# Should albinos, hybrids, etc. be discouraged?



## Guest (Aug 10, 2004)

I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion regarding the stewardship of PDF's and their breeding, etc. Coming from keep aquaria (both fresh and reef), over the years I have become much more of a hardlined 'purist,' so to speak. I don't keep anything that wouldn't most likely be found in nature under that same form. Various crosses, hybrids, and albinos are immediately off the list for me. The freshwater aquaria hobby is amuck with all sorts of comedic fish species, and unfortunately, people are trying to do the same with marine fish (luckily, rearing larval marine fish is slowing this down to a large degree). However, there are some who are trying as hard to possible to preserve solid bloodlines and prevent crossing (rainbowfish hobbyists, for example).

With the understanding and realization that many of the species we keep are becoming more and more threatened in their native habitats, what is your opinion on the amount of responsibility we have in breeding our frogs and keeping them as close to their wild counterparts as possible? 

(This discussion was rolling on Frognet for a while, and I think turned toward possible breeding guidelines within the hobby...but I'm not sure how it turned out. Maybe someone here who saw it all the way through can shed some light on the subject).

Your thoughts?


----------



## EverettC (Mar 9, 2004)

I'm not for hybridization but I don't see anything wrong with Albinos. Albinos happen in the wild as well as with humans, and nobody seems to see anything we can do about it. There are also reports of normal frogs being produced from ablino/regular mixes so it must be a recessive gene.

Everett


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2004)

Intentional hybridization is irresponsible and selfish. The people who do it either don't understand or don't care about the long term effects of hybridization on the hobby. I have always felt this way for all captive bred animals. PDF's so far seem to have avoided the fate of many snakes and reptiles. But with the growing popularity of keeping PDF's increasing, the temptation for some people to try to produce something "different" by interbreeding is also increasing. This should not be allowed to happen, and we should keep trying to educate people on the dangers of hybrids.
The one danger that I would like to point out, the one that most concerns me, is the status of the PDF in the wild. It's not good. Many species now are only available as captive bred and this is only going to increase. People who decide to breed PDF's, for selling or just as a hobby, have an obligation to keep the species pure. Statements like "I know mixing these frogs can produce hybrids, but I'm just going to keep them or give them to friends", just don't cut it. Their are a multitude of reasons why you might lose control of your PDF collection; death, divorce and disability are some. Whoever ends up with some or all of your PDF's might not know that you had hybrids, it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes. Now these people could end up trying to breed what they think is a regular PDF which is in fact a hybrid. The same thing can happen with giving your hybrid PDF's to friends. And it will snowball from there. In a closed and relatively small captive bred environment the long term effects could be devastating. For example many years from now it could be near impossible to find a CB Azureus. Because of too many people deciding to produce hybrids all that may be availible are some sort of Azureus/Tinc mix. They may almost look like Azureus, but they are not.

This is just a small part of my own feelings on interbreeding/hybridizing. 
Hopefully someone who was thinking about doing it will read this and decide not to. Some people will decide to do it and not listen to anything anyone will say against it. Hopefully keeping this subject at the forefront of responsible PDF husbandry will keep these people to a minimum so they don't ruin the hobby for the rest of us. 

My opinion


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> Coming from keep aquaria (both fresh and reef), over the years I have become much more of a hardlined 'purist,' so to speak. I don't keep anything that wouldn't most likely be found in nature under that same form. Various crosses, hybrids, and albinos are immediately off the list for me.


I am a purest at heart. I don't see anything wrong with crosses, hybrids being culled, if you don't want them. But I would rather see the eggs tossed. I see people argue that they will just give them to friends, or sell them as hybrid, But those people forget and they start reproducing them, and sell them as whatever. 

I do have vittatus producing a very odd looking froglet now and then, but they keep dieing with in 1-2 weeks of morphing out. If any do every make it, they will never leave my house.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2004)

Wether we want to admit it, we are irrevocably and unquestionably messing with the genetics of the animals, unless your breeding f1 and wc's you are creating an unnatural domesticated frog. There is no question about it, raising them in vivaria from a relatively small breeding stock. I have yet to hear an argument as to why hybrids are bad beyond aesthetics, wich are personal. If conservation of a species becomes dependant upon hobbyists its too late. I wonder if such negative attitude towards hybrids doesn't cause the one legitimate gripe (you don't know what you might be buying, unless you *really* trust your breeder) by causing those people who happen to have hybrids to lie/not disclose such information. Hybrids may not be "natural" but neither is keeping them in North America/Europe. 

Oh I guess one other reason against hybridizing isn't really against hybridization but more for hygeine/health, single species tanks have less problems (which is why I wont have hybrids, that and I don't want frognetters throwing maltov cocktails through my windows).


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2004)

I am new to PDFs. When people say crosses what are they talking about? Are they talking about a cross between color morphs like a Green and Black Auratus and a Blue and Black Auratus. If you ask me this is probably just as bad as hybrids, if you are trying to keep them pure. I am not that familiar with where all the frogs are from and what elevations they range. I suppose they would bread in the wild but then why dont you see more of a Green Blue and Black Auratus.


----------



## RSines (Feb 15, 2004)

Tad,
I see your point, but I am seeing a difference you are not. Frog lines that have survived in the hobby for years are really not much different than their wild caught counterparts. Certain traites may be brought out by selective breeding, much the way geckos or snakes are bred but the behavior is much the same. We can still open an atlas and point to a county and go, "I have a frog from there." I would bet that to truely inbreed a frog to deformity would take f8 or f12. The genetic bowl they are drawing from is very narrow in the wild as well. 'Refreshing' the bloodlines I think is a little overrated. 

-Richard


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Well here is the one subject that can draw me out of the shadows. As was mentioned, this is a frequent and perrenial topic on frognet. The last round of discussion did indeed result in discussion about breeding guidelines. The goal is to establish a set of guidelines that could be used to maintain the wild type characteristics of dendrobatids in captivity. The idea is that breeders who subscribe to using the guidelines could exchange frogs with others of like mind as insurance that the frogs were produced in a manner that conserves as many of the wild characteristics of the frogs as possible. As usual there was an exchange of ideas but nothing solid has come from the discussion.

I'll try to keep this uncharacteristically brief but hybrids are indeed dangerous to the hobby. All one has to do is look at the history of snake, orchid, dog, or any number of other breeding hobbies to see how hybridization leads to the decline and eventual elimination of wild type animals. Without careful documentation of pedigree along with targeted breeding guidelines, hybridization inevitably results in the pollution of wild type genes. I have a long laundry list of arguments against hybridization in the hobby but those are in the frognet archives if anyone cares to dig them out.

Regarding the question of whether albinos should be culled. I think the answer is yes and no. Albinism is a rare genetic variant in many species which does occur in nature. However, the occurence of albinism tends to be relatively rare and the animals expressing albinism often have low survivorship. So what to do with albinos that pop up in the hobby? What we SHOULDN'T do is start selectively breeding those frogs to propogate the albino trait. That's what started the corruption of the corn snake and many other good species. Albinism is special because it is rare. What good does it do to artificially make albinos common? All it does is destroy the mystique of a rare animal. Personally I think albinos should be restricted in their genetic contribution to future generations. This could be done by breeding the frog only once and then deciminating the offspring to the far reaches of the hobby. I would not reveal that those offspring may be harboring albino genes because this could lead to a feeding frenzy for clowns who want to produce a pure albino line. I would much rather see the genes float about the captive population at a very rare level to pop up now and then to provide hobbyists with the unexpected thrill of an albino.

Brent


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

What's to stop those hobbyists from breeding a pure albino line? It's a simple recessive trait. Personally, I think that albinos are ugly. They're not true white as some people seem to think (lots of yellow mixed in), and have weird pink eyes. But I'm cynical about the chances of restricting albinos (or any other genetic anonomaly that doesn't cause the animal phyiscal problems) once they pop up, which they have. Some people like them. Some people will pay big money for them. Which means that someone will breed them to supply that demand. So while I personally would rather go with the true natural color, but as the dart hobby grows more popular, I'm not optimistic that everyone will agree. 10 years down the line (probably sooner), you're going to see ads for 'albino tyrosine negative giant high yellow tinctorius'.


----------



## Will (Feb 15, 2004)

One reason to at least keep track of a albino producing pair, or breed a true albino line, is for developmental research. While this is not an obvious reason, but should a researcher ever decide to characterize gene expression patterns in PDFs, having albino tads would help a great deal as pigment will not obscure visualizing the probes.

Deciding what to consider a wild type standard and consequently breeding towards that ideal in a controlled environment can be difficult. The only real candidates for such a project would be captive populations with specific collection data which can be safely crossed to form lines. Definitively knowing a group of frogs are from a specific location would allow for greater mixing without overt selective pressures (ie: crossing frogs which closely resemble each other).

There are other color anomalies which are not as obvious as albinism but also occur with low frequency. Mutations in the pathway for red pigment can produce all blue Costa Rican pumilio. Collection and breeding of this blue ‘morph’ would not reflect a wild population even though it could have good collection data. 

As Brent was saying with regard to establishing breeding guidelines (for those who have the ability follow them), recessive traits would not need to be excluded completely but instead could be introduced randomly.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

The tittle of this discussion is about albinism which I think it needs to be separated from hybridisation. The two are not the same. 

To me, selective breeding albinos is pretty much the same as selectively breeding dotted reticulatus, or bastimentos pumilio with no dots or panguana lamasi w/o horizontal line (in Europe). As long as you have the line history, ways to keep track the genetic line, it's not "harmful"... in my opinion. 

I think the important thing is not hybridizing species. With so many colorful natural species, why add a "man-made"? A hard thing to keep track. 

I don't blame the snake or gecko people to hibridize... look at their pet natural colors... somebody says boring... :lol: J/K 

_added:_

However, IMHO I think dart frogs with their natural color are much more prettier than their albinos. 

SB


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

deleted


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

Since I started the thread, I will clarify my intentions for it. 
*This thread is open to the discussion of all various aspects of breeding and our responsibility of keeping PDF's as true to their wild counterparts as possible.* 

I threw 'albino' into the title because it shortened the topic line, but this discussion is in no way bound to it (notice that 'etc.' follows it in the topic title). However, in my initial post to this thread, I brought hybridization into the discussion because I think this is a valid topic as well. 


Brock, nice to see you come out of the woodwork.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Arklier is right. When albinos exist, someone will start selectively breeding them. That's why a group of us have been working on a registry off and on over the past couple years. Until that is done, all we can do is strongly discourage hybridization and selective breeding. We can also do things as individual breeders. I've produced froglets with some very unusual color morphs. Those frogs were not released to the hobby but many of their siblings that might carry some of those genes are out there.

I disagree that we have to separate the topics of hybridization from selective breeding because I think they are both very destructive to the hobby if we want to maintain wild type animals. Selective breeding narrows the gene pool and therefore the variability of the animals. Think of any line of PDF other than auratus and then try to figure out how many breeders are consistently producing offspring from that line. In most cases the number of breeders will be no more than a half dozen. If each of those breeders selectively bred their frogs, a huge chunk of the genome of the line could be unnecessarily lost. Unfortunately I think this is a common practice among breeders though.

I also disagree that maintaining wild type frogs in the hobby is impossible or even difficult. Of course locality data is fantastic but it isn't necessary for breeding toward wild type. Nor does locality data guarantee future generations will remain wild type. Breeding for wild type simply requires that we make reasonable guesses as to the origins of captive frogs in the wild, breeding as widely and randomly as possible within the group of captive frogs that originated from an interbreeding wild population, and rearing froglets in ways that insure the behavioral traits characteristic of wild frogs are maintained. In other words, when choosing a mate for a frog, you pick an animal that you think is a good close match to an animal you think your frog might have mated with in the wild. You do not select mates solely based on appearance or size except for what is required to make a reasonable decision about what population the frogs might belong to. Finally, you would at least periodically test breeders to make sure they still possess proper egg caring, tad carrying, etc. behavior for successful reproduction. Remember that we aren't necessarily trying to produce frogs fit for reintroduction to the wild (although we could with locality data and good record keeping). All we want is to make sure that frogs 100 generations in the future still look and act like frogs in the wild. There are always people who doubt the "danger" of hybrids or selective breeding but many of us watched as corn snakes became progressively polluted with selective breeding until no cb wild type animals could be found. Not long ago you could hardly find a species orchid and when you did it would cost more than a fantasticus to bring it home. Once you lose the wild types in captivity, the only way to get them back is to return to the wild. That's a luxury that is going to become increasingly rare for dart frogs. Those of us who rail against hybrids and selective bred animals simply want to make sure that we don't take these little gems for granted.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

bbrock wrote: "So what to do with albinos that pop up in the hobby? What we SHOULDN'T do is start selectively breeding those frogs to propogate the albino trait. That's what started the corruption of the corn snake and many other good species. Albinism is special because it is rare. What good does it do to artificially make albinos common? All it does is destroy the mystique of a rare animal. Personally I think albinos should be restricted in their genetic contribution to future generations. This could be done by breeding the frog only once and then [disseminating] the offspring to the far reaches of the hobby."

