# Please Define a Hybrid PDF...



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

In the *fish* hobby, a hybrid is defined as a fish of one species mixing with another fish of a completely different species. 

Example: Poecilia wingei would be a hybrid Poecilia reticulata.

Mixing the same species of different 'Morphs' or locations is not a hybrid.

Example: Poecilia reticulata from Venezuala bred with the same species, but a different color pattern and fin shape from Trinidad, or other part of Central America would not be a hybrid.

SO....

What about in the Dart Frog world? 
Are hybrids completely different species? Are they mixed morphs? Both? 

I AM NOT mixing frogs of species or morph. I am simply tying to understand what the excepted definition of a hybrid is amongst hobbyist!


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

Check out this thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/67320-hybrid-question.html

It should answer your questions!


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

This is often confused. A hybrid is just that- a hybrid between two species. An example would be D. leucomelas x D. auratus. An outcross/ crossbreed is when two different types of the same species are bred together. An example would be D. tinctorius "azureus" x D. tinctorius "patricia". In the frog hobby, whether correct or not, many people just use "hybrid" as a blanket term to cover both crossing with two different species and with two populations of one species. Both are frowned upon with dart frogs.
Bryan


----------



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

I have been doing some research on location of many species and I am seeing some discrepancies. 

Often folks claim that these frogs are from different locals and have evolved and adapted to different habitats. However I am finding that many do in fact live in the same areas, with the same habitats, but are different morphs.

Couldn't it be possible that these morphs do in fact 'Cross' naturally?

Is it possible that what is generally excepted as same species morphs are actually different species?

I know this issue arises in the fish world often, where a fish is thought to be the same species as another, but is not (or vice versa)

The purpose if my questions are to find out why people are so passionately opinionated one way or another in this hobby, and to use facts to sift through the bogus, made up concerns and look at the true facts and real concerns concerning species and morphs.


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

EntoCraig said:


> I have been doing some research on location of many species and I am seeing some discrepancies.
> 
> Often folks claim that these frogs are from different locals and have evolved and adapted to different habitats. However I am finding that many do in fact live in the same areas, with the same habitats, but are different morphs.
> 
> ...


Most often the morphs are separated by some sort of geographical barrier, i.e. savannahs between forests (<-many tinc morphs), water bodies, mountain ranges etc.... a few thumbnails have some range overlap, and perhaps others (some ameerega possibly?), but a) those seem to be the exceptions to the rule, and b) crossbreeding & hybridization (and line breeding, on a side note) go against the hobby's goal of keeping these species going in captivity over the long term.

And no, if I'm not mistaken the current organization of species/morphs has phylogenetic evidence to back it up. For example, azureus used to be considered a separate species from tinctorius, but new findings led to its addition to the tinctorius complex.


----------



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

Thanks, I plan to do some more research and see if I can find more solid evidence of the potential overlapping morphs in nature.

Regarding your comment above: I'm not sure you, myself or anyone is qualified to speak on the behalf of the entire dart frog hobby. I agree that many hobbyists have that goal, and that is likely what you meant anyways  But I wouldnt say that the Hobby has any sort of goal other then a shared appreciation for Amphibians and tropical plants. This however is just as much an opinion as any...

If you haven't noticed I am a skeptic! I find that a lot of hobbyists, both in frogs, fish and plants, make claims based off of speculations, or a few things they read online. I really like to drill down into the hard facts to truly understand and appreciate the beauty of nature.

Your posts was helpful, tclipse, thank you!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

EntoCraig said:


> I have been doing some research on location of many species and I am seeing some discrepancies.
> 
> Often folks claim that these frogs are from different locals and have evolved and adapted to different habitats. However I am finding that many do in fact live in the same areas, with the same habitats, but are different morphs.
> 
> ...


I can only think of one group where different populations are found in relatively close proximity on a human scale and that is with O. pumilio. In general all of those populations are not connected (Bastimentos cemetary population is an excception). Living in the same general area is very different than actually having populations overlap. Even in pumilio, there are typically some form of barrier that prevents the populations from mingling.. (in ecological parlance, the area between the populations is known as a population sink), not all of these are identified in the literature or on a range map. When looking at a range map, you have to keep in mind that the animals are not evenly distributed across that landscape but are typically found in isolated pockets..... 

