# hawaii rant



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

i,m very curious to know why hybridizing is any diferent than breeding the hybrid auratus??

i do believe that hybrids between species/morphs should never happen. not with frogs, not with dogs and not with any other animal. however i also believe we shouldnt further breed a morph of frog that should have never happened! 

anyone else have any thoughts on this?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

sorry just noticed i said hybrid auratus  i ment hawaiian :lol:


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

Hawaiin auratus, were just Costa Rican auratus that were released there about 25 years ago, they have sinced taken on somewhat of a different color and are now a different established morph in the hobby, so they should not really be mixed or hybridized with any other morph. 

However, just because they are not originally from Hawaii, does not mean that the morph shoudl not be bred. This hobby is about conservation and we shoudl do just that.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Julio said:


> Hawaiin auratus, were just Costa Rican auratus that were released there about 25 years ago, they have sinced taken on somewhat of a different color and are now a different established morph in the hobby, so they should not really be mixed or hybridized with any other morph.


Actually, I believe the Hawaiian auratus were originally from Tobago. But yes, they are not a hybrid.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

Yes you are right, Tobago.


----------



## housevibe7 (Sep 24, 2006)

He stated later that he meant hawaiin not hybrid... and I think his point here is that if we should not breed hybrids because they are not "natural" then why should Hawaiin auratus be any different. They are introduced thus not originally there, so how is that any different from having hybrids bred (Not saying that I agree just stating what I think his post meant.)


----------



## TheDoc (Aug 8, 2007)

Julio said:


> Hawaiin auratus, were just Costa Rican auratus that were released there about 25 years ago, they have sinced taken on somewhat of a different color and are now a different established morph in the hobby, so they should not really be mixed or hybridized with any other morph.
> 
> However, just because they are not originally from Hawaii, does not mean that the morph shoudl not be bred. This hobby is about conservation and we shoudl do just that.


And they have been there alot longer then 25 years, they have been there since the 1930's. But yes more then likely from Tobago, or Taboguilla Island.


----------



## housevibe7 (Sep 24, 2006)

So I guess my question for you guys is how long does something introduced need to be where it is for it to be conservation worthy over "we need to get rid of this" when does introduced become considered "naturalized."


----------



## TheDoc (Aug 8, 2007)

The thing about Hawaiian auratus is, To my Knowledge there were never any other amphibians on the Islands before they were Introduced, They were brought there in an attempt to control insect populations( Mosquitos i beleive,)

From what i have read there pretty much restricted to the residential areas of Manoa valley, But they are not really found on the trails or outside the residential areas,In the forested areas at all. This is due to lack of breeding ground, which they find in the residential areas in trash, and in landscaped Broms.

I cant really comment on how long a species needs to be there to be considered Naturalised, But Hawaiian auratus are deffinately a seperate morph and should be treated as such in the hobby, In the hobby they deffinately have there place, As far as the island is concerned im not sure, but from what i read they dont really effect the island 2 much and they also are very limited in local.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

housevibe7 said:


> So I guess my question for you guys is how long does something introduced need to be where it is for it to be conservation worthy over "we need to get rid of this" when does introduced become considered "naturalized."


That certainly is the question, isn't it? I believe there are some people who don't consider dingos to be native to Australia (I believe they came over there about 3000 years ago with the native Polynesians).

I'd agree with TheDoc and would consider them a different morph in the hobby. Not to protect their genetic integrity since they're "artificial" but to protect the genetic integrity of the natural morphs. They may have been Tobago originally, but they've since gone a separate evolutionary path.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

> He stated later that he meant hawaiin not hybrid... and I think his point here is that if we should not breed hybrids because they are not "natural" then why should Hawaiin auratus be any different. They are introduced thus not originally there, so how is that any different from having hybrids bred (Not saying that I agree just stating what I think his post meant.)


thank you that is what i ment.

my answer is that if WE introduced it than it DOES NOT belong there. i guess it is ok to breed it in captivity(not hybridize) but i dont think it should be there. the reason i say captivity is fine is because its pretty amazing that it changed so much in less than a hundred years.

however, if lets say somehow a species like auratus floated to this island on a tree with some bromeliads and then became established there then that would be fine. 

how did they no that it wasnt gonna be another cane toad(australia problem) or bullfrog(western US problem) or even all the live stock on the galapagos. not to mention africanized honey bees.

also, are the wild ones in hawaii poisonous?

how about this question: lets say we decided to completly use the scientific name oophaga for egg feeders and in another 50 years or whatever these auratus NEEDED to feed there tads unfertilized eggs. would we then change it to O. auratus??


----------



## Ira (Jan 17, 2007)

back when they introduced these the cane toads hadnt become a problem in austrailia. Invasive species are a huge problem all over the world. look at salt ceaders in the american west, and rats on islands in alaska and elsewhere. Correct me if i am wrong but people really didnt realize how much damage these introduced species were doing untill the late 70s early 80s, and by then the damage was done.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

thedude said:


> how about this question: lets say we decided to completly use the scientific name oophaga for egg feeders and in another 50 years or whatever these auratus NEEDED to feed there tads unfertilized eggs. would we then change it to O. auratus??