Interesting thing here... You readily admit to the "mystique of a rare animal--" such as an albino. Now, one would think that a rare animal-- one that occurs genetically infrequently-- would command high prices from people who find albinos to be appealing (granted, some of you here do not, but I am sure some would). One needs only to look to the first albino leopard gecko-- commanded prices of around 1500-- or some of the first burmese albinos (way back in the hobby). Or, for example, you can look to snow boas right now. Each of these are genetic anomalies which are not prevalent in nature yet have become incredibly popular and quite fetching in captivity. Now, although you say you would disseminate the offspring, what is stopping me from finding albino darts to be beautiful and wanting to propagate them? Furthermore, there would be a double incentive-- there is the "mystique of a rare animal" which only I would be providing to the public. Therefore, why should I not sell these frogs? You say because it would lead to something like the "corruption of the corn snake and many other good species" (Additionally, I take issue with that, go to Kathy Love's website-- I do not think that looks like corruption when she offers Okeetees right alongside any other variation of corn snake possible). I do not see the corruption of the corn snake, or the burmese, or the ball-- I see the progression of a hobby. If you do not wish to see albinos flourish in the hobby, simply do not buy them. I know I would not, but I do not see it is fair to label a breeder of albinos as the penultimate corrupter of a hobby. There are two ways an animal can be rare in a hobby: it can occur genetically infrequently but go undesired by most, or it can be highly desirable and difficult to obtain. Now, as I have witnessed much on this forum, people tend towards the second one. The dart hobbyists here have a much larger control over there hobby than there is in a lot of others (i.e., easy communication between elite breeders and regular rookies) and they are able to control that-- if they do not want albinos, they simply should not buy them-- but those that do provide albinos, they are not criminals to be derided.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

I never meant to insinuate that inbreeding in the hobby would lead to animals different than the wild-type. Its the way we raise the animals, and there is *no* getting around it, we breed animals that do the best living in an artificial environment and we do the best to maximize this. Countless animals survive to breed that would never make it past the tadpole stage in the wild. Why is the situation in the snake, dog world a tragedy? its just different, I mean you might as well get pissed off at farmers for not rearing properly wild aurochs. Wild type dogs do exist, they're called wolves, there happens to be a whole lot of variablility in the domestic populations thats absent in the wild, is this good? I don't know but to say a wolf is better than a beagle is a matter of aesthetics. To say you prefer your wild-type auratus over the tinc-leuc hybrid is aesthetic. Neither frog is ever going to be released in the wild neither frog is ever going to be the founding genetic stock to "replenish the rainforest." 

I do think it would be a shame to see the "natural looking" specimens disappear from the hobby, I dont think will ever happen to many people feel the same way. However I think its hypocritical to be upset at someone who owns/breeds hybrids b/c its "not natural" if thats how you feel, you shouldnt be keeping the animals unless its part of your work as a conservationist or for a natural history museum because keeping them as pets is not "natural".


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

> I do not see the corruption of the corn snake, or the burmese, or the ball-- I see the progression of a hobby.


The problem here is perspective. I (and I'm sure many others) can admit that an albino frog--or whatever--is rare and unusual. But it stops there. I understand that in the wild, this individual is inferior in the sense that it has all sorts of decks stacked against it...and I'm sure it's going to get picked off much quicker than any of its siblings. Same goes for corn snakes. Same for corydoras catfish. 

I keep these animals because of the mystique they already possess. Your 'average' vent has more mystique to me than any albino or 5-legged anomoly ever could. I want to see the pinnacle of the species, what has managed to survive and prosper within its environment...not some mutant that will likely get snuffed before its first birthday. 

I agree with Brent's methodologies on dispersing frogs with possible 'hidden traits' throughout the hobby, but the problem is that when one of them eventually spawns an albino, and the hobbyist rearing it starts selectively breeding for albinism because they could care less about integrity of the species. I think that's where a set of guidelines and people committed to those guidelines would be very beneficial to the hobby and animals. Since this hobby is still so fresh, there is a possibility (knowing what we know now) that people of that mindset can have a greater impact in their stewardship and education of others into the hobby, therefore reducing the risk of widespread selective breeding. Even if it doesn't it would be nice to know there is a number of people out there striving to maintain the integrity of the species. 

As Ian Black so eloquently put it in _Jurassic Park_: "You spent so much time asking whether or not you could, that you never thought to ask whether or not you should."


----------



## Derek Benson (Feb 19, 2004)

> As Ian Black so eloquently put it in Jurassic Park: "You spent so much time asking whether or not you could, that you never thought to ask whether or not you should."


Wasn't it Ian Malcolm?
Wow, almost embarressing to know that. Even more if I'm incorrect.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

No, you're right: it was Malcolm. I was a bit hesitant on his last name, but too lazy to do a search to figure it out. Good call.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Brent said:


> I disagree that we have to separate the topics of hybridization from selective breeding because I think they are both very destructive to the hobby if we want to maintain wild type animals. Selective breeding narrows the gene pool and therefore the variability of the animals.


If you only want a certain trait, let's say spotted reticulatus, then I don't see how this can be a bad thing. 

Let's say Sean and Patrick sells them, breeding these animals from 2 different breeders and trading with other breeders, say Todd and Phil, who are also interested in spotted retics, is not narrowing the gene pool in my opinion... or worse destructive to the hobby.

I think people have seen the worst case in other hobbies and reacted to the other extreme. 

Instead, maybe one should study an excellent example: killifish breeders. They know how to keep lines, species, collection data and even mutations ie: Aphy. Australe 'Red/Orange' etc.


SB


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

> Let's say Sean and Patrick sells them, breeding these animals from 2 different breeders and trading with other breeders, say Todd and Phil, who are also interested in spotted retics, is not narrowing the gene pool in my opinion... or worse destructive to the hobby.
> SB


If the spotted retics were selected from a larger population of frogs, then you HAVE narrowed the gene pool. You have selected only those alleles that lead to expression of the spotted trait and thrown away the rest. The result is a line of frogs that look more like clones of each other than the variable mix you would find in nature. It is impossible to know what genes get lost in the selection process. Who knows? There could have been a gene that might have someday produced a blue retic. Variability in nature is good because it allows animals to change and adapt to changing conditions. Selective breeding goes in the opposite direction.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Tad wrote: I do think it would be a shame to see the "natural looking" specimens disappear from the hobby, I dont think will ever happen to many people feel the same way. However I think its hypocritical to be upset at someone who owns/breeds hybrids b/c its "not natural" if thats how you feel, you shouldnt be keeping the animals unless its part of your work as a conservationist or for a natural history museum because keeping them as pets is not "natural".


Tad, you and I have been through this before. The loss of "natural looking" animals is exactly what will happen if selective breeding runs rampant BEFORE a registry and guidelines are in place. Several decades ago you could buy a wild type cornsnake for $10-$30. Then the first albinos appeared and were fetching something around $200. Within a few generations albinos were common enough that the price was coming down and heterzygotes were dispersed throughout the hobby to the point that if you had a "wild type" animal, there was a good bet that it was heterozygous dominant for albinism. This was followed by melanistic, amelanistic, anaeurythristic, etc. until virtually every cb cornsnake in the hobby was the product of selective breeding of one or more "rare" alleles. Wild types virtually dissapeared as cb specimens. Why did this happen? Because recessive traits are masked by dominant ones so heterozygous animals cannot be distinguished by appearance. I've heard people say as long as the animals are honestly represented, there is no problem. That's true except that it doesn't work. How much do any of us really know about the origin of our own animals? Think about it. Now consider that just because you honestly represent frogs sold to someone, that doesn't mean that the next person, or the person after that will do the same. In the early days of the cornsnake fiasco people did honestly represent animals as hets for "blank" or what have you. But as the hets began to outnumber the true wild type animals it became more difficult to keep track of who was who. Genetics gets pretty complicated beyond a simple homozygous cross so things get confusing and animals get mixed up. Add to that the fact that many breeders have no background in genetics and it is easy to see how plain jane cb cornsnakes went the way of the dodo. Personally I'm pleased to be in a hobby with a mainstream core that is devoted to not repeating mistakes of the past.

Someone asked what was wrong with the dog breeding hobby. Was that a joke? Now many dogs make fine animals but let's get real and admit that they've created a number of breeds so full of congenital defects that they practically have to be hooked up to an I.V. and oxygen from the day they are born just to make them live long enough to reproduce. Even many good breeds have been all but ruined by a hobby that breeds almost entirely based on appearance which has led to snippy and neurotic animals. The AKC is not a good model to follow for breeding quality animals IMO. 

And whoever said the killifish people have done it right, you are absolutely correct. They have both guidelines AND a registry and that is exactly what we need to do.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Well if you consider that narrowing, then it's also the same when one hand picks frogs from a breeder/dealer/importer. One would select healthy looking frogs... maybe with more brighter color than the rest... and definitely not deformed runts.

Speaking of runts, to play along with what is suggested, when a breeder culls runts, then that should be considered as selectively getting rid of what normally occur in nature. 

Should one breed/introduce runts to their frog breeding programs to give a more natural outcome???

I do understand what direction you want the hobby to go, but I think it would be very hard to ask others to follow guidelines if selective breeding is disallowed... my opinion. 


SB


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Tad said:


> I do think it would be a shame to see the "natural looking" specimens disappear from the hobby, I dont think will ever happen to many people feel the same way. However I think its hypocritical to be upset at someone who owns/breeds hybrids b/c its "not natural" if thats how you feel, you shouldnt be keeping the animals unless its part of your work as a conservationist or for a natural history museum because keeping them as pets is not "natural".


Tad,

With so many colors and variations to choose from, why add a "man-made"? This hobby is much more involved than say keeping hybrid orchids. Who's going to keep track which is a species and which is a hybrid?

Some people want to go back several generations and say... wow this thing do live in nature (or used to)...

SB


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

Well someone with the time/energy and care should sit down and set up a nonprofit organization to set up guidelines, a registry and to even offer "pedigrees" or certifications to breeders. Sooner or later someone will start breeding crosses, specialized morphs and selling them (if this hasnt already happened within the tincs and auratus, I would guess so). and who ever said "there are so many natural species why would you want to hybridize" well I agree, but thats a personal choice based on aesthetics. I just can't condemn somone else who chooses too, I doubt I'd buy a cross there are too many other frogs I'd rather own first, but I would be curious to see pictures.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

Well, this is indeeded a very hot topic so , I decided to through my 2 cents in and see what people have to say. Lets take Dendrobates Auratus and use as our choice to talk about. There are quit a few different color morphs of this speciecs in this hobby. Would you take a Blue and Black male or female and put in a tank with a Green and Blackor even a Brown and Gold. If you dont, then you one can argue the fact that you are indeed selectively breeding a certain trait. It has never been determined if the various color forms are genetically distinct, and until some one does prove that they are genetically distanct or disproves it you are in fact selectively breeding the Dendrobates Auratus, and every other PDF that is in the hobby with differnt color morphs. Now can you tell me why we shouldnt breed the Blue and Black with the Green and Black or any other color morph from their region? Or should we just breed the same color to the same color. 

Mike P.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 18, 2004)

But they dont live near eachother to breed in nature, thats why many are named after their locale.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2004)

They would have to live near each other one way or the other is the same region. If they did not they would be a differnt species all together such as a zebra and a horse. They both came from same ancestors and they can breed together to produce a hybid but are differnt species all together, because they have adapted to where they live and been selectively breed by mother nature. Thus creating the evolution effect which we as hobbyest can not do. I can state that you have already change the frogs in the hobby by the fact that they do not secreate the poison that thier wild kin do.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

scorpion1971 said:


> They would have to live near each other one way or the other is the same region. If they did not they would be a differnt species all together such as a zebra and a horse. They both came from same ancestors and they can breed together to produce a hybid but are differnt species all together, because they have adapted to where they live and been selectively breed by mother nature. Thus creating the evolution effect which we as hobbyest can not do. I can state that you have already change the frogs in the hobby by the fact that they do not secreate the poison that thier wild kin do.



The reasoning that we've changed them based upon the lack of toxicity is way off base. The lack of toxins is not a result of a change in genetics but a change in diet.

