# Blue Jean Pumilio



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

In an effort to not hijack the other thread any further I thought it would be interesting to ask, how many locale's of Blue Jeans exist...in Costa Rica, perhaps Nicaragua (any?) since so many BJ's came out of their in the 90's. We have been exposed to the several types of Panamanian frogs but the originals are a mystery to me. Is there only 1 locale, several seperate populations that are similar or a broken up contiguous population?


----------



## Mitch (Jun 18, 2010)

In my honest opinion, I really think that the frogs we have from certain locales do not fully represent the diversity found in those areas. When I was in Costa Rica over the summer I saw tons of Blue Jeans. Easily 20 a day, if not more. When I was on the Pacuare river, I saw Blue Jeans that had no black spots, tons of black spots, very little blue, tons of blue, and every combination in between. On the Saripiqui river I saw the exact same thing. 

I feel like every single blue jeans frog I've seen on this site looks like it could have come right out of one of the locales above. It's just that when you only take a select few frogs from a certain locale, they will all look basically the same once you line breed them. 

If you actually went to one of the locales, say Saripiqui, you would find blue jeans with plenty of color variation very different from what's pictured there. That's just one frog taken from that locale. Do they all look like that? No. 

I don't know if that made sense and I could be wrong about what I'm saying but it's just my own theory. Also, what makes a Blue Jeans a Blue Jeans? Does it just have to have blue legs? Or does it have to have blue legs with no black spots? Are they only from one locale?


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

I used to get in the 90's Blue Jeans from Nicaragua , $13.00 each. they were the only blue jeans I seen around, Bill


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Mitch,

That's what I was trying to get at in the other thread about "Blue Jeans", that the frogs recently imported from the EU were collected from a single locality (or group of nearby localities). So they seem to represent a distinct locale morph that could be followed and maintained over time (if not mixed with everything else that is just called "Blue Jeans").

Thanks for the info, Richard.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Here's step one:

There are NO blue jeans morph pumilio in Panama. Done


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Philsuma said:


> Here's step one:
> 
> There are NO blue jeans morph pumilio in Panama. Done


The problem with that is there are red pumilio with blue legs in Panama, which is the description of blue jeans. Regardless what the more advanced hobbyist think, the colors is all that are needed to the new and inexperienced froggers out there and that description does accurately identify the panama pums they are looking at with that naming.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Philsuma said:


> Here's step one:
> 
> There are NO blue jeans morph pumilio in Panama. Done


Phil thanks for the input.

As I said how many populations in Costa Rica exist and are there any true BJ's in Nicaragua, or where they merely frogs smuggled across the border because there were no CR export?
I see 2 or 3 BJ type on the Pumilio morph guide, I assume from CR, but only 1 is labled as BJ, the other have site specific names. Yes I am sure there is enough variabiliy in those populations that they could be confused with one another. Mitch did all populations you saw have spotted and solid red bodied frogs?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

In general (from I rememberit correctly from the literature although I can't lay my hands on the exact reference), populations in Costa Rica unlike Panama tended to be fairly stable across large areas resulting in a generalized appearence (clinal gradient). If I remember correctly, the closer one got to the Nicaragua border, the darker the legs became and the Nicaragua pumilio have a purplish leg. Ahh just thought to check Lotters et al (Poison Frogs) and the ones from Nicaragua do have purplish legs (but nothing useful about leg color the further north one goes). The way Lotters et al describes the distribution in Costa Rica it appears that the more northern populations of pumilio can have blue or black legs but are more heavily spotted while the more southern populations are less spotted (although I suspect in reality this is going to be subjective as to frequency of distribution). 

Ed


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

i have heard of atleast 4 different locals. Sarapiqui, Arenal, Puerto Viejo and one other that does not come to mind right now. I am sure there are more out there that not talked about.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

This paper cites seven different localities in Costa Rica.. http://bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Hagemann2007Mitochondrial.pdf 
and looks to encompass only a small portion of the range. If I remember correctly it also has some information as to why Costa Rican populations don't show as much polymorphism.. 

Ed


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Ed said:


> In general (from I rememberit correctly from the literature although I can't lay my hands on the exact reference), populations in Costa Rica unlike Panama tended to be fairly stable across large areas resulting in a generalized appearence (clinal gradient). If I remember correctly, the closer one got to the Nicaragua border, the darker the legs became and the Nicaragua pumilio have a purplish leg. Ahh just thought to check Lotters et al (Poison Frogs) and the ones from Nicaragua do have purplish legs (but nothing useful about leg color the further north one goes). The way Lotters et al describes the distribution in Costa Rica it appears that the more northern populations of pumilio can have blue or black legs but are more heavily spotted while the more southern populations are less spotted (although I suspect in reality this is going to be subjective as to frequency of distribution).
> 
> Ed


Now that you mention it Ed the Nicaraguans did have very deep blue legs. Also on a similar note the Red Eye TreeFrogs from the different countries look very different with some being very faded in all color areas and others having no blue sides.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

on of the other differences i noticed from the Phots JP posted was the Nicaraguans also had yellow on their bellies.