No. There's more to scientific names than behavior. The egg eating behavior is very derived, but the scientific name Oophaga, to my knowledge, has morphological and genetic data behind it as well. Auratus is from the tinctorius complex and not the pumilio complex, thus if it did develop egg eating behavior, it may constitute changing the genus, but certainly not to the same as the current egg feeders.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

ira thats a very good point but it only further proves that we should be trying to get rid of the unatural species instead of breeding them :? 

i for one am tired of going to a pond expecting red legs, tree frogs, long toed and northwestern salamanders and finding bullfrogs! 

although bullfrogs actually do damage to the environment where as the auratus dont(as was said on this topic).


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

sorry forgot you replied to my other question.

well how do you think we wind up with so many diferant morphs/species/genus etc., etc.? becuase populations get isolated in diferent climates, zones and areas. the oophaga was just an example that everyone would recognize and hopefully not want. lets say it turned into the new genus zammywaferblahblahblahinicus(pretty good right?). then what would we do? would we actually leave it alone or put it in that genus? i guess im just finding diferant/harder/annoying ways to ask the same question as brought up earlier: how long does it take for an intro. species to be natural?

another point is if we do come up with a time frame that also means the same goes for all the thousand dog breeds we dont need and the livestock that is "domestic".


----------



## Neoviv (Nov 25, 2007)

Short answer:

A species is considered naturalized if it’s able to live and produce “offspring” in the wild outside its historical range. If a naturalized species has an adverse effect in its new environment, it then can be called an invasive species.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

They are not as concerned about these poison dart frogs...which are highly K-selected as they are about coqui frogs and greenhouse frogs. I can understand that.


----------



## TheDoc (Aug 8, 2007)

I personally beleive the hawaiian auratus is fine where it is and should be left alone, i have seen no studys or even mention personally that they are hurting any native populations of wildlife or plants, So for me yes they were introduced, but no they are not an invasive species,They are also pretty restricted to the manoa valley region.

As far as the hobby goes, i deffinately feel they have there place, Mine are rather bold compared to what i have heard about most other auratus species, they are also (more comonly in the past but still commonly) First frogs for many dart hobbyists, As i have stated they are a seperate morph from the other auratus morphs and should be treated as such, But they deffinately have there place, i dont see why it should be an issue to keep and breed them in captivity, Are we doing it to preserve the species? No. Because if they were erraticated from Oahu i doubt They would want them reintroduced. But theres nothing wrong with us enjoying them and raising them in captivity, If for nothing else to bring someone new into the hobby that may one day become a lifer.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I pretty much agree with David here except it wouldn't bother me a bit if they wiped these frogs out of Hawaii. And btw, the mosquitoes they were brought in to control were also introduced. And the mosquitoes introduced avian malaria which wiped all most of the native birds.

But back to the point. Like David said, not all introduced species are invasive and the D. auratus seem to have stayed put for a very long time and do not appear to be going anywhere. There are plenty of truly invasive species to worry about that I don't think it is a good use of resources to worry about fairly benign introductions. If we were going to worry about that, most of us would have to tear out our gardens.

As far as how long a species has to be someplace before it is worthy of conservation. My personal opinion is that it has to have been there long enough for the ecosystem to have co-evolved to its presence. In that case, removing the species then becomes more of a disturbance to the ecosystem than leaving it in place. Take horses in North America as an interesting example. They evolved here and then spread to Asia but later died out in North America. But during their absence, the ecosystem evolved to their absence. The meristems of native grasses moved higher on the grass which gives the grasses a competitive advantage. They could do this because the remaining grazers, bison, don't clip the grass as close to the ground as horses. So when horses were reintroduced by the Spanish, they killed a lot of grass because they were clipping the grasses below their meristems. Once you do that, the grass tiller is dead because it can't grow anymore. To this day we have to stock horses at a much lower rate than cattle (which are morphologically more similar to bison) or bison to prevent overgrazing and killing out the grasses which are adapted to bison and not horses. And that is why the government is caught in a Catch-22 between having wild and free roaming horses, and controlling their numbers to prevent resource depletion.

It's a very intersting question about the auratus and I'm glad Sarah set us straight there.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

i never said they were a problem in hawaii, there fine where they are. but it just bugs me when we introduce species in different places like that.

"As far as how long a species has to be someplace before it is worthy of conservation. My personal opinion is that it has to have been there long enough for the ecosystem to have co-evolved to its presence. In that case, removing the species then becomes more of a disturbance to the ecosystem than leaving it in place."

this made the best point so far. this is deffinetly the best answer you can give. thank you bbrock.

however, we should try to eliminate the invasive species and stop introducing more, even for the better. "life will find a way" haha, yes...i did just quote jurassic park :wink:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

thedude said:


> however, we should try to eliminate the invasive species and stop introducing more, even for the better. "life will find a way" haha, yes...i did just quote jurassic park :wink:


I agree. The key word here being "invasive" but even that can change. And we need to understand that we currently cannot predict what exotic species today, will be tomorrow's invasive species. And plants lead the list of harmful invasives in my book yet we have an economic system with very few checks on what plants can be introduced. Don't get me started on smooth brome.


