# Robertus



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

If these aren't living proof of wild populations of different morphs intertwining then I don't know what is? 

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/frog-classifieds/196946-dendrobates-robertus-tincs.html


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

Who says wild populations of "different" morphs don't interbreed in the wild? 

I think it is a large misconception within the hobby that each morph is shoved into their own little habitat niche with no influence from surrounding populations.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

I don't think anyone is claiming that wild morphs do not ever interbreed. What is often claimed is that we don't know enough about it to start trying to make those calls ourselves and that is why people stick to keeping them separate. 

What is it that people are claiming Robertus is an intergrade of?


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

I'm not necessarily advocating throwing potentially different morphs together. I'm just saying that there seems to be a belief that each morph lives on an island, so when one resembles another, there's some nefarious activities going on (see the post about Loma Colubre resembling the intergrade of Cauchero and Colubre from today). In reality, many species and locales thereof are actually just clinal variation of a large, continuous population. 

Take the situation with Paru sylvatica, for example...it's an incredible variable morph with some individuals resembling Lita, some San Lorenzo and everything in between. In reality, these locales are likely just the result of a large population with different "nodes" of the population representing all of these "locales". Litas are on one end, and San Lorenzo are on the other with Paru connecting them. Throw in Bilsa, Alto Tambo, and Rio Durangos to the middle of this, and you can get an idea. These species are not confined to what we define as locales. More often than not, our locales represent small pinpoints within a much larger, variable population. 

This is also not saying that all locales fit this description. D. tinc. azureus and the frogs from Isla Bastimentos tend to be segregated into smallish, confined populations. 

As to the questions of what Robertus are or are a mix of (this is total speculation)...I could see them as one extreme end of true sips, Cobalts, or even the Blue/Green/Yellow Sip/Koetari populations.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Spaff said:


> I'n reality, many species and locales thereof are actually just clinal variation of a large, continuous population...
> 
> ...More often than not, our locales represent small pinpoints within a much larger, variable population.



Exactly. We as humans, like to classify things in nice little neat boxes. The fact is that nature doesn't work that way. Population are not always homogenous. 

According to the Dutch Rana site, Robertus comes from the Acarai mountains. Look on a map and you will see why these frogs look similar to some of the aforementioned morphs.


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

Ok, so I'm hearing consensus that frogs do indeed "cross breed" in the wild. Playing devil's advocate here, but tell me again why the community shuns this natural occurrence?


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

Good thought-provoking posts lately MDfrogger. 

Just because different populations occasionally mix in the wild that does that lend credence to the right to mix them for phenotypic traits? And who knows, some of the wild mixing could be due to anthropogenic triggers.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

MD_Frogger said:


> Ok, so I'm hearing consensus that frogs do indeed "cross breed" in the wild. Playing devil's advocate here, but tell me again why the community shuns this natural occurrence?


I don't believe that anyone on this forum would shun natural locale intergrades. I think it's rad to see populations with high degrees of variability. I just don't like it when people assume that they have the foresight to try to replicate it in a glass box with a "let's see what happens" mentality.


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

It's clear that wild mixing provides more variation than the hobby can sustain already so why make more?

Although I think it is inevitable that someone will line breed hundreds or perhaps even thousand of frogs to get some mind-blowing morph and waste all the frogs that were required to make it--newbies won't even know the bloody path to beauty.


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

oldlady25715 said:


> anthropogenic


I had to Google that.



Dane said:


> I don't believe that anyone on this forum would shun natural locale intergrades. I think it's rad to see populations with high degrees of variability.



I like your forward thinking, sir. An example of which would be...


----------



## PumilioTurkey (Feb 25, 2010)

There are also those stories about morphs being deliberately being transfered from one location/island to another...


not sure if that has a really big impact though..


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

PumilioTurkey said:


> There are also those stories about morphs being deliberately being transfered from one location/island to another...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is that rumor or do you have some sources you can cite?


