# Pardon my ignorance



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

I am just getting myself familiar with the hobby and one aspect does not make sense to me. Why is hybridization looked down upon, as an upcoming marine biologist i don't understand why there is such a deliberate sequestration of gene pools by preventing morphs inter breeding. Genetic diversity is a good thing,look at the domestication of dogs. One species was selectively bred much like frogs to produce morphs or breeds if you will, if we keep conserving these genes the pool will become smaller and smaller and in my opinion degrade the health of the organism. Look at labs for example, there is a higher chance of a pure bred lab developing hip problems compared to a lab mix or mutt. i do realize dogs have been domesticated much longer then frogs have been selectively bred but the premise is the same. Is it to keep morphs line from becoming tainted? I don't advocate the wild capture of any pet traded organism but by limiting gene pools aren't we degrading the captive bred population. Hopefully someone with more experience can enlighten me, im sorry if i sound naive or ignorant.


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

picoreefer said:


> I am just getting myself familiar with the hobby and one aspect does not make sense to me. Why is hybridization looked down upon, as an upcoming marine biologist i don't understand why there is such a deliberate sequestration of gene pools by preventing morphs inter breeding. Genetic diversity is a good thing,look at the domestication of dogs. One species was selectively bred much like frogs to produce morphs or breeds if you will, if we keep conserving these genes the pool will become smaller and smaller and in my opinion degrade the health of the organism. Look at labs for example, there is a higher chance of a pure bred lab developing hip problems compared to a lab mix or mutt. i do realize dogs have been domesticated much longer then frogs have been selectively bred but the premise is the same. Is it to keep morphs line from becoming tainted? I don't advocate the wild capture of any pet traded organism but by limiting gene pools aren't we degrading the captive bred population. Hopefully someone with more experience can enlighten me, im sorry if i sound naive or ignorant.


*Can of worms*

See the can above? Consider it opened.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

My suggestion to you is that you use the search function and look up the topic and read the threads thoroughly before opening this "can of worms".
There are MANY threads discussing this topic and you should have no problems finding plenty of info.
BTW...these "wild type" frogs are NOT domesticated dogs. That's an apples and oranges comparison. You're gonna have to do better than that.


----------



## yellow dart frog man (Mar 8, 2011)

I understand what your trying to say. The biggest reason that hybridization is looked down apon is that most people want the frogs with wild genes insted of Hybred genes. Another reason is that its not very natural....... Lets say are Costa Rican green and black arrow frog breeds with a panamanian Green and black arrow frog, For one they won't meet in the wild because there from two different places and like what Rusty_Shackleford said frogs are not dogs.Hope that could help a little.


----------



## Zooxan (Jan 30, 2011)

Will someone please pass the popcorn?


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

Zooxan said:


> Will someone please pass the popcorn?


Mine's still popping. It's early yet.


----------



## kthehun89 (Jul 23, 2009)

Seriously we should all bet on the next pointless hybridization thread comes up. It pisses me off that I can't get comments on my freaking tank threads but these blow up... 

sigh


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

kthehun89 said:


> Seriously we should all bet on the next pointless hybridization thread comes up. It pisses me off that I can't get comments on my freaking tank threads but these blow up...
> 
> sigh


Maybe we could create a dendroboard hybridization thread drinking game?


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

I have read through a couple of threads on why hybridization is so bad but i cant seem to justify being so against it. It seems like the overwhelming consensus is that hybridization is bad, i just don't understand why. I understand the need to preserve the lineages and blood lines found in the wild and that it is unnatural for certain from morphs to breed. But as long as recorded hybrid lineages are documented i see no problem it. It is also unnatural for frogs to live in a box in someones house, unnatural to me does not equate to wrong in my opinion. It seems like there is a fear of over hybridization and the degradation of natural bloodlines, i do feel it is important to conserve native species and morphs. But hybridization in a scientific manner seems really beneficial to me. I come from a reef background and i can tell you first hand "unnatural" corals are the single best thing that has happened to the hobby. The biggest reason is it lessens demand on natural corals, if no one wants the natural morph of an acropora, they want the new super purple monster people eater, people are less inclined to harvest natural acropora morphs. Another reason is we can selectively breed for other traits to help the captive population such as disease resistance, feeding behavior and vitality. I realize by opening Pandora's box of hybridization we also can go in a negative direction by breeding frogs that solely look cool instead of more important traits. I just feel like there is this huge unexplored aspect of the hobby that cant help captive and wild frogs. I also feel like the information is echoed so many time new comers like me are almost brain washed into thinking hybrids are the plague of the hobby "reefer madness" if you will.

My point of this thread is not to start a flame war i just am interested in this taboo and want to hear what everyone thinks and why. Discussion is good and id like to hear what people think about this subject. I realize that some people see this as beating a dead horse, but i feel evolution of husbandry is what ultimately leads to a sustainable and stimulating hobby.


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

You're not asking a new question so you're not going to get any new answers - any answers you'll get are already in the same threads over and over that others posted over and over.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

picoreefer said:


> I have read through a couple of threads on why hybridization is so bad but i cant seem to justify being so against it. It seems like the overwhelming consensus is that hybridization is bad, i just don't understand why. I understand the need to preserve the lineages and blood lines found in the wild and that it is unnatural for certain from morphs to breed. But as long as recorded hybrid lineages are documented i see no problem it. It is also unnatural for frogs to live in a box in someones house, unnatural to me does not equate to wrong in my opinion. It seems like there is a fear of over hybridization and the degradation of natural bloodlines, i do feel it is important to conserve native species and morphs. But hybridization in a scientific manner seems really beneficial to me. I come from a reef background and i can tell you first hand "unnatural" corals are the single best thing that has happened to the hobby. The biggest reason is it lessens demand on natural corals, if no one wants the natural morph of an acropora, they want the new super purple monster people eater, people are less inclined to harvest natural acropora morphs. Another reason is we can selectively breed for other traits to help the captive population such as disease resistance, feeding behavior and vitality. I realize by opening Pandora's box of hybridization we also can go in a negative direction by breeding frogs that solely look cool instead of more important traits. I just feel like there is this huge unexplored aspect of the hobby that cant help captive and wild frogs. I also feel like the information is echoed so many time new comers like me are almost brain washed into thinking hybrids are the plague of the hobby "reefer madness" if you will.
> 
> My point of this thread is not to start a flame war i just am interested in this taboo and want to hear what everyone thinks and why. Discussion is good and id like to hear what people think about this subject. I realize that some people see this as beating a dead horse, but i feel evolution of husbandry is what ultimately leads to a sustainable and stimulating hobby.


It's a very hypocrital point of view to think reef keeping is helping the reefs in the wild. Especially since you know as a reefer very very few reef fish are bred in captivity, they are all collected from the wild. 
Again, reefing isn't frogging. More apples and oranges.


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

For continuity please keep nonconstructive comments to yourself. If no one wants to discuss this topic it will go stale and sink into the abyss, i wont do any complaining about it. I would just like to hear what people think, not re voiced opinions on older threads. Ideas and theories evolve as people talk about them, if you don't want to talk about it that's cool, just keep it to yourself because it takes away from the people that want to discuss it. Like i said earlier if no one on this board wants to talk about it, it will sink into the abyss and i understand why. I just thought it would be cool to discuss the topic.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Zooxan said:


> Will someone please pass the popcorn?


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

kthehun89 said:


> It pisses me off that I can't get comments on my freaking tank threads but these blow up...
> 
> sigh


AMEN! 

Everyone jumps in to share their $0.02 on well discussed "can of worms" topics while people with questions/searching for opinion/feedback/encouragement are ignored. What does this tell about our swarm (many times with the intention to sting) and sadistic ("get the popcorn") behaviors? 

Off my soap box.


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

I see what your saying about reef keeping, it was a bad example. My point was we will never get to explore the benefits of hybridization until we experiment. I could only find scientific reports on hybridization of other anurians and not necessarily dart frogs, does anyone know of any reports done on the hybridization of captive bred dart frogs?


----------



## kthehun89 (Jul 23, 2009)

Seriously why do you think scleractinians have any thing to do with the issue of hybridization in this hobby. Stop trying to compare the two, the hobbies are worlds apart. And you really appear to not know much about reefing either.


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

First off, reefs and darts are two majorly different things. Not many dart frogs come into contact with each other due to the different morphs being separated by large geographic features. keeping two different morphs is equivalent to keeping a sixline wrasse and a deep sea angler in the same tank.

