# crossing morphs



## jeffdart (May 21, 2008)

Is it alright to breed the Blue Auratus with the Green Auratus?


----------



## crb_22601 (Jan 12, 2006)

I would venture to guess, no. Run a search on hybrid or something similar and you will also find a better explanation.


----------



## Jer (Feb 9, 2008)

Better put your helmet on, it is about to get rough.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

If they are of the super blue and turq n brnz variety, yes, that`s fine.


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

> If they are of the super blue and turq n brnz variety, yes, that`s fine.


I'm not well versed on auratus morphs, but is this because the 'super blue' is selectively bred rather than a naturally occuring morph i.e fine spot azureus and chocolate leucs?

Jason


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

> Better put your helmet on, it is about to get rough.


Fire at will. :wink:


----------



## jeffdart (May 21, 2008)

Thanks for all your helpful info!!


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

The main concern is population. If the frogs were proven to be from the same population and they threw varied offspring (some greenish, some blueish) than this would be acceptable. However, if you can not verify this, and likely you can't, then these frogs are probably form different locales and should be kept separate as such. Same goes for all Auratas even of the same color. The Costa Ricans are different than the Hawaiian and different than the Panamanian (there are even different regions in those areas too). So bottom line is keep locales of frogs together.

See, no hostility at all.


----------



## beachbabe18509 (Oct 29, 2007)

Well when it come to only letting frogs of the same locality interbreed... How often do people actually sell auratus say and give the locality? I have purchased Blue and Black from three diferent people and only one gave any sort of lineage ID... Green and Black I see usually are Costa Rican or Panamanian, but plenty up for sale have no local info...

Im just curious as to how important you think it is to make sure they are from the same locality... I may be setting up another tank if It is really important


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

> Im just curious as to how important you think it is to make sure they are from the same locality... I may be setting up another tank if It is really important


I think this is a common problem with Auratus, I actually think they are pretty messed-up because of that. If it was me I would stick with vendors who could verify the locale of their frogs (EDIT-As far as that is available. You might not get the exact location, but atleast you could keep a hawaiian seperated from a Costa Rican or Panamanian). Too many are just labeled green and black or blue and black for my liking. That is just me though. The problem is that frogs from different areas of the world (even various countries), or even different populations in the smae country can look very similar. See the link below. I suspect similar problems with Suriname Cobalts as they have a wide distribution in the wild, varying looks, but have all mostly been mixed together at this point. I know of atleast one person that keep to seerate "morphs" of Suriname Cobalts for this resaon. Whether they are truely different or not is another story. It is similar with Pumilio.

http://www.tropical-experience.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=49


----------



## Jer (Feb 9, 2008)

Rain_Frog said:


> > Better put your helmet on, it is about to get rough.
> 
> 
> Fire at will. :wink:


Ha, I would, but given the amount of warnings I have received, it would mean my demise, ie. my banishment.

But I will say this, coming to Dendroboard to talk about cross-morphs is like a black man attending a KKK meeting and exposing himself. It will result in death.


----------



## moothefrog (May 16, 2008)

Hes right.Good example of the kkk and a black man,never would of thought of that.


----------



## jeffdart (May 21, 2008)

It was just a question, I was just curious.


----------



## somecanadianguy (Jan 9, 2007)

are they capable of breeding toghter ? yes they are
is cross breeding difrent local or morphs{yea i know everone hates this term} accepted by the majority of dart keepers? no its not
but it really comes down to what you chose to do with your frogs, personally id say try to get mates and match them up , but thats just my opinion
either way good luck with the frogs
craig 
if your wondering what they would look like search crossbreeds on this form youll find an extensive post or 3 that will link to pictures that would satisfy basic what if questions of most.


----------



## Wetts11 (Jul 2, 2006)

Mywebbedtoes said:


> The Costa Ricans are different than the Hawaiian and different than the Panamanian (there are even different regions in those areas too). So bottom line is keep locales of frogs together.


Not that I am trying to stir anything up. But point of fact is that the Hawaiian strain of the Auratus was in fact a very small group of frogs that were brought into the country from I believe Costa Rica to combat a problem they were having with bugs. Then it just kinda took off and got out of control which is actually the only reason you can get permits to take frogs off the island because they are not native. SO the argument should be that they are of the same "population" as Costa Rica's Auratus. At least in a general sense. The only real difference in their appearance would likely be due to the lack of variety of genetic diversity at the beginning.

So its all a circle in the pipe if you ask me. The only reason that Hawaiian Auratus exist is because we meddled in the first place. And who is to say the same thing didnt happen in Panama or Costa Rica it is very very likely infact almost certain that they are all linked anyways.

This is just some of my thoughts on the issue. Not trying to raise hell or stir up anything but at least with the Auratus and the Hawaiian and Costa Rica "locals" in my book they are the same just "selectivly bred" by nature because the population was so specific to begin with!


