# Imitator Tarapoto...Hybrid?



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Speaking of hybrids...am I the only one that thinks that Tarapoto is really just a love shack where Intermedius and Green Imis do the wild froggy thing?
(Some of these thumbs also look to have a fair amount of fantasticus in them) 

Thoughts?

EricG.NH


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Yep...they are mutts for sure...if anyone wants to give them up, now that the truth is out, I will take them off of you're hands.
:wink: 

Really, I'm kidding (about them being mutts)!

I don't really think they are hybrids...though it is possible it happened a long time back in the wild.

Most of the few pics I've seen of tarapoto imitator are fairly similar, and don't appear to be as variable in appearance as say imitator intermedius.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

There are separate populations in the wild matching both (individually) green and Tarapoto imitators.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

I don't have an answer to this question, but I think it's an interesting one subject to support or fairly easy disproof.

Are populations of Tarapoto imitators geographically isolated from other imitator populations? Do they occurr in a geography intermediate to those of both intermedius and standard imitator? Have any experiments been done to examine the offspring of an intermedius x imitator?

Phenotypic monotony of a population doesn't disprove hybridization, any more than does phenotypic plasticity imply it. Think of the variation seen in normal intermedius which are "unhybridized."

Depending on the genetics involved in imitator phenotypes, a scenario could emerge in which occasional gene flow from intermedius and imitator populations to an intermediate (subspecific?) population maintains a (relatively) phenotypically distinct population of animals that can interbreed, in so doing maintaining the hybrid phenotype. Often, the amount of gene flow necessary to maintain a scenario like this is surprisingly low.

I'm not saying yea or nay - I have no evidence either way - but I certainly haven't heard any convincing evidence for or against, either...


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Yep...they are mutts for sure...
I love mutts! I think I'm one too! :? 
Are populations of Tarapoto imitators geographically isolated from other imitator populations? Do they occurr in a geography intermediate to those of both intermedius and standard imitator?
From the rough data/pictures I've seen on different breeders sites, I think the populations coexist in the same geographical area. That's one of the reasons I raised the question.
Have any experiments been done to examine the offspring of an intermedius x imitator? 
From what I gather hybrids are a big no-no in the hobby. The leuc x tinc in another hybrid thread is the only real reference I've seen. But then I'm new to this gig.
Depending on the genetics involved in imitator phenotypes, a scenario could emerge in which occasional gene flow from intermedius and imitator populations to an intermediate (subspecific?) population maintains a (relatively) phenotypically distinct population of animals that can interbreed, in so doing maintaining the hybrid phenotype. Often, the amount of gene flow necessary to maintain a scenario like this is surprisingly low.
I personnally believe this type of scenario happens more often then we think and is likely responsible for many of the morphs we see. But that's just my opinion, YMMV.

EricG.NH


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

Take the Understory Explorer trip, and find out! I've been told that you can see intermedius on one leaf and turn your head to see standard intermedius (and been shown verifying pictures). Fantasticus occur in the same geographic location, and imitators are thought to imitate fantasticus. Thus, the term "imitator."

Geographic barriers are not the only barrier to speciation, so the simple fact that two different looking frogs coexist in the same area does not mean that they aren't different species. But, I'm not arguing either way.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Geographic barriers are not the only barrier to speciation, so the simple fact that two different looking frogs coexist in the same area does not mean that they aren't different species. But, I'm not arguing either way.


Good point, Homer. But complete and definite allopatry would be strong evidence *against* hybridization as the cause of the Tarapoto phenotype. That's what I meant by asking it - it's an easy first question.

Would that I had the resources for the Understory trip...


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

I agree, it's a good first question. I was only making the point that the answer is only dispositive if there are geographic barriers. I am not 100% sure, but I do not believe complete allopatry to be true in this instance. Hopefully, someone can confirm or deny.

In addition, since they are all D. imitators that we are speaking of, I don't believe the term "hybridization" is quite right. That's not really a big deal, though, as I think we all know what is being discussed.

I will say that I see quite a bit of variation in D. imitator intermedius (both visually and in calling), even from a single pair, so I would not be surprised to see these various "morphs" as little more than individual phenotypic variation that may occur within an interbreeding population. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case, but I do believe it may be possible.



npaull said:


> > Geographic barriers are not the only barrier to speciation, so the simple fact that two different looking frogs coexist in the same area does not mean that they aren't different species. But, I'm not arguing either way.
> 
> 
> Good point, Homer. But complete and definite allopatry would be strong evidence *against* hybridization as the cause of the Tarapoto phenotype. That's what I meant by asking it - it's an easy first question.
> ...