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

MD_Frogger said:


> I like your forward thinking, sir. An example of which would be...


Paru, Anchicaya "histos", non-"true" Sips

What is being said here isn't necessarily that these populations occasionally mix. It's that these populations are connected and the variation is a gradation across the whole of the population with extreme phenotypes at the ends (and possible nodes) and an intergrade in the middle. The two extreme ends may never occur close enough to interbreed, but gene flow occurs from both toward the middle.

Look up "ring species" for more information.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Spaff said:


> Paru, Anchicaya "histos", non-"true" Sips
> 
> What is being said here isn't necessarily that these populations occasionally mix. It's that these populations are connected and the variation is a gradation across the whole of the population with extreme phenotypes at the ends (and possible nodes) and an intergrade in the middle. The two extreme ends may never occur close enough to interbreed, but gene flow occurs from both toward the middle.


Yeah, what he said. With the close proximity of a number of locales within the Bocas del Toro area may happen with some pumilio too. While this is pure speculation, find some pics of the Punta Valiente locale. They are located on a peninsula between Escudo and Chiriqui Grande, and there are individuals that look a lot like Chiriqui, and some that look quite a bit like Escudo.


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

Spaff said:


> The two extreme ends may never occur close enough to interbreed, but gene flow occurs from both toward the middle.


So Robertus is likely a gradient morph? And at one point it had to have been the two extreme ends finally meeting to make these gradients no? I feel like this goes against what the community preaches as far as "keep azureus with azureus" or be vilified and banished from the froggy kingdom.


----------



## Dev30ils (May 1, 2012)

Just because population mixing happens in theory with some morphs/locales of some species doesn't mean it happens with all of them.

Azureus was so different from every other morph of tinctorius that it was originally classified as its own distinct species. It wasn't until very recently (Wollenberg, 2006) that genetic testing reclassified azureus as a morph of tinctorius.

It is interesting to me that scientists have not classified subspecies of dendrobatids the way they have in other groups. Anyone know why this is?

Mixing morphs/locales is like being the kid at the soda machine mixing all of the sodas together. There are plenty of perfectly good flavors available already, why mix them up? Let nature make the decisions here, there's no reason to interfere with something that has worked perfectly well on its own thus far.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

MD_Frogger said:


> So Robertus is likely a gradient morph? And at one point it had to have been the two extreme ends finally meeting to make these gradients no? I feel like this goes against what the community preaches as far as "keep azureus with azureus" or be vilified and banished from the froggy kingdom.


There are many paths to the end point possible. For instance Robertus looks like it could be a cross between Azureus and La Fumee but that doesn't mean that is the case. Or maybe robertus is the ancestor population and there is some selective pressure radiating outward. So robertus is not a mix but is actually the "parents" Also pumilio have interesting phenotypes that do not fit with a gradient population. There are islands of blue jeans like morphs that are separated by huge distances. The point as said before is not that populations are not mixing it is that we don't know how they are mixing for sure. And because of the way the hobby works we don't know if someone completely lied about a location. 

For instance it is claimed that robertus comes from an area near the Brazilian border. Since frogs are not allowed to exported from brazil maybe they actually came from Brazil and maybe their location is different enough that these guesses are just plain wrong. This wouldn't be terribly surprising given there was a slurge of interest in a somewhat similar looking morph on the forums a while back that was from Brazil. No one will admit this for fear of legal repercussions. 

When the hobby discovers or is pretty sure that 2 morphs are actually part of one population they will likely condone mixing the 2. But until then it is recommended that they stay apart. For instance their are cases of line breed frogs such as fine spot azureus where people consider it fine to bring them in with normal azureus.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

Not to derail thread,but this is along same line. I own blue/green and yellow sips. I have been told they are all from same locale but pairs imported by color. Now I have talked privately with some respected DB members who see it this way. That being said is it wrong to pair these up with no regard to color? If this is true then why does the hobby call them by their colors and not just call them sips?