And yes these frogs are often well seperated by locality. Some morphs, and species as well, can be found in very, very small locales and often seperated from other populations by great distances, obstacles and barriers which make them very distinct morphs. 

Your horse/zebra example actually runs in conflict with your line of thinking on the auratus. _Evolving_ from the same frog and _being_ the same frog are two completely different things. The zebra and the horse may have _evolved_ from the same animal but they are now distinct just as the auratus morphs are distinct.


----------



## Will (Feb 15, 2004)

Perhaps a better example for this discussion is pumilio (more research data available). It is likely that the driving factor behind the vast array of pumilio color morphs is visual mate choice. Morphs are more likely to breed within group vs. hybridize. So in this case, even a territorial overlap would not necessarily result in hybridization.

People have also noted on this board that when they have different tinc group pairs in a mixed tank that they breed true (not suggesting that no hybrids can result). It is possible that most dart groups have strong ‘within morph’ mate choice.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

> Should one breed/introduce runts to their frog breeding programs to give a more natural outcome???


No. Runts and deformed froglets rarely survive in the wild. Obviously captive husbandry eliminates a lot of natural selection so obviously unfit animals should be culled.

As for hand selecting breeders, you're right, it's a form of narrowing the gene pool. It would just be stupid to pay money for frogs that look like they're on the verge of death. Also, if you are unsure of the geographic wild origin of a frog you want to breed, sometimes the only information you have to base a decision for choosing a mate is appearance. It does make sense that frogs that look alike are more likely to come from an interbreeding population than frogs that look different. However, when you get to the point of only choosing frogs that have a mickey mouse shape on their butts because you like that pattern, you have crossed the line into selective breeding. This is a fuzzy line mind you.

What I'm really suggesting is that we selectively breed frogs true to the wild populations the originated from but no further. Like others have said, various morphs of many species tend to show up predictably in certain locales. Auratus on Barro Colorado Island and distinctive from Toboga and those on the Carribean side of Costa Rica look different from the Pacific side. These types of distinctions should be maintained in captivity but we shouldn't invent distinctions like what I believe has happened in P. bicolor. I've had people ask if I have the "blue-legged" morph which as far as I can tell is a completely invented morph since I have a black-legged, bluish-legged, and yellow-green legged all from the same clutch. Pumilio were also mentioned and I just got off the phone with someone discussing the Bastimento pumilio. Justin has a photo of 4 or 5 Bastis all collected from the same tree and their colors range from red through yellow running the range of what is found in the hobby. Summers has demonstrated visual mate selection in these frogs where like frogs tend to breed with like frogs. Of course this isn't absolute which must account for the gradation of variability on the island. In captivity we tend to pair yellow with yellow, orange with orange, and so on. I contend that it would be perfectly legitimate to mix these morphs to allow the full range of variability to be expressed.

It's these types of debates that help maintain wild type frogs in the hobby and help us walk the line between producing mutts or clones. Wild types lie somewhere in between.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2004)

> What I'm really suggesting is that we selectively breed frogs true to the wild populations they originated from but no further.


Ditto.

Brent, howsabout getting our acts together and having something roughly pounded out by the end of 2005?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2004)

Someone needs to start a non-profit organization if you are serious about this. I'd be happy to volunteer some time/effort (if you needed someone to do any software development/database management).


----------



## TimStout (Feb 16, 2004)

Brent, 
Is there enough known about the locations (size, seperation, crossover etc.) of these populations of auratus to make a determination or do we rely on the collectors/farmers word of original collection/population site. 
Another thing I've been wondering is if these frog farmers are keeping their stock seperate by population or are there mixed populations of similar appearance coming in as "Ancon Hill" for example.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*Good topic and intelligent discussion*

I agree 100% with Brent, and some others. May I suggest that upon forming an American Dendrobated Club, it probably would be in the hobbys best interest to have hobbyists, not people involved in breeding or selling dendrobated related stuff to organize the laws and guidelines and then invite the vendors to join later. As a vendor I would concerned with another vendors input. That is not to say that their contribution would not be helpful, I just think it would avoid "questions." This organization should be founded on the animal's best interests. And I believe that conflicts regarding motives will arise. The idea is a good one. It would be difficult to organize, but I think It can be done. And I would be happy to nominate Brent as a key player in the formation of this club. Not that we have to do this today or next week. But as an outsider looking in, there are many hobbyists and academics who are not vendors who make great contributions to the hobby, and I would like to see those people involved.

My other concern is with locality frogs. I have some costa rican auratus. At NWFF Matt Mirabello had some panama auratus. I was very tempted (they are gorgeous) but refrained as I was reluctant to breed panama with costa rican. What would you call that froglet? And people do sell auratus based on locality i.e. Hawaiian auratus. It begs the question about genetic variety. So would this be a good thing? Or a bad thing? The idea didn't sit well with me. But goodness, how many kinds of tinctorious popluations are out there?

My two cents,
Good topic, intelligent discussion.
Dave


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

There have been a small group of froggers who have hammered out a lot of the details on a registry over the past couple of years. Some code has actually been programed. Non-profit org or not, this effort will rely on volunteer effort and therefore goes in fits and starts according to people's schedules. The group that has been working on this is purposely small. This isn't to be exclusive or elitist but we found that having open discussions on frognet was not efficient because the same arguments kept circling around.

As for guidelines, Chuck Powell posted the following citation produced by the Aquatic Conservation Network. I've tried to find a copy of this publication without any luck:

Huntley, Robert V., and Langton, Roger W., eds., 1994, Captive 
Breeding Guidelines: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Aquatic Conservation 
Network, 61 p. ISBN 1-895655-02-1. Copies can be ordered for $12 
from Aquatic Conservation Network, 540 Roosevelt Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, 
Canada K2A 1Z8. Tel.: 613-729-4670.

I think this would be a good place for froggers to start in developing guidelines. My personal suggestion is that any group working on guidelines should include at least two people well versed in genetics and population biology and it would be good to have someone knowledgeable about conservation biology as well.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

TimStout wrote: Brent, 
Is there enough known about the locations (size, seperation, crossover etc.) of these populations of auratus to make a determination or do we rely on the collectors/farmers word of original collection/population site. 


I think we have a lot more information than we realize. Many serious froggers have traveled to the tropics and documented morphs of frogs they have encountered at various locations. At one of the late night IAD discussions Chuck N. gave a beautiful travelogue of the auratus morphs encountered as one moves from north to south. Pumilio and auratus seem particularly well documented. Of course you can't always look at one of these frogs and know for certain where it came from and there is no substitute for actual collection data if frogs are to be bred for conservation purposes, but there is a fair amount of information to let us make educated guesses about who should breed with who. I think shipment information can be really useful as well but, as you say, there is no way of knowing whether a collector or farmer has collected their animals from the same locale or kept animals separated by locality. Exactly what constitutes a "locality" is not always clear either. We also don't have great information (other than island populations) about where genetic bottlenecks might occur leading to separations of populations. I think widespread morphs like blue jeans pumilio are a particular problem. Are they widespread because because they have one large interbreeding population, or are there many subpopulations that just happen to exhibit a similar morph. 

It's interesting that Dave mentioned Matt's Panamanian auratus because Matt and I talked about them quite a bit. I have "Costa Rican" auratus and I could see absolutely no difference in size, color, or pattern between the two. These fit with photos I've seen of the Carribean versant of Costa Rican auratus. It's possible that Panama and Costa Rica share the same large wild population. However, I have no supporting evidence that my frogs actually derived from Costa Rican stock other than that's what they were sold as and the fact that they match the morph of frogs found there. If I recall correctly, Matt's Panamanian have a similar background. Given these hazy backgrounds, I probably wouldn't get in a huge twist over interbreeding them. However, if one of the groups of frogs had information that would tend to link them with a particular country, then I would probably keep them apart. Because of these gradations in evidence supporting a frog's origin and different burdens of proof needed to use frogs for various reasons, I proposed a few years ago that guidelines support several grades of frog (e.g. scientific grade, hobbyist grade, general grade). I think somewhere in the frognet archives is even a list of lines of evidence that I felt would be needed to support each grade. Of course it fell flat on its face like most of my ideas.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2004)

> May I suggest that upon forming an American Dendrobated Club, it probably would be in the hobbys best interest to have hobbyists, not people involved in breeding or selling dendrobated related stuff to organize the laws and guidelines and then invite the vendors to join later.


Yes you may...and I think that's a GREAT suggestion, Dave.



> Because of these gradations in evidence supporting a frog's origin and different burdens of proof needed to use frogs for various reasons, I proposed a few years ago that guidelines support several grades of frog (e.g. scientific grade, hobbyist grade, general grade). I think somewhere in the frognet archives is even a list of lines of evidence that I felt would be needed to support each grade.


I remember in one of the last discussions on Frognet (where Chuck sited that aquatic conservation resource) that Justin Yeager voiced some concern on the difficulty of concretely placing frogs into groups based on 'quality.' I think I remember him saying that he can walk around at the beginning of each show and see frogs that he wouldn't touch with a 10 ft. pole, while others that are spectacular. I think the crux of his point was whether or not you let those with 'inferior' frogs sell their animals, or do you ban them from the show because they haven't bred up to par? Maybe he can chime in on this if I'm completely off.

However, Brent, with your comment I quoted above, that might help to aleviate some of this problem. But then again, it could be pretty difficult to make clear deliniations and distinctions between a hobbyist grade and general grade frog. And then do we end up with an Dendro AKC on our hands, and we end up striving for physical perfection rather than natural authenticity?

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2004)

I think you just need to keep track of the breeding history, where the frogs came from (a frog family tree if you will). Each line might have a degree of "certititude" about its authenticity/origins and an individual frogs grade of "certitude" would be the weakest of its parents. 

I can see the whole procedure being run afoul by politics though.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> I remember in one of the last discussions on Frognet (where Chuck sited that aquatic conservation resource) that Justin Yeager voiced some concern on the difficulty of concretely placing frogs into groups based on 'quality.'


Tad has the right idea. We are talking about two different types of "quality". There is the grading we all do when deciding whether to buy a frog and noting that some frogs would be better off as fish bait. That's not something I would be interested in getting into in an organized way and would lead to AKC style testicle squeezing shows.

What I'm talking about is grades based on the reliability of locality or population data that are available. A scientific grade frog would require the most rigorous data. Basically nothing short of actual locality data would do and supporting information about population genetics would be helpful. These would be the frogs that could be used for conservation breeding programs or for scientific research to infer knowledge about wild populations. Frankly, such breeding programs would be above the abilies or desires of most of us but it is an important group to identify where they exist so we can hold breeding guidelines to the highest standard with an eye toward working with professional institutions.

The next grade could use a combination of information sources to infer population status. The auratus and pumilio guides on websites are quite good and are really a formalized version of the travelogues I mentioned before. It allows you to match up frogs based on appearance to rough population groups like Bastimentos, Bri bri, or Toboga Island for auratus. There is also importation/shipment information that can provide clues on a frogs origins. It is also reasonable that frogs from the same shipment are more likely to come from the same population than frogs that were from different shipments (one from Panama and one from Nicaragua for example). Of course being from the same shipment doesn't guarantee they are from the same population but it's a clue that can help seggregate frogs at least enough to maintain some natural variability and still retain geographic uniqueness (a.k.a. wild type). Finally there is the frogs captive lineage. There are lines of frogs whose wild origins can't even be pinned down to a country but their lineage in captivity documented enough that we are pretty confident they represent "some wild population" even if we don't know the location of that population. The French Guiana vents might be a good example since I've heard speculation that these didn't come from Guiana at all yet, there are a few lines that have been bred true through the years. We might not know where they come from but it's a good bet there are little frogs somewhere in the tropics that look and act like these little buggers.

Finally there is the general grade that we really don't know much about at all. They could be species hybrids, morph hybrids, or just frogs whose lineage is a complete mystery. They still might be nice little frogs that provide a lot of enjoyment but they wouldn't be suitable breeding stock for maintaining wild type lines.

