# Mixing Species, or Let's create a novel pathogen!



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

It's been awhile since I've written anything for dendroboard. Current events present an opportunity to back up a very real scenario.

Is everybody sick of hearing me talk about the creation of a novel pathogen yet? Too bad. I'm going to do it again.

If I wanted to create a novel pathogen, I could do it. I wouldn't even need a laboratory. Here's how simple it would be.
Method one.
Build a vivarium and put multiple species from different parts of the world in it. Supply conditions favorable for keeping these multiple species alive for an extended period of time.
Here's what can happen. Species 1 carries pathogens that it has developed immunities for. Species 2 has not been introduced to that pathogen and has no natural antibodies or immunities. If luck is on on the side of species 2, then the pathogen that species 1 carries will not be able to infect him.
Over time, however, this can still become problematic. Perhaps, even more problematic. You have created an environment in which both species can thrive. Therefore, species 2 is always in close contact with this seemingly harmless pathogen from species 1.
You have created a situation in which our harmless little pathogen can keep reproducing within species 1. The entire time, every new generation has the chance to adapt. Every new generation has the chance to become something that will affect species 2. Come on, we all saw Jurassic Park.
"If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories, and crashes through barriers painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh, well, there it is. ..."
"Life, uh, finds a way"
So will that pathogen, and who knows what it will become in the process? Are you aware that a virus can pick up any portion of its host's DNA, and Incorporated into its own viral genome? Bacteria also trade genes between each other quite readily.
There it is, friends. We have just created a new viral pathogen. I wonder if we'll get extra credit for the multiple bacterial pathogens we may have also created? What I'm trying to say here is, we have created a novel pathogen. Who knows what other species it could now attack? Could it become as bad as chytrid, wiping out every amphibian it crosses paths with? Could it even become chytrid itself? You better believe we're going to loop back around to that in a while.

"Oh, but Doug", you say, " we've heard you and Ed preach this before, and it all sounds like science fiction."

I'm not done yet. Let's look at another way to create a novel pathogen.
Method 2.
Set up an open air market place. Sell all kinds of weird, exotic meats. You could even sell the meat of the exotic pangolin. Being the worlds only scaled mammal, that should fetch a pretty penny, don't you think? Ideally, you'd want to keep plenty of people crowding through the place at all times. You want to keep sanitary conditions low, and maybe have some bats do an occasional fly by. Really, the more different species you can cram in there, the better your chances.

This, my friends, is covid-19...a novel pathogen.

The latest genetic testing shows that in all probability, covid 19 started from bats in China. The latest genetic testing indicates that the virus spread from bats to the Pangolin.
In the testing of 1000 animals, scientists found a 99% match in the genome sequencing of the virus found in pangolins and in human species.

The creation of a novel pathogen is NOT science fiction. Look around. It's affecting all of us right now. This is affecting everyone you know. The creation of a novel pathogen is nothing to be taken lightly.

I've been away from the Frog hobby for a while now, so perhaps this has changed. Once Upon a Time, the dreaded frog plague known as Chytrid, was theorized to have been created by accident, possibly within our very own frog Hobby, by keeping inappropriate animals together.
The very disease that threatens every frog hobbyist, may have been created by a frog hobbyist.

I will say it again, the creation of a novel pathogen is nothing to be taken lightly.

If you were expecting me to teach you how to mix species, sorry. I do not condone the mixing of animal species from different parts of the world.

It's not a theory anymore, people. Knock it off! Quit mixing species!


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Welcome back Doug. 

s


----------



## Organics (Jan 17, 2020)

Arguments against mixing species
1) Can be difficult to properly pair different species if you have limited husbandry experience. 
- Weak, implies time is all that is required to achieve success
2) Risk creating a bioweapon
- Strong(if you understand scale & systemic risk), research backed, prophetic, states with certainty there is limited/zero upside and unquantifiable downside.

Great post. I must've missed previous post on this but i hadn't seen this argument before.


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

I don't think the hobby needs to worry about that. People have been in contact with animals for as long as the two have been together and whatever will naturally occur has and will. 

In the US we have 20 open trades per year (just throwing out a number) with vendors selling animals from the same original breeding sources. 

The worlds wild caught animal markets (for eating or local pet trade) have been an ongoing event every day for hundreds or thousands of years. 

I think the likeliness that we unleash a killer virus from our tanks is low to none.

I also keep fish and birds. Lots more sources and mixed wild caught specimens in those than frogs.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Xue said:


> People have been in contact with animals for as long as the two have been together and whatever will *naturally* occur has and will.


The point is what can happen artificially; there ain't nothin' natural about the mixing that some keepers do.

Also, on that line of argument ("whatever is going to happen, is going to happen"), a person can justify any atrocity whatsoever.




Xue said:


> I think the likeliness that we unleash a killer virus from our tanks is low to none.


You caught what Pumilo wrote about the possibility that chytrid was such a pathogen, caused by genetic mixing in captivity, right? That means nothing to you, or what?

BS arguments ("whatever is going to happen...") and "likeliness" claims in the face of a counterexample are both worthless.


----------



## Organics (Jan 17, 2020)

Xue said:


> I don't think the hobby needs to worry about that. People have been in contact with animals for as long as the two have been together and whatever will naturally occur has and will.
> 
> In the US we have 20 open trades per year (just throwing out a number) with vendors selling animals from the same original breeding sources.
> 
> ...



Even if likelihood is .001%(non-zero probability)of total ruin(whether for humans(as we see with SARS) or for our frogs(chytrid as pumilo stated may have started from us) given enough time it WILL lead to ruin. See Nassim Taleb’s non-zero probability risk resulting in ruin.

Two domains linear and nonlinear, this is in the nonlinear domain and human intuition is particular poor in assessing risk in this domain. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Sage_Exotics (Aug 29, 2018)

Great post! 

Honestly, I don’t see why people mix species from different part of the world anyway. There’s no benefit for the frogs, and just risk. The minimal benefit for the keeper isn’t worth it. Personally, I don’t think I’d enjoy keeping animals if I wasn’t positive I was providing the best I could for them. Seeing them thrive and knowing they’re safe is so rewarding, I don’t see why anyone would sacrifice that just to mix species.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Another example: typhoid kills 600,000 people a year, and does it because of genetic recombination:

https://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/1/61.short

Oh, my -- and influenza, from a mixing of pathogens from different species: "Independent assortment between an animal and a human strain of influenza virus during a mixed infection can yield an antigenically novel influenza virus strain capable of infecting humans but carrying animal-strain hemagglutinin and/or neuraminidase surface molecules. This recombinant can infect individuals that are immune to the parent human virus. This mechanism results in an immediate, major antigenic change and is called antigenic shift. Antigenic shifts in influenza virus antigens can give rise to pandemics (worldwide epidemics) of influenza. Such antigenic shifts have occurred relatively frequently during recent history."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8439/


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

I've never heard that chytrid could have been caused by the hobby. It is a fungus. Frogs live in probably the worst environments around the world and this fungus likely naturally evolved in the wild. The amphibian trade could have spread the disease but it did not start there. 