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

Definitely not a derailment...more like a prime example of the shallow end of the pool when it comes to this topic. I too would say mix them and that the color portion of their name is simply descriptive of phenotype.


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

There needs to be a technical advisory committee composed of experienced breeders, importers, collectors, and scientists that periodically meet and draft guidelines for what's ok to mix and not mix. Each meeting should focus on figuring out what new imports are unique and which are new blood ok to mix into existing hobby populations. Would be an interesting lecture/debate for a frog day or microcosm event.


----------



## Judy S (Aug 29, 2010)

yah...good luck with that...it requires a conscience...sorry to be so cynical


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

The original post also assumes that collectors/exporters care about keeping different populations separate upon collection and exportation. A collector could say they collected pumilio "from the northwestern coast of Panama"...and that could include specimens from every population for a stretch of 40-50 miles and still be telling the technical truth, but it doesn't mean they were collected from a SINGLE population.

Be careful of the assumptions/hopes you project onto the information we're provided.


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> The original post also assumes that collectors/exporters care about keeping different populations separate upon collection and exportation.


Regardless of who is doing the categorization and seperation of these animals it doesn't change the fact that it's commonplace practice magnified times 10 by the hobby. 

The original post was only meant to provoke thought with in the community as to what is "right". Tell me these Tumucumaque don't look like wicked mutts.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

MD_Frogger said:


> Regardless of who is doing the categorization and seperation of these animals it doesn't change the fact that it's commonplace practice magnified times 10 by the hobby.
> 
> The original post was only meant to provoke thought with in the community as to what is "right". Tell me these Tumucumaque don't look like wicked mutts.


I'll weigh in with what I got.

I think that the goal of most hobbyists who express anti-mixing rhetoric, myself included, is to create a population that represents _that frog_, in _that location_ in the wild. If _that population_ in _that location_ is an intergrade between dissimilar frogs with variability, then that should be reflected in _that_ captive population. If a representative sampling from that area shows that there is very little variability, then _that_ should be reflected in the captive population. 

The problem, obviously, is that we're dealing with bad data. If every frog that ever entered into the hobby had complete locale information this would be a non-issue. That will never be the case so hobbyists of that ilk are just doing the best they can. If I had solid evidence that two dissimilar frogs did indeed intergrade then I don't see a problem at all with crossbreeding, provided their genetics are representative of that locale. When breeders are dogmatic about it, I think they see it as erring on the side of caution. It's far from optimum but I've come from a pet community that encourages cross breeding and I honestly believe this is a better approach.

Also, as far as the desire to categorize and "put things in boxes", that is absolutely true and it's not going away. That kind of thinking is hard wired into people for good unrelated reasons and it will continue no matter what happens with the hobby and crossbreeding. What that means is that when a frog can no longer be "put in some kind of box" in people's minds then the appreciation for that frog diminishes, genetics are lost, and pressure is put on wild importation. 

I also want to warn against any of the "it looks like and X crossed with a Y" type of thinking. I know the original posters know this, but if someone new is forming opinions here, just because a frog may look like a cross really means nothing. All frogs show variability, some much more than others, and while appearance is obviously genetic, the path those genetics take cannot be accurately determined by phenotype alone.


----------



## cml1287 (Mar 29, 2012)

MD_Frogger said:


> Tell me these Tumucumaque don't look like wicked mutts.


they do... and you can bet they'd cost a pretty penny. Imagine that, if that was the case, a mutt selling in the hobby... two weeks ago that was "a dubious proposition at best"


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

They look nothing like "mutts" to me. Honestly, they look like an amazing natural population that many would love to have in their collections. It is impossible to call a frog a "mutt" without knowing its background, Boondoggle said it well.

John


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

MD_Frogger said:


> So Robertus is likely a gradient morph? And at one point it had to have been the two extreme ends finally meeting to make these gradients no? I feel like this goes against what the community preaches as far as "keep azureus with azureus" or be vilified and banished from the froggy kingdom.


