# "F1" Azureus???



## snmreptiles (Feb 26, 2004)

Just curious if this raised a red flag with anyone else? There's a company offering F1 azureus on Kingsnake. I was under the impression that D. Azureus were no longer imported legally? Just curious on everyone else's thoughts!

Mike
http://www.snmreptiles.com


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

If you cross 2 different bloodlines, the offsprings would be F1.


----------



## snmreptiles (Feb 26, 2004)

I guess I find it hard to believe that a company that is selling an adult "Tinctorius", doesn't mention what morph, knows the lineage of their frogs?! Whole situation was kind of wierd to me! 

Mike


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Also, a side note - Azureus as far as I know where NEVER legally exported


----------



## Filip (Jan 12, 2006)

There have been legal imports for academic purposes in the US, as far as I know! Unfortunately I don't find any information to prove this.
The dutch site (http://www.gifkikkerportaal.nl) mentions that there have been legal AND illegal imports.
Grtz,
Filip


----------



## George B (Apr 2, 2005)

At least as far as it is used (misused) in fish F1 refers to the first generation of offspring from wild collected parents. As far as how it was originally used by geneticists F1 refers to the first generation of offspring from any pairing. As for the Azureus there have been legal transfers of Azureus from zoollogical institutions to private individuals although this happen after the were already fairly established in the hobby. George


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

I second what George said. From what I understand, there may be a few people in the hobby who have "F1" (first generation from WC) azureus today. As far as legal importations, I know there have been a few, at least to educational institutions. I also read an online journal article (man, I wish I could remember where!) regarding a trip to a few locations to Surinam to view D. azureus in the wild, ending with a dramatic okay from the Surinam government to collect about 12 pair (IIRC) and bring back. I'll see if I can't find that, as it was an interesting read with some pics of the biotopes.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I do think there are a couple of larger breeders, whos name I will not mention; that I thought had a number of WC pairs. I also seem to remember someone talking about a shipment of azuerus coming in a few years ago in a thread much like this one, but I forgot where and when I read that.

I thought F1s were just the first line from unrelated parents.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> I thought F1s were just the first line from unrelated parents.


as long as those unrelated parents are WC.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Here is some information:

I would see it from the unrelated parents stand point and really do you know if the WCs are related or not? 

http://www.doylesdartden.com/Breeding.html


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

*GREASER* said:


> kyle1745 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought F1s were just the first line from unrelated parents.
> ...


No, Kyle is right. Technically, F1 just indicates that the two parents are unrelated. This hobby typically makes the assumption that F1 only applies to first generation from WC, but that is not the actual definition. That is why I used the quotes around "F1" in my post above.

The coding means "Fraternal, 1st generation." So, all F1's are brother/sister. F2 means all offspring from the interbreeding of the F1's. This type of inbreeding is often used to show the aspects of mendelian genetics, as the F2 from two originating animals displaying dominant/dominant and recessive/recessive for simple mendelian genetic traits will result in 25% homozygous recessive, 25% homozygous dominant, and 50% heterozygous at that loci.

With that said, I do believe there are some "F1's" in the hobby today. I have seen one that is purported to be so.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

So then is it to be assumed that when buying from someone that their frogs would be from related frogs, thus being some Fx above F1?



*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

defaced said:


> So then is it to be assumed that when buying from someone that their frogs would be from related frogs, thus being some Fx above F1?


Why assume? When you buy your frogs, you should ask.

However, realistically, many of the frogs in our hobby are interrelated. The difficulty in trying to keep our frogs from being Fx generation is that few people have their lineage, and its tough to trace back to original shipments to determine whether unrelated frogs are from the same location. That's why Robb Melancon and some other hobbyists are developing a registry.


----------



## George B (Apr 2, 2005)

*fi*

If you are talking about mendelian genetics (which is what the reference Kyle posted is refering to) then yes F1 is the first generation from a pairing and no implications are made about the parents relatedness are implied. I really see no usefull appliaction of this definition to dart frogs unless you whanted to see if a phenotypc trait was additive or mendelian (back crossing is how they often do this in zebra fish) . 
If you are talking about captive breeding programs or the nomenclature used by much more established aquarium fish industry and many dart frog "people" then F1 refers to the first generation from wild collected individuals. This is usefull in tracking how many genrations your offspring are from "wild" individuals and potentially how significantly their genome has changed from those of wild individuals due to selection pressures associated with captivity, drift, etc. Becasue of the info it provides I see this definition of F1 one much more useful to the hobby and the mendellian genetics definition just about useless. As kyle pointed out not only can't you determine how realted WC animals are with out genetic testing, but you also can't determine how related many CB animals are because they come from the very same WC animals and most people have no idea of the full lineage of their animals. I feel that refering to the offspring of "unrelated" CB individuals as "F1" is misleading since there is a long-standing history in both CB efforts and the aquarium industry of calling the first cabtive bred generation as F1 George


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> Why assume? When you buy your frogs, you should ask.


