# Dendrobates flavovittatus?



## MonopolyBag (Jun 3, 2007)

I saw Dendrobates flavovittatus online, but never heard of them in the hobby before. Are they? If so where can they be found, and if not, why not?


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

i only know of some breeders in germany that were working with them, but not sure if they had any to sell? also i dont' have any knowledge of anyone who has them here in the US. Very nice frog though, i would like to work with them in the future.


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

To my knowledge they have never been exported from Peru, so anyone that has this species is probably going to keep quiet, since their frogs would be illegal.

-Evan


----------



## Ira (Jan 17, 2007)

Just curious, but how many documented exportations of D. Azureus are on the books?


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

No they've never been exported from Peru because they occur in Brazil. Brazil doesn't allow any exportation so their not in the hobby. If some are in Europe (which I haven't heard) then their illegal. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

Hey Chuck,

Could you be mixing up D. flavovittatus with flavopictus. The one in question is from Peru, while the other is from Brazil.

Years ago, I saw some D. flavovittatus in a terrarium im Peru. I was quite taken with their appearance, as well as their boldness. They just wouldn't hide.
A few years after that I got to see them in the wild and was again surprised by their boldness. You could go right up to them. Too bad they are not in the hobby, they would make a great addition. Maybe through UE or INIBICO we will all get a chance to work with this great frog. I saw the artificial receptacles for tadpoles all over the area. Many were being used by the frogs.

Here is a photo of one taken in situ.


----------



## bellerophon (Sep 18, 2006)

Ira said:


> Just curious, but how many documented exportations of D. Azureus are on the books?


at least two...


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Ira said:


> Just curious, but how many documented exportations of D. Azureus are on the books?


Please ask these sorts of questions in a separate topic to avoid hijacking this thread. Thanks.

Bill


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Bill, I have a feeling that question wasn't completely random, but actually asked to make the point that it seems ironic (even hypocritical?) for people to say that hobbyists shouldn't be in possession of these frogs since they were never legally exported...yet no one makes the same claim about azureus that could have just as likely been obtained through similar sketchy processes, and even if they were, it was so long ago and they are now so numerous in the hobby that there really isn't anything we can/should do about it.

But that's just how I took his question. I'll let him speak for himself if I'm totally off on that.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ric Sanchez said:


> To my knowledge they have never been exported from Peru, so anyone that has this species is probably going to keep quiet, since their frogs would be illegal.
> 
> -Evan


Not sure if this works as a blanket statement.


----------



## Ira (Jan 17, 2007)

no skylsdale, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> [quote="Ric Sanchez":2rpz577a]To my knowledge they have never been exported from Peru, so anyone that has this species is probably going to keep quiet, since their frogs would be illegal.
> 
> -Evan


Not sure if this works as a blanket statement.[/quote:2rpz577a]

You are going to have to be more specific with regards to what you mean. If you are implying that despite no exports someone has this species legally, then I would be interested to hear how this is possible. Or do you mean something else?


-Evan


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> Bill, I have a feeling that question wasn't completely random, but actually asked to make the point that it seems ironic (even hypocritical?) for people to say that hobbyists shouldn't be in possession of these frogs since they were never legally exported...yet no one makes the same claim about azureus that could have just as likely been obtained through similar sketchy processes, and even if they were, it was so long ago and they are now so numerous in the hobby that there really isn't anything we can/should do about it.
> 
> But that's just how I took his question. I'll let him speak for himself if I'm totally off on that.


 Azureus are legal as there were legal imports to the USA, and frogs descended from legally imported azureus into the Zoos/Aquariums were legally released to the US hobby (which is where the NAIB line came from...) 
So to compare Azureus which was legally brought into the pet trade to a species that was never legally exported is inapt at best. 