There are some animals that have been selected for by the hobby in the past, such as fine spotted azureus but the hobby has been trending away from them in recent years and the recommendation is that those frogs be bred back into the general population so appearence of those patterns returns to normal. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

EntoCraig said:


> Thanks, I plan to do some more research and see if I can find more solid evidence of the potential overlapping morphs in nature.
> 
> Regarding your comment above: I'm not sure you, myself or anyone is qualified to speak on the behalf of the entire dart frog hobby. I agree that many hobbyists have that goal, and that is likely what you meant anyways  But I wouldnt say that the Hobby has any sort of goal other then a shared appreciation for Amphibians and tropical plants. This however is just as much an opinion as any...
> 
> ...


Then you need to dig back in the literature, try google scholar, if you look hard enough you can find relevent articles like http://bnoonan.org/Papers/Noonan_Gaucher_06.pdf or pick up a copy of Poison Frogs by Lotters et al and read it. 
Ed


----------



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

Interesting.... thank you for your thoughts and info.

Is this idea that wild morphs should be kept as close to wild as possible derived from that fact that the region is unstable and habitats are threatened? Or are there other major factors that lead to this commonly accepted 'rule'.


----------



## swampfoxjjr (Nov 13, 2007)

What Ed, said.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

EntoCraig said:


> Interesting.... thank you for your thoughts and info.
> 
> Is this idea that wild morphs should be kept as close to wild as possible derived from that fact that the region is unstable and habitats are threatened? Or are there other major factors that lead to this commonly accepted 'rule'.


While there are threats to a number of species (habitat destruction, chytridmycosis, rana viruses, smuggling..) are all risks but there is also a good chance that a particular population of frogs will never be reimported so if we screw them up, there is no going back. Many of those who are active on forums are interested in the frogs and thier associated parental behaviors.. and once crossed, you can't go back. The goal is to not lose any of the morphs in the hobby. 

Ed


----------



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

Ed said:


> Then you need to dig back in the literature, try google scholar, if you look hard enough you can find relevent articles like http://bnoonan.org/Papers/Noonan_Gaucher_06.pdf or pick up a copy of Poison Frogs by Lotters et al and read it.
> Ed


THIS was exactly what I was hoping some of you could provide me! THANKS! 




Ed said:


> While there are threats to a number of species (habitat destruction, chytridmycosis, rana viruses, smuggling..) are all risks but there is also a good chance that a particular population of frogs will never be reimported so if we screw them up, there is no going back. Many of those who are active on forums are interested in the frogs and thier associated parental behaviors.. and once crossed, you can't go back. The goal is to not lose any of the morphs in the hobby.
> 
> Ed


Ed, Again, thank you. This is the information I have been seeking. It makes sense, it has facts, as well as opinion, moral/ethic factors to consider, etc.

You seem well versed in the hobby and I appreciate you and others taking the time to educate.


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

EntoCraig said:


> Thanks, I plan to do some more research and see if I can find more solid evidence of the potential overlapping morphs in nature.
> 
> Regarding your comment above: I'm not sure you, myself or anyone is qualified to speak on the behalf of the entire dart frog hobby. I agree that many hobbyists have that goal, and that is likely what you meant anyways  But I wouldnt say that the Hobby has any sort of goal other then a shared appreciation for Amphibians and tropical plants.
> 
> Your posts was helpful, tclipse, thank you!


Yes, I meant it as a general consensus between dedicated hobbyists both on and off this forum... as a general rule, the people who hybridize are doing it for their own personal pleasure and not for the well-being of the frogs or species (institutional experiments notwithstanding).

The shared appreciation of our frogs makes their long-term success in captivity a goal by default..... if it isn't a goal, we may eventually not have any frogs left to appreciate (not likely in our lifetimes, but I still want my great great grandkids to have a chance to appreciate them as well). The part where my opinion comes in is whether I would rather future generations see the frogs as they occur (or occurred, depending on which habitats humans have ruined by then) in nature, or see a veritable mish-mash of morphs to the point where one can't figure out what's natural and what's the product of some guy's basement.... personally, I'm with option A. 

Ed, I was referring to white-banded fantastica (though all I've seen is speculation and could have been caused by humans), and the (not thumbnails) wild intergrades of lehmanni x histrionica.


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

double post...


----------



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

Well said. This ideology behind frog preservation is becoming more clear...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tclipse said:


> Ed, I was referring to white-banded fantastica (though all I've seen is speculation and could have been caused by humans), and the (not thumbnails) wild intergrades of lehmanni x histrionica.