Overall I don't think these would be difficult classes to maintain and they represent what I think could be done with the types of information currently available. But if we start to request and demand more information about the origins of new frogs brought in, the quality of information and what we can do towards maintaining wild type specimens will only improve.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2004)

That sounds MUCH better than I what I was envisioning, Brent. I think you're right--it could be accomplished fairly easily.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2004)

I don't really remember saying much on this topic, however, I have some thoughts. I would now consider myself an outsider to the hobby, but my roots have come from it. I see the hobby giving more and more importance to locality specific animals in the future. Even at NWFF there was dissenting opinions as to where a red D. ventrimaculatus came from and if it was the same type as another. Later on, they did find out that it was the same line as the other type. This information is valuable in my opinion. In my talk at NWFF I tried to show and explain some of the different populations of frogs you will find and what separates them. I didn't think nearly as much of that as I do now with helping people figure out where frogs are from. I'm very exicted if any of this information will help people beyond mere curiosity. I've been thinking most of the day on and off about various types of D. auratus and how they do or do not change in appearance from Nicaragua to parts of Panama. I'm leaning on the Caribbean types not varying much. Of course all the real diversity is in Panama, but there is a large, noticable distinction between the coasts as well (of Costa Rica). When I was down there I wanted to start working more on morph guides, but I think my next trips there will make more of an official effort again. If nothing else, it would be nice to start to standardize names of localities etc. 
j


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2004)

Another thought I just had was this information is really becoming valuable because the borders of the Dendrobatid hobby are becoming less and less clear. The US has always received animals from Europe, but it more recently seems like we have sent things there (for example the new D. tinctorius morphs several years back). It would be nice to have a world-wide standardization of information. 
j


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

The easiest way to get the PDF farmers to help with info on where the frogs came with is talk to CITIES and make them request such info inorder to be able to ship them from country to country but this could turn out to be a downfall at the same time. If CITIES new that most of us in the PDF hobby was trying to do something like this, I am sure they would be more than glad to help. This in fact would help with wherever the frogs went either Europe, Canada, or here in the States.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Yeager said:


> I would now consider myself an outsider to the hobby, but my roots have come from it. I see the hobby giving more and more importance to locality specific animals in the future.


Well you can pretend to be an outsider all you want but you are one of us. How's the dome? Itchy?

Justin makes some great points as usual. I think as people like him and other serious hobbyist collect information about morphs in the wild and make contact with people working with frogs at the export end, we'll start to see better locality data for the frogs. If the suppliers know that the market is asking for locality data, I think they will supply it. Approaching the CITES committee might be worth a shot but I don't hold much hope for them getting on board. Managing the treaty is a huge job and requiring locality data is a wee bit outside of their scope. I'm guessing they would consider their job stopping at regulating how many of what species come out of which countries. If animals are to go into a conservation program, it has generally been up to the parties involved in that program to obtain adequate data with their specimens. One tact with CITES might be to describe it as a way to more finely track harvest pressures but given that most countries can't even track their whole country, it is probably asking too much. Nice thought though.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

The head is burnt and peeling, but otherwise alright. 

As for the locality info, I agree that importers could/would get some information to a certain extent. I sincerely doubt that the people actually collecting the animals would give the exact area where they're found. I'm not even sure if they could if probed. I think the best people could hope for is approximate areas-- nearest large town. That would give you enough information to go on as for elevation (for temp. purposes) and keeping track of where things are from. The nice thing about these Panamanian imports we see now is that many are from islands that are mutually exclusive. It is very easy for people who have been there to tell you where it comes from. I find it hardest with things like D. auratus and the current debate and figuring out where they come from if they don't fit one of the pattern types. This is all very interesting though. I would not be suprised if locality specific is the next trend when you all tire of the quinquevittatus group...
j


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

Just to throw some wood on the fire, how should Hawaiian auratus be treated? should they not be bred at all? Should you only breed them with other Hawaiians? How do they fit into the "naturalistic" vs hybrid/specialization ?


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

I would treat them as WC if they ever came in again. I, as well as the gov't consider them endemic species now. I think they are now significantly different than the founder population, and that's where I base my decision on that. I don't consider them hybrids or any bit less worthy than any other population.
j


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*Another thought*

I lived in Sacremento a while back, and KOI clubs in California are huge. They define breed standards by color shape and size etc. Although they do have some shallow gene pools, and favor hybrids. I have been milling over the auratus morph question all day. In dog shows (I know frogs are not dogs so hold your fire) there are many colors of say....pug. But a black pug, an apricot pug, and a fawn pug is still a pug (great dogs too by the way). Apricot pugs are not recognized by the AKC. And how do you register a frog? Photo id? How do you establish breed standards, and what do you do if the breed doesn't fit the standard? Is it a pet quality frog and not eligable for championship status? What a headache!
Dave


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

> How do you establish breed standards, and what do you do if the breed doesn't fit the standard? Is it a pet quality frog and not eligable for championship status?


When Brock talks about quality he doesn't mean the same thing the AKC means he means the "authenticity" where authentic is a wild frog and the only truly key criteria is how much is know about the breeding history (where did its parents come from etc). Possibly one could quibble over wether quint-types raised by there parents as opposed to those removed and raised by "hand" were more "authentic." I dont think anyone wants to start having frog shows in the same sence as a dog show, where judges come out measure "girth" patterns etc. (Well maybe someone out there does).


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

Another thought continuing with the D. auratus thread is what happens when/if someone's puts out an oddball form. I know regular frogs have produced reticulateds, etc. Also, I guess my biggest concern is over how people will get the background information on the frogs that they have. It would be extremely difficult, and most times I think it will just lead to a European importation if they can even get that far.
j


----------



## Derek Benson (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Another thought*



ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> In dog shows (I know frogs are not dogs so hold your fire) there are many colors of say....pug. But a black pug, an apricot pug, and a fawn pug is still a pug (great dogs too by the way). Apricot pugs are not recognized by the AKC.
> Dave


I was thinking about this as well, because we have a fawn pug (who is registered), but we don't show her.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

Why don't they consider the apricot a valid form? Is it just line bred for color or how was it deemed not a true form?
j


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*You know Justin I don't know.*

I am purely guessing, but I assume that fawn breeders didn't want to compete with another color. My pug Lester is a black male from an apricot dad, his mom was black. The dad has a really dark fawn coat, but I don't know the real reason. The breeder told me it was a rare color now, but that didn't make the dog any more valuable.

I like Tad's suggestion towards the direction that he is going. I do not want to see frogs broken down into lines of championships. The breeding lines would get too thin with people trying to establish the standard and repeating it. And that's not what it is about. Its about having good healthy frogs. 

Following liniage is a good start. But I don't think I can go back that far. Maybe my F1's to the P1's parents but that is it. And although I do not have any, what about wild caughts?
Dave


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

I would think that if this was to take place, it could only be done with wild caught frogs or ones who could definitively be traced back to animals of known origin. That or be frogs who's pattern/color is easily distinguishable from others.
j


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Yeager said:


> I would treat them as WC if they ever came in again. I, as well as the gov't consider them endemic species now. I think they are now significantly different than the founder population, and that's where I base my decision on that. I don't consider them hybrids or any bit less worthy than any other population.
> j


On the other hand it is clear that the genetics of the Hawaiian frogs are a subset of those found on Taboga. I could see it played either way. You could either maintain the Hawaiians separate or mix the with Toboga since I don't think you are polluting the Toboga line with really anything new. Keeping them separate is probably the safest bet though. There is no way to unmix genes.

Interesting that Hawaii considers these "endemic species" since that requires a redefinition of the word endemic. Endemics are considered species or subspecies found in an area but nowhere else. At best these are a naturalized or feral introduced species. Unfortunately there are negative connotations with the word feral since many of the species we are most familiar with also cause ecological problems but many feral species settle in nicely to native communities without problems.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Interesting that Hawaii considers these "endemic species" since that requires a redefinition of the word endemic. Endemics are considered species or subspecies found in an area but nowhere else. At best these are a naturalized or feral introduced species. Unfortunately there are negative connotations with the word feral since many of the species we are most familiar with also cause ecological problems but many feral species settle in nicely to native communities without problems.


I mis-spoke on that. I meant to say native. My apologies.
j


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

My usage of the English language has dimishished since my locks where shorn...


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Re: You know Justin I don't know.*



ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> I do not want to see frogs broken down into lines of championships. The breeding lines would get too thin with people trying to establish the standard and repeating it. And that's not what it is about. Its about having good healthy frogs.


That's right. In fact, the guidelines would be designed specifically to AVOID developing appearance standards which is unfortunately the natural direction that breeding takes. We tend to look at our frogs and choose the most similar looking specimens to breed with each other. Hobbyists often see differences in color, pattern, or size and assume that these differences much represent different "morphs" so they separate according to these differences to produce new lines of completely invented morphs. This leads to the cloneification of lines in captivity while populations in the wild show a good deal of variability. The breeding guidelines would give guidance on things like optimum founding population size, degree of line breeding/outcrossing, number of breeding colonies to maintain stability in the hobby, and guidance for determining what population a frog really belongs to. The result should be frogs that exhibit variability more like what is found in the wild without destroying the unique characters of a particular population.



ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> Following liniage is a good start. But I don't think I can go back that far. Maybe my F1's to the P1's parents but that is it. And although I do not have any, what about wild caughts?
> Dave


Few of us can trace our frogs back to the "promised land". But that's not necessary to maintain what I suggest as a hobbyist grade line. For example, the thin-lined vittatus that were once considered lugubris before I had their DNA sequenced can be traced to a breeder importer who sold frogs to Mike Shrom but not back to their location of origin. That's okay though because that's enough information to link all the frogs to a common origin and maintain them as a distinct line. These frogs are widely distributed in the hobby and at least several breeders have been maintaining them true to their line. A few IAD's back, Brian Kubicki looked at the frogs and even thought he knew approximately where they might have originated from as he had seen similar vittatus in CR smacked up against the mountains separating vittatus from lugubris if I remember right which is cool to think about in its own right. So despite not being able to trace the frogs all the way back to locality, I think there is a pretty convincing line of evidence that these frogs hail from a different genetic population than the more typical vittatus with wider stripes. 

In some ways I think WC are even easier because you can often tie the animals to a particular shipment or importation. For example the blue jeans pumilio that came in from Nicaragua in 2000. A number of people got them and several are still floating around alive. It seems likely that these animals all came from the same wild population so that group of shipments makes a convenient glue to base a line on. Of course this line might be too narrow since blue jeans may actually be one very large population that stretches from Nicaragua through much of CR but it will be easy to expand the line later if Justin or one of our other tropics-trekking experts tells us to. It is much more difficult to "unhybridize" a line. What I'd like to see in the guidelines is a formalized approach to using the various forms of information available to determine where breeding line designations should be formed. It would be really nice to have a worksheet you could walk through that could help guide determinations of genetic lines.

So the upshot is that its important to distinguish that we are wanting to develop breeding guidelines and NOT breeding standards. Rather than dictating what the animals should look like, we are developing practices that would produce animals that should look similar to a wild population, whatever that appearance might be. Notice that oddball animals are pretty well covered under this model. An oddball would be culled only if it is likely that natural selection in the wild would have taken it out of the breeding population. Otherwise, the oddball is treated just like any other member of the population so those genes get masked and unmasked at some frequency similar to what happens in the wild.

Finally, I would include parental care behavior in the guidelines. Parental care in dendrobatids is certainly one of the more interesting aspects of these animals and it would be ashame to lose these traits in captivity. Logic suggests that at best artificially rearing eggs and tads eliminates selection *for* parental care and at worst actually selects *against* parental care. That doesn't mean the froglets produced are less healthy but I would argue that a frog that has lost parental care is less interesting than one that retains it. Two suggestions have been proposed on frognet to address this. One is to place a premium on "naturally reared" animals. The second is to batch test lines for parental care. I proposed that guidelines suggest testing lines every third generation for the persistance of parental care. This would simply require setting up frogs every third generation in a vivarium with sufficient tad deposition/rearing sites and letting the adults just do their thing to see if they can successfully care for the eggs and transport the tads (or feed eggs in the case of facultative and obligate egg feeders). Three generations is arbitrary but seems reasonable in that it allows a lot of offspring produced without testing but if a line is found to have lost behaviors, you can usually find animals still living 3 generations back to fall back on to reestablish the behavior. Personally I think placing a premium on parent-raised froglets is much easier and more interesting but flexibility is good too.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Yeager said:


> My usage of the English language has dimishished since my locks where shorn...


Should we call you Samson? I knew you knew the difference, I just couldn't resist giving you a little more grief.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

I love threads like this. .About a year and a half ago I bought 3 "orange" bicolors from Patrick.He told me that he wasn't sure they would breed true colorwise and told me when he had to move them from one tank to another his hands started burning.So I am thinking they may have been wc's.He said they came in from a Eurpoean shipment.Correct me if I'm wrong Patrick.
Anyway, one has a bright orange back and black belly that goes up to the base of its bottom jaw,he is my male.One of the females has a yellow back that changes to greenish colored legs and a mottled yellow belly with black.The 3rd one, a female has some orange on her back that turns peach colored on her side and also has the yellow/orange mottled color on her belly.So, in my opinion,bicolors can throw several different colors in froglets.I hope to be able to say so someday.
I can't agree more about the parental raising of tads.In my imitators my male I have now was raised up by his parents and he has done the same things so I am up to my 2nd generation on that with the froglets I have now.
I'd sure hate for them to lose parental care in captivity.I have spent alot of evenings watching my male convince the female to come and lay eggs for the tads they had in brom axils.It beats the hell out of TV for sure.
They only produced 3 froglets for me so far since they started breeding but it was well worth it.I encourage anyone working with imitators to let them do it for a cycle.It is well worth it.

