the wild" without tossing all the frogs we have and starting all over, only this time doing it right?
What is the next and correct step?

I hope you get the quality of discussion from "our group" that you were able to get on frognet. This will be a good addition to our new and improved Dendroboard (Science & Conservation)

BTW Brent, the URL link you put in does not work.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

dragonfrog said:


> The main question I have with this train of thought is this:
> How do we as a hobby "get back to the quality of the wild" without tossing all the frogs we have and starting all over, only this time doing it right?
> What is the next and correct step?


The link should work now. For some reason the URL grabbed the trailing period as part of the link.

Regarding getting back to the quality of the wild. I want to stress that I am not suggesting we toss out the frogs we have and start over. To the contrary, I want us to adopt a system that will maintain the wild characteristics of the frogs we already have. The vast majority of frogs we have in the hobby still look and act like their wild ancestors. That's exactly what we want. But if we continue to breed along these artificial lines or strictly according to morph, we will lose those wild characteristics before too many more generations pass. By taking the time to sort out what "populations" we have in the hobby now, we can maintain the characteristics of the frogs we have.

This emphasis on having locality data is a good thing but can be carried too far. Let's consider why we want locality data. The first reason is that it tells us about the wild origins of the frogs. If we know the locality where the ancestors are collected, then we know the wild population that our frogs belong to. And we can maintain that population intact in captivity. And why do we want to maintain the population intact? So that in 20, 50, or 100 generations, the frogs will still look and act pretty much like their wild counterparts. Because these are the traits that attracted us to the frogs in the first place. And it is these traits that allow us to learn a bit about frogs in nature. The second reason for locality data is that in case we want to restore frogs to the wild from captive populations. But this simply isn't likely to happen with frogs currently in the hobby or coming into the hobby in the near future. There are so many reasons for this that I won't go into it. But even so, it is nice to have the locality data and know that frogs have been bred true to locality just in case. 

But to repeat. The frogs we have mostly look and act like their wild counterparts. The lack of locality information doesn't change that. Nor does the fact that frogs that originated from different localities have been mixed. If we had it to do over again, we would do it differently. But regardless, the frogs we have suit our need to enjoy wild type frogs in our homes. It would be irresponsible for us to start reimporting everything we already have. But I do believe there are some "morphs" or "lines" that have been purely invented in the hobby which is leading to single wild populations being artificially split into selectively bred lines. There is no issue with this as long as those who want to maintain wild types have a system to keep "their" frogs wild. Right now there is no system and the unmanaged state pretty much guarantees that eventually wild type animals will become increasingly rare. But it's not too late.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Part II*

Well, this hasn't quite spurred the discussion it did on frognet but here is part II of the sequence anyway:

> Brent ,
>
> I agree with all you have written. Morphs are suspect.
> There are no species in nature - just populations.
> But in captivity? Do we have populations?

Aha! It is still possible to get Frognet fired up as this immediately generated responses both public and private. I purposely left off a big chunk of my last ramble to allow time for a response and the response is what I expected. So I'll start with the short answer to Lars' question about whether we have populations in captivity. Yes, we do. To repeat the definition of a population I used, "a population is defined as a group of animals that exchange genes with each other at a higher frequency than they exchange genes with animals from other populations". In captivity we certainly have groups of frogs that are exchanging their genes more frequently than they are exchanging with other groups. Those are populations. But froggers quickly jump to the conclusion that the purpose for designating captive populations is to connect them with known wild populations. That is only one reason. As many point out, for most of the frogs in the hobby, you can't connect them with wild populations. It's impossible. You can't unmix genes and you can't invent location data when the origin of the frogs was never really known (well, you could try but that would be wrong). So instead we use morphs or lines to pretend that we can know something about the lineages of these animals that we don't. What I'm suggesting is that we stop pretending. Instead I suggest we use a logical thought process to group frogs into captive populations based on their history of what has happened to them in captivity and what we know about frogs in the wild. To do this we have to accept the fact that we have a lot of frogs we don't know a lot about. But at least once we've gone through the exercise we will have a better idea of which frogs in captivity should be bred with which other frogs.

Let's use the poster child auratus as an example. I have some pretty typical auratus. Who the heck knows what their history is. I actually know a fair amount but not enough to have a clue about how many wild populations may be mixed into the genes of my frogs. But I also know that they look pretty much like Atlantic versant Costa Rican frogs. I also know that Atlantic and Pacific versant frogs tend to have distinct morphologies so using logic, I would deduce that my frogs probably have predominantly Atlantic versant parentage. So to me these frogs should simply be considered Atlantic Costa Rica type auratus of unknown origin and lineage. Once that is established, I would conclude that they belong to the same captive population of all other auratus that would have the same description. That's probably going to take care of 50% of the auratus in the hobby. So there's one population. No more trying to guess what can't be known.

