# Lineage



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

When I make a frog purchase the lineage and generation of the animal is one of the most important things to me. But, I'm starting to think that the genetics behind this is all but unimportant seeing less, and less people are stressing it. I've never actually purchased a frog passed f1, and I'm unsure if it really matters. As for lineage, i've never crossed lines. I'm about to pick up a group of standard imi's that I would like to eventually get offspring from them. Thing is though, I'm unsure if i want to leave them as is, or split them into multiple groups, and proceed to pair them with another frog, from a different group.


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

Please clarify. I don't understand exactly the point of your post. Seems like you understand why genetics are important but then proceed to ignore what you just stated. Keeping track of lineage/localities should be a key issue with all herps, especially darts.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Yes, this is my fault. I'll never cross lines, or locality, it just seems that I'm seeing more and more f2, and f3 generations being sold. It was my previous understanding that the genetic integrity of these animals was to be set at the most stable possible. So this is why I'm confused as to why this is happening, and more or less, why aren't people taking the same precautions I saw years ago.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> Yes, this is my fault. I'll never cross lines, or locality, it just seems that I'm seeing more and more f2, and f3 generations being sold. It was my previous understanding that the genetic integrity of these animals was to be set at the most stable possible. So this is why I'm confused as to why this is happening, and more or less, why aren't people taking the same precautions I saw years ago.



What is your understanding of filial designation and, what does it have to do with genetic integrity? I too am a little confused by your language and simply want to understand so I may better converse about it. If you could go into a little more detail and, possibly, reflect on what is different, that may help.

EDIT: I must admit that it is my opinion that this topic has huge potential for an awesome discussion. I would like to understand where you're going, first.


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

What he's saying is in the past froggers put more work into trying to keep offspring that are bred to F1. 

Where as now he thinks it seems that most don't spend the time and energy to find unrelated or less unrelated pairs. 
That there seems to be a influx of F2,F3 offspring of locales or morphs being sold of frogs with a large enough founding stock in the hobby where it is unnecessary to breed them out to F2,F3....


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

As far as filial designation goes, what I have been taught, and what makes sense is that you'll have a more structured frog from two different groups. Just as you don't see humans running around inbreeding (I hope), you reasonably don't wanna see the same in frogs. So the generation produced will make an f1, and the next down the line of those bred would be an f2, and so forth. I'm very confused though, as I remember only a few years ago, the individual populations of each lines were brought together each time, in many cases to produce frequent f1's. And that was throughout the entire community/hobby, people just didn't want anything to do with f2's. So, why are people all the sudden ignoring this, and just making their own lines. If this doesn't make sense, I'm very sorry... my sentence composure is garbage at best.


----------



## Kudaria (Dec 24, 2013)

Amphibian addict said:


> As far as filial designation goes, what I have been taught, and what makes sense is that you'll have a more structured frog from two different groups. Just as you don't see humans running around inbreeding (I hope), you reasonably don't wanna see the same in frogs. So the generation produced will make an f1, and the next down the line of those bred would be an f2, and so forth. I'm very confused though, as I remember only a few years ago, the individual populations of each lines were brought together each time, in many cases to produce frequent f1's. And that was throughout the entire community/hobby, people just didn't want anything to do with f2's. So, why are people all the sudden ignoring this, and just making their own lines. If this doesn't make sense, I'm very sorry... my sentence composure is garbage at best.


Please understand I'm not that familiar with generational notation any more - maybe 20 years ago but not now. F2 would be offspring from frogs that are brother and sister? and F3 yet another generation of inbreeding?

I keep hearing people say frogs are resistant to inbreeding issues but I don't see how excessive inbreeding won't eventually affect them. Of course take red galacs...all of the one's that I've heard of come from Patrick Nabor so their all interrelated to some degree or another.


----------



## theroc1217 (Jun 5, 2012)

There are enough frogs in each population in a species that inbreeding isn't a problem. The populations don't mix in nature, and in order to preserve the population we don't mix them in captivity either. 

Lines are created from wild caught frogs. Mixing lines is good and prevents problems from inbreeding. Keeping track of which lines are mixed helps to preserve population purity. 

Mixing populations however, is bad. Many allele combinations from separate populations are harmful to the frogs. Also, when the market gets saturated with hybrids, purebred frogs become more expensive and rare which encourages poaching and unsustainable wild collecting. 

On the F1's, the more the better. A larger base for breeding helps to eliminate the negative effects of breeding small populations. Since WC frogs come from the largest possible populations, a large number of F1 creates as many frogs as possible as similar as possible to the largest possible population.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> As far as filial designation goes, what I have been taught, and what makes sense is that you'll have a more structured frog from two different groups. Just as you don't see humans running around inbreeding (I hope), you reasonably don't wanna see the same in frogs. So the generation produced will make an f1, and the next down the line of those bred would be an f2, and so forth. I'm very confused though, as I remember only a few years ago, the individual populations of each lines were brought together each time, in many cases to produce frequent f1's. And that was throughout the entire community/hobby, people just didn't want anything to do with f2's. So, why are people all the sudden ignoring this, and just making their own lines. If this doesn't make sense, I'm very sorry... my sentence composure is garbage at best.



I believe I understand you better. What I don't understand is the necessary link between a first generation cross (I understand you're not talking about crossing lines or locales) and genetic integrity. I would argue the preservation of genes would be better seen with a constant influx of wild genes, not just the outcrossing of filial generation. Out breeding is just as deleterious as inbreeding.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

theroc1217 said:


> There are enough frogs in each population in a species that inbreeding isn't a problem. The populations don't mix in nature, and in order to preserve the population we don't mix them in captivity either.
> 
> Lines are created from wild caught frogs. Mixing lines is good and prevents problems from inbreeding. Keeping track of which lines are mixed helps to preserve population purity.
> 
> ...


Yes but, I can pair an F5 offspring with an F10 offspring and would produce F1 offspring, correct? The filial generation is not representative of how many generations since being wild type. It simply indicates generation since the last cross.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

theroc1217 said:


> Mixing populations however, is bad.


This is a communication problem, and I'm sorry. When I mean "population", I mean peoples own groups from that initial import or line. Also the alleles from the lines are obviously represented by phenotypic traits. And this is another thing I'm curious about. How can you define each line as far as physical appearance, and how to avoid mixing lines like this.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> I believe I understand you better. What I don't understand is the necessary link between a first generation cross (I understand you're not talking about crossing lines or locales) and genetic integrity. I would argue the preservation of genes would be better seen with a constant influx of wild genes, not just the outcrossing of filial generation. Out breeding is just as deleterious as inbreeding.


well the thing is though, it's fairly difficult to get a hold of wild frogs for individual populations, and the intake of new frogs would create new lines in its own.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> well the thing is though, it's fairly difficult to get a hold of wild frogs for individual populations, and the intake of new frogs would create new lines in its own.


Agreed. So wouldn't the most valuable animals be F1 wild type? I can breed wild frog A to wild frog B, in theory, for a decade plus without ever producing an F2. If I have wild frog A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, I don't think I would have to deviate more than a generation, maybe two, from wild caught in my, or your lifetime. I would add my children's children but, alas, I don't have any/


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

The problem really pops up its ugly head in record keeping by the hobbyist. Even getting animals from people you trust. Do you trust the people they acquired from? Do they still trust the people they acquired from? Even if bad intentions were ruled out (I don't think you can), human error is more than enough to derail these thoughts.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Yes, and now that you bring that up, I'm thinking that's the reason that I'm seeing this. If I'm not wrong, we're approaching the end of the "wild frog" f1's. In order of events, these lines are just aging. maybe a little too fast?


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> The problem really pops up its ugly head in record keeping by the hobbyist. Even getting animals from people you trust. Do you trust the people they acquired from? Do they still trust the people they acquired from? Even if bad intentions were ruled out (I don't think you can), human error is more than enough to derail these thoughts.


I REALLY hate to see this as true, even though I know it is. I've fallen victim to it before, and I'm sure that others have gone through with that situation more poorly. The case of bicolors mixed with orange terribilis is a great example. We don't know if our frogs are true or not. And in my opinion the only way to secure the true lines is by leaving the initial lines to one person, or a group of people to keep. Which is already being done, just not as well as we need.


----------



## theroc1217 (Jun 5, 2012)

But our captive population is large enough that F1's are only very slightly more valuable than F2, or probably even not at all. As soon as the captive population surpasses the wild population, F#'s will actually contain MORE genetic diversity than WC/F1, depending on how little inbreeding occurred and whatever # is equal to. 

