# Giant Orange tinctorius stampede!



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Here's video from yesterday of a large group of sub-adult Giant Orange tinctorius in a bit of a feeding frenzy.






Take care, Richard.


----------



## Lukeomelas (Mar 15, 2005)

That cocohut looks like a clown car, they just keep coming. Cool vid.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Lukeomelas,

There are actually nine sub-adults in a 20 gallon long tank. They were raised together as babies and fed heavily every day (so, hense, no real competition). Now that they are reaching maturity, though, they'll have to be paired-off to avoid any stress setting in.

Take care, Richard.


----------



## heatfreakk3 (Oct 15, 2008)

Great video Rich! All them coming out of that coco hut was pretty cute lol. You got some nice looking frogs there. If you need someone to take a few off your hands when you have to seperate them, I'll be here


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Chris,

They would always hide-out in a big pile when they were young. They've become a lot bolder as they reach maturity. I like to think they're having a good poker game in the hut together!

Richard.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Stunning frogs! I have a question, whose lineage are they or are they from your project that mixes GO and Regina? Bill


----------



## varanoid (Jan 21, 2011)

were those hydei that you were feeding them? Nice frogs by the way. I like how the blue flashes when they move around! Thanks for sharing your video.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Bill,

These are F2s from my original pair of Nabors line Giant Oranges. There's been a lot of discussion about inbreeding of frogs, so I am putting sib pairs together from each generation and seeing how well the breeding comes out. With the F2s, the frogs look just fine. We'll have to see how the F3s turn out.

I'm going to take some photos or video of the "Giant Reginas" tomorrow and post them in this section. The first group is reaching sub-adult size and are really beautiful.

Take care, Richard.



billschwinn said:


> Stunning frogs! I have a question, whose lineage are they or are they from your project that mixes GO and Regina? Bill


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Varanoid,

I normally feed my tinctorious black D. Hydei, but have had a bad crash in those cultures (from contaminated yeast). These were just lots and lots of wingless D. melanogasters.

I also culture Golden Hydei and recommend them very much for these size frogs.

Take care, Richard.



varanoid said:


> were those hydei that you were feeding them? Nice frogs by the way. I like how the blue flashes when they move around! Thanks for sharing your video.


----------



## chesney (Jan 18, 2007)

Beautiful frogs Richard.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Lisa.

I generally try to find homes for my frogs when they are froglet/juveniles. Once they reach this size, it becomes harder to say goodbye to them!

Take care, Richard.



chesney said:


> Beautiful frogs Richard.


----------



## deboardfam (Feb 7, 2011)

HAHA Luek I was thinking the same thing.. 

Beautiful frogs.. wish I had more cash I would have to pick some of these up rich.


----------



## fleshfrombone (Jun 15, 2008)

Rich that is awesome! I vote that a group of frogs like that is henceforth referred to as a stampede of frogs, like a pod of whales, murder of crows etc..


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

fleshfrombone said:


> Rich that is awesome! I vote that a group of frogs like that is henceforth referred to as a stampede of frogs, like a pod of whales, murder of crows etc..


A group of frogs is called an army, pretty cool


----------



## JeremyHuff (Apr 22, 2008)

Richard,

You should use the soundtrack as your ring tone. Cool vid.


----------



## fleshfrombone (Jun 15, 2008)

stemcellular said:


> A group of frogs is called an army, pretty cool


I didn't know that, that is cool.


----------



## Marc (Feb 3, 2008)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> These are F2s from my original pair of Nabors line Giant Oranges. There's been a lot of discussion about inbreeding of frogs, so I am putting sib pairs together from each generation and seeing how well the breeding comes out. With the F2s, the frogs look just fine. We'll have to see how the F3s turn out.
> 
> ...


So these came from a pair of W/C that Nabors originally had? How old is your original F-1 pair?


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Marc,

I'm not sure that Patirck's frogs were wild-collected or if his pair originally came from Sean Stewart. I started counting the generations from my pair. So, the first generation I produced were F1s and the second generation were the F2s. F1 doesn't have to mean they are the first generation from the wild (though I understand that that is how many in the hobby use the denotation).