 If your point is that we should not vilify, I'm with you. That being said, I don't agree with you that this goes against with what the community preaches. I think that for the most part, the community thinks that what natures does is fine and should be appreciated. Pubfiction and some others here explained it well. But when a hobbyist purposely mixes morphs for any reason, then that's something altogether different. 



MD_Frogger said:


> Definitely not a derailment...more like a prime example of the shallow end of the pool when it comes to this topic. I too would say mix them and that the color portion of their name is simply descriptive of phenotype.


 I couldn't disagree more. Just because a Green Sip can produce frogs that look like Yellow Sips or Blue Sips does not mean that's what they are. It's a faulty logic along the lines of "My friends always wears black socks and he got cancer. Therefore, black socks cause cancer." You are making a pretty big assumption.


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

ecichlid said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Just because a Green Sip can produce frogs that look like Yellow Sips or Blue Sips does not mean that's what they are. It's a faulty logic along the lines of "My friends always wears black socks and he got cancer. Therefore, black socks cause cancer." You are making a pretty big assumption.


It isn't an assumption when it is known that original importations of frogs from the Sipaliwini River population were brought in with a spectrum of phenotypes. The majority of original pairs and subsequent offspring were selected for the green trait, so the "extremes" (blue and yellow) became quite rare. Old WC pairs still throw the spectrum, but the majority of CB pairs from these selected frogs breed mostly true to the green phenotype.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Spaff said:


> It isn't an assumption when it is known that original importations of frogs from the Sipaliwini River population were brought in with a spectrum of phenotypes. The majority of original pairs and subsequent offspring were selected for the green trait, so the "extremes" (blue and yellow) became quite rare. Old WC pairs still throw the spectrum, but the majority of CB pairs from these selected frogs breed mostly true to the green phenotype.


 I think it's a better practice to sell frogs with the morph name you were given and not to change them. Do you disagree? Perhaps there are exceptions, but that's a tight wire to walk. No?


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

ecichlid said:


> I think it's a better practice to sell frogs with the morph name you were given and not to change them. Do you disagree? Perhaps there are exceptions, but that's a tight wire to walk. No?


What would you call this frog?



Blue_Pumilio said:


>


and this one?



Blue_Pumilio said:


>


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

As they were sold to me as green sips they have thrown both green and blue colored offspring. Some have very yellow colorings when young and get greener with age. Which was confusing to me as I thought there were four diff sips blue/green/yellow and true. But then was told that there was realy only two green/blue/yellow as one and true the other. And I see lots of blue/green pairs. So is it popular belief that there are four distinct morphs or locales with these particular frogs? Or only two?


----------



## cml1287 (Mar 29, 2012)

toostrange said:


> So is it popular belief that there are four distinct morphs or locales with these particular frogs? Or only two?


My understanding is that the blue/green are the same. Can't comment on yellow - or "true"


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Spaff said:


> What would you call this frog?
> 
> 
> 
> and this one?


If I purchased them, I would call them what they were sold to me as. If I didn't feel comfortable with the seller (which I don't), then I wouldn't purchase them no matter what they were called. Even if they look exactly like what they were labeled as. 

I have no doubt that all green, blue and yellow sips could be the same morph. I still would encourage anyone who bred them to not mix them and to not sell them as anything other than what they were labeled as. 

I couldn't help but notice you answered my questions with questions. I'm not trying to trap you here. Would you please make your point or answer my questions? I enjoy this conversation and I have an open mind.


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

ecichlid said:


> If I purchased them, I would call them what they were sold to me as. If I didn't feel comfortable with the seller (which I don't), then I wouldn't purchase them no matter what they were called. Even if they look exactly like what they were labeled as.
> 
> I have no doubt that all green, blue and yellow sips could be the same morph. I still would encourage anyone who bred them to not mix them and to not sell them as anything other than what they were labeled as.
> 
> I couldn't help but notice you answered my questions with questions. I'm not trying to trap you here. Would you please make your point or answer my questions? I enjoy this conversation and I have an open mind.