This is because from a frog with 50 changeable non-essential genes (thousands of genes per chromosome), with only 2 choices for each gene, there are more possible combinations than there exist frogs. Once the captive population surpasses the wild population, depending on how many WC frogs it was formed from, after a certain point it will be healthier and have more genetic diversity. Given the small locales that these populations come from, it's very likely that this will happen in the future.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

theroc1217 said:


> But our captive population is large enough that F1's are only very slightly more valuable than F2, or probably even not at all. As soon as the captive population surpasses the wild population, F#'s will actually contain MORE genetic diversity than WC/F1, depending on how little inbreeding occurred and whatever # is equal to.
> 
> This is because from a frog with 50 changeable non-essential genes (thousands of genes per chromosome), with only 2 choices for each gene, there are more possible combinations than there exist frogs. Once the captive population surpasses the wild population, depending on how many WC frogs it was formed from, after a certain point it will be healthier and have more genetic diversity. Given the small locales that these populations come from, it's very likely that this will happen in the future.


You bring an outstanding point. But we can't assure this, as aspidites73 brought up, human error is more than enough to refute the base points of your argument. And the contamination of any line will leave the individual specimen of that to continue with that "spoiled trait". As we all know this is a MAJOR problem, and theres really no way of preventing it in whole.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

It is good to out breed within a morph to try to keep the average genetic make up of the original population. But it is expensive and time consumign as well as down right impossible sometimes which is why many people do not do it. I am trying to do the same and the costs if you do everything halfway right go up very fast. That said I think many people in the hobby use the term F1,2,3,X to state how many generations they are removed from the wild but do not explicitly mean they are actually inbred from the same 2 parents that many generations. However in reality many frogs in the hobby are inbred that many generations because many people who buy frogs get them in packs for reduced costs from the same breeder which means they are often from the same parents. Then they take that 4 pack of frogs and breed them and sell them to someone else in a similar fashion. 

If you are willing to try and make sure you get frogs from different parents that is great and I commend your effort. I am trying to do the same thing and I can say it is no walk in the park.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I suppose this may be a good time to discuss what frogs we are actually referring to. With Ranitomeya and the few others they work with I don't think you'll ever go wrong with an Understory Animal. If we're talking about the hundreds(I am minimizing for simplicities sake) of Tinctorius and Oophaga being imported from places (no names here) that have the dubious history of naming locales to sell, purchasing animals collected by locals with little, no, or improper locale, and not giving 2 S$#t$ about the hobby we all love. I feel it is a lost cause.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Pubfiction said:


> It is good to out breed within a morph to try to keep the average genetic make up of the original population. But it is expensive and time consumign as well as down right impossible sometimes which is why many people do not do it. I am trying to do the same and the costs if you do everything halfway right go up very fast. That said I think many people in the hobby use the term F1,2,3,X to state how many generations they are removed from the wild but do not explicitly mean they are actually inbred from the same 2 parents that many generations. However in reality many frogs in the hobby are inbred that many generations because many people who buy frogs get them in packs for reduced costs from the same breeder which means they are often from the same parents. Then they take that 4 pack of frogs and breed them and sell them to someone else in a similar fashion.
> 
> If you are willing to try and make sure you get frogs from different parents that is great and I commend your effort. I am trying to do the same thing and I can say it is no walk in the park.


Then thats a very serious problem of misunderstanding! If people are using filial designation for multiple uses. Then it's causing the sale, and continuation of f2+ for those who misinterpret the definition.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Pubfiction said:


> It is good to out breed within a morph to try to keep the average genetic make up of the original population. But it is expensive and time consumign as well as down right impossible sometimes which is why many people do not do it. I am trying to do the same and the costs if you do everything halfway right go up very fast. That said I think many people in the hobby use the term F1,2,3,X to state how many generations they are removed from the wild but do not explicitly mean they are actually inbred from the same 2 parents that many generations. However in reality many frogs in the hobby are inbred that many generations because many people who buy frogs get them in packs for reduced costs from the same breeder which means they are often from the same parents. Then they take that 4 pack of frogs and breed them and sell them to someone else in a similar fashion.
> 
> If you are willing to try and make sure you get frogs from different parents that is great and I commend your effort. I am trying to do the same thing and I can say it is no walk in the park.


Inbreeding is not multiple animals produced from the same 2 parents as you suggest.

EDIT: I believe I know what you meant ;-)


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> Then thats a very serious problem of misunderstanding! If people are using filial designation for multiple uses. Then it's causing the sale, and continuation of f2+ for those who misinterpret the definition.


First, I must say, I feel your pain. This is our unfortunate reality, however.

EDIT: Genetics are meaningless in a hobby. We may try and fool ourselves otherwise, but it is smoke up our proverbial stacks. I'll try to find an awesome thread about this topic from Sportsdoc. I'll post a link here when I do.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> I suppose this may be a good time to discuss what frogs we are actually referring to. With Ranitomeya and the few others they work with I don't think you'll ever go wrong with an Understory Animal. If we're talking about the hundreds(I am minimizing for simplicities sake) of Tinctorius and Oophaga being imported from places (no names here) that have the dubious history of naming locales to sell, purchasing animals collected by locals with little, no, or improper locale, and not giving 2 S$#t$ about the hobby we all love. I feel it is a lost cause.


That's a flaw with this site. The expression of concern within the community is OBVIOUSLY here. And I feel that the masking of what were trying to express, is very frustrating, and doing nothing but supporting the businesses that pollute this wonderful hobby.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> That's a flaw with this site. The expression of concern within the community is OBVIOUSLY here. And I feel that the masking of what were trying to express, is very frustrating, and doing nothing but supporting the businesses that pollute this wonderful hobby.


Is the flaw you're referring to my statement about no names? I couldn't agree with you more!


EDIT: Again, I do feel your pain! I am not being sarcastic here. I have thought about this for decades (although with different Herps than frogs). I would love a private discussion between a few dedicated hobbyist so this can be ironed out!


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> First, I must say, I feel your pain. This is our unfortunate reality, however.
> 
> EDIT: Genetics are meaningless in a hobby. We may try and fool ourselves otherwise, but it is smoke up our proverbial stacks. I'll try to find an awesome thread about this topic from Sportsdoc. I'll post a link here when I do.


Why do you say this. If we can get people to care, they very well could be! The dart frog community is personally the most educated, and ecologically caring community i've ever come across! Being one of the many reasons I settled down with it over say, snakes, or some other reptile.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> Why do you say this. If we can get people to care, they very well could be! The dart frog community is personally the most educated, and ecologically caring community i've ever come across! Being one of the many reasons I settled down with it over say, snakes, or some other reptile.


I don't like to say those words. I am simply frustrated with many years of seeing what lurks behind a vast majority of exotic animals in captivity. I am NOT referring to the people here, nor am I referring to places like Understory. I am referring to the places that people I have seen here selling from that I factually know to be full of S#$T. Take one example, again no names, but I know of a company that was taking the time to properly QT, treat, and record their lineages. Redacted by author. I believe they had the best of intentions. Unfortunately, however, at least one of their suppliers is one of the ones I referred to in the previous post. I DON"T like it. I'm afraid I may have to accept it.


EDIT: Some people are only as honest as their options :-(


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> Is the flaw you're referring to my statement about no names? I couldn't agree with you more!
> 
> 
> EDIT: Again, I do feel your pain! I am not being sarcastic here. I have thought about this for decades (although with different Herps than frogs). I would love a private discussion between a few dedicated hobbyist so this can be ironed out!


It is exactly what I'm referring to. We cant even hint to the sight we're talking about, and the lack of education in the community has led to the support of terrible companies. And if I dare say the result of a certain event involving breeding amphibians.... and the judging of such.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> It is exactly what I'm referring to. We cant even hint to the sight we're talking about, and the lack of education in the community has led to the support of terrible companies. And if I dare say the result of a certain event involving breeding amphibians.... and the judging of such.



So how do we fix it? PM sent!


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

So i found this image online that I modified to demonstrate what F1, F2... means












aspidites73 said:


> Yes but, I can pair an F5 offspring with an F10 offspring and would produce F1 offspring, correct? The filial generation is not representative of how many generations since being wild type. It simply indicates generation since the last cross.


I believe you are correct, in the hobby, F5xF10 would give you a F1.

But while technically F1, they are not the same as being F1 from totally unrelated parents. As each F generation increases, you lose a large about of genetic diversity. F10 is much less genetically diverse than F5. Since you can't really gain genetic variation in a cross between related animals, the best you could get in a F5xF10 cross would be something similar to a F5 individual (though realistically probably somewhere between F5 and F10). 

Actually, crossing F5xF10 is called a backcross, and I think the designation for this would be something like BC5.