----------



## housevibe7 (Sep 24, 2006)

The issue (that I see anyway, and not just with said auratus) is that what may be todays solution to a problem may possibly be tomorrow's problem. Its a snowball effect. One problem leads to other problems leads to other problems.

I guess this all comes around to my original statement of, yes I agree that in our hobby these frogs should be able to be enjoyed, but if something "unnatural" like these should be allowed to be enjoyed in the hobby purely for their personalities and ease of care, what is stopping people from having hybrids... In many cases they may have all of the same characteristics as the introduced auratus. So if a network like ASN exists, what is the moral objection to having hybrids, or introduced auratus, etc. Where does the delineation on what is ok to keep and what is not occur?


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

IMO the fact that these frogs have adapted and morphed to their surrondings without detrimental effects makes them natural enough. I actually find it disturbing that people talk in one sentance about conservation and preservation and in the next talking about not having a problem with eradication of these animals. Europeans were not native to north america does that mean all europeans in north america should be eradicated since they were introduced here? Of course not because we are people :roll: (no i dont belive humans should be treated any different than animals if you were wondering, it reamins true that as hard as humans try we are still not gods)The fact is they are there and they are not harming anyone or the environment. They have been there longer than almost all of us have been alive (if not all). So who really has the right to decide to commit genocide on them.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

"Europeans were not native to north america does that mean all europeans in north america should be eradicated since they were introduced here? Of course not because we are people Rolling Eyes (no i dont belive humans should be treated any different than animals if you were wondering, it reamins true that as hard as humans try we are still not gods)"

FINALLY! someone that agrees with me on that! everyone else believes this is an act of communism or something. i honestly think people are the worst thing that could have happened to this planet. were like a germ or weed. invasive.

to go with the plant thing, yes they are on the top. my dad owns 10 acres of forest and wetland(my backyard  ) and ive done the best i can to make sure it stays the best it can for the environment. 2 of my dads friends own another 10 and 15 acres each of the same forest and they do not care if i go in it. its great and we even have the endangered red-legged frog. but we have LOTS of sticker bushes(finally getting to my point) and i cant use anything to kill them(or it could effect the trees and wild flowers) so its a real pain in the a** to go out there once a week or more and use the ol' sword to chop them all down and dig them up.

but i think we can agree that if an introduced animal is established and not "invasive" then it can stay and it is fine. yes?


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

wow i so thought i was going to get flamed by everyone lol glad to see at least one person i agree completely with. My gf freaks out on me because we have a historic house so naturally we have field mice from time to time. I refuse to use any kind of trap that will harm them and i take them outside to the woods and release them. Her thing is that they are "trying to invade our home" my question to her is "Did you ever stop to think that just maby they and their family has lived here far longer than us?"


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Chano said:


> Europeans were not native to north america does that mean all europeans in north america should be eradicated since they were introduced here? Of course not because we are people :roll: (no i dont belive humans should be treated any different than animals if you were wondering, it reamins true that as hard as humans try we are still not gods)


Well, in a very indirect way I do think this. North American ecosystems have co-evolved with humans and humans were largely responsible for the abundance of biological resources the Europeans found when they arrived. So it isn't the presence of humans that is the problem, but rather our culture and land use practices are out of whack with the evolutionary history of the ecosystems. Fire is a prime example. Native Americans had a very different relationship with fire than Europeans so when Europeans came along and suddenly tried to stop fire, it created huge problems that we will be struggling with for a long time to come.



> The fact is they are there and they are not harming anyone or the environment. They have been there longer than almost all of us have been alive (if not all). So who really has the right to decide to commit genocide on them.


I think if you go back and read through prior posts, you won't see much opposition to this. The "they are not doing harm" is the important part. As was stated earlier, the majority of introduced species are not invasive. Only invasive species, by definition, are the ones "doing harm". So I'm fine with just leaving them alone. However, I also don't think any money or resources should be expended trying to protect non-native species because we have far greater environmental problems to address than wasting limited resources on protecting something that shouldn't be there in the first place.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

housevibe7 said:


> I guess this all comes around to my original statement of, yes I agree that in our hobby these frogs should be able to be enjoyed, but if something "unnatural" like these should be allowed to be enjoyed in the hobby purely for their personalities and ease of care, what is stopping people from having hybrids... In many cases they may have all of the same characteristics as the introduced auratus. So if a network like ASN exists, what is the moral objection to having hybrids, or introduced auratus, etc. Where does the delineation on what is ok to keep and what is not occur?


There are a couple parts to this that I see. The first is that it could be argued that the Hawaiian auratus are not really "unnatural". They are simply a natural morph of auratus living outside their native range. Given enough time, evolution will change that but for the time being, I doubt a captive Hawaiian auratus is any different from a captive Tabogan auratus.

But you bring up, I think, an important point regarding ASN. As you know, there are two broad objections to having hybrids in the hobby. The first is the potential muddying of wild genetics that seems to have already occured in some cases, and is well documented in other species. The second is that it changes the motives and character of the hobby community. Assuming that years from now when ASN has enough populations enrolled and under management, it actually does take away one of those issues because it establishes a system for maintaining the genetic integrity of wild type animals. That would mean that hybrids no longer threatened the wild type gene pools of captive amphibians and we could stop complaining about it. It doesn't address the character of the hobby issue but in my book, that is the lesser of the two issues.