So what's the point of all this? I would say it is to maintain the wild characteristics of the populations in captivity, including genetic variability. So big deal if these mixed auratus can't be mapped to an actual wild population. And I don't care if they aren't suitable to release back into the wild. In my living room hopping around in a vivarium, they still look and act exactly like wild auratus as far as I can tell. Would I enjoy them anymore if I had specific location data? No. They would still look and act the same. By designating the correct CAPTIVE population for them, we have designated a gene pool that is more likely to maintain robust populations in captivity through time without losing those wild characteristics that drew us to the frogs in the first place.

I believe this type of process could be used with varying degrees of success with all of the frogs in the hobby. Sure, there are still going to be some real head scratchers that pop up along the way. But in the end I think we would have a much better idea of the true groupings of our captive populations. But I'll point out that I'm not suggesting that a morph or a line become irrelevant. Rather, these are tools that are used to place animals into their rightful populations rather than the ends of the designations. As in the example above, we do know quite a bit about the relationship between morphological characteristics and geographic location in the wild. Clearly this information should be used to identify the captive populations we are dealing with. But before I will be convinced that "fine spotted azureus" is a "morph", I'm going to need documentation indicating that there are two morphologically different populations in the wild. Lines are a bit more difficult but in some cases may provide some historical information. But the term as been used so many ways and held to so many different standards that they have become almost meaningless with a few notable exceptions. A common problem I see is that froggers obtain frogs that get traced back to a so called, frog god (a term they hate) and that becomes the line. But that is a bad place to stop because these well-known froggers have been trading among themselves and with people generally unknown to the hobby for decades. The "gods" have been known to mix "lines" and they don't always know the true origins of the frog lines they supposedly founded.

The system is a mess. I think it's a mess partially because of rants from me and many other about hybridization. This has led many to go overboard being afraid of accidentally crossing lines. The problem is that we are usually starting with frogs of unknown origin and you can't magically restore a population of frogs to genetic purity through ultra-segregation. The population concept allows us to take what we know and cluster our frogs into logical groupings and call it good. We can't undo history but we can institute a system that maintains what we have - which is a pretty amazing and worthwhile thing to save.

Locality data makes things much easier. As Michael points out, some of the new imports are coming in with good information. If the market demands locality data, then the market will also supply it. This is a huge step forward for us. But at the same time it makes me worry about what happens to the market value of frogs without such data. I fear there will be a push to reimport all the frogs we already have so we can establish captive populations of known origin. But what purpose would this serve other than to further depopulate wild forest of their frogs? The mixed, blood, unknown origin auratus in my family room are not any less valuable to me than are frogs of known origin. They still look and act like wild frogs for my enjoyment and personal education. That is all I expect of them. A label on their cage with geographic coordinates would not change their value to me. What location data gives us is a way to manage the genetic populations of our frogs correctly and without guesswork. In my opinion the hobby should demand that any animals exported from the wild have reliable location data so that the true wild populations can be maintained in captivity. But we should not devalue the frogs we already have simply because we don't know their full story. After all, how many of us can trace our own lineages back more than a few generations?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

My take, and a few points to think about....

This is a hobby...While often a hobby is seen as just something people participate in for enjoyment, it is also often a social thing, and a buisness (usually in a very limited way for most). More so then the entertainment aspect of the hobby(though often included within it) these other aspects exert pressures on individuals and groups within the hobby(i would assume). Even if your not trying to make a living off your frogs, chances are if your active in the hobby you at some point and in some way have to interact with the buisness side of it.

People want the super blue they bought to look like what they think a super blue should look like, and atleast throw mostly super blue looking froglets. Others arent as particular, and take a more "naturalistic". "darwinian"? approach. 

I may not have a problem with breeding one "morph" that likely interbreeds with another "morph" in the hobby, or even species?...or even is KNOWN to do so....But i have to consider the opinions and desires of the people im trying to trade with/sell to, and interact with socially within the hobby.

Sadly...well maybe not, i mean to each their own... not everyones main concern is owning a frog that accurately represents a wild example in looks/and or behavior. They just want an intresting and beautiful pet, and beyond that dont really care....but others do.