They're both examples of Green Sips. The blue frogs were produced by a friend prior to going to Justin. The parents who produced those blue individuals are siblings to these frogs with the much more traditional Sip look:



















My point is that unless it's a "True" Sip, an (insert color here) Sip is a Sip, is a Sip, is a Sip. They are all representative of a large, polymorphic population and separating them by phenotype is only diminishing the genetic variability in captive populations. 

Here's a different spin on a similar polymorphic population...Many reputable breeders sell the lighter colored (non-red) Bastis as "Gold Dust" Bastis. Going by the logic of "call them whatever the reputable seller called them", Gold Dust would be bred to Gold Dust and not to the reds, which would lead the vast majority to grab the pitchforks and start a riot.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Spaff said:


> They're both examples of Green Sips. The blue frogs were produced by a friend prior to going to Justin. The parents who produced those blue individuals are siblings to these frogs with the much more traditional Sip look:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If that's true that a Sip is a Sip is a Sip, then not only can they be bred together, they should be. The problem, again, is so much sketchy information. This is the first time I've heard that (not surprising because I don't raise Sips) so I personally would need some serious convincing to start breeding them together...not because I doubt that it's likely (it probably is) but because it would be difficult to reverse that process if it turned out not to be true. Also, it seems any shadow of doubt really affects the future availability of a specific frog. 

Take the Giant Orange and Regina for example. They were thought to different morphs for years and finally really compelling evidence became public that they had been from the same population. The hobby pretty much accepted that as fact and people began re-breeding them together. I don't think it's a coincidence that their popularity severely dropped off after that. It didn't help them that Matecho were making the rounds and were similar looking, but I think the fact that there was some shadow on their lineage unconsciously made them less desirable to people. See also Black Sauls/Yellowbacks. 

People are funny, and I don't see this changing. Again, this whole issue would disappear if we had reliable data on imports...but obviously that would open up a whole new set of problems.


----------



## SeaDuck (Nov 8, 2006)

Jeremy, Unlike the Giant Orange/Regina mess the information about the Sips came directly from the importer and their collectors. I also remember them not collecting the all blue frogs due to the similarity to azureus. And for what it is worth I honestly believe that a frog should be called by its correct name with locale vs what ever tag an individual would like to add to it. 

Robert


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

FroggyKnight said:


> It is impossible to call a frog a "mutt" without knowing its background.


I do believe that I said "looks" like a mutt, no?


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

SeaDuck said:


> Jeremy, Unlike the Giant Orange/Regina mess the information about the Sips came directly from the importer and their collectors. I also remember them not collecting the all blue frogs due to the similarity to azureus. And for what it is worth I honestly believe that a frog should be called by its correct name with locale vs what ever tag an individual would like to add to it.
> 
> Robert


That seems like reliable data. Who was the importer?


----------



## SeaDuck (Nov 8, 2006)

Would need to double check, though I remember it being Marcus (he may not have been the sole importer.) This would have been about ten years ago. Robert


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

MD_Frogger said:


> I do believe that I said "looks" like a mutt, no?


 I'm not a fan of calling what looks like a cross between two morphs a "mutt". But yes, it does look like a cross between two morphs, but it's not. Could this frog be the in the middle of two distinct morphs on each end? Sure. Does that mean it's cross between two morphs? No. Does this frog or the Robertus justify crossing morphs in the vivarium? I'm in the opinion of - hell no.

Spaff, in regards to your points about Sips and Gold Basti's. They are good points, but I think they are secondary to the point of the OP which was: 

_"Ok, so I'm hearing consensus that frogs do indeed "cross breed" in the wild. Playing devil's advocate here, but tell me again why the community shuns this natural occurrence?"_

I could not disagree with this statement more. There was is no consensus to support this, quite the contrary. 