----------



## rbrightstone (Apr 14, 2004)

A lot of the difference is wheather an animal is harmful to its environment, or disrupts or replaces a native animal. During the late 80's up until recently, gambusiei (spelling) were placed all over the country to eat mosiqito larve, and in doing so, replaced and wiped out many native fish that had evolved there to do the same thing, and of course the introduced fish would rather eat the young of the native animal than what it was intended to eat. This auratus had no compitetion, and thrived in a very limited area, but did not replace or out breed another animal. 

As far as dogs and food animals are concerned, none would long survive without their human caretakers. Dogs are all human created hybrids, and would very quickly revert back to a more wild type aniaml. And most farm animals are so far removed from their orginal roots as to be unidentifiable. We think we know the original birds used to breed domestic chickens, but we are unsure. The same can be said for cattle. The one animal that might survive would be pigs. Even though they no longer resemble their wild ancestors they are still more adaptable than most other domestic livestock.


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

bbrock said:


> However, I also don't think any money or resources should be expended trying to protect non-native species because we have far greater environmental problems to address than wasting limited resources on protecting something that shouldn't be there in the first place.


I agree completely and from what i understand (i could be wrong) this spiecies is doing pretty well and has seemed to find its balance all on its own. So our intervention is not necessary or even suggested by the scientific community.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

"we have far greater environmental problems to address than wasting limited resources on protecting something that shouldn't be there in the first place."

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CENTURY. i completly agree with you now, they should stay. but i also agree we shouldnt try to protect them. someone told me it was inhumane and wrong of me to feed the invasive bullfrog to various things that are supposed to be here. i think thats bullcrap cuz the stupid bullfrogs ate alot of the cool stuff in this lake down the street from my house(western pond turtles, red legged frogs, northwestern salamanders) luckily when they eat the NW salamanders they die 

to go with chanos house mice story, i once listened to the radio about a cultasack that went in and after everyone was in they started complaining about a cougar that was hanging around and they were affraid for there children...so the town had it killed. they knew the animal was there before hand and they moved in anyway. WHO DO YOU THINK OWNED THAT TERRITORY FIRST?? i thought this was so dumb. 

but yes i think we can agree that they are fine where they are. i would still never own them just because to me its kinda like we created them unintentually by putting them there. but thats my opinion and i dont see anything wrong with anyone else having them as long as theres no hybridizing.

but again does anyone know if there poisonous there too?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

rbrightstone said:


> As far as dogs and food animals are concerned, none would long survive without their human caretakers. Dogs are all human created hybrids, and would very quickly revert back to a more wild type aniaml.


More correctly, dogs are domesticated wolves that have been genetically altered through selective breeding. There is debate on whether humans domesticated wolves or wolves domesticated themselves. The prevailing hypothesis is that a subset of wolves became domesticated because they started hanging around human camps where a symbiosis evolved. Eventually they became a genetically different population from wild wolves.

Yes, Hawaiian auratus are toxic but they have a different toxin profile from their ancestral population. Do a search on Hawaiian auratus and you should be able to find a citation I posted not long ago.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

"Hawaiian auratus are still around.. not much demand for them though, as far as their toxicity.. there was a gentleman contact I had in Hawaii his full name eludes me but last name was Perriera or something like that... he was researching if these frogs had the toxicity levels of their cousins in Central and South America.. he did get some minor traces of toxins but was researching to see if it were an exact match to the skin toxins of native auratus.. I never got to meet up with him again and then he graduated college and I never heard from him again.. he did send me some copies of his studies and notes. I did go to the Hawaiian islands and found them quite numerous in 1991 even around or I should say especially around the local dumpsites... plenty of flies and bugs.. even saw tads in old tires, rusty cans.. also met up with some large Jackson's chameleons... which I believe are a pest on the islands as well.. Peter"


is this what your talking about?

if the toxins are completely different than would that mean the hawaii morph could possibly turn into(or already is) a sub-species? im most likely asking a dumb question. oh well.


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

I was curious about something. (Keep in mind that i would not do this but just something i was wondering about) Could one go to hawaii and say catch a pair of these frogs and bring them back legaly? Do they have protection currently? It is part of the US so i wouldnt think you would necessarily have to jump through all the hoops but i really have no idea. Again it is NOT something i would ever do just wondering. A part of why i am getting into this hobby has to do with the conservation of animals in the wild, so catching them and taking them from the wild would be counter productive IMO, so yes if your wondering all of my frogs will be CB and yes i know at one point the came from the wild. That, i can't do anything about but i can help try to make it not happen to more frogs that are in the wild.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

thedude said:


> if the toxins are completely different than would that mean the hawaii morph could possibly turn into(or already is) a sub-species? im most likely asking a dumb question. oh well.


