# Escudo de Varaguas relation in the pumilio complex



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It turns out Escudos are true pumilio by genetics testing but they are more closely related to the costa rican pumilio than they are the boca del toro group. Interesting stuff!



> As for Escudos, my data suggest that they are actually more closely related to Costa Rican pumilio than they are to the rest of the Bocas del Toro pumilio. They likely dispersed to the island from somewhere in SE CR. If there's a particular question that's come up, I could try to answer it if I know anything. I know people often talk about whether the Escudos are a different species or not. I can say that they appear to have been isolated on that island for a long time, but are not a separate species. I don't know much about the el dorados. I would conjecture that they're closely related to the Bri-Bri/Puerto Viejo pumilio, which are similar in size (from my observations) and the golden color probably comes from a reduction in pigmentation (which may have occurred by chance or as a result of adaptation to higher altitude environments) - but that's just totally me guessing about it. If I have some tissue I could probably figure out roughly their relationship to other pumilio - or I could go check it out next time I'm down there if locality data become available. I've spent a fair amount of time now in the hills bordering the BdT islands and it's a very interesting transition region between lowland and montane habitats (most of the really high altitude areas are on the Costa Rican side, but there's still a fair amount of variation in Panama). I bet if someone could spend a year out there, they'd find a lot more.
> Ian Wang


----------



## Onagro (Jun 9, 2006)

Interesting news, Aaron! Thanks for posting it!


----------



## uncle tom (Mar 15, 2007)

Hi folks
old stuff, but Escudos are no pumilios. check out our latest paper: Hagemann S.; Pröhl H. (2007) Mitochondrial paraphyly in a polymorphic poison frog species (Dendrobatidae; D. pumilio). Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 45,2: 740-747
Escudos are related to the nothern morps of Costa Rican populations (Blue Jeans) and are genetically closely related to O. speciosa. But from the Panamanian Populations the genetic difference is more than 6% what supports the independent of the Escudos as a specie. Also it seems that the nothern morphs form an own specie (O. typographa or ignita). In case of Escudos there are more facts that are supporting the status asown specie (call and morphologie). So ist is definitely a undescribed specie and not a pumilio. Also there is another undescribed specie in Central Panama but for this specie facts are lacking. So greetings from Germany
Tommy


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I was just going to mention that paper, Tom, although I think that it is incomplete when it comes to Escudo frogs, at least. The paper didn't look at any of the frogs on the Valiente peninsula or east of the Valiente peninsula, the closest locations to Escudo de Veraguas. I think before Escudo frogs can truly be confirmed as a separate species, frogs from those locations need to be examined. My guess is that there is a "ring species" phenomenon going on with pumilio, so the frogs on Valiente will be closely related to Escudo frogs and the rest of the Bocas frogs.


----------



## uncle tom (Mar 15, 2007)

Hi JP (do you remember me?)
but there is an other paper (Rudh et al. 2007 - a Guy from Sweden) in witch they did research in genetics with frogs from Punta Valiente. Their results show also that these frogs are total different from pumilio. I also did research there and my measurements and call recordings show that these frogs are also identically with the Escudo frogs and different to frogs from Bocas. The genetics are in work. The genetic Boarder between the two species is the Rio Bisira where you can find true pumilio and also Escudos. 
Saludos


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

True pumilio side by side w/ escudos and not breeding together?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

uncle tom said:


> Hi JP (do you remember me?)
> but there is an other paper (Rudh et al. 2007 - a Guy from Sweden) in witch they did research in genetics with frogs from Punta Valiente. Their results show also that these frogs are total different from pumilio. I also did research there and my measurements and call recordings show that these frogs are also identically with the Escudo frogs and different to frogs from Bocas. The genetics are in work. The genetic Boarder between the two species is the Rio Bisira where you can find true pumilio and also Escudos.
> Saludos


Hey, yea, I remember you. I was wondering if it was the same Tom  I need to spend some time inland in Panama looking through those populations. I'm going to have to look at the topography of the Bocas region and compare it to geological data. I am very curious, then, how Escudo frogs got there.

One other issue I have, and it's really just semantics, with Prohl's paper, is that they want to make the Costa Rican pumilio O. typographa, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Pumilio was originally described out of the Costa Rican morphs, so it doesn't make sense to me to split them off as a different species rather than change the name of the Bocas frogs.