----------



## jbeetle (Feb 8, 2004)

Wetts11 said:


> Not that I am trying to stir anything up. But point of fact is that the Hawaiian strain of the Auratus was in fact a very small group of frogs that were brought into the country from I believe Costa Rica to combat a problem they were having with bugs. Then it just kinda took off and got out of control which is actually the only reason you can get permits to take frogs off the island because they are not native. SO the argument should be that they are of the same "population" as Costa Rica's Auratus. At least in a general sense. The only real difference in their appearance would likely be due to the lack of variety of genetic diversity at the beginning.
> 
> So its all a circle in the pipe if you ask me. The only reason that Hawaiian Auratus exist is because we meddled in the first place. And who is to say the same thing didnt happen in Panama or Costa Rica it is very very likely infact almost certain that they are all linked anyways.
> 
> This is just some of my thoughts on the issue. Not trying to raise hell or stir up anything but at least with the Auratus and the Hawaiian and Costa Rica "locals" in my book they are the same just "selectivly bred" by nature because the population was so specific to begin with!


So are you suggesting that we should be breeding all morphs of a species with each other (e.g. all morphs of tincs bred with each other, all morphs of auratus bred with each other, all morphs of pumilio bred with each other, and so on)?


----------



## Jer (Feb 9, 2008)

jeffdart said:


> It was just a question, I was just curious.


I tried looking for my thread on cross-morphs, but the search function works like a gas powered lawn mower without gas. Maybe someone knows where to find it and they will post a link for you. I suggest you read that.

On another note, it depends on what you are doing with your cross-morph offspring. If you are going to sell sell sell and mess up the already established gene pool of the frogs in question, then you need a slap. If you are simply just curious and wish to see what the outcome would be, and you keep the cross-morphs, and/or kill them if you no longer want them, ie. _be responsible_, then it isn't a big deal. There are actually more people out there that do this than you might think. In the real world, the genes of frogs we term "pets" are already all messed up anyways and there really shouldn't even be a discussion about it. None of the frogs in the pet industry are pure enough to be used in conservation efforts anyways, they are basically useless for the purpose of reintroduction into the wild, so it doesn't matter what type of genes or bloodlines they possess. Their sole purpose is to provide joy to their owner, nothing more.

However, there are individuals out there that make sure they know exactly where their frogs came from, like alot of members on the board. Their goal is to maintain a pure bloodline and gene pool in sight of conservation for these rapidly declining frog species. But that is a whole completely different topic, and should be split off into a new thread for further discussion. Make sure you keep these type of hobbyists separate from those that just want some pretty pet frogs. 

If you wish to participate in conservation then you need to follow protocol and not breed cross-morphs. But if you are a backyard or bedroom frog breeder like me and so many others on the forum, then it really doesn't matter what genes your pet frog has. Just be responsible with your offspring. Common sense, right?


----------



## dr_octagon (Jan 7, 2007)

How do you figure "pets" are useless when it comes to re-introduction to the wild? In my case i have a female from a well established breeder and a WC male. They produce offspring.......what makes them or their offspring useless in the wild?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Jer said:


> jeffdart said:
> 
> 
> > It was just a question, I was just curious.
> ...


Since you are running on fumes...beginner-discussion/topic36751.html
Well Jer, this took me 5 seconds. For future reference, if you have trouble finding your own posts, click on your own name, go to your own "find user's posts "Jer,"" click that, and all of your posts came up. Knowing that you posted that awhile ago I went to the first page of posts (which is actually the last ), page 10 for you, and BAM, right in front of my face was your thread. You may want to cut and paste this paragraph for future reference jer. :wink: :wink: :wink: 




Jer said:


> On another note, it depends on what you are doing with your cross-morph offspring. If you are going to sell sell sell and mess up the already established gene pool of the frogs in question, then you need a slap.


Not sure if violence is the answer , but I agree with most of that sentiment.



Jer said:


> If you are simply just curious and wish to see what the outcome would be, and you keep the cross-morphs, and/or kill them if you no longer want them, ie. _be responsible_, then it isn't a big deal.


And here is where you lose most of the hobby Jer. It can be a huge deal as written in the multiple 'hybrid' posts.



Jer said:


> There are actually more people out there that do this than you might think.


And the real _ responsible_ people in the hobby are working to spread the real facts and stop this nasty habit.



Jer said:


> In the real world, the genes of frogs we term "pets" are already all messed up anyways and there really shouldn't even be a discussion about it. None of the frogs in the pet industry are pure enough to be used in conservation efforts anyways, they are basically useless for the purpose of reintroduction into the wild, so it doesn't matter what type of genes or bloodlines they possess. Their sole purpose is to provide joy to their owner, nothing more.


I wanted to chop this paragraph up and say _ WRONG_ to each sentence, but this should be OK.
Wrong Jer. Would you care to know exactly where a whole bunch of frogs are from that I happen to supply to the U.S. hobby? How about frogs your fellow countryman Mark Pepper supplies? There are plenty of frogs with very good lineage and the simple fact is that some of these (Darts) frogs have _ ALREADY_ been taken from their native environment and been very successfully transplanted. Decades ago.
I have many frogs that could be re-introduced, as do others Jer. Many. 



Jer said:


> However, there are individuals out there that make sure they know exactly where their frogs came from, like alot of members on the board. Their goal is to maintain a pure bloodline and gene pool in sight of conservation for these rapidly declining frog species. But that is a whole completely different topic, and should be split off into a new thread for further discussion. Make sure you keep these type of hobbyists separate from those that just want some pretty pet frogs.