I'm going to withhold judgement on the oral paper as I would prefer to be able to look over the data after the peer reviewed process gets done with it.. in no small part as thier theory with aposomatic patterning and mimicry should not vary within a species despite a significant amount of evidence to the contrary with a number of dendrobatids (and other taxa). I would also be interested in seeing how long ago they postulate the two populations come into contact (if they do). There can be significant variations in how the dna comparisions come out based on which sequences are chosen as well as how many species are used for the comparision. As an example look at this thesis from 2006 https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/darstd08388/darstd08388.pdf in which new taxonomic relationships are presented... 

Ed


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

Ed said:


> I'm going to withhold judgement on the oral paper as I would prefer to be able to look over the data after the peer reviewed process gets done with it.. in no small part as thier theory with aposomatic patterning and mimicry should not vary within a species despite a significant amount of evidence to the contrary with a number of dendrobatids (and other taxa). I would also be interested in seeing how long ago they postulate the two populations come into contact (if they do). There can be significant variations in how the dna comparisions come out based on which sequences are chosen as well as how many species are used for the comparision. As an example look at this thesis from 2006 https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/darstd08388/darstd08388.pdf in which new taxonomic relationships are presented...
> 
> Ed


Good points, especially regarding when they think the hypothetical hybridization occured.. I'm particularly interested in the genetic findings, but I have no idea what "the analysis of microsatellite allele frequencies" is, so I'll just have to wait for a dumbed down version. Or, if they release it in spanish, an elementary school version.

There's also mention of imitator sympatry with a few other species in the piece by Chouteau et. al 2011 about Mullerian mimicry, but I might be taking "sympatry" too literally.


----------



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

Not to mention if a Hypothetical hybridization did occur at some point in time, that would have been nature being nature and not a man caused phenomenon. 

Hypothetical hybridization is a 'considered' theory on islands with hundreds of species of birds with the same or similar genus, though there is also evidence in many occasions that suggest evolution was the driving factor in change over time and not hybridization. 

These kinds of topics, and the data associated fascinate me.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

You are probably going to like these then 
Sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog

http://www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/rudh2007dendrobates .pdf

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/hoebel/www/PDF/ProehlHagemannKarschHoebel_2007.pdf

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/260.full.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1690338/pdf/10649631.pdf

Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog

The role of predator selection on polymorphic aposematic poison frogs


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tclipse said:


> There's also mention of imitator sympatry with a few other species in the piece by Chouteau et. al 2011 about Mullerian mimicry, but I might be taking "sympatry" too literally.


Sympatry just means that they are found in the same area... there isn't any evidence in the wild that hybridization is occuring (or if it does is viable in the wild). 

Ed


----------



## EntoCraig (May 17, 2011)

JACKPOT...

Looks like I have some reading for this weekend


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

Ed said:


> Sympatry just means that they are found in the same area... there isn't any evidence in the wild that hybridization is occuring (or if it does is viable in the wild).
> 
> Ed


Agreed, and I wasn't claiming that, I was just responding to-



Ed said:


> I can only think of one group where different populations are found in relatively close proximity on a human scale and that is with O. pumilio.


In fact, most of the definitions I've seen of sympatry either imply or state that interbreeding isn't occurring... (i.e.- "Occupying the same or overlapping geographic areas without interbreeding. Used of populations of closely related species.") 

As I don't have any concrete knowledge on the subject, I'm trying to make sense of what I've read..... I guess my question is: in the Chouteau/Summers paper, are they using 'sympatry' literally or in a broader sense? I've also seen a few anecdotes around about imitators being in/around the habitats of variabilis and ventrimaculatus, which would support the anti-hybridization argument even further since there isn't much (any) evidence of interbreeding.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

When I am referring to populations I am referring to within one species and was responding to this comment 


> Often folks claim that these frogs are from different locals and have evolved and adapted to different habitats. However I am finding that many do in fact live in the same areas, with the same habitats, but are different morphs.


When you are discussing sympatric animals you are generally referring to multiple species within the same region not different populations of the same species. 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Mimicry tends to only work well when the mimicking animals are found in the same area as the species that are being mimicked.


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

Ed said:


> When I am referring to populations I am referring to within one species
> 
> Ed



Ah I see, that makes sense.. and yeah, I'm familiar enough with mimicry to understand the 2nd comment, but thought it possible that the populations were separated after the adaptation had already developed (the thought that if certain events could cause a single species/morph to be patchily distributed, it might be possible with a species and its mimic without local predators getting wise). Thanks as always for the clarification


----------