Take care, Richard.



Marc said:


> So these came from a pair of W/C that Nabors originally had? How old is your original F-1 pair?


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Richard,

I would suggest calling the cross "Giant x Regina" to avoid confusion with other frogs with "Giant" in their names like Giant Cobalts etc.

Also, while I completely understand your rationale for your use of F1, F2 ect, it is not the hobby 'standard' and may be confused by some members to mean 'generations from WC', which is our more typical use of the generation numbering....

Best,





Woodsman said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> These are F2s from my original pair of Nabors line Giant Oranges. There's been a lot of discussion about inbreeding of frogs, so I am putting sib pairs together from each generation and seeing how well the breeding comes out. With the F2s, the frogs look just fine. We'll have to see how the F3s turn out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Shawn,

Then maybe it is our good work to educate the hobby on what generational nomenclature is. If I say the frogs are F2s from my original pair, I think that explains it enough. With many frogs in the hobby, it is not possible to say precisely what generation from the wild one might be working with, so we do need a way to denote the generations that don't relate directly back to imported frogs.

Take care, Richard.



sports_doc said:


> Richard,
> 
> I would suggest calling the cross "Giant x Regina" to avoid confusion with other frogs with "Giant" in their names like Giant Cobalts etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## GRIMM (Jan 18, 2010)

Awesome looking frogs. Keep posting these feeding videos of all your other species!


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Shawn,
> 
> Then maybe it is our good work to educate the hobby on what generational nomenclature is. If I say the frogs are F2s from my original pair, I think that explains it enough. With many frogs in the hobby, it is not possible to say precisely what generation from the wild one might be working with, so we do need a way to denote the generations that don't relate directly back to imported frogs.
> 
> Take care, Richard.


How about just calling them what they are, Captive Bred, if one does not know the generation there is no need to confuse the landscape with names that don't serve a valid scientific purpose, otherwise it will open the door for everyone to interpet things to their likeing and really confuse everything and soon F1 or whatever # will mean nothing. Just my opinion of course, Bill


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

billschwinn said:


> How about just calling them what they are, Captive Bred, if one does not know the generation there is no need to confuse the landscape with names that don't serve a valid scientific purpose, otherwise it will open the door for everyone to interpet things to their likeing and really confuse everything and soon F1 or whatever # will mean nothing. Just my opinion of course, Bill


I agree, Bill. The generation designation should only be used when it is known. Absent that, I would refer either to the line (if known) or absent that, import year, captive bred, etc. I have a few species that I only reference as the "Old U.S. line" since well, that is what they are. 

The generation designation should only be used for frogs with a confirmed WC lineage. With regard to tincs, pumilio, etc. these new imports (and last years) are a perfect opportunity to actually track and manage the progeny by F1, F2, etc.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

As Shawn noted, in the dart frog hobby it is generally used to denote the number of generations from the wild parents, however the method that Rich is using it, is also a correct usage of the designation as it tracks the number of generations from the original breeding. 

I think Shawn has a point, in that a lot of the hobby would assume that the generation code means that they are genetically close to imported animals. 

Notating them as cb may not alleviate this confusion as some will still assume that the number of generations is indicating descent from wc animals. 

Ed


----------



## stu&shaz (Nov 19, 2009)

Richard wonderful video,thankyou so much for posting,also thanks for the golden hydie tip we will try some of these. As beginners to darft we have come to learn that F1 means one generation from wild caught,whereas at school we were taught F1 to be the first generation from a particular,cross. The reality i suspect is that if anyone were to purchase frogs from a breeder then all this will become "shared knowledge" anyway.
I just wish we wern't on the other side of the planet so we could come and see them and take some home,stunning!!
regards
Stu


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Ray,

Given that you work in the sciences, I would have hoped that you would prefer that we use the correct definition of the terminology. If someone were offering frogs that were captive-bred from wild-collected animals, they would be referred to as "F1s from wild-collected animals". Without the provenance of the original line, the use of the nomenclature is meaningless.

