# Would this be a hybrid?



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Let me preface this post by saying, clearly I don't want to mix species and I don't want to hybridize species. Now, to my knowledge there are three "types" of leucs... maybe more. The nominal (two bands and spots), micro-spot (no bands and small spots), banded (many bands, no spots) and perhaps some others like green foot.

So, is a micro-spot leuc considered to be a different "species" or at least a different "morph" of frog that I wouldn't want to mix/breed with a nominal or banded or green foot? Or, because they're all leucs and all the same color and basically look exactly the same with very very few differences (those differences being spots vs. bands), would it be safe to keep these in the same tank?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

azureus, new rivers and blue sips all look similar, would you mix those?


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

It would be safe to keep them in the same tank being they are the same species.

If you are asking about are they hybrids if they breed the technical answer is no because they are the same species but the answer at Dendro would be yes because they are of different locations in the wild.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## yours (Nov 11, 2007)

I think the only leucomelas that you can keep together are the nominal and the "chocolate" leucs.....because the chocolate's are line bred from nominal....

The rest are all different locale/morphs....



Alex


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Have you ever kept dwarf tincs in w/ citronella or regina? Or Lorenzo in w/ blue sips? There are different aggression levels w/ different morphs, they`ve adapted to different areas, which means your tank conditions would probably favor one over the other. Auratus morphs are similar. If you have a bold auratus morph in w/ shy blue auratus the bold ones may eat all the food before the blue auratus can get some. i`ve only owned the green foot leucs which are very reticulated and they are much smaller then the standard leucs. I haven`t owned all to say which is bolder bigger etc.
If your going to do it watch them often, make sure they all eat and have a tank ready for anyone who doesn`t fare well because you`ll likely find that some won`t. And check for parasites as clean frogs and dirty frogs shouldn`t be kept together until they are cleaned. Why infect a clean frog?
Or if one has coccidia and one hookworm and one lungworm and you put them together they each then have coccidia, lungworm and hookworm, not a good mix. Not to mention the incurable coccidia couldve been contained. Mixing frogs isn`t good whether it`s different species, morphs or genera.


----------



## Alpha Pro Breeders (Oct 13, 2008)

I think mixing different leuc types would be the same as mixing different auratus types. They are so unique and beutiful on their own why would you want to do it.


----------



## Jaeger (Nov 22, 2007)

I wouldn't do it.

While they might "get along" OK, the underlying effort is that we're trying to keep relatively genetically distinct, locale-specific populations genetically intact. There are some species for which we have more data on the locale from which they were originally collected (INIBICO, etc), and there are some for which the populations are felt to be distinct, but the locale of collection has been lost to the ages.

Though any offspring would not be an interspecies hybrid, they would be an intermorph hybrid. We want future generations of collectors to be able to see these frogs as close to what could be found in the wild as possible. Could you really bring yourself to euthanize your first leucomelas tadpoles and froglets?

IMHO, get one morph of leucs and enjoy them. As individuals, they are bold, vocal, active, beautiful frogs, and I very much doubt you'll be disappointed. I bought my trio of nominate leucs as an afterthought to my tincs from someone dissolving there dart collection, and they rapidly have become my personal favorite.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Mitch Heller started researching this topic for a taxon management plan and found that all different forms of leucs in the hobby came from one population originally and were just selectively bred to be the different populations they are now. More research would need to be done as well as all the frogs tracked properly in a studbook, but if the leuc population were to be managed for genetic diversity representative of the wild population, it would likely be recommended that all these morphs be bred back together. If anyone is interested in continuing this research and forming a taxon management group for leucomelas, please let me know and I can give you access to to Mitch's information from where he left off.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Frogfarm (and others), I understand what you're saying. Maybe I didn't make myself entirely clear ('cause it was 4 in the morning and I was still up for some reason). I suppose I was wondering whether or not the difference between microspot, nominal, banded, green foot, etc. was merely an odd recessive genetic variation that occur from the nominal morph or these morphs actually occur in different populations in the wild. If they occur in different populations I would, of course, not want to mix them in the same tank nor would I want to hybridize them. If it was merely a peculiar trait that occurs occasionally in the nominal population I doubt if there would be any objection to me keeping them together.

