# baby albino vanzolini



## Living4theLord (Aug 6, 2008)

Found him in the tank yesterday


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Kinda creepy looking


----------



## alex111683 (Sep 11, 2010)

Wow! Amazing. Hows the little guy doing?


----------



## Steve25 (Jan 29, 2010)

Wow, looks crazy but awesome


----------



## Lukeomelas (Mar 15, 2005)

Wow, freaky looking!


----------



## skynett (Jul 28, 2011)

That is AMAZING I would LOVE to have one


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

pretty cool, congrats, keep us posted on the growth progress


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

you know, I was wondering if the occurrence of albino frogs is higher in the hobby than in the wild (I know that the survival rate in the wild is lower, but do they happen as often?), and if so is this an indication that the captive population of frogs is very inbred?


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

I wonder how long it will take for the line bred debate to start once again?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

billschwinn said:


> I wonder how long it will take for the line bred debate to start once again?


Oh sorry, I really didn't mean for it to be that kind of question...

I'm just curious about whether or not they occur more often. Although I don't know if that's a reasonable question to ask, since I understand that most albino darts don't survive in the wild, so it would be hard to find out the frequency at which they occur...


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

hypostatic said:


> Oh sorry, I really didn't mean for it to be that kind of question...
> 
> I'm just curious about whether or not they occur more often. Although I don't know if that's a reasonable question to ask, since I understand that most albino darts don't survive in the wild, so it would be hard to find out the frequency at which they occur...


That was not directed at you, just looks like it


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

I would venture to say the occurance of mutation happens in the wild with the same frequency, just who would know it in the wild, other than the predator seeing white meat.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

Depending on the lines and whether they are actively or even inactively inbred when there is an albino trait known or not floating around. If you look at the percentages based that there are far more unrelated lines in the wild Id bet percentage of CB albino's are higher even without purposely producing them.

That vanzo looks a bit frail. Good luck with it. Just for Bill I have the need to mention that just because it could be a fad doesnt mean it needs to be. I say keep it rare and one of a kind.

Michael


----------



## MrFusion (Jul 18, 2011)

I'd disagree on that. I believe albinism is less common in a genetically diverse community. We see it more in the hobby because of inbreeding. The older a line gets the more inbred it becomes and the more genetic mutations are likely to occur. It's really pretty tragic in my opinion.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

Maybe I misworded it ''and I'm known for my bad grammar and wording'' but I think albinism is absolutely more common in captivity. Its the lines, too few so even unknowing people can be breeding lineswith albino genes and not know it. We all know for the most part albino herps are picked off due to the lack of normal camo or natural defense coloring. This would almost limit there ever being F1 and F2 albino offspring.

Michael


----------



## baita83 (Aug 29, 2009)

I would think they are just as common in the wild if not more do to the number of animals breeding. An example would be when they started "farming" ball pythons they collected gravid females and hatched the eggs and thats where most of the morphs came from, not from breeding normals in captivity.they occurred naturally and in high numbers selective breeding just made them more available.

Interesting Vanzo good luck with all your pms about line breeding lol


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

baita83 said:


> I would think they are just as common in the wild if not more do to the number of animals breeding. An example would be when they started "farming" ball pythons they collected gravid females and hatched the eggs and thats where most of the morphs came from, not from breeding normals in captivity.they occurred naturally and in high numbers selective breeding just made them more available.
> 
> Interesting Vanzo good luck with all your pms about line breeding lol


Something else to consider, no one knows how often it occurs in the wild, we can just make educated guesses.In captivity we have far more offspring successfully produced thus raising the chances of mutations occuring as the occurance is basically playing the odds, with so many produced, it increases the chances of anomolys occuring.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

I just wanna know how long before I can get a group of these??



j/k


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

frogface said:


> I just wanna know how long before I can get a group of these??
> 
> 
> 
> j/k


Sure your joking, what did this one cost ya?


----------



## james67 (Jun 28, 2008)

ok so i guess im going to be the first to ask.

perhaps its my computer screen, but where are the frogs eyes? 

james


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Inbreeding does NOT cause genetic mutation. It isn't a causative agent. What is happening in captivity with line breeding is a founder effect. If an individual with a recessive trait is part of the founding population then the likelyhood of that gene being expressed is greater because there is an increased likelyhood that two individuals, both carrying a recessive trait will encounter each other and breed.