The genetic similarity between generations looks something like this:












theroc1217 said:


> But our captive population is large enough that F1's are only very slightly more valuable than F2, or probably even not at all. As soon as the captive population surpasses the wild population, F#'s will actually contain MORE genetic diversity than WC/F1, depending on how little inbreeding occurred and whatever # is equal to.


You are _very _incorrect. Firstly, the captive population is tiny compared to the wild population. Secondly, the CB will *NEVER* contain greater genetic diversity than the wild population. Here's why:

When you establish a CB population it undergoes something called a population bottleneck. When this happens, the gene pool for the population shrinks enormously. Therefore it is basically *impossible* for a CB population to have greater genetic diversity than a wild population. And this is even before you factor in the loss of genetic diversity that happens through inbreeding and selection.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I have ALWAYS strived to acquire animals from unrelated sources.
I wish more people felt the same


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

aspidites73 said:


> Yes but, I can pair an F5 offspring with an F10 offspring and would produce F1 offspring, correct? The filial generation is not representative of how many generations since being wild type. It simply indicates generation since the last cross.


Correct and this has been discussed before see http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/89636-filial-generation-numbers.html 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

aspidites73 said:


> EDIT: Genetics are meaningless in a hobby. We may try and fool ourselves otherwise, but it is smoke up our proverbial stacks. I'll try to find an awesome thread about this topic from Sportsdoc. I'll post a link here when I do.


 It is only meaningless because the hobby has shown little interest in it despite at least two separate attempts to enable the hobby to do something about it. Instead the hobby is content to ignore the data that demonstrates that even amphibians do show issues with inbreeding depression. 
This has been hashed over repeatedly over the years....

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

hypostatic said:


> When you establish a CB population it undergoes something called a population bottleneck. When this happens, the gene pool for the population shrinks enormously. Therefore it is basically *impossible* for a CB population to have greater genetic diversity than a wild population. And this is even before you factor in the loss of genetic diversity that happens through inbreeding and selection.


The problem with this scenario is that it ignores the ability to manage the captive population as a snapshot of the wild population. If properly managed, the impact of founder's drift, and adaptation to captivity can be minimized resulting in captive populations that are stable for a hundred years or more with even a modest starting population. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

The key is proper management however. Some like frogparty go to great lengths to try do do this. The vast majority do not.

My only hope is that the main merchants/breeders that people buy from like josh's and nabors do attempt to do this (I suspect that they do).


----------



## alogan (Jan 7, 2013)

When breeding as a specialized breeder it makes a lot of sense to make sure you have a pedigree of the lineage of each frog. The problem with inbreeding is that deleterious recessive alleles that have become hidden in the gene pool tend to pop up at a greater extent through inbreeding. Inbreeding creates a much more uniform population, so bad genes can show up a lot easier. At the same time, in other species such as sheep, dogs, goats, pigs, etc, some breeders inbreed with the idea that the offspring they produce can be bred back to a different line in order to achieve hybrid vigor. The genes of two fairly homozygous, but separate lines can combine to make higher quality offspring. With dart frogs I know hybrids are strongly discouraged, but the idea in other species is that the heterozygotes produced from breeding two inbred lines has the best attributes from both lines. That is, one can select for certain traits a lot quicker in inbreds and then breed them out to another line in order to reduce the inbreeding depression. I think it is always good to have a breeding plan, and to make sure that related individuals are never bred together, but understand genetically why some breeders with other species tend to do it. I just took a college genetics course on animal breeding, so this is a really cool thread.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Good thread! 

The whole F1-F2 discussion is much less emphasized in the frog hobby than it is in my other hobby - cichlids. In the cichlid hobby, F1 is so overplayed that it's ridiculous. It has become a stamp of quality, which it's not.

In the cichlid hobby, when a wild caught fish is crossed with an F1, it is sold as an F2. But as Ed pointed out in his post that he linked to, Filial was never meant for what we use it for. Technically they would be F1, but what hobbyists want to know if how many generations the animal being considered is removed from wild stock. That's why they are sold as F2.



frogparty said:


> I have ALWAYS strived to acquire animals from unrelated sources. I wish more people felt the same


 This is the best approach, but not always possible or practical. I do believe that the marketplace does appreciate breeders who do this, but I think the premium is small.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I'd never expect a premium for my effort.
Just the peace of mind of knowing that I'm doing the right thing

You wouldn't believe the trouble I had several years ago putting together a vanzo breeding group that were all totally unrelated- at least not siblings or cousins


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

Amphibian addict said:


> You bring an outstanding point. But we can't assure this, as aspidites73 brought up, human error is more than enough to refute the base points of your argument. And the contamination of any line will leave the individual specimen of that to continue with that "spoiled trait". As we all know this is a MAJOR problem, and theres really no way of preventing it in whole.


Why are we assuming that hybrids are aquiring spoiled traits? What constitutes spoiled? Hybrids go through so many pre- and post- zygotic barriers that if by some chance a hybrid frog lives through all of those things and manages to produce fertile offspring, it's natures way of saying "good job". 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

I think this is a great discussion, I completely agree that people should try to breed F1's.

That being said, I think we need to consider the fact that many frogs are bred in groups, and therefore people selling frogs could likely be selling groups of cousins, and that should reduce the anxiety for those who have bought groups of froglets from one breeder.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

Ed said:


> The problem with this scenario is that it ignores the ability to manage the captive population as a snapshot of the wild population. If properly managed, the impact of founder's drift, and adaptation to captivity can be minimized resulting in captive populations that are stable for a hundred years or more with even a modest starting population.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Ed, Your comments are outstanding, as is this thread. I had some questions/observations as new to this but not new to breeding (discus 25 years). When a value is put an any item, there will always be greed, and greed equates into unethical practices. Common darts like Leucs or Azures can be had for a good price whereas Terribillis and others command a huge price tag. When you start to get into the 200 250 range per animal, its easy to see that someone trying to make a living and his animals not producing for whatever reason can get desperate to produce... This spans not only this hobby but really anything that has a price tag.. I always tried to mix wild with captive which was not easy and sometimes almost impossible, but I was under no stress to produce or used it as any viable source of income, so it was easy for me to wait for a clutch. Now picture the guy who has 10's of thousands invested, employees and rents to pay? Kinda makes you think about moralities... Does he feed his family, pay his employees or remain faithful to bloodlines? We can ponder this but the reality is obvious.. Then there are those, who I have read about on this forum who have made fancy names for basterdised strains for sake of profit hiding under the corporate blanket of name changes for sake of saleability to new hobbyists. I took me well over a year before I decided to make the plunge into this endevour.. I read everything and anything I could get my hands on, and have watched tons of videos, To prepair to enjoy this hobby to the fullest, and that can only be done with knowledge and I am still learning... 
I see so many who on a whim run out buy a tank, great stuff the heck out of it, load it with frogs breed them and start sales... If you think that these mixes our not out there in huge quantities you would be mistaken... The good news is that I read in this thread that there are key holders to true and good genetic lines, and they will be maintained. Again, the cost of these animals and their offspring are expensive... A new hobbyist who wants a rare frog persay, will look at the name and coloration only... He will see the price tag, and look for a better price as is human nature.. So there is the corporate guy who will sell his mother for a profit with the same variety with far less genetic viability of the strain for far less $$.. We know which one he will buy... If there was no profits involved the lines would be much cleaner.. It happened in the discus hobby too when Blue diamonds were introduced.. 
So I have a question. Dart frogs in the wild come from usually small territories, and their populations gradually decreasing. Having said that, I don't see a frog traveling miles from his birthplace to breed, so I wonder if the inbreeded thing does'nt occur naturally? I may be wrong as I am NO expert, and curious about it.. I mean frogs lay eggs sometimes every 2 weeks, with lets say an average of 10 eggs for example. In the course of a year one would think that the population would exand exponentially, but not the case.. Lifespan in the wild being about 5-7 years, and with destruction of their environment less I imagine..Would'nt inbreeding be essential to their survival to some degree? I hope I am not speaking out of turn, just curious and interested in learning more... Thanks for great posts... John


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

But you can breed out the deleterious alleles.


alogan said:


> When breeding as a specialized breeder it makes a lot of sense to make sure you have a pedigree of the lineage of each frog. The problem with inbreeding is that deleterious recessive alleles that have become hidden in the gene pool tend to pop up at a greater extent through inbreeding. Inbreeding creates a much more uniform population, so bad genes can show up a lot easier. At the same time, in other species such as sheep, dogs, goats, pigs, etc, some breeders inbreed with the idea that the offspring they produce can be bred back to a different line in order to achieve hybrid vigor. The genes of two fairly homozygous, but separate lines can combine to make higher quality offspring. With dart frogs I know hybrids are strongly discouraged, but the idea in other species is that the heterozygotes produced from breeding two inbred lines has the best attributes from both lines. That is, one can select for certain traits a lot quicker in inbreds and then breed them out to another line in order to reduce the inbreeding depression. I think it is always good to have a breeding plan, and to make sure that related individuals are never bred together, but understand genetically why some breeders with other species tend to do it. I just took a college genetics course on animal breeding, so this is a really cool thread.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Certain thumbs, and most all Pumilio Travel a hundred+ collective miles every week just caring for their young. I don't see any reason they can't do the same to breed.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Here's a great article for insight into what's going on. NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC-TM30: Inbreeding Depression and Outbreeding Depression


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

But those deleterious alleles may not be bad in captivity. I don't see why anyone would want to keep their frogs from becoming better adapted to the niche they are going to occupy, but that's me.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Ed said:


> It is only meaningless because the hobby has shown little interest in it despite at least two separate attempts to enable the hobby to do something about it. Instead the hobby is content to ignore the data that demonstrates that even amphibians do show issues with inbreeding depression.
> This has been hashed over repeatedly over the years....
> 
> Some comments
> ...