For example many have pass on some really stunning imports, just because they could only get one or a few and have little chance at a pair, and forget about location data.... But those are still very attractive, very cool frogs to keep....but personal enjoyment of the animals isnt the only concern for many. 

Im not really saying that Brocks approach is wrong, im simply trying to point out what some of the road blocks may be. In fact this approach i would argue is more frog friendly then our current one (well rough consensus we seem to employ)...You get more genetic diveristy and probably healthier frogs that overall better represent that species wild counter parts.

But, it makes it harder for the individual to understand or know what they may be getting, or even decide what they want. It seems many would rather see red amys drop out the hobby rather then breed them to red vents, or orange amys (just a random example). The reasons for this thinking range from the conservation side, to the ethical, social(what will my fellow froggers think of me), and economic(no one will by my red/orange amy crosses!).

I'll throw this in too while im at it....i think the hybrid situation is similar. Typically a hybrid will be a healthy frog that does fine, but some people will say thats not enough, its a betrayal of the sanctity of the species, or it will lead to confusion, etc...etc.... Generally we all like to think our opinion is the right opinion to have, or our reasons for being in the hobby are the right ones. Some fear the dart frog hobby will fall they way of leopard geckos. Some pray for it....and others want the option to have either. 

I would say the best arguement against hybrids (or atleast most of them, if we were to adopt a similar policy as brock proposes) is a pragmatic one...based on the practical consequences to those in the hobby. In this case our personal desires and protecting the majorities ability to have a decent chance at actually getting what they think they are getting are good practical reasons against hybrids. Selfish maybe, but not really in a bad way. 

So why did i go off on a tangent about hybrids???? Because here our personal desires(against them) dont really conflict with the health and integrity of the species. AND I AM TALKING SPECIES HERE, NOT MORPHS. though in an approach like brocks its concievable that some will actually advocate species mixing in VERY specific cases(?). Now the tie in to what this has to do with the approach Brock is talking about.....

This approach seems to favor the health and diversity of the species over some of the concerns of individuals within the hobby more so then the current approach. Which concerns will ofcourse depend on that person.

Brocks approach is more conservation of the species as a whole, while the current approach is aimed more at gentic integrity of the examples we have in the hobby. But dont we have to seriously look if this is even possible in the long run? Yes where we have a large enough gene pool to work with its what we should probably strive for...but if we dont, wouldnt an approach more like brocks be the ideal (for the frogs) Its nieve to think that most of the current frogs or their decendants will ever see the wild again(atleast on any major scale). IMO. And if thats the case isnt the real motivation our own selfish intrests/desires and not the actual conservation of the species?

As some have mentioned it may be possible with some of the newer imports with better data, to form breeding programs with the intent of eventual reintroduction if needed...but with most of the species/morphs in the hobby as of now it is an extreme long shot at best. And nothing is stopping us from doing it with the newer imports, or with the species/moprhs we have diverse enough gene pools to swim in. We can do this regardless if we continue with our current approach or adopt something like what brock is talking about. Perhaps a more species/morph specific hybrid of the two approaches is in order.

Anyways i had no intention of rambling on this much, nor even argueing for one approach versus the other, only to bring up some points for everyone to consider. Oh well....


Thanks for reading this unedited/unproofread stream of consciencous  (ok a few quick edits, still not spell checking it....THATS HOW I ROLL!