This thread contains the citation for the toxin paper and I think also answers questions about collecting auratus in Hawaii. The paper formed part of the evidence that pdf aquire their toxins from food and added further evidence that they appear to be fairly flexible in the toxins they can store. Given enough time, the Hawaiian auratus will form a different subspecies and even a different species because they are genetically isolated and under a different set of selective pressures. But the fact they store different toxin profiles from their natural ancestors doesn't necessarily indicate a divergent evolutionary path. However, the make-up of toxins could certainly alter the selective advantage of their toxins and could influence the future course of evolution.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

in that case bbrock what if in 200 years this morph of auratus is its own species and is then "invasive"? do we still consider it to be ok there because it evolved there and didnt interfere with native species? or do we then remember it was introduced as a different species and then do something about it? by the way im just asking your opinion, i know you have no way of knowing what people will do years from now :wink:


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

thedude said:


> in that case bbrock what if in 200 years this morph of auratus is its own species and is then "invasive"? do we still consider it to be ok there because it evolved there and didnt interfere with native species? or do we then remember it was introduced as a different species and then do something about it? by the way im just asking your opinion, i know you have no way of knowing what people will do years from now :wink:


This is assuming of course we don't nuke ourselves and everthing else on the planet first


----------



## Chano (Oct 29, 2007)

bbrock said:


> This thread contains the citation for the toxin paper and I think also answers questions about collecting auratus in Hawaii.


I read back through and could not find it any chance someone could pm it to me or something?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Chano said:


> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> > This thread contains the citation for the toxin paper and I think also answers questions about collecting auratus in Hawaii.
> ...


Doh! It might help to actually provide the link to the thread I was referencing:

http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32749

Sorry about that.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

thedude said:


> in that case bbrock what if in 200 years this morph of auratus is its own species and is then "invasive"? do we still consider it to be ok there because it evolved there and didnt interfere with native species? or do we then remember it was introduced as a different species and then do something about it? by the way im just asking your opinion, i know you have no way of knowing what people will do years from now :wink:


Thanks for choosing 200 years so it is in the time frame that is the most difficult to make predictions for ;-) Basically though, we should be able to observe the animals now and make some predictions about their "invasibility". An invasive species is one that expands its range AND significantly alters ecosystem processes. Rabbits and cane toads in Australia are classic examples because they have no natural enemies in their new location and their populations have exploded with devastating consequences for native plants and wildlife. There is now evidence that the coqui frog in Hawaii is also altering the ecosystem through consumption of prey (not to mention the sounds of the night). What makes these species invasive is that they proliferate and spread much faster than the ecosystem can adapt to them. Given a few thousand years, defenses and natural enemies will evolve to counteract the invasives but many species may go extinct before that happens and the stability and productivity of the ecosystem will be shot until a new diversity evolves. From what I understand, D. auratus haven't displayed any of these tendencies and have tended to stay put in a small area the way the majority of exotic species do. Even if they do expand slowly, it looks like it will be at a rate that will easily be within the pace of evolution and natural selection to cope without radical changes in the ecosystem. This could change if environmental conditions suddenly change in Hawaii that benefits the auratus. But if that happens, the aurautus are the least of worries for the island fauna. More likely, auratus will simply incorporate into the ecosystem over time and blend with the natives (what few are left). A good example of this in North America is the Depford pink, a small plant species of Dianthus that was introduced several centuries ago. Many of us have probably seen them but didn't notice. They have spread across the continent and live in low densities in grasslands where they just blend in with native wildlflowers.

But none of this addresses the philosophical question of whether we should allow an exotic species to incorporate in a foreign land. My answer to that is that introductions of exotics is actually a natural process which happens, with, or without, humans. What I get bent out of shape over is the rate of human-caused introductions currently happening which far outstrips the rate of evolutionary processes to adapt. This leaves us with unstable, low diversity, unproductive ecosystems which do not support a growing human population either physically or spiritually.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

haha, amazing chano. we really do think the same way  



im not familiar with the coqui frog, was it introduced or is it a native species that is also invasive?
well what you say does make sence, but dont you think theres a difference in an animal expanding its territory and humans dropping a bunch off somewhere?

oh and by the way, the cane toad in ausrailia has a natural enemy. its some kind of snake i cant remember the name of and it is immune to the toads toxins. unfortunetly the snake is almost endangered and only occurs in a fraction of the cane toads range.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

thedude said:


> im not familiar with the coqui frog, was it introduced or is it a native species that is also invasive?
> 
> Yeah, they were recently introduced. They native to, and are the national symbol of, Puerto Rico and are celebrated and beloved there. But in Hawaii, they are out of control.
> 
> ...


[/quote:13ocnbjt]

I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. Is the snake venomous? I could see that being an impediment to promoting it as a biological control.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

ya that does make sence to leave it alone now that i know the facts and everyones opinion.

it is slightly venomous(what isnt in australia?) but what i heard is that it isnt to humans very much. they were gonna try introducing it to other parts a few years ago but i never heard about it again. by the way my reference is animal planet.


----------



## TheDoc (Aug 8, 2007)

I think a big reason Hawaiian auratus, havent spread like some other species is due to lack of breeding ground, They mainly breed in residential areas, in landscaped broms, buckets left with stagnant water, pop cans, things of that nature that man has made available, from what i have read you very seldom see them farther of the trails in the wooded areas, They mainly stick to the trails where trash deposits are found, and in the residential areas,
I have heard of occasional breeding happening in small ponds that deposit in the volcanic rock, but the majority of it happens as stated.


