# Giant Orange/Regina 2 Morphs or the Ultimate Line Bred Tinc?



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

So we or at least I have heard from several reliable sources that Giant Orange & Regina are the same morph that were split long ago based on color traits. They were seperated and given different names, which likely was a good marketing ploy by some crafty Europeans in an effort to sell 2 morphs where there was actually 1. So is this the ultimate line bred frog, or does that title belong to the poor sky blue Azureus?
What does the hobby say about ultimately throwing these 2 morphs together in breeding projects? I know Richard has done so with 1 pair and I applaud him for that, how about some pictures Wooded One? I for 1 believe these sources and this info however until now there has been no attempt to put these 2 morphs together except for the aforementioned. There is such a hesitation in our hobby, of coarse verifying and double checking before moving forward is best but I am convinced, anyone else care to weigh in.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

I am sure I will jump in once this gets going but I will open here and say in my opinion they are different and will continue to breed my Regina separate from any G.o. , and I would not want to see a repeat of the type of mess back in the day when there were Giant Orange that were actually G.O. crossed with citronella. I know the situation is different but it can be hard or impossible to put a genie back in the bottle.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

I believe that the separation of the liones occured stictly for commercial reasons ("Giant Orange" seemed more marketable inn the U.S. than "Regina"), but those who have seen the frogs at Regina in the wild say they are remarkable diverse related to the amount of blue markings on the frogs.

I have put together breeding pairs from many of the different lines of Regina and Giant Orange and will be keeping those pairs separate. What I am advocating (and what I have done) is to create a "new" line built on a specific cross of GOs and Reginas. The pair I have created are a GO female and Regina male, both from Patrick Nabor's line of frogs. Interestingly, these frogs really don't appear very different from each other (excepting in the amount of blue on their vents). I think they make a pretty pair.

I have only morphed-out four froglets from this pair (though there are more to come ootw soon), some looking like GOs and some looking like Reginas (I'll attach the photos here). 

What I am hoping to find is a few dedicated tinctorius breeders who would be willing to take on this "Giant Regina" line to keep in their collections as a step forward in restoring the diversity that (clearly) exists in the wild population at Regina.

Richard.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Bill,

The situation that occured with the GOs and Citronellas was an accidental mistake (at least, it's getting into the hobby), so this project I think is quite different. I am certainly not going to just switch all my pairs around and wouldn't suggest that anyone else do it.

This is a small-scale effort at putting back some diversity by creating a new "line". I thought "Giant Regina" was the best way to explain what they are.

Take care, Richard.



billschwinn said:


> I am sure I will jump in once this gets going but I will open here and say in my opinion they are different and will continue to breed my Regina separate from any G.o. , and I would not want to see a repeat of the type of mess back in the day when there were Giant Orange that were actually G.O. crossed with citronella. I know the situation is different but it can be hard or impossible to put a genie back in the bottle.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

I think we have a similar situation with the Saul/Yellowback/La Fumee/Lemondrop frogs...although unintentional. I recently heard from someone who has spend a lot of time in French Guiana about the possibility of these being from one population (just collected from different directions out from the village/vacinity of Saul) and their response was that around Saul there are various creeks and seepages, but that they could all easily be bridged/crossed by the falling of a single tree. He considered the entire area to be one habitat and most likely one single population of tinctorius.

He has found several phenotypes of tinctorius in the area around Saul: ones with yellow backs, ones with yellow backs and a dark spot, and also black ones with tiny blue spots...and considers them all to be one form of tinctorius.

My feeling is that the "Lemondrop" morph is the result of line breeding a certain phenotype of the Saul/Yellowback frogs. But there that all is...for whatever it's worth.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Ron,

Apparently, Matecho tinctorius are collected at the Arapaii River, which is 24 kilometers from Saul (hardly far enough to be considered a distinct "colony" from the ones at Saul). I feel that the idea that ALL morphs of tincotrius represent distinct populations that are geographically isolated from ever other population will probably need to be addressed by some much-needed field work.

The Yellowbacks I received from Sean Stewart were phenotypically "Black Saul's" (essentially Lemon Drops) and their progeny range from solid yellow backs to lemondrops. One of the reasons I like Yellowbacks is because they still retain a lot of inherent phenotypic variation.