Ed


----------



## Ira (Jan 17, 2007)

I was under the impression that a huge number of azureus were illeaglly smuggled into the european frog trade (mentioned in jewels of the rainforst and a few other places) and that some were imported from europe before they were common in the american trade.

edit:

I really dont want to get into an arguement about the semantics of smuggling/importing (beating a dead horse around here), i was just trying to make a subtle 'two sides to every coin' statement because i dont like seeing people jump down other peoples throats at the first mention of 'illeagle' animals.


----------



## treefrog (Jan 23, 2005)

Unfortunatly, flavovittatus has been smuggled and can be found in Europe.
Below is a picture of a flavo tad from a member of the Dendrogrove forum









also, some other illegal frog
Histrionicus baby









baby arboreus with an escudo








adult arboreus









some orange head imitator


----------



## MJ (Jun 16, 2005)

Treefrog.. you my friend are wrong :wink: histrionicus is not illegal and I don't think the arboreus is either.


Congrats on yet another "pot to kettle" thread.. no wonder we have so few good EU froggers posting on here that have years and years of experience.

Yes there are smuggled animals in the EU but there are also a lot in the US.. 

Seems that our frogs are not the only ones living in glass houses :roll:


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Ira said:


> I was under the impression that a huge number of azureus were illeaglly smuggled into the european frog trade (mentioned in jewels of the rainforst and a few other places) and that some were imported from europe before they were common in the american trade.
> 
> edit:
> 
> I really dont want to get into an arguement about the semantics of smuggling/importing (beating a dead horse around here), i was just trying to make a subtle 'two sides to every coin' statement because i dont like seeing people jump down other peoples throats at the first mention of 'illeagle' animals.



I'll check the report in Jewels... Just scanned it, it is an anecdotal report, that doesn't take into account that this species was legally released to the pet trade from Zoos (and doesn't cite the experts, just says according to some experts...). It says "dozens of the frogs" which doesn't sound like a huge number... unless it was dozens of frogs dozens of times.... 

As for the European smuggling aspect, I would be interested in knowing if they had ever been released from Zoos to the pet trade there as there were legal exports to European Zoos. At this time, the WAZA appears to recognize that these frogs are legally in the hobby (see http://www.waza.org/virtualzoo/factshee ... virtualzoo ) 

I understand the subtle point idea but no one was jumping down anyone's throat here. The information about the lack of legal exportation was being shared and in my opinion shared in a non-hostile manner. 

When discussing amphibians in the European Hobby people need to keep in mind that due to how the officials in some countries handle confiscations, that some hobbyists may have frogs that are recognized as legal by thier country, but are not going to be universally recognized as such by other countries (especially the USA) (which will vary by country to country).

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## treefrog (Jan 23, 2005)

Dear MJ,
I understand your point saying histrionicus and maybe arboreus are not illegal. Legal importations occured more than 10 years ago and I believe a few frogger were able to reproduce small numbers. However, Colombia and Ecuador (from which the baby histrio/sylvaticus come from) have never issued exportation permits since. Strangely, in the last few years we have seen an enormous number of WC adult histrionicus and arboreus being sold in Europe which come from smuggling without doubt. By the way, they have surely been smuggled to the US too.
Now, can we really say an animal is legal when it was imported illegally?
Can we kill an elephant, cut the ivory, smuggle it somewhere and say it is legal because before 1975 (CITES convention) some ivory where imported legally?

I'm sure a lot of UE frogger have a lot of experience with rare and interesting species which could benefit everyone, however I dont think I will ever be able to accept smuggling consequence (disapearence of populations, high mortality....) and I dont think anyone should encourage it.

Math


----------



## MJ (Jun 16, 2005)

No need for the Dear man we are not that formal  


histrionicus have been bred in the EU for some years now and unlike a lot of the stuff that gets mass imported not all of these died so I do agree that there is smuggling going on you can't label every thing illegal.

If we want to get into smuggled animals look at the bearded dragons and other Australian fauna floating around. Brazil hasn't allowed export so how are there all these Brazilian frogs floating around the US hobby?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MJ said:


> If we want to get into smuggled animals look at the bearded dragons and other Australian fauna floating around. Brazil hasn't allowed export so how are there all these Brazilian frogs floating around the US hobby?