For instance, my understanding (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that in citronella morph of tinctorius most have a black spot on their head, but every now and then from these two parents a citronella without a spot on its head will occur. If this is indeed the case, I think it odd to insist that I keep any no-spot citronellas away from any nominal citronellas when it was two nominal citronellas that spawned the no-spot. On the other hand if I _am_ mistaken and citronella no-spots have their own population in the wild I would clearly keep no spot and nominal citronellas away from each other.

Perhaps my confusion on this subject is based on the names we're giving to the different morphs of leucs. Where in tincs you have cobalt, powder blue, citronella, new river, etc. In pumilio you have Man Creek, Salarte, True Blue, etc. With Leucs we refer to all morphs as leucs and the different morphs are merely descriptive "My 'micro-spot' leucs." Whereas, with my Veraderos imitators (I suppose I should say future veraderos, I'm getting mine in May), I don't call them my "imitators" I call them my "veraderos."


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

SmackoftheGods said:


> I suppose I was wondering whether or not the difference between microspot, nominal, banded, green foot, etc. was merely an odd recessive genetic variation that occur from the nominal morph or these morphs actually occur in different populations in the wild. If they occur in different populations I would, of course, not want to mix them in the same tank nor would I want to hybridize them. If it was merely a peculiar trait that occurs occasionally in the nominal population I doubt if there would be any objection to me keeping them together.


Mitch began by tracing a group of chocolate leucomelas he had back to Patricia Grueneberg of Vanishing Jewels Inc. After speaking with Patricia, he found that she had 3 groups of wild caught leucs which produced a variety of morphs that we have seen in the hobby (fine spot, chocolate, green footed, etc.). From there, different morphs were distributed and ended up being selectively bred to produce some of the lines in the hobby. So from this information we are led to believe all the morphs are just variations within one population in the wild. But there have been other imports as well so formulating a more informed answer to the question would require more research of the leucs in the hobby and observation of the populations in the wild.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Corpus Callosum said:


> After speaking with Patricia, he found that she had 3 groups of wild caught leucs which produced a variety of morphs that we have seen in the hobby (fine spot, chocolate, green footed, etc.). From there, different morphs were distributed and ended up being selectively bred to produce some of the lines in the hobby.


This is essentially what I suspected. But I suppose that at _least_ until we get some hard evidence one way or another I'll keep them separated.


----------



## boogsawaste (Jun 28, 2008)

Michael K, very good information. I wasn't aware of these findings.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Really. Mine didn`t come from patricia they came from an import over 15 years ago. Also the british guiana leucs aren`t from the venezuelan population of which mine came from. It`s pretty hard for me to believe all these frogs came from one select locale when they`ve been smuggled numerous times over the years.
And I heard from chris or juan(same person) that they were just breeding those leucs and hadn`t released any 5 years after I got mine. Mine were strait from araknocultures wc and f1 breeders and they all looked the same. My pair is 13 years old. Patricia hasn`t even been in the hobby that long, juan her partner was, but he sold off his collection and re entered when patricia did. 
All the shipments from Eu also came from these?