Thanks for the comment, Richard.



skylsdale said:


> I think we have a similar situation with the Saul/Yellowback/La Fumee/Lemondrop frogs...although unintentional. I recently heard from someone who has spend a lot of time in French Guiana about the possibility of these being from one population (just collected from different directions out from the village/vacinity of Saul) and their response was that around Saul there are various creeks and seepages, but that they could all easily be bridged/crossed by the falling of a single tree. He considered the entire area to be one habitat and most likely one single population of tinctorius.
> 
> He has found several phenotypes of tinctorius in the area around Saul: ones with yellow backs, ones with yellow backs and a dark spot, and also black ones with tiny blue spots...and considers them all to be one form of tinctorius.
> 
> My feeling is that the "Lemondrop" morph is the result of line breeding a certain phenotype of the Saul/Yellowback frogs. But there that all is...for whatever it's worth.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Woodsman said:


> One of the reasons I like Yellowbacks is because they still retain a lot of inherent phenotypic variation.


Agreed. It is my favorite population/form of tinctorious.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

LoL, this makes me glad that other then oyapok, and azureus I'm not really a Tinc guy...though I've never had oyapoks but have owned yellow or green sips (we never figured that out) and powdered blues. 

Anyone wanna go off topic for a sec and answer a quick question. Which are more white...oyapoks, or olemarie? Its oyapoks right? I wan't white ones dang it.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Oyapoks do in my opinion looking at mine.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

billschwinn said:


> I am sure I will jump in once this gets going but I will open here and say in my opinion they are different and will continue to breed my Regina separate from any G.o. , and I would not want to see a repeat of the type of mess back in the day when there were Giant Orange that were actually G.O. crossed with citronella. I know the situation is different but it can be hard or impossible to put a genie back in the bottle.


That was a mistake I had a hand in and fortunately as far as we know all of those frogs were tracked down and removed from circulation. I would agree that the yellowback morph has also been seperated and line bred but I think most will agree they are yellowback. These 2 morphs have stood alone, mistakenly in my opinion.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Just my opinion, but creating a new "line" and naming it seems to open the door for a lot of other "lines" to be created in the name of diversity by others who are new and don't know the history behind other "true" morphs, or those less concerned about the long term effects of outcrossing. Regardless of the opinions on the GO/Regina debate, just seems like a slippery slope. In any case I hope all these get registered in some system to be tracked.


----------



## JeremyHuff (Apr 22, 2008)

Richard's offspring of the GO x Regina are producing individuals of each form. It will be very interesting and telling if these are then separated based on look and bred back with like individuals to see if the resulting offspring are 100% all GO form or Regina form. If so, then that would be more evidence that they are line bred. Also, if it is true, and one wanted to still retain the regina and GO phenotypes separate, you could add 'new' blood using Richard's individuals and be confident the resulting offspring will match the phenotype you want.

I agree with Richard and others that these are the same morph and are just line bred. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it san be corrected. I have travelled to French Guiana twice and been to Regina and the surrounding region. There is no geological or geographical obstructions there that would divide these two 'morphs' in the wild. The same can be said for the region around Saul. The only running water I saw in Saul, I could hop over, so it is hardly a barrier.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

I would have to disagree with you Robb, establishing that the GO/Regina was the same morph seperated by color traits and then allowing for merging I don't believe would do the same to other morphs. I am not saying it has been established that they are the same morph yet however we are close to that. Lemon Drop, line bred Yellowbacks, would anyone dispute it? I would never advocate La Fumee, matecho or other so called named morphs as being the same as established ones, at least to me that conversation has not come up yet.
I can only remember in the late 90's when 1 time a WC pair of Giant Oranges showed here in the US, I don't remember any other WC frogs of this morph hitting the US. 
Too bad info on WC populations of Tincs is not more readily available, it certainly warrants an explanation of many moprhs variability as there are a lot of questions, many answered in the past but never taken down as fact...grey leg/blue leg powder blue, colors of Sipliwini, yellowback family, cobalt family, hopefully someone will give us difinative answers some day.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

On the topic of variability, here's pictures of 6 F1 yellowback froglets. They're all siblings:


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Zach,

It seems that the different forms of yellowback that are sold separately aren't line bred, but justed sorted-out offspring that can bring in different prices (such as "dot" and "no-dot" Citronellas or "dot" and "no-dot" Matechos). I have a pair of Black Sauls from Sean Stewart and they produce every possible incarnation as well.