The mixing of species has always been one of personal view and this is where opinions differ. Not only in the amphibian hobby but in almost animal husbandry. Sometimes it's for the health of the animal. Most times it's other motivations. 

In birds, some mutations are unhealthy while others get the best of both and is the start of something new. 

I'm not one to either advocate for or against mixing as I know every situation has it's own reasons, but I know Heinekenvirus isn't coming out of tanks.


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Another example: typhoid kills 600,000 people a year, and does it because of genetic recombination:
> 
> https://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/1/61.short
> 
> ...


Diseases have always been with man and wild. It's the nature of the natural world. Europeans killed natives with their disease when they colonized America. If anything, we should concentrate on protecting our tanks from the outside and not the outside from us.


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

He didn't even read the post or he wouldn't have claimed not to know about chytrid.
Some people choose not learn. I'm not going to waste time arguing with them.
I'll bet that's not the reaction you guys expected from me.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Nah Doug - sooner or later people get tired of arguing with ignorance.

It's a waste of time.

s


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Xue said:


> I don't think the hobby needs to worry about that. People have been in contact with animals for as long as the two have been together and whatever will naturally occur has and will.
> 
> In the US we have 20 open trades per year (just throwing out a number) with vendors selling animals from the same original breeding sources.
> 
> ...


This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read that deploys decent grammar.

I will isolate only one item - comparing the Wet Markets of "hundreds or thousands of years ago" to the scale and populace density impact of today.

Sure, the filth and hardcore cruelty often for ridiculous purposes are an inherited similarity but to minimize our eras exploding scope in the face of what is happening now, Wow.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Xue said:


> with vendors selling animals from the same original breeding sources.


Another untrue "Belief".

Some people prefer the comfort of myopia and mythology to the inconvenience of _not getting to do anything they want._


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

And you guys can educate me on the impact mixing species has with regards to a global pandemic. So far I see beauty in man's creations; from canaries to fish to dogs, etc. 

The premise of this thread is one of not mixing species because the possibility of creating "a new viral pathogen" with examples of the coronavirus and chytrid. 

Covid-19 started from "bats in China". Not Chinese bats bred to Mexican bats at the Saint Louis Zoo whose caretaker accidentally carried the disease home to infect their dog and subsequently spreading it to the general population. It's from the wild.

We now know Chytrid has been isolated to have strongly begun somewhere in Korea. It was present in the wild long before any of us were keeping frogs.

"Theorized" is just a guess and we all have one. Spreading false information or theories becomes fact to those who cannot or do not do their own research. 

If you didn't know, there is currently a poultry bird flu (virulent newcastle disease) going on in Southern California right now with quarantine zones more strict than Covid-19 and healthy birds in the area killed by the government to stop the spread. Any species of poultry who contracts the disease will die. 

Man did not create this one either by breeding an Asian chicken to a Canadian one.


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

Kmc said:


> Another untrue "Belief".
> 
> Some people prefer the comfort of myopia and mythology to the inconvenience of _not getting to do anything they want._


That was intended more as a figure of speech. I was at a reptile show a couple weeks ago and many prior. Lot's of vendors obtain or breed from the same original source when you ask them what bloodline their animals are from.


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

Kmc said:


> This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read that deploys decent grammar.
> 
> I will isolate only one item - comparing the Wet Markets of "hundreds or thousands of years ago" to the scale and populace density impact of today.
> 
> Sure, the filth and hardcore cruelty often for ridiculous purposes are an inherited similarity but to minimize our eras exploding scope in the face of what is happening now, Wow.


We can look at all the historical plagues of the world and I'm sure none was created by man that couldn't naturally occur, or one that couldn't find it's way.

Quote from Pumelo's post: 

"If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories, and crashes through barriers painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh, well, there it is...." 

"Life, uh, finds a way"


----------



## Johanovich (Jan 23, 2017)

Xue said:


> Covid-19 started from "bats in China". Not Chinese bats bred to Mexican bats at the Saint Louis Zoo whose caretaker accidentally carried the disease home to infect their dog and subsequently spreading it to the general population. It's from the wild.
> 
> Man did not create this one either by breeding an Asian chicken to a Canadian one.
> 
> We can look at all the historical plagues of the world and I'm sure none was created by man that couldn't naturally occur, or one that couldn't find it's way.


Yes, but it went from wild bats to pangolins to humans. The sole reason this could happen is because there are markets in China with living animals kept close together in stressfull conditions. This caused a lowering of their immune systems, making them susceptible to these kind of viruses. The reason humans then got it is because the air quality in Wuhan is amongst the worst in the world, causing respiratory problems and, again, creating an opportunity for the virus to go from one species to the next.

Nobody said that mixing species would cause new pathogens to occur because they interbred. The fact that they are in close proximity causes the viruses to potentially go from one species to another. And yes these diseases could potentially occur naturally, but what is happening here is that humans are accelerating the process by continued exposure of different species.

Also: nobody said that chytrid and covid-19 are man-made, it was said they possibly originated under man-made circumstances, which is a vastly different statement.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Xue said:


> That was intended more as a figure of speech. I was at a reptile show a couple weeks ago and many prior. Lot's of vendors obtain or breed from the same original source when you ask them what bloodline their animals are from.



Ohh Okay, of course. You asked them and they told you. I mean, its a Reptile Show, so its gotta be true - right!?


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Xue said:


> "Theorized" is just a guess and we all have one.


Xue, my background is in academia. I can say, conclusively, that to theorize as scientific researchers do is not simply to guess.

Do you have a plan for where you're taking this? It seems that your lashing out has run its course and might simply be better if it ended. 

OK?


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Xue said:


> We can look at all the historical plagues of the world and I'm sure none was created by man that couldn't naturally occur, or one that couldn't find it's way.
> 
> Quote from Pumelo's post:
> 
> ...


Oh my God! He is quoting a movie. I used a line from a very well known movie, to lighten the post a bit. I even said it was from a movie. It's humor. He is using a line from a movie to try and discredit me? Now that is the funniest thing I've seen for weeks!

Seriously though, Sue, if you are going to use my name, spell it right. You don't even have to spell it. Use the quote button. 

I wish I could use my favorite line from Dexter. There will be a few imaginatively replaced words, but here it is.

Vince Masuka "That's not opinion. That's science and science is one cold-hearted (person) with a 14-(ounce hammer)"


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

Pumilo said:


> Oh my God! He is quoting a movie. I used a line from a very well known movie, to lighten the post a bit. I even said it was from a movie. It's humor. He is using a line from a movie to try and discredit me? Now that is the funniest thing I've seen for weeks!
> 
> Seriously though, Sue, if you are going to use my name, spell it right. You don't even have to spell it. Use the quote button.
> 
> ...


You quoted a movie to use as supporting "evidence" on a possibility that you believe in, and, you do it against with the Dexter quote thinking your opinion is fact. But I'm not a Dexter kinda guy so I'll concede that one to you. 