Except for some obvious exceptions, I think it's a good practice to sell your froglets with the name they were sold to you as.

_"If that's true that a Sip is a Sip is a Sip, then not only can they be bred together, they should be. The problem, again, is so much sketchy information. This is the first time I've heard that (not surprising because I don't raise Sips) so I personally would need some serious convincing to start breeding them together...not because I doubt that it's likely (it probably is) but because it would be difficult to reverse that process if it turned out not to be true. Also, it seems any shadow of doubt really affects the future availability of a specific frog. "_ 

Exactly. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in!


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

My comments about Sips were in response to the question asked about how Sips should be managed. I know that it's an aside from the original post, but Ali (the OP) acknowledged the Sip questions as relevant to this topic...



ecichlid said:


> _"Ok, so I'm hearing consensus that frogs do indeed "cross breed" in the wild. Playing devil's advocate here, but tell me again why the community shuns this natural occurrence?"_
> 
> I could not disagree with this statement more. There was is no consensus to support this, quite the contrary.


The simple fact is that gene flow occurs among contiguous populations, and even separate species of Dendrobatids (and many other organisms) in the wild. It is accepted within the scientific community that there are naturally occurring histrionica/lehmanni hybrids within the Valle del Cauca.


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

ecichlid said:


> I'm not a fan of calling what looks like a cross between two morphs a "mutt". But yes, it does look like a cross between two morphs, but it's not. Could this frog be the in the middle of two distinct morphs on each end? Sure. Does that mean it's cross between two morphs? No. Does this frog or the Robertus justify crossing morphs in the vivarium? I'm in the opinion of - hell no.


Good thing I didn't place that moniker on them to please you then. It's this closed minded opinion of no possible way they interbreed in the wild I sought to address with this thread. And yes, the Sips can be kept together with the basti example being spot on accurate for the purpose of which it was intended. I don't see how you feel you know my intentions of what my posts mean better than I do?


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

MD_Frogger said:


> Good thing I didn't place that moniker on them to please you then. It's this closed minded opinion of no possible way they interbreed in the wild I sought to address with this thread. And yes, the Sips can be kept together with the basti example being spot on accurate for the purpose of which it was intended. I don't see how you feel you know my intentions of what my posts mean better than I do?


I don't think anyone on this thread said that there is no possible way they interbreed in the wild, actually its been acknowledged as a possible origin for a few morphs. Why are you dead set on this being reason for the Tumucumaque and Robertus morphs though? I would rather not call these morphs "mutts" as there is no way to prove it at this time. I would rather leave the question unanswered than possibly spread misinformation. 

I totally agree that the different Sips can be kept together if they were indeed collected from the same locale. Honesty though, I don't know enough about their history to tell if they are from the same locale as I have done very little research on them. 



> I don't see how you feel you know my intentions of what my posts mean better than I do?


I'm not sure where this came from, but only you really know exactly what you mean to say. Any post can easily be misinterpreted by others. 

John


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

MD_Frogger said:


> Good thing I didn't place that moniker on them to please you then. It's this closed minded opinion of no possible way they interbreed in the wild I sought to address with this thread. And yes, the Sips can be kept together with the basti example being spot on accurate for the purpose of which it was intended. I don't see how you feel you know my intentions of what my posts mean better than I do?


Please don't make this a personal conversation. I do not know your intentions, I only know what you write here. I have no interest in your intentions nor how you think. I do enjoy conversing about frogs here with you, nothing more. 

I believe it's possible that two different morphs in the wild can breed together. Who said they can't? What one can't do with any level of confidence, is look at a picture of a frog and possibly conclude that it's a cross of two different morphs.

I have seen wild animals from Central America that were hybrids. It's no surprise that this occurred because of a man made canal that connected two bodies of water that were not previously connected. Still, this can happen even without the assistance of man. Even so, I think crossing morphs in captivity should be avoided, as it could taint the Gene pool of what we keep in captivity, without us even knowing it occured.