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

pl259 said:


> From what I gather hybrids are a big no-no in the hobby. The leuc x tinc in another hybrid thread is the only real reference I've seen.


that's not apples with apples.

Captive hybrids are a no-no. However, naturally overlapping Wild populations that cross are not. For instance if in some areas frog A crossed with frog B that would be fine. However, it would not be appropriate to cross a captive bred Frog A with a CB frog B. It must only happen in natural, wild coditions. HTH


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

Tarapoto imitator are a real frog, not a hybrid. I did a field survey of imitator for about 3 months near Tarapoto, and if you are on one side of the mountains you will find only the yellow Tarapoto ones, on the other side you find the nominal green ones. The mountains go up to about 1000 m, and imitator goes up to the top, so there is gene flow between the two populations. I suspect in some areas there is more of an intermediate yellow-green form, but I haven't found them yet. They really aren't that different to begin with, in fact I think the only reason there are green imitator at all is because they are sympatric with variabilis, their model, which is more green. Interestingly, the one variabilis I've seen from the Tarapoto side of the mountains was yellow - like the imitator.

Evan


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Tarapoto imitator are a real frog, not a hybrid. I did a field survey of imitator for about 3 months near Tarapoto, and if you are on one side of the mountains you will find only the yellow Tarapoto ones, on the other side you find the nominal green ones. The mountains go up to about 1000 m, and imitator goes up to the top, so there is gene flow between the two populations. I suspect in some areas there is more of an intermediate yellow-green form, but I haven't found them yet. They really aren't that different to begin with, in fact I think the only reason there are green imitator at all is because they are sympatric with variabilis, their model, which is more green. Interestingly, the one variabilis I've seen from the Tarapoto side of the mountains was yellow - like the imitator.


Evan, is there anything else that convinces you of the fact that Tarapoto do not represent a hybrid? Nothing in what you mentioned refutes a hybrid theory - in fact, it lends at least some supporting evidence (the fact that their populations are geographically contiguous, and likely experience gene flow). 

Where are intermedius populations in relation to these two?


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

The intermedius are off about 60 km to the east of the green and yellow imitator. The green and yellow are about equally close distance-wise to intermedius. I will say this - there is probably gene flow between all morphs of imitator. But that doesn't make them all 'hybrids'. I guess I'm not really sure by what you mean by hybrids, they are all one species after all. I wouldn't call them an intermediate form either, since the ranges look something like this:

Tarapoto---------------

^^^^^^^^^(mtns) ------------intermedius 

Green------------------ 

I intended that to look like a map...point is that the yellow imitator do not occur in an intermediate position between intermedius and green.

Evan


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

Ric Sanchez said:


> I guess I'm not really sure by what you mean by hybrids, they are all one species after all.


By hybrids he means, The mixing of two color morphs. For instance, D. Pumilio Chirique and D. Pumilio Almerante. Or in this instance Imitator yellow and imitator green.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Not being a life sciences person, I apologize if I'm not using the term "hybrid" correctly. This thread is basically a general inquiry as to the possible reasons/mechanisms for the obvious(to me anyway) similarities between these closely located Pervian thumbs. The Tarapoto has striking similarities to both the green/yellow imitator and the intermedius and seems to carry a mix of charactersitics from both. Characteristics like color, pattern, and call. 
And not to stir the pot too much more but many intermedius, including my own, have the typical fantasticus "crown".
So far, it sounds like this is a very reasonable possibility for the origins of the Tarapoto imitator.

EricG.NH


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

pl259 said:


> Not being a life sciences person, I apologize if I'm not using the term "hybrid" correctly.


Eric, no need to apologize, but it is pretty common that people on this board use the term "hybrid" improperly. Since a hybrid by definition should be a cross between two different species, the crossing of morphs, populations, or subspecies does not really produce a hybrid.



> This thread is basically a general inquiry as to the possible reasons/mechanisms for the obvious(to me anyway) similarities between these closely located Pervian thumbs. The Tarapoto has striking similarities to both the green/yellow imitator and the intermedius and seems to carry a mix of charactersitics from both. Characteristics like color, pattern, and call.