I'm not here to discredit you. I just have a different opinion than you regarding our role in the prevention of a worldwide pandemic.


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Xue, my background is in academia. I can say, conclusively, that to theorize as scientific researchers do is not simply to guess.
> 
> Do you have a plan for where you're taking this? It seems that your lashing out has run its course and might simply be better if it ended.
> 
> OK?


Yes, I agree on scientific theories. People also come up with theories that have no supporting evidence and chytrid in particular - I have never heard it could have been from the hobby. Maybe I'm not in the right circle. 

I have a long time friend who is a biologist who has worked on the chytrid trail in salamanders and frogs and have never heard of such a thing. 

For about 3 years I helped collect specimen. We worked more with salamanders than frogs and I never actually saw a dead frog but I'm well aware of the disease.

I don't intend to take this anywhere other than stating a difference of opinion. This is far from lashing out. Do we not want opposing views to an unfounded philosophy?


----------



## Johanovich (Jan 23, 2017)

Xue said:


> Yes, I agree on scientific theories. People also come up with theories that have no supporting evidence and chytrid in particular - I have never heard it could have been from the hobby. Maybe I'm not in the right circle.
> 
> I have a long time friend who is a biologist who has worked on the chytrid trail in salamanders and frogs and have never heard of such a thing.
> 
> ...


Chytrid is indeed likely a naturally occuring fungus as far as we know, but there are some things to also take into account here:

African clawed frogs do not experience the same symptoms as most other frogs. Because they were traded across the world as pregnancy tests this likely caused the global spread, or at least had a massive impact on it. Similarly, the more recent spread in SE-Asia is currently thought to have originated from imported american bullfrogs, who are also not very affected by chytrid but do carry it.

This is what pumilio is referring to with the dangers of mixing. If you mix an apparently healthy wild individual that carries a hidden disease with another species, this disease can jump across species. Fungi do not work the same way as viruses (who can easily incorporate new genetic material into their own) but there is still al lot of potential for exchanging genetic material between strains/species. 

This also applies to organisms that normally do not cause disease. The skin/gut flora and fauna of a frog from S-America could potentially make a frog from SE-Asia ill because of opportunistic taxa and a lack of proper immune respons (I don't have actual frog examples for this, but opportunistic bacteria and yeasts are a well documented phenomenon. I do have a scientific paper showing that skin bacteria are different in captivity compared to wild specimens). 

Furthermore a strain that is nonlethal for species occuring in specific conditions can be extremely deadly to a lot of other species in other environments. The apparent susceptibility of chytrid fungus to temperature points to this being partly the case here.

There is a decent chance that the hobby helped the spread of chytrid across the globe and it may also have caused more deadly strains to appear because it could spread to new hosts. Chytrid has several known nonlethal strains (some of the earlier documented cases of it in the 1800s and early 1900s were nonlethal), yet now we see an extremely lethal form going around the globe.


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

I feel like whilst there is a real but extremely minimal risk here, arguing that mixing species could create novel pathogens and comparing it to covid 19 is so hyperbolic that it's likely to be counterproductive. There are much better and simpler arguments against mixing species. 
Also if Doug expected everyone to agree wholeheartedly with his post why bother posting it at all? Seems to me it was desgned to draw out opposing opinions from people like Xue and begin a discussion. None of you have enough authority that anyone is just going to blindly accept whatever you say about best practices regardless of any "background in academia" and it seems pointless to get frustrated with people voicing dissenting opinions as bringing them into the discussion _must_ have been the intent of the original post.
I know that some of you were or are also reefkeepers, has anyone addressed Xue's point about community fishkeeping? did/do you all take the same measures to avoid mixing species from different geographical areas of the ocean or different bodies of freshwater? If not, why? Surely the risk of a novel pathogen escaping into the environment from mixed community fishtanks is far greater as often water from changes is poured straight down the drain. 
Mixing species of fish from all around the world has been going on for hundreds of years at a scale that dwarfs the tiny niche hobby of keeping dart frogs, which novel pathogens emerged as a result of this?
I'm not arguing in favour of mixing species I'm just genuinely curious. 
Anyone who doubts that what Doug outlines is possible at all just needs to google 'novel pathogens zoos" to see that it's something which does occur but I still think there are simpler arguments that are more likely to actually convince people not to mix species though.


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Found some information about problematic fish pathogens actually but I'm still curious about problems arising specifically from the monumental scale of species mixing that occurs in the fishkeeping hobby.



> Pathogens capable of inciting disease pandemics are a major global worry. Just look at human concerns about antibiotic abuse and the occurrence of MRSA. Look at recent worries about Ebola outbreaks. Even look at the return of diseases that could easily be prevented in humans, were people not so blinkered and scientifically ill informed about vaccines. Disease pandemics are a major fear.
> 
> If you’re a newcomer to the hobby, then whatever you think you know about fish farming – forget it. If you have images of clinical facilities where each and every fish is treated like a newborn infant, then it’s back to the drawing board time. Farms are businesses, plain and simple. The goal is to get young fish out of adults as eggs, to hatch them, and to get them up to saleable juveniles as soon as possible, and that means that pretty much anything is on the cards to get them there. Antibiotics are used where necessary (and maybe even where not), and not just the kinds of antibiotics that you or I might have access to via a vet. Different countries have different laws about what can and can’t be used, and in some it’s a bit of a medicine free for all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

Johanovich said:


> Chytrid is indeed likely a naturally occuring fungus as far as we know, but there are some things to also take into account here:
> 
> African clawed frogs do not experience the same symptoms as most other frogs. Because they were traded across the world as pregnancy tests this likely caused the global spread, or at least had a massive impact on it. Similarly, the more recent spread in SE-Asia is currently thought to have originated from imported american bullfrogs, who are also not very affected by chytrid but do carry it.
> 
> ...


The mixing of animals in the amphibian and reptile hobby are very minimal as far as I have experienced, and again, the likeliness that we start something is not one that I think will happen. Our animals are contained in our homes for the most part, and they themselves are contained inside an enclosure with minimal handling, if any. 

If the premise of the conversation was that our hobby could potentially spread diseases then I think we would all agree that we can and possibly may have contributed. 

The introduction of non-native species to the local environment is a far more probability in my opinion, like the pythons in Florida and Asian Carp in the Mississippi here in the states. 

It's a different conversation.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Most people who keep/acquire fish, amphibians, reptiles are not hobbyists that think about pathogens, the future of the industry, or even the environment. 

They are casual enthusiasts who are drawn to the exotic appearance, and mythical low maintenance of herpetofauna. 

The internet is a study in itself - a psychodramatic Serengeti of paradoxical input/output. 

Many undescribed diseases outside the radar have occurred. Were these self limited by the isolative factor of singular ownership? 

A large % of ill herps that reach the treatment tables of exotics-treating practices are treated empirically, because of limited diagnostic equipments (in comparison to human medical facilities) unwillingness of client to spend money, and unknown, yet unstudied etiologies. 