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

I wondered that myself.


james67 said:


> ok so i guess im going to be the first to ask.
> 
> perhaps its my computer screen, but where are the frogs eyes?
> 
> james


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

No the albino gene is what causes it, but when you have hundreds of hobbyists stuck to breeding only a few unrelated lines they end up breeding related lines even unknowingly the inbred offspring will produce the trait if its in the line, not 100% of the time but enough to make it more common than in the wild.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

james67 said:


> ok so i guess im going to be the first to ask.
> 
> perhaps its my computer screen, but where are the frogs eyes?
> 
> james


It looks like a white/clear eye between the yellow marks on the left side of his head (or our right). If not, that can't be good.


----------



## jfehr232 (Apr 13, 2009)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Inbreeding does NOT cause genetic mutation.


Maybe I just need to go to bed(waking up early to go to Reptiland)"Clyde Peeling" 

I assume and I think others have said this but inbreeding just increases the expression of that recessive trait.( ex biology major, maybe a little rusty)

Wonder if the OP is received any offers yet? ha

Anyway, Good luck with raising it. Keep us posted.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

There


----------



## james67 (Jun 28, 2008)

frogface said:


> There
> 
> View attachment 21336


i get that thats where they are at (as with , well, all darts).  they seem strange in the pic though, almost like theyre covered with skin or something.

james


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

Yes. Hard to imagine that it would be functioning. He's still alive though. Maybe just survived on absorbing his tail?


----------



## Molch (Jul 15, 2011)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Inbreeding does NOT cause genetic mutation. It isn't a causative agent. What is happening in captivity with line breeding is a founder effect. If an individual with a recessive trait is part of the founding population then the likelyhood of that gene being expressed is greater because there is an increased likelyhood that two individuals, both carrying a recessive trait will encounter each other and breed.


yes - well explained  Hence European Royals* --- hemophilia




* no, that's NOT a dart frog strain


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Oh man, thank you for correcting the "mutation" thing. As a biology major it made me cringe a little lol. I'm sure that the albinos in the hobby aren't caused by novel mutations, and that the rate of mutation isn't higher than the population in the wild.


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

frogface said:


> There
> 
> View attachment 21336


If you say so... 
Bryan


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

Ok fine! I enhanced the image for those of you with poor eyesight or cheap computers.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

frogface said:


> Ok fine! I enhanced the image for those of you with poor eyesight or cheap computers.
> 
> View attachment 21345


Now we know what she does in her spare time!


----------



## Fishboy (May 21, 2011)

OOHH a ghost frog, your frog room must be haunted


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

frogface said:


> Ok fine! I enhanced the image for those of you with poor eyesight or cheap computers.
> 
> View attachment 21345


Ah, much better, thank you. But now where, oh where, is the other eye? 
Interesting frog.
Bryan


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Isn't R. vanzolinii a pretty new import? You all think that this is a result from inbreeding a frog that was pretty recently introduced into the hobby?


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Isn't R. vanzolinii a pretty new import? You all think that this is a result from inbreeding a frog that was pretty recently introduced into the hobby?


In a word No. The correct genes were in the parents to produce the albino. It was a chance occurance as their was no mention made of breeding specifically for the trait.Mutations happen, this one was in a collection so we are aware of it. If it occured in the wild obviously no one would have known.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

billschwinn said:


> In a word No. The correct genes were in the parents to produce the albino. It was a chance occurance as their was no mention made of breeding specifically for the trait.Mutations happen, this one was in a collection so we are aware of it. If it occured in the wild obviously no one would have known.


Yes, that was kind of my point. There's all this talk of albinism occuring more in captivity than in the wild, and in some ways I understand this, especially in frogs like leucomelas which were specifically bred for the trait way back when, and there are only so many lines of, so this has to be taken into consideration for some frogs. However, we're seeing newer frogs coming in that are still throwing out albino frogs (like the vanzolinii). Do people really think that albinism is due to captivity, or that somehow importers/collecters are managing to collect an abnormal number of frogs with the abino gene?