When you sit down and think about it, these similarities are not that surprising. The four frogs you are talking about are:

Dendrobates imitator 'green' 
Dendrobates imitator 'yellow'
Dendrobates imitator ssp. intermedius
Dendrobates imitator 'Tarapoto'

The '___' denotes a variety, or subpopulation of a particular species. The ssp. stands for subspecies, and may not be much more meaningful in dividing the species than the variety/subpopulation connotation in this instance.

Basic population genetics and evolution gives several explanations for the variation that we see here. First, these are all the same species of frog, so they will all have very substantial morphological characteristics. That is a given.

So, then we focus on the differences, and try to come up with a reason for the differences we see in these four varieties. As Evan's chart indicates, these populations may exist in a manner such that they geographically overlap at the edges, but the primary populations have had some genetic drift that has occurred. By random, or by some selective pressure, or by one of the drivers of genetic drift (founder effect, isolation, etc.) certain traits have become dominant in certain geographic locations, and certain traits may have fallen out of the population entirely that are present in the other population.




> So far, it sounds like this is a very reasonable possibility for the origins of the Tarapoto imitator.
> 
> EricG.NH


Since the Tarapoto population is not in between the intermedius population and the yellow/green population, it is unlikely that the Tarapoto population resulted from a yellow/green mating with an intermedius. It would be more likely that the intermedius population originated from the yellow/green mating with a Tarapoto.

Even more likely is that there were events that caused discrete populations to occur in those three locations, and genetic drift occurred such that the primary morphology in one location is yellow/green, while the primary morphology in the next location is the intermedius form, and the primary morphology in the final location is the Tarapoto form. 

I have to say that my experience with the imitators and darts in general is that there is a substantial amount of variation that occurs even in the offspring from a given pair, so I imagine that there is quite a bit of variety in individuals in any of those locations. I have seen pictures of both red and yellow head fants in the same location, and have been told that a person on the Understory trip did see intermedius and yellow imitators in the same location.

I hope that helps decipher some of this, Eric. I know Evan's information was very helpful to me. Thanks again, Evan!


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

Homer said:


> it is pretty common that people on this board use the term "hybrid" improperly. Since a hybrid by definition should be a cross between two different species, the crossing of morphs, populations, or subspecies does not really produce a hybrid.


Hmm, I always kind of knew that, but just jumped on board with everybody else calling morph crosses hybrids. What term should we be using Homer?


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

pl259 said:


> Speaking of hybrids...am I the only one that thinks that Tarapoto is really just a love shack where Intermedius and Green Imis do the wild froggy thing?
> (Some of these thumbs also look to have a fair amount of fantasticus in them)
> 
> Thoughts?
> ...


Here are some pics I took of some of the frogs in Tarapoto.



























Dieffenbachia plat that make up a huge part of imitator habitat. 










Eggs and tad in Deiffbachia










Fantasticus from same area.

























And if im not mistaken I took this picture at the same location









Tree hole with tad...most likely a Fantasticus tad.


----------



## Darks!de (Nov 16, 2004)

So Greg, how many of those frogs did you manage to smuggle back??? :twisted:


----------



## Kase (Feb 15, 2004)

You coulda at least smuggled that tad in a water bottle. Hehe!


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

I've got to git me some of those!

That's one awesome little froggie! 

Wonder what we call that one?

EricG.NH


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

Paul E. Wog said:


> Homer said:
> 
> 
> > it is pretty common that people on this board use the term "hybrid" improperly. Since a hybrid by definition should be a cross between two different species, the crossing of morphs, populations, or subspecies does not really produce a hybrid.
> ...


Not being a smarty-pants, but instead of saying "don't hybridize," we could say, "don't cross morphs." Now, being a smarty-pants, we could call the offspring of a morph cross a "mick" instead of a "hybrid", and just say, "don't produce mick's." (you know, short for "morph cross" or "m/c"'s). 

I don't think there is a term of art to describe the offspring of a morph or locale cross at this time. I just know it's not a hybrid. Besides, I think it helps us be a little more precise with what we mean by not just throwing around the term "hybrid" anytime two frogs are crossed that we thought should not be crossed. It makes us specifically identify exactly what is wrong about the crossing of those two individuals.

Is it because the two individuals are different morphs? Is it becasue the two individuals might have come from different locations?

Plus, now that we start using proper terminology, we get to have 18 or 19 new exciting and heated debate threads on whether a "mick" is good, and whether it is bad to cross morphs, locales, etc. :lol:


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

^ Sounds good to me. Smarty pan..... I mean Homer :wink: 

All in favor of calling morph crosses Micks say aye.