With respect to the frogs with the exception of castinoticus, the other species of Brazilian dendrobatids that are legal in the hobby are due to the release of confiscated frogs or thier offspring from Zoos in Europe or the USA. 

With respect to the Australian animals, I can remember when Australia stopped exporting.. and there are shingleback skinks in the pet trade that are still alive from that time, other species are descended from animals in the pet trade at that time or subsequently released to the pet trade from confiscated animals or thier offspring and then imported from Europe (with respect to the USA). 

This is where terriblis came from in the USA and there are histrionicus in the USA pet trade that are offspring from the imports from the late 1980s. 

Not all descendents of confiscated animals are recognized by different wildlife authorities some of this may be due in part to which countries ratified the Convention on Biodiversity (see http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-01) 

Ed


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Ron,

The direction this thread has taken is precisely why I pointed out the reference to azureus importations as not being exactly on target. The original poster merely asked the question if people were working with flavovittatus in the hobby. A response indicated that there are apparently some in Europe but there apparently have not been any legal importations.

If the original poster had asked the question about whether one should consider working with the offspring of smuggled frogs in the case of flavovittatus I could see where the comment was coming from...however we now have a situation where the entire post has skewed to a debate about smuggling, importations etc. So I would submit that the original post was somewhat hijacked though not solely due to the quote in question.

Bill



skylsdale said:


> Bill, I have a feeling that question wasn't completely random, but actually asked to make the point that it seems ironic (even hypocritical?) for people to say that hobbyists shouldn't be in possession of these frogs since they were never legally exported...yet no one makes the same claim about azureus that could have just as likely been obtained through similar sketchy processes, and even if they were, it was so long ago and they are now so numerous in the hobby that there really isn't anything we can/should do about it.
> 
> But that's just how I took his question. I'll let him speak for himself if I'm totally off on that.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

This steers the thread a bit more off course, so I am sorry for that, but I think the idea of legal and iullegal really needs to be defined, and not by someone here. I mean, if XYZ European country says that something is legal but nobody else does, then why is it legal? By the same token, why is it that when a certain frog is considered illegal by the country of export because it was never legally exported it cana generally be accepted as legal by the majority of the hobby (galacs come to mind, but not sure if they were ever legally exported). My point is, who has the authority to say what is illegal and what is not when we have so many different authorities with different ideas? Do we believe the country of origin, the country we live in, or the general impression of the hobby, and more than that, who or what gives them the authority to make these decisions. This is just so difficult and such a big problem and it makes me sick seeing great froggers always squabling over what is legal and what is not. We all know there is smuggling going on, and we as of yet have no way to completely stop it so I wonder if we will always have this squabble over "that's illegal" and "well, it's not here" and so on and so on. ASN and TWI should be able to help with this, but there will always be frogs that originate outside organizations such as those so there will always be questions whether certain things are legal or not. I just wish the legal here/illegal there arguement could all be put into perspective and get everyone on the same page. Sorry for the detour.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

sbreland said:


> This steers the thread a bit more off course, so I am sorry for that, but I think the idea of legal and iullegal really needs to be defined, and not by someone here. I mean, if XYZ European country says that something is legal but nobody else does, then why is it legal?.


Typically this is determine by the relevant authority in that country, usually the equivalent of USF&W. 




sbreland said:


> By the same token, why is it that when a certain frog is considered illegal by the country of export because it was never legally exported it cana generally be accepted as legal by the majority of the hobby (galacs come to mind, but not sure if they were ever legally exported)..