I'm far more likely to side with Bill on this. It seems like there's more occurances in captivity because we can actually see them.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Yes, that was kind of my point. There's all this talk of albinism occuring more in captivity than in the wild, and in some ways I understand this, especially in frogs like leucomelas which were specifically bred for the trait way back when, and there are only so many lines of, so this has to be taken into consideration for some frogs. However, we're seeing newer frogs coming in that are still throwing out albino frogs (like the vanzolinii). Do people really think that albinism is due to captivity, or that somehow importers/collecters are managing to collect an abnormal number of frogs with the abino gene?
> 
> I'm far more likely to side with Bill on this. It seems like there's more occurances in captivity because we can actually see them.


I want to say I am not looking for people to take sides , and am not trying to be divisive, but with situations like this we need to rely on science and common sense.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

Living4theLord said:


> Found him in the tank yesterday


Probably the first dart albino that I thought was cool looking


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Isn't R. vanzolinii a pretty new import? You all think that this is a result from inbreeding a frog that was pretty recently introduced into the hobby?


But if this is from frogs that were imported from Europe, not UE line, then there could have been quite a few breeding generations over there before they came here... I guess they could have had albinos pop up over there, too?
Bryan


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> But if this is from frogs that were imported from Europe, not UE line, then there could have been quite a few breeding generations over there before they came here... I guess they could have had albinos pop up over there, too?
> Bryan


The answer is maybe... it all depends on the population over there and how diverse it's genetics are... people need to keep in mind that imports from Europe are likely to be the offspring of a few breeders (or most likely one breeder) resulting in a reduced gene pool. This could result in a greater frequency of the recessive alleles showing up in the US and not the EU...... 

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Ed said:


> people need to keep in mind that imports from Europe are likely to be the offspring of a few breeders (or most likely one breeder) resulting in a reduced gene pool. This could result in a greater frequency of the recessive alleles showing up in the US and not the EU......
> 
> Ed


Couldn't it also possibly result in lower frequency of recessive alleles showing up? If frogs are coming from only a few adult frogs the lower the chance of either of them carrying that gene....


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Couldn't it also possibly result in lower frequency of recessive alleles showing up? If frogs are coming from only a few adult frogs the lower the chance of either of them carrying that gene....


Not really. For example, if you take all the genes in a population that code for skin color and throw them into a metaphorical bag, in that bad you have the "gene pool" for the skin color allele.
Now imagine two different population size. One population size is 10,000 and the other population size is 100. If both of those populations originally only had one individual that contained the "albino gene", the likelihood of you reaching into that bag and pulling out "albino genes" is much more likely in the smaller population.

So in a founder effect like we see here, if the original frogs carried the albino genes, we would be more likely to see them pop up than in the wild.


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

How's the little guy doing? Any new photos?


----------



## ncc2015 (Aug 4, 2011)

Definitely really creepy but also awesome looking. I hope he/she is doing well.


----------



## Living4theLord (Aug 6, 2008)

The little guy is in a 65 gallon terrarium so finding him is a bit of a challenge. I saw him yesterday in one of the broms but haven't gotten any new pics yet.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Couldn't it also possibly result in lower frequency of recessive alleles showing up? If frogs are coming from only a few adult frogs the lower the chance of either of them carrying that gene....


It dependent if the genes are present in those frogs or not.. when dealing with a small founding population, one recessive or dominent gene(s) can readily become amplified resulting in the discrepency between how it shows up compared to the original frogs. 

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

hypostatic said:


> Not really. For example, if you take all the genes in a population that code for skin color and throw them into a metaphorical bag, in that bad you have the "gene pool" for the skin color allele.
> Now imagine two different population size. One population size is 10,000 and the other population size is 100. If both of those populations originally only had one individual that contained the "albino gene", the likelihood of you reaching into that bag and pulling out "albino genes" is much more likely in the smaller population.
> 
> So in a founder effect like we see here, if the original frogs carried the albino genes, we would be more likely to see them pop up than in the wild.


First, not really what I was asking. Bryan said it could be amplified if the frogs were imported from the longer line of EU vanzolinii. However, Ed said that chances are the line form EU are coming from a single breeder, and realisitcally the chances are that breeder is working with probably two or three pairs of adult breeders. Seems to me that this would diminish the probability of having a recessive trait in the adult stock (unless the founding stock of the EU line was remarkable small and had been bred for a number of generations). Meaning, if none of those adults had the trait then none of the offspring would have the trait. My question was regarding the feasibility of this inverse happening.