Do you disagree? If so, why?


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog (Jan 25, 2008)

Spaff said:


> They're both examples of Green Sips. The blue frogs were produced by a friend prior to going to Justin. The parents who produced those blue individuals are siblings to these frogs with the much more traditional Sip look:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can weigh in a bit on this and talk about something relating to the sips...and koetari

I have multiple green sip pairs....with lines being from nabors and schwinn, I also have under the canopy line Koetari(all dark blue animals) look nothing like most green sips you see...I also purchased these sips which are the great grand children of my Green sip female.... and they look nearly identical to my UTC line Koetari. My female green sip is from the Friend i think you're referring to Spaff

here are some pics of my green sip parents, koetari parents. and koetari offspring and the new "blue sips" 

green sip pair 1



koetari pair


koetari offspring




new Blue sips Juvies( green sip grandparents)


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog (Jan 25, 2008)

Also what I find most interesting about the similarity between the koetari and the new "blue" sips I got is not only the color, but also the patterning matches, and is like no Other Tinctorius Ive ever seen. I can't think of any tinctorius that does not have the black line separating the Flanks from the back that breaks up the color or pattern in tinctorius, Even Azureus have the darker blue line that breaks up their pattern. The UTC Koetari, and these "blue" sips literately have the pattern running From one underside of the belly all the way across the flanks and back with nothing Breaking up the spotting. Not even a darker Line...


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

RedEyeTroyFrog said:


> I can weigh in a bit on this and talk about something relating to the sips...and koetari
> 
> I have multiple green sip pairs....with lines being from nabors and schwinn, I also have under the canopy line Koetari(all dark blue animals) look nothing like most green sips you see...I also purchased these sips which are the great grand children of my Green sip female.... and they look nearly identical to my UTC line Koetari. My female green sip is from the Friend i think you're referring to Spaff
> 
> ...


 Here in lies my confusion. How can they be Blue Sips if they come from a Green Sip line?


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog (Jan 25, 2008)

Brian, Im just saying " blue" so you know which ones Im referring to. All Sips Ive bought were sold to me as Green Sips, so thats what I list them as when I sell them. Im yet to morph a straight Yellow sip, but Ive had some super bright green ones that are nearly yellow. Had a few Turquoise, and some blue as well...not as blue as the ones i purchased, but blue none the less.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

Cool. My question is are there 4 distinct morphs of sips? Green/Blue/Yellow and True? Or 3 Green/Blue,Yellow and True. As I have not seen anyone selling Blues.


----------



## SeaDuck (Nov 8, 2006)

ecichlid said:


> I believe it's possible that two different morphs in the wild can breed together. Who said they can't? What one can't do with any level of confidence, is look at a picture of a frog and possibly conclude that it's a cross of two different morphs.


I think you are trying to fit frog phenotypes into strict color/pattern categories. There are continuous populations that look very different at opposite ends and at other points in the population they share more similarities. The hobby has a tendency to take a particular phenotype and call it a morph ultimately breeding all the identical frogs of a population together and limiting the wonderful variations from many locals. 

Also, a local may be where two of the hobby designated morphs come together as an intergrade and calling this a cross between morphs would be an error. This is part of an overall population that connects and where the phenotypes are more variable. I suspect this is the case with "Robertus" and was with the Sips. Hopefully in ten years we will not be having the "yellow, blue, green Robertus" discussion. 

Robert


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

SeaDuck said:


> I think you are trying to fit frog phenotypes into strict color/pattern categories. There are continuous populations that look very different at opposite ends and at other points in the population they share more similarities. The hobby has a tendency to take a particular phenotype and call it a morph ultimately breeding all the identical frogs of a population together and limiting the wonderful variations from many locals.
> 
> Also, a local may be where two of the hobby designated morphs come together as an intergrade and calling this a cross between morphs would be an error. This is part of an overall population that connects and where the phenotypes are more variable. I suspect this is the case with "Robertus" and was with the Sips. Hopefully in ten years we will not be having the "yellow, blue, green Robertus" discussion.
> 
> Robert


 Perfectly put!