*AYE!!!*


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

As for calling morph crosses "micks" I started a poll
It can be found here


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

I'm Irish and I take offense to that term.... :evil: 

S


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

sports_doc said:


> I'm Irish and I take offense to that term.... :evil:
> 
> S


??????????????? 
Are you being serious? Never heard the word used in a derogitory way.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Me? No, I dont really care, truly....but, I may be wrong...I do recall that term being used "back in the day" as a slang for Irish immigrants.

 "Mick"
Many Irish surnames begin with "Mc" or "Mick", as in McDowell, or McShane, from which people from Ireland often get the nickname "Mick". (Mc usually means "son of". For instance the surname McNulty literally means son of Nulty, or — for the Scottish — MacDonald means son of Donald) Many Irish people are also named after the Irish leader Michael Collins, making Michael (Mick) a very common name.

It is sometimes used, usually with a lower-case "m", as an offensive slang term in British English and American English for an Irish person or a Roman Catholic. This is unrelated to the name Michael, however.

The term "mick" is also used as slang in the phrase taking the mickey or "take the mick" meaning to tease.


Now, I dont think we need another term at all, just responsible hobbyists.

S


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Found some more silly Mick references...


Micks 9 up, 1 down 

People who are of fairly strong Irish Descent. The word Mick is most generously used in the U.S Northest, primarly by Italians in Brooklyn.

Hey Tony, there are too many Micks in our club tonight. Lets bust some heads.

by Dave Mar 31, 2004 email it
permalink: del.icio.us 
Send to a friend 
your email: 
their email: 



2. micks 1 up, 6 down 

Another word for the drug Ecstasy, short for 'Mick Mills' 

Clubber : 'Hey are we dropping any Micks tonight?'


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

sports_doc said:


> Me? No, I dont really care, truly....but, I may be wrong...I do recall that term being used "back in the day" as a slang for Irish immigrants.


Okay, good. I figured it was a joke, but with no lol, JK or wink I wasn't sure.




sports_doc said:


> Now, I dont think we need another term at all, just responsible hobbyists.


I definitely agree that we need more responsible hobbyists, but as Homer said, it is a common error on this board (and probably others) to call a morph cross a hybid, which is incorrect. Maybe we don't need another slang term, not that this hobbie has any shortage on those :roll: However, I believe that those in the know, need to be more vocal about correcting these errors, because too many people are making the same mistake.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

OK how about a more PC term, "croms" for crossbred morphs?

EricG.NH


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

pl259 said:


> OK how about a more PC term, "croms" for crossbred morphs?
> 
> EricG.NH


Oh, sure, now you have to bring up the derogatory term for lower Englishmen of Cromwellian descent. :? Or are you just using Conan the Barbarian's deity's name in vain, by Crom?

Why don't we just call them Morc's? Or do you think Mindy would find that offensive?


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Mongrels :wink: 

I am not sure where the definition of hybrid "only" means a interspecies cross. I have seen written that there are multiples ways to consider/define hybridization:
1) a hybrid event between two different species.
2) a hybrid event between two different populations of a species.
3) a hybrid event between two different strains where a strain is
distinct from a population as from one population you may be able to
breed two or more strains.
4) a hybrid as defined in a genetic experiment such as what is done
the world over with fruit flies.

From Websters:
Main Entry: hy·brid 
Pronunciation: 'hI-br&d
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin hybrida
1 : an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera

S


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

sports_doc said:


> Mongrels :wink:
> 
> I am not sure where the definition of hybrid "only" means a interspecies cross. I have seen written that there are multiples ways to consider/define hybridization:
> 1) a hybrid event between two different species.
> ...


Okay, Shawn, I'm seriously going to have to take issue with the use of the Webster's definitions here as the actual meanings in this context. Many times, words are used loosely in the every day context, but have a specific meaning in the scientific context. I don't believe the Webster's definition to be an accurate use of the word or applicable in this context for the following reasons:

(1) I'm not touching the fact that Webster's defines a hybrid as a cross between two races. To my knowledge, races only refer to people. That should be the first sign that we have a problem with this definition.

(2) Breeds are a human construct used to group animals that have been selectively bred for specific traits together (e.g., the Doberman breed of dogs). Crossing two breeds to produce a hybrids is a fine definition, but I hope we do not have different "breeds" in the hobby.