This has occured with a number of species where the country of origin never exported that species but confiscations were released to the trade (the legality of this has changed somewhat in recent times especially with the signing of bio-piracy agreements) in some countries and were (depending on agreements) accepted as legal by other countries. This is why they are legal in some countries and not in others. Again the determining body is whatever agency is the equivalent to USF&W. Terriblis is a better example. 




sbreland said:


> My point is, who has the authority to say what is illegal and what is not when we have so many different authorities with different ideas? Do we believe the country of origin, the country we live in, or the general impression of the hobby, and more than that, who or what gives them the authority to make these decisions.


In the USA this is the USF&W service under the LACY act provisions. (specifically snip "A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law, or"endsnip

There are similar regulations in many foriegn countries which can be modified by treaties, pact or other regulations on a country by country basis. 




sbreland said:


> This is just so difficult and such a big problem and it makes me sick seeing great froggers always squabling over what is legal and what is not.


This is in part due to the lack of understanding of the origin of a lot of the frogs and that there can be variations in thier legality based on the country of origin, and the country in which they are held... 


Ed


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

Ed said:


> Typically this is determine by the relevant authority in that country, usually the equivalent of USF&W.


I understand that, but that's not what I meant. I know who makes the laws for this country, but what gives them the right to say something is legal that Peru or Brazil or whoever says is not? What gives the USFW the right to say that something is not legal that Germany or England or whoever else says is? My point is that we have every different governing body having a different view of what's legal and what's not, and in reality nobody has the right to say one thing is right and the other is wrong. For those of us that live in the US we are forced to follow what the USFW deems legal, but in Europe they can essentially tell the USFW and it's rules to piss off because it has absolutely no power or meaning there. That's why we get in so many legal/illegal squabbles here with members in the US and in Europe... different definitions of legal. Everybody thinks they are right and in reality there really are no right answers because there is no universal law or rule, which is what we really need in order to get everybody on the same page... I know, easier said than done.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

No problems, Bill.  

I thought maybe you had viewed it as a newbie sincerely asking about azureus, which would have been a blatant attempt to veer the discussion to a question of their own personal interest...so I thought you might just divert it to the "Beginners Discussion" forum. But I figured that's not where Ira was coming from.

Oh the joy of a purely written medium!


----------



## johnnymo (Jul 20, 2007)

are the orange headed imitators currently legal in the states? Those are the coolest looking frogs!


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

no, they are not


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

sbreland said:


> I understand that, but that's not what I meant. I know who makes the laws for this country, but what gives them the right to say something is legal that Peru or Brazil or whoever says is not?.


The LACY act... I cited the relevent section above. 



sbreland said:


> What gives the USFW the right to say that something is not legal that Germany or England or whoever else says is?.


The USF&W doesn't say what is illegal in England or Germany.. what USF&W will say is that it is illegal in the USA based on thier information. 
This gives information on the agency in England (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/index.htm)
I can find the source in Germany but keep in mind that these laws are also being modified by the bio-piracy pact signed in Rio a few years ago... 




sbreland said:


> My point is that we have every different governing body having a different view of what's legal and what's not, and in reality nobody has the right to say one thing is right and the other is wrong..


Actually in each country there are a lot of people in specific agencies that have this ability. In the EU, the changes in the trade laws will probably bring this into better line potentially resolving these issues one way or another. 



sbreland said:


> For those of us that live in the US we are forced to follow what the USFW deems legal, but in Europe they can essentially tell the USFW and it's rules to piss off because it has absolutely no power or meaning there. That's why we get in so many legal/illegal squabbles here with members in the US and in Europe.....


Hence the reason I kept pointing out that different countries have different regulations covering the different frogs but we cannot expect that what is accepted in any European (or other) country will be accepted here and vice versa..... 
The issue comes up because people post what is allowed in one country and people in other areas often feel that they should also be allowed to have those animals... and the reason as to why they cannot doesn't matter. If I lived in Canada, I would be able to own San Francisco Garter snakes, a species that most Zoos much less hobbyists are prohibited from owning (and those Zoos that are allowed to have them are supposed to only possess males). 

Ed


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Ed said:


> If I lived in Canada, I would be able to own San Francisco Garter snakes, a species that most Zoos much less hobbyists are prohibited from owning (and those Zoos that are allowed to have them are supposed to only possess males).