Mark W.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

*Keeping up parental care*

I remember when this was brought up on frognet and I loved the idea. This does seem to be something we definately select against as we raise the tadpoles ourselves, be it because its fun for us, produces bigger froglets, or because we get more froglets this way to sell.

All the frogs I have had showed parental care because thats how I set up their tank. So with the tricolor and truncatus I didn't have to do it that way, I could have just taken all the eggs, but when I got swamped with eggs or tads, or was just feeling lazy, or was busy, blah blah blah I just left them in there. I would usually find a couple tadpoles in the 'pond' of the tank, though not usually as many as there were eggs in the clutch. Sometimes I even left the tadpoles in the ponds, ocassionally giving them food, I wouldn't even take them from there (I got a LOT of tricolor and even 3 truncatus froglets this way). With my imitator, I didn't even know they laid eggs when I found a tadpole... and I obviously wasn't going to take eggs out of a pumilio tank (when I did even find a clutch).

Its not hard at all to test this, at least the way I set up tanks. Plus I LOVE finding parents with tadpoles on their back! It really is amazing to watch.

I'm still hyped about this idea and would love to get in on the project.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

Brent said "The result should be frogs that exhibit variability more like what is found in the wild without destroying the unique characters of a particular population." 

YES! I agree 100%, glad you said it first.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Mark Wilson said:


> and told me when he had to move them from one tank to another his hands started burning.


If mine jump on the soft skin of my arm, it burns a little too. Mine are at least 3 generations from wc. Even though the "important" toxins are lost in cb, I suspect there are still many compounds in the skin that are irritants.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

Well it looks as if selective breeding for Albinos has already started in Europe. If you have read the post in the members frog list about the Albino Auratus you will find that a German breeder supposidly has a Breeding pair of Bronze Arutus. And if you check this link you can see pics calling them D. Arutus Albino. They are kind of interesting looking though.

http://www.fischkopps-frogs.de/mFroesche.php


Mike P.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2004)

Off topic, but I checked that link and would really like to know what he's doing with those silverstone that is keeping them so red, I've heard/read that they tend to fade their colors in captivity. I've always wanted silverstone, but after seeing pictures of captive bred ones, I'm thinking I might prefer red trivitatus some day.


-tad


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

*E. silverstonei*

I'm having issues viewing that page so I'm gonna take some wild guesses.

For one, it could be the camera. The pictures I could see didn't show the best representation of color.

The other part is what I've seen in santa isabel tricolors. These guys can be blaring fire engine red in the wild, but a lot of people have adult breeders that are more of a bubblegum pink with more white than bright yellow lines. This is dietary, and if you add the right stuff to an awsome diet, you'll have awsome frogs. It can still take these guys a long time to color up even with that. Epipeds seem more dependent on diet for color than some other darts.

With tricolors I use a lot of stuff with betacarotine (sp?) in it (paprika in FF cultures and dust, sweet potatoes feed to pinhead crickets, even Tracy Hick's idea of Beets in the FF mix) as well as sprulina/chlorella in their diet from tadpoledom. Also good is a wide range of food if you can, especially field sweepings. The more complete the diet, the brighter the frog. In the US the idea doesn't seem as popular for some reason (more effort?) as I've gotten critisism for doing this, but its done in europe, and the field sweepings seem to help.

Frogs fed this diet, like WCs, and switched to a diet not with these additives will fade (or in the case of froglets, not color up as fast or any more than they are).

Personal thought on the albinos... I've seen vittatus, tincs, and eventually when I get this website to work, auratus too. In the reptile world, I've seen a lot of other species as albinos (including the leopard geckos I worked with for so long). I think they all look like raw chicken with fat on it (the yellow). After spending a lot of money on Hets when I finally hatched out my first albino leopard gecko, I thought it was really ugly. I sold the group and babies right after that.

Albino leopard geckos are light sensitive until around 6 months... I wonder if these guys are too? Or if they had feeding problems due to bad eyesite? I can't see albinos in a good way at this point... they die in the wild from predation as well as other problems caused by lack of pigment (they have it for a reason). If I had an albino pop up in my breeding, I'd set it aside to live its life, but never breed it.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Re: E. silverstonei*



KeroKero said:


> Epipeds seem more dependent on diet for color than some other darts.


Pumilio also seem to be somewhat diet dependent. It's interesting that many red types of pumilio morph out brightly colored and then fade if the diet is not right for maintaining color. Other pumilio come out almost brown but color up with beta carotene or canthaxanthine (sp?). Orange and red bastis seem to fade to a still attractive yellow while blue jeans and bri bri become a not very attractive brownish orange.



KeroKero said:


> Also good is a wide range of food if you can, especially field sweepings. The more complete the diet, the brighter the frog. In the US the idea doesn't seem as popular for some reason (more effort?) as I've gotten critisism for doing this, but its done in europe, and the field sweepings seem to help.


You won't get any argument from me! When it's practicle, meadow sweeps are the ultimate food source in my book. They aren't much work either if done right.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

*Morphs variations can of worms...*

Now that I'm back in the States I finally got to look at that page with the albino auratus. Just... ew. You guys already know the rest of my views on that lol. Second, the silverstonei ARE really orange... but I hold to what I said before. A little bit the camera, a lot of it the diet.


Warning: I'm kinda ranting and frognetters have probibly read this before. But I still want to do it lol.

Ok, so flipping through Justin's pics, and through the auratus, tinc, and pumilio morph guides on http://www.tropical-experience.nl a thought popped into my head as it had done repeatidly over the last couple years, the more I hear about these frogs. I have posted this idea on frognet.

This is mostly based off my ideas about bestimentos pumilio, so they are gonna be my main example. Ok, so the red bastimentos (not talking orange red to yellow ones, I'm talking RED) are supposidly a distinct bastimentos form on the island going by others' observations (it came up last time I had a go around with this idea). Going by ideas brought up here, you breed red to red as thats what they do in the wild. What about the other bastimentos? 

http://www.yeagersfrogs.com/007B.jpg

These are the 'orange', 'green/yellow', 'gold dust', 'white' bastimentos forms. Hell, that one frog in the pic defies description... is it a "white" basti... but it has the orange/red on it... not to mention green. Talk about variation. All these frogs were found at the base of the SAME TREE in the wild. Obviously some overlap here. I've seen these frogs seperated into orange bastis, green/yellow bastis, rarer are the gold dust and recently imported white bastis. Orange bastis are the most often available, thus the "cheapest" or "most common". The rest are extremely rare, and thus expensive, more valuable to breed them true. But if in the wild they habitat together... why not try to breed them together?

To answer my own question, I know Kyle Summers' article on pumilio showing a preference for like colored frog over vioce and size and what not, I have the article, have read it numorous times, talked to the author himself, and seen and worked with some of the frogs that were part of the project. In a mixed tank where each frog was a different morph (mind you not just different colored bastis, they were even from different islands, nancys and popes were included as well I remember clearly). This produced a number of mutts kind of reluctantly (the ugliest pummies I've ever seen). But this was taking different island and mainland panama morphs and putting them together, not just different bastis.

What to do? Got a 75 gallon tank handy, set up for frogs, and a colony of various basti morphs? Why stick them together and see what happens! If they breed true, cool, if they don't they might not in nature (mind you this implies that each animal would have available mates from their own 'color' to choose from as well as other colors). Huh, I've got the tank available to me... anyone know a way for me to get money or a small grant to test this project? It'd be interesting to see.

'Lemon drop' tincs are suppose to be a line of 'saul' yellowback tincs. Are these, btw, the same as the regular yellowbacks floating around the hobby? If so, even more interesting... I know some people may want to breed the more expensive lemon drops because they are, well, more expensive, and/or don't really know/care that they are sauls. 'reticulated' auratus are suppose to be the same deal, a line of 'taboga' auratus. Actually, speaking of 'taboga' auratus, tropical-experience.nl has 3 versions of 'taboga' (4 if you include hawaiian)... why not do the mixed colony stated above with the 'taboga' auratus? Then again, aren't the retics supposed to be a line from 'hawaiian-taboga' auratus? A line from a line... yeesh. I'm getting a bit muddled now. Too many morph guides... and jumping back on the hawaiian auratus debate.

Just stirring the pot a little more


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Re: Morphs variations can of worms...*



KeroKero said:


> This is mostly based off my ideas about bestimentos pumilio, so they are gonna be my main example. Ok, so the red bastimentos (not talking orange red to yellow ones, I'm talking RED) are supposidly a distinct bastimentos form on the island going by others' observations (it came up last time I had a go around with this idea). Going by ideas brought up here, you breed red to red as thats what they do in the wild. What about the other bastimentos?


In my opinion bastis are the poster child for what breeding guidelines would be meant to do. I agree with you 100% that many of the basti "morphs" should be thrown together. Let's assume Summers is right and bastis exhibit sexual selection for similar looking frogs. I have no reason to doubt this although I haven't read the paper myself so can't comment on the strength of the stats. Regardless, how strong of a genetic isolator would sexual selection on an island population be? There is no way that sexual selection is creating an absolute barrier in the basti population. Just look at the gradation of morphs on the island. We aren't talking about 2, 3, 4, or more distinct color morphs. What we have is a continuous range of morps. This alone is strong evidence for an interbreeding population. If the frogs were segregating absolutely, then we would see a set of distinct morphs that could somewhat easily be placed into categories. But that's not what we have. We have all of these in between frogs that are difficult to say whether they belong to one morph or another so we continue to subdivide into more and more "morph" names to accomodate this variation.

Now if we think about the mechanism of sexual selection, this variation due to interbreeding becomes even more clear. Let's assume the female is responsible for choosing the mate. Her choice is limited to the number of sexually mature males within her territory. I have no idea how many males that might be but it's safe to assume that the number is less than the total number of males on the island. So from this group of males she has to choose a male that looks most similar to her. It's unlikely that she will find a mate that looks exactly like herself so what are her limits? What does she do if she can't find a similar enough looking male? Does she obstain from reproducing or does she just choose the closest match? My bet is that she mates with the closest match. The closeness of this match may be limited by her potential mates. Next we should consider what is her range of detection? By this I mean what are her limits to determining if a potential mate looks "like her". When we segregate these frogs into morph classes, we do so somewhat arbitrarily. We look at the frog and then consider the number of morphs that are recognized by others and we put the frog into whatever class we think it most closely fits. So how many "morphs" do you suppose our female frog recognizes? What range of color, pattern, or call do you suppose she considers the same. Surely she has a little lattitude in this choice. Otherwise she would probably only find very closely related frogs to be suitable mates. The obvious answer here is that there is a range of variability within these choices. An orange frog may mate with a slightly more red or yellow frog, the offspring of that pairing would do the same and so on which still yields a population of continously variable frogs despite sexual selection for similar looking mates.

So as far as your experiment goes, I'm all for it. I would love to see froggers more willing to mix different morphs of frogs that come from a common population. In this case it would be particularly interesting to see how sexual selection might affect the outcome.


----------



## Will (Feb 15, 2004)

To clarify things a little bit...

The Summers ‘Visual Mate Choice in Poison Frogs’ paper was between morphs from different islands, in this case Pope Island and Nancy Key. Again, preference seemed to be based on color. 

A detailed field study on the mate choice of the Bastimentos population specifically would be interesting. It is possible that color preference is not as prominent on this island, or that other selection cues take precedence. It is probable that frogs collected within a territorial range form a breeding population (ie. the frogs in the Yeager pic). One question which Justin Yeager might be able to answer is whether there are overall densities of one color or another within different territorial ranges?

In the recent Summers paper where he cross-breeds different morphs, the Bocas Island (looked similar to the yellow/green basit in the Yeager pic) x Almirante (red) resulted in a phenotype similar to the muddy white/red basit in the Yeager pic. So it is possible that Bastimentos population is color mixing to some degree. 