(3) Varieties is used primarily to denote particular types of plants that have been selectively bred for a particular trait (e.g., the Hydrangea macrophylla variety, 'Endless Summer'). I have not seen the term variety used in science used in the realm of animals, but I could be wrong. To my knowledge, Varieties are to plants what breeds are to animals.

(4) I would agree that crosses between species or genera produce hybrids. A cross between two different genera is usually referred to as an intergeneric hybrid.

I probably just rambled above, and I am far from infallible, but from my discussions with folks who do studies in population genetics/evolution, my impression is that the term hybrid is used to denote a cross that occurs at the species level or higher.

Regardless, I think that using a term that has such a broad definition and could be used to mean several different things only complicates the discussion of what we think is acceptable breeding in the hobby. That's where I really think the value lies in not using the term "hybrid"; being more precise in what we say makes us more careful and precise in the way we reason through the issues.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Some guy wrote:*

Oh, sure, now you have to bring up the derogatory term for lower Englishmen of Cromwellian descent. Or are you just using Conan the Barbarian's deity's name in vain, by Crom? 

Why don't we just call them Morc's? Or do you think Mindy would find that offensive? 

I like using the dead king's name in vain more.

And isn't it Mork with a "K"?  

I say put them all in the poll. :shock: 

EricG.NH


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Homer you present a reasonable argument.

Perhaps stick with Mongrels then....the term alone might keep people from doing it :wink: 

S


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

^works for me


----------



## josh_r (Feb 4, 2005)

ive always been fond of the word 'bunk'. crossing morphs or species??? maaaaan....... THATS BUNK! dont buy that swag bag!


----------



## josh_r (Feb 4, 2005)

this topic leads me to a question though. i bought intermedius from phil tan. my female has the very nice cross pattern on the back. the male, however, has a single stripe down the back as well as each leg. looks very similar to what he pictures as yellow fantasticus on his web page. now i know my male is definitely intermedius. the 2 frogs just look so different. would these 2 be considered different morphs or are the standard intermedius that variable?


----------



## josh_r (Feb 4, 2005)

here are a couple comparison photos. i couldnt get a photo of the female. she bolted on me. but the one pictured looks nearly identicle to her

male









female


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

That is quite a difference. I would suggest contacting Phil to see if he may have packed a wrong frog.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Take a look at Phil's website and follow the links for imitator/intermedius.
There's a pic of five intermedius with a lot of variation. One of them looks a lot like yours.

EricG.NH


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

josh_r said:


> this topic leads me to a question though. i bought intermedius from phil tan. my female has the very nice cross pattern on the back. the male, however, has a single stripe down the back as well as each leg. looks very similar to what he pictures as yellow fantasticus on his web page. now i know my male is definitely intermedius. the 2 frogs just look so different. would these 2 be considered different morphs or are the standard intermedius that variable?


 first off "intermedius" are just a morph of imitator. second these two intermedius could be either a different morph or just very variable depending on the populations. But I think its safe to say that they just come from a variable population. Now theres also a good chance that the reason that your intermedius looks so much like a yellow fant is because it supposed to. These frogs are imitating fantasticus. 

Its a always a problem because most of the time original lines are only represented by a select few frogs and after seeing these frogs people automatically get this idea of what they are supposed to look like. They see a few frogs floating around the hobby and they all have small spots. So a frog pops up down the line with large messy spots ect......and everyone doesnt know what to do. THese frogs are not cookie cutters.


----------



## josh_r (Feb 4, 2005)

i know they are just imitators and i know they mimic other species of frogs. what i dont know id if these 2 would be comsidered different morphs. i am guessing that they are from the same line because i got them from the same breeder and i explained my female to him. and now that i think about it...... he had a group of frogs for me to choose from and they were from the same clutch. there was a frog that looked just like my female in the group. i guess that answers my question right there. thanx for the replies guys

-josh


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

josh_r said:


> i know they are just imitators and i know they mimic other species of frogs. what i dont know id if these 2 would be comsidered different morphs. i am guessing that they are from the same line because i got them from the same breeder and i explained my female to him. and now that i think about it...... he had a group of frogs for me to choose from and they were from the same clutch. there was a frog that looked just like my female in the group. i guess that answers my question right there. thanx for the replies guys
> 
> -josh


definately not 2 different "morphs" 

they are all offspring from the same line of "Tarlton" intermedius.

Breed away....

S


----------