It should be noted that Jer is reversing the import and ratio of those who don't give a crap about genetic information and those too lazy to keep like animals together with others who do care.
The _fact_ of the matter is that most of the hobby really wants to manage their frogs in a responsible manor and what Jer advocates as responsible is not up to par with the majority of the rest of this forum , and hopefully the rest of the hobby. To breed frogs _ONLY_ for one's own amusement and only to kill all offspring is the epitome of self-indulgence and narcissism.





Jer said:


> If you wish to participate in conservation then you need to follow protocol and not breed cross-morphs. But if you are a backyard or bedroom frog breeder like me and so many others on the forum, then it really doesn't matter what genes your pet frog has. Just be responsible with your offspring. Common sense, right?


One person's bedroom frog breeding program where all hybrids are killed soon turns into "awwww, he's sooo cute! Could I get one of those froggies from you?"
_Responsible_ husbandry includes not producing hybrids for one's own simple indulgence. They have been known to get out to the public that cares not about proper gene management...
Jer, you need to re-think your stance and go back and read your own thread, many other's , and get back to us after a nice break.

All of this info has been passed along many, many times in threads throughout this forum. Jer seems to have trouble finding his own posts so I can only say that it is not nearly as tough as he makes it out to be to find good posts and threads on 'mixing' and 'hybrids'. The good solid info is out there. Don't let those with zero experience try to steer you in the wrong direction.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Wetts11 said:


> Mywebbedtoes said:
> 
> 
> > The Costa Ricans are different than the Hawaiian and different than the Panamanian (there are even different regions in those areas too). So bottom line is keep locales of frogs together.
> ...


The fact is that the Hawaiian auratus on Hawaii are different animals genetically from the original stock . Decades of adaption to a different local has changed them more than lack of genetic diversity. Simply placing these frogs in a different environment will change them genetically after time. This is what has happened.

Rich


----------



## Jer (Feb 9, 2008)

dr_octagon said:


> How do you figure "pets" are useless when it comes to re-introduction to the wild? In my case i have a female from a well established breeder and a WC male. They produce offspring.......what makes them or their offspring useless in the wild?


Those may very well meet the requirements that consrvation scientists look for. I do not know exactly what they look for, but I can say that cross morphs do not meet the minimum requirments for introduction into the wild. Also, I could be wrong, but scientists use zoos for reintroduction programs, and not hobbyists.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Jer said:


> dr_octagon said:
> 
> 
> > How do you figure "pets" are useless when it comes to re-introduction to the wild? In my case i have a female from a well established breeder and a WC male. They produce offspring.......what makes them or their offspring useless in the wild?
> ...


I think dr octagon was just trying to point out, as was I, that your statement (below) is quite totally in error.

"
In the real world, the genes of frogs we term "pets" are already all messed up anyways and there really shouldn't even be a discussion about it. None of the frogs in the pet industry are pure enough to be used in conservation efforts anyways, they are basically useless for the purpose of reintroduction into the wild, so it doesn't matter what type of genes or bloodlines they possess. Their sole purpose is to provide joy to their owner, nothing more."


----------



## Brian Ferriera (Nov 1, 2006)

> Jer said:
> 
> 
> > jeffdart said:
> ...


[/quote:34mg31la]
Coming from someone that originally said they wanted to make hybrids
Brian


----------



## Jer (Feb 9, 2008)

I *do* want to make hybrids, just so I can see what they look like. Thank you brian for pointing out the obvious!!!!! Then either I will destroy them, or keep some of them in my collection. I will not pass them around the hobby. Provided I do not get banned from this site, or get bored of the forum, both of which are extremely likely, pictures will be posted in between one and two years.


----------



## divingne1 (Mar 21, 2008)

Jer said:


> Provided I do not get banned from this site, or get bored of the forum, both of which are extremely likely, pictures will be posted in between one and two years.


Apple Martinis at my house.
Candy


----------



## Jer (Feb 9, 2008)

divingne1 said:


> Apple Martinis at my house.
> Candy


Im there. I will supply nonstop morphine for everyone, even for my friend Rich. :wink:


----------



## divingne1 (Mar 21, 2008)

:roll: 
I don't get kids humor these days.


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

Ok, back to the auratus at hand. The market is flooding with farmed blues and greens that are mixing and mixed already. I've been to supplyers wear houses with tanks full of these frogs and shows as well. Blues greens (turqs) and ancon hills. the Turqious are the mixed blues and greens. 

I want to know if there are natural locations where the blues and greens mix?

Maybe if anyone has a solution, comment on the wholesale market problem too.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Quaz, in somecases (as far as I know) some Auratus produce both the blues and greens or turquise. I think what we see happening with them is the line breeding that is going on, which I do not agree with. This would be similar to the diversity of Basti Pumilio.

I was going to post more earlier, but I realized Rich covered my thoughts.