The vast array of bodies compared to human medicine, who's doctors must learn Only One Model, is demanding of awe to the Veterinarian that endeavors to treat exotics patients.

The catch 22 of the propagation, wild collection, and distribution of living animals being an industry means the bigger it gets the more risk there is of biological mishap. 

Human actions are unlimited and impossible to control. I am truly, truly biting my tongue on this understatement.


----------



## Xue (Mar 2, 2020)

Here is another angle. 

Among other things, I do a lot of fishing. 

People often use bait from the ocean or other parts of the country/world and toss it in the local lake, for catfish especially. Sometimes they even use animals packaged as food for bait. Lots of Asian markets have wild caught fish and frogs, bugs, etc. packaged foods. I'm sure some of those end up in local bodies of waters and I'm sure if any diseases were on them could have been deposited. 

I haven't done this specifically because I don't fish for catfish, but I have used packaged foods from Asia in the ocean. I've also used them to feed my aquarium fish, fresh and salt.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

I'm not sure what your angle is.

Please explain?


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Louis said:


> None of you have enough authority that anyone is just going to blindly accept whatever you say about best practices regardless of any "background in academia"


You're quoting me -- witheringly, or it at least comes off as such -- so I'll reply. 

That reference to my background was mentioned in order _only_ to establish that I have the experience necessary to speak knowledgeably about the comparison between "theorizing" (which I took to mean 'hypothesis formation') and "just a guess"; I thought that launching into a discussion of the scientific method would have fallen on deaf ears. I made no reference there to best practices. No one in this thread has made a 'best practices' argument from authority, as far as I recall, so your accusation is unjustified.

Nor is anyone requesting that someone accept anything "blindly"; I don't know why you'd make that claim, unless it were to be "hyperbolic". I linked to two sources that show the existence of novel pathogen formation through genetic transfer; if that's not enough evidence to show that such a mechanism exists, I don't know what would be. 

This fact (that such a mechanism exists) itself makes it unnecessary to search for examples in the ornamental fish industry. Maybe such examples are known, maybe they are not; it wouldn't prove anything about the current discussion either way. Doug's point was that it is a known mechanism, and that mixing species in captivity is a possible locus for that mixing to occur. *That's all.* The Covid-19 part was a _different argument_, "another way" (there's the marker for a shift in argument) -- a way that involves not genetic mixing but species-crossing.  This argument is relevant in a discussion of mixing species in vivs, which is I assume why he made that case here.

Also: maybe there are simpler arguments as to why not to mix species. I think there are, too (on a certain reading of 'simpler', anyway), but that does not diminish Doug's argument _in the least_. We are not here to learn only the simplest truths; we are here to learn all the truths. 

That specific background I mentioned: my Master's was in evolutionary theory (evolutionary moral psychology, specifically) and my minor field of study at the PhD level was the philosophy of science. If someone doesn't think that qualifies a person to (as I was doing up there, recall) make a distinction between scientific hypothesis formation and mere guessing (which actually is a completely non-contentious, middle-school-level claim), then I simply don't know what to say.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

I sense a hint of provocateur in your posts, Xue. 

I smell it sharply in your last.

Yes, people blithely use the world around them as their own table and toilet.

Thanks for the reminder, Xue.


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

I'm just fine with Xue and Louis posting that the risk is minimum, then defending their stance. Yes, that is exactly what this forum is for. I love it. No, not for the argument. Every time somebody posts, postive or negative, this thread gets top posted again for everybody to see. Every time somebody replies, positive or negative, The "replies" count goes up on the dendroboard home page. Every time the "replies" count goes up, The "views" count goes up. Every time both of these numbers climb, and thread gets top posted, this thread looks more and more interesting to visitors.

I already know that Xue won't change his stance. That doesn't matter. All that matters is that more and more people see this thread.
Plenty of people see the difference between science, and people's limited experience. It doesn't matter how limited or extensive one person's personal experience is. It doesn't matter what one person's opinion is. 
Are you ready for this one? It doesn't matter what my opinion is, and it doesn't matter what my experience is.
Science tells a story that cannot be refuted. So please, if you find this utterly ridiculous, keep posting!


In all seriousness, friends, if you have an acquaintance with the attitude, "whatever happens is gonna happen", STAY AWAY FROM THEM! Covid 19 is real, and the attitude that whatever is gonna happen, is gonna happen, is a good way to check yourself into a hospital!!
Stay safe, and stay smart.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Internet discussions are a mutation of discourse. There are integral elements missing, and an 'audience' peer factor added.

If you present an item that strikes a note of veracity, that causes the 'original doubter' to question their own position, it will, because of the audience factor and human ego, instigate even more heel grinding and defense of premise, even as they read information that they didnt have exposure to before, that privately makes them realize they are wrong.


So its good this is here. 

Mechanisms exist. Being responsible means letting that be enough to influence your behaviors. 

The world and its life do not belong to your wants.


----------



## Dr. Manhattan (Oct 28, 2016)

Damn, does this mean I shouldn't have different species of rainbow fish from Australia and New Guinea mixed together ?


----------



## Dr. Manhattan (Oct 28, 2016)

https://www.insider.com/orangutans-and-otters-are-best-friends-at-belgium-zoo-2020-4

While we're on the subject.......


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

What's your point?

There are many zoos that dont even allow other than designated primate keepers anywhere near great apes, their night houses or prep rooms.

This zoo has decided to enable interface of otters and orangutans, as a part of mental enrichment. It is also attractive from a visitors draw standpoint.

But many zoos would go in a different direction. Animals that come in contact with their own waste matter per vehicle of water situ can pose an infectious risk.

This particular zoo has decided or has otherwise taken some measure, to allow interaction.

It is probably very entertaining for the orangs. And same here in the thread. 

You've proven no point by adding it, but it did make me smile.


----------



## Johanovich (Jan 23, 2017)

Kmc said:


> What's your point?
> 
> There are many zoos that dont even allow other than designated primate keepers anywhere near great apes, their night houses or prep rooms.
> 
> ...



This particular zoo is often frowned upon by most other zoos in Belgium. 

It does not particularly care for conservation based breeding programs and it still allows people to feed the animals (leading for example to massively obese ring-tailed makis because they get cookies etc from people). The reason it gets to do this kind of stuff is because it is privately owned and goes more for the sensation based entertainment for attracting more visitors.


----------



## Apoplast (Mar 17, 2020)

This has been a most interesting discussion thread! Thanks Pumilo for initiating it! The timing and format of the discussion was, of course, very likely to engender a response. I do fear it's blurred the gradients in viral transmission a bit. Mixing species in an enclosure, whether it be frogs or tropical fish is most likely (note: here I am using "likely" as a vernacular statement relating to probability) to wipe out your charges, and far less likely to create a global pandemic in novel lineages. Not impossible of course. At the scale of loss from a single keeper, it may well be that this does happen on the regular with tropical fish. We are in no way setup to track and uncover that in the millions of fish keepers around the world. Same would apply to herps, fwiw. 