The name "Green Sip" is a misnomer, at best. A "Green" Sip can be green, yellow or blue as Troy pointed out based on his experience. I know another breeder of Green Sips and is seeing exactly the same thing.

Can the Green Sip name be changed to something like "Green/Yellow/Blue" sip? That's the million dollar question being discussed here.


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

Troy, I've seen more adults from this "line" (that produced mine pictured and your blues) that could pass for Koetari if you didn't know that they weren't. I also find it interesting that the UE Koetari look so much like traditional green sips.



toostrange said:


> Cool. My question is are there 4 distinct morphs of sips? Green/Blue/Yellow and True? Or 3 Green/Blue,Yellow and True. As I have not seen anyone selling Blues.


There are two locales of "sip": the polymorphic population and True Sips



ecichlid said:


> Perfectly put!
> 
> The name "Green Sip" is a misnomer, at best. A "Green" Sip can be green, yellow or blue as Troy pointed out based on his experience. I know another breeder of Green Sips and is seeing exactly the same thing.
> 
> Can the Green Sip name be changed to something like "Green/Yellow/Blue" sip? That's the million dollar question being discussed here.


I'd prefer to see the populations called Sipaliwini River and True Sip and just do away with the phenotypic designations that have caused all this confusion in the first place.


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

ecichlid said:


> I think crossing morphs in captivity should be avoided, as it could taint the Gene pool of what we keep in captivity, without us even knowing it occured.


Speaking of this lovely sounding hobby gene pool do you mean all the brothers and sisters that are bred together generation after generation or the F2 bred with grandpa after grandma dies?


----------



## MD_Frogger (Sep 9, 2008)

ecichlid said:


> I have no doubt that all green, blue and yellow sips could be the same morph. I still would encourage anyone who bred them to not mix them and to not sell them as anything other than what they were labeled as.
> 
> The name "Green Sip" is a misnomer, at best. A "Green" Sip can be green, yellow or blue as Troy pointed out based on his experience. I know another breeder of Green Sips and is seeing exactly the same thing. Can the Green Sip name be changed to something like "Green/Yellow/Blue" sip? That's the million dollar question being discussed here


So you changed your mind? And once again, no, that is not the million dollar discussion being held here. Sips are just one example.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

My point was only this. I was sold pair of "Yellow Sips". Upon talkin to some well respected breeders was told in their opinion that there was no such thing. It was just a variant of a "Green Sip". Now I trust the person who sold them to me and that's what I will call them. Also have heard of "Blue Sips" but have never seen any sold under that name. Now my "Green Sips" throw all shades of blue/green offspring, but no yellow. Now I'm not tryin to mix them was just lookin for some clarification on the matter. Because my research seems to find same amount of info on both sides of subject.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

MD_Frogger said:


> Speaking of this lovely sounding hobby gene pool do you mean all the brothers and sisters that are bred together generation after generation or the F2 bred with grandpa after grandma dies?


 You're right, I'm sure this sort of thing goes on, but I don't think that it justifies purposely crossing morphs. Do you?


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

Alright folks...for the first time in a long time an interesting, informative discussion was occurring and potentially bringing new insights to the hobby. I, for one, thought the discussion was good. It may have been heated as we all will never totally agree, but the collective thinking and passing of information was beneficial. 

We can have discussion like this, but we absolutely *cannot* resort to name-calling, bashing, or any of the other BS that went on as of late here. None of us are in Kindergarten, and I feel that it's safe to assume that most participating are at least semi-mature men/women. Let's act like it and have civilized discussions that don't devolve into train wrecks.


----------



## DendroKurt (Mar 19, 2013)

Let's go back to focusing on there beautiful frogs. I just got my pair last week, for wild caught frogs they are doing a great job adjusting, they eat a lot and are super bold










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