An aside about pumilio territories: a paper by Pröhl found that females maintain territories with good tad rearing sites, and that males defend territories which have higher female densities. Females have larger range territories and do visit several males for courtship, which makes it likely that they will have the opportunity to select ‘like colored males’ should they choose.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

*Bastimentos pummies*

I think this would be a great experiment to do, and would actually be a good one to do with the bastis coming in at the moment. Unfortunately, it would take me a long time to be able to afford the frogs even though I have pretty much everything else.

*sigh* Can I borrow money from someone in return for babies I produced? lol. It would be nice if I could get a loan like that. OR convince importers or resellers to give me frogs in return for babies produced. Or somehow get a lone to do this experiment through my school... even though I'm a geography major, not a bio major. Grrr.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2004)

If you are attending College you could approach one of the Bio Proffesors and ask him about this. I know that colleges get grants all the time for scientific research and other things. The Profesors would be the best place to get a start to finding a grant. As my CD Drive is currently not working I can not Access my CD wiht all the Grant Info I have. If that doesn't work you could possibly talk to the NAIB and ask them about possibly doing a study. I am sure they would be interested in the study as well as many other Zoos or facilties that keep PDF's. Hopefully this will help get things started.


Mike P.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2004)

I'm at my parent's hous getting some car repairs, so sorry for my absence. I agree with Corey that the Bastimentos are really the best ("Bestimentos"), but there was a lot of variation. Of the picture of the handful, there were a few more frogs which were on that same tree. I would have had to do more of an official survey of the area (aka a plot, etc) to tell you exactly what was going on, but there was several others in that area. I selected on from each of the different color 'morphs' for the photograph (it was hard enough to get 4 frogs to sit still for a photo I'm taking with the other hand...). A very interesting note was that the diversity of D. pumilio types was only in the town side of the island of Bastimentos. On red frog beach and that area, there was no real differences in color other than the degree of white on the feet/legs. Why is only half the island subject to having such variations in color and pattern? I would be interested in looking into it more on a return visit. As for the breeding idea, I would be most interested in working on that project too if anyone wants to donate animals. I will figure out what my budget is for my masters thesis from the school soon, and then I will begin to apply for other grants. I have several projects going already, but another observation project on behaviors would not be too much more work to do. We have a large tank, maybe 150 gallons in the lab. I would estimate this would be around the size of a male's territory in the wild. What would be most interesting would be to have a greenhouse with them in it and regularly monitor mating groups and keep track of which mates with which. I think that would be easier than doing it in the field, and more realistic than an aquarium. I will continue looking into this when I get back to my apartment. I have spoken to my professor I'll be working under about doing the behavioral study on if the frogs have lost the parental care-- if it has been 'selected against, or not selected for-- and he was very excited to work with that as well. In any event, I have to get going, but I will be back to discuss this more later.
j


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2004)

Hey Justin, how difficult (or maybe likely is the better term) would it be to try and observe or research this in the wild...actually discovering whether or not the Bastis of differing colors actually mated together?


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2004)

I wouldn't think it would be super difficult to study this in the wild. What you would have to do is establish a plot and identify every frog and its sex in the plot. You would also want to ID and sex every frog in a surrounding buffer zone which may come in your plot. After that you would probably (but not that necessary) want to establish home ranges for each individual (this should be fairly different for males than females according to other research). From this, you will know your sample group fairly well. I don't think of D. pumilio as moving much unless disturbed greatly from their home ranges, so you could start from there. You would have to then identify every possible tadpole deposition site and then also check for tadpoles in each of them in your plot. From that, you would have to identify the females for each tadpole, and if possible, the males. From a logistic and practicality view, this would be one of the projects that I think would be better suited for the lab. Being able to establish and also standardize tadpole sites would simplify things a great deal. Also being able to select the numbers and numbers color variants for the experiments would also be nice. I think it would be nice to start with two color variants and then move your way up to as many as possible. I'm going to be writing up a proposal later this week for this, so I could share it later if people are interested. I just worry a bit about piracy of ideas, as this is a general forum and also online. In any event, I'll be working on it more later.
j

P.S. In case you couldn't tell from this, I much prefer to study animals in their natural habitat, but some things can be made much simplier in the lab.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2004)

Justin,

I have an idea as far as the town side of Bastimentos being more mixed up. The 'Human' role how many people, who knows how far back in history you want to go, have picked up and carried a couple yellow basti and released them near their house, where only the orange where before. Like a kid, or maybe a parent that wanted to show their kids another color frog. Then you could add the fisher man, that wanted to use the green ones, from an island, as bait and a few got loose in the local population near his house. ect ect. Either way the project could be a very interesting one to do.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2004)

But then again, it could just be evolution.
Hurry up and do your study, Kansas may be removing evolution from public schools again, so that theory won't work here anymore before long


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Bgreen said:


> But then again, it could just be evolution.
> Hurry up and do your study, Kansas may be removing evolution from public schools again, so that theory won't work here anymore before long


You'd better start practicing up on dragging your knuckles again!


----------



## Derek Benson (Feb 19, 2004)

They don't teach us about evolution enough as it is. WHole school is filled with people saying we jsut magically appeared here and I'm the one wanting to know the other "theory" that actually has proof of scientific evidence.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2004)

bbrock said:


> You'd better start practicing up on dragging your knuckles again!


Yea, so sad.... I need to move....
If I bring the frogs, can I rent out a room 
I can add on to that house if you want too.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2004)

*Imitators....*

I was thinking it would be interesting to study the mating preferences between imitators and the species they seem to be imitating... would different morphs of imitators prefer the other species or other morphs? would/could they even hybridize with the species they imitate? I'm assuming that imitators actually apear smiliar to other frogs (I vaguely recall reading a website showing different morphs and the species they resembled). I would assume that they share some geographical locations with the species they imitate (or am I wrong here?)


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2004)

Ben,
I definitely agree that the 'human' element could be a factor. A prime example is how D. auratus is now all over the Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui area (essentially La Selva Bio station area) when it is not found there. There was a guy who really liked them, and took about 20 and released them in his garden. Now they have taken over the whole area. I actually was introduced to this gentlemen and tried not to be a little bitter about it. I was glad he took an interest in the frogs, but introducing things is almost always something I frown on. In any event, that is a possibility. As for someone mentioning using D. imitator group frogs. I heard via personal comm. that someone had tried mixing D. ventrimaculatus 'red' and D. amazonicus (both pure) and it didn't yield viable offspring. With that said, they didn't mate when pared up with their own kind, so who knows. It's certainly something I can explore later. I really like the idea of using egg feeders since there is more to their mate selection (at least it seems so at this point).
j


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Tad said:


> I was thinking it would be interesting to study the mating preferences between imitators and the species they seem to be imitating... would different morphs of imitators prefer the other species or other morphs? would/could they even hybridize with the species they imitate? I'm assuming that imitators actually apear smiliar to other frogs (I vaguely recall reading a website showing different morphs and the species they resembled). I would assume that they share some geographical locations with the species they imitate (or am I wrong here?)
> _________________
> -Tad


Hi Tad,

I posted similar question on frognet the day after you wrote yours. Great minds think alike??  I have not been following this thread since the last one I wrote....

SB


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

*D. imitator complex*

My somewhat limited knowledge of what seperates imitators from the species they are imitating has to do with little differences, such as calling, behavior, and possibly slightly different habitat niches so they are less likely to come across each other. Also throw in their specific mate selection behavior... it obviously would not be focused on color and pattern (aka 'morph') as shown with pumilio, as that would mean inter-species breeding with the species that was there before them that they are effectively imitating. This would put a bigger emphasis on the other factors as main species selection, the ones that would show the most difference. I would put my money on not hybridizing, just look at the differences in tadpoles. Just the color is a huge difference, showing that within the whole quinquevittatus complex, these guys probibly aren't that closely related. Somebody may make me eat my words on that one, but thats how I see it from the research I've seen.

How are the calls of D. i. imitator different from D. variabilis? D. i. intermedius with D. fantasiticus 'yellow/banded'? There are programs used for bird calls that can be used for this. Otherwise I'd say setting up an experiment much like the Summers pumilio experiment would be in order, seeing if a female reacts more towards the call of a male from the two species. I wonder if there is enough call difference in the D. imitator subspecies complex that if a female say, D. i. intermedius would still prefer a D. i. intermedius (of the same bloodline preferably implying the same population) over a D. i. imitator or show no real preference between the calls when visual selection is not in play.

Yet another project would should shove at Justin  I'm thinking with all our ideas we could keep him up to his ears in dendrobatid research for, say, the rest of his career....


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2004)

*Proposal*

Here's a really brief, really basic proposal I sent in to get some seed money for the project from the univ...
Feedback is welcome. Later I'll elaborate a lot more about the procedure etc, but this is just to warm them up to the idea and give us some starter money.



Mate Selection on Bastimentos Island

Dendrobates pumilio is a vividly colored, highly variable, poison dart frog from Central America. Their range is from Nicaragua to Panama, with most of the variation in color, size, and pattern in Panama. D. pumilio are among the few frogs which are obligate oophages, meaning their tadpoles are fed exclusively unfertilized eggs provided by the female. They are an extremely abundant frog whose size ranges from ½” to around 1”, and whose colors spread the breadth of the color spectrum. Normally they are fairly uniform in color and pattern in each population, however, there is one island where this is not the case. Bastimentos Island is located in the North Eastern part of Panama off the coast. It is home to the world renowned Red Frog Beach (with the red frogs being D. pumilio). During a trip there in 2003, I was witness to just the various color forms, ‘morphs’, found there. I was very surprised to see many color morphs living sympatrically, as many as 4 morphs on one large buttressed tree (see attached photo). This left the question posed, do these forms hybridize, and to what extent do the frogs distinguish between color morphs. 

The project we are proposing is to test the theory that these frogs can distinguish between their own color morph, and will prefer breeding with members of similar colors/patterns. A similar project was done by Kyle Summers several years ago using two different island populations. He demonstrated that under normal lighting, the frogs will prefer their own type, and even under colored lighting, they will still choose their own type the majority of the time. This was very interesting work, and well done, however, now it should be progressed to see if the same is true within a population comprised of different color variants. 

For our proposed project we are blessed with several things in our favor. There are currently exports from Panama coming into the country, and the Bastimentos forms of D. pumilio are among those being imported. After spending time talking to one of the main importers, he is requesting the color morphs we need for the study from the exporter in Panama, and is requesting the proper color variants (as opposed to sending only one color form). The importer has also agreed to give us a generous discount from the retail price to help facilitate the study. I also have a great deal of experience with this species both in the wild as well as in captive husbandry. We also have the aquariums that we need for the study available for our use in the lab. Misting systems, which are vital for stimulating breeding, are also available. Essentially, we only have a small cost for preparing the vivaria for the frogs, and then the cost of the animals themselves. 

The vivaria will be comprised of a several branches and pieces of driftwood, which are for males to establish calling spots to attract females. There will also be tropical plants for ground cover and giving the frogs cover. Bromeliads are normally one of the tadpole deposition sites in the wild, but they will not be used for this study due to the difficulty of locating tadpoles in their bracts. Instead, we will use a myriad of plastic film canisters, and other devices for holding water for the tadpoles, but still making viewing simple. This has been successfully done in captive frogs for their reproduction. I have also placed enhanced breeding sites (plastic cups) out in the field and they have used them. Feeding will take place every-other day and will consist of Drosophila (fruit flies), Collembola (spring tails) mainly, as well as the occasional confused flour beetle, and meal moth maggots. The food offered will be dusted with calcium powder and other vitamins rotated every-other feeding. The misting systems will spray three times a day for five minutes per cycle. The first misting will be in the morning around sun rise, then midday, and once before dark. This serves both to stimulate breeding as well as to flush the water in the tadpole containers to keep it fresh. 

With the vivariums set up, and proper care in place, reproduction should soon follow. The animals will be placed together after a quarantine period (of no less than 30 days, and up to 90 depending on the health of the animals) and allowed to select mates. We will place appropriate numbers of frogs in the aquariums depending on the volume of them. The smallest, of 50 gallons, will house up to six individuals. The largest, 150 gallons, could house up to a dozen or more—all depending on the number we have to work with. Each terrarium will have a minimum of two color morphs, but may house up to as many as we can obtain (most likely 4). The terrarium will be checked twice a week for tadpoles, and any found will be recorded. We will also identify the female which attends the tadpole. It should not be difficult from that to identify the father of the offspring. All of these will be monitored carefully throughout the study. From this, we are able to tell which females are mating, and with what males. Periodically, we can experimentally switch males out of certain terrariums and switch them. This will allow for more variations of colors interacting with other types. We can find females which have been receptive to reproduction with males in the past and introduce males of other color forms to them. 