----------



## denfrogs (Dec 10, 2007)

its a morph because it was moved by man and adapted new color right
?, so what are the captive frog going to do in 15-20-30 years. as far as keeping them its like some one got a whole bunch and put them in there very own big huge island terrarium . i dont know just a thought.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

denfrogs said:


> its a morph because it was moved by man and adapted new color right
> ?, so what are the captive frog going to do in 15-20-30 years. as far as keeping them its like some one got a whole bunch and put them in there very own big huge island terrarium . i dont know just a thought.


I don't think the Hawaiian auratus look any different from the auratus on the island of Taboga where their ancestors came from. But I'm not aware of any studies to really quantify any morphological changes. Given enough time I would expect them to diverge from their ancestral population though.


----------



## TheDoc (Aug 8, 2007)

bbrock said:


> denfrogs said:
> 
> 
> > its a morph because it was moved by man and adapted new color right
> ...


Only differance i have seen is a more extreme variability in color and pattern, They range any where from black to bronze, and any where from a very dark green all the way to a goldish green, They also range from standard patterning , to very reticulated forms, and every where in between,

While the tobago morphs i have seen do tend to some variability, they dont quite take it to the extreme like the hawaiians do. 

While im sure geneticaly they are still pretty much one and the same, They should not be mixed in the hobby with tobago morphs (and im sure Brent would agree) I just wanted to make sure that point is clear.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

TheDoc said:


> While the tobago morphs i have seen do tend to some variability, they dont quite take it to the extreme like the hawaiians do.


But if this observation is based on captive animals, I would bet it is due to the captive population being founded from fewer animals (and thus only a subset of the genes found in the wild). A lot of Hawaiian auratus have been brought into captivity. I don't know how many individuals from Taboga founded the captive population.

One nit picky geography thing too. The islands of Tobago and Taboga are two different islands. Tobago is part of the Republic of Trinidad and I think it has a specie or two of Colestethus but no other dendrobatids (I could be wrong). I believe the Hawaiian auratus actually originate from Taboga which is part of Panama.


----------



## TheDoc (Aug 8, 2007)

very good point brent, Without seeing wild populations in person, i shouldnt really comment i guess, i should have stated that it is observations of captive animals. I have seen quite a few photos of hawaiian wild populations, but not enough Tobago island pics,

Another good point on the islands also, i have also heard/read that they could be from tobagoguilla sp? island also.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

is the reticulated hawaii auratus a different morph? ive heard that go both ways so i wasnt sure. thats also the only difference ive seen in the taboga auratus and the hawaiian but like brent said we cant tell till we c the wild taboga morphs.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

> I don't know how many individuals from Taboga founded the captive population.


206 in 1932 but they were split into two geographically isolated populations and i don't know the specific numbers of 'who went where.'
It is also possible that they are from Tabogilla island.




> is the reticulated hawaii auratus a different morph? ive heard that go both ways so i wasnt sure.


It is not a different 'morph' or even a different population on O'ahu. They happily mix with others on the island.
Animals on Taboga island can also be reticulated so it's not a unique hawaiian thing.

I hope this helps,
B


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

thedude said:


> is the reticulated hawaii auratus a different morph? ive heard that go both ways so i wasnt sure. thats also the only difference ive seen in the taboga auratus and the hawaiian but like brent said we cant tell till we c the wild taboga morphs.


The reticulated auratus are just a variation within the Hawaiian auratus population. Like blond hair, eye color, or blood type. It is discrete and not continuous thus people tend to put them in a different category. It is not more justified than only allowing people with blue eyes to breed with each other. I had a group of hawaiian auratus that produced reticulated froglets even though I had no reticulated adults.

From what I remember of Isla Taboga the auratus did not look like hawaiian auratus, though I only saw a couple and I have a limited amount of Hawaiian auratus I have seen (and never saw them in the wild)


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Note, however, that 'semi-reticulated' auratus do exist on O'ahu and appear to be a cross between a standard pattern and a full reticulated. I'm doing some breeding experiments but not enough to claim for sure that there are half-reticulated animals...


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

Just a few corrections. The auratus in Hawaii were introduced to Manoa valley in 1932. They originally believed it didn't work, so they tried another introduction a little later in Waihole Valley. Both introductions worked. I think it has never been clear as to if the original animals came from Taboga or Taboguilla. These are 2 small islands off the Pacific coast of Panama very close to the canal zone. The animals there as well as the Hawaiian auratus are very much like many of the auratus on the Pacific side of Panama and even Costa Rica. Esp. if you only look at the more "coastal" populations. In the Central American populations you can find some that are a little more this or a little more that, but they seem to be quite similar (at least in appearance). Every once in awhile you find a little pocket of animals that seem to be isolated. A good example is La Chorrera in Panama which is right on the mainland near the island of Taboga. Here is a group of auratus that is completely black. The tadpoles during metamorphosis have the typical pattern, but as frogs quickly loose their green coloration. 