One of the major reasons hybridization is frowned upon is largely associated with pathogens. These frogs have been separated without contact with each other for millions of years. To put this in perspective, lets look at when Europeans came to America. There were massive out breaks of smallpox and other pathogens. These two groups of humans (European/Native American) hadn't been separated for more than 30-50,000 years and look what happened! Now imagine they were separated for _millions_ of years, that's enough time for whole new species to rise up into existence that would wreak havoc on the unprepared human body! All hell would break loose! 

There, that's my $.002

D


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

picoreefer said:


> I see what your saying about reef keeping, it was a bad example. My point was we will never get to explore the benefits of hybridization until we experiment. I could only find scientific reports on hybridization of other anurians and not necessarily dart frogs, does anyone know of any reports done on the hybridization of captive bred dart frogs?


Picoreefer, I see you are new to Dendroboard (this is only your 5th post). You can find all the answers you are looking for already discussed on this forum. Please take your time to explore. Stay a while, become familiar with the hobby, the people, etc. before jumping in on a subject that you are very far from actually dealing with. Heck, your vivarium is not even built, why worry about hybridization now? This is an atypical question for a newbie. 

Don't get me wrong, this is a very important subject, and as such, it has been discussed exhaustively (hence the very few good responses you are getting). 

Now go search for yourself. Use *site: dendroboard hybrids* on Google as a start.


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

JPccusa said:


> Picoreefer, I see you are new to Dendroboard (this is only your 5th post). You can find all the answers you are looking for already discussed on this forum. Please take your time to explore. Stay a while, become familiar with the hobby, the people, etc. before jumping in on a subject that you are very far from actually dealing with. Heck, your vivarium is not even built, why worry about hybridization now? This is an atypical question for a newbie.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this is a very important subject, and as such, it has been discussed exhaustively (hence the very few good responses you are getting).
> 
> Now go search for yourself. Use *site: dendroboard hybrids* on Google as a start.


i am overly curious you could say lol. i am currently taking a genetics class and this subject really caught my interest. In all honesty i will not practice hybridization unless i have the time/ resources to quantify data.


----------



## patm (Mar 21, 2004)

picoreefer said:


> I have read through a couple of threads on why hybridization is so bad but i cant seem to justify being so against it. It seems like the overwhelming consensus is that hybridization is bad, i just don't understand why. I understand the need to preserve the lineages and blood lines found in the wild and that it is unnatural for certain from morphs to breed. But as long as recorded hybrid lineages are documented i see no problem it. .



You give people too much credit. While most of the seasoned hobbyists are very particular with who they're getting their animals from and even who their animals are going to, do you really think everyone who has ever owned a dendrobatid is so careful? Do you really think every hobbyist keeps lineage records handy and at their disposal? Some of these locales are so similar looking, and some are so variable, that we only have the word of the breeder to assure us as to the purity of the animal's lineage.

Again, just surf around DB for a little while and see how many posts there are asking "what morph is this?" All it takes is one mis-ID'd animal to get into someone's breeding project, and it muddies the entire lineage from there on out. 

If you can provide me with the recorded lineage of every single frog that has ever entered or been bred in the hobby, I will gladly bow out on this argument, but I'd be pretty confident betting dollars to doughnuts that would be an impossible task.

-Pat


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

picoreefer said:


> I see what your saying about reef keeping, it was a bad example. My point was we will never get to explore the benefits of hybridization until we experiment. I could only find scientific reports on hybridization of other anurians and not necessarily dart frogs, does anyone know of any reports done on the hybridization of captive bred dart frogs?


What are some of the "benefits" of hybridization as you say? I can't really think of anything hybrids would give us that the naturally occurring populations already don't have. 
One of the problems with saying that hybrids are OK as long as we document them as such is that it is still highly probable that there will be miscommunication, paperwork mistakes, tracking errors, or just plain laziness, etc. and they will be leaked into an otherwise known locality line. I don't think there is any practical way to keep hybrids separate from the rest of the established frogs in the hobby.
I see where you are coming from in regards to reefing, but as others have pointed out, it doesn't apply as well here. In fact, in this hobby, since so many people want "pure" lines, making hybrids could increase demand for wild caught frogs that don't have mixed bloodlines. 
Don't take some of these responses personally, they may seem harsh or unwelcoming but if you stay here for a while I'm sure you will see how often it is discussed.
Bryan


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> What are some of the "benefits" of hybridization as you say? I can't really think of anything hybrids would give us that the naturally occurring populations already don't have.
> One of the problems with saying that hybrids are OK as long as we document them as such is that it is still highly probable that there will be miscommunication, paperwork mistakes, tracking errors, or just plain laziness, etc. and they will be leaked into an otherwise known locality line. I don't think there is any practical way to keep hybrids separate from the rest of the established frogs in the hobby.
> I see where you are coming from in regards to reefing, but as others have pointed out, it doesn't apply as well here. In fact, in this hobby, since so many people want "pure" lines, making hybrids could increase demand for wild caught frogs that don't have mixed bloodlines.
> Don't take some of these responses personally, they may seem harsh or unwelcoming but if you stay here for a while I'm sure you will see how often it is discussed.
> Bryan


I agree, im kinda getting the vibe that no one really wants to talk about this subject anymore, which is kinda disappointing to me. I see what everyone is saying about the reef keeping analogy. I do like the feedback im getting, i dont mind harsh info. ive been in a symposium where two groups of phd researches are yelling at one another in very harsh tones. This discussion for me is awesome im learning a lot about the hobby from this thread, i hope im not pissing everyone off and making a bad name for myself. Im just really curious about this subject and the hobby in general. I find discussion 100x more stimulating to the subject then reading older posts. 

Like i said i hope im not tarnishing my reputation here, and i appreciate everyone that has added to the conversation.

As the benefits of hybridization, we will never know unless we research. I could pull assumptions out of my ass but they wouldn't be supported and wouldn't really add anything to the conversation. 

I may be in the position to run DNA sequences in the near future, i might speak with some of my professors about extraction of frog DNA and i think it would be cool to run some samples of hybrid species compared to native blood lines. i think by learning about hybridization we can have a better understanding of frog genetics that can help in the preservation of natural blood lines.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

picoreefer said:


> I agree, im kinda getting the vibe that no one really wants to talk about this subject anymore, which is kinda disappointing to me.


 
The reason your not getting a lot of responses is because this topic gets hashed and rehashed multiple times a year either by new people who actually don't understand the topic or those who are simply trolling for one reason or another... 

It's pretty clear from your comments that you haven't read the extensive threads on this topic otherwise you wouldn't have made the comparision to dogs, or suggested that there are benefits to it for the captive population. 

At the very least I would suggest reading through this thread and the citations http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/65655-hybridize-not-hybridize.html 

and you may want to familarize your self with outbreeding depression..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

picoreefer said:


> i am overly curious you could say lol. i am currently taking a genetics class and this subject really caught my interest. In all honesty i will not practice hybridization unless i have the time/ resources to quantify data.


Not trying to be mean, I just don't know any other way to say it.
The problem is that the examples you are using to ask your questions show that you don't really know what you are talking about.
No one is hybridizing corals. The designer corals are simply outstanding specimens that have been collecting from the wild and cloned over and over again.
In the case of frogs, the various tinctoris morphs for example, have developed over thousands/millions of years of evolution because of separation between the various morphs. These different morphs are prized for their uniqueness. Mixing morphs together would make them less valuable and possibly less healthy from outcross depression. Why would we go against evolution and mix them back together? 
We can keep the genetic diversity of a single morph in a healthy state simply by breeding unrelated frogs (of the same morph) together. We don't have to interbreed different morphs.

Different frog morphs are on their way to becoming different species. To bring it back to reef keeping and an animal that we actually can breed, there is no reason to breed a clarkii clown and a tomato clown together to create stronger more genetically diverse clownfish (even though they can breed together and produce fertile offspring). All we have to do is manage our breeding programs so that related fish aren't breeding too often.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> One of the problems with saying that hybrids are OK as long as we document them as such is that it is still highly probable that there will be miscommunication, paperwork mistakes, tracking errors, or just plain laziness, etc.


You left out the biggest reason for the problem is that the hobby overall has little interest in managing/tracking the populations. The tools have been available for quite awhile now through two seperate groups and the participation of the hobby has been abysmal at best. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

picoreefer said:


> Like i said i hope im not tarnishing my reputation here, and i appreciate everyone that has added to the conversation.
> 
> As the benefits of hybridization, we will never know unless we research. I could pull assumptions out of my ass but they wouldn't be supported and wouldn't really add anything to the conversation.


No tarnished rep as far as I'm concerned. Most people have asked this question in some form at some point. I don't know why, but upon first exposure to the hobby, people always ask...