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

if i wasnt so busy, i wouldve responded a while ago. 
I agree w/ most everything brent said. Problem is, it doesnt matter what i think. Other than that i supply a lot of frogs to the hobby. I will however do my part and try to get others to do the same.
Out of all the sales i`ve ever made in my life i`ve had less than a dozen people ask about the lineage of their frogs. Most of the hobby, at this time, has no clue of what a sustainable population is or cares(just look at our energy policy or our stand on global warming :lol: ).
They leave it up to me, that i`m doing the right thing. Up till recently, i thought i had. 
I have recently got rid of all my f1 related pairs which I think may come in again and kept everything i think there is a snowball`s chance of ever coming in again. I figure the dwarfs, red galacts(well any galacts), bicolor, mints, aurotaenia, truncatus and a few others we have to diversify by breeding offspring from other pairs together instead of sibs. I figure i have to start to maintain what we have. I have decided to start implementing breeding seasons here and try to have 2-3 unrelated? pairs all breed at the same time for labeling offspring. I think part of the problem is having animals of each population available constantly lends to the loss of diversity(if i always have powder blues available this would lead to less people breeding them and my offspring making up most of the next generation). 
This may also lead to population crossing as there are 2 or more red galact populations, 2 or more yellow galacts, etc. There is no reason that people wanting nice pets cant get the same as people looking for sustainable breeding. I know that animals can be inbred at least one generation, if not a lot more w/out any problems. If i get a pair of red galacts from patrick and label i have 2 pair red galacts that seem to be the same and mark the offspring appropriately, the people getting the frogs can decide if they want to cross them or keep them in "line".
The super blues seem to be of the same population as the turq and bronze. When keeping offspring together the turq and bronze almost always outcompete the super blues. Both undergo an ontogenic change of color from froglet to adult. Both have very similar patterning. The super blues seem to pick up where the turqnbrnz left off taking the color cahnge further and deeper. I believe they are found on a mountainside opposite from each other or the supers are at a higher elevation or something but it seems that the super blues are lacking something the turqnbrnz dont need in my habitats or the turqnbrnz are just bolder. I could be completely off base on this, just my obs. I don`t spray the auratus as much as other tanks so it could be the super blues are from cloud forests and the turqnbrnz can handle drier habitats. not saying there genes dont mix but we should understand their individual pop habits before crossing them. maybe turq and bronze can move from outer drier areas to the super blues to breed but not vice versa. Gets real complicated unless someone goes down and studies them.
I also think the recent imports of rio brancos were probably collected on both sides of the rio or across some other barrier, what do we do w/ them? breed as like colored individuals as possible or should we constitute leg pattern or back pattern and color. this ones really complicated as there seems to have been mixing of both pops at the greenhouse. This may actually happen every 20 years or so if the river falls to where both pops migrate toward the rivers edge for moisture or the log across the banks thing where 6 of each population intermingal(i have no clue if this would ever happen). 
In this case it would just happen all at once w/ imports being brought together. 
The most worrisome i am is w/ crossing animals from different habitats. W/ speciation occuring relatively quickly w/ these guys animals can look very similar w/out being adapted to the same conditions. although all the pumilio i have bred and have are doing well under the same conditions. blue jeans and man creek, seperated by a large distance but blue jeans seem to be found near garbage cans and out in the open or on forest edges and i believe the man creeks are found in drainage ditches along the roads and chiriquis were found up in the hills very close by. very different areas for 2 morphs so close together(chiriquis and man creek(if my info is correct on habitat)) and 2 morphs that are very similar looking(blue jeans and man creek). 
I have many many other thoughts on this and will get back when i can but the gutter guys are here.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> Let's use the poster child auratus as an example. I have some pretty typical auratus. Who the heck knows what their history is. I actually know a fair amount but not enough to have a clue about how many wild populations may be mixed into the genes of my frogs. But I also know that they look pretty much like Atlantic versant Costa Rican frogs. I also know that Atlantic and Pacific versant frogs tend to have distinct morphologies so using logic, I would deduce that my frogs probably have predominantly Atlantic versant parentage. So to me these frogs should simply be considered Atlantic Costa Rica type auratus of unknown origin and lineage. Once that is established, I would conclude that they belong to the same captive population of all other auratus that would have the same description. That's probably going to take care of 50% of the auratus in the hobby. So there's one population. No more trying to guess what can't be known.


I don't see how this is different that designating a morph. Is it because it's based on population data as opposed to say Fine Spot Azureus (assuming this is a mutation within captive populations that doesn't have a wild counter part)? I'm not seeing the great difference between the two terms: morph and population with reguards to this example.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

morph being turqnbrnze and super blue, population being all the morphs that share the same genetic flow. fine spot would be w/in the azureus population. even if there is fine spot in only 1 of the 3 remnant populations they still exhibit gene flow or common genes among the population even if they were line bred OR part of a real population.
basically population is the lumping of morphs w/ common ancestry and/or current gene flow w/in the population. even if there is 3 populations of azureus which dont commonly interbreed they all come from the same population. there are different scenerios for different species/morphs/populations. the azureus look similar across the board w/ different shades of blue larger or smaller spots, etc. pumilio can be found very different in color/pattern adn habits relatively close to one another. since the chiriqui and man creek are found really close to one another but occupy different habits they should not be bred together(chiriqui and man creek, in my opinion they look different and seem to be evolving to different microhabitats) but a population of surinam cobalts(olemarie, tafelburg,table mt. etc) occupy a much larger area. And as for the bastis, they can be found amongst each other. What if each color is evolving for a different brom w/ different colored flowers and different growth habits. in one area you can have differnt light levels and different microclimates. if each colors tads are evolving toward different water temps, what then? guess ther will be no perfect model and my statement was quite a long shot. there is, however, more info on this group of pumilio as to color availability of opposite mates breeding w/in there own colors. so we should try and follow breeding color to color as opposed to outcrossing unless no simialr mate is available then trying to keep selection to as like colored individuals w/out letting color diversities fall out of the loop or outcrossing when genes get low and reseperating to color class? phew!
This is just my understanding from conversations as to models of the azureus,super blues and cobalts, i have never been there nor have i checked facts. 
this seems to be what brent is stating if i understand correctly. correct me if i`m wrong.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