Is it that the hobby has shown little interest or, the hobby realizes the amount of time, effort, and expense to implement such a system would be a logistical nightmare, at best? Agreed, there have been at least 2 attempts at doing this. The problem, as I see it, is how do you police it? Once a "club" (i know there are probably better words for this) is formed and starts showing superiority the less-than-honest (if they aren't already involved to begin with) could easily bypass many safeguards in place.

I say genetics are meaningless in a hobby because there will always be people involved to make a quick buck. Sure, many of those are easily spotted but, I can think of one personal situation where I bought animals from a well respected person within the hobby, only to find out years later that an oversight had occurred and the line I thought I had was not the line I really had. Had this not been Pythons, but instead was any one of a number of pure line frogs, the entire lineage would have been compromised. It was an honest mistake. Not mine, not the person who sold them to me, but instead a person employed by said business. 

Also, when I speak of meaninglessness, I refer to current times. Who, today, gets to decide which frogs establish the founding stock? Are we to only allow fresh imports? How many lineages could we simply 'go get some more' of? In the species/locales that we can, who determines the integrity of the collection data?

Please don't get me wrong. As I said, the amount of time, effort, and expense needed, seem to me at least, to negate its possibility. Although, I would love to be involved in a project like this that works towards true conservation (of genes). I have a lot of time. I have the dedication. I do NOT have the money. Anyone looking to hire a person to fill the first two requirements need not look any further. Resume available to serious offers!


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

As Sirjohn mentioned earlier, the assumption that WC animals are not related is just that ....


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

epiphytes etc. said:


> As Sirjohn mentioned earlier, the assumption that WC animals are not related is just that ....


I would go even further and suggest that they all are related. No need for assumptions. Given survivability, territoriality (where applicable), and birth place vs. place occupied at sexual maturity, I would have to say the chances of sibling x sibling are rare. Infinitesimally more so would be the existence of an f3 generation. In contrast, I would suggest that in captivity these odds are absent.

Also, and this is an assumption that evolutionary thought requires, we can assume that a wild population has a sufficient genetic diversity to exist because they do, in fact, exist. A modified Anthropic Principle, if you will. We can not make that same assumption in captivity since we are effecting survivability in our provision of an artificial environment.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

In such a case we can only assume that most often the frogs are following through with at least some selection to a degree. They'll seek out the loudest call. Undoubtedly it's in every animal, and assuming a concentrated population, we would see more diversity at the the initial introduction of two specimen, but without the chance to spread out, the frogs will see more genetic resemblance. Even without direct inheritance. If it's to be compared in captivity, we need to allow the ability for the frogs to select through larger, intermixed groups.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> In such a case we can only assume that most often the frogs are following through with at least some selection to a degree. They'll seek out the loudest call. Undoubtedly it's in every animal, and assuming a concentrated population, we would see more diversity at the the initial introduction of two specimen, but without the chance to spread out, the frogs will see more genetic resemblance. Even without direct inheritance. If it's to be compared in captivity, we need to allow the ability for the frogs to select through larger, intermixed groups.


Them seeking the loudest call is too much an open ended statement for real world applicability. At what point is the call too loud to be mistaken for "not my species"?

In theory your suggestion of larger intermixed captive groups will mimic wild conditions but, they have already been removed from the environmental factors that drove their evolution. Once in captivity we can only hope to conserve genes, we can not preserve a species nor can we drive natural selection. At some point our captive animals will differ so much from their wild counterparts that they will no longer be recognizable as the same species/locale. Between our selective breeding of captives, and Mother Natures selective breeding in the wild, the blurring of specific lines are inevitable.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Amphibian addict said:


> In such a case we can only assume that most often the frogs are following through with at least some selection to a degree.


Every reproductive population is under selective pressures that are constantly changing the ratios of the gene pool. The selective pressures acting on a wild population are much different than the selective pressures on a captive population. In fact, genes that make an individual have the greatest fitness in the wild can have the opposite effect in captivity.


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

Amphibian addict said:


> In such a case we can only assume that most often the frogs are following through with at least some selection to a degree. They'll seek out the loudest call. Undoubtedly it's in every animal, and assuming a concentrated population, we would see more diversity at the the initial introduction of two specimen, but without the chance to spread out, the frogs will see more genetic resemblance. Even without direct inheritance. If it's to be compared in captivity, we need to allow the ability for the frogs to select through larger, intermixed groups.


This is a very tough subject, but a good one... There are many learned people on this forum who are far more equipped to answer and comment on these questions than I, however there are examples of interbreeding that natuarally occured with positive result... Using the Galápagos Islands as an example.. They seperated from the main land mass stranding their inhabitants and closing the posibility of a large gene pool that were stuck there. This has been studied for decades by scientists and Dr's, and yet there is divercity within all the strains and variety of animals which inhabit the islands. They grew to adapt to their new environment and breeding practices.. Logic would say, that if a "Frog" was where there is ample food source, fresh water and plenty of mating possibilites, why would he/she travel miles? Taking care of their young could mean miles of travel, but I would suggest within a small area and not far from the place of origin as my guess, as the simplest explanation is usually the best one, but again, this is just my own assumption. I can travel hundreds miles for example just going in circles around my own block, never really leaving my home... 
Science has shown that interbreeding causes certain undesirable traits, but then I go back to my original example of the Galápagos Islands. If this was sound would'nt those islands be full of life that went wrong? or just adapted... There was no way for more of any of the same species to get there so what say you guys? Or how about Leucs within this hobby... There are many varieties of leucs, and often they are just reffered to as leucs. Banded, spotted, blue footed etc... Do you think that breeders within this hobby make this distinction? (I'm sure the reputable ones do, but what about the small guy?) Or do you think that they mix, not to hurt the line, but just not really knowing which lines are "Clean". I happen to like the Blue Footed myself, but is there azures in there far back someplace isolated? Anyway, just thinking out loud, and curious as to others thoughts..


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

Amphibian addict said:


> In such a case we can only assume that most often the frogs are following through with at least some selection to a degree. They'll seek out the loudest call. Undoubtedly it's in every animal, and assuming a concentrated population, we would see more diversity at the the initial introduction of two specimen, but without the chance to spread out, the frogs will see more genetic resemblance. Even without direct inheritance. If it's to be compared in captivity, we need to allow the ability for the frogs to select through larger, intermixed groups.


This is a very tough subject, but a good one... There are many learned people on this forum who are far more equipped to answer and comment on these questions than I, however there are examples of interbreeding that natuarally occured with positive result... Using the Galápagos Islands as an example.. They seperated from the main land mass stranding their inhabitants and closing the posibility of a large gene pool that were stuck there. This has been studied for decades by scientists and Dr's, and yet there is divercity within all the strains and variety of animals which inhabit the islands. They grew to adapt to their new environment and breeding practices.. Logic would say, that if a "Frog" was where there is ample food source, fresh water and plenty of mating possibilites, why would he/she travel miles? Taking care of their young could mean miles of travel, but I would suggest within a small area and not far from the place of origin as my guess, as the simplest explanation is usually the best one, but again, this is just my own assumption. Many dart Frogs species are territorial, which means travel could mean entering anothers teritory, fighting etc.. I can travel hundreds miles for example just going in circles around my own block, never really leaving my home... 
Science has shown that interbreeding causes certain undesirable traits, but then I go back to my original example of the Galápagos Islands. If this was sound would'nt those islands be full of life that went wrong? or just adapted... There was no way for more of any of the same species to get there so what say you guys? Or how about Leucs within this hobby... There are many varieties of leucs, and often they are just reffered to as leucs. Banded, spotted, blue footed etc... Do you think that breeders within this hobby make this distinction? (I'm sure the reputable ones do, but what about the small guy?) Or do you think that they mix, not to hurt the line, but just not really knowing which lines are "Clean". I happen to like the Blue Footed myself, but is there azures in there far back someplace isolated? Anyway, just thinking out loud, and curious as to others thoughts..