The "reticulated" auratus was just a mutation/pattern that showed up in a certain part of Manoa valley. While I'm sure some mixing does go on, I think you should look at the population of the Manoa valley frogs as if it were a straight band and the frogs at any point will only mix with their closest neighbor. This is because they prefer the zone closest to the mountain. So even though they are in Manoa valley, they are not very common in the center (away from the mountains.) In the center, they seem to only occur in little pockets here and there. So for years (only in the area of a few blocks) would you find a female on a rare occasion with the "reticulated" pattern. I used to think it was sexed linked, until after maybe 5 or 6 years of looking, someone found a male. These were bred and the babies came out reticulated. I'm not sure what percentage came out reticulated, but I don't think it was a fixed mutation just from this first generation breeding. There was also always some variation in the amount of reticulation and I guess it varies on where you draw the line.
Most pictures of "reticulated" auratus I've seen online are not what I would call reticulated. A truly reticulated auratus is a beautiful mutation of a Hawaiian auratus, but that is all it is. As a side note, on the other side of the valley (a different point on the line) a handful of completely black auratus have popped up. These remind me of those black animals from La Chorrera. So it might be that the auratus here are doing the similar thing their relatives are doing back in C.A., just on a much smaller scale.

Sorry for such a long post. lol


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

"In the Central American populations you can find some that are a little more this or a little more that, but they seem to be quite similar (at least in appearance)"
Sorry, this isn't clear that I meant the populations on the Pacific side of Panama and Cost Rica


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

so the reticulated hawaiian is the same as the normal just like the "fine spot" azureus is the same as azureus. ok i get it.


thats kind of interesting that isolated populations are doing the same thing in both places when the climates are different.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ben_C said:


> > I don't know how many individuals from Taboga founded the captive population.
> 
> 
> 206 in 1932 but they were split into two geographically isolated populations and i don't know the specific numbers of 'who went where.'
> ...


I was actually wondering about the number of founders for our 'Taboga' line found in the hobby. If 206 frogs went from Taboga to Hawaii, then the Hawaiian population should, in theory, have been founded with close to a full compliment of alleles found on Taboga. If all of the 'Taboga' frogs in the hobby are descendents of only a couple pairs of animals collected from Taboga, then it is no surprise if the captive Hawaiians show more variability than the Tabogans.


----------



## nightlifecc (Mar 13, 2007)

Hawaiians were the PDF that brought me into the hobby a couple of years ago. I've been watching this thread progress and I've learned a great deal about their history so I'd like to say thanks to the contributors.

A question I've always wondered has been brought up a couple times in this thread and never answered (unless I just missed it): Are the Hawaiians poisonous in the wild?


----------



## jehitch (Jun 8, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Chano said:
> 
> 
> > Europeans were not native to north america does that mean all europeans in north america should be eradicated since they were introduced here? Of course not because we are people :roll: (no i dont belive humans should be treated any different than animals if you were wondering, it reamins true that as hard as humans try we are still not gods)
> ...


So, the North American ecosystem, after having co-evolved with the indo-Asian human morph, began to be damaged when the Western European human morph arrived and exhibited different behavior (culture) ... is that cultural difference between the two human morphs in any way analogous to the difference in behavior between egg-eating and non egg-eating species of frogs? Are we being "specist" to refer to learned behavior as "culture" when referring to humans, and simply "adaptation" when referring to other species?

Sorry, I just had to throw on OT wrench in ..


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

nightlife you did miss it, they are poisonous but have different toxins. we actually have almost a whole page of talking about that :wink: 

its pretty interesting, go back and read the articles brent posted.


and jehitch, we are the most self centered species on the planet :? humans seem to think that they are the best species. so to answer your question...yes :roll:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

jehitch said:


> So, the North American ecosystem, after having co-evolved with the indo-Asian human morph, began to be damaged when the Western European human morph arrived and exhibited different behavior (culture) ... is that cultural difference between the two human morphs in any way analogous to the difference in behavior between egg-eating and non egg-eating species of frogs? Are we being "specist" to refer to learned behavior as "culture" when referring to humans, and simply "adaptation" when referring to other species?
> 
> Sorry, I just had to throw on OT wrench in ..


It might be worth taking a look at the Wikipedia entry on culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture. While I don't think culture is limited to just humans, I don't think we can count the differences between egg feeders and non-egg feeders as a cultural difference. There are real differences in the biology and morphology of these species that has led them to adapt different reproductive strategies or vice versa. I don't think there is any evidence that egg feeding is a learned behavior and quite a bit to suggest it is a simple stimulus/response interaction that results in seemingly complex behavior. Whereas the differences between Europeans and Native Americans were less biologically and very much cultural.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

oops..haha i think i miss understood the question


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Whereas the differences between Europeans and Native Americans were less biologically and very much cultural.


A bit out of my field of expertise but wante dot make one (off topic) comment.

The cultures are different but they may have led to changes to the European population on the genetic level over time. It would explain why Europeans got the diseases they spread to the Native Americans but it had a different effect on them due to levels of "resistance."