First, thanks Aaron for clearing up the morph vs. population difference. That was beautifully put.

Dave brought up the very important point about different motivations in the hobby. That's really what this is all about, allowing the different hobby "types" to co-exist. I've been around long enough to see what happens to unregulated hobbies. First people are fascinated by the wild animals. Then they start to breed them with regular success. Then they start to hybridize or selectively breed them. Before long, there are no wild types left to be found in the hobby. Then the people who want wild types have to reimport animals and set up a regulatory system to keep those animals separate from the general hobby populations. This has happened over and over in other hobbies. We can do better.

The issue is that without managed breeding, the natural progression is for genetic integrity of captive populations to deviate from wild genotypes. It takes effort and management to maintain the genetic characteristics of the founding populations. That's why zoos maintain studbooks and manage how animals are moved around in their breeding programs instead of being bred randomly or just according to which animals look the most like each other. With TWI and ASN, we now have the opportunity to set up the management system that allows wild type animals to be maintained, and provides a system that could be used to get hobbyists involved in real conservation breeding programs, while allowing the market driven part of the hobby to do what they please without threatening the genetic integrity of "wild type" frogs being managed.

I do want to clarify something from Dave's post though. The system I'm proposing is not geared toward maintaining genetic integrity at the species level, it is aimed at the population level. That is the main point of this system. The species, morph, and line (by some definitions) levels of classification are not the appropriate targets for genetic management. The species level is too coarse because species can be made up of multiple populations and each population has unique characteristics that should be preserved. The morph level is totally innappropriate because it is based on phenotype (how animals look) rather than genotype. Therefore morphs don't always have anything to do with how related groups are (see the population genetics article linked in the first installment). The line level would be appropriate if lines were always used to denote a line of animals that originated from the same wild ancestors. In that case a line and a population would be the same. Or if various lines were mapped back to their original populations so that animals could be outcrossed between lines but within populations. But the term "line" is being used many different ways so I'm suggesting we just toss the term and go with population.

The population is the target level for genetic management because that's the level where local characteristics within a species are fixed. In some cases these populations will fall out according to morphs. In other cases we may not be able to see much of a difference between two populations but, as Aaron pointed out, they may be adapted to different habitats.

Finally, I want to again stress that I'm not suggesting we throw out the lines, or morphs that we have in the hobby and start fresh with animals with locality data. For hobby purposes, the animals we have are still good. You don't throw out a loaf of bread because you know eventually it will go moldy. Tonight I will post the last part of this series which diagrams how the system I'm proposing can be retroactively fitted to existing captive populations.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Here's the last installment:

> Isn't there good reason to speak of "lines" in exactly this situation. 
> If someone gets an azureus from Brent's line and another from Lars' 
> line wouldn't that be using the "line" info *exactly* to produce the 
> intra-population genetic flow we all strive to maintain?

If that's how we were using "lines", then there wouldn't be a problem. But the term is being used several ways and the definitions seem to interchange. So there are "lines" of animals from a common population. The lines may represent the decedents from a single breeding group. And these lines could be crossed with other lines within that group to breed those "unrelated" pairs for genetic integrity. But nobody seems to be keeping track of this. One guy declares his own frogs a "line" and another consider the "line" to be from whatever "frog god" they can trace their frogs back to. I've seen very little effort to figure out which lines have already been mixed with which. It's at the point where when I hear "line", I don't know what is meant and I don't really trust them. I know a few people like Tor have traced true lines all the way back to imports. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

So here is the last of installments on this topic. I scratched out a crude diagram to illustrate how populations can be delineated in the hobby based on their history: http://www.bbrock.frognet.org/PopFamilyTree.ppt The diagram represents 3 populations. Both populations originate with Batman who is apparently a frog god. Batman got both populations from different sources and has maintained them as separate breeding groups. I got my frogs from Batman's first population and sold some frogs to George Jetson. Of course Batman, being a frog god, has sold frogs to lots of other people. Barney Rubble bought frogs from two different people but they all belong to the same population. Batman has also sold his second population to lots of other people including Spiderman who has also maintained the two populations separately. But look at poor Fred Flintstone who didn't realize the frogs he bought from Woody Woodpecker were from a different population from his other frogs. So now Fred has created a third population which is a mix of the first two. In some ways it's a mess but it is also easy for anyone in the diagram to quickly determine which population of frogs theirs belong to.