Creating a global pandemic in humans... Well that, interestingly is the exact same process from the stand point of a virus. You have to clear some hurdles, but the process is the same. You need to be able to get into a new species; that is access. You need to able to evade the immune response (immune responses vary wildly across the tree of life). You need to be able to replicate within the new host. But that of course is the sing point jump, which may happen far more often than we are comfortable thinking about. The last hurdle is that you need to be able to spread between your new hosts. Once you've cleared that, you are free to access a new resource, whether that is sweeping through a hobbyist's collection, or across the sea of humanity that spans the globe.

Engaging ways to think about this form the propensity for wildlife to human end:

https://ensia.com/features/covid-19-coronavirus-biodiversity-planetary-health-zoonoses/

If you prefer a film here is one from some friends of mine:
https://www.pbs.org/spillover-zika-ebola-beyond/watch-videos/


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Dr. Manhattan said:


> Damn, does this mean I shouldn't have different species of rainbow fish from Australia and New Guinea mixed together ?


I'm not in favour of mixing species in vivariums but I'm still genuinely curious about this 



Louis said:


> I know that some of you were or are also reefkeepers, has anyone addressed Xue's point about community fishkeeping? did/do you all take the same measures to avoid mixing species from different geographical areas of the ocean or different bodies of freshwater? If not, why? Surely the risk of a novel pathogen escaping into the environment from mixed community fishtanks is far greater as water from changes are often poured straight down the drain.


I've never seen mixing species discussed in the same way on reef or aquarium forums and I know that Pumilio for example was a reefkeeper and coral farmer. Presumably he never kept any community aquariums, never bought or sold any live rock, strictly isolated species from different areas and sterlisied all of the waste water generated before disposing of it but I really want to know if there's a reason why this potentially isn't as much of a concern for fishkeepers or if it's just something that's overlooked given that people have grown used to keeping community aquariums for hundreds of years without, as far as I'm aware, creating any novel pathogens. As of 2012 in the US there were an estimated



> 73 million homes with more than 151.1 million freshwater and 8.61 million saltwater fishes. During the past decade, fishes were one of the fastest growing categories of pets in the U.S., increasing in ownership by more than 20% over the previous decade [1]. Ornamental fishes sold in the country are both bred domestically and imported from abroad [2], [3]. More than 90% of live non-domesticated wildlife imported to the U.S. during the period 2000–2006 was freshwater and marine ornamental fishes, originating largely from Southeast Asia, and totaling ∼1.1 billion individuals. On average, ∼18 thousand shipments and ∼187 million live aquarium fishes were imported annually, 99% of which were intended for commercial sale in the pet industry.


In terms of scale and risk keeping dart frogs seems almost insignificant in comparison and as Pumilio was involved in this trade I'm sure he must have previously addressed this issue.
I am *not* advocating for mixing species of amphibian. don't mix species. I am genuinely interested in seeing this point addressed though if someone has any specific knowledge.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Do you even know what a novel pathogen is?

Do you think that we are aware of all novel pathogens that affect organisms, whether thru anthropogenic action or otherwise?

My friend, a reef keeper, developed a severe and incurable fungus in the bed of his nails. Doctors agreed that it was likely acquired from his work but could not identify it.

How many fish and other animals die without diagnostic identification in the least, in private and professional format.

Do you think a pathogen has to make CNN, or come to light in "your awareness" in order to exist?


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Louis said:


> Presumably he never kept any community aquariums, never bought or sold any live rock, strictly isolated species from different areas and sterlisied all of the waste water generated before disposing of it


A more realistic presumption is that people tend to do what is generally accepted, until they gain information to suggest that they ought to change their practices.

On the aquarium pathogen issue:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-019-0461-5


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Kmc said:


> Do you even know what a novel pathogen is?


I understand it to mean a previously unidentified pathogen or one that has gained new functions through natural evolution or human intervention.



> Do you think that we are aware of all novel pathogens that affect organisms, whether thru anthropogenic action or otherwise?


I assume this is sarcasm but no I don't imagine we are aware of all the novel pathogens that affect organisms.



> My friend, a reef keeper, developed a severe and incurable fungus in the bed of his nails. Doctors agreed that it was likely acquired from his work but could not identify it.


Interesting anecdote but I'm not sure what conclusions you want me to draw from it in the absence of further information. You could aquire a fungal nail bed infection just by virtue of having wet hands more often from working with water, did they publish any research relating to this new, unidentified and _incurable_ human pathogen or did he in fact just have a bad case of nail fungus which is famously difficult to cure and not solely caused by any single known species of fungi? It's almost unimaginable this wouldn't have been the subject of published research unless you are dramatically overstating the case but this kind of research would be _exactly_ what I'm looking for.




> How many fish and other animals die without diagnostic identification in the least, in private and professional format.


the vast majority I would imagine.



> Do you think a pathogen has to make CNN, or come to light in "your awareness" in order to exist?


No, did I say something that implied I did? 

Once again, I am not advocating for mixing species, what I'm pointing out is that it occurs on a scale in the ornamental fish industry against which the number of amphibians being kept by hobbyists pales into insignifance.
I imagine that strong evidence for this resulting in the creation of novel pathogens might exist as far more research is and has been conducted in the field of fishkeeping due to the scale of the industry.
I'm also curious whether the people here warning of the dangers of mixing species of amphibians had, or have, the same degree of concern about mixing species of fish/coral from different areas of the globe and what precautions they took/are taking against the creation of a novel pathogen in mixed species fish tanks from which it also seems far more likely to escape 'into the wild'. I'd also like to know if there's any reason to believe that the creation of a novel pathogen is less likely to occur this way than through mixing reptile and amphibian species that I'm not aware of. For example I had no idea why captive dart frogs might actually be more susceptible to pathogens in general than some other amphibians or their wild counterparts until I queried this on here just a few days ago and someone linked me to a fascinating study on exactly why this might be the case. It's not a trick question, I'm just engaging with the discussion and I don't think that hostile or defensive responses to these kind of inquiries is productive but please *don't take my word for it*. I'm a member of the 'rare miniature terrarium plants' facebook group, from there facebook often tries to direct me to a closed 'mixed species terrarium and vivarium' group that describes itself like so:



> I have set this group up for a number of reasons *the main one being that there are a number of people like myself who have mixed species tanks but there are a lot of people who would like one however are generally bullied when they ask the question.*


If you refuse to engage with people asking questions in this kind of thread or just respond in a hostile and sarcastic manner people just retreat into echo chambers where you lose the opportunity for productive intervention in ill informed bad ideas


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Thanks for the link socratic monologue I'm reading it now.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Louis said:


> Thanks for the link socratic monologue I'm reading it now.


Hopefully it is the final nail in this horse's coffin.


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Hopefully it is the final nail in this horse's coffin.


I genuinely don't understand what's so offensive about my posts in this thread? 
What's the problem in exploring and elaborating on the basic premise of the thread? 
I really think some of you are attributing a motive to my posts that just simply doesn't exist.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

My friend had a fungal infection in the bed of his nails that resulted from his work in the aquaria industry. It was clear enough to specialists to warrant compensation. 