Richard.



zBrinks said:


> On the topic of variability, here's pictures of 6 F1 yellowback froglets. They're all siblings:


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Great now a third thread on the same topic 

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/62070-giant-orange-regina-comparison.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/22089-re-giant-orange-vs-regina.html

Never ending debate.

I'm no geneticist but my recall is that if you have one population that is separated for enough generations of line breeding to look completely different from one another, then try and back cross 2 animals to "get back to the wild type", I dont believe you can do that.

Someone help?

Anyway my guess is they are so different now, like it or not, we 'made' 2 different frogs.....sorry.

Now stop separating dot and no-dot Citronella...


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

So, I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we could re-create a frog that could be reintroduced to the wild. The questions is whether, by selecting the lines so heavily, have we not created a lot of genetically-related frogs that could easily become inbred? 

Even if someone goes to the trouble of getting frogs from another breeder to breed to their stock, all we might be doing is breeding cousins together rather than siblings. That doesn't seem to provide much of a future for the line(s).

And, given how much other junk is permitted on the site, I would hope you could not be so upset (stating this particular concern on several occasions now) about some of us wanting to have this conversation. Perhaps someting new might come of the exercise.

Thanks, Richard.



sports_doc said:


> Great now a third thread on the same topic
> 
> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/62070-giant-orange-regina-comparison.html
> 
> ...


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

^ not upset Rich, just dont want to have to do the busy work of linking threads together b/c people keep starting new ones  instead of continuing the debate on the same thread....

Lets not forget old arguments either --> Looking at the old thread is helpful.

Now, Re-create frogs to reintroduce to the wild = no way

Consider:
Cross a poodle with a dobberman and do you get a wolf? 

NO, you get a dobberpoodle. A new third distinct line. I'm afraid that this is what is happening now. 

You have Giant-Regina.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

It's more a commentary on the fact that even after all these years we are not sure about frogs that have been on the hobby the longest. We can be sure of a handful of Tincs that are location specific, and that were all imported at the same time, others are such a big queston mark.
However I will defer to the hybrid/thieving/where do you live threads and comment no more....


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

My huskies and I see a lot of those "poo" dogs at the dog park, but no dobberdoodles (yet!)

Maybe I'm creating frankenstein and giving people the wrong idea about crosses, but I think there is support for (specifically) the "Giant Regina" (just a proposed name, trying it out here to see how folks like it). It's a new line that people can evaluate for themselves.

And, btw, I know we all appreciate the hard work of combining threads. What if you had to combine the "what's the best first frog?" threads!! Yikes!!

Take care, Richard.



sports_doc said:


> ^ not upset Rich, just dont want to have to do the busy work of linking threads together b/c people keep starting new ones  instead of continuing the debate on the same thread....
> 
> Lets not forget old arguments either --> Looking at the old thread is helpful.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eric Walker (Aug 22, 2009)

Woodsman said:


> What if you had to combine the "what's the best first frog?" threads!! Yikes!!


or the how many frog can I put in a ten gal threads


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Zach,
> 
> It seems that the different forms of yellowback that are sold separately aren't line bred, but justed sorted-out offspring that can bring in different prices (such as "dot" and "no-dot" Citronellas or "dot" and "no-dot" Matechos). I have a pair of Black Sauls from Sean Stewart and they produce every possible incarnation as well.
> 
> Richard.


 Hey Richard,

I hear you - that being said, I think this kind of 'selective pricing' or sorting tends to lead to line breeding. I'm sure that if you continue to breed similar looking animals together long enough, they'll lose their capacity to produce variable offspring. The way many of the yellowbacks are marketed, it certainly appears at first glance that they are treated as different morphs/localities.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Zach,

That selective pricing has always amazed me. If you get "Lemon Drops" in a group of froglets, charge $150 for it (when their siblings are selling for $50!). I tend to price things on how difficult or easy they are for me to breed (and, to a lesser extent, how much money I had to invest in the parents). It seems like a lot of people don't know that "no-dot" Citronellas are not a separate morph!

I'm not going to charge for the "Giant Reginas", as I don't want there to be the mistaken notion that I have a profit motive in making the cross. I'd just like to be able to add to the diversity of the Regina locality frogs.