I will say that the KKK comment is not accurate nor appropriate. This thread started with a simple question, which is fine. But destructive behaivor or intend will be shunned by most here. Creating something just to see what it looks like and then possible destroy it is cruel and shows not love for the animals or the health of our hobby. Moothefrog, I think you will find that you can have different opinions at times, and if you present those in a respectful mannor, than you will be treated in kind. So just read on, I think you will find you enjoy this community a great deal and learn a lot.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Quaz said:


> Ok, back to the auratus at hand. The market is flooding with farmed blues and greens that are mixing and mixed already. I've been to supplyers wear houses with tanks full of these frogs and shows as well. Blues greens (turqs) and ancon hills. the Turqious are the mixed blues and greens.
> 
> I want to know if there are natural locations where the blues and greens mix?
> 
> Maybe if anyone has a solution, comment on the wholesale market problem too.


I am most certainly not an auratus expert, but I have read that at least one morph/local will throw either blue or green in the wild.
I can very well see the wholesalers doing exactly the same with auratus as pumilio. Why not. I am sure there are those that have just a big old jumble of mixed frogs. If that is how they came in how would they divide them?
As long as people want the very cheapest pumilio or auratus, or whatever this practise will not stop. Give $$ to these wholesalers and pet shops that know nothing about the animals they sell and you are rewarding bad behavior. 
So, the solution is to refuse to patronize bad businesses and bad businesses go away...
Is anyone now having trouble finding any specific, known auratus or pumilio we now have in the U.S. hobby??? Or is it that people are having trouble finding that $5 auratus or $20 pumilio?

Rich


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

I don't think the temporary housing practices of meat market wholesalers of imported amphibians (who operate on a move-em-in, move-em-out basis) can be used to justify any particular arrangement for long term keeping, regardless of the ethicality or lack therof of any particular practice. Electronics wholesalers store consumer electronics in packaging designed for warehousing and shipping, should you therefore plop your TV, en-box, down on your TV stand and say "all done?"


----------



## jeffdart (May 21, 2008)

Dang I didn't realize I was opening a can of worms when I posted this. It's good to know everyones views on the topic though. Thanks for all the info.


----------



## somecanadianguy (Jan 9, 2007)

jeffdart said:


> Dang I didn't realize I was opening a can of worms when I posted this. It's good to know everyones views on the topic though. Thanks for all the info.


hey honest question , honest awnswers
craig


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Jeff, I agree with the above post, and non of this is directed at you, you had a genuine question. The reason this has turned into pages is that every time this comes up, there is a small group who insist on opposing the generally accepted practice of not crossing the morphs. If you do some searches on hybrids you would be amazed, amused, and bewildered all at once. It's an interesting topic though, some good reading for you eh?


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

I say we genetically modify dendrobates to carry poisoned weapons to fight terrorism. Dick Cheney can ride a T-rex into battle once they retroengineer emu DNA (like in the special on Discovery Channel called "Dinosaurs: Return to life." :mrgreen:


----------



## dreqqus (Apr 10, 2007)

Doug that is the best idea I have ever heard!!


----------



## jeffdart (May 21, 2008)

LOL what you smokin, Can I have some?


----------



## FrognWy (Apr 5, 2008)

So these threads get amusing, at times. I think the vast majority are on the right track with this, then there is this small, extremely vocal, I am going to do what I want to do group. No matter how firm the majority of the community tries to be, this small group will constantly push for what they want, to create a population of mutts.

In the long run, I think any population of mutts would be bad. Eventually, the dominant traits would take over between the species crossing them, and our frogs would lose their individuality, leaving us with very "NON-UNIQUE" collections. This would leave us with frogs that eventually would have all the same traits, and that in turn would create greater pressures on the wild populations of these creatures. That is something that everyone in this hobby should be trying their hardest to avoid. That should be the goal of every dedicated keeper of these, cut down on our pressure on these guys in the wild.

If those vocal minority would look at the big picture, and see that hybridization would destroy what some of the community have "DEDICATED" their lives to. Providing a good captive population of DIFFERENT frogs. You start throwing hybrids into the mix, and the frogs lose their individuality, and we would endup with a hobby, that instead of helping our pets, would only expidite their demise. These few vocal hybridizers aren't looking at the long term picture, of a hobby that could virtually eliminate much of the pressure from the hobby trade on wild populations. The more hybrids that are out there, the more we have to turn to the wild to get back to the real individuals.

People that might think the advocates of pure bloodlines are just being greedy and selfish, need to step back and look at themselves. Nothing good for the hobby, longterm, would come from hybrids becoming a population. 

I am following along on the track of, if that is how it came, that is how we should maintain, and I am glad to see that most of the new folk that ask this question, usually come to this understanding

Why have more species, when you can do more with the species you have?


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

:wink: 

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photosh ... cheroo.php


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

Rich, I agree that those with like minds here on dendroboard and others who are conservationists may avoid a cheap pumilio or auratus at a show or on a vender's list. 

I don't think the majority would do so though. Even with all the cheap pumilio imports there are quite a few reputible people buying, sorting, quarentining, breeding, and reselling. It's known that these frogs have sketchy if any collection or local data.