All of his Doctors agreed, and had never seen the type he presented in any other case. 


Not to nit pick but referring to novel pathogens as being "created" is misleading.

Also, not everyone goes for community tanks anymore.

At the last place I worked we encouraged mono schools of same fish, special emphasis on tetra species. 

People respond to good ideas. 

It is also striking to see, beautiful in a way community tanks are not.


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Kmc said:


> My friend had a fungal infection in the bed of his nails that resulted from his work in the aquaria industry. It was clear enough to specialists to warrant compensation.
> 
> All of his Doctors agreed, and had never seen the type he presented in any other case.


Look you're not going to believe this no matter what I say but here it is anyway.
The reason I'm not ready to assume this is relevant to this particular question without much more evidence is that I work at sea and a member of my crew contracted a severe fungal nail infection, that reached the nailbed, and was totally unresponsive to common treatments.
Medical insurance and lucky circumstances allowed him to visit supposedly one of the most published and cited experts on toenail fungus in the world (self proclaimed but no real reason to doubt it) based in Cannes who similarly attributed the infection to his job based on the fact that his feet were often exposed to water. They similarly didn't identify the specific species causing the problem, not because it was necessarily a novel pathogen but simply because there are SO many species and genera that cause the same symtpoms and there wasn't much to be gained by taking the measures necessary to identify it as medical insurance rarely if ever covers the cost of the lab cultures and testing necessary to do so because the _treatments available would be the same regardless of species_.
In the end it was cured with turbinafine hydrachloride and laser therapy. That doctor specifically told us that contrary to common assumptions he has rarely ever found that different individuals presenting symptoms of nail fungus are infected with the same pathogen.
What I suspect is that your friend would likely have contracted the disease even had all the tanks he was working with not contained any fish. Water is the common factor to both these and most other diagnosis of toenail fungus.
If he genuinely had a new and incurable zoonotic fungal infection I would be very interested to hear more and I'm totally confident he would have been subject to further research.



> Not to nit pick but referring to novel pathogens as being "created" is misleading.


This seems pretty relevant to the "let's creat a novel pathogen" part of the thread title.
Anyway this is why I refered to 'gain of function' in my previous post.
Here's some reporting on a 'novel' coronavirus created through gain of function research https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502?archived_content=9BmGYHLCH6vLGNdd9YzYFAqV8S3Xw3L5 **this is unrelated to the current covid 19 outbreak, I am not engaging in conspiracy theories, nor am I claiming this virus was "created from scratch" or particularly relevant to this thread, I'm only posting it for interest and to clarify what I mean by gain of function or novel pathogens being 'created' through human intervention**



> Also, not everyone goes for community tanks anymore.
> 
> At the last place I worked we encouraged mono schools of same fish, special emphasis on tetra species.
> 
> ...


That's admirable and biotope or species only tanks can be absolutely fantastic, but I stand by the fact that the overwhelming majority of household aquariums, reef or freshwater, are still what would best be described as 'community tanks' and I'd bet that many of your customers disregarded the advice.


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Louis, it is possible for people to grow, mature, learn more about their world and charges, and do their best to create a better life for them. I was a much younger man when I did my coral farm. I was farming corals before I was in the frog hobby. 
My first time through the frog hobby, the internet was not what it is today. There was no dendroboard. There were no books or magazines on frogkeeping and how to do right by your animals. Nobody talked to me about how viruses and bacteria swap dna as readily as they do. Still, I never did a mixed frog vivarium because of all the other reasons that have been discussed many times over the years.
Many years later, years in which I matured, learned that I did not know everything, and discovered the wealth of information on the internet, I entered the frog hobby again. At first, I just sat back and learned. Eventually, I met the best friend I've never met, Ed. I've learned a lot from Ed. I like how he often just drops a hint, and makes you go and research things for yourself. 

Anyway, Louis, you don't have to get ridiculous about it. You could simply ask me. 
Yes, I sold live rock...kind of. I made my own live rock from Portland cement and oyster shell. Eventually, I learned to make strong and beautiful sculptures. It does take a long time to cure before you can even start to grow coraline algae to grow on it. Aside from when I sold my used systems when I closed down my farm, I never, never, sold a piece of live rock other than the live rock I made myself.
No, I did not mix corals or fish from different oceans, but yes, I did mix corals and fish from different collection areas.
I read every reefkeeping book I could get my hands on, but no, nobody ever taught me the importance of sterilizing waste water. 
Again, you could have done this without being juvenile and making accusations. I am proud of the work I did towards making changes in the reefkeeping hobby. Frankly, it pisses me off more than a little for you to try and use my coral reef conservation efforts to discredit me. I was the first commercial coral farmer in Colorado. I taught anybody who would listen, all I could about the plight of the reefs. I taught anyone who wanted to learn, how propagate coral, how to make their own "live" rock. Colorado has become a coral farming mecca. We now have a lot of great coral farmers in Colorado, and I helped to build that scene. I won't hide from my past, I'm proud of it. I learn from it, and anybody who cares to, can learn from it, too.

Seriously? "Hey everyone, Doug used to farm live coral, allowing many thousands of corals to stay at home on the reef! Doug used to push coral reef conservation every time he got a chance! He was a...a CONSERVATIONIST (gasp!) that didn't know everything in the world!" 

Louis, it is possible for people to grow, mature, learn more about their world and charges, and do their best to create a better life for them. 

Next time just ask.


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Pumilo said:


> Anyway, Louis, you don't have to get ridiculous about it. You could simply ask me.





> Next time just ask.


Doug, I'm not trying to discredit you and I salute your efforts to protect corals from being harvested in the wild I really do.
I think your arguments against mixing would be enhanced by mentioning these things and highlighting the fact that it's something you engaged in yourself at one point and that you therefore understand why it's an appealing idea to some people, before coming to a better understanding of the risks involved.
As far as just asking goes, here's me "just asking" on page one of this thread in a post I know you definitely read because you referred to it when you said "If Louis and Xou..."


Louis said:


> I know that some of you were or are also reefkeepers, has anyone addressed Xue's point about community fishkeeping? did/do you all take the same measures to avoid mixing species from different geographical areas of the ocean or different bodies of freshwater? If not, why? Surely the risk of a novel pathogen escaping into the environment from mixed community fishtanks is far greater as often water from changes is poured straight down the drain.


Thank you for taking the time to answer in full.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Louis said:


> I genuinely don't understand what's so offensive about my posts in this thread?
> What's the problem in exploring and elaborating on the basic premise of the thread?
> I really think some of you are attributing a motive to my posts that just simply doesn't exist.


Possibly many of us are misunderstanding you. You often come off as very passive aggressive, and that's what motivates many of the hostile responses you get.