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

I only have the info on Vanishing Jewels / Patricia's frogs, so like I said we'll have to do more research on the other imports to find out more.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

that was supposed to be "really?" not "Really." man I hate the internet!
Also I sold Juan green foot leucs when they started breeding their chocolates because he wanted to breed them. I wonder if she`s sure that she remembers producing or breeding the green foots that came from me. 
QUOTE=frogfarm;343776]Really. Mine didn`t come from patricia they came from an import over 15 years ago. Also the british guiana leucs aren`t from the venezuelan population of which mine came from. It`s pretty hard for me to believe all these frogs came from one select locale when they`ve been smuggled numerous times over the years.
And I heard from chris or juan(same person) that they were just breeding those leucs and hadn`t released any 5 years after I got mine. Mine were strait from araknocultures wc and f1 breeders and they all looked the same. My pair is 13 years old. Patricia hasn`t even been in the hobby that long, juan her partner was, but he sold off his collection and re entered when patricia did. 
All the shipments from Eu also came from these?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Thanks for the info Aaron, I'll cross check the info with other sources and find out about the rest of the imports too. Will let you know what I find out later on.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Kewl, Thanks.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Here is my hearsay understanding of Leucs.

1. The banded British Guiana are a distinct population.

2. The fine spot, standard, Choc are all the same. Choc were a selected for recessive trait.

3. Not sure on the green foot. When I started this hobby, the word on the street was they were just a selected for trait, but I can't confirm that with any import data.

I could be wrong.

Shawn


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

So I have a "nominat" male in with a "chocolate" probable female......Do we keep the line breeding of the chocolates "pure" (as pure as my AKC Siberian Huskies)? I remember pairs of chocolate leucs selling for $450 at Whiteplains a few years ago (they were the "RAGE"!!) Should we criticize line breeding for color or albinism or ??? Or can we just keep the good record keeping going and say "I bred my nominat against a chocolate I acquired from ______" and see where this takes us? The record keeping seems to be the answer.


----------



## Jaeger (Nov 22, 2007)

Interesting info, Corpus Callosum! I stand corrected--while I clearly don't have enough info or experience to take on a taxon management plan, as new info comes out on the history and recommendations for this species, I would love to be kept informed.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Jaeger said:


> while I clearly don't have enough info or experience to take on a taxon management plan, as new info comes out on the history and recommendations for this species, I would love to be kept informed.


We are all here to learn.. all Mitch did to get that info was send out a few emails and make a few phone calls, something anyone can do. And there's still tons more for us to find out (as everyone else has pointed out, other sources to look into).

Shawn any idea which imports the banded leucs came from ?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

to me, because ALL standards dont throw all those traits, it seems like they could be individual populations. like standards/chocolates are one population seperated from another thats standard/green foot. which would mean you shouldnt mix. just because the "standard" morph can throw different variations depending on the bloodline doesnt mean they all do and are all one morph.

and also, they dont have to be different species to be hybrids. they can be subspecies, morphs, populations as well. so its not just dendro saying this. it is recognized by science as hybrids if you mix those.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

As I said the green foot leucs have been around for 15 year and when I got my 20 from Araknokulture they all looked similar and were all f1 and f2`s. They weren`t around long enough to be line bred. They are smaller and reticulated.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

sports_doc said:


> Here is my hearsay understanding of Leucs.
> 
> 1. The banded British Guiana are a distinct population.
> 
> ...


Then why are you guessing? I thought guessing wasn`t allowed


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Greenfoot's were all originally imported from Europe as a seperate population, whether this is true or not lilkely we will not know until site data about Leucs in the wild becomes available. Bandeds were indeed a WC morph from a new population, as are likely the greens we have seen pictures of but have yet to see imported into the US.
Microspots originally came out of the northwest likely through Uhern/Europe (guessing here), Todd K was one of the first to start producing them perhaps Christina Hanson can comment on these.
As for the chocolates I have no idea (I have a very low opinion of these animals).
Vanishing Jewels assisted in the importation of some new WC Tincs morphs (Patricia, Alanis and maybe 1 or 2 more), their involvement with Luecs would have been acquiring from hobbyists/breeders, what they put together and produced would be speculation on my part.
Luecs are certainly a species of frog that as common as they are very little data about them has been written and published for the general community. For the new British Guyana morph to show up as recently as a couple of years ago tells me that there is likely more undiscovered morphs of this species out there. It would be nice to see someone put some comprehensive info about these guys together.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> Greenfoot's were all originally imported from Europe as a seperate population, whether this is true or not lilkely we will not know until site data about Leucs in the wild becomes available. Bandeds were indeed a WC morph from a new population, as are likely the greens we have seen pictures of but have yet to see imported into the US.
> Microspots originally came out of the northwest likely through Uhern/Europe (guessing here), Todd K was one of the first to start producing them perhaps Christina Hanson can comment on these.
> As for the chocolates I have no idea (I have a very low opinion of these animals).
> Vanishing Jewels assisted in the importation of some new WC Tincs morphs (Patricia, Alanis and maybe 1 or 2 more), their involvement with Luecs would have been acquiring from hobbyists/breeders, what they put together and produced would be speculation on my part.
> Luecs are certainly a species of frog that as common as they are very little data about them has been written and published for the general community. For the new British Guyana morph to show up as recently as a couple of years ago tells me that there is likely more undiscovered morphs of this species out there. It would be nice to see someone put some comprehensive info about these guys together.