----------



## Mitch (Jun 18, 2010)

markpulawski said:


> Phil thanks for the input.
> 
> As I said how many populations in Costa Rica exist and are there any true BJ's in Nicaragua, or where they merely frogs smuggled across the border because there were no CR export?
> I see 2 or 3 BJ type on the Pumilio morph guide, I assume from CR, but only 1 is labled as BJ, the other have site specific names. Yes I am sure there is enough variabiliy in those populations that they could be confused with one another. Mitch did all populations you saw have spotted and solid red bodied frogs?


Yes, both populations had spotted and solid red frogs. I'd also like to mention that in both locales I saw some BJ that look exactly like what the 'Cristobal' morph looks like - black spots, some blue on the legs, and red bodies. Also the 'Vulture Point' and 'Tortuguero / Red Frog Hill' too. That morph guide is too generalized - you can't identify frogs from a locale solely based on pictures of 3 frogs or whatever it is. 

Basically what I'm trying to say here is that there are probably BJ's from each locale that look like others from different locales. That's why you can't really identify the locale of one just by looking at it - there's too much variation to account for.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

markpulawski said:


> Phil thanks for the input.
> 
> As I said how many populations in Costa Rica exist and are there any true BJ's in Nicaragua, or where they merely frogs smuggled across the border because there were no CR export?
> I see 2 or 3 BJ type on the Pumilio morph guide, I assume from CR, but only 1 is labled as BJ, the other have site specific names. Yes I am sure there is enough variabiliy in those populations that they could be confused with one another. Mitch did all populations you saw have spotted and solid red bodied frogs?


 
Let's only talk Panama, Mark. Nico and C.R are closed so we can leave them and their frog ranges totally out of this discussion.

This discussion is about the only currently imported _pumilio_ - Panamanian.

Do you think that any Panamania _pumilio_ should be referred to as 'blue jeans" by anyone, Mark ?


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Philsuma said:


> Let's only talk Panama, Mark. Nico and C.R are closed so we can leave them and their frog ranges totally out of this discussion.
> 
> This discussion is about the only currently imported _pumilio_ - Panamanian.



LOL - perhaps you should look back at Mark's OP Phil .... 



markpulawski said:


> In an effort to not hijack the other thread any further I thought it would be interesting to ask, how many locale's of Blue Jeans exist...i*n Costa Rica, perhaps Nicaragua* (any?) since so many BJ's came out of their in the 90's. We have been exposed to the several types of Panamanian frogs but the originals are a mystery to me. Is there only 1 locale, several seperate populations that are similar or a broken up contiguous population?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> Let's only talk Panama, Mark. Nico and C.R are closed so we can leave them and their frog ranges totally out of this discussion.


Why? Frogs from Panama aren't the only ones to have ever been exported and currently represented in the captive hobby, so why only speak of one of the sources? Those other countries may be closed _now_...but weren't always.

And for the record: "blue jeans" is one of the worst terms that has been devised to describe a frog. "Oh, how cute...that little frog looks like it's wearing a pair of tiny pants!" Seriously?!


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

ok...ok....

Ed...don't make me read back on the thread ! 

Mark's stance was...'Hey...it's ok to call the Panamanian Imports Strawberry Blue Jeans"

Right?

I personally considered Almirante (the most abused morph in terms of misleading labeling) to have grey legs....not even close to blue.

The offenders are Jobbers and Flippers and Kingsnakers....are you guys considering their ads for "Blue Jean pumilio" ok?

Seriously...I thought the hobby had this one, _at least_, under consensus....


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

ahh...I can't read back....the threads been all trimmed up !


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Currently, I'm with Phil in as much as I'm opposed to Panamanian frogs being called "Blue Jeans." I understand that it's technically a "descriptive" term that can be used to describe Almirante and Mancreek pumilio because they look similar, but among those who know what they're talking about I've only heard the term "Blue Jeans" to refer to those pumilio specifically collected from Costa Rica. Currently, I think that using the term Blue Jeans to describe frogs outside of Costa Rica will end up being rather misleading and cause further confusion.

Now, my understanding is that the term "locality" identifies where the parent population was collected. So, there could be a number of localities of Blue Jeans, right (I read above that there are at least seven)? My question is, for the Costa Rican Blue Jeans, do they have a relatively contiguous natural population that ranges within Costa Rica, or are each of these localities isolated populations? I ask because it seems that if the Costa Rican environment supports a contiguous population of Blue Jeans then we may as well just continue calling Costa Rican Blue Jeans "Blue Jeans" as a site specific term, whereas if each of these localities is an isolated population of Blue Jeans then perhaps we should switch over to calling the specific localities by their localities (as we've done for just about every other frog with a variety of localities in the hobby) and switch to using the term "Blue Jeans" as a phenotypic description to include Almirante and Mancreeks.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Philsuma said:


> ok...ok....
> 
> Ed...don't make me read back on the thread !
> 
> ...


Really is that what I said Phil, really??? Why don't you reread what was written so you can understand what was said, why don't you try and understand my stance before you claim to know what it is...here is my post commenting on your concern that the vendor was in essence scamming his customers by being misleading

"I actually looked at the add when this thread first appeared and after a generic name it said in parenthesis the Man Creek Almirente etc description, which is more info than most vendors of this type offer. Anybody looking for a specific type of Pumilio SHOULD recognize these names, if he takes good care of his animals there is no reason for complaint here." 