As for me, I will use the correct definition in referring to my frogs. If I can determine precisely that both of the parents of my frogs (Patrick's original GOs) were wild-collected, then I would amend my usage accordingly.

Take care, Richard.



stemcellular said:


> I agree, Bill. The generation designation should only be used when it is known. Absent that, I would refer either to the line (if known) or absent that, import year, captive bred, etc. I have a few species that I only reference as the "Old U.S. line" since well, that is what they are.
> 
> The generation designation should only be used for frogs with a confirmed WC lineage. With regard to tincs, pumilio, etc. these new imports (and last years) are a perfect opportunity to actually track and manage the progeny by F1, F2, etc.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Ray,
> 
> Given that you work in the sciences, I would have hoped that you would prefer that we use the correct definition of the terminology. If someone were offering frogs that were captive-bred from wild-collected animals, they would be referred to as "F1s from wild-collected animals". Without the provenance of the original line, the use of the nomenclature is meaningless.
> 
> ...


Richard,

That is exactly my point. To put it in context for you, I work with a number of WC and F1 (first generation offspring from WC imports) mantella species. My offspring from WC groups are designated as F1 from WC frogs, my line, as a qualifier so that individuals in the hobby know the lineage. Offspring from these F1 offspring would be F2, etc. 

For those groups without definitive WC lineage (ie. most of the long term frogs in the hobby and/or EU imports) I would advise against using the generational designates and alternatively, aim for as much other detail as possible (breeding lineage); absent that, just noting what you think they are and calling them captive bred. However, as with so many things, it really is up to the individual to decide how to proceed and the community/market to regulate what it desires. 

As another example, consider many of the recent imports from the EU. Unfortunately, we do not know their lineage, even for frogs endemic to a defined contiguous area. Under these circumstances, my inclination would be to designate them by import year and/or line where available. Many of the Sean Stewart frogs would qualify under this approach, in my view. However, talking to Sean sometimes allows for more information about which EU lines the newer imports are representative of. 

All said and done, its an individual approach. However, my experience in the hobby has been that in almost all cases the generational designate is only used in reference to WC lineage. Absent that, my recommendation would be to avoid using generational designates.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Ray,

I guess your proposed system works well for you and other people that work primarily with wild-caught animals. For those of us who choose to work with captive-bred animals, I guess we're out in the cold (based on your thesis).

Maybe we can all give some thought as how we can have a system that doesn't continue to foster the notion that wild-caught animals are the preferred animals. For those that have a specific interest in the conservation of dendrobatids, perhaps we need to (in fact) de-emphasize wild-collecting as important to the hobby.

I would offer M. aurantiaca as an example. While many (many) thousands of animals have been brought-in from the wild, the status of those frogs as F0s or their progeny as F1s is essentially meaningless. There is no information about where they were collected and in what quantities. Without actual locality data and quantitation of the imported frogs relative to the known localities, we have no clue what the founder populations are comprised of or how to manage the populations into the future.

So, the fixation of the hobby on wild-collected frogs gives (I think) the misdirected notion that we "know" something about our frogs (when we mostly don't know much at all about them). Until we have a better system for bringing new frogs into the hobby, it might be better to not give hobbyists the impression that F1 really means someting.

Just a thought, Richard.


stemcellular said:


> Richard,
> 
> That is exactly my point. To put it in context for you, I work with a number of WC and F1 (first generation offspring from WC imports) mantella species. My offspring from WC groups are designated as F1 from WC frogs, my line, as a qualifier so that individuals in the hobby know the lineage. Offspring from these F1 offspring would be F2, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Filial generation 
Definition 

noun 

(genetics) Any generation resulting from a genetically controlled mating following parental generation. 


Supplement 

The filial generation is marked with the symbol, F. The filial generations are organized in a sequence of matings such that the successive generations after a parental generation is attributed by the symbols F1 (for the first filial generation), F2 (for the second filial generation), etc


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

"I guess your proposed system works well for you and other people that work primarily with wild-caught animals. For those of us who choose to work with captive-bred animals, I guess we're out in the cold (based on your thesis)."