I have purchased auratus and pumilio that I know are farm raised in Panama or wild collected. I enjoy having these frogs as pets and I will attempt to put like frogs together for breeding. Though I don't KNOW that they aren't just look alikes from total different collection sites it seems good enough to me. I am not claiming to be the puritain and after reading and discussing this topic several times on this board, I feel fine with my position. To further explain. If I have a costa rican green auratus and a panama green auratus I will breed them. Right now I do have a blue and a green auratus together as a pair from these farmed animals. In the groups they came from there was every shade of blue and green and in between. These two have produced the same. Some may say that it would be wrong to then line breed them to produce a desired color.

I am no expert either and am up for learning, growing, and debating.


----------



## divingne1 (Mar 21, 2008)

Well said Frognwy. I have never even thought about the points you brought up. 
Candy


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Rich Frye said:


> _Responsible_ husbandry includes not producing hybrids for one's own simple indulgence.


I respect your opinion, but as someone new to the hobby, I don't have enough information to form my own opinion on just what constitutes a hybrid. But I have _*some*_ information tending to to make me think the _quasi-religious_ emphasis on keeping auratus lines separate doesn't make a lot of sense. Primarily - as others have pointed out - it is often difficult to impossible to determine what natural population a CB auratus belongs to. The population is naturally variable.

A thought I've not run across on the board yet is this: For over the past two or three decades the commonly accepted taxa of species, genera and even family have shifted dramatically. Although I can appreciate the appeal of preserving bloodlines for the sake of aesthetics, it looks to me that man-made barriers to interbreeding (destruction of habitat or artificial barriers like the Panama canal) would require those interested in preserving the natural order of things to be _more liberal_ when considering what auratus crosses to make.


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

> Although I can appreciate the appeal of preserving bloodlines for the sake of aesthetics, it looks to me that man-made barriers to interbreeding (destruction of habitat or artificial barriers like the Panama canal) would require those interested in preserving the natural order of things to be more liberal when considering what auratus crosses to make.


Preserving bloodlines has very little to do with aesthetics. Hopefully Matt Mirabello will chime in here- as he's really the resident auratus expert.


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

flyangler18 said:


> it looks to me that man-made barriers to interbreeding (destruction of habitat or artificial barriers like the Panama canal) would require those interested in preserving the natural order of things to be more liberal when considering what auratus crosses to make.


I have not read the entire thread so apologize if I take anything out of context or direct it to the wrong person. I would not call myself the "resident auratus expert" but have an interest in the species and have seen them in the wild. I need to do some more literature searching and talking to other people before I would be called "expert." My opinion on this topic is based on my overall science and conservation background.

Auratus in Panama seems to exhibit far more variability than in Costa Rica, NIcaragua or Columbia. The largest parts of its range are in Costa rica and Panama (the other countries will be left out f the comparison due to the small range in auratus in these countries.. also remember that country borders are man made and not biological!)

auratus exhibits the most variability in the region of the Panama canal, an area that naturally reaches elevations close to sea level and the Caribbean/pacific mountain range barrier is not existent. Relatively recently (geologically) Panama became land opening up south America to north America. This is not a process that happened once! repeatedly panama was submerged under ocean and then became dry land again. Through time auratus populations became isolated and reconnected through patches of habitat that were created and destroyed with changing sea levels contributing to the mosaic we see today. In addition I agree that human influence may have also affected the variability of morphs seen or at least create more recent subpopulation from ones that were once connected. The meso americans deforested much of Panama, I am not sure to the full extent it was done or for 
how long. More recently the western world built the panama canal and forests began to be cleared. 

Here is my current recommendation and rationale for managing auratus populations and crossing morphs:

Maintain morph purity even though some appear "similar"
As has been said in the past by others you cannot uncross two morphs once you do it. The rich history of auratus populations is encoded int he genes of all the frogs that make up the populations. With enough money/time this can be resolved fairly easily once the data is in hand. 

morphs can always be crossed once it is established scientifically that they are in fact no unique (or recently separated due to human activities).

Panama represents an interesting geologic, ecological, cultural history as well as habitat diversity which is reflected in the frogs. Panama has higher beta diversity than the amazon rain forest, this should be considered when managing a frog that has shown a wide array of habitat flexibility.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

shockingelk said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > _Responsible_ husbandry includes not producing hybrids for one's own simple indulgence.
> ...


How about this? Let's not patronize businesses who do not know their frogs' lineage? Why need we? And wait to see how many dealers don't carry 'best guesses' any more. But that would mean paying a bit more...There are PLENTY of Darts where the lineage is known. Buy those frogs and reward those who give a damn about the hobby ,rather than those who give a damn solely about the $.


Rich


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Rich Frye said:


> How about this? Let's not patronize businesses who do not know their frogs' lineage? Why need we? And wait to see how many dealers don't carry 'best guesses' any more. But that would mean paying a bit more...There are PLENTY of Darts where the lineage is known. Buy those frogs and reward those who give a damn about the hobby ,rather than those who give a damn solely about the $


Would "auratus imported from Panama in the early 2000's" be an acceptable lineage? From my understanding, such frogs are naturally variable in that they will have offspring which vary in color and pattern across a range beyond what is represented in the parents.