1. How many frogs can I fit in a tank? 
2. How many different types of frogs can I put in a tank?
3. What would happen if I crossed that frog with that frog?

Unfortunately, the pattern on the forum goes thusly. Newbie asks innocent question about hybridizing. Newbie makes vague reference to previous threads but feels they have a different spin on it. Newbie is referred to a pile of threads that dealt with the same question/had the same spin. Newbie says they read the threads, but at best skimmed them because they contain all the same questions/responses he is still presenting. Ed cites reliable scientific data and includes references. Newbie doesn't read it, but responds anyway. Other newer members start throwing in anti-hybrid rhetoric that isn't strictly true. Newbie starts refuting these points and ignoring other data. The argument stops being about hybrids. Ed gets depressed and stops looking at the thread. I get depressed and stop looking at the thread. Everybody gets depressed and stops looking at the thread. Newbie buys and breeds whatever frogs he'd decided to breed before the post was ever created. Newbie can't sell the babies and eventually enjoys the hobby in an insular way or gets out of it.

I'm telling you, sincerely, comb through the old threads. The info is all there. After reading so many thread on the subject I am absolutely convinced that hybrids, while neither good nor evil in themselves, are bad for the hobby.

Also, please stick around. You will see this same thread started by someone else in another month.


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

phender said:


> Not trying to be mean, I just don't know any other way to say it.
> The problem is that the examples you are using to ask your questions show that you don't really know what you are talking about.
> No one is hybridizing corals. The designer corals are simply outstanding specimens that have been collecting from the wild and cloned over and over again.
> In the case of frogs, the various tinctoris morphs for example, have developed over thousands/millions of years of evolution because of separation between the various morphs. These different morphs are prized for their uniqueness. Mixing morphs together would make them less valuable and possibly less healthy from outcross depression. Why would we go against evolution and mix them back together?
> ...


Corals evolve in a completely different manner then frogs, and they do hybridize in captivity. i agree coral speciation/morph are different then frogs, as i stated before, it was a bad example. 

Your point about breeding practices is well taken, instead of homogenizing gene pools you are saying we can keep genetic diversity while retaining natural genetic flow through proper breeding practices. i guess my previous statement about the improved vitality of hybrids is not completely warranted.I also now realize how dangerous a hybrid can be due to almost identical phenotypes in frogs and the tainting of natural bloodlines. We are selectively breeding for vitality no matter what but we can also selectively breed for purity. I guess in my ignorance i had these concepts mutually exclusive. That makes a lot more sense to me now.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

picoreefer said:


> Corals evolve in a completely different manner then frogs, and they do hybridize in captivity.


Really? Do you have any documented evidence for this?? Very few corals have been reproduced successfully in captivity.. How are those reporting the incidence determining that the resulting planula are actually the result of a hybridization event instead of asexually produced planula? 




picoreefer said:


> Your point about breeding practices is well taken, instead of homogenizing gene pools you are saying we can keep genetic diversity while retaining natural genetic flow through proper breeding practices. i guess my previous statement about the improved vitality of hybrids is not completely warranted.


It is clear from this that you didn't follow up on my suggestion to check out outbreeding depression... since this statement makes it pretty clear that you still don't understand the topic. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

Ed said:


> Really? Do you have any documented evidence for this?? Very few corals have been reproduced successfully in captivity.. How are those reporting the incidence determining that the resulting planula are actually the result of a hybridization event instead of asexually produced planula?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


let me correct my statement, the zooxanthellae hybridize in captive corals


i did check out outbreed/ inbreed depression, i dont think its probable that every hybridization will result in outbreed depression. isnt it much more plausible for frogs to show signs of inbreed depression due to the nature of current breeding practices? both trends are logarithmic and it seems most keepers preference is toward inbreeding.


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

I'm depressed, I'm going to stop looking at this thread.

D


----------



## Cfrog (Oct 28, 2011)

Lets put it in simple terms....We love our frogs. They are not "data", or experiments to be conducted. They are small creature that look to us to properly care for them. We are continually trying to educate ourselves for the benefit of the frogs. 

They are here, wonderful and exciting lil creatures, why do you want to try to play God? Either enjoy them for what they are or go find something that has no feeling to hybridize.


What really irritates me (and maybe more than a few on DB) is not so much the questions like, can't i mix to have pretty colors in the tank? You came right out with spoken intentions of hybridizing. :l


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Dendroguy said:


> I'm depressed, I'm going to stop looking at this thread.
> 
> D


Uh oh, have you been outbreeding?


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

rain dart said:


> Lets put it in simple terms....We love our frogs. They are not "data", or experiments to be conducted. They are small creature that look to us to properly care for them. We are continually trying to educate ourselves for the benefit of the frogs.
> 
> They are here, wonderful and exciting lil creatures, why do you want to try to play God? Either enjoy them for what they are or go find something that has no feeling to hybridize.
> 
> ...


i honestly dont think i will get into hybridizing mainly because unless you have equipment to quantify your data there is not really a point. As far as humans playing god i dont really want to get into that discussion or how frogs can get hurt feeling from being hybridized.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

picoreefer said:


> i honestly dont think i will get into hybridizing mainly because unless you have equipment to quantify your data there is not really a point. As far as humans playing god i dont really want to get into that discussion or how frogs can get hurt feeling from being hybridized.


There is a chasm of difference between I don't think I'll hybridize and I will never hybridize.


----------



## winstonamc (Mar 19, 2007)

I was also shocked when I first got started by how violently political this community can get about the issue. But, If you aren't satisfied with the answers available in the slew of threads on this topic, particularly as a newbie, why don't you go buy some leopard geckos and mad scientist the night away, not sure what you can't learn there that you could here, except that here you have the luxury of relatively undiluted gene pools. You might find it weird that people are so adamant about this, but above and beyond the scientific justifications, there is a very compelling one. I don't know if you've heard of the tragedy of the commons, but basically if you have a public land where everyone can go and put their cattle to graze, given human nature, everyone is going to put more than is sustainable at the macro level and externalize the costs and the public land becomes dead land. Indeed, if I decide I will only graze 5 cattle, well shit I can't compete with tom dick and harry who are rolling in with a hundred each. That's the tragedy of the unregulated free market *cough* commons. One of the ways to "save the commons" is by community consensus, self-regulation. Show me any other real sub-hobby in herp keeping that has maintained the genetic integrity and locale information the way we have. I'll be whittling my spoon while I'm waiting. The point is that, if you aren't compelled by most of the rationales put forward, be compelled with how (relatively speaking) good a job we do at maintaining these populations. Perhaps one could say there's no real merit to that, but that's besides the point, its a constitutive part of what this hobby is by now. Like it or not you gotta admit its impressive vis-a-vis so many other hobbies with robust captive breeding. So there you go, this is a hobby that is a community, its part of what we are (with a ton of reasoning to back it up) to be this way, its fundamental to the hobby. In other words, you want to hybridize go for it but if you want to do anything other than keep the offspring or euthanize them in private, you're doing violence to the community and everything the community's done


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

The purpose of this thread was to learn more about frog genetics not to condone hybridization. i feel by asking questions you guys assume i will try to hybridize frogs. To be honest i will be content to even keep frogs successfully. Again the purpose of the thread was not to tarnish my reputation here i just had a question. i hope members of this forum will not look down upon a newcomer because he asked a question that had been asked prior. Ideas cease to flow if no one questions the accepted, i just wanted to have a discussion is all. I enjoy talking about science and thought it would be cool to tie in what im studying to a new found hobby. i didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

picoreefer said:


> The purpose of this thread was to learn more about frog genetics not to condone hybridization. i feel by asking questions you guys assume i will try to hybridize frogs. To be honest i will be content to even keep frogs successfully. Again the purpose of the thread was not to tarnish my reputation here i just had a question. i hope members of this forum will not look down upon a newcomer because he asked a question that had been asked prior. Ideas cease to flow if no one questions the accepted, i just wanted to have a discussion is all. I enjoy talking about science and thought it would be cool to tie in what im studying to a new found hobby. i didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.


None of us tarnished your reputation. You chose to ignore all the postings about researching the topic and reading up before posting about it. None of us tarnished your reputation. You chose to defend hybridization.


----------



## winstonamc (Mar 19, 2007)

picoreefer said:


> The purpose of this thread was to learn more about frog genetics not to condone hybridization. i feel by asking questions you guys assume i will try to hybridize frogs. To be honest i will be content to even keep frogs successfully. Again the purpose of the thread was not to tarnish my reputation here i just had a question. i hope members of this forum will not look down upon a newcomer because he asked a question that had been asked prior. Ideas cease to flow if no one questions the accepted, i just wanted to have a discussion is all. I enjoy talking about science and thought it would be cool to tie in what im studying to a new found hobby. i didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.