Second, I see the logic to the numbers of your math, but your figures don't seem to make sense to me. If a collector goes out and collects 50 specimins and 2 of those have a recessive trait, and the remaining population is 2500 then chances are there are about 100 individuals with that same trait. Are you suggesting that collectors/importers have the ability to somehow seek out and find those individuals with recessive traits?



Ed said:


> It dependent if the genes are present in those frogs or not.. when dealing with a small founding population, one recessive or dominent gene(s) can readily become amplified resulting in the discrepency between how it shows up compared to the original frogs.
> 
> Ed


Thanks, Ed.


----------



## Robzilla56 (Aug 2, 2011)

Just because its a recessive trait doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing (I have blue eyes myself). 

That being said that thing is cool as all get out! I hope it does well keep us updated!!

Robbie


----------



## Living4theLord (Aug 6, 2008)

Here's an eye shot


----------



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

the percentage of albinos in the wild would not be able to even be measured unless the frogs had phenotypic markers for the albinism trait, or if researchers could sample a population and genetically identify heterozygotes. Depending on the proportion of frogs heterozygous for albinism would help determine the probability of producing an albino. And to whoever said more inbreeding produces more mutations, its not a random mutation. It's a recessive trait that only produces albino frogs if two frogs that produce and fertilize the eggs are heterozygous for albinism, and then the probability of those eggs developing into albinos is only 25%. Otherwise if one animal were het for albinism and you produced and inbred a het baby and inbred that to the same animal originally het for albinism you'd produce an albino, maybe. Cool frog though.


----------



## myersboy6 (Aug 23, 2010)

that is awesome! I want an albino frog!


----------



## skynett (Jul 28, 2011)

Well I learned one thing today. . . If I ever get an albino Dart frog don't EVER post it on Dendroboard hahahahahahahah


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

SmackoftheGods said:


> First, not really what I was asking. ... Meaning, if none of those adults had the trait then none of the offspring would have the trait. My question was regarding the feasibility of this inverse happening.


Oops my bad, I read that wrong then 



SmackoftheGods said:


> Second, I see the logic to the numbers of your math, but your figures don't seem to make sense to me. If a collector goes out and collects 50 specimins and 2 of those have a recessive trait, and the remaining population is 2500 then chances are there are about 100 individuals with that same trait. Are you suggesting that collectors/importers have the ability to somehow seek out and find those individuals with recessive traits?


As mattolsen mentioned, you can't phenotypically identify heterozygous carriers of recessive traits; you can only see that they carry the recessive trait if they are homozygous for it. I am not saying that importers are trying to collect individuals with recessive traits. 

I was trying to say that if you have a recessive gene present in a small starting population like we have here in a small gene pool, then that trait is more likely to pop up in following generations when compared to a gene pool where the trait is more "dilute" in. Sorry for the confusion/bad wording.


----------



## rcteem (Mar 24, 2009)

Awesome froglet...hope he makes it. Unlike others on this forum, I love oddball dart frogs and have several in my collection . Keep us posted on the development or feel free to keep me posted via pm if they have made you posting it publicly


----------



## Mitch (Jun 18, 2010)

Awesome frog! Like others have said, keep us updated on it!


----------



## JimO (May 14, 2010)

Wow! That is really slick. Thank you for sharing.



Living4theLord said:


> Here's an eye shot


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

hypostatic said:


> I was trying to say that if you have a recessive gene present in a small starting population like we have here in a small gene pool, then that trait is more likely to pop up in following generations when compared to a gene pool where the trait is more "dilute" in. Sorry for the confusion/bad wording.


I understand that in a small population that trait will spread very quickly. However, I don't understand why we would have a higher ratio of heterozygotes in the hobby unless somehow someone were intentionally selecting for it (and as you said, very unlikely/difficult (if possible at all)). So, while I understand that there's always the chance that a very rare recessive trait sneaks in undetected, I find it highly improbable that the hobby imports a higher ratio of heterozygotes than occur in nature.... Which means (from my understanding) that as population grows that trait would likely spread equally quickly through both populations (unless we're breeding significantly more offspring than occur in the wild and/or something about captivity makes it more likely for homozygous/heterozygous recessive traits survive).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

SmackoftheGods said:


> I understand that in a small population that trait will spread very quickly. However, I don't understand why we would have a higher ratio of heterozygotes in the hobby unless somehow someone were intentionally selecting for it (and as you said, very unlikely/difficult (if possible at all)). So, while I understand that there's always the chance that a very rare recessive trait sneaks in undetected, I find it highly improbable that the hobby imports a higher ratio of heterozygotes than occur in nature.... Which means (from my understanding) that as population grows that trait would likely spread equally quickly through both populations (unless we're breeding significantly more offspring than occur in the wild and/or something about captivity makes it more likely for homozygous/heterozygous recessive traits survive).