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

Sirjohn said:


> Or how about Leucs within this hobby... There are many varieties of leucs, and often they are just reffered to as leucs. Banded, spotted, blue footed etc... Do you think that breeders within this hobby make this distinction? (I'm sure the reputable ones do, but what about the small guy?) Or do you think that they mix, not to hurt the line, but just not really knowing which lines are "Clean". I happen to like the Blue Footed myself, but is there azures in there far back someplace isolated? Anyway, just thinking out loud, and curious as to others thoughts..


Well some of the other varieties like banded, spotted, blue footed etc. usually command a higher price than standard leucs, so I don't see any motivation for people to cross them and sell them as standard leucs. And as far as I know, these represent distinct populations in the wild, where some place actually has blue footed leucs in the wild and it is not a result of an azureus being thrown in the mix several generations ago. If I'm understanding you correctly, your analogy would be like me saying that some breeders don't make the distinction between blue jeans pumilio and bastimentos pumilio and breed them together.

One thing that's always intrigued me with this topic (and I think it was brought up here) is how breeders can label offspring from a group of frogs. If I have 5 frogs from different sources, and they breed but I'm not positive which male(s) and female(s) were directly involved, how do you state their lineage? It seems like keeping frogs in anything more than a pair for breeding could be very complicated unless all males were from one line and all females from another.
Bryan


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

deleted.
Sorry, saw that as inbreeding instead of interbreeding.



Sirjohn said:


> This is a very tough subject, but a good one... There are many learned people on this forum who are far more equipped to answer and comment on these questions than I, however there are examples of interbreeding that natuarally occured with positive result... Using the Galápagos Islands as an example.. They seperated from the main land mass stranding their inhabitants and closing the posibility of a large gene pool that were stuck there. This has been studied for decades by scientists and Dr's, and yet there is divercity within all the strains and variety of animals which inhabit the islands. They grew to adapt to their new environment and breeding practices.. Logic would say, that if a "Frog" was where there is ample food source, fresh water and plenty of mating possibilites, why would he/she travel miles? Taking care of their young could mean miles of travel, but I would suggest within a small area and not far from the place of origin as my guess, as the simplest explanation is usually the best one, but again, this is just my own assumption. Many dart Frogs species are territorial, which means travel could mean entering anothers teritory, fighting etc.. I can travel hundreds miles for example just going in circles around my own block, never really leaving my home...
> Science has shown that interbreeding causes certain undesirable traits, but then I go back to my original example of the Galápagos Islands. If this was sound would'nt those islands be full of life that went wrong? or just adapted... There was no way for more of any of the same species to get there so what say you guys? Or how about Leucs within this hobby... There are many varieties of leucs, and often they are just reffered to as leucs. Banded, spotted, blue footed etc... Do you think that breeders within this hobby make this distinction? (I'm sure the reputable ones do, but what about the small guy?) Or do you think that they mix, not to hurt the line, but just not really knowing which lines are "Clean". I happen to like the Blue Footed myself, but is there azures in there far back someplace isolated? Anyway, just thinking out loud, and curious as to others thoughts..


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Sirjohn said:


> Using the Galápagos Islands as an example.. They seperated from the main land mass stranding their inhabitants and closing the posibility of a large gene pool that were stuck there.


 I'm not so sure the islands were ever part of a larger land mass. I think they were purely volcanically formed. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, your point is noted.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Let's disregard the subject in its entirety for just a moment. And start with any possible solutions to any of these problems. Let's face it, there's really nothing that will solve what we're facing at the moment, and all of this is pointless until then.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

ecichlid said:


> I'm not so sure the islands were ever part of a larger land mass. I think they were purely volcanically formed. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, your point is noted.


You're right.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> I'll never cross lines...



Do you still feel this way?


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

ecichlid said:


> Do you still feel this way?


I'm starting to think otherwise, yes. If we're to represent the species as they are in nature. They can't be restrained to mere groups divided at collection. It's distressing to see such miss direction in my own understanding.


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

Amphibian addict said:


> In such a case we can only assume that most often the frogs are following through with at least some selection to a degree. They'll seek out the loudest call. Undoubtedly it's in every animal, and assuming a concentrated population, we would see more diversity at the the initial introduction of two specimen, but without the chance to spread out, the frogs will see more genetic resemblance. Even without direct inheritance. If it's to be compared in captivity, we need to allow the ability for the frogs to select through larger, intermixed groups.


Females actually won't make with the male with the loudest call, but those that are closest. Those that are closest may just be their siblings.

"You'll Do": Lack of Choosiness in Female Strawberry Poison Dart Frogs - Science Sushi | DiscoverMagazine.com

When we compare frog genomes to human genomes in respect to mutations in offspring with closely related parents, we have to realize that humans vary so little from each other genetically because the species started off with two individuals. For thousands of years as humans made their way across the world, we left very small populations of people in some cases probably families, and made races. These races can still interbreed today, and those that had too many mutations would just die out.

My point is that frogs' filial generations will need to get really high before we notice consistent deformities. In that case, the frogs just won't breed and we won't have those deformities widespread in the population.

I think maybe the key here is minimizing possible gametic mutations. For example, all plastic is known to disrupt hormones; if everyone is using plastic petri dishes, plastic film cans, plastic deli cups, plastic grow outs, etc. then we could be increasing the risk of those eggs and tadpoles developing mutations in their DNA and passing those on. That's what I would be concerned about.

(sorry to get a bit off topic)


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

NO, that's exactly what I'm looking for! Thanks to you, I'm wandering around with one less wrong bit of info. I actually completely forgot about that article...


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

ecichlid said:


> I'm not so sure the islands were ever part of a larger land mass. I think they were purely volcanically formed. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, your point is noted.


It had to be connected to land at some point as there would have been no inhabitants if it was just a volcanic formation... But like I said, I am not expert, it just strikes me more as a common sense thing... Note the Iguanas for example, who "Swim" and dive for moss and algea.. Or the many bird species that never leave and have evolved to address their food sources even the same species have many variations on the island.. As an example.. There are more, but you get the idea...


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

Amphibian addict said:


> Let's disregard the subject in its entirety for just a moment. And start with any possible solutions to any of these problems. Let's face it, there's really nothing that will solve what we're facing at the moment, and all of this is pointless until then.


Not as long as people like you and I are around... I always have strived to protect the integrity of lines and will do so, as I am not in it for a cash reward...My reward is the preservation of the species, and the enjoyment of those lines...There will always be the undesirables in every hobby... People who keep darts as a rule seem to be very conscience of what we have and know so much more than most about plant life, eco systems, and our subjects the darts... I like this forum because people on here seem to be very on target with this very issue, and frown on those who insist on their folly...


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

The islands are purely volcanic formed. They were never part of a larger land mass other then the tectonic plate that they are attached to. The islands sit on a hot spot that continues to make volcanic islands as the older ones disappear into the sea.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Fantastica said:


> Females actually won't make with the male with the loudest call, but those that are closest. Those that are closest may just be their siblings.
> 
> "You'll Do": Lack of Choosiness in Female Strawberry Poison Dart Frogs - Science Sushi | DiscoverMagazine.com


Seriously?? Please tell me you didn't read the cited paper so I can at least forgive you for not doing your scientific duty to question everything. Their sample size was 20 animals, over two studies, and a year apart. If you come up with anything more than "seems to suggest further study is needed" you are stretching it a bit. 



> we have to realize that humans vary so little from each other genetically because the species started off with two individuals


Let me guess. these two individuals were named Adam and Eve? Please!

EDIT: Do I remember correctly that you are a Biology student? Seriously??


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Sirjohn said:


> Not as long as people like you and I are around... I always have strived to protect the integrity of lines and will do so, as I am not in it for a cash reward...My reward is the preservation of the species, and the enjoyment of those lines....



A little grandiose, no? Pre tell, how do you suppose you are preserving the species?