Fair enough, and I agree that you shouldn't have a tarnished reputation. Reputations should be tarnished because of actual trespass not inquiry. And perhaps there's no way for a newbie to know that this is a hot button issue before posting as most first posts aren't prefaced by doing thread searches. But, there's no shortage of technical, scientific discourse about this on here. Maybe there should be some tagged threads in the beginner section so people will see it early.


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

winstonamc said:


> Fair enough, and I agree that you shouldn't have a tarnished reputation. Reputations should be tarnished because of actual trespass not inquiry. And perhaps there's no way for a newbie to know that this is a hot button issue before posting as most first posts aren't prefaced by doing thread searches. But, there's no shortage of technical, scientific discourse about this on here. Maybe there should be some tagged threads in the beginner section so people will see it early.


Yes i do realize that i could have spent hours sifting through threads to find info, but most information i came across looked liked government popaganda as if hybridization will end the earth and no ones allowed to bring it up. I also have a new found respect for the hobby, i agree with you that it is crazy that people can have such good husbandry practices in a single hobby. There are a ton of people that botch saltwater tanks and it seems like there is very little here which is awesome in my opinion. Again i appreciate those who had constructive things to say. Hope i didn't aggravate the board to my demise, I plan to be an active member here


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

Little to no good (might get a visually appealing hybrid but thats besides the point) will ever come from hybridizing two PDF species. There's no further way to simplify the matter.


----------



## winstonamc (Mar 19, 2007)

picoreefer said:


> Yes i do realize that i could have spent hours sifting through threads to find info, but most information i came across looked liked government popaganda as if hybridization will end the earth and no ones allowed to bring it up. I also have a new found respect for the hobby, i agree with you that it is crazy that people can have such good husbandry practices in a single hobby. There are a ton of people that botch saltwater tanks and it seems like there is very little here which is awesome in my opinion. Again i appreciate those who had constructive things to say. Hope i didn't aggravate the board to my demise, I plan to be an active member here


I'm sure you'll be fine. My point was that you wouldn't have the impressive character of the hobby without this belief and you wouldn't have this belief without the impressive character of the hobby


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

winstonamc said:


> I'm sure you'll be fine. My point was that you wouldn't have the impressive character of the hobby without this belief and you wouldn't have this belief without the impressive character of the hobby


which i think is awesome, i really like nature and this hobby seems really adamant about the preservation of native species. Which is kinda the opposite of reef keeping where the entire industry is turning reefs into chop shops


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

picoreefer said:


> let me correct my statement, the zooxanthellae hybridize in captive corals


Again, really? Do you have a reference for that? I've been away from the reef community for a few years but the last I've heard on it, doesn't support that position (and in fact analysis of wild populations doesn't support it.. see for example http://www.auburn.edu/~santosr/pdf/Takabaetal2004JPhycol.pdf)..... 



picoreefer said:


> i did check out outbreed/ inbreed depression, i dont think its probable that every hybridization will result in outbreed depression. isnt it much more plausible for frogs to show signs of inbreed depression due to the nature of current breeding practices? both trends are logarithmic and it seems most keepers preference is toward inbreeding.


I'm guessing you missed this article (which I've actually repeatedly cited in those threads.. comparing the risks... http://dornsife.usc.edu/labs/edmands/documents/Edmands_2007.pdf 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

picoreefer said:


> For continuity please keep nonconstructive comments to yourself.


This is a public forum and you do not get to pick and choose who chooses to answer. 



picoreefer said:


> I have read through a couple of threads on why hybridization is so bad but i cant seem to justify being so against it. It seems like the overwhelming consensus is that hybridization is bad, i just don't understand why. I understand the need to preserve the lineages and blood lines found in the wild and that it is unnatural for certain from morphs to breed. But as long as recorded hybrid lineages are documented i see no problem it. It is also unnatural for frogs to live in a box in someones house, unnatural to me does not equate to wrong in my opinion. It seems like there is a fear of over hybridization and the degradation of natural bloodlines, i do feel it is important to conserve native species and morphs. But hybridization in a scientific manner seems really beneficial to me. I come from a reef background and i can tell you first hand "unnatural" corals are the single best thing that has happened to the hobby. The biggest reason is it lessens demand on natural corals, if no one wants the natural morph of an acropora, they want the new super purple monster people eater, people are less inclined to harvest natural acropora morphs. Another reason is we can selectively breed for other traits to help the captive population such as disease resistance, feeding behavior and vitality. I realize by opening Pandora's box of hybridization we also can go in a negative direction by breeding frogs that solely look cool instead of more important traits. I just feel like there is this huge unexplored aspect of the hobby that cant help captive and wild frogs. I also feel like the information is echoed so many time new comers like me are almost brain washed into thinking hybrids are the plague of the hobby "reefer madness" if you will.
> 
> My point of this thread is not to start a flame war i just am interested in this taboo and want to hear what everyone thinks and why. Discussion is good and id like to hear what people think about this subject. I realize that some people see this as beating a dead horse, but i feel evolution of husbandry is what ultimately leads to a sustainable and stimulating hobby.


Wow, really? I owned and operated Colorado Coral Farms for over 10 years. I propagated, grew, and distributed thousands of live corals throughout the US. Yes, corals have reproduced sexually in captivity. I would love to see documented proof of fully captive "born" hybrids. I don't believe it's ever been done. Even just plain old fashioned sexual reproduction is EXTREMELY rare. Virtually all captive corals are fragmented. For those who don't know, we take cuttings, like a plant.
"the new super purple monster people eater"
Are you seriously suggesting that these have crossed in captivity, or are you showing your ignorance of the subject?
The Purple Monster is an Acropora species offered by Steve Tyree for many years. It was WILD COLLECTED from the Solomon Islands in 1995. It was collected FROM THE WILD and is, in fact, a natural morph. Just because it is rare, does NOT mean it is not natural. Steve Tyree has stated that the vast majority of supposed "Purple Monsters" in captivity are not the original. The original has some very unique qualities and Steve says that most photos he has seen, were counterfeit, cheap imposters. Veron (author of Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific), was unable to put a definitive identification on this beautiful animal, though he thought it MIGHT be Acropora Valida. 
The "People Eater" that you mention is a name used on many Palythoa button corals. The original People Eater was the Purple People Eater Palythoa. It was discovered by Blane Perun in 2001. It is a "natural" morph, too.
Palythoa and Acropora are so incredibly far apart and different that the thought that these could happen to cross in captivity, is utterly ridiculous. 
Later, you try and say that you meant to say that you meant zooxanthellae can create hybrids. First off, zooxanthellae are an algae. Not an animal. First you are trying to compare wild type frogs with domesticated dogs. Not going to happen. So from there you think that comparing a single celled plant with frogs will fly? I don't think so. Further, I am going to have to drop the BS hammer. You were CLEARLY talking about corals hybridizing. You even put forth a proposed (non-existent) coral. Remember? Hybrid corals? Everybody wants the unnatural corals. Ringing a bell yet? You told us that reefkeepers did not want natural corals, they wanted your supposed "Super" corals. I don't think you could have been much clearer so please don't insult our intelligence with the claims that you did not mean corals, you meant algae.
But that is wrong, too. I will apologize if you can provide proof otherwise, but I don't believe there is any proof of zooxanthellae hybridizing in captivity. Now I'll admit that the science behind this was not my area of specialty as a hands on coral farmer, and I've been away for a few years, but I don't believe that to be true at all. I believe there are 6 identified phenotypes of zooxanthellae algae. There can be different types of zooxanthellae in the same tank, and even in the same coral, but I have never seen proof of crossbreeding. 
The different types of zooxanthellae are not yet fully understood, but it is thought that they may perform better or worse, depending on many things, such as temperature, salinity level, lighting, etc. It is an often seen, and well documented fact, that corals can expel excess zooxanthellae. It has been surmised that a coral may purposely expel and inefficient zooxanthellae, to try to capture and harbor a more efficient type. It may also be "making room" for a new species it has picked up from another coral in the tank. It may be harboring several types of zooxanthellae for it's best chances of survival. This is still a far cry from hybridizing of any species.
Now let's step back and look at why I'm pulling this apart. You are asking for a serious discussion, am I right? A serious discussion on this very subject can, and has, happened. But you cannot barge in here with no knowledge of the subject, *prove* that you have no knowledge of the subject when you toss out all this crap about other crossbreeds, and then demand a serious discussion. If you want a serious discussion, school yourself and come back with some serious knowledge. Stop spouting out examples you have obviously pulled out of your head. (I chose that word carefully, Scott!) When you make up your facts, somebody here is going to call you on it.