If taxonomists have not deemed it useful to create subspecies, what other reason than aesthetics would call for keeping genetic lines separate within the species?


----------



## Brian Ferriera (Nov 1, 2006)

Just because it has not been broken up doesn't mean it wont be. Thier is still way more work to be done on the taxonomy of dartfrogs look at all the recent name changes...this could be just the tip of the ice burg. I will also admit it could be nothing so it depends on how you look at it better to be safe then sorry? 
brian


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Matt Mirabello said:


> Maintain morph purity even though some appear "similar"
> As has been said in the past by others you cannot uncross two morphs once you do it. The rich history of auratus populations is encoded int he genes of all the frogs that make up the populations. With enough money/time this can be resolved fairly easily once the data is in hand.


It seems to me such data would be collected in the field, yes? What would be detrimental about having a CB population not represented in the wild?

No matter what direction I look at the facts and controversies over creating mongrels within the hobby, all the good reasons seem purely aesthetic ... which is completely fine. Nobody is forcing anyone to keep any frogs they don't want to.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Brian Ferriera said:


> I will also admit it could be nothing so it depends on how you look at it better to be safe then sorry?


Echoing my response to Matt, those who wish to be "safe" by only keeping frogs for which rock solid lineage is known are not affected by those who aren't particularly concerned that their pet has a full-blooded wild relative. So it seems to me, at least.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

shockingelk said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > How about this? Let's not patronize businesses who do not know their frogs' lineage? Why need we? And wait to see how many dealers don't carry 'best guesses' any more. But that would mean paying a bit more...There are PLENTY of Darts where the lineage is known. Buy those frogs and reward those who give a damn about the hobby ,rather than those who give a damn solely about the $
> ...


Whether or not "auratus imported from Panama ..." was acceptable would depend upon whom you are are quoting , and the specific frogs they are talking about. If they could not elaborate beyond that quote, then no they are not acceptable when given the choice of working with known locals. Only some auratus are variable, others not so much.
We keep locals with known local because that is how it is in nature. We don't breed Darklands with Colons, or any other morph. And this is as it should be with auratus also. And pretty much every tinc, phylo, epip and any other dart.
Lot of this covered in past threads.

Rich


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Rich Frye said:


> Whether or not "auratus imported from Panama ..." was acceptable would depend upon whom you are are quoting , and the specific frogs they are talking about. If they could not elaborate beyond that quote, then no they are not acceptable when given the choice of working with known locals. Only some auratus are variable, others not so much. ... Lot of this covered in past threads.


I've read a lot of those threads and because of that I feel it's appropriate for me as a newbie to press for clarification of any non-aesthetic arguments against interbreeding auratus morphs. I'm not trying to be contrary for its own sake - it really appears to me that there are good reasons for keeping bloodlines separate, but those reasons are exclusively aesthetic. My first frogs will be vaguely described auratus, Panama, early 2000's.

I'm not intending to reintroduce any into the wild and if I end up with offspring I want to unload, I'd have no interest in pretending I knew a more precise lineage than "FROM PANAMA, EARLY 2000'S."

What would be the downside to keeping frogs that could not be more accurately identified than this example?


----------



## somecanadianguy (Jan 9, 2007)

[quote

No matter what direction I look at the facts and controversies over creating mongrels within the hobby, all the good reasons seem purely aesthetic ... which is completely fine. Nobody is forcing anyone to keep any frogs they don't want to.[/quote]

i think the prob can be even if the original breeder is honest about a cross theres nothing stoping the next sale from being falsly labeled .that screws people wanting to keep lines pure thinking they have what they dont.im not saying you would lie , but many would do anything for a buck.
craig


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

somecanadianguy said:


> even if the original breeder is honest about a cross theres nothing stoping the next sale from being falsly labeled .


Of course. But serious collectors wishing to keep pure bloodlines aren't going to buy from anyone without a stellar reputation.


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

> I've read a lot of those threads and because of that I feel it's appropriate for me as a newbie to press for clarification of any non-aesthetic arguments against interbreeding auratus morphs. I'm not trying to be contrary for its own sake - it really appears to me that there are good reasons for keeping bloodlines separate, but those reasons are exclusively aesthetic.


Eric, 

Can you explain why you are convinced that the reasons for keeping bloodlines separate are 'exclusively aesthetic'? The point you seem to miss is that mixing auratus muddies the genetics and can't be undone. If you are familiar with orchids, the genetic pedigrees of some hybrids are so screwed up that wild-type genetics must be reintroduced- and this requires wild collection. The aim of the hobby is preserving wild-type genetics in captive populations to lessen pressures on wild populations due to overcollection. 

Jason


----------



## Brian Ferriera (Nov 1, 2006)

This might be a good time for every one to take a brake on this one..over the last 10 years or so of being in and out of this hobby I have seen this conversation get really ugly on many occasions..and its kind of looking like its going in that direction. Be careful guys (and gals)
Brian


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

Rich, that point is well noted. But really, look at these last batches of pumilio imports. Noboby really knows anything about them. There are a handfull of colors and locals. Rios, cristobals, etc. Several reputable, conservation minded, caring breeders/venders scooped these frogs up for breeding and resale. I just can't see these frogs not being in high demand when collectors, or who ever is bringing these into the states. 