Is there anywhere in that thread that I said Panamanian frogs should be referred to as Blue Jeans...NO! I said when somebody uses the generic name Blue Jeans as a non experienced seller may do and then says the frogs are Man Creek & Almirente they are not trying to mislead.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Philsuma said:


> Let's only talk Panama, Mark. Nico and C.R are closed so we can leave them and their frog ranges totally out of this discussion.
> 
> This discussion is about the only currently imported _pumilio_ - Panamanian.
> 
> Do you think that any Panamania _pumilio_ should be referred to as 'blue jeans" by anyone, Mark ?


Once again Phil go back and read what was wriiten, there is no mention of this discussion being about curently imported Pumilio.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

This may be slight hijack.. 
As a point of clarification... outside of the hobby, blue jeans is not used in the literature to describe the frogs as a common or colloquial name. Strawberry Poison Frog is what is typically seen in the literature. 
See the titles of the following for examples ...

Geographic Variation in Male Sexual Signals in Strawberry Poison Frogs (Dendrobates pumilio) - Pr[]hl - 2007 - Ethology - Wiley Online Library

http://core.ecu.edu/biol/summersk/summerwebpage/articles/Siddiqi2004_Interspecific%20and%20intraspecific%20views%20of%20color%20in%20D.%20pumilio.pdf

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

SpringerLink - Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, Volume 46, Number 4

Variation in Male Calling Behaviour and Relation to Male Mating Success in the Strawberry Poison Frog (Dendrobates pumilio) - Pr[]hl - 2003 - Ethology - Wiley Online Library

Also check out the IUCN listing of common names http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/55196/0


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

There are a lot of different localities listed for Costa RIca if one searches this data base HerpNET one can see how many different collection sites were used and placed into Museum collections over the years. 

Ed


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Ed said:


> This may be slight hijack..
> As a point of clarification... outside of the hobby, blue jeans is not used in the literature to describe the frogs as a common or colloquial name. Strawberry Poison Frog is what is typically seen in the literature.
> See the titles of the following for examples ...
> 
> ...


No problem Ed, the other post contained a link to an ad for "Strawberry Blue Jeans" which is where any talk of it being used came up other than reference to CR Blue Jeans, which now looks as if CR Blue Jeans represents instead of 2 to 3 morphs possibly double digits in number of site locations, morphs or whatever they would be called.
I started this thread because I was inteterested to find what some would consider CR Blue Jeans being several site specific non mixable simillar frogs. It seems calling all of these Blue Jeans may have the potential (if CR were open to export) to be the most difficult frog to pin down to actually know what you have.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

markpulawski said:


> "I actually looked at the add when this thread first appeared and after a generic name it said in parenthesis the Man Creek Almirente etc description, which is more info than most vendors of this type offer. Anybody looking for a specific type of Pumilio SHOULD recognize these names, if he takes good care of his animals there is no reason for complaint here."


This assumption is still wrong. There are a TON of new hobbyists that do not recognize the other morph names and will only focus on the word Blue jeans. Remember, we have a decent size demographic of the hobby that is fairly young and new. I think that many new, young hobbyists that see a few posts here on all the conjecture about Blue jeans and then key on the buzz word marketing of ads like you are giving a free pass to, can become confused and buy these frogs under a mistaken assumpton.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> No problem Ed, the other post contained a link to an ad for "Strawberry Blue Jeans" which is where any talk of it being used came up other than reference to CR Blue Jeans, which now looks as if CR Blue Jeans represents instead of 2 to 3 morphs possibly double digits in number of site locations, morphs or whatever they would be called.
> I started this thread because I was inteterested to find what some would consider CR Blue Jeans being several site specific non mixable simillar frogs. It seems calling all of these Blue Jeans may have the potential (if CR were open to export) to be the most difficult frog to pin down to actually know what you have.


Ignoring the possibility that we are discussing seperate species (http://bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Hagemann2007Mitochondrial.pdf ) the populations in Costa Rica may represent different pressures and looking at them in the same manner as we do the southern pumilio populations may be much more difficult. It appears that compared to Panamanian populations that there is much less clinal variation (polymorphism) across thier range.

As a devil's advocate position, this minimal clinal variation may make it virtually impossible to differentiate between localities. This could be similar to how little variation seen in other wide spread anurans like green treefrogs.... so attempting to pin down specific locales may be visually impossible but possible based on genetic variations... 

Ed


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Would you suggest to the point that most could be mixed or would these frgos be considered different genetically from one another?


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Again, most of this confusion could be disposed of if we didn't use a descriptor for these frogs that has nothing to do with their locality. All of the other pumilio in the hobby are described by locality leaving no guessing as to the morph. Costa rican blue jeans are not the only red and blue frogs in the hobby which leaves any red and blue pumilio to be mistaken or passed off as a blue jeans. Why don't we just change the way we refer to this frog and leave to vendors no choice but to quit using it.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Great suggestion using a common name in this case would merely mask multiple site locations.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

If we as a hobby give up the entire strawberry poison name and focus on the exacts and push the herp shops to do the same this could finally end. If they keep using it I say we just call them out publicly for beiing careless with the furture of our hobby,
As for Blue Jeans Ive heard the locales but they are still Blue Jeans and unless they came in site specific or with Import date info we are going nowhere with it. All these locales have already been mixed in this hobby.
If we were to take the time to track them all down we may be able to do something about the smuggled ones brought in.
Are there any of the Nicaraguan Blue Jeans in the hobby still?

