# Name changes to some Darts?



## alex111683 (Sep 11, 2010)

I have been away for the last 3 years or so from the hobby. Not even looking at Dendroboard during that time. 

So other that the ownership change, I see alot of ads, I've noticed that some frogs have undergone name chages? Since then I notice that lamasi are now sirensis? Are there any other frogs that have undergone name changes?

And no I am not talking about the USA dart frog fiasco


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

Were you around for when Azureus officially became another type of tinc?


----------



## alex111683 (Sep 11, 2010)

What do you mean? Aren't they still dendrobates tinctorious 'azureus'?

At least that's what I see them labeled as still


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

It is true, there have been some changes especially with regard to the genus Ranitomeya. In addition, new morphs and localities of frogs have been introduced in the hobby, such as Ranitomeya fantastica "Varadero", tinctorius Robertus or Tumucumaque and new stunning morphs of pumilio, as Colubre or Valle del Rey.

http://www.dendrobates.org/articles/Brown&Twomey_etal_2011_Revision of Ranitomeya.pdf


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

And you're aware of the split of Ameerega from Epipedobades? And Andinobates from Ranitomeya?


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

Summersi were reclassified from fantastica... though that might have been a little longer than 3 years ago.


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

alex111683 said:


> What do you mean? Aren't they still dendrobates tinctorious 'azureus'?
> 
> At least that's what I see them labeled as still


They were dendrobates azureus until a few years ago, maybe longer


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

One of my frogs changed his name from Fred to Melissa. But that's a whole different story.

I have read that the frog known as Ranitomeya duellmani became Ranitomeya ventrimaculata. The frogs known as Ranitomeya ventrimaculata became Ranitomeya variabilis. That being said, we have not seen adoption of the nomenclature in the hobby. 

See here: Dendrobates.org - Ranitomeya duellmani

And here: Dendrobates.org - Ranitomeya variabilis 

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Some ventrimaculata were sunk into variabilis, some were moved to amazonica. Rigel provided the link to that paper a few posts back.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

epiphytes etc. said:


> Some ventrimaculata were sunk into variabilis, some were moved to amazonica. Rigel provided the link to that paper a few posts back.


 Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

It is also true that many sellers use the old names, at least here in Europe: for example Ranitomeya lamasi not sirensis. My Epipedobates anthonyi "Highland", purchased in January 2011, were still labeled as tricolor.


----------



## calz (Feb 18, 2013)

i have a question regarding name changes. 

have the locales for cauchero, darklands, esperanza all been grouped into aguacate and are we now mixing these morphs?


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

Good question. According Dendrobase, the reference site for us Europeans, all of them are labeled as Aguacate, but, however, also Dendrobase distinguishes the various "localities" within the same "morph", putting the places of origin of the frogs in parentheses: for example, _Oophaga pumilio_ "Aguacate" (Tierra Oscura). 
But pratically, it is always good thing do not mix Darkland with Esperanza, although both are Aguacate. 
This is my opinion, waiting for those who are more experienced than me about this subject.

www.DendroBase.de


----------



## calz (Feb 18, 2013)

i bought this book Graham Newland (Natural History Books) - The complete Oophaga pumilio The complete Oophaga pumilio and it has the same morph categories as dendrobase, infact it is the same table as in the book i think. i now see people on here with "aguacate" frogs http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/201001-pumilio-aguacate.html 













so Aguacate pumilio are just any frogs collected from the entire aguacate peninsula? those in that thread look a lot like esperanza to me, but my cauchero froglets look a lot like a esperanza until about 1 month ootw










i reckon if i dusted enough Repashy super pig i could get them with red backs as adults.


----------



## calz (Feb 18, 2013)

i guess this isnt a subject people want to touch on then lol


----------



## Dev30ils (May 1, 2012)

Unless you're 100% sure you should always keep them separate. All of these are referred to as different localities in the US. 



rigel10 said:


> Dendrobase distinguishes the various "localities" within the same "morph", putting the places of origin of the frogs in parentheses: for example, _Oophaga pumilio_ "Aguacate" (Tierra Oscura).
> ]


If they're taking the time to differentiate the various collection sites it's possible that these frogs are separated by some natural boundary and it's possible they have no contact in the wild. I'd keep them separate until that's proven otherwise.


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

Again, this is the result of us as hobbyists separating potential "snapshots" of a large, contiguous population into smaller hobby sub-populations. The Aguacate locale supposedly comes from a city/town/definite location within the larger Aguacate Peninsula, so it is technically a different pinpoint when compared to Esperanza, Cauchero, etc. 

I have no first-hand knowledge of the biogeography of this area, but based on the van der Lingen book and other sources, it seems like this Aguacate Peninsula metapopulation is another example of a large, contiguous, variable locale. We'll keep them separate as hobbyist because "we don't know for sure where they come from", but it is likely that they are genetically a single population.


----------



## calz (Feb 18, 2013)

From what I can understand, these frogs have been seperated by hobbyists and maybe importers as that is where they were collected from, but gentically they are identical and their locales overlap. Meaning we could mix them and strengthen the gene pool?



I want to put it out there that I am not mixing anything unless it is proven and accepted to do so.


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

I notice slight differences between Esperanza or Darkland or Punta Clara, so I think - as I said above - it is better do not to mix the Aguacate frogs even if they come from the same peninsula. 
However, a recent thread on the forum is titled "Pumilio Aguacate". What does this mean? Are the frogs in that thread Esperanza or Darkland or Punta Clara, etc?

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/201001-pumilio-aguacate.html


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

I have Punta Clara, I had Esperanza, but I never thought to mix this frogs, or for genetic reasons or if because they are from the same region. 
However, some confusion is arising about pumilios coming from the Aguacate Peninsula and threads like this are useful, in my opinion, to do a bit of clarity on this subject.
I think in the end it is always better do not mix the frogs.


----------