Thanks for the info Mark. Juan supposedly imported some wc from wherever and I remember Juan looking for other leucs because they only had one wc left or something like that. It was about 10 years ago so I`m a little fuzzy on it. I remember him saying they had to get more because they lost something or wanted to "outbreed" their chocolates because they were having trouble getting them to live and produce. Which is what you might expect w/ a recessive trait.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

There were a ton of Luescs smuggled about the time the Histo's/Tricolor's & Boulengeri were being exported legally out of Ecuador. I remember they were at all the tables at the herp shows, and did rememeber hearing of someone smuggling suitcases full getting caught. I am sure this was NOT Vanishing Jewels, likely a few were exported legally out of a periphary country but nothing unusual in WC's until the recent British Guyana frogs. 
I guess no one has put enough focus on this species though what we have seen is interesting and with some variety. I for one would love to know of the microspot, is it a true morph or standards line bred for a trait, I heard years ago it was a morph but a lot of things are said to help sell frogs....anyone??


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

So what everyone is saying is that is is alright to breed for a certain trait within a local of a species but it is not alright to breed different locales of the same species.

That to me seems to be exactly the same except one is done naturally in the wild and the other controlled in a 20g breeder.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

An important consideration:

We want to breed as many frogs as we can in captivity for two (02) main reasons.

1. To reduce collection and importation

2. To acquire valuable husbandry info for future success

When someone purposely engineers a hybrid, he does not just "keep it to himself"

He either trumpets it on an online forum, with pictures and it becomes a rallying point for new people or it somehow breeds or is given away and makes it way - indirectly, back into the hobby.

Both are dangerous and detremental to the hobby.

We all agree about geographic areas, intergrading ect in the wild...*we get that*.....just please stop using that as a red herring to prop up your personal 20 gallon science experiment.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Jellyman said:


> So what everyone is saying is that is is alright to breed for a certain trait within a local of a species but it is not alright to breed different locales of the same species.
> 
> That to me seems to be exactly the same except one is done naturally in the wild and the other controlled in a 20g breeder.


This hobby takes a very dim view of breeding different locals of the same species, though technically not the correct term it is what we would call a hybrid.
Line breeding for a specific trait is done, I would not agree with it but for fine spot Azureus it has yet to be shown as a problem. Chocolate leucs hopefully will fade to oblivian (my own personal opinion), the fine spot Leucs no one is certain of and until we know better should be kept as a seperate morph. I don't beleive anyone has advocated line breeding for a trait and likely you would find most people against it as it would inhibit genetic diversity however there are those that are breeding chocolate Leucs and fine spot Azureus and there has been little comment either way. A slight variation to this theme may be blue leg/grey leg Vents, likely the same population but treated by some as seperate morphs.
Mark


----------



## salix (Mar 28, 2008)

thedude said:


> to me, because ALL standards dont throw all those traits, it seems like they could be individual populations. like standards/chocolates are one population seperated from another thats standard/green foot. which would mean you shouldnt mix. just because the "standard" morph can throw different variations depending on the bloodline doesnt mean they all do and are all one morph.