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

aspidites73 said:


> Seriously?? Please tell me you didn't read the cited paper so I can at least forgive you for not doing your scientific duty to question everything. Their sample size was 20 animals over two studies a year apart. If you come up with anything more than "seems to suggest further study is needed" you are stretching it a bit. No?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure, I can give you the fact that it doesn't necessarily apply to all frogs, but where are the studies to say that the males with the loudest calls are being selected? My variabilis' call is inaudible unless the viv is open. If they're not that loud in the wild, the individuals would need to be in close proximity, increasing the chance that it's a family member.

It's unlikely that **** sapiens started with more than 2 individuals who developed a mutation in the fusion of chromosome 2 that separates us from other apes. Sorry, I should have clarified that. Why did you assume I was a Christian?


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

I thought the same thing to be honest. Also, these animals have been found to have very selective hearing, and I'm sure that with the adaptations they develop over time to hear these calls, its not gonna matter how audible it is for anything larger than it.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Fantastica said:


> Sure, I can give you the fact that it doesn't necessarily apply to all frogs, but where are the studies to say that the males with the loudest calls are being selected? My variabilis' call is inaudible unless the viv is open. If they're not that loud in the wild, the individuals would need to be in close proximity, increasing the chance that it's a family member.


Forget it not applying to all frogs. Their sample size was 20!!!. How anyone would give such a study any weight is beyond me. Did I mention their sample size was 20??



Fantastica said:


> It's unlikely that **** sapiens started with more than 2 individuals who developed a mutation in the fusion of chromosome 2 that separates us from other apes. Sorry, I should have clarified that. Why did you assume I was a Christian?


Can you provide a little support for this? My apologies for the assumption you were religiously preoccupied.

EDIT: All 3 of the major religions believe in the concept of Adam and Eve. Not just Christians


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

aspidites73 said:


> A little grandiose, no? Pre tell, how do you suppose you are preserving the species?


By not crossbreeding species... Just trying to engage in debate, nothing more... I am nothing more than a mere hobbyist who has questions, and not all the answers.. You know much more than I do, and conceed that in all my posts I write I am NO authority..


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

aspidites73 said:


> Forget it not applying to all frogs. Their sample size was 20!!!. How anyone would give such a study any weight is beyond me. Did I mention their sample size was 20??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have any papers (nor do I care to search for them), just lecture notes. 

I feel like we're getting a little off topic and that the "discussion" aspect of this thread has dissipated.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Not so much, well at least in the sense of topical construct, Its all but crumbled. But he brings up a point that shows interest on a new level which is the work behind everything in this thread. If we're to follow through with any of the prompted theories being shared here, we'll need some actual studies to back them. If it comes down to it, perhaps it could be done here within the community.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Well I think on this particular subject there are a number of things the breeders could do to help and maybe increase value. 

Lets say you want 4 Auratus and you want to make sure you do not have a related breeding pair. You also want to increase how long you have them and the chances of them getting along you want to do it all right. So you want to buy all 4 frogs at the same time. So you pay $30+50 shipping, then fecals at $21 and PCR once for Chytrid and Rana virus at $18 / test. You are looking at $650 for a group and Ed would probably still tell me I did it wrong. 

On the other hand breeders could trade like 30 frogs at a time with each other from others they trust to run clean collections bringing the cost of shipping down to a couple bucks a frog. They could keep track of which frogs come from where. Then when they go to a show or ship frogs they could make sure unrelated siblings go out in packs. Or they could just keep their frogs in groups of 2 so they know where each frog is coming from and track it. 

When you consider dropping that much money it seems like there would be some value in being able to know for sure you are getting unrelated individuals. I would have certainly paid more for this. Maybe I am alone, but then again it wasn't even an option. Most breeders had all the frogs of a morph and sometimes more in a single display at shows. Many were sourced frog groups where they wouldn't know if all the frogs were coming from 1 pair or 3 and either way many had no idea which pair produced frog X or Y. 



aspidites73 said:


> Forget it not applying to all frogs. Their sample size was 20!!!. How anyone would give such a study any weight is beyond me. Did I mention their sample size was 20??


I did not read the paper but there is nothing wrong with a sample size of 20 if it is statistically significant. Huge amounts of science are only replicated 3 times. Just depends on how powerful the effect is. And the peer review should have checked on this before passing the paper. There is also a practical aspect of science many people seem to not understand. Even if an experiment is not conclusive and fully significant if it is meaningful it can still be published. If guy X simply doesn't have any more money to have more replication then it may still be published because publishing it with a note in the discussion about the lack of strength of the argument is better than not publishing it at all or writing the effect off completely. With animal work that takes lots of space and money this is going to be more common.


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

I had been told/taught when younger that with frogs (and possibly referring to amphibians in general) that inbreeding did not have as much of a negative effect as with other species.

As Ed pointed out, it does appear though that it has been shown to have negative consequences. I would guess however that they are not as severe or 'in general' do not happen so negatively as often as with other species.

I would imagine that a lot of frogs that were brought in from 20 years ago and have bred and are still around in the hobby today (terribilis for example before some of the newer ones came in) are almost all from a very small original group.

I'm sure it's much better to try and find as unrelated as possible frogs for breeding purposes just like anything else but I would not worry 'too' much about it. It's a good idea to keep some sort of records, though. That actually seems to be getting better but who's to say someone didn't make something up before selling to someone here or that they made a mistake etc.

This really is an aside from the main post but I just wanted to post this and maybe hear some responses. I haven't heard of too many bad effects from lack of diversity in frogs.. the terribilis seem to be doing well. The one thing (and this is even more off topic) I wonder about is why the CB frogs are so much smaller than WC. Has anyone specifically figured that out yet?

-Nish


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

nish07 said:


> I had been told/taught when younger that with frogs (and possibly referring to amphibians in general) that inbreeding did not have as much of a negative effect as with other species.
> 
> As Ed pointed out, it does appear though that it has been shown to have negative consequences. I would guess however that they are not as severe or 'in general' do not happen so negatively as often as with other species.
> 
> ...


Well a post on here just a bit ago was aimed at the environmental factors in captivity, and what the possible factors could contribute to the harmful mutations. I'm sure that dietary effects over time of just fruit flies, springs, isos ect. aren't exactly what they need to take on in the wild. If the frogs are introduced to smaller foods, then over time they'll shrink in size, because the need to take on larger prey on is lost. Now, I'm not saying anything to suggest natural selection in such a small environment, but rather the contributions that play part in the viv to encourage change.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Amphibian addict said:


> Well a post on here just a bit ago was aimed at the environmental factors in captivity, and what the possible factors could contribute to the harmful mutations. I'm sure that dietary effects over time of just fruit flies, springs, isos ect. aren't exactly what they need to take on in the wild. If the frogs are introduced to smaller foods, then over time they'll shrink in size, because the need to take on larger prey on is lost. Now, I'm not saying anything to suggest natural selection in such a small environment, but rather the contributions that play part in the viv to encourage change.


This is simply not true. It has been reported that pumilio in the field were browsing on arthropods that were too small to see. 




> I had been told/taught when younger that with frogs (and possibly referring to amphibians in general) that inbreeding did not have as much of a negative effect as with other species.
> 
> As Ed pointed out, it does appear though that it has been shown to have negative consequences. I would guess however that they are not as severe or 'in general' do not happen so negatively as often as with other species.
> 
> ...


 And let us not forget, all the quinqs in the US hobby are descendents of two individuals, a single pair. No, I'm not sure if their names were Adam and Eve.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

As has been mentioned in other threads, nature is not static. The frogs are not done evolving, they have not reached some final destination. Sure, we can keep our frogs as a "snapshot" of nature from when they were collected, but they will not be the same animals as long as selective pressures in the wild are driving the micro-evolution. Just as an example, bastis collected in 2013 are not from the same gene pool as those collected earlier, because so many animals, along with their genetic potential were collected and sent abroad.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

epiphytes etc. said:


> This is simply not true. It has been reported that pumilio in the field were browsing on arthropods that were too small to see.


I never suggested that it was, I merely brought it up for a topic of conversation as I saw it to be a very likely scenario. Also, If you have these reports, I would be very interested in seeing them.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

epiphytes etc. said:


> As has been mentioned in other threads, nature is not static. The frogs are not done evolving, they have not reached some final destination. Sure, we can keep our frogs as a "snapshot" of nature from when they were collected, but they will not be the same animals as long as selective pressures in the wild are driving the micro-evolution. Just as an example, bastis collected in 2013 are not from the same gene pool as those collected earlier, because so many animals, along with their genetic potential were collected and sent abroad.