----------



## easternversant (Sep 4, 2012)

I'm not really sure why you would want to hybridize considering the extreme diversity of appearances of the frogs readily available in the pet trade.

But hey, that is just my opinion.


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

Ed said:


> Again, really? Do you have a reference for that? I've been away from the reef community for a few years but the last I've heard on it, doesn't support that position (and in fact analysis of wild populations doesn't support it.. see for example http://www.auburn.edu/~santosr/pdf/Takabaetal2004JPhycol.pdf).....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i did actually miss that article, i tried to open another one but it only let me view the abstract

There are a lot of articles about symbiodinium recently due to the coral bleaching, as well as some reefer articles about color mutations and what not, they are not peer reviewed but are not negligible. 

The study you linked examined highly conserved mitochondrial DNA to determine cladistics.... ?


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

Pumilo said:


> This is a public forum and you do not get to pick and choose who chooses to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 wow man, i pulled a stereotypical fad coral name out of the air guess it was a good one lol, i did make a mistake in saying that corals hybridize, i wasn't claiming algae are animals, that is quite a deduction. I have taken invertebrate zoology classes... i am sorry if my mistake has offended your intelligence. There is evidence supporting the theory that zooxanthellae share genetic information.


----------



## theroc1217 (Jun 5, 2012)

The only reason that Orchid hybridizing works is because people keep track of the lineages of each plant, and must have the plant judged with paperwork documenting the lineages to file it as an official hybrid. 

A similar process could be proposed for frogs, but since orchids breed only in captivity when they are meant to, frogs could accidentally breed and then their babies are seen as unbuyable. With an orchid you can just toss it out, but they're not alive in the same way frogs are.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

picoreefer said:


> The study you linked examined highly conserved mitochondrial DNA to determine cladistics.... ?


Okay, now I'm firmly convinced that you don't know what you are talking about.. the paper also revied the conserved mtDNA in light of the other studies and one of the important conclusions was and I quote right from the abstract 


> *Taken together, the relationships between the major *​​​​*Symbiodinium **clades **are robust, and there appears to be no evidence of hybridization or differential introgression of nuclear and plastid genomes between clades*.​




and from further on in the article..


> *Phylogenies based on nuclear and organellar DNA sequences for a group of taxa are likely to be incongruent if cross-hybridization events have occurred, with differential introgression of nuclear and organellar **genomes (Arnold 1992). The agreement in phylogenetic relationships among **Symbiodinium **clades inferred **from nuclear, chloroplast and mitochondrial genes suggests no significant hybridization events since the clades diverged*.


 

Some how you missed those points in the article... If they hybridize as you claim, there would be evidence of it... so far you have provided absolutely no proof.. and claiming that you know the difference since you took invertebrate zoology doesn't demonstrate any level of expertise since you first "confused" corals with zooxanthellae .... And when called out on repeated statements of misinformation, instead of ceasing from repeating the misinformation, you throw an insult at Doug, who is pretty well respected on here and other forums. 

You may want to stop power shoving your foot down your own throat... 

Earlier you were worried about tarnishing your reputation, and I can say with a fairly good level of assurance, that you are doing a good job of tarnishing it.... and yes there are people on here who will hold it against you, including possibly refusing to sell or trade you frogs. 

If you want to learn that is one thing.. if you want to toss out BS as fact be prepared to be called out on it.... 

Some comments 

Ed​


----------



## picoreefer (Oct 17, 2012)

This is has ceded to be productive in any manner, im done trying to argue.


----------



## MosquitoCoast (Nov 16, 2009)

Did anyone ever warn you not to drink and post?

"deliberate sequestration of gene pools...". Really??? Are you trying to impress us with your fancy, highfalutin edu-ma-kashun? 

If I didn't know better I would swear that you're trying to run past us a major argument in your Genetics 101 midterm paper, just to get our reaction.


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

picoreefer said:


> wow man, i pulled a stereotypical fad coral name out of the air guess it was a good one lol, i did make a mistake in saying that corals hybridize, i wasn't claiming algae are animals, that is quite a deduction. I have taken invertebrate zoology classes... i am sorry if my mistake has offended your intelligence. There is evidence supporting the theory that zooxanthellae share genetic information.


You just don't get it. Allow me to simplify. The fact that pulled a stereotypical fad coral name out of the air, the fact that you thought it through far enough to actually invent a name for it, is *PROOF* that you absolutely meant corals! 
Your mistake did not offend my intelligence. You, expecting anyone to believe it was an honest mistake, is what offends my intelligence. Especially when you later argued the point, again insisting that you were talking about corals. Remember this?


picoreefer said:


> Corals evolve in a completely different manner then frogs, and they do hybridize in captivity.


As far as hybrid zooxanthellae go, I gave you an written invitation to put the proof on the table. I'm afraid I must renege on my promise of a public apology, as it is hard to consider, "Is too!", scientific proof. You don't have a magazine article? No, "The guy at the fish store said so!". Just, "There is evidence"? Where is it?
By the way, your little cover up story is full of holes, too. You are backpedaling further and further from what you originally said. We all know what you originally claimed. Now in your cover up story, apparently you meant it, but you somehow meant a single celled algae rather than a coral. OK, let's look at that. You said they *hybridize in captivity.* You have failed to provide any proof. Instead, you have back-stepped even further, now only claiming that they share genetic information. Even if you could supply proof of that, what does it have to do with hybridizing in captivity? That's not what you said. It's not even what you _claimed_ that you said.


----------



## drutt (Oct 4, 2011)

kthehun89 said:


> Seriously we should all bet on the next pointless hybridization thread comes up. It pisses me off that I can't get comments on my freaking tank threads but these blow up...
> 
> sigh


I agree, nobody give me any advice or suggestions on my freaking tank...


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

picoreefer said:


> This is has ceded to be productive in any manner, im done trying to argue.


Why are you arguing?


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

picoreefer said:


> Another reason is we can selectively breed for other traits to help the captive population such as disease resistance, feeding behavior and vitality.


I promised myself I wouldn't look at this thread again, but this gets under my skin. Why would you want to selectively breed for disease resistance, feeding behavior or vitality? Until people want an obese, immortal frog that's pumping out eggs every other five minutes this probably isn't going to catch on, also, this hobby isn't about low quality mass production (I'm looking at you reptile hobby) its about experiencing the intricate courting, feeding, and parental care that 4 *BILLION* years of evolution has produced. 

D


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

Wow, that was a fun 30 minute read. I knew I shoulda popped some P'corn. It kinda died out early though. **OK everyone, shows over, you can go home now**


----------



## VicSkimmr (Jan 24, 2006)

seems relevant


----------



## kthehun89 (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm gonna be sad/laugh my face off if this turns into a heated case of internet bullying.


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

VicSkimmr said:


> seems relevant


More relevant...










D


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

While an attempt at humor is often appreciated, I have to ask, now who is being a troll? 

Some comments 


Ed


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

None. Unless picoreefer is, which I highly doubt.

D


----------



## VicSkimmr (Jan 24, 2006)

Ed said:


> While an attempt at humor is often appreciated, I have to ask, now who is being a troll?
> 
> Ed


:raises hand:

It's not like this thread is headed or ever had a chance of heading anywhere productive, we might as well inject a little humor.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Except the thread had pretty much ended until this attempt to resurrect it happened through beating a dead body.... 
Necromancy is one thing, necrophilia is another...... 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## jdogfunk99 (Oct 16, 2007)

picoreefer said:


> I am just getting myself familiar with the hobby and one aspect does not make sense to me. Why is hybridization looked down upon, as an upcoming marine biologist i don't understand why there is such a deliberate sequestration of gene pools by preventing morphs inter breeding. Genetic diversity is a good thing,look at the domestication of dogs. One species was selectively bred much like frogs to produce morphs or breeds if you will, if we keep conserving these genes the pool will become smaller and smaller and in my opinion degrade the health of the organism. Look at labs for example, there is a higher chance of a pure bred lab developing hip problems compared to a lab mix or mutt. i do realize dogs have been domesticated much longer then frogs have been selectively bred but the premise is the same. Is it to keep morphs line from becoming tainted? I don't advocate the wild capture of any pet traded organism but by limiting gene pools aren't we degrading the captive bred population. Hopefully someone with more experience can enlighten me, im sorry if i sound naive or ignorant.


I appreciate your thoughtful, scientific, and logical approach to this question. The analogy to dogs is interesting.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jdogfunk99 said:


> The analogy to dogs is interesting.