At the conclusion of the study, the frogs will be given to various zoological institutions which express interest in keeping them. Some of the offspring may be traded with hobbyists for other species which we are using for studies, but priority will be given to institutions. We will offer any help they require in their display, care and maintenance, and breeding we can.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2004)

Looks good to me. Do you happen to have the pic mentioned of the tree buttress? I tried searching for them on your site, but no luck.

EDIT: Just checked your site and found some galleries. Must have been added since the last time I visited.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2004)

It's the handful of D. pumilio shot. I'll be sending them a copy.
j


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

*Yeager's Frogs Site*

(For those who don't know, I'm webmaster of Justin's site)

Sorry about the galleries.... the 3 most recent galleries are linked on the main page, not in the galleries page. I'm preparing to do an overhaul of the site and I'll get the galleries back in order with new galleries as well of local stuff, and of course justin's new do! Hopefully new research stuff too depending on how his proposals go. Oh, and the pics for sale...

Yeah, I've got a bit of work to do on the site. I'm crossing my fingers to have this _all_ done in a month.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

*basti study among other ideas*

Hello all. I feel as though I must chime in here as this topic interests me greatly. 

First, I am curious as to why auratus are considered native now. I looked them up on the USGS site and they are still listed as introduced/non-native. Is this a recent change? 

Next, regarding Kyle Summer's article..."Visual Mate Choice etc..." This article has a great premise but is seriously flawed in many ways. It fails to look at patterns. In addition, he uses ten gallon aquaria and then wonders why some have not shown any breeding behavior, which is the greatest folly as most pumilio breeders have noticed that larger vivaria yield better results in terms of enticing them to breed. Next, his sample size is extremely small. What scares me even more about the study is that he fails to qualify (and quantify) what "normal" light conditions are. I really wish someone else would do a more well thought out study on this as it would answer some interesting questions. I must give Summers credit though as this was an awesome start and the study was rather innovative in multiple senses that I don't have the time to go into at the moment.

Next, this is for you Justin. You should really consider doing the basti study in the field as in the long run it will save you money and give your study more "power". I have many ideas for you in how to set this study up if you are interested. Large, screened in fence plots would be ideal. Each frog can be fitted with a belt so as to give its ID and sex. The belt is made out of a stretchable nylon material (bought at a craft store- used to make beaded bracelets) that has small beads around it. Different colored beads can stand for sex, approximate age, individual ID, and so on.... I have used these in the field with great results and it is less invasive in comparison to toe clipping. The belts are lightweight as well and can be tied around the frogs waist. The egg deposition sites can be artificial ones made from canisters, cups, or whatever= makes it easier to check than broms. At the end of the study you can just release the frogs back where they were collected from. Why introduce them to the hobby just because your study is done with them? I really wish more studies were conservation minded. These are just a few ideas.... and if you need more just shoot me an email. I think you are onto something...

Justin


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2004)

Thank you for the comments. I also agree that Kyle's project was important for what it did, but I agree with many of the things you said-- and if you'll note, most of them are changed in mine. I had considered doing this in the field first, but I think it would be important to get some preliminary data to have something to go on before doing it in the field. It is also much much easier to do it in the lab for starters. There are so many variables I could not control in the field that I feel (as I've said earlier) that I think this one would be better to start first in the lab. As far as what happens to the animals at the end of the project, I've been dwelling on that for some time as well. I want to get these frogs established into the zoo side. It is a shame they are not represented there. If Saint Joes wants to keep them going themselves in the lab after I leave, that is also a strong possibility. My dilemma is I don't keep frogs, so I wouldn't take them when my degree is over. I also don't want to dump them in the private market as that would make me look as I was a hobbyist. I need other frogs for other parts of my thesis, so that would be the only way I would let any go, in trade if I could not raise the funds to buy the other frogs.
j


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

I was just noticing the original topic of this discussion and realized that this is a crazy tangent. So, my deepest apologies go out to those who started this topic and for my tangent. 

I agree that using a baseline study would be beneficial before going into the field with this experiment. Just don't fall into the same traps that Summers went into. I think that having a hobbyists background is good for studying animal behavior. Sometimes it can cloud ones judgement though.

Anyway, obtaining frogs for this experiment would be costly....then again flying to Central America isn't so cheap either...got any frequent flyer miles? I guess that zoological institutions wouldn't be the worst place for them to go to. You are obviously going to use WC animals, right? At any rate, I would love to see more research in this area; in addition, I would love to see more work done on the optical operating systems of the pumilio. I mean in all seriousness....what colors do they really see? Designing an experiment for this may be difficult...maybe another choice test design. 

Justin


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2004)

> So, my deepest apologies go out to those who started this topic and for my tangent.


No problem at all. The subject ran its course and has now spawned something new...as well as constructive. My only problem would be if the things talked about in this thread never came to fruition (i.e. breeding guidelines or classifications, Justin's study, etc.). 

As long as progress is made, it's all good.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2004)

Well don't you worry about the study. Provided the right frogs come in, the study will definitely be done. If not, good lord, it could take years on waiting lists to do it... 
j


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

*breeding guidelines*

Ah, yes, breeding guidelines was the original idea here. After reading the previous posts I have come to the conclusion that this is a great idea. Its benefits are multilateral. I must say that this would be very difficult to accomplish as many already established breeders and hobbyists may not see this as a positive practice and may not conform to the guidelines. I guess this is where the gradation idea comes in.... 

I think that just knowing where the animals came from is a benefit unto itself. The local specific route in which our hobby is steadily leaning towards is much akin to the same movement with many North American snake hobbyists; for example, many collectors of Heterodon, eastern kingsnakes, eastern milksnakes, and even pitouphis offer snakes from local specific areas- NJ, the Carolinas, Florida, etc... I think we can go a step forward and actually make this a general practice as was stated in previous posts. In the future we will thank ourselves knowing that we are keeping the genetic lines as close to the wild populations as possible, but we must get most if not everyone in on this...I'm in.

I must admit that I enjoy the "mystique" of albino's. However, constantly inbreeding these animals for the desired albino lines allows for accumulations of other recessive alleles that may have a negative impact on the animals lifespan or other effects. This random mating idea of albino's is intriguing.

Justin


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

*more...*

As if I didn't talk enough... 

I just ran into a thought. How many zoos actually have collection data for their animals? I know for a fact that some institutions have very poor data in this regard. For a hobby to head into this direction amazing. I would find it difficult for begginers's to the hobby to understand this at first. It's just a matter of education. 

Justin


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2004)

> I would find it difficult for begginers's to the hobby to understand this at first. It's just a matter of education.


I agree in that I think it's just a matter of education and consistently promoting the benefits and importance of such information. Look at killifish keepers: they do an AMAZING job at doing this, and it's just something that gets ingrained into those who choose to keep them. You learn to know it, or at least the organisms you are directly involved with. 

I think we need to keep their place in the wild very near to the minds of hobbyists, making it hard to disassociate these as wild animals and appreciating them as that. Seeing pics from various studies and expiditions in the wild helps remind of that, and I think helps to prevent us from only thinking about these animals pertaining only to 10 gal verts.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

FYI, killiefish people do breed selectively and propagate albinos and mutations. They breed C.whitei, F. gardneri albinos and A.australe orange.


SB


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2004)

Right, but they keep incredible track of breeding lines and collection info. That was my point...although I don't think it was very clear.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I thought this thread had died and quit following it over a month ago. Glad to see it still had some life. I'm not sure we need to have the majority of breeders onboard with the guidelines but we certainly need most of the key breeders onboard. I think most of them are sympathetic, if not downright excited, about the idea but many are worried about broadcasting specifics about what they have in their collections for a variety of reasons. The guidelines are not that difficult. They are a set of rules that breeders voluntarily sign on to follow. Not all frogs in a collection have to be produced using the guidelines but we should have some way to feel confident that when someone claims a batch of frogs are produced following the guidelines, that they really are. It will be a challenge to develop guidelines with a team of people over the Internet though. This would be a good topic for a working group or panel discussion at IAD, Frog Day, or NWFF. Several years ago a group of us led a panel discussion on the registry. Although attendence for the panel really sucked, some very good discussion came out of it. I wrote up a summary of the discussion and posted on frognet and that became the catalyst for the effort that has continued slowly since then. The panel provided enough interactive discussion to at least clarify what the issues and challenges were going to be to tackle the problem. I think the guidelines would be much simpler. If we could get a few people to do some homework ahead of time, I think draft guidelines might be hammered out in a good solid day of discussion. Two things that come to mind for preparation are for someone to obtain and become familiar with the killifish breeding standards and the second is to have someone familiar with the AZA ISIS system. I have an idea who we could get for ISIS.


----------



## meatslim (Jun 6, 2007)

sorry to revive an old thread, but i was reading this a while ago while searching through for other stuff. i had some thoughts i wanted to express bt didnt know how until i came across this:

http://www.moreliapythons.com/forums/sh ... ight=zebra

I come from teh snake hobby and i think the difference between froggers and snake keepers is quite compelling. snake keepers seem to love hybridization and genetic oddities while froggers seem to stay away from it. As a snake keeper, ive always been fascinated by morphs except for situations like this. in this case, the breeder tried to create leucistic snakes and failed yet hopes ffor luck in teh future.

These snakes were doomed to a short painful life since birth. it is obvious this is not a viable snake to pursue and who knows how many shortlived snakes will be produced before any viable offspring. To me, it is obvious this was never meant to be done and I wouldnt try it, mostly because I would look at the dying animal and as a keeper, i would not be able to suffer the thought of what pain it is going through before it finally dies. To me, it would be like purposely trying to create siamese twins.

wiht that said, im going to restate, im not against all morphs, i think they are quite beautiful as long as i know the animal is healthy and unharmed by the genetic oddity.

just my thoughts.


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

OK, I think hybrids are cool. Does anyone have any pictures of a neat looking hybrid?

Really... what does it really matter if people produce new/ different looking frogs?

Are they ever going to be reintroduced into the wild? probably not. If so, the zoos and conservationis can supply them.

Are they going to make keeping dart frogs any less enjoyable for the keeper? No...

Will it introduce new interesting color morphs to an already vast and amazing diversity of species? Yes

I've read and understand all the views stated so far and this is how I feel. So bring on the hybrids. I want my azureus to glow in the dark.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

You say that now. But in a few years when the hobby is full of ugly impotent frogs, what would you say? They are not flowers, where an ugly result can be detroyed, they are animals. Even when beautiful orchids are produced, they still come at the cost of risking pure lines. Many orchid growers have a hard time distinguishing between species and hybrids (in some cases), and in the long run it increases the risk of loosing pure species. These frogs may one day cease to exist in the wild, and it would be a tragedy to loose "real" frogs to some glow in the dark toy. But it is obviously your choice and prerogative, you have already mixed tincs, with leucs, and auratus.



> OK, I think hybrids are cool. Does anyone have any pictures of a neat looking hybrid?
> 
> Really... what does it really matter if people produce new/ different looking frogs?


----------



## Jungle_John (Feb 19, 2007)

Quaz said:


> OK, I think hybrids are cool. Does anyone have any pictures of a neat looking hybrid?
> 
> Really... what does it really matter if people produce new/ different looking frogs?
> 
> ...


only ment to quote the last line. however this saddens me for thinking like this only shows us one day the true breeds will be lost. to each his own and we cant stop people from cross breeding and even though I myself and many other look down on it, it is true that we cant stop it. and this is why we will lose the wonder of the pure breeds. soon or later the cross breed will be mixed with pures and than the pures will be no more.


----------



## HappyHippos1 (May 7, 2007)

Are some people really that naive to think that cross breeding hasn't already happened to an extent? Maybe not to the extreme of a leuc with a imitator or a pumilio with an auratus etc.  but it has happened within the species.

We cannot possibly know where/what each frog is. There are too many hobbyists and too many frogs.

I'm sure even the wild caught frogs have been known to cross breed. In our tanks the space is limited so it can happen more. 

You tell me if you don't think (in the wild) a male calling Tinc isn't going to land a female tinc of a different morph. It happens. The same goes for the inside of an aquarium.


----------



## Nuggular (Apr 8, 2005)

Are you really that naive to even ask.



> We cannot possibly know where/what each frog is. There are too many hobbyists and too many frogs.


What??? Are you implying that we can't know what each frog is? I think most of us are knowledgable enough to be able to tell the difference between a luec and tinc. Not that hard. Just cause there are alot of frogs and breeders doesnt mean we cant tell which frog is which. If you cant find a frog you want, ask if its in the trade legally yet, someone will most likely know one way or the other. 