The point of argument of a "final destination" is illogical in all aspects, in every animal, something just can't all the sudden stop evolving (not suggesting you promoted its logicality, cause you clearly didn't). And, with the snapshot idea, you have a point. While the frogs wont find the exact environments driving their evolution in captivity as they would in nature, they wouldn't, again, stop evolving. With that though, you can expect to see the frogs take on the identity of an entirely new animal, one built to the environment we provide. Of course, there wont be any major phenotypic changes, but over time it could come to be.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> The point of argument of a "final destination" is illogical in all aspects, in every animal, something just can't all the sudden stop evolving (not suggesting you promoted its logicality, cause you clearly didn't). And, with the snapshot idea, you have a point. While the frogs wont find the exact environments driving their evolution in captivity as they would in nature, they wouldn't, again, stop evolving. With that though, you can expect to see the frogs take on the identity of an entirely new animal, one built to the environment we provide. Of course, there wont be any major phenotypic changes, but over time it could come to be.




Stating "exact environments" as you did, infers that we provide something close, but not exactly. Is that what you're suggesting?



Amphibian addict said:


> With that though, you can expect to see the frogs take on the identity of an entirely new animal, one built to the environment we provide. Of course, there wont be any major phenotypic changes, but over time it could come to be.


This just doesn't make any sense. You suggest "........frogs take on the identity of an entirely new animal" Then say there would be "no phenotypic changes", but you close the sentence with "....over time it could [be]"
Of course there would be phenotypic changes in captive population. Is human selection really much different, in concept, than natural selection? I don't care how much you try and euphamize it. Frogs appearance in captivity will change from their wild counterparts because we are now the Selectors.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Phenotypic changes can happen pretty fast. Look at Hawaiian auratus, the WC I've seen were much larger than my WC Tabogas, not to mention the higher rate of the reticulated pattern.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> Stating "exact environments" as you did, infers that we provide something close, but not exactly. Is that what you're suggesting?


yes



aspidites73 said:


> This just doesn't make any sense. You suggest "........frogs take on the identity of an entirely new animal" Then say there would be "no phenotypic changes", but you close the sentence with "....over time it could [be]"
> Of course there would be phenotypic changes in captive population. Is human selection really much different, in concept, than natural selection? I don't care how much you try and euphamize it. Frogs appearance in captivity will change from their wild counterparts because we are now the Selectors.


The word "immediate" should have been place before "phenotypic changes", sorry that's just me typing without thinking.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

epiphytes etc. said:


> Phenotypic changes can happen pretty fast. Look at Hawaiian auratus, the WC I've seen were much larger than my WC Tabogas, not to mention the higher rate of the reticulated pattern.


The Hawaiians were introduced to the wild in 2008, yes?


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

I believe it was the 30's


EDIT: I may be thinking of something else.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

epiphytes etc. said:


> I believe it was the 30's
> 
> 
> EDIT: I may be thinking of something else.


you're right

Invasion Biology Introduced Species Summary Project - Columbia University

Green and Black Dart-poison Frog (Dendrobates auratus) - FactSheet


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> The Hawaiians were introduced to the wild in 2008, yes?


 According to an acquaintance from Hawaii, Auratus were established as early as 1945, and they are only established in manoa and waihole valleys on oahu . Evolutionally, not too long, but time enough for change. I suppose you could say there are around 54 generations removed from the original stock, assuming an 18 month generation gap. EDIT. I was responding when you posted above

I would also argue how close we really are to providing a natural environment. No predators, medicinal treatment for disease, cultured food items with additive vitamins and minerals, constant food supply, no dry periods to wean the week, higher survivorship, conserved energy from not having to care for their young (where applicable). In fact, I would say there isn't even a consideration of similarity between our artificial environments and the wild.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Amphibian addict said:


> The point of argument of a "final destination" is illogical in all aspects, in every animal, something just can't all the sudden stop evolving (not suggesting you promoted its logicality, cause you clearly didn't). And, with the snapshot idea, you have a point. While the frogs wont find the exact environments driving their evolution in captivity as they would in nature, they wouldn't, again, stop evolving. With that though, you can expect to see the frogs take on the identity of an entirely new animal, one built to the environment we provide. Of course, there wont be any major phenotypic changes, but over time it could come to be.


Well an organism _could_ stop evolving, but at that point we call it extinction


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

edwardsatc said:


> Well an organism _could_ stop evolving, but at that point we call it extinction


I like: Biologically Challenged.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

aspidites73 said:


> Seriously?? Please tell me you didn't read the cited paper so I can at least forgive you for not doing your scientific duty to question everything. Their sample size was 20 animals, over two studies, and a year apart. If you come up with anything more than "seems to suggest further study is needed" you are stretching it a bit.


N=5 for 2004 ... holy crap, you'd think that they were studying hominids. There's really no excuse for such small sample sizes when studying pumilio ...

Several other issues with this paper, but no point in going into them here I suppose.


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> According to an acquaintance from Hawaii, Auratus were established as early as 1945, and they are only established in manoa and waihole valleys on oahu . Evolutionally, not too long, but time enough for change. I suppose you could say there are around 45 generations removed from the original stock, assuming an 18 month generation gap. EDIT. I was responding when you posted above
> 
> I would also argue how close we really are to providing a natural environment. No predators, medicinal treatment for disease, cultured food items with additive vitamins and minerals, constant food supply, no dry periods to wean the week, higher survivorship, conserved energy from not having to care for their young (where applicable). In fact, I would say there isn't even a consideration of similarity between our artificial environments and the wild.


 I was talking in aspect of physical, rather influential characteristics, but it ties hand in hand in its own so there's no point in refuting it. So, with the changes to our frogs in captivity at the moment, what do you suppose will be the results in say 100 years or so?


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

ARTfrogs™ ....


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

edwardsatc said:


> N=5 for 2004 ... holy crap, you'd think that they were studying hominids. There's really no excuse for such small sample sizes when studying pumilio ...
> 
> Several other issues with this paper, but no point in going into them here I suppose.



I believe it was ED who pointed out several flaws with that article. I can't seem to find the thread


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

You said, specifically:



Amphibian addict said:


> While the frogs wont find the exact environments driving their evolution in captivity as they would in nature,


And, now say:



Amphibian addict said:


> I was talking in aspect of physical, rather influential characteristics, but it ties hand in hand in its own so there's no point in refuting it. So, with the changes to our frogs in captivity at the moment, what do you suppose will be the results in say 100 years or so?


And, How can "physical" characteristics not be Influential. I would argue both physical and environmental characteristics are influential to evolution. Is excess food not considered a physical characteristic? Is it not influential?


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian addict said:


> I was talking in aspect of physical, rather influential characteristics, but it ties hand in hand in its own so there's no point in refuting it. So, with the changes to our frogs in captivity at the moment, what do you suppose will be the results in say 100 years or so?


In 100 years? Maybe nothing to our eye. I am quite confident they will not match their wild counterparts (contemporary wild counterparts, not the founding stock 100 years ago). In other words, the captive frogs are subjected to 100 years of captivity and the founding stock would be re-sampled in 100 years, then re-compared


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

aspidites73 said:


> I believe it was ED who pointed out several flaws with that article. I can't seem to find the thread



If I remember correctly, one of the reasons it has issues when the whole body of literature is studied.... In other populations that were studied, they did show mate choice by the females 

See Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog

INTRASPECIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT IN A POLYMORPHIC POISON DART FROG, DENDROBATES PUMILIO - Richards-Zawacki - 2010 - Evolution - Wiley Online Library

http://www.fishecology.ch/publikationen/pub_10/Brown_etal_2010_JBiogeogr.pdf 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Inbreeding has a rapid and direct impact on phenotype as it can immediately begin to fix alleles. The comments earlier in the thread about avoiding deformations generally only appears after generations of inbreeding fixing deleterious mutations. This is a minor issue that people often fixate on instead of the greater issue. The major risk to a captive population through inbreeding, is the loss of the genetic diversity found in the major histocompatibility complex. This diversity is what helps to protect a population from extinction due to a pathogen.
With respect to inbreeding in captive dendrobatids, people have to remember that we are talking about non-random pairings so different calculations apply. For those who are really into it, I suggest reading up on the Hardy-Weinberg Law... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> And, How can "physical" characteristics not be Influential. I would argue both physical and environmental characteristics are influential to evolution. Is excess food not considered a physical characteristic? Is it not influential?


When I said "tie hand in hand", I meant they stood as equals to each other, sorry. I've never been one with sayings like that. I had never any argument to disagree with my original statement, and the point still stands.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Amphibian addict said:


> With that though, you can expect to see the frogs take on the identity of an entirely new animal, one built to the environment we provide. Of course, there wont be any major phenotypic changes, but over time it could come to be.


This is only true if the population is not managed with respect to genetic diversity (which the hobby does not). 