Michael


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

poison beauties said:


> Are there any of the Nicaraguan Blue Jeans in the hobby still?
> 
> Michael


Yeah there are actually quite a few, noone knows if they are actually Nicaraguan frogs or Costa Rican frogs exported from Nicaragua though.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

jubjub47 said:


> Again, most of this confusion could be disposed of if we didn't use a descriptor for these frogs that has nothing to do with their locality. All of the other pumilio in the hobby are described by locality leaving no guessing as to the morph. Costa rican blue jeans are not the only red and blue frogs in the hobby which leaves any red and blue pumilio to be mistaken or passed off as a blue jeans. Why don't we just change the way we refer to this frog and leave to vendors no choice but to quit using it.


I don't disagree with that train of thought, Tim. Locale descriptors are always best practice when refering to morphs. I think we all agree on that but the problem is, we are going to have to climb a mountain of work to begin to trace import year and importer of C.R pums and then match up what we have based on C.R photo's and people who have been down there....all going backwards in time, up to the tune of 10 years or so. Gonna be real hard, especially when we can't even track "Eldorados" and a bunch of other Panamanian pumilio effectively.

I though that we were at least in good stead, by stating that any frog to be labled "Blue Jeans" morph *must* come from C.R or Nicaragua - thereby at least, closing the argument for anything Panamanian - Almirante, Man Creek or anygiven red and blue to ever be considered.

At least that was a quick feasible start that would prevent a lot of kids from losing money,ect.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

ChrisK said:


> Yeah there are actually quite a few, noone knows if they are actually Nicaraguan frogs or Costa Rican frogs exported from Nicaragua though.


Correct, which makes things even more difficult.

At this point, it seems it best to keep/breed frogs based on their collection/import dates...assuming pumilio that came in together were collected from the same general population. If the Nicaraguan frogs were in fact collected in Costa Rica, moved over the border, and then exported from Nicaragua, it wouldn't matter much because we would still be keeping/breeding those frogs together and maintaining as much genetic integrity as possible.

With the frogs that came in this past year, assuming they were from Costa Rica as well, but not knowing where from, it would be prudent to keep/breed them separately from others, etc. 

Although, personally, I would prefer to lump them together...it doesn't seem as though we have enough info about the wild population (contigious? clinal variation? etc.) to do so at this point.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> Would you suggest to the point that most could be mixed or would these frgos be considered different genetically from one another?


Hi Mark,

To be honest I don't have enough information to have a concrete opinion.. If we look outside dendrobatids for the moment, we see that in other taxa, there really isn't any attempt to break it down.. for example, people do not attempt to differentiate red eye treefrogs except by country of origin (Nicaraguan for example).. or other wide spread species with low rates of polymorphism.... 
What we really need is a genetic sampling across a wide section of the area to determine how much or little gene flow has occured in those populations (like the study done on D. tinctorius). 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jubjub47 said:


> Again, most of this confusion could be disposed of if we didn't use a descriptor for these frogs that has nothing to do with their locality. All of the other pumilio in the hobby are described by locality leaving no guessing as to the morph. Costa rican blue jeans are not the only red and blue frogs in the hobby which leaves any red and blue pumilio to be mistaken or passed off as a blue jeans. Why don't we just change the way we refer to this frog and leave to vendors no choice but to quit using it.


I want to point out some complications to this thought
1) there is no guarantee that the morph imported is going to actually be the morph the hobby has designated to be that morph (as hunters/middlemen/exporters may have matched animals from other locals that come close to that morph)
2) the locality designations set up by the hobby are not accepted in the field guides 
3) the locality designations set up by the hobby are not listed on the export/import paperwork (strawberry poison dart frog/red and blue are what would be listed for common name). 

This is always going to be an issue with imported animals from polymorphic species. 

Ed


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Ed said:


> I want to point out some complications to this thought
> 1) there is no guarantee that the morph imported is going to actually be the morph the hobby has designated to be that morph (as hunters/middlemen/exporters may have matched animals from other locals that come close to that morph)
> 2) the locality designations set up by the hobby are not accepted in the field guides
> 3) the locality designations set up by the hobby are not listed on the export/import paperwork (strawberry poison dart frog/red and blue are what would be listed for common name).
> ...


Really those concerns apply to all pumilio that have and are being imported. We are at the mercy of the exporter to aquire locality data and pass it on. Nothing other than the species name is required on the paperwork so many times fwy have to be best guess.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jubjub47 said:


> Really those concerns apply to all pumilio that have and are being imported. We are at the mercy of the exporter to aquire locality data and pass it on. Nothing other than the species name is required on the paperwork so many times fwy have to be best guess.


I think I mentioned that we will always have that problem with polymorphic species...  

Ed


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

ChrisK said:


> Yeah there are actually quite a few, noone knows if they are actually Nicaraguan frogs or Costa Rican frogs exported from Nicaragua though.