Who comes up with irrational crap like this? Is it really the truth?Why do we want more bureaucrats pumping out rules that are _ipso facto_ ridiculous like this one? Zoos can only posses males :roll: heaven forbid they should have a female so that they can work on captive reproduction of this highly endangered species?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The reason they prohibit most Zoos from having females is because of how animals in the past have ended up in the pet trade.... 

Ed


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

So in bureaucratese "it's better for a species to never go into a captive breeding program, than possibly end up in *SHOCK* private hands." Insane explanations for irrational rules do not rationalize them.

Not that I'm saying these are your explanations, or rules, Ed.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Catfur said:


> So in bureaucratese "it's better for a species to never go into a captive breeding program, than possibly end up in *SHOCK* private hands." Insane explanations for irrational rules do not rationalize them.
> 
> Not that I'm saying these are your explanations, or rules, Ed.


Not my rules, I just have to live with them...

Usually rules like this are due to the lack of funds to ensure enforcement because its easier to enforce a blanket legislation as there are no "grey" areas.. In this case, it would prohibit the in-state transfers of animals (you don't violate the LACY act if you don't cross a state line) so someone cannot claim that they got them from a Zoo at sometime in the past.... 

Ed


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Ric Sanchez said:


> [quote="Rich Frye":3hnnyii0][quote="Ric Sanchez":3hnnyii0]To my knowledge they have never been exported from Peru, so anyone that has this species is probably going to keep quiet, since their frogs would be illegal.
> 
> -Evan


Not sure if this works as a blanket statement.[/quote:3hnnyii0]

You are going to have to be more specific with regards to what you mean. If you are implying that despite no exports someone has this species legally, then I would be interested to hear how this is possible. Or do you mean something els

-Evan[/quote:3hnnyii0]


I too would like an answer on this. After reading this I would...ASSUME.. you are referencing frogs "legally" exported from Europe?? Most of us know there are lots of thumbnails here in the US that have been imported "legally" from Europe that have not been exported from country of origin or have been imported under the wrong species name.
Ukarii has just been made legal based on the recent SNDF sale of them but they have been offered on this board for a year or better based on "legal" European exports. Orange Lamasi as far as I know still have not been brought out of Peru legally?
As Mark Pepper posted in the red headed Imitator thread it is up to each of us to decide who to support. Believe me I am not without sin and if a group of yellow Lehmanni were put in front of me I would be hard pressed to say no!
Sorry for the little rant....so what's up with the statement Rich....legal Flavovittatus? I am also in favor of renaming this species Flavoazureus thus making all posts in this thread more appropriate.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

markpulawski said:


> Ric Sanchez said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Rich Frye":1xcm2ny2][quote="Ric Sanchez":1xcm2ny2]To my knowledge they have never been exported from Peru, so anyone that has this species is probably going to keep quiet, since their frogs would be illegal.
> ...


You are going to have to be more specific with regards to what you mean. If you are implying that despite no exports someone has this species legally, then I would be interested to hear how this is possible. Or do you mean something els

-Evan[/quote:1xcm2ny2]


I too would like an answer on this. After reading this I would...ASSUME.. you are referencing frogs "legally" exported from Europe?? Most of us know there are lots of thumbnails here in the US that have been imported "legally" from Europe that have not been exported from country of origin or have been imported under the wrong species name.
Ukarii has just been made legal based on the recent SNDF sale of them but they have been offered on this board for a year or better based on "legal" European exports. Orange Lamasi as far as I know still have not been brought out of Peru legally?
As Mark Pepper posted in the red headed Imitator thread it is up to each of us to decide who to support. Believe me I am not without sin and if a group of yellow Lehmanni were put in front of me I would be hard pressed to say no!
Sorry for the little rant....so what's up with the statement Rich....legal Flavovittatus? I am also in favor of renaming this species Flavoazureus thus making all posts in this thread more appropriate.[/quote:1xcm2ny2]

Not sure means , not sure. I would have to ask a few questions first.
Illegal to whom? Have there ever been any imported under 'quinq' papers, properly? Have there ever been any confiscations released? If there are any floating around, does the counrty of origin want them back?
Not sure.....