I'm pretty new at all this and don't know if they are traits or a different morph.

However, just because "all" standards don't throw the trait, doesn't mean it is a separate population. It would just mean they are recessive genetically, whether those are naturally occuring recessives or the result of crossing two morphs is a different issue.

As an example, I did a lot of work with color breeding in rabbits. The breed we were working with only came in black (B), blue (b), chocolate (C) and lilac (c). The blue and lilacs were merely black and chocolates carrying a dilution factor. If you bred a black (BB) to a blue (bb), you would get all black (Bb) rabbits. If you bred those first generation black (Bb) rabbits back to the black (BB) parent, you would still get all black rabbits. If you bred those black (Bb) rabbits to each other, you would (statistically) get half black (Bb) and half blue (bb) rabbits. So with creative crosses, you could produce a lilac rabbit out of two black parents. The resultant recessive color out of dominant color parents was the trick to producing a best in show quality animal.

The result is, it's hard to say what recessive genes are hiding. This is the whole basis to line breeding for a trait.

Now back to the leucs. I bought four juvies at a show last September from a single breeder and all being sold as just leucs. There was a difference in sizes at the time and still are. I just assumed this was a variety of ages as it was a large vendor and certainly from multiple clutches. However, two of my frogs have a definite green cast to their feet and the other two are uniformly colored all the way down their leg. I wondered if these may be green footed leucs or a trick of my eye/lighting. How obvious is the coloration? Could someone post a close-up photo of the difference between the two morphs/traits?

Thanks and this thread has been interesting reading.

Deb


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

markpulawski said:


> This hobby takes a very dim view of breeding different locals of the same species, though technically not the correct term it is what we would call a hybrid.
> Line breeding for a specific trait is done, I would not agree with it but for fine spot Azureus it has yet to be shown as a problem. Chocolate leucs hopefully will fade to oblivian (my own personal opinion), the fine spot Leucs no one is certain of and until we know better should be kept as a seperate morph. I don't beleive anyone has advocated line breeding for a trait and likely you would find most people against it as it would inhibit genetic diversity however there are those that are breeding chocolate Leucs and fine spot Azureus and there has been little comment either way. A slight variation to this theme may be blue leg/grey leg Vents, likely the same population but treated by some as seperate morphs.
> Mark


That makes a bit more sense. Thanks.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Mark, would you mind elaborating (for my own curiosity) on why you hate chocolate leucs so much?


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Im not a fan either, just like the normal so much more. No other frogs available are line bred for traits like this. I think a lot of people don't like them because of this. I see a lot of pics of albino frogs too, but you don't see folks line breeding for it, even though albinism is a highly coveted trait in almost all other corners of the herp hobby.


----------



## basshummper (Jan 13, 2008)

jason, what about "micro spot" or "sky blue" azureus. as long as we keep on picking out the prettiest frogs out of a batch and start breeding them we will continue to see new selective traite bloodlines.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I thought sky blue was from a slightly different location. Don't know
I thought selective breeding for traits was generally frowned upon, as the wild type diversity is lessened. I thought the same was true for all the bronze auratus as well, where they were selected out for certain color traits and line bred, but I haven't got a straight answer for this yet. 
I shouldn't have said no other frogs line bred for trait are available if this was true.
But if we are truly trying to preserve wild type gnetics, then line breeding for trait should probably be frowned upon. 
BUT if the hobby progresses to mainstream popularity to the level of bearded dragons and ball pythons, etc, all kinds of line bred traits will show up sooner than later. People love designer herps, and will pay big money for them. Since there are so many albinos that pop up from tuime to time, I would expect to see albino lines for sale soon. Basically no different than selling the chocolate leucs, just another color trait


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Selective breeding....WAY different from mixed species and hybridization issues.