----------



## nightlifecc (Mar 13, 2007)

thedude said:


> nightlife you did miss it, they are poisonous but have different toxins. we actually have almost a whole page of talking about that :wink:


Looking back I'm not sure how I missed it.  Thanks for pointing it out to me.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

no problem. so whats your take on all of this?


----------



## nightlifecc (Mar 13, 2007)

Although Hawaiian auratus were introduced by people, I don't see that to be the same as hybridizing. They have bred in the wild and this is what they became. 

I guess I'm of the opinion that regardless of how they got there, they have thrived and have not caused the problems some other species have when introduced to a foreign land. I believe that introducing new species is not a good idea and I expect that is the current common belief. That said, since they are there and doing well on their own, I see no reason to treat them any differently than any other wild population in the world. There's no reason to pretend they aren't there just because we brought them there.

I do understand your point and see where you're coming from but I guess I'm of a different opinion. I suppose on this subject the best you can hope for is someone's opinion, while neither side can be officially called wrong or right.


----------



## jehitch (Jun 8, 2007)

bbrock said:


> jehitch said:
> 
> 
> > (snip) ... is that cultural difference between the two human morphs in any way analogous to the difference in behavior between egg-eating and non egg-eating species of frogs? Are we being "specist" to refer to learned behavior as "culture" when referring to humans, and simply "adaptation" when referring to other species?
> ...


Poor choice of words from my non-scientific mind's attempts to congeal a thought too complex for my abilities to boil down to one statement: I probably should have used the phrase "naturally selected," as opposed to learned, as I meant "learned" in a species/evolutionary sense, not cognitively understood and passed on intentionally from generation to generation? 

I guess my question is, was the way Europeans responded toward fire versus native Americans really just cultural, or something much more visceral? I don't know if European man's fear of fire was something cognitively "learned," or just that Ugg the European cromagnon's instinct to put out fires provided his progeny some survival benefit that the Uggly the Asian cromagnon did not need, so his tribe didn't "learn" it? I assume egg-feeding must have had some survival benefit that started out as just a behavioral anomally, which eventually became the predominant behavior as they were more successful in that environment?

What we consider "culture" often seems to me as much about survival instincts as cognitive learning. Those whose instinctual predisposition to behave in ways we find "socially acceptable" (i.e. we see benefitting the continuation of our tribe) are benefitted with increased opportunities to pass on their genetic material, while those who have the predisposition to behave in ways we consider "socially unacceptable" are either incarcerated, or provided with economic disincentives, either of which discourages them passing on their genetic material.

Cultural flourishes such as music and poetry perhaps are just efforts by those of us lacking in physical strength or material wealth to find another way to convince females we are worthy of mating with them?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

actually nightlifecc, i changed my opinion early on in the topic. i guess you missed it  haha


----------



## nightlifecc (Mar 13, 2007)

Heh, I've got to stop reading long topics while I'm working. Aparently my retention is affected. From now on, nothing more than one page till my weekend...which starts in 5 hours! Woo hoo!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

jehitch said:


> I guess my question is, was the way Europeans responded toward fire versus native Americans really just cultural, or something much more visceral?


Sorry if this is too OT but I find it fascinating and at the root of why humans make the conservation value judgements we do.

I think the responses toward fire are purely cultural. The root is in how Europeans colonists differed in their views of our place in the world and ownership from most Native American cultures. First, Europeans typically come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds which tends to place human above, and apart from, other animals and nature. The whole concept of wilderness is a Judeo-Christian concept that is a counterpart to "civilization". In contrast, many Native American cultures view humans as relatives of other species and a part of, not apart from, the natural world. So while Europeans viewed wild areas as something to be subdued and altered to yield resources, Native Americans tended to see natural areas as the provider of resources that could be harvested. And then there was the concept of land ownership which was quite different between the cultures. Europeans parcel up the land into small pieces for individual ownership while Native Americans tend to view the land as something that is either communally owned (often including a sense of ownership by other species) or borrowed durig their time on earth. The extent to which they defended property rights whas typically limited to tribal territoriality for the rights to live, hunt, and cultivate the land. But these rights did not extend to individual parcel ownership.

These cultural difference have a profound impact on how we view fire. From the Native American perspective, fire was something that cleared underbrush to ease travel, and more importantly, improved forage conditions that attracted game - thus improving the bounty of the land they live from. Because the surrounding landscape was communally "owned", there were no issues of property rights when an area was burned. This meant there were no negative consequences of setting fires and just letting them burn. Even being careless with fire generally had positive outcomes. In contrast, individual ownership of land means a person has a right to choose if or when their property burns. So now there are very real consequences for letting a fire burn onto your neighbors land. In addition, land ownership means that a person's accumulated wealth is contained inside that person's land holdings. If a hut burns, you can't just move to your neighbor's land and build a new one. Crops, trees, and buildings all have value for building personal wealth so if a neighbor gets careless with fire and burns up your house or your forest, your personal wealth is affected.

From these basic cultural differences emerges an entirely different conservation paradigm. Now, wildlfire is generally considered a destroyer of things whereas under the culture of Native Americans, it was the regenerator of things. And now our culture of land and property ownership is so interwoven with our wild lands that even though we have learned the ecological consequences of fire suppression, it is a very difficult thing to reverse.


----------