I was told that a ton of Costa Rican frogs were brought over the border and exported out of Nicaragua and many felt they may not even exist in Nicaragua. It was a question I always wondered about thinking if they are in Nic why smuggle out of CR? A ton of Auratus too, that was the real clincher, I know someone then told me Auratus don't exist in Nicaragua yet they export hundreds per year.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

So is there any proof that there are actual locale Blue Jeans in Nicaragua?

Michael


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

markpulawski said:


> I was told that a ton of Costa Rican frogs were brought over the border and exported out of Nicaragua and many felt they may not even exist in Nicaragua. It was a question I always wondered about thinking if they are in Nic why smuggle out of CR? A ton of Auratus too, that was the real clincher, I know someone then told me Auratus don't exist in Nicaragua yet they export hundreds per year.


Pum in Nico - yes

Oophaga pumilio (Strawberry Poison Frog, Flaming Poison Frog, Red-and-blue Poison Frog)

Auratus in Nic - yes

Dendrobates auratus (Green And Black Poison Frog, Green Poison Frog)


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

So it seems they are basically mutt mixed frogs from many different locales like azureus.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> So it seems they are basically mutt mixed frogs from many different locales like azureus.


...more like EVERY hobby Dart Frog.

There is most likely less than 5% "site specific", i.e actual locale verifiable darts in the U.S hobby to date.

That still doesn't mean we can't apply the best practices we have available, which are currently:

1. Buy from the few importers that are head and shoulders, better than the others (obviously no feedback is allowed here). Ask around by PM if in doubt.

2. Go with importer name and import year, at least, and attempt to keep those breeding groups together.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

Ed said:


> I want to point out some complications to this thought
> 1) there is no guarantee that the morph imported is going to actually be the morph the hobby has designated to be that morph (as hunters/middlemen/exporters may have matched animals from other locals that come close to that morph)
> 2) the locality designations set up by the hobby are not accepted in the field guides
> 3) the locality designations set up by the hobby are not listed on the export/import paperwork (strawberry poison dart frog/red and blue are what would be listed for common name).
> ...


110% YES! Unless you our someone trusted is hand collecting and providing GPS data locality is subjective to an extent. 



Philsuma said:


> I though that we were at least in good stead, by stating that any frog to be labled "Blue Jeans" morph *must* come from C.R or Nicaragua - thereby at least, closing the argument for anything Panamanian - Almirante, Man Creek or anygiven red and blue to ever be considered.
> 
> At least that was a quick feasible start that would prevent a lot of kids from losing money,ect.


Phil,
This is case of being an educated consumer. "Blue Jeans" is a ridiculous common name, just like strawberry dart frogs. Forcing locality names would be way more beneficial. I do not see the connection to scamming an individual for calling a black duck a "black duck" when they list the hobby locality unproven name. 

Mancreek "Blue Jeans"









CR "Blue Jeans" Sarapiqui locale, Frye Line









Blue legs are blue legs.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Philsuma said:


> ...more like EVERY hobby Dart Frog.
> 
> There is most likely less than 5% "site specific", i.e actual locale verifiable darts in the U.S hobby to date.
> 
> ...


That has been my point from day one. The mere fact that you have stated that less then 5% can be traced to specific locale data removes any pure bred arguement. Even your 2nd point about importer name/importer year does not float because in most circumstances frogs are collected from several locales, brought to the wholesaler, and then combined into shipments under generic names that posess like visual traits. There simply are not enough importers as described in your first point to cancel out or even even come close tp neutralizing all the ones that are not. 

The only best practices that can really be followed are to research who produces their frogs in the cleanest mannor to ensure the healthiest frogs possible.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Hi Jason,

You are right....There are glaring nomenclature inadequacies in the Dart Frog Hobby, with many attributable to overzealous and unscrupulous marketing efforts.

The label "Blue Jeans" is here to stay, along with "Strawberry". It would be a supreme waste of effort to try to go backwards and erase a name that is so firmly entrenched in the hobby / business vernacular across the country.

Instead

I thought we had a pretty good handle on it, by limiting the "blue Jeans" label to Costa Rican frogs, thereby _forcing_ the use of locale names for Panamanian morphs, like Man Creek or Almirante.

To date, I've never heard the words "Blue Jeans" using in connection with Man Creek on any morph at any frog gathering or meet.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> That has been my point from day one. The mere fact that you have stated that less then 5% can be traced to specific locale data removes any pure bred arguement. Even your 2nd point about importer name/importer year does not float because in most circumstances frogs are collected from several locales, brought to the wholesaler, and then combined into shipments under generic names that posess like visual traits. There simply are not enough imprters as described in your first point to cancel out or even even come close tp neutralizing all the ones that are not.
> 
> The only best practices that can really be followed are to research who produces their frogs in the cleanest mannor to ensure the healthiest frogs possible.


I fail to see what you are trying to argue for.....

but knowing your previous posts, I have to assume it's something along the lines of..."We can all mix and match and breed frogs however we want".....that type of thing?


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Philsuma said:


> I fail to see what you are trying to argue for.....
> 
> but knowing your previous posts, I have to assume it's something along the lines of..."We can all mix and match and breed frogs however we want".....that type of thing?