The thing that get's me is how all these frogs still have little known origin and are just being sorted by color type. I don't even hear of who the importers are. It's like they're anonomus smugglers. I can see that wholesalers want to protect their interests and profit but there's got to be more data on them.

It's the same with the auratus but the demand and value isn't as high anymore. But on every wholesale list I'm still seeing spotted auratus, green auratus, blue auratus, & strawberry dart frogs. The main thing that gets me with these frogs is the shape that they're in after sitting in a wholesalers facility. Rubbed noses, parasites, and what have ya. I don't think that these are going very well in the general petstore market but I think there is enough demand through us already in the hobby to keep the imports coming. I see how if you could rally everyone together and not patronize these types of frogs that it would stop the supply. But really, I can't see that being a realistic solution. People will always want to buy what seems to be a good frog at a good price or if the price is good enough, gamble on the quality of the frog. Some, like me, are probably even buying frogs from stores to take them out of the inadequate environment that the pet stores have them in. I mean, come on, if you saw a rio branco pumilio priced at $45 in a 5 gal tank with a screen lid and covered in eco-earth/ coco fiber crap from head to toe, What would you do?


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

somecanadianguy said:


> i think the prob can be even if the original breeder is honest about a cross theres nothing stoping the next sale from being falsly labeled .that screws people wanting to keep lines pure thinking they have what they dont.im not saying you would lie , but many would do anything for a buck.


Agreed, but as Rich has pointed out, people have the choice of only buying from breeders who know detailed lineage. I'm sure lots of people in the hobby only buy from Understory for that very reason.

Given the passion in this hobby, a breeder playing fast and loose with the lineages would quickly earn that reputation.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

flyangler18 said:


> Can you explain why you are convinced that the reasons for keeping bloodlines separate are 'exclusively aesthetic'? The point you seem to miss is that mixing auratus muddies the genetics and can't be undone. If you are familiar with orchids, the genetic pedigrees of some hybrids are so screwed up that wild-type genetics must be reintroduced- and this requires wild collection. The aim of the hobby is preserving wild-type genetics in captive populations to lessen pressures on wild populations due to overcollection.


What is the phrase --- _the onus is on he who alleges_. If one makes a claim ("breeding between morphs is something to be avoided") it's up to the person making the claim to prove their assertion. But I'll try to prove a negative here.

From what I've read, interspecific hybrids among dendrobates tends to result in sickly frogs with a lot of problems. However, crosses between populations of any given species do not result in unhealthy frogs and in fact occur in the wild.

So I would argue that the best reason for refraining from interbreeding among morphs would be to preserve the aesthetic attributes of those morphs. Which is a completely reasonable and valid practice to observe.

Maybe an apt analogy ... if your neighbor crosses her Maltese with a black lab, it in no way prevents you from buying a full-blooded Maltese or black lab.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

quote="shockingelk"]


flyangler18 said:


> Can you explain why you are convinced that the reasons for keeping bloodlines separate are 'exclusively aesthetic'? The point you seem to miss is that mixing auratus muddies the genetics and can't be undone. If you are familiar with orchids, the genetic pedigrees of some hybrids are so screwed up that wild-type genetics must be reintroduced- and this requires wild collection. The aim of the hobby is preserving wild-type genetics in captive populations to lessen pressures on wild populations due to overcollection.





shockingelk said:


> What is the phrase --- _the onus is on he who alleges_. If one makes a claim ("breeding between morphs is something to be avoided") it's up to the person making the claim to prove their assertion.



But you see shockingelk (didn't catch your name BTW, I like to know who I am talking to/giving info too) the assertion has been proven and readily accepted (accepting about 1% who have only selfish intentions) in many, many posts both here and elsewhere. A simple search for "MIXING" or "HYBRIDS", will explain tons that has been out there for a while.



shockingelk said:


> From what I've read, interspecific hybrids among dendrobates tends to result in sickly frogs with a lot of problems.


 Really? Where did you read this? I wonder exactly how many scientific experiments have been done on this. And I have to assume after reading the rest of this paragraph that you mean specific species crossed with different species.


[quote ="shockingelk"] However, crosses between populations of any given species do not result in unhealthy frogs and in fact occur in the wild.[/quote]


Please cite examples of dart hybrids in the wild now. I am quite sure that genetic drift happens, but there are barriers that keep quite most of the animals we work with now from coming in contact with each other. And species selection that also helps keep species with like species. Also, what percentage of the total dart populations in the wild would you guess are hybrids? 



shockingelk said:


> So I would argue that the best reason for refraining from interbreeding among morphs would be to preserve the aesthetic attributes of those morphs. Which is a completely reasonable and valid practice to observe.


This is not the reason we do not mutt out our frogs.
Years from now when there are only pictures of San Cristobals, Popas, Brunos, Esudoes, Darklands, and the many, many very different locals of auratus, I know for a fact I will be able to not only show people what a pure blooded frog looks like, but a pure blooded frog. I _ know_ that if relocation/repopulation was needed I could offer a great deal of frogs that could be used. Am I the only one? No.
There are quite a few other reasons posted also. 



shockingelk said:


> Maybe an apt analogy ... if your neighbor crosses her Maltese with a black lab, it in no way prevents you from buying a full-blooded Maltese or black lab.