But

Almost as bad. CB is always to be encouraged and this still is a free market economy where one can always ASK $1,200.00 for a pastel - glow-worm Ball python or a sunburst -ghost Tremper leopard gecko...or Leo Gex.

If you are desirerous of a chocolate Leuc or a small spot Azurerus....why?

Work with an unknown or little known / scarce dart frog species and breed it - becoming a veritable hero amongst your peers.

or try to manufacture an albino or frankenstein animal and go for the potential $. 

as always....the choice in life remains yours.....


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

sh*t, some of those ball python morphs are like 10 k


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

frogparty said:


> sh*t, some of those ball python morphs are like 10 k


Isn't that goofy? You see those designer morphs all over the table at the shows but who can afford that crap??? In this economy????

I really think it's a hyper inflated number / price that only corresponds to the in-house ball python hobby and NOT other normal people with their heads screwed on correctly.

Is there a text shortened version of ball python?

P-Reg?


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

thedude said:


> and also, they dont have to be different species to be hybrids. they can be subspecies, morphs, populations as well. so its not just dendro saying this. it is recognized by science as hybrids if you mix those.


In comparison to many of the people here I'm brand new to the hobby, so there are many things I don't know about frogs. But one thing I do know are many of the metaphysical and epistemological questions that arise when someone says that "science" recognizes anything regarding species. I know that there are _scientists_ that would recognize mixing different morphs or subspecies as hybrids, but to say that science as an institution would is highly questionable. A hundred a fifty years ago when Darwin wrote his On The Origin of Species, _he_ had problems discerning between species and subspecies and incipient species and morphs and mere characteristic differences. As we've gained knowledge about lineage (and especially since the introduction of phylogenetic trees) these lines have become even fuzzier rather than clearer.

I guess my point is that if science had a specific answer to my question, I would just appeal to science for that answer. But too many biologists (and especially biological philosophers) disagree, which is why I posted my question here on Dendroboard, so I could get the opinions of those heavy in the dart frog hobby for clear (or at least clearer) lines of separation.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Mark, would you mind elaborating (for my own curiosity) on why you hate chocolate leucs so much?



I know nothing about them other than that they are a curiosity, IN MY OWN OPINION, they are not a naturally occuring morph and thus are man made. Again this is totally my own opinion based on the circumstances of them showing up in the hobby with little or no background info, info that I never sought but may be there should I ask or search for it. It's weird because this is the only dart frog I feel this way about, I really don't want to sway how others feel but since you asked i am telling.
Albino's and fine spot Azureus show up with normal breeding, when no one is really selecting for this trait so to me those are naturally occuring and they occur more often than you would think. I don't know enough to say the same about chocolate Luecs.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

markpulawski said:


> I know nothing about them other than that they are a curiosity, IN MY OWN OPINION, they are not a naturally occuring morph and thus are man made. Again this is totally my own opinion based on the circumstances of them showing up in the hobby with little or no background info, info that I never sought but may be there should I ask or search for it. It's weird because this is the only dart frog I feel this way about, I really don't want to sway how others feel but since you asked i am telling.
> Albino's and fine spot Azureus show up with normal breeding, when no one is really selecting for this trait so to me those are naturally occuring and they occur more often than you would think. I don't know enough to say the same about chocolate Luecs.


Based on what I hear to be the case, the chocolates are line bred from nominate leucs. In my opinion, they should be bred back with normal leucs to put the recessive gene back into the gene pool. It's quite possible that over time the chocolate gene will be eliminated from the normal leuc gene pool. I understand that the chocolate gene is probably pretty inbred, but it's important get the gene pool pack in the state that it is in nature.