I just find it sooooooooooo hilarious the pure bred arguement is based on the knowledge that 95% or more of the frogs in the hobby have no traceable site data. The fact that most importers bring in frogs purchased from wholesalers under generic names and then label them as a certain locale even when they realize/know that in all likelihood multiple locales were mixed together by the exporter based on similar physical traits.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

Jellyman said:


> I just find it sooooooooooo hilarious the pure bred arguement is based on the knowledge that 95% or more of the frogs in the hobby have no traceable site data. The fact that most importers bring in frogs purchased from wholesalers under generic names and then label them as a certain locale even when they realize/know that in all likelihood multiple locales were mixed together by the exporter based on similar physical traits.


Simple rule of thumb from some one who was involved in both field collecting and importing when he was younger. *"Unless you collected the animals yourself or they were collected by someone you trust 100%(not many people fall into that category based on what I have seen in the hobby) you never know the true locallity. Anything else is pure delusion"*


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> I just find it sooooooooooo hilarious the pure bred arguement is based on the knowledge that 95% or more of the frogs in the hobby have no traceable site data. The fact that most importers bring in frogs purchased from wholesalers under generic names and then label them as a certain locale even when they realize/know that in all likelihood multiple locales were mixed together by the exporter based on similar physical traits.


I can see how it seems irrational to some but we can only do "what we can". 

I don't think we should ever use the term 'pure bred". I don't hear than term bandied about at all, even by the guys that claim locale specificity.

We only have 2 choices when it comes to breeding frogs:

1. Try to patronize the importers that are trying to do better than average, and there ARE a couple of these. Try to keep those individual animals and import years together and pass on that info when we trade in them. Don't get this confused that we are settling for this alone. I think the hobby always yerns for more and better collection data.

and

2. Throw our hands up and list all the things that we think are "wrong" with the hobby and the collection data and do what we want, and I know for some, that means experimenting with and creating designer frogs.

My choice was made long ago and remains steadfast.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Philsuma said:


> I can see how it seems irrational to some but we can only do "what we can".
> 
> I don't think we should ever use the term 'pure bred". I don't hear than term bandied about at all, even by the guys that claim locale specificity.
> 
> ...


I think the combination of your 2 choices is why there needs to be a meeting somewhere in the middle, especially if 95% of the hobbies frogs are mutts due to the practices of the exporters. In order to protect the possible 5% that are traceable you cannot keep a blind eye on the 95% that can and are being bred with the pure 5%.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

I would just add a small caveat to this discussion. These are hobby frogs and we are hobby-ists. The reason most people want to know information about the history of their frogs (and creating "pure" bloodlines) is so that we keep our frogs looking (phenotying) as close to what they would be in the wild (I like to think if I were to take a flight to Southern Suriname, I could visit with frogs that resemble the Azureus in my collection).

All the fantasy that this is about conservation is just that, fantasy. There are about a million reasons why hobby frogs would not be appropriate for re-introduction to the wild (including the potential to release pathogens back into wild populations).

So, do I prefer to acquire frogs that have at least a locality "name" than one just called "cobalt", yes I do. Am I delude into believing that I know the exact spot from which all of my frogs have been collected, no I am not. I am just happy to do the best job of keeping records of my frogs and enjoying the time we have together (life is short, btw).

That's as far as I have gone in my thinking about this. Sorry to "vent", Richard.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> I think the combination of your 2 choices is why there needs to be a meeting somewhere in the middle, especially if 95% of the hobbies frogs are mutts due to the practices of the exporters. In order to protect the possible 5% that are traceable you cannot keep a blind eye on the 95% that can and are being bred with the pure 5%.


Not a problem....start a thread on your proposal, since Mark is probably upset at this jackin (probably more at me than you for various reasons).

And I'm not sure why you keep using the words "pure bred" and especially "mutts".

The "non site specific" frogs coming in are not "mutts" and just because they cannot be GPS'ed to your satisfaction, doesn't mean that you can throw your hands up and say "We'll never know what they are or where they came from".

Yes, we _do_ know what they are and where they came from. They are Panamanian or Costa Rica frogs imported in 2009 by______.

Even as vague as that is, it does no good to just use the fact that there could and should be better collection data, to create frogs in your basement.

That ain't good for anyone...

but you.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

Woodsman said:


> All the fantasy that this is about conservation is just that, fantasy. There are about a million reasons why hobby frogs would not be appropriate for re-introduction to the wild (including the potential to release pathogens back into wild populations).


I have worked in conservation and this is not 100% true. In fact, a quick example can be seen in chelonia that are being kept site specific and being reintroduced into the wild. 



Jellyman said:


> I think the combination of your 2 choices is why there needs to be a meeting somewhere in the middle, especially if 95% of the hobbies frogs are mutts due to the practices of the exporters. In order to protect the possible 5% that are traceable you cannot keep a blind eye on the 95% that can and are being bred with the pure 5%.


I do agree with Phil to a point. They are not mutts and same shipments have a high probability of bing collected in the same area. 

Not until we, as hobbyist, obtain collection permits, field collect specimens, catalog locality (GPS), import, and produce them in captivity will we truly know locality and morphs of our collections.


----------



## sk8erdave (Aug 21, 2009)

JJuchems said:


> I do agree with Phil to a point. They are not mutts and same shipments have a high probability of bing collected in the same area.
> 
> Not until we, as hobbyist, obtain collection permits, field collect specimens, catalog locality (GPS), import, and produce them in captivity will we truly know locality and morphs of our collections.