Once in a while you post something that is outright contemptuous, and that sticks in peoples' minds for a long time, and colors their future treatment of you:

https://www.dendroboard.com/forum/f...-fruit-fly-culturing-cabinet.html#post3085880

If you make a habit of claiming that DB sucks, and FB is much better, folks here are not going to be motivated to interpret your posts at all charitably.

This is intended kindly, to be clear. I don't want to offend anyone; I just want to answer your question.


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Louis said:


> As far as just asking goes, here's me "just asking" on page one of this thread in a post I know you definitely read because you referred to it when you said "If Louis and Xou..."


My apologies for not answering the first time. I do my best to avoid outright arguing anymore. My stress and anxiety can't handle it. I do like to help when people want to learn. In the second paragraph of the post you are referring to, I made a quick call that you were here to argue.


----------



## Louis (Apr 23, 2014)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Possibly many of us are misunderstanding you. You often come off as very passive aggressive, and that's what motivates many of the hostile responses you get.
> 
> Once in a while you post something that is outright contemptuous, and that sticks in peoples' minds for a long time, and colors their future treatment of you:
> 
> ...


I take your point but I have to highlight that nowhere, ever, have I said that DB sucks and FB is much better, or even that facebook is better at all - you are literally confusing me with somebody else. Within this very thread I've highlighted the problem of people being driven into echo chambers on facebook. 
I can't comment as far as generally being passive aggressive goes, maybe I am and maybe I'm not, it's not something I've been accused of before but I'll take it into consideration although I don't think a review of my posting history would reveal it be passive aggressive.
As far as that particular post goes that's 'colouring' your treatment of me, I can admit that I could have phrased it much more delicately and maybe that wasn't the right place to make the point but I'm afraid I did and do think that it's a valid point. 
As a point of principle I tend to focus on what someone has posted rather than who has posted it so I hadn't connected it with you or anyone elses responses to what I've said since but I appreciate the explanation.


----------



## Ravage (Feb 5, 2016)

I can't believe I missed this spirited conversation until now!



Pumilo said:


> Once Upon a Time, the dreaded frog plague known as Chytrid, was theorized to have been created by accident, possibly within our very own frog Hobby, by keeping inappropriate animals together.


_Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis_, which we tend to refer to as cythrid is one of thousands of cythrid fungi. Cythrids live off of, digest; chitin, as do the _Cordyceps_ and _Beavaria_ fungi. Amphibians have chitin in their lips and, to some extent their skin generally. The source of the Amphibian cythrid is now known: Human food Amphibian farms in the Korean peninsula. It mutated on farms and was distributed to gourmands around the world. A "perfect storm" in the realm of pathology. This industry is of an exponential scale beyond that of hobby frogs.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6389/621.full

That being said, it COULD'VE happened just as Pumilo hypothesized. Human actions definitely led to the mutations that gave rise to the pathogenic strain of _Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis_. And we know that it has been transmitted to captive hobby frogs by the practices of some in the hobby. (I remember some kerfluffles in the past, and the resultant accusations, but it's all second-hand to me, so I won't go into them) I also agree that there are lots of other good reasons not to mix and match species. And I agree with Ian Malcolm as well. Life finds a way, to its advantage and not necessarily ours. Just because we have played with kerosene and fire for years, and have yet to burn ourselves to the ground, is no guarantee that our next bonfire will not be our last.


----------



## Dr. Manhattan (Oct 28, 2016)

Ok so orangutans and otters in the same enclosure is fine but let's say swordtails and platies arent ? I get not mixing dart frogs, or any other delicate vivarium animals. I think most of us on here are not dumb enough ( I hope ) to mix different species requiring different environmental parameters, size differences, predator/prey relationships etc. Same goes with fish, fresh or salt. I'm not going stick a Cynotilapia afra in with a school of cardinal tetras in a blackwater tank. But I see no problem with a blackwater biotope tank consisting of the aforementioned cardinal tetras, some discrossus cichlids, apistogrammas, etc.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Dr. Manhattan said:


> But I see no problem with a blackwater biotope tank consisting of the aforementioned cardinal tetras, some discrossus cichlids, apistogrammas, etc.


Well, since the genetic mixing discussion is focused on mixing pathogens from different regions, that example isn't very relevant. But if you put a kribensis in there, then yes, the biological facts about the dangers of mixing pathogens apply.

The aquarium fish analogy only goes so far, though, since fish from all regions have been mixed at a couple points along the chain of custody (at the wholesaler in the US, and at the retailer, at least) before they reach the final purchaser.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Louis said:


> I take your point but I have to highlight that nowhere, ever, have I said that DB sucks and FB is much better, or even that facebook is better at all - you are literally confusing me with somebody else.


Louis, I think the current spat is winding down, and I'm glad of that, and I don't want to be seen as drawing it out. I _do_ want to point out what made me say what I did, and that I'm not confusing you with someone else, because I do not want to treat anyone unfairly, and I want to clarify this publicly. 

The two -- both recent -- posts I had in mind were the one I linked earlier:



Louis said:


> Yeah, that and the pompous, verbose, sanctimonious sneering of 'experts' whenever anyone deviates from the established dendroboard dogma or tries to experiment with something new. I joined this board six years ago and lurked for years before that and I _completely_ understand why the the board is nowhere near as active as it used to be.
> Give it time and this board will just be the same handful of members sitting around sniffing each others farts and discussing how much better things were 'back in the day' before the 'McDonalds fast food drive thru lane' ruined everything.
> It wasn't always this way on here and the funniest thing is if you look at analogous forums for say, planted aquariums, the same thing doesn't happen. It's very unique to dendroboard.


And this one (turns out they were both in the same thread):



Louis said:


> I mostly come here to refer back to useful older threads and don't post much, if I'm looking for new information or fresh ideas I don't come to dendroboard.
> I'm probably much more aware of it because I participate in various other forums and facebook groups that just don't have the same problem.


This last quote is what I had in mind when I summarized as I did, and I still think my summary accurate. For those of us who really feel DB is a special place, that hurt a bit.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Ravage said:


> That being said, it COULD'VE happened just as Pumilo hypothesized. Human actions definitely led to the mutations that gave rise to the pathogenic strain of _Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis_.


According to the paper, it is still happening:

"To determine the extent to which the four main lineages of B. dendrobatidis have undergone recent genetic exchange, we used the site-by-site–based approach implemented in STRUCTURE (29). Although most isolates could be assigned unambiguously to one of the four main lineages, we identified three hybrid genotypes (Fig. 3B), including one previously reported hybrid (isolate CLFT024/2) (20), and discovered two newly identified hybrids of BdGPL and BdCAPE in South Africa. Furthermore, BdCH (isolate 0739) appears to be a chimera of multiple lineages that may represent unsampled genomic diversity residing in East Asia, rather than true hybridization. These hybrid genomes demonstrate that *B. dendrobatidis is continuing to exchange haplotypes among lineages when they interact after continental invasions, generating novel genomic diversity*."