----------



## Ira (Jan 17, 2007)

Ed said:


> Ira said:
> 
> 
> > I was under the impression that a huge number of azureus were illeaglly smuggled into the european frog trade (mentioned in jewels of the rainforst and a few other places) and that some were imported from europe before they were common in the american trade.
> ...



Good insight Ed. I really feel bad because I really wasnt trying to malign the european hobby and it really came off that way. I really have alot of respect for our european counterparts because they really seem to be on the cutting edge of the dendrobatid hobby. 

It still seems to me that whenever a potentially illeagle frog is mentioned on this board that the threads are immeadity bombarded with finger wagglers, and i just cant help but to be the devils advocate. But, i am not the most informed person, a hobbiest at best, and am going to bow out of this conversation at this point.

Ira


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Bill,

After figuring out my original post was completely wrong - I had the wrong species and thus wrong locality. It has been legally imported but not under its current name. In the 80's it was imported as _D. quinquivittatus_ from Peru and in the 90's it was imported as _D. ventrimaculatus_ from Europe, Germany I believe. ˇhe name is new but the frog has been arund for a number of years and isn't a recent discovery. 

Best,

Chuck



Ed said:


> skylsdale said:
> 
> 
> > So to compare Azureus which was legally brought into the pet trade to a species that was never legally exported is inapt at best.
> ...


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

quote="markpulawski"]


Ric Sanchez said:


> [quote="Rich Frye":3qy65z7v][quote="Ric Sanchez":3qy65z7v]To my knowledge they have never been exported from Peru, so anyone that has this species is probably going to keep quiet, since their frogs would be illegal.
> 
> -Evan


Not sure if this works as a blanket statement.[/quote:3qy65z7v]

You are going to have to be more specific with regards to what you mean. If you are implying that despite no exports someone has this species legally, then I would be interested to hear how this is possible. Or do you mean something els

-Evan[/quote:3qy65z7v]



"Sorry for the little rant....so what's up with the statement Rich....legal Flavovittatus? I am also in favor of renaming this species Flavoazureus thus making all posts in this thread more appropriate.[/quote]"






Mark, 
If Chuck's info is correct this would mean there are potentially legal flavs in the hobby. And Evan's statement does not work as a blanket statement.

Rich


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

I would be shocked to learn that Flavovittatus was one of species imported years ago under the Vent name, I have never seen anything close here in the US in the past. There have been a huge number of thumbnails imported to the US over the last 3 - 4 years so them being in the US now would not be a surprise. 
I do believe however Evan's statement that they are not legal is factual. Flav's have never been exported, so if they are here they are not legal. Even if they were exported under the wrong species name they would not be legal Flavovittatus.
Maybe someone with more USF&W experience could tell us how frogs imported under a species name that have now been classified as something else would be handled?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

^
So the 'illegal to whom' would still be apropos. Are Escudoes going to be illegal everywhere as soon as it is broadly accepted as a different species than a pum?

Rich


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

It is tough to know specifically which frogs have been exported under the name quinquevittatus in the past. While it is possible flavovittatus have been exported under a different name in the past, I don't think its likely because:

1) No one even knew about this frog until the late 90s (as far as I know), and by that time the name quinquevittatus had been restricted to the Brazilian species.
2) They breed well in captivity (in Peru at least), so they would almost certainly be available by now if legal ones made it into the hobby once upon a time.


But Chuck appears to have info contradicting this, although I am curious to know the source. One would have to know locality data, and even that wouldn't be adequate when there are three sympatric species of "quinquevittatus" in Rio Tahuayo (uakarii, flavovittatus, and ventrimaculatus). 