For those who are attempting to acquire unrelated animals, they are often practicing method of relaxed selection as the most attractive pair is retained for breeding. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Ed said:


> Inbreeding has a rapid and direct impact on phenotype as it can immediately begin to fix alleles. The comments earlier in the thread about avoiding deformations generally only appears after generations of inbreeding fixing deleterious mutations. This is a minor issue that people often fixate on instead of the greater issue. The major risk to a captive population through inbreeding, is the loss of the genetic diversity found in the major histocompatibility complex. This diversity is what helps to protect a population from extinction due to a pathogen.
> With respect to inbreeding in captive dendrobatids, people have to remember that we are talking about non-random pairings so different calculations apply. For those who are really into it, I suggest reading up on the Hardy-Weinberg Law...
> 
> Some comments
> ...


I hadn't even considered the effects played out on the MHC. Do you think that the developments over a few genes over all this time are going to put a species into extinction? I'm getting curious as to what specific factors behind this are so critical to the pathogens applicable to an entire population.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Sirjohn said:


> . Logic would say, that if a "Frog" was where there is ample food source, fresh water and plenty of mating possibilites, why would he/she travel miles? Taking care of their young could mean miles of travel, but I would suggest within a small area and not far from the place of origin as my guess, as the simplest explanation is usually the best one, but again, this is just my own assumption.


I think you should look at major histocompatability complex diversity as a factor in mate choice. There are cases where inbreeding in a population is desirable as it enables adaptation to a local environment but this then comes at a cost if they then are able to access a different population with different adaptations. This leads to the other issue of outbreeding depression. This has been documented with frogs and many other taxa. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Ed said:


> This is only true if the population is not managed with respect to genetic diversity (which the hobby does not).
> 
> For those who are attempting to acquire unrelated animals, they are often practicing method of relaxed selection as the most attractive pair is retained for breeding.
> 
> ...


If the genetics are built on such traits, and it's effecting the animals to the point of negative mutation, why has this passed by without any out voiced concerned for so long?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Amphibian addict said:


> I hadn't even considered the effects played out on the MHC. Do you think that the developments over a few genes over all this time are going to put a species into extinction? I'm getting curious as to what specific factors behind this are so critical to the pathogens applicable to an entire population.


We have seen major issues within domestic animals already... For example, the susceptiability of some dog breeds to parvovirus (example rottweilers), domestic plants (Irish potato famine).... With the massive exposures to novel parasites within the pet trade why do you think a lowered MHC diversity wouldn't put the population at risk. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Amphibian addict said:


> If the genetics are built on such traits, and it's effecting the animals to the point of negative mutation, why has this passed by without any out voiced concerned for so long?


It hasn't and those aren't negative mutations I'm referencing. Homozygosity can be a bad thing in and of itself without any deleterious mutations. 
Why do you continue to refer only to negative mutations? 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Ed said:


> We have seen major issues within domestic animals already... For example, the susceptiability of some dog breeds to parvovirus (example rottweilers), domestic plants (Irish potato famine).... With the massive exposures to novel parasites within the pet trade why do you think a lowered MHC diversity wouldn't put the population at risk.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Point made. But my concern now lies within what pathogens between groups. If we're to intermix groups from certain lines, then who's to say that were not jeopardizing the offspring of those two groups. If each comes from a different side of the country where there's different pathogens present, then wouldn't we be breeding in issues?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Amphibian addict said:


> Point made. But my concern now lies within what pathogens between groups. If we're to intermix groups from certain lines, then who's to say that were not jeopardizing the offspring of those two groups. If each comes from a different side of the country where there's different pathogens present, then wouldn't we be breeding in issues?



You can't equate breeding with the pathogen mix in this manner. In any case, that is what quarantine and testing is for and there is abundant evidence it is important.. 

for example some of the ranaviruses are only highly pathogenic outside of coevolved amphibian populations..

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Ok, thanks so far, you've been an amazing help, and I'm sorry if I sound stupid to the matter. What I was thinking was, the developments made in each parent to the MHC, and with the pathogens present to each would counteract each other. Sorry for the awkward sentence composure, its not one of my strong suits.


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

edwardsatc said:


> Well an organism _could_ stop evolving, but at that point we call it extinction


We can also call it stasis.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

Amphibian addict said:


> I was talking in aspect of physical, rather influential characteristics, but it ties hand in hand in its own so there's no point in refuting it. So, with the changes to our frogs in captivity at the moment, what do you suppose will be the results in say 100 years or so?


I think at this point, we may be lucky if amphibians survive another 100 years in the wild.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Amphibian addict (May 15, 2012)

Fantastica said:


> I think at this point, we may be lucky if amphibians survive another 100 years in the wild.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


I would like to look at that as pessimism. Problem is, is that I agree. I hope that the frogs available in captivity though, could offer possible reintroduction. That would only work If the genetics could be maintained well enough up to that point. Even then, the population would have to be monitored to an extreme.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Amphibian addict said:


> Ok, thanks so far, you've been an amazing help, and I'm sorry if I sound stupid to the matter. What I was thinking was, the developments made in each parent to the MHC, and with the pathogens present to each would counteract each other. Sorry for the awkward sentence composure, its not one of my strong suits.


Not a problem. If you ask around you'll see that I tend to be terse in discussion. 

If I understand your sentence correctly, there is going to be a loss in the MHC diversity, but this doesn't mean that the time line is sufficient to allow for coevolution in the captive populations with the pathogens. In many collections and vendors for reptiles and amphibians, we see close contact with multiple taxa from diverse regions which enables pathogens to jump species. 
(As an example without the MHC issue, was the time monkey pox jumped from Gambian pouched rat (Cricetomys gambianu) into prarie dogs in the pet trade resulting in an outbreak of monkey pox in the US). 

People often focus on the fact that well the frogs seem healthy so there isn't any concern with inbreeding while ignoring the potential risks... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Amphibian addict said:


> I would like to look at that as pessimism. Problem is, is that I agree. I hope that the frogs available in captivity though, could offer possible reintroduction. That would only work If the genetics could be maintained well enough up to that point. Even then, the population would have to be monitored to an extreme.


It requires even more than genetics. The current standards are that they cannot have been exposed to novel pathogens. This precludes any of the hobby's animals from ever being suitable for release. See the discussion starting here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-2.html#post576511

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

Scientists resurrect extinct frog that gives birth through its mouth | MyScienceAcademy

I thought this might have some bearing on this issue, meaning that frog species that may become extinct may have a second chance... Its interesting that they were able to carry out this process. I am not certain of the validity of the article but worth looking at...


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

Ed said:


> It requires even more than genetics. The current standards are that they cannot have been exposed to novel pathogens. This precludes any of the hobby's animals from ever being suitable for release. See the discussion starting here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-2.html#post576511
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


This is unfortunately the problem that I don't think people will get past (novel pathogens). However, they have reintroduced large mammals into the wild (large cats etc.) and how are people sure that there are no novel pathogens picked up when it would be very easy due to it being nearly impossible to raise them in sterile conditions?

-Nish


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

nish07 said:


> This is unfortunately the problem that I don't think people will get past (novel pathogens). However, they have reintroduced large mammals into the wild (large cats etc.) and how are people sure that there are no novel pathogens picked up when it would be very easy due to it being nearly impossible to raise them in sterile conditions?
> 
> -Nish


To start off, there is a much better handle on mammalian pathogens than there are frog and reptile pathogens.. and screening programs. For example, your choice of feeder insects could enable a iridovirus to jump hosts from a reptile to an insect and then to another host.. See for example Experimental Infection of Crickets (Gryllus Bimaculatus) with an Invertebrate Iridovirus Isolated from a High-Casqued Chameleon (Chamaeleo Hoehnelii) 

This is also where the institutions are heading with the large mammal programs... for example the discovery of a virus that can cause a severe hemorraghic disease in captive and wild elephant populations has resulted in the emplacement of a policy to try and avoid housing African and Asian elephants together (due to variation in the virus strains and the risk of crossinfection). 

And for the record... these sorts of introductions for large mammals are in decline for preference for insitu programs and protecting the wild populations. The use of the ark method has had a lot of issues unless the local groups end up engaged in buying into the protection and reintroduction otherwise the exploitation continues unabated. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Sirjohn said:


> Scientists resurrect extinct frog that gives birth through its mouth | MyScienceAcademy
> 
> I thought this might have some bearing on this issue, meaning that frog species that may become extinct may have a second chance... Its interesting that they were able to carry out this process. I am not certain of the validity of the article but worth looking at...


Digging into the background of the article, you can find the original trial however all of the "embryos" died before too long... So it's an interesting footnote but not as groundshaking as the article implies. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------