Wrong context. I guess I didn't word the question very well. If you're saying that there are few true F1s in the hobby, then even buying frogs from different people would be fruitless because at some point those frogs trace back to a single WC pair, as George said. Taking it in the context you did, then why ask as the result is the same: breeding related animals?



*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I am struggling with the concept that for something to be a "F1" it must be from WC pairs. I just don't see why wild caught matters. If there were multiple shipments at different times from different locations, and off spring from both those shipments were bread why would they not be F1? Just because they are not wild caught? What about if genetic testing was done on a pair and they were not related?

I guess I am just missing the point of limiting it to wild caught as for all we know they are all related. 

I would be interested in genetic testing, but I would bet it is not cheap.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2006)

I think that F1 actually is the first set of parents, regardless of whether or not they were wild caught. In experiments with plants, the first plant you start with is your F1, not the wild plant(s) whose seed produced the first plant you are working with. Right????


----------



## George B (Apr 2, 2005)

*F1*



> I am struggling with the concept that for something to be a "F1" it must be from WC pairs. I just don't see why wild caught matters. If there were multiple shipments at different times from different locations, and off spring from both those shipments were bread why would they not be F1? Just because they are not wild caught? What about if genetic testing was done on a pair and they were not related?


I think you are asking two questions. First the use of F1 is just terminology and I feel that the hobby in general refers to animals as F1 only if they come from wild collected individuals. 

Second are offspring from wild caughts different from offspring from unrelated captive bred, and to this I must respond enthusiastically YES..... From the moment you bring an animal into captivity you begin to select for traits which may not be selected for in wild populations. From collection to transport to which individuals are capable of surviving and breeding in captivity even the eggs, tadpoles, and froglets become "adapted" to captivity. If you add the effect of genetic drift and a F1 form wild caughts is very different genetically from an offspring from two unrelated captive bred individuals. This is why I feel that F1 should only refer to the first generation from WC individuals

Third breeding unrelated individuals is not necessarily good and "inbreeding" is not necessarily determental. First there is no strong evidence that vertebrates experience inbreeding depression in a natural environment. Second in populations which are naturally small many sub lethal and lethal genes are already removed from the population in a processing called purging. Breeding very indivuals from very different populations has been shown to cause reduced survival in the offspring (outbreeding depression) George


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> I am struggling with the concept that for something to be a "F1" it must be from WC pairs. I just don't see why wild caught matters. If there were multiple shipments at different times from different locations, and off spring from both those shipments were bread why would they not be F1? Just because they are not wild caught? What about if genetic testing was done on a pair and they were not related?
> 
> I guess I am just missing the point of limiting it to wild caught as for all we know they are all related.
> 
> .



Going by a text book definition it sounds like you would be rigth Kyle. That taking the offspring from two different shipments of wc frogs and breeding there offspring would give you F1s. But I guess this is not the common way the hobby has used the term F1 to identify there frogs. I to only learned that F1 ment that you had the offspring from WC animals.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

*Re: fi*



George B said:


> F1 refers to the first generation from wild collected individuals. This is usefull in tracking how many genrations your offspring are from "wild" individuals and potentially how significantly their genome has changed from those of wild individuals due to selection pressures associated with captivity, drift, etc. Becasue of the info it provides I see this definition of F1 one much more useful to the hobby and the mendellian genetics definition just about useless.
> 
> 
> I feel that refering to the offspring of "unrelated" CB individuals as "F1" is misleading since there is a long-standing history in both CB efforts and the aquarium industry of calling the first cabtive bred generation as F1 George


----------



## Filip (Jan 12, 2006)

Another argument to follow Georges way of seeing things: with F1-offspring (from WC) you have more chances that the frogs still carry diseases and worms... 

The strictly genetical approach of the terms F1, F2, F20,... is only helpfull if you want to try to breed an albino Azureus, for instance... 

I think hobbyist over the whole world use the terms F1, F... in the same way (the way George described)...

A geneological tree from each frog would be great, but this is unfortunately only possible to realise for the more passionate hobbyists and for zoological institutions... 

Filip


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

So the message I getting is that hobbyist miss use the terms to mean more than they really do so the standard should change?.


----------



## Gawd_oOo (Jan 24, 2006)

Ok first off, I should say that I don't have any frogs *yet*, just doing my research first.

In the method that George and the others mentioned what would your # be if you bred a 'F'4 and a 'F'8 would that result in a 'F'5 or 9 or average the 2 out for a 7

Regardless I think that the confusion is coming from using an already established scientific term/idea in a different context.

Why not pick a different letter(s) insted of F? Fx as mentioned should be reset to F1 anytime new blood line is bred in, regardless if that new blood is 3 or 7 or 50 generations in captivity. Perhaps CB1, CB2, CB20, etc. CB standing for Captive Bred, would allow the use in the way George and the others use the term now, while keeping the F series to the original scientific definition. Then you would be able to have a D. tinctorius, Surinam cobalt CB7 F1, meaning that this frog is the 7th generation in captivity, but has had a new blood line introduced from a CB or WC frog.


----------