Take care, Richard.



zBrinks said:


> Hey Richard,
> 
> I hear you - that being said, I think this kind of 'selective pricing' or sorting tends to lead to line breeding. I'm sure that if you continue to breed similar looking animals together long enough, they'll lose their capacity to produce variable offspring. The way many of the yellowbacks are marketed, it certainly appears at first glance that they are treated as different morphs/localities.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> It's more a commentary on the fact that even after all these years we are not sure about frogs that have been on the hobby the longest. We can be sure of a handful of Tincs that are location specific, and that were all imported at the same time, others are such a big queston mark.
> However I will defer to the hybrid/thieving/where do you live threads and comment no more....


OK Mark you outed me....I deserve it. 
Perhaps I have an 'old bruise' about GO and Regina debate that was picked recently.

I cant say I trust even the few tinc morphs that have supposed locale data. Maybe we all have been misled by collectors/exporters/resellers. It is likely that a number of 'lines' are all one and the same. 

The good news is that I 'think' some of the old GO/Regina blood is still around from people involved in the early days of importing that frog. Chuck I think still has his line alive in HI and I have 2 pairs from him that came here as tads 2+ years ago to Oz. No breeding 'but' they at least havent gone through a dozen generations of line breeding like "GO" and "Regina" have...

What do we do with the 'new blood' Regina that have come from the EU this past year??

Anyway, "stay thirsty my friends"


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Shawn,

According to Dendrobates.org and others, there continue to be tinctorius collected from French Guyana and smuggled into Europe, then "re-imported" into the U.S. I wasn't aware of this problem, but have decided to discontinue buying EU imports of anything until we can explore a more rational system of verification (than the self-verification of cb that exists in the EU).

Sad, because Sean brings in so many frogs I want! Oh well, I just have to have some self-control.

Richard.



sports_doc said:


> OK Mark you outed me....I deserve it.
> Perhaps I have an 'old bruise' about GO and Regina debate that was picked recently.
> 
> I cant say I trust even the few tinc morphs that have supposed locale data. Maybe we all have been misled by collectors/exporters/resellers. It is likely that a number of 'lines' are all one and the same.
> ...


----------



## brooklyndartfrogs (Nov 19, 2005)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Shawn,
> 
> According to Dendrobates.org and others, there continue to be tinctorius collected from French Guyana and smuggled into Europe, then "re-imported" into the U.S. I wasn't aware of this problem, but have decided to discontinue buying EU imports of anything until we can explore a more rational system of verification (than the self-verification of cb that exists in the EU).
> 
> ...


Why don't you call the F&W on him?


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

sports_doc said:


> What do we do with the 'new blood' Regina that have come from the EU this past year??


Well, if you have some non-linebred frogs from original imports I don't think it'd be a big deal to breed them to either GO or Regina. 

Wouldn't it be like crossing a sky blue azureus with a more standard azureus?


----------



## Shockfrog (Apr 14, 2004)

I don't see why there is this never ending debate in the US about something that has never been a debate in Europe. Dutch-Rana exported Regina frogs to the U.S. where they were sold as Giant Orange for marketing reasons. That's it! They are all the same!

Ofcourse there are some differences due to line breeding, but it's all still the genetic diversity of the natural population. Crossing these frogs would benefit the captive population for obvious genetic reasons. 

Ofcourse you can compare crossing these frogs with crossing two breeds of dogs, and yes you won't be breeding a wolf. But you will breed genetic diversity into the dogs which is a good thing. 

Then there's ofcourse the powder grey and powder blue legged tincs, they are also found in the same population. They actually live mixed, so it's not a trait that slowly changes from one end of the population to the other end. Feel free to mix these fenotypes at will 

About the yellowback frogs: I really hate to see people selling some as lemon drops. They are obviously pulling your leg! 
Ofcourse I understand why some people tend to think yellowbacks and some other morphs are actually part of one continual population and are therefore the same. Well, in this case I cannot fully agree. You have to ask yourself if the frogs look different. If they differ substantially compared to frogs from at the other end of the population, there is enough reason to keep the frogs seperate. The differences between the frogs tell you that there is little to none genetic interaction between them in nature, thus we should treat them the same in captivity.


----------