> You tell me if you don't think (in the wild) a male calling Tinc isn't going to land a female tinc of a different morph. It happens. The same goes for the inside of an aquarium.


Thats ASSumming that the frogs found a way around all the natural barriers between them. 

This is from Patrick Nabors site:

_Dendrobates tinctorius ranges over much of north eastern South America. Populations of these frogs seem to occur in “islands” of appropriate habitat, and these populations are often separated by miles from other populations. The terrain that lies between the habitats may appear to be suitable for dart frogs, but in most cases one factor or another prevents the frogs from colonizing these areas. Factors such as seasonal inundation (flooding), rivers and other natural boundaries have kept the frog populations separated for many generations, which has led to each “island” of habitat supporting its own “morph” or color form of these frogs. There is an amazing diversity in the appearance of these frogs, and in some cases the frog populations are physically different, in particular different populations are often of different physical size. _


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

^^ Wonderful post Nuggular.


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

They are cool? Well, all of the hybrids I have seen personally and in pictures look ugly. They look like mutts.

Melis



Quaz said:


> OK, I think hybrids are cool. Does anyone have any pictures of a neat looking hybrid?
> 
> Really... what does it really matter if people produce new/ different looking frogs?
> 
> ...


----------



## xfrogx (Jul 5, 2006)

melissa68 said:


> They are cool? Well, all of the hybrids I have seen personally and in pictures look ugly. They look like mutts.
> 
> Melis
> 
> ...


I agree with meliss, I have yet to see a nice looking Hybrid, If you want to see what I Think about all of this go to the other thread about "purposley breeding for hybrids" or whatever.


----------



## gm_kevin (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm not even gonna talk about the hybrids, but my curiousity lies in people's feelings about the albinos. Not the typical ghost white with red eyes deal, but aren't chocolate leucs a form of albinoism as well? People in this thread have said albinos shouldn't be interbred for that particular trait, yet people spend about twice as much for chocolate leucs as they do for the standard morph, and are told to not interbreed the two. Sure they happen in the wild, but there's no seperate population of chocolate leucs out there, and they certainly aren't specifically breeding with other chocolates. So does this mean when somebody finds an attractive hybrid morph they'll become the next chocolate leuc? Chocolate leucs are pretty similar to hybrids, in the sense that we've created our own color morph population in captivity.

Thoughts?


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

same thing with no dot citronella tincs, small spot azureus, and any other likable trait that comes up with the "pure blood" species.


----------



## Nuggular (Apr 8, 2005)

Just because you isolate a certain trait, doesnt make it a hybrid. That's just another naive statement. The definition of hybrid is a breeding between 2 different species. Just because you breed to isolate a group for smaller spots, doesnt mean that those frogs dont carry genes to have larger spots or no spots or super small spots. But if you keep breeding them together, more of the offspring will become small spotted. But they never all come out the same way. And you could take any of those chocolate luecs and breed it will a normal luec, and you would get a mix of chocolates and normals, or mabye no chocolates at all. The reason people pay more for these types of frogs is because they are more rare to find in the hobby right now. Hense they are more expensive. 

I'd say you guys arguing for hybrids need to do more homework before you come on here and run your mouths about how you think is right. Your arguements have hardly stood up to the debate at hand. If you want to change peoples minds about hybrids (which probably wont ever happen) you need to come up with alot better info and evidence to back up and support your idea.


----------



## Jungle_John (Feb 19, 2007)

i agree with Nugs


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

are the color morphs different species? or are they color morphs? If tinc. morphs are all the same species then the definition of hybrid doesn't aply to crossing tincs. and exceptable according to you.

I've never stated and I don't believe I've implied that I'm trying to change peoples minds. I just am trying to see why it's such a big deal to people like you who get so worked up and resort to insults to belittle the other person rather than presenting facts and discussing practical implications and concerns.

Gm_kevin


> Chocolate leucs are pretty similar to hybrids, in the sense that we've created our own color morph population in captivity.


I said...


> same thing with no dot citronella tincs, small spot azureus, and any other likable trait that comes up with the "pure blood" species.


Nuggular aka hot-head


> Just because you isolate a certain trait, doesnt make it a hybrid. That's just another naive statement......you guys arguing for hybrids need to do more homework before you come on here and run your mouths about how you think is right. Your arguements have hardly stood up to the debate at hand.


I'm still waiting for a plausible argument. I've just stated I don't think there's anything wrong with crossing color morphs or even species that leaves you to prove me wrong if you wish or give me your opinion again.

I've read a few of the reasons why not to hybrid dart frogs but since I appear to be naive you may want to expound a bit or give facts not just opinions.
[/quote]


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

A horse x a donkey gets you a mule. A mule is not able to reproduce. A hobby with animals filtering in that are impotent will in time have a large impact on the hobby. 

Zoos. Zoos keep many different species of animals, many of which are endangered. But, do they cross breed different Monkeys or cats in hopes of better looking animals, or stronger ones? No. They see a moral obligation to preserve these animals. True there are ligers (tiger x lion), but these are thought to be sterile as well. We should take a lesson from the zoos. With that said, some zoos do keep mixed tanks of darts. I have seen some with 3 or 4 different species or morphs. But, these are display animals, and generally any resulting eggs are destroyed. The point is, that while our having these frogs does not stop the destruction of their natural habitat, it does ensure that even if these animals are lost in the wild they can be preserved in captivity. Eventually new blood lines may dry up. What then? As old wild caught breeding stock dies out it will need to be replaced with offspring. If in time there is much pollution in that offspring we may see a loss of species or morphs, and I mean a total loss in the hobby. This might take years, but it could happen. That would just be sad. At least be willing to acknowledge this as a valid point.


----------



## Nuggular (Apr 8, 2005)

> I'm still waiting for a plausible argument.


I gave you plenty of plausible arguements. And you continue down an ignorant path. 



> If tinc. morphs are all the same species then the definition of hybrid doesn't aply to crossing tincs. and exceptable according to you.


Did you not read my post above about how tincs cant cross-breed in the wild due to natural barriers and geographical obsticles. Therefore making it wrong to do. There is no reason to create anything new. This hobby is about conserving the naturalness of the frogs and environment. If they dont do it in the wild, dont do it in the hobby. Plain and simple. 

I have not insulted you. I said your statements were naive. And they were and still are. You spit crap out of your mouth without even reading posts. The things I just quoted you on are proof of that. I belittled noone. You calling me AKA hot-head is resorting to childish behavior that I will not participate in. I have kept this a debate. You have now taken it to name calling and disrespect.

I have givin you many many facts. Not opinions. And so have many others. But you got it stuck in your head that cross breeding different species is ok. Obviously you didnt come on here and ask about it to open your mind and find some things out. Plenty of info and reliable facts have been given to you and you ignore them. I have yet to see a plausible arguement out of you. Just more belittlement and ignorance.

You're just not worth the arguement anymore. I have stated all the facts. Nothing more needs to be said. Do with the information what you will.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Quaz - you have all the evidence needed that hybridizing should not be done. If you want do not want to be taken seriously by your fellow froggers, keep talking about it.

If that is the path you choose - do not waste our time with it.

s


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

Ok, man...

I'll not try to defend myself or statements I've made for the sake of getting redundant or emotional.

But If you guys are still up for discussion and ready for what seems more practical lets continue down this path.

Alright... Cross species and cross morphs are bad... Very Bad... put that aside. It's not natural and different morphs won't meet in the wild

But... It seems exceptable to selectively breed... isolating a certain trait. It doesn't make it a hybrid but it isn't natural and you will get animals that are not like there wild cousins. In time if you're to breed small spot azures you may get a no spot sky blue frog or no spot citronella tincs. to get more and more yellow and maybe all yellow. 

Do you guys see this as acceptable?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Actually no as the isolation of these traits indicates a loss of genetic diversity of the animals and is actually detrimental to the long term (over years) sustainability of the animals in the hobby. This is a problem. IF a color variation pops up due to random genetics, the animal should not be selected for its variation but still bred into the normal population to maintain the appropriate gene frequencies. 

See the ASN guidelines at http://www.treewalkers.org

Ed


----------



## gm_kevin (Apr 17, 2007)

Nuggular said:


> Just because you isolate a certain trait, doesnt make it a hybrid. That's just another naive statement. The definition of hybrid is a breeding between 2 different species. Just because you breed to isolate a group for smaller spots, doesnt mean that those frogs dont carry genes to have larger spots or no spots or super small spots. But if you keep breeding them together, more of the offspring will become small spotted. But they never all come out the same way. And you could take any of those chocolate luecs and breed it will a normal luec, and you would get a mix of chocolates and normals, or mabye no chocolates at all. The reason people pay more for these types of frogs is because they are more rare to find in the hobby right now. Hense they are more expensive.
> 
> I'd say you guys arguing for hybrids need to do more homework before you come on here and run your mouths about how you think is right. Your arguements have hardly stood up to the debate at hand. If you want to change peoples minds about hybrids (which probably wont ever happen) you need to come up with alot better info and evidence to back up and support your idea.


First of all, I don't appreciate being referred to as "you guys arguing for hybrids", as that's not the case at all. I'm also not "running my mouth about how i think is right." I'm not supporting hybrids in the least.



Nuggular said:


> Just because you isolate a certain trait, doesnt make it a hybrid.


Which is why I said "is like a hybrid" not "is a hybrid". 



Nuggular said:


> And you could take any of those chocolate luecs and breed it will a normal luec, and you would get a mix of chocolates and normals, or mabye no chocolates at all.


I understand genetics fully, chocolate leucs are a form of albinoism, and a recessive trait. You're making my point with your statement, that they're of the same lineage, and can and SHOULD be interbred, not split apart because of their phenotypes. What I was getting at, was how people in this thread have been arguing that albinoism should be shunned upon to be selectively bred, yet its becoming the next trend in leucs. 



bbrock said:


> Regarding the question of whether albinos should be culled. I think the answer is yes and no. Albinism is a rare genetic variant in many species which does occur in nature. However, the occurence of albinism tends to be relatively rare and the animals expressing albinism often have low survivorship. So what to do with albinos that pop up in the hobby? What we SHOULDN'T do is start selectively breeding those frogs to propogate the albino trait. That's what started the corruption of the corn snake and many other good species. Albinism is special because it is rare. What good does it do to artificially make albinos common? All it does is destroy the mystique of a rare animal. Personally I think albinos should be restricted in their genetic contribution to future generations. This could be done by breeding the frog only once and then deciminating the offspring to the far reaches of the hobby. I would not reveal that those offspring may be harboring albino genes because this could lead to a feeding frenzy for clowns who want to produce a pure albino line. I would much rather see the genes float about the captive population at a very rare level to pop up now and then to provide hobbyists with the unexpected thrill of an albino.





Nuggular said:


> I'd say you guys arguing for hybrids need to do more homework before you come on here and run your mouths about how you think is right. Your arguements have hardly stood up to the debate at hand. If you want to change peoples minds about hybrids (which probably wont ever happen) you need to come up with alot better info and evidence to back up and support your idea.


This isn't insulting someone? What is it then, because it's sure not respecting. I've done plenty of homework, just finished some an hour ago for my class on developmental biology in vertebrates. This is a discussion forum, debates are intended to happen. Read my original post and tell me where I'm running my mouth. I never said anything was right or wrong, simply brought up the subject of chocolate leucs, because in this 8 page thread on albinos it hadn't been discussed yet. Have some respect for fellow board members, whether their opinions are the same as yours or not (which mine are, by the way).


Can I get an answer on the chocolate leucs now?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

here is the answer 

snip Actually no as the isolation of these traits indicates a loss of genetic diversity of the animals and is actually detrimental to the long term (over years) sustainability of the animals in the hobby. This is a problem. IF a color variation pops up due to random genetics, the animal should not be selected for its variation but still bred into the normal population to maintain the appropriate gene frequencies. 

See the ASN guidelines at http://www.treewalkers.org 
"Endsnip

Ed


----------



## Nuggular (Apr 8, 2005)

gm_kevin,

I was in no way rude or disrespectful to you. I didnt gear any of my posts directly at you. You take it way too personal. The fact of the matter is, you sounded like you were defending hybrids. So now there is more than one person, hence me saying "you guys". Way to take it way out of wack. Of course it gets alittle heated during a debate like this. But you let it get to your head. Just like quaz calling me a "hot-head". 

I for one want to keep this a debate. And its pretty much over.

I do agree that isolating a trait and breeding for it is wrong. Like Ed said, it just hurts the gene pool and leaves us with genetically inferior frogs that would not occur in such numbers in the wild. So start a new thread about breeding for certain traits, but let this old a$$ thread die.


----------