I love this because it is so very very true alot can be lost between exporter and buyer


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Jellyman said:


> That has been my point from day one. The mere fact that you have stated that less then 5% can be traced to specific locale data removes any pure bred arguement. Even your 2nd point about importer name/importer year does not float because in most circumstances frogs are collected from several locales, brought to the wholesaler, and then combined into shipments under generic names that posess like visual traits. There simply are not enough importers as described in your first point to cancel out or even even come close tp neutralizing all the ones that are not.
> 
> The only best practices that can really be followed are to research who produces their frogs in the cleanest mannor to ensure the healthiest frogs possible.


Regardless of what the percentages are, that is no reason to try and manage these animals in the best way possible. We have a very good idea of how our animals are represented in nature and can strive to keep them as close to that as possible. Managing the frogs based off the information we are given from the importers and exporters is the best information we have to work with and for the animals already in captivity is going to have to be sufficient. We can strive to get better locality info for future imports, but until something is done this is the best we can do.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

it seems to me there is probably genetic flow across the costa rica/panama border, right? if so, wouldn't "blue jeans" types found just inside panama also qualify as blue jeans? what about the ones just a little further? and so on... locale names seem like the only real way to differentiate. maybe there's something i'm not seeing.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

phenotypically they are different other than the blueish coloration of legs with Mancreek/Almirante somtimes having grayish or greenish legs. These is also a publication pushing "CR Blue Jeans" as a different species.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> it seems to me there is probably genetic flow across the costa rica/panama border, right? if so, wouldn't "blue jeans" types found just inside panama also qualify as blue jeans? what about the ones just a little further? and so on... locale names seem like the only real way to differentiate. maybe there's something i'm not seeing.


I suggest reading http://bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Hagemann2007Mitochondrial.pdf. If this ends up being widely accepted or confirmed, it indicates that there is little gene flow between the populations. 
There is evidence that the main driver in the polymorphism seen in the Panamanian populations could be due to selection by the females. 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

JJuchems said:


> Not until we, as hobbyist, obtain collection permits, field collect specimens, catalog locality (GPS), import, and produce them in captivity will we truly know locality and morphs of our collections.


Its very unlikely hobbyists will ever be the ones who do the collecting. Its not practical as in we will never have the contacts or the money to pull it off not to mention stepping on the toes of the actual importers and the natives who in many cases live off what they get payed to collect frogs. It can also be dangerous in some cases.

Its obviously too late for most of the frogs here as far as getting ahold of locale info but what we do need to focus on is a better management of what we have here in order to cut the need for the imports. Only that will kill this issue we as a hobby bring up so often. When will we finally have enough breeding stock here in order to sustain the populations and the hobby? 

Michael


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

ya, i read it and that's what got me thinking. it seems there are vast areas where no samples were taken ( i realize that one can only sample what they can access).



Ed said:


> I suggest reading http://bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Hagemann2007Mitochondrial.pdf. If this ends up being widely accepted or confirmed, it indicates that there is little gene flow between the populations.
> 
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

JJuchems said:


> I have worked in conservation and this is not 100% true. In fact, a quick example can be seen in chelonia that are being kept site specific and being reintroduced into the wild.


This is not the place to have this argument and I don't have the energy at the moment but any hobbyist assisted introductions are the exception and not the rule. As more and more reviews are done on these programs and thier success rate when coupled with novel pathogen introductions is bleak at best and new standards were slowly being put into place.. 

These issues have been under review for more than a decade (see for examnple http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Dodd_1991_Herpetol.pdf and RANAVIRUS INFECTION OF FREE-RANGING AND CAPTIVE BOX TURTLES AND TORTOISES IN THE UNITED STATES -- Johnson et al. 44 (4): 851 -- Journal of Wildlife Diseases (see the info on the gated sanctuary for relocated box turtles). 

As more programs go further and more programs are developed, animals that are not reared in isolation from foreign species are not going to meet the criteria for release.. As a further complication, if the maximal genetic diversity of the group is also not managed, then not only is the long-term survivial of the captive population placed at risk but releases into natural populations as a supplemental source also puts the wild population at risk... 

If you want to discuss this further shoot me a e-mail. 

Ed


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

poison beauties said:


> Its very unlikely hobbyists will ever be the ones who do the collecting. Its not practical as in we will never have the contacts or the money to pull it off not to mention stepping on the toes of the actual importers and the natives who in many cases live off what they get payed to collect frogs. It can also be dangerous in some cases.
> 
> Its obviously too late for most of the frogs here as far as getting ahold of locale info but what we do need to focus on is a better management of what we have here in order to cut the need for the imports. Only that will kill this issue we as a hobby bring up so often. When will we finally have enough breeding stock here in order to sustain the populations and the hobby?
> 
> Michael


 Yes it is Utopian, but their are already localities available with such data and linage. I am working on collection permits, as it has happen in the past for an organization I am member and board member. 

With proper, diligent, and strict management, breeding stock in the states is sustainable. We just have a drive for new bloodlines and morphs.