Not sure I follow your logic, Richard. If you are referring to the fact that you cannot use generational designates to catalog frogs of an unknown lineage, well, yes. (I mean, you can, but it would seem purposeless, IMO). However, its really only an identifier, and I personally don't think being able to designate something as F1, F2 or simply based on a line is really a means to include/exclude or allocate value. To address the elephant in the room, its not like any frogs that we work with will ever be used to repopulate declining populations. The best we can hope for is to use our collections for (a) enjoyment/education and (b) to learn more about captive breeding methods. Focusing on generations of offspring is an academic exercise that some of us find interesting. The same goes with knowing locale information. Both also ensure that we might be able to manage/maximize the genetics of captive populations. But let's not pretend that either has (or will have) any role in conservation (beyond using the hobby/sale to fund conservation work, which I wholeheartedly embrace). 

"Maybe we can all give some thought as how we can have a system that doesn't continue to foster the notion that wild-caught animals are the preferred animals. For those that have a specific interest in the conservation of dendrobatids, perhaps we need to (in fact) de-emphasize wild-collecting as important to the hobby."

I agree and disagree. I personally don't desire WC frogs over CB frogs. My personal inclination is to establish and manage captive populations of frogs not readily available or present in the hobby (and to learn about their biological and reproductive differences as I do so). Unfortunately, many of these species are WC. However, I also work with many species that are not, many of which have been "forgotten" by the hobby, such as A. zaparo, P. lugubris, etc.

"I would offer M. aurantiaca as an example. While many (many) thousands of animals have been brought-in from the wild, the status of those frogs as F0s or their progeny as F1s is essentially meaningless.There is no information about where they were collected and in what quantities. Without actual locality data and quantitation of the imported frogs relative to the known localities, we have no clue what the founder populations are comprised of or how to manage the populations into the future."

This is incorrect. There are very few locations from which this species is being harvested. If there ever was a time to establish and manage a population in captivity it is now. My frogs are from the older imports, however, with all the new aurantiaca being imported, I agree that we have more than enough to establish a successful TMG. Two dozen active breeders could sustain the population in captivity and produce more than enough surplus to eliminate the need for future WC imports. 

"So, the fixation of the hobby on wild-collected frogs gives (I think) the misdirected notion that we "know" something about our frogs (when we mostly don't know much at all about them). Until we have a better system for bringing new frogs into the hobby, it might be better to not give hobbyists the impression that F1 really means someting."

Again, I think you confuse your emotional opposition to WC frogs with the purpose of designating things as F1, F2, etc. F1 most certainly means something. It means that it is the first generation removed from the wild. Now other subjective associations may be tacked onto that meaning, but in the end, its purely one means of cataloging life from a functional standpoint.



To address your above addition, yes, it can be used that way as Ed has noted. However, I believe you would be hard pressed to find others in the hobby that would adopt your proposed approach. That said, they are nice looking frogs, for tincs.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll let this go. If you do not believe that a premium is placed on "F1" frogs in the hobby (as the assumption is that this is as close as one could get to wc frogs), I don't think that would be an honest assessment. It may be inadvertent, but only to designate wc frogs as originating filial lines only perpetuates the idea that what we want is wc frogs.

I'll continue using the definition correctly to identify the frogs I produce. If I can identify the wc generation, I will count from there. If not, I will count from the frogs in my collection.

Take care for now, Richard.



stemcellular said:


> "I guess your proposed system works well for you and other people that work primarily with wild-caught animals. For those of us who choose to work with captive-bred animals, I guess we're out in the cold (based on your thesis)."
> 
> Not sure I follow your logic, Richard. If you are referring to the fact that you cannot use generational designates to catalog frogs of an unknown lineage, well, yes. (I mean, you can, but it would seem purposeless, IMO). However, its really only an identifier, and I personally don't think being able to designate something as F1, F2 or simply based on a line is really a means to include/exclude or allocate value. To address the elephant in the room, its not like any frogs that we work with will ever be used to repopulate declining populations. The best we can hope for is to use our collections for (a) enjoyment/education and (b) to learn more about captive breeding methods. Focusing on generations of offspring is an academic exercise that some of us find interesting. The same goes with knowing locale information. Both also ensure that we might be able to manage/maximize the genetics of captive populations. But let's not pretend that either has (or will have) any role in conservation (beyond using the hobby/sale to fund conservation work, which I wholeheartedly embrace).
> 
> ...