But, if that Lab or Maltese came from the wild and their locals were in danger of being gone within your lifetime, why the heck would you want to mutt out the last surviving population? Please tell me the up-side? You are not only destroying genetic purity, never to be made pure again, you don't even know what the mix will bring out. I know people who have dogs that are mutts. They can be just as cute , smart and loyal as pure breds, but this is not an apt analogy.
I have pure blooded Robalo pumilio. Before I mix them with that Lab, please tell me where to buy more. I'd love to.

Now before I get another PM telling me I am being hard on a newbie, I understand that you are interested and not trying (as some do) to troll around. But, you really need to do some more searching because it seems you are not in sync with the vast majority (and , I'd say 99.9% of the , gurus, pros, big boys and girls, or whomever else has been doing this for years) of the hobby in terms of understanding why we don't mutt and _frown_ upon those who do.

Rich


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Rich Frye said:


> But you see shockingelk (didn't catch your name BTW, I like to know who I am talking to/giving info too) the assertion has been proven and readily accepted (accepting about 1% who have only selfish intentions) in many, many posts both here and elsewhere. A simple search for "MIXING" or "HYBRIDS", will explain tons that has been out there for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm Erik Mattheis and live in Minneapolis and I don't feel like arguing for arguments sake.  I'm really new to this and I understand points made by purists who aim to someday attempt to rebuild the frog population to approximately the point the crisis was identified. I also understand the skepticism of those who ... well, are skeptical. And at this point from what I have learned about the hobby, I tend to sympathize with the skeptics. These frogs are primarily pets to me - an idea reinforced every time I read or write of this venture as "the hobby". 

I wish I could recall where I read Dendrobates hybrids tend to be weak, but I can't. And yes, what I read was speaking of interspecific hybrids, not crossing two morphs.

I've never before come across a discipline where "hybrid" is understood to mean _"crosses between different populations"_. Usually, these are referred to simply as "crosses". Think: a Maltese/black lab hybrid :shock: It doesn't even sound right.

From my understanding one of the reasons for frogs' tremendous evolutionary success is some individuals have wanderlust, quickly filling every available niche, and I would have to assume breeding with members of neighboring populations as well.

I there a reason natural breeding among different populations of frogs is less likely - or impossible - than with other animals? I'm thinking of a leaf with a clutch on it drifting dozens of miles downstream and end up maturing among a different population.



Rich Frye said:


> Years from now when there are only pictures of San Cristobals, Popas, Brunos, Esudoes, Darklands, and the many, many very different locals of auratus, I know for a fact I will be able to not only show people what a pure blooded frog looks like, but a pure blooded frog.
> I _ know_ that if relocation/repopulation was needed I could offer a great deal of frogs that could be used. Am I the only one? No.


And I think its great that all this diversity is being preserved for future generations to enjoy. But these will be frogs that have been reproducing with just about every conceivable selective pressure removed - and selected on the ability to breed in captivity. They will be a different frog than their once wild ancestors. Thus my sympathetic ear for the skeptics.



Rich Frye said:


> But, if that Lab or Maltese came from the wild and their locals were in danger of being gone within your lifetime, why the heck would you want to mutt out the last surviving population? Please tell me the up-side? You are not only destroying genetic purity, never to be made pure again, you don't even know what the mix will bring out.


I'm not _advocating_ crossing morphs and have no intention to ever do so. I suppose a lot of this is me reacting to reactions, but in the context of a reintroduction program, I can imagine an argument being made for maintaining genetic diversity by intentionally crossing members of populations that were believed to once form a single population - for example autatus from north and south of the Canal.



Rich Frye said:


> Now before I get another PM telling me I am being hard on a newbie, I understand that you are interested and not trying (as some do) to troll around. But, you really need to do some more searching because it seems you are not in sync with the vast majority (and , I'd say 99.9% of the , gurus, pros, big boys and girls, or whomever else has been doing this for years) of the hobby in terms of understanding why we don't mutt and _frown_ upon those who do.


OK, understood. And I want to get along not only in general but also cause I want you guys to look at my frogs' poopy.  

Like I said before, it seems to me the passion displayed by enthusiasts will insure that no information is lost about lines and that the lines stay pure. I also think anybody trying to introduce a "new morph" will be met with the utmost scrutiny such that it would be impossible to pass off an artificial cross as anything but.


----------



## divingne1 (Mar 21, 2008)

shockingelk said:


> OK, understood. And I want to get along not only in general but also cause I want you guys to look at my frogs' poopy.


LOL Even if you were a hairy green monster they would still check out your froggy poop for you :wink: They are just good people who care to help out so we can all have healthy frogs with clean poop.
Candy


----------



## Greg (Dec 25, 2007)

According to general biology if the male and female are of the same species then you should be able to viably breed them. The main question is if you cross the two varieties who knows what you might come up with. It could be an interesting experiment just be prepared for the results.


----------