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Socratic Monologue said:


> According to the paper, it is still happening:
> 
> "To determine the extent to which the four main lineages of B. dendrobatidis have undergone recent genetic exchange, we used the site-by-site–based approach implemented in STRUCTURE (29). Although most isolates could be assigned unambiguously to one of the four main lineages, we identified three hybrid genotypes (Fig. 3B), including one previously reported hybrid (isolate CLFT024/2) (20), and discovered two newly identified hybrids of BdGPL and BdCAPE in South Africa. Furthermore, BdCH (isolate 0739) appears to be a chimera of multiple lineages that may represent unsampled genomic diversity residing in East Asia, rather than true hybridization. These hybrid genomes demonstrate that *B. dendrobatidis is continuing to exchange haplotypes among lineages when they interact after continental invasions, generating novel genomic diversity*."


Four main lineages...that brings back memories from years ago. I'm about 95% sure that is the article I researched back then. Thank you, good sir.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Pumilo said:


> Four main lineages...that brings back memories from years ago. I'm about 95% sure that is the article I researched back then. Thank you, good sir.


Thanks to Ravage, for linking the paper!


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Thanks Ravage!


----------



## Dr. Manhattan (Oct 28, 2016)

One thing I definitely do, and I'm pretty sure most of us on here do the same is not use any of same buckets, untenils, container's between the different vivs/aquariums/paludariums that house our different species. For example I have different cricket "dusting" bins and long handled stainless steel tweezers for feeding. All can be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized once a week. I 100% fear something nasty jumping from my gray tree frog to my Mossy Frogs.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Hi Dr Manhattan, 

Hey not to change the subject (but why not!) I would love to hear about your keeping experience with your Mossy Frogs. 

I also like forceps feeding for many subjects. I like the control and input data. Just for informational, check out alligator forceps (Jorvets) Storz also has a model that is even thinner stemmed, these have actually served as an 'extension of my will' as a keeper in feeding. Its like being able to make a food item appear, stay well located, move just-so, and score a Take no matter how fey the subject, what type or easy to vanish into sub is used, etc, etc


----------



## Johanovich (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr. Manhattan said:


> Ok so orangutans and otters in the same enclosure is fine but let's say swordtails and platies arent ? I get not mixing dart frogs, or any other delicate vivarium animals. I think most of us on here are not dumb enough ( I hope ) to mix different species requiring different environmental parameters, size differences, predator/prey relationships etc. Same goes with fish, fresh or salt. I'm not going stick a Cynotilapia afra in with a school of cardinal tetras in a blackwater tank. But I see no problem with a blackwater biotope tank consisting of the aforementioned cardinal tetras, some discrossus cichlids, apistogrammas, etc.


Coming back to this post I actually think it is also not ok to put otters and orangutans in the same enclosure. I think this zoo took a pretty big risk but it happened to turn out ok. The orangutans might just as well have thrown the otters against the enclosure walls on their first encounter.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

I would have to agree. It was nice to see Orangs entertained and not sitting inertly, back turned to avoid the stares and clamor of the idiot crowds, but it isnt hygienic. Wet mustelids are not sanitary companions. Aquatic carnivores in contact with arboreal frugivores would not be every curators idea of a rational combination.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

I dont mean to be square but I would be concerned however admittedly those Our Gang otters look as fun as hell. 

I wish them all wellness, and everyone here as well.


----------



## Dr. Manhattan (Oct 28, 2016)

The orangutans and otters are very adorable on their own, playing together is just too much cuteness 🙂


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Ugh, just do what's best for the frogs. No one knows everything. Do some research. You'll find lots of examples of people who've tried mixing and have gotten bad results. Citing the reef hobby is a great example of why NOT to mix -- I've never IMAGINED such a high mortality in any pet hobby as there is in "reefing".

A lot of people are going to do whatever they want to do; screw the naysayers and the consequences.

Even though I feel like there's an ever smaller-growing number of us, I'm grateful that there's still people who are most concerned with the health and well being of the animals. Please never stop fighting for what's right.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Dredging this up because this thread is the most relevant place to link this article about fungal genetic recombination (cited in the article Ravage linked above, but oddly undiscussed in it).

To address these and related points:



Apoplast said:


> Mixing species in an enclosure, whether it be frogs or tropical fish is most likely (note: here I am using "likely" as a vernacular statement relating to probability) to wipe out your charges, and far less likely to create a global pandemic in novel lineages. Not impossible of course.





Johanovich said:


> Fungi do not work the same way as viruses (who can easily incorporate new genetic material into their own) but there is still al lot of potential for exchanging genetic material between strains/species.











Multiple emergences of genetically diverse amphibian-infecting chytrids include a globalized hypervirulent recombinant lineage


Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis ( Bd ) is a globally ubiquitous fungal infection that has emerged to become a primary driver of amphibian biodiversity loss. Despite widespread effort to understand the emergence of this panzootic, the origins of the infection, its patterns of global spread, and...




www.pnas.org





Excerpt (emphasis mine): "The origin of novel virulence in fungal species via recombination/ hybridization is a well-recognized pathway underpinning disease emergence for increasing numbers of plant and animal pathogens (1, 23). Genomic rearrangement between allopatric fungal lineages that have not evolved reproductive barriers is promoted when *anthropogenically mediated dispersal *increases the rate of lineage mixing. The resulting novel interlineage recombinants exhibit a diversity of virulence profiles, *some of which can initiate epidemics*; contemporary examples include *the evolution of hypervirulence* in the Vancouver Island outbreak of Cryptococcus gattii (24), and many novel aggressive plant pathogens that increasingly threaten global food security (25) as well as natural populations (26). 
We postulate that *the anthropogenic mixing of allopatric lineages of Bd has led to the generation of the hypervirulent BdGPL* via an ancestral meiosis, and that, as previously suggested (9), this lineage is undergoing further diversification by either mitotic or sexual recombination. We show that the global trade in amphibians is resulting in contact and cross-transmission of Bd among previously naive host species, resulting in intercontinental pathogen spread."


----------



## Gastrotheca (Sep 4, 2020)

I completely agree, Socratic Monologue.
Some just don't realize that mixing species for pleasure is a *huge* risk they shouldn't choose to take. Arguments for mixing species are sometimes as simple as "they live in the same locale", or "these animals habitate the same country". However, they do not know, or simply ignore, that these species likely do not live in the same level of the forest (canopy, understory, leaf litter, etc). Let alone live in the close quarters that are given in a vivarium. And, even if they do, they are forced into each others' "breathing" space. This poses a great danger because this becomes a breeding ground for new and evolving bacteria, pathogens, viruses, and fungi. 

Think of one certain animal like a key and lock combination. The key is not supposed to fit in a whole lot of different locks. It is not right or ethical. Think of what is more important, the _true_ safety and well-being of the animal, or a little bit of pleasure because of unnecessary interactions between two different species. Definitely the former choice. 

Simply understand:
These animals were made intricately; they were not made for adapting to the genes, DNA structure, and different pathogens/viruses of every animal they are cast into a situation with. 

Just my opinion tho 

Thanks for your time!

Gastrotheca
-------------------------------
Crested Gecko 0.2.0


----------