Aaron, the ability to breed does not necessarily mean they're the same species. You can put rat snakes and corn snakes together and get them to breed, but they're still separate species.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Pulled this info off AMNH Amphibian Species of the World DB...

"Synonymy Dendrobates pumilio Schmidt, 1857, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 24: 12. Holotype: KM 1018/1346; lost according to Savage, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 762; Silverstone, 1975, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 21: 37. Type locality: "Neu-Granada"; restricted to "der Weg zwischen Bocca del toro und dem Vulcan Chiriqui [Panama]...zwischen 5000´ und 7000´ Höhe" [Polish feet, therefore = 1150-1160 m, according to Savage, 1970, Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 38: 273-288] by Schmidt, 1858, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 14: 249."

Type locality around Boca del Toro and the Chiriqui volcano?

Meanwhile.... "_Dendrobates typographus_ Keferstein, 1867, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, 18: 360. Holotype: ZFMK 28115 ; by implication according to Böhme and Bischoff, 1984, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 19: 179. Type locality: "Costarica". Synonymy by Dunn, 1941, Copeia, 1941: 88; Savage, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 761; Silverstone, 1975, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 21: 11." This is listed on the O. pumilio page as a synonym.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

No, I was wondering if the population suggests they live and don`t breed together or if the population exhibits a link having genes in common w/ both escudos and cr pumilio


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

Since a lot of this information is either published or on the dendrobase.de website, I assume it is no secret. It looks like this is what is going to happen:

1) The name Oophaga typographa is going to be resurrected and applied to the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan 'pumilio'

2) The name Oophaga pumilio is going to be restricted to the Panamanian frogs

3) The frogs from Escudo de Veraguas will be described as a new species

There is a phylogenetic basis for these actions as you might have noticed by reading the Hagemann and Prohl paper. But there is a potentially big caveat, which is: if you look at the tree they published, there is only a single representative from each locality. To me, if they want to go ahead and revise the taxonomy of this group, they should at a bare minimum include a few more Escudo individuals, although I assume they will do this.

It is completely amazing to me that things like this are still happening...people have been working with the pumilio complex for something like 60 years at least, and just now are we starting to get an idea of how many species there really are. If this is happening in such a well-studied group, how many cryptic species are there in the understudied groups? 

Evan


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

...now if someone would only tackle the garbage can that is R. ventrimaculata.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I think there is some good work being done with the Peru group... I'd just like someone to toss the FG "vents" into the mix and honestly say they are or aren't vents. Since vents were based in Ecuador and what the other Guyana shield species are like... I put my money on no. Now who's going to FG and Brazil to track down those two "vent" populations, huh?


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

KeroKero said:


> I think there is some good work being done with the Peru group... I'd just like someone to toss the FG "vents" into the mix and honestly say they are or aren't vents. Since vents were based in Ecuador and what the other Guyana shield species are like... I put my money on no. Now who's going to FG and Brazil to track down those two "vent" populations, huh?



LETS GO!!!!!


----------



## Shockfrog (Apr 14, 2004)

A Dutch guy (E. Poelman) has been studying the FG population for quite some time now. During april he's back in FG again.


----------



## uncle tom (Mar 15, 2007)

Hi JP

"One other issue I have, and it's really just semantics, with Prohl's paper, is that they want to make the Costa Rican pumilio O. typographa, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Pumilio was originally described out of the Costa Rican morphs, so it doesn't make sense to me to split them off as a different species rather than change the name of the Bocas frogs."

No the originally type locality for pumilio is panama, provincia bocas del toro. But the problem with the name typographa is that the type locality is only "Costa Rica" and in Costa Rica you find both genetic groups. So maybe the younger name ignita with type locality "Nicaragua" would be also avaiable. It needs some more historical resarch. But it is under construction 
Greetings from Peru 
Uncle Tom


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ah, was the type specimen for pumilio the Almirante/Man Creek morph? I know "pumilio" translates to "strawberry" so it can't have been one of the island morphs (unless it was San Cristobal?).

The "Northern Group" would include most of the Costa Rican morphs and also the Nicaraguan morphs as well? That would strike me as problematic since Prohl didn't look at any morphs in Nicaragua. I'd contend that the CR morphs may be a separate species, but I wouldn't automatically lump the Nicaraguan morphs in though.

Very jealous about your being in Peru


----------