Ed, 
I will shoot you an email. My point is, we can't make a blanket statement when it is being done.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

JJuchems said:


> Yes it is Utopian, but their are already localities available with such data and linage. I am working on collection permits, as it has happen in the past for an organization I am member and board member.
> 
> With proper, diligent, and strict management, breeding stock in the states is sustainable. We just have a drive for new bloodlines and morphs.


Of course there are frogs here with locale data well beyond import date. I know a few of the hobbyists who have put alot of work into this and have a many site specific frogs in their collection but this is just a very small percentage of whats here. You can work on collection permits I to have plenty of knowledge on what this takes and on what a few different projects south of us had to do to get to the point of collecting frogs and getting them exported $$$$$$$$! 
Breeding stock in the us for most if not all species is already sustainable and bringing in more of the same species wont really help all that much. We are starting to see now the error in our lack of asking for this in the beginning.
Ive asked a few importers about providing locale data with the frogs they sell, none of them are up for it. Its simple, doing this dents their wallets.
New species coming in the hobby if they have to we definitely need to push for this info but to bring in more lines of the species that are here will do no good. Its not like its recommended to cross them with whats here especially if they have locale data, so new blood makes no since... Its just taking more from nature.

Michael


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Where'd you get this data? All the thumbs(UE), pumilio from SNDF and things like azureus, lorenzos,dwarf tincs, auroteania, terribilis, etc. are collected from one population, even if we don't know exactly where that population is.




Jellyman said:


> I think the combination of your 2 choices is why there needs to be a meeting somewhere in the middle, especially if 95% of the hobbies frogs are mutts due to the practices of the exporters. In order to protect the possible 5% that are traceable you cannot keep a blind eye on the 95% that can and are being bred with the pure 5%.


----------



## Mantellaprince20 (Aug 25, 2004)

I would have to say there are quite a few populations of BJ's in Costa Rica. I've visited the country twice and have found a huge amount of diversity in large and small populations from the middle of the country all the way to the eastern shores. Even in Tortuguero, one bank of the river hosted different populations than the other (these rivers and canals dissect many plots of land into small islands, surrounded by rivers and canals at least 100ft wide). So based on these geographic characteristics, there is no movement between some of these isolated populations. Just 100 feet apart, I was finding smaller sized adults, more black than blue on some (as mentioned before), etc etc etc. The most gorgeous population I found was near the Volcan Arenal, it was a very tiny population, with frogs that were an extremely bright red with electric blue legs. There were no black spots at all or speckles. They were so gorgeous, I haven't seen any photos of captive blue jeans that even come close to them. 

I guess to answer the original question, I have never been to nicaragua, but some of the costa rica populations are close enough to the border that I don't see why there wouldn't be any if even just a few miles into the border. In costa rica, I don't think there has been any census done counting all of the blue jean populations, just because they are so widespread, and like the one that I found, some population may only cover a hectare or two. 

Ed Parker


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> Where'd you get this data? All the thumbs(UE), pumilio from SNDF and things like azureus, lorenzos,dwarf tincs, auroteania, terribilis, etc. are collected from one population, even if we don't know exactly where that population is.



Philsuma threw out the numbers. You would have to ask him.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> Philsuma threw out the numbers. You would have to ask him.


I just threw those numbers out there for the sake of the argument....I don't think anyone here really thinks they are truly accurate.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Philsuma said:


> I just threw those numbers out there for the sake of the argument....I don't think anyone here really thinks they are truly accurate.



I agree Phil. I was surprised anyone would think they were scientific in nature. Well, not really. I knew at least someone would try to argue that point.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> There is most likely less than 5% "site specific", i.e actual locale verifiable darts in the U.S hobby to date.


If you don't want people to take hypothetical numbers as being actual, it might be best to begin statements with the phrase: "I'm just throwing out numbers here for argument, but let's say there are less than 5%..."

Using terms such as "most likely" give people the impression that what you're saying is probably true. And then when it gets used in and repeated throughout subsequent posts, well...it's not that difficult to understand why people would think those are actual numbers that were originally stated.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> If you don't want people to take hypothetical numbers as being actual, it might be best to begin statements with the phrase: "I'm just throwing out numbers here for argument, but let's say there are less than 5%..."
> 
> Using terms such as "most likely" give people the impression that what you're saying is probably true. And then when it gets used in and repeated throughout subsequent posts, well...it's not that difficult to understand why people would think those are actual numbers that were originally stated.


Quite right Ron, but remember, this is a hobby forum and not a vehicle for a peer reviewed article. Most of us don't have the time or effort to double check postings for perspective. As far as accuracy....well.....that number _could_ indeed be close. We just don't know.

The point...and value of the threads like this one and the statements therein, is that they become thought provoking and cause the reader to do further research on their own. We all become our own judges of posts, based on content as well as personality of author.

There is no one here that I personally recognize as an expert, so I give equal ground...and leeway.....to all.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> Quite right Ron, but remember, this is a hobby forum and not a vehicle for a peer reviewed article. Most of us don't have the time or effort to double check postings for perspective. As far as accuracy....well.....that number _could_ indeed be close. We just don't know.


Granted, but being a _forum_ that deals exclusively in the typed word to convey information, it warrants that we be that much more careful in what we communicate and how we communicate it. It obviously isn't going to be peer-reviewed, but exercising a bit more forethought than normal before posting is probably a good suggestion for all of us.


----------