 
It would be more interesting if it was an appropriate analogy. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Ed said:


> It would be more interesting if it was an appropriate analogy.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


I have been thinking, and will probably be condemned by both sides. I have re-read this thread twice, and you know what? You guys are being rather mean. Yes, this kid is being a clown--he is a kid. There's a kid who takes a second lit class and thinks he is an expert on lit theory; there's a kid who takes a sociology class and thinks he's figured out society; there's a kid who takes two science classes and thinks he's a Big Bang theory genius. Yes, it is foolish. It's called being 19. 

As to the quote--of course it is not a valid analogy--but it is a question, not a statement. Let me ask a question: Is every question you guys asked when you were between 17-24 an intelligent, well-considered one? Would you have appreciated it if any of your teachers addressed you in this manner? 

Let me reiterate--this kid is a just that, a kid. Probably a bit overwhelmed by these concepts and abstractions--and their real-world implications. But as an educator, I can tell you, you guys are coming real close to bullying.

Now you may say, "We are not professional teachers or counselors, we are not in any way obligated to be patient or polite." True--but I am not obligated to consider you nice people. (And please, do not re-write the thread; you guys started piling on before he started being silly.) 

You want to harangue someone? Go lecture the Georgia congressman who doesn't believe in evolution. Go talk down to Senator Inhofe (R-OK) who mocks climate science. And by all means, go lecture the guys who made "fantasy" frogs. Oh, you may be right--but in each case, they would tell you to go &$#@! yourselves. And I just don't believe any of you would be so tough and domineering in person. 

As for the OP: At the risk of sounding condescending, yes, you are obligated to do research when you are asked to do so. Had you done your research and been better prepared, you would have had more solid ground to stand on. This applies to any field--you want professionals to be courteous to you, show respect for their profession. 

There's my ethics lecture for the day.


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

The thread was dead for almost two months. If the "kid" was offended, he probably got over it by now.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> I have been thinking, and will probably be condemned by both sides. I have re-read this thread twice, and you know what? You guys are being rather mean. Yes, this kid is being a clown--he is a kid. There's a kid who takes a second lit class and thinks he is an expert on lit theory; there's a kid who takes a sociology class and thinks he's figured out society; there's a kid who takes two science classes and thinks he's a Big Bang theory genius. Yes, it is foolish. It's called being 19.


So because a person is 19, it excuses bad behaviors? They are supposed to be considered a legal adult and are considered to be responsible enough for thier actions as exemplified by the fact that they can vote, join the military... etc... So to simply attempt to excuse the actions on the base of being 19 doesn't really fly... 

In addition, the purported analogy to dogs has been refuted repeatedly on this forum in these exact threads on hybridization... and it was suggested by more than one person that he may want to familirize themselves with the abundent body of discussion on this forum..... and in his second post in the thread, he said he had been reading threads on hybridization...


He came in with an attitude attempted to dazzle with misinformation, was caught out on it and was unapologetic about it throughout the entire thread so again, an attempt to excuse it based on age is falling flat to me... 



Groundhog said:


> As to the quote--of course it is not a valid analogy--but it is a question, not a statement. Let me ask a question: Is every question you guys asked when you were between 17-24 an intelligent, well-considered one? Would you have appreciated it if any of your teachers addressed you in this manner?


This would be better asked as "would we have at best presented misinformation as an attempt to BS a teacher or at worst directly lied about information to BS a teacher"? The answer is no (at least for me)....

In addition, if you look at his first post, it is brought up there and isn't addressed as a question... It was used as a direct comparision.. 



Groundhog said:


> Now you may say, "We are not professional teachers or counselors, we are not in any way obligated to be patient or polite." True--but I am not obligated to consider you nice people. (And please, do not re-write the thread; you guys started piling on before he started being silly.)


Actually I didn't come into the thread with a pile on attitude.. In my usual manner I provided some suggestions for him to check out and I moved on (see post number 23) so to pull my last comment that dogs make a poor analogy as a supposed demonstration of "bullying" isn't apt either... 



Groundhog said:


> . And I just don't believe any of you would be so tough and domineering in person.


If your going to try and blatently lie to me about a subject in which I'm fairly well versed, I'll have no problems telling you where your wrong...in person or on the net... and if you give me an attitude after I indicate some things you should check out then I'm going to be very blunt and direct. I tend to try and be polite when I start a discussion but if your going to make up crud, then I'm going to call you out on it and I'm going to be extremely blunt about my opinion. If you want to call bluntness bullying then we're going to disagree about it..... 



Groundhog said:


> There's my ethics lecture for the day.


Ethics or bullying on your part? You're clearly labeling people with a negative sterotype and chastising them.... Fine line..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

1) First Ed, let me reiterate that I never disputed the thrust of your argument(s);
2) I guess we have a different take on the OP's intent; you see lying, I see silliness--fair enough;
3) It's just I have seen too many times when an enthusiastic, if misinformed, student gets shot down by a professor. I am just not sure what, if any, educational function that serves;
4) Please recall though, I did tell the OP that, like any student, he is obligated to do his homework!
5) As for bullying: I do not dispute that if Congressman Broun (R-GA) wanted to dis you about evolution, or the Koch brothers wanted to do so on climate science, that you would let em have it. Somehow, I don't see these people confronting you, Ed;
6) But I maintain that sometimes there is an impatience, an inflexibility to to the tone here. Look, I wanted to throttle the clown who asked about crested geckos and darts, only to keep coming back with, "But what if I...?" I think I get it. But for me, I cannot help but see the territoriality and propriety. When we live in a world where a doctor can and does talk like this to a successful (but idiot) patient, I will accept it. When teachers can and do tell parents, "Your kids problem is that he has you for parents," I will accept it. Somehow, I do not see these occurring anytime soon...

I think we all should try to be a little bit more polite and little bit more patient. I know I do, and sometimes fail. But it will keep lines of communication open.


----------



## ICS523 (Mar 10, 2012)

JPccusa said:


> AMEN!
> 
> Everyone jumps in to share their $0.02 on well discussed "can of worms" topics while people with questions/searching for opinion/feedback/encouragement are ignored. What does this tell about our swarm (many times with the intention to sting) and sadistic ("get the popcorn") behaviors?
> 
> Off my soap box.


I'm ignoring other people right now, I came on to see some vivariums, now I'm looking at your post stating why I shouldn't be looking at your post... 

Why don't the ops just sticky a why you shouldn't hybridize thread.
that way people could get answers without starting new can O worms type threads.


----------



## curlykid (Jan 28, 2011)

I don't mean to echo other people on this thread, but the reason why no one wants to hybridize is because it's just not natural. Sure, in the reefing hobby, Blue Harbor shows up with some kind of deepwater hybrid angel every week, because they're naturally found in the wild. With dart frogs, all these different colors and sizes are a result of geographic isolation, and different localities do not ever meet up in the wild, aside from human interference. Sure, you can create whatever designer frog you want, no one will buy them though. And welcome picoreefer! I recognize your name from one of the reefing forums.


----------



## Caden (Jan 9, 2010)

Groundhog said:


> I have been thinking, and will probably be condemned by both sides. I have re-read this thread twice, and you know what? You guys are being rather mean. Yes, this kid is being a clown--he is a kid. There's a kid who takes a second lit class and thinks he is an expert on lit theory; there's a kid who takes a sociology class and thinks he's figured out society; there's a kid who takes two science classes and thinks he's a Big Bang theory genius. Yes, it is foolish. It's called being 19.
> 
> As to the quote--of course it is not a valid analogy--but it is a question, not a statement. Let me ask a question: Is every question you guys asked when you were between 17-24 an intelligent, well-considered one? Would you have appreciated it if any of your teachers addressed you in this manner?
> 
> ...


Why did you resurrect this thread?


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

I've known teenagers on this board (YOUNG teenagers) that were more intelligent than 90% of the members here - AND they carried themselves like adults.

Age is not an excuse.

s


Groundhog said:


> ... Let me reiterate--this kid is a just that, a kid. Probably a bit overwhelmed by these concepts and abstractions--and their real-world implications. But as an educator, I can tell you, you guys are coming real close to bullying.