There seems to be a lot of grey area in situations like this, and its hard to know anything for sure. For me, if someone offered flavovittatus tomorrow, and said they were descendants of a legal exportation of 'quinquevittatus', I would be very skeptical and not buy them. Any thoughts on this?

-Evan


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

This would start to take it down the road of Divossen Vanzo's, over the last 2 years there are hundreds of offspring where before there were possibly or few...or none. Hundreds or thousands of frogs being grand fathered in because of few legal frogs of years ago.
I don't believe this correlates to Escudos at all, they are currently considered Pumilio and were exported as such. Panama knew exactly what was being exported, if the species name changes due to scientific discovery it would/should not effect the legal status of these frogs.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

^ But 'at the time' Flavs and many other species were legally considered quinqs. Making them legal? Exactly like the possible future Escudoe issue.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

But in this case reality and possibility are as far apart as they could possibly be. Perhaps Chuck could chime in as to what he knows about the possibility of this species existing here in the US....at least as ones imported as Quinqs or Vents from years past.
Classification of frogs has come a long way in th last 10 years and where there were a handful of species there are now many so yes frogs imported several years ago would now be legal as long as they came in at the time as what they were considered species wise but to now have these frogs surface would be too coincidental for me to believe that was their origin. You are right Rich in that they would have to be considered legal but what a shame it would be to see Understory's efforts undermined by this loophole.
As for Escudos I would hope a reclassification would not change their legal status, perhaps Ed could shed some light on how that may work.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> As for Escudos I would hope a reclassification would not change their legal status, perhaps Ed could shed some light on how that may work.


As I understand it (and I may have misunderstood), if they came in under a different name and were later reclassified they should be legal however it would be best if people kept track of the imports (this is where something like TWI comes into play....) as people could potentially launder frogs later on by claiming they were descendents of the previous imports and there would have to be a burden of proof to show that they were laundered (but this may not help someone whose collection has been confiscated and has to deal with the system to get them back). 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I'm fairly sure you are right Ed. Legal status of legal imported animals doesn't change just because the classification system is refined. But I think this brings up a very good case where "legal" and "ethical" are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, given the state of monitoring of wild collection efforts, and the various loopholes through which smuggled animals can enter the hobby as legal specimens, it could be argued that "legality" is a very poor measuring stick for ethical.

Another point which I saw only tangentially referenced in a quick scan of the thread, is that legality does not resolve at the species level, it goes all the way to the individual specimen. So just because a species may have been legally imported under the current, or some other name, does not mean that the individual in question is legal. All that really changes is the burden of proof needed to prosecute a case. If someone posseses a specimen of a species that was never legally imported under any name, it is pretty easy to prove the specimen is illegal. But if someone has a smuggled specimen of a species that has been widely imported, it requires more evidence to make the case that the specimen is illegal. But just because the burden of proof is higher, does not change the true legal status of the specimen.


----------



## MonopolyBag (Jun 3, 2007)

Wow, I haven't really kept up with this post till now, thanks.

Yeah, well question...

ALL of these "illegal" frogs, once they are captive bread, then are they "legal"

Let me explain, if a frog is not in the hobby, and can not be imported, then someone wants it in the hobby, can they breed it (illegally) and then sell the tads to get it into the hobby?


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

My source is myself. I had animals of this species in the late 80's/early 90's and breed them. Along with several other newly named species. At that time very, very few people were interested in the smaller frogs and I was. When I started in the hobby all the small similar looking _quinquivittatus_ group frogs were called _D. quinquitvittatus_. Myers paper sometime in the late 80's, early 90's (I don't have the reference here; 1987 I think) restricted _D. quinquivittatus_ and brought back _D. ventrimaculatus_ as a junk basket name for any unnamed _quinquivittatus_ group frogs previously attributed to species (which was pretty much everything from the group that didn't have a name from anywhere in South America). Also John Uhern imported a few pairs from Europe during this period, along with a couple other species that are now newly named. I saw several different species at his establishment and somewhere in my slide collection have photographs of some of these animals. I even did a small talk on the group (with pictures) at the second Frog Day I think it was - that would have been about 1996. 