----------



## Blackbird (Mar 4, 2009)

salix said:


> However, two of my frogs have a definite green cast to their feet and the other two are uniformly colored all the way down their leg. I wondered if these may be green footed leucs or a trick of my eye/lighting. How obvious is the coloration? Could someone post a close-up photo of the difference between the two morphs/traits?
> 
> Thanks and this thread has been interesting reading.
> 
> Deb


Looking at my own green foot leucs, I'd have to say it's very obvious, the feet are green, not a bit of yellow or orange on the toes. My leucs are also green on the underside of their legs as well as their bellies. I'm told this is not that common though; mostly it's just the feet that're green. 
I don't have photos at the moment unfortunately, since I only just got the leucs on the 14th and they're still pretty shy. (Well I have one but unfortunately the colors can't be seen accurately since the flash kinda washed them out...)
--> Scratch that, I just made some new pics  They frogs are in quarantine right now... Also, I'd say the green's actually more intense than what's shown in the photos... (sorry for the kinda dark pic, by the way.)
Here:



















What I can tell you is, here we see the green foot leucomelas as a separate morph; officially we call them "Cerro Autana" (unofficially "green foot leucs" ). I believe the author Harald Divossen described the green foot leucomelas as being a whole day's journey (by boat) away from the standard leucomelas (I write here that I _believe_ this is so because I have not actually read his report in which he states this myself, but I have heard from others who have read it that it is so). Apparently Divossen states that he found the standard leucs near Puerto Ayacucho, while the green foot leucs are to be found somewhere near Tepui Autana...


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

well, I don't know if there are subspecies status given to different "morphs". If there were, then that would be considered hybridization. For me, crossing a fine spot leuc and a nominant leuc would be considered hybridizing, but from a taxonomy perspective, I don't think it would be if technically no different subspecies name has been given. Not that it won't be in the future. This is like saying if I cross a panguana lamasi with a std lamasi is that hybridizing? I would expect subspecies status for different morphs soon. Look at kingsnakes(not mtn kingsnakes). All lampropeltis getulus, then all the different subspecies differentiating the locality they come from, all produce viable fertile offspring when mated, and technically hybrids, because the taxonomy has differentiated them. I think getting subspecies status would make the hybrid issue clearer


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Good someone who`s not guessing!


Blackbird said:


> Looking at my own green foot leucs, I'd have to say it's very obvious, the feet are green, not a bit of yellow or orange on the toes. My leucs are also green on the underside of their legs as well as their bellies. I'm told this is not that common though; mostly it's just the feet that're green.
> I don't have photos at the moment unfortunately, since I only just got the leucs on the 14th and they're still pretty shy. (Well I have one but unfortunately the colors can't be seen accurately since the flash kinda washed them out...)
> --> Scratch that, I just made some new pics  They frogs are in quarantine right now... Also, I'd say the green's actually more intense than what's shown in the photos... (sorry for the kinda dark pic, by the way.)
> Here:
> ...


----------



## basshummper (Jan 13, 2008)

blackbird, I’m glad you posted those pics! I’ve seen green foots here in the states in the past and i never saw anything different about them, but I can definitely see the green feet in your leucs.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Is that a top and bottom view of the same frog? 'Cause I don't see the green on the top, but I definately see green on the bottom. I might have to check mine since I've never looked at her belly.


----------



## Newt1 (Feb 25, 2007)

I wouldn't do it.


----------



## Blackbird (Mar 4, 2009)

basshummper said:


> blackbird, I’m glad you posted those pics! I’ve seen green foots here in the states in the past and i never saw anything different about them, but I can definitely see the green feet in your leucs.


The green's even more obvious than in the photos (the photos are kinda bad) - obvious enough that the first thing people say is "aw, their little green feet." That's pretty much also how I feel about my leucs. 



SmackoftheGods said:


> Is that a top and bottom view of the same frog? 'Cause I don't see the green on the top, but I definately see green on the bottom. I might have to check mine since I've never looked at her belly.


Yep, same frog, if you look closely you can see he (or she ) is actually still sitting in the same position compared to the first photo...
The green's sort of a metallic green, but still very obvious... the pics are, sadly, kind of bad...  it almost makes their toes look bluish-gray... which they are not, they're definitely green.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

trippy... I still think I'm going to have to check my frog.


----------