----------



## Trey (Sep 10, 2008)

picoreefer said:


> I have read through a couple of threads on why hybridization is so bad but i cant seem to justify being so against it. It seems like the overwhelming consensus is that hybridization is bad, i just don't understand why. I understand the need to preserve the lineages and blood lines found in the wild and that it is unnatural for certain from morphs to breed. But as long as recorded hybrid lineages are documented i see no problem it. It is also unnatural for frogs to live in a box in someones house, unnatural to me does not equate to wrong in my opinion. It seems like there is a fear of over hybridization and the degradation of natural bloodlines, i do feel it is important to conserve native species and morphs. But hybridization in a scientific manner seems really beneficial to me. I come from a reef background and i can tell you first hand "unnatural" corals are the single best thing that has happened to the hobby. The biggest reason is it lessens demand on natural corals, if no one wants the natural morph of an acropora, they want the new super purple monster people eater, people are less inclined to harvest natural acropora morphs. Another reason is we can selectively breed for other traits to help the captive population such as disease resistance, feeding behavior and vitality. I realize by opening Pandora's box of hybridization we also can go in a negative direction by breeding frogs that solely look cool instead of more important traits. I just feel like there is this huge unexplored aspect of the hobby that cant help captive and wild frogs. I also feel like the information is echoed so many time new comers like me are almost brain washed into thinking hybrids are the plague of the hobby "reefer madness" if you will.
> 
> My point of this thread is not to start a flame war i just am interested in this taboo and want to hear what everyone thinks and why. Discussion is good and id like to hear what people think about this subject. I realize that some people see this as beating a dead horse, but i feel evolution of husbandry is what ultimately leads to a sustainable and stimulating hobby.


LoL I didnt bother to read your thread any further after this, but Purple Moster ( and just about every other coral in the hobby) is a naturally harvested coral that has been aquacultured through fragmentation. It is not a hybrid nor was it designed in a tank or crossbred. Please sir, educate yourself before you attempt to make a point about anything. Especially a topic as sensitive as this one.



EDIT: I didnt realize this thread was dead, should prob. be locked


----------



## OSU (Nov 10, 2008)

Regarding the argument on inbreeding. There are not a whole lot of examples of inbreeding depression occurring in natural populations. There are also plenty of herp species that have started from very small captive populations and "inbreed" for a long time and are still viable. In wild populations that are small and isolated inbreeding may have little or no effect on fitness because deleterious alleles may have already been purged from the population. Finally mutations seen in captive breed populations may be the result of nutritional deficiencies and not genetics.
Just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

OSU said:


> Regarding the argument on inbreeding. There are not a whole lot of examples of inbreeding depression occurring in natural populations. There are also plenty of herp species that have started from very small captive populations and "inbreed" for a long time and are still viable. In wild populations that are small and isolated inbreeding may have little or no effect on fitness because deleterious alleles may have already been purged from the population. Finally mutations seen in captive breed populations may be the result of nutritional deficiencies and not genetics.
> Just something to keep in mind.


Actually there are a surprising number of studies on/in natural populations. That is an expanding body of literature due to populations becoming isolated due to destruction of the connecting areas of habitat and that the risk of inbreeding on populations is underestimated...see for example ScienceDirect.com - Biological Conservation - Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations 

http://parkinson.cos.ucf.edu/Courses/PCB5556C/pdf/Madsen_96.pdf


With respect to the claims of reptiles tolerating inbreeding better this ignores a number of anecodtal examples to the contrary... for example, the original blood corns, sock head greybands to name two.... It also further lacks evidence since the hobby doesn't track any signs of potential signs of inbreeding along with any form of analysis to document degrees of relatedness (and the potential impact that laundered or smuggled animals may have contributed to supplying new genetics). .. Given that it happens in small wild populations of reptiles... I think your a little premature to argue that it doesn't occur in captivity..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## OSU (Nov 10, 2008)

Maybe I was not clear so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I meant there are few studies that showed within a population that heterozygosity affected an individuals fitness or that a population subjected to a loss of heterozygosity had lower fitness after a bottleneck than before. The example you provided is not very convincing in my opinion and you can not demonstrate inbreeding depression by comparing two isolated populations. The environment could be cause or the allee efffect etc.

I also did not state that reptiles where more resistant to inbreeding than any other group, nor did I mean to imply that inbreeding did not occur in captive populations. I was just stating that there are captive animals that originated from a small number of founders and are still viable many generations later. 

cheers


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

OSU said:


> Maybe I was not clear so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I meant there are few studies that showed within a population that heterozygosity affected an individuals fitness or that a population subjected to a loss of heterozygosity had lower fitness after a bottleneck than before.


No, you were quite clear with making a generic anecdotal blanket statement... 

Actually there are a whole lot of studies that show that a population has lost fitness after a bottlenecking event..both in and out of captivity... due to loss of genetic variation.. I'm not sure where your getting your information but it's not correct... for an example see http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/joaquina/BOXES_CCAA/INCREMENTO_F%20-CARTAS/Reed_Frankham_2003.pdf 




OSU said:


> The example you provided is not very convincing in my opinion and you can not demonstrate inbreeding depression by comparing two isolated populations. The environment could be cause or the allee efffect etc.


Actually again, you can demonstrate inbreeding depression by comparing two populations... and the paper I cited is pretty clear example of it....... 
Although now, it is often demonstrated through loss of diversity of say major histocompatability complex genes... There is a lot of literature that you seem to have missed somehow..... 




OSU said:


> I also did not state that reptiles where more resistant to inbreeding than any other group, nor did I mean to imply that inbreeding did not occur in captive populations. I was just stating that there are captive animals that originated from a small number of founders and are still viable many generations later.


In your earlier post, you didn't explicitly state it but you quite clearly implicitly stated it so attempting to deny that is what you said is flat out incorrect particularly when you reinforce the statement... For some reason you are (implicitly) equating viability as proof that there is no evidence of inbreeding depression... this is a significant error..... You may want to review the peer reviewed literature.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

OSU said:


> Regarding the argument on inbreeding. There are not a whole lot of examples of inbreeding depression occurring in natural populations. There are also plenty of herp species that have started from very small captive populations and "inbreed" for a long time and are still viable. In wild populations that are small and isolated inbreeding may have little or no effect on fitness because deleterious alleles may have already been purged from the population. Finally mutations seen in captive breed populations may be the result of nutritional deficiencies and not genetics.
> Just something to keep in mind.


I am going to attempt to play "good cop" here (no offense, Ed

1) There are, in fact, examples of inbreeding depression, and theoretical papers on bottlenecks. Ever watch a documentary on cheetahs? It has been hypothesized that, in some cases, bottlenecking can be a precursor to an extinction event (but by no means the only, or even a necessary cause--dodo birds did not die out because of inbreeding depression). And there are certainly several examples of inbreeding depression among **** sapiens! Are you simply stating the fact that it is not an overwhelmingly common phenomenon? 
2) While inbreeding depression is defined _sensu stricto _as reduced viability, I think it is important to point out that inbreeding can have other deleterious consequences; just think of various dog breeds and their associated serious health issues (which of course, then lead to inbreeding depression). Well, it does seem we are beginning to see some problems in various line bred herps. (I myself am curious about leopard geckos and bearded dragons.) 
3) "Mutations...may be the result of nutritional deficiencies." Mutations are genetic. Are you talking about phenotypic changes, or are you suggesting that incomplete nutrition can have mutagenic--as opposed to health--effects? Seriously, is there a literature on the mutagenic effects of captive diets? Not to bust balls, but your statement, as written, sounds almost Lamarckian. Not all birth defects are mutations; some happen in vivo or in utero. (And of course, not all mutations are defective, as Prof Xavier constantly reminds me 

But something tells me you may already know this stuff. Please be a bit more clear next time, so we can keep the dialogue rolling.

Peace,

G


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> I am going to attempt to play "good cop" here (no offense, Ed


none taken 



Groundhog said:


> 1) There are, in fact, examples of inbreeding depression, and theoretical papers on bottlenecks. Ever watch a documentary on cheetahs? It has been hypothesized that, in some cases, bottlenecking can be a precursor to an extinction event....


For the risk of inbreeding as a significant driver of extinction of wild populations see ScienceDirect.com - Biological Conservation - Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations... It decreased the time to extinction by almost 40%...... This was a citation I posted above... 




Groundhog said:


> 2) While inbreeding depression is defined _sensu stricto _as reduced viability, I think it is important to point out that inbreeding can have other deleterious consequences; just think of various dog breeds and their associated serious health issues (which of course, then lead to inbreeding depression). Well, it does seem we are beginning to see some problems in various line bred herps. (I myself am curious about leopard geckos and bearded dragons.)


The problem with this sensu stricto definition is that it ignores reduced fitness that is hidden due to artificial measures to reduce death.. for example climate controlled conditions can prevent negative traits that interfere with physiology from maifesting.. for example http://www.une.edu.au/esnrm/pdf/fritz geiser/AcrobatesJCP01.pdf or as another example, assisting in hatching of reptiles (slitting all eggs once the first one hatches), or force feeding neonates that refuse all food items (original blood corns..).... or loss of disease resistence (Does Inbreeding and Loss of Genetic Diversity Decrease Disease Resistance? - Springer#) which can be masked until exposed to a disease or parasite that can exploit the lack of resistance (one of the classic examples of this is the lack of resistence of the potato affected by the fungus that resulted in the Irish potator famine.)... This is why attempting to claim or even infer that a population that is inbred as viable or is resistent to inbreeding is misleading at best and flatly wrong at worst.. 