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

I would, personally, be just as inclined to purchase a Nabors or another line pumilio, etc, as I would an F1 or F2 but that might just be me. 

You can clearly adopt whatever approach you wish, Richard, however, I would encourage you to explain your approach to those whom you sell to (as they may be expecting the more mainstream interpretation). 

Best of luck


----------



## fleshfrombone (Jun 15, 2008)

stemcellular said:


> You can clearly adopt whatever approach you wish, Richard, however, I would encourage you to explain your approach to those whom you sell to (as they may be expecting the more mainstream interpretation).


Richard specifically mentioned f2 from "my pair." Any further confusion would be on the part of the buyer.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

I would interpret that to mean that his breeders are F1 from WC frogs. How would you other folks interpret, I'm curious?


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

stemcellular said:


> I would interpret that to mean that his breeders are F1 from WC frogs. How would you other folks interpret, I'm curious?


I actually understood what he meant perfectly. F2 from my pair means they are the grandchildren of his pair. But of course, I teach Mendelian genetics each year to my high school freshmen in life science class, and this is what F1 and F2 means to us.......


----------



## fleshfrombone (Jun 15, 2008)

stemcellular said:


> I would interpret that to mean that his breeders are F1 from WC frogs. How would you other folks interpret, I'm curious?


Then I guess it's a good thing your frogs come from Mark Pepper.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Not sure I follow, Ryan


----------



## fleshfrombone (Jun 15, 2008)

stemcellular said:


> Not sure I follow, Ryan


Thorough records kept of frogs lineages/origins. Shouldn't be hard to trace and provide information upon request.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

fleshfrombone said:


> Thorough records kept of frogs lineages/origins. Shouldn't be hard to trace and provide information upon request.


With some frogs, yes. Others, sadly, all I can say is where they came from. On occasion some sluethIng turns some stuff up but by and large, as you know, many frogs in the hobby lack any real identifier beyond genus, species, captive bred by x.


----------



## fleshfrombone (Jun 15, 2008)

stemcellular said:


> With some frogs, yes. Others, sadly, all I can say is where they came from. On occasion some sluethIng turns some stuff up but by and large, as you know, many frogs in the hobby lack any real identifier beyond genus, species, captive bred by x.


It never ceases to amaze me how some of you guys are able to track down info like that. Maybe I'm lazy but when someone says oh those are from the 90's import from so and so and others concur I'm think how in the hell do they figure this out? And yeah you're right a majority of the time it's best guess scenario. I still remember on frognet years and years ago some people were trading breeding tincs to freshen the blood up and found out they were all from the same source in Europe, all from something like 5 related pairs.


----------



## Marc (Feb 3, 2008)

stemcellular said:


> I would interpret that to mean that his breeders are F1 from WC frogs. How would you other folks interpret, I'm curious?


I interpret F1 to be from WC and would assume that is what I would be buying. 

Of course I ask the person I am buying from any other details about the darts in question. I tend to contact persons as far back as I can, and ask for the lineage and the history of the frogs I am purchasing. I also keep good records of what I am told. To me F1 and F2 (from WC) are the gold standards of darts that I would like to (and have) acquired for my founding breeding stock. This is due to me wanting to avoid the brother sister pairings that have happened for many many generations of darts. 

(This is my own personal preference as this makes the most sense to me).


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

I too would expect F1's to be from WC animals, however in purchasing frogs the exact info I am sure in Richard's case is disclosed, so for what it's worth his way of indentifying generations works for me based on getting as much info as possible.
BTW Richard how can you stand to take care of all of those tads, man Tincs are sooo prolific that many tads would make it difficult to have more than a pair or 2.
mark


----------