These frogs have only been popular in the past 5 years or so, before that very few people were interested in them. And the history of what's been in captivity is only in the mind of people who kept these frogs. Most people who kept them 15-20 years ago aren't around anymore. The history of this hobby has mostly been lost - but that's another soap box. 

Best,

Chuck




Ric Sanchez said:


> But Chuck appears to have info contradicting this, although I am curious to know the source. One would have to know locality data, and even that wouldn't be adequate when there are three sympatric species of "quinquevittatus" in Rio Tahuayo (uakarii, flavovittatus, and ventrimaculatus).


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

One other thing I should state. I truly doubt any of the early imports (or descendants) of these species are still alive. If they are I haven't heard of them. Its possible but I doubt it. But I also had _D. uakarii_, several morphs of _D. imitator_ (but not _D. i. intermedius_) and _D. lamasi_ long before they were described as different from _D. ventrimaculatus_. Lots of stuff came into the hobby and most hobbyist have no idea, and the prices, oh have times changed - 5 or 6 lots of _D. reticulatus_ for $100, bulls eye _D. histrionicus_ for $25 - things have changed! 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

MonopolyBag said:


> Wow, I haven't really kept up with this post till now, thanks.
> 
> Yeah, well question...
> 
> ...


Answer... yes and no, but more no. If a frog is considered illegal in all aspects (a good example for the US is mysteriosus), if someone somehow gets mysteriosus in the country and then breeds them, the offspring are still illegal as well. If the frog came from an illegal import(smuggling) but at one time has been legally exported from the country of origin (histrionicus is a good US example), then the offspring "could" be considered legal by the US if the breeder lied and said that the offspring came from animals that came from those original legal imports. In reality though, the actual parents could also be lied about and described as offspring from legal imports from years ago, but the point is that they are still lying. If someone knowingly has possession of a frog that the US considers illegal, or has possession of a smuggled frog that the US has received legal imports at one time (although this frog is not from those imports), the offspring will never be considered legal. It's just not as easy as saying "well, they came here illegally to begin with, but these are the illegal frogs, they are CB offspring so they should be legal". If a breeder is a shady individual they can make just about any frog "legal" by lying about it's origins, but that in itself would say a lot about the breeder. There are so many caveats to this arguement (mysteriosus in Europe, Harold Divossen bred vanzolinii, etc) that nothing is a blanket statement, but one consistent fact is that if they are illegal to begin with, no amount of captive breeding can make them truly legal.


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

chuckpowell said:


> One other thing I should state. I truly doubt any of the early imports (or descendants) of these species are still alive. If they are I haven't heard of them. Its possible but I doubt it. But I also had _D. uakarii_, several morphs of _D. imitator_ (but not _D. i. intermedius_) and _D. lamasi_ long before they were described as different from _D. ventrimaculatus_. Lots of stuff came into the hobby and most hobbyist have no idea, and the prices, oh have times changed - 5 or 6 lots of _D. reticulatus_ for $100, bulls eye _D. histrionicus_ for $25 - things have changed!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


Must have been nice! You answered the next question I had... if they were here before how come nobody has em now? I suspected the facts that you eluded to are true and the comings and goings of people in the hobby and dieoffs may have ended this species in the US, at least for now, but good to hear your imput.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

I don't know if nice is the right word; different. Lots of thing that are available now weren't back then and the state of our knowledge now has increased so much its amazing. I think you just have to be happy with what you have. 

Best,

Chuck

[/quote]
Must have been nice! You answered the next question I had... if they were here before how come nobody has em now? I suspected the facts that you eluded to are true and the comings and goings of people in the hobby and dieoffs may have ended this species in the US, at least for now, but good to hear your imput.[/quote]


----------