Groundhog said:


> 3) "Mutations...may be the result of nutritional deficiencies." Mutations are genetic. Are you talking about phenotypic changes, or are you suggesting that incomplete nutrition can have mutagenic--as opposed to health--effects? Seriously, is there a literature on the mutagenic effects of captive diets? Not to bust balls, but your statement, as written, sounds almost Lamarckian. Not all birth defects are mutations; some happen in vivo or in utero. (And of course, not all mutations are defective, as Prof Xavier constantly reminds me


Epigenetics can cause heritable changes to phenotype without being due to mutations... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Ed said:


> none taken
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ed:

I think it is clear we are in concordance on #1 and #2. For anyone who is new to the concept, I tell them to think of, and read about, dog breeds...

Q: For those dog breeds that often need assistance, or domestic grasses and double-flowered ornamental plants that cannot reproduce without human involvement, can these be thought of as examples of inbreeding depression? We certainly have lots of bulldogs, wheat and floribunda roses!


Regarding epigenetics: I asked OSU the question because herps are not honeybees (royal jelly), and I am not aware of any _nutritionally_ caused examples (positive or negative) in captive herps. Are there any?

Also, to help understand the concept, can TDSD (temperature-dependent sex determination) be thought of as epigenetic? How about sex-switching in clownfish? 

Thanks,

G


----------



## OSU (Nov 10, 2008)

I was just being sloppy and quick in my first post. I meant the phenotypic expression which can appear to be a mutation can also be related to nutrition or environment. An example is cyclopia which can be caused by genes or the alkaloid found in Hellebore. 

This is a bit off topic but there also is a maternal effect on egg development. The mother's genes or gene products can affect how the egg develops and even "mask" the expression of mutations. Many years ago I worked in a developmental genetic lab that had zebra fish with a lethal mesoderm mutation. Homozygous offspring from heterozygous mothers functioned fine but homozygous offspring from homozygous mothers failed to develop mesoderm. 

The sex change in hermaphroditic fish like clown fish, some wrasses, groupers etc is a physiological change and not a genetic change. The sex of many fish species are not determined with simple xy xx sex chromosomes (not determined genetically at all in many cases). This is one of the reasons why they are sensitive to environmental pollutants capable of mimicking or disrupting sex hormones (among them birth control lol). In some cases up to 65% of the male fish are feminized. "Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen". 



cheers


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

OSU said:


> I was just being sloppy and quick in my first post. I meant the phenotypic expression which can appear to be a mutation can also be related to nutrition or environment. An example is cyclopia which can be caused by genes or the alkaloid found in Hellebore.
> 
> This is a bit off topic but there also is a maternal effect on egg development. The mother's genes or gene products can affect how the egg develops and even "mask" the expression of mutations. Many years ago I worked in a developmental genetic lab that had zebra fish with a lethal mesoderm mutation. Homozygous offspring from heterozygous mothers functioned fine but homozygous offspring from homozygous mothers failed to develop mesoderm.
> 
> ...


No offense, mate--just wasn't clear from your initial post. Still, the importance of inbreeding depression cannot be overlooked, as in Ed's example of (human) fragmented or isolated populations.

We live in what some call the "Holocene extinction;" some choose to call our epoch the "Anthropocene." I often wonder: 

--How come the megafauna died in North America, but not Africa? Climate? People? We now know that humans have inhabited North America long before Clovis--maybe it was human activity at the time of a population decline due to climate change?

--Are our present extinctions basically our fault (Dodo, Stellar's Sea Cow, Carolina parakeet, thylacine), or--and I know this sounds flippant--are we just hastening the inevitable by only a few thousand years? For example, is it possible that the cheetah and rhinos are in decline, and we're just speeding it up?

--And for those specialized, largely isolated populations (e.g., golden toads), how long would these last without human activity? Makes one wonder: In the _long term_, is it better to be r or K selected... 

E. O. suggests that literally half of what we call "charismatic" species (pandas, polar bears, red-eyed tree frogs, monarch butterflies, etc.) may be gone by 2100. A couple of years ago (I will have to find the reference) a couple of economists did a study which posited that: We do in fact tackle climate change, reduce poaching, and stabilize the human population somewhat below the oft-heard 9.2 billion. Their conclusion? We will seriously be able to save 2/3 to 3/4 of the charismatic species--that is 67 to 75 percent, certainly better than Wilson's 50 percent. So: Whom do we choose? 

Maybe the future is that we're all doing for these species what you guys are doing for PDFs: Seriously, imagine a world where most every family has some threatened fish, amphibian, lizard, marsupial, rodent, etc (a world where everyone's uncle is Mike Shrom, and everyone's cousin is Josh, hmnnm...  Maybe a quaint idea, but one that will only work in a world of abundance; only people with resources can successfully do what we do. Truly a paradox.

Sorry if I am being a bit too philosophical.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Follow up question for you guys on epigenesis: Thinking of the maternal effect, let us assume (with no ideological bias) that it turns out that sexual orientation in humans is caused by maternal effect and not heredity (e.g., a result of kin selection; you don't have kids but help others raise theirs). Would this be an example of epigensis?

I am still not clear why royal jelly causes epigenesis, but not temperature in TDS organisms. Are these not both physiological changes "due to mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence?"


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> E. O. suggests that literally half of what we call "charismatic" species (pandas, polar bears, red-eyed tree frogs, monarch butterflies, etc.) may be gone by 2100. A couple of years ago (I will have to find the reference) a couple of economists did a study which posited that: We do in fact tackle climate change, reduce poaching, and stabilize the human population somewhat below the oft-heard 9.2 billion. Their conclusion? We will seriously be able to save 2/3 to 3/4 of the charismatic species--that is 67 to 75 percent, certainly better than Wilson's 50 percent. So: Whom do we choose?


Zoos and other institutions based on a number of trends are looking to manage thier captive populations for 100-200 years as at that point, the predictions are that global population will have leveled off and probably reversed... If I remember correctly Lees, C. M.; Wilcken, J.; 2009; Sustaining the ark: the challenge faced by zoos in maintaining viable populations; International Zoo Yearbook 43: 6-18 discusses it.. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> Follow up question for you guys on epigenesis: Thinking of the maternal effect, let us assume (with no ideological bias) that it turns out that sexual orientation in humans is caused by maternal effect and not heredity (e.g., a result of kin selection; you don't have kids but help others raise theirs). Would this be an example of epigensis?


Alloparenting? 
And do you mean epigenetics? Epigenesis is the development from an egg, seed or spore to where cells divide and organs form.. 



Groundhog said:


> I am still not clear why royal jelly causes epigenesis, but not temperature in TDS organisms. Are these not both physiological changes "due to mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence?"


You may want to check out 
Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract 

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...sex_determination/file/d912f503daf5b794f5.pdf 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Oops: I thought "epigenetics" was the concept; "epigenesis" the process--mea culpa, as the kids would say...


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Ooh... Did some serious googling, and it seems TSD is considered epigenetic. Alas, all I get gratis are the abstracts...

http://www.utexas.edu/research/crewslab/pdfs/Matsumoto 2011.pdf


----------



## OSU (Nov 10, 2008)

Groundhog said:


> I am still not clear why royal jelly causes epigenesis, but not temperature in TDS organisms. Are these not both physiological changes "due to mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence?"


TDS could be epigenetic and here is a recent paper available online that takes a stab at it. _Molecular mechanisms of temperature-dependent sex determination in the context of ecological developmental biology_ it also could just be genetic based which is triggered by environmental factors during development. 



Groundhog said:


> Follow up question for you guys on epigenesis: Thinking of the maternal effect, let us assume (with no ideological bias) that it turns out that sexual orientation in humans is caused by maternal effect and not heredity (e.g., a result of kin selection; you don't have kids but help others raise theirs). Would this be an example of epigensis?


It could be maternally determined at least in part... There is evidence in some species (and potentially humans although the human case could also be male determined) that mothers have some control over the sex of their offspring. Triggers include social dominance, body condition of the mother, crowding etc with the more dominant/fit mother tending to have males and less dominant/fit mother having females. This is the Trivers and Willard hypothesis. Here are a couple of papers to look at.

_Trivers-Willard effect in contemporary North American society.
Adaptive fetal sex allocation in elk: evidence and implication_

cheers


----------