You have to look at the bigger picture.. the captive bred population starts with a small number of founders (probable siblings or near relations to start if imported from the EU) and then one of the common practices of the hobby is to aquire a group of siblings to use to establish one or more pairs and the offspring from those frogs are often sold as groups. In this scenario, a recessive allele can readily be amplified and eventually show up as the homozygous animal. It doesn't require deliberate breeding for the homozygous or deliberate importations of gene carriers... just the normal way in which these things occur.. 
no conspiracy theories here.. 
Ed


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

SmackoftheGods said:


> I understand that in a small population that trait will spread very quickly. However, I don't understand why we would have a higher ratio of heterozygotes in the hobby unless somehow someone were intentionally selecting for it (and as you said, very unlikely/difficult (if possible at all)). So, while I understand that there's always the chance that a very rare recessive trait sneaks in undetected, I find it highly improbable that the hobby imports a higher ratio of heterozygotes than occur in nature....


So Ed said that "imports from Europe are likely to be the offspring of a few breeders (or most likely one breeder) resulting in a reduced gene pool". Therefore, I was assuming that these frogs came from a line that was imported from Europe that most likely had a low genetic diversity. So in this specific scenario, since we have an albino (aa) from non-albino parents we know the parents must be hets (Aa) and there must have been more frogs with the "a" allele that those frogs were descended from.



SmackoftheGods said:


> Which means (from my understanding) that as population grows that trait would likely spread equally quickly through both populations (unless we're breeding significantly more offspring than occur in the wild and/or something about captivity makes it more likely for homozygous/heterozygous recessive traits survive).


So, there's actually a good free population modeling program called PopG (PopG Genetic Simulation Program) that you can use to model this.

My model of the population in the wild:









And my model of a smaller captive population:









Even though they both start with the same ratio of "A" to "a", you remain with a much higher percentage of "a" in the smaller captive population.
I also changed some other parameters like how albinos have a higher survivability in captivity than in the wild, and how captive species can experience no gene flow.


----------



## Twiggyb (Mar 2, 2011)

How's the frog doing?


----------



## Cfrog (Oct 28, 2011)

Awesome frog, hope he does well, I kept a one eye tree frog for 2 yrs before she past. Her birth defect was from inbreeding. Lack of pigmet in the wild would scream eat me for some other animal which would kill or injure the albino frog. Regardless of color he is still an amazing dart frog and I hope he makes it. 

*, what are the chances of to related frogs mating in the wild, given the size of PDF territory's, size of rainforest etc?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

rain dart said:


> *, what are the chances of to related frogs mating in the wild, given the size of PDF territory's, size of rainforest etc?


People often make the assumption that deformations in captive bred animals are the result of inbreeding but this is actually an unlikely source of the deformation.... 

With respect to inbreeding in wild, as I understand it, Dendrobates don't necessarily disperse long distances from the home territories but there are other factors that can help prevent inbreeding in wild populations. If there are options for mate choices, the frogs can discriminate between relatedness using cues such as the major histocompatability complexes. Dendrobatids frogs have been shown to have a surprisingly good sense of smell so they could be using that as a method to detect the level of relatedness. 

Ed


----------



## Judy S (Aug 29, 2010)

I just want to know what color are it's eyes??? Don't albinos always have pink eyes???


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Judy S said:


> I just want to know what color are it's eyes??? Don't albinos always have pink eyes???


It depends on the cause of the loss of pigment. If it prevents melanin from being formed at all then it is an albino and the eyes are usually pink (note this may not affect other colors such as those from iridiopores) while mutations that prevent the deposition of melanin into the cells in the skin are termed leucistic and depending on the species and mutation may have black or blue eyes. 

Ed


----------