As Tor said, a lot can be known about our frogs with detective work. In the example diagram, the trail goes cold prior to Batman getting the frogs. But at some later date we might learn that these two sources actually got their frogs from the same importation. If that were the case, then the whole diagram would become connected together as a single population. But what this system allows is for us to manage our frogs with the proper degree of segregation according to the known information. As long as the original sources are unknown as is shown in the diagram, then the blue and orange populations should be kept separate. This follows Tor's rule that it is safer to keep them separate because you can mix later. But anyone who gets frogs from Fred Flintstone would need to consider their frogs as separate from both the orange and blue because they've been mixed. If it turns out the two mystery founding groups came from the same place, then frogs and be mixed later and no harm was done by keeping them separate. But if that connection is never found, then they should continue to be treated as different populations just to be safe.

I can pretty much guess some of the comments that will follow but I'll just leave it at this for now.

Brent


----------



## corbsclinton (Dec 4, 2005)

I'm glad this post was around when I finally made it to it. Much of it was the exact same "conversation" I was wanting to have, props Mike for sending it to me.

A few things I'm wondering:

I stumbled on a thread last year that talked about the genotype of the color trait but cant find it. I'm not sure whether it actually defined what it was for one of our frogs or (just) explained what the different scenarios it would be, to get a certain color based on the recessive/domant. Maybe explaining whether the gene that carried the color was monohybrid, diyhybrid, or a dihybrid cross? Anyways, I would like to find that one.

The thing I kept thinking about when reading each of your posts was lets just say that the gene is a mono-hybrid. So if you 4 frogets that have parents that both have the Aa and Aa for the color gene you have a 25% chance of getting a "aa". Both sides recessive. So "aa" with both parents you get "aa" froglets ?unless something weird happens? 2 recessive/recessive gene parents always pass the recessive gene or its not a monotype?

So my theory is the blue and bronze auratus are recessive/recessive and thats how their children's children stay blue and bronze. Then I get back to when did the blue get introduced and think its 2 ways:

1) We brought out the blue when the 1 out of 50/100/200/? (not monohybrid) was harvested by the frog farmer or

2) The breeder "pulled" the color out by almost eliminating the dominant gene. Basically flipping what was dominant and what was recessive. Thats possible right?

Are they all the same with just different color genes being OK to be bred or they were crossbred and we haven't seen any ill effects of these hybrids so they "hit the market" without a hitch? 

In conlcusion, I really feel like Patrick Nabors and Sean Stewart are selling hybrids and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think they are hybrids that "we" created until the legal import documents say "hey we pulled these blue&blonze from here and there were tons of them all together. (i realize not to hold my breath) I also wouldn't trade my 3 Green&Bronze auratus I got from Brian (dancing frogs) for the world. Even though, the black hasn't turned bronze yet...hmmm :lol: Also props to Brian on his shipping and tests, I think its an incredible contribution to the hobby.

Anyone that remembers that thread please link slap me. Also, the theory above is just that, my theory based on what I think I know. Its is subject to change. It is not written in stone as "no one really knows when the blue got "introduced" in the bloodline".

Unless you: (someone please fill in the blank)


Also thanks to for the words of encouragement. I'm jealous that all of you found the hobby quicker then me!


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

corbsclinton said:


> I also wouldn't trade my 3 Green&Bronze auratus I got from Brian (dancing frogs) for the world. Even though, the black hasn't turned bronze yet...hmmm :lol:


Thanks for the kind words, but the frogs you are refering to are offspring of frogs that were labeled "turquoize and bronze".

As far as the bronze, it keeps getting better with age...I got mine when they were about a year old, now at around 2.5 years old, they look quite a bit different.


----------



## corbsclinton (Dec 4, 2005)

thanks for catching that Brian and thanks again for the awesome frogs. won't make that mistake again. :lol:


----------

