# The complete Pumilio book thoughts?



## Azurel

Now that the book has hit US shores has anyone spent some time in it?


There are some pretty interesting points about locales and genetics, in reguards to how we seperate locales.


----------



## Julio

Took a look at it at the book this past weekend, a friend's copy, great book, can't wait til i get mine.


----------



## LizardLicker

I got a shipping notification a couple of days ago. I haven't received it yet, but I am looking forward to going through it.


----------



## Azurel

It is a really good book in my opinion...

Would like a discussion to start once more get a chance to read it.

Mostly about locales and how we seperate them as pointed out in the book. 

Like Colon and Cristobal in the book the author describes that all the locales and frogs are all genetically the same thus no need to or should be seperated. That all the variation happends through out the populations thus shouldn't be seperated....That has been my understanding from reading it twice through.

Once others have read it please discuss.


----------



## DRMNBIG

Still eagerly awaiting my copy..


----------



## markpulawski

Can't wait to see if sheds any light on this last big multi looking Branco import, I also am interested in the Cristo geography. Hopefully I get mine next week.


----------



## Azurel

markpulawski said:


> Can't wait to see if sheds any light on this last big multi looking Branco import, I also am interested in the Cristo geography. Hopefully I get mine next week.


One of the parts where he is talking about Bastimentos Red Frog Beach he states they are easy to identify beyond doubt with the white cuffs and pure white ventral side. Wither or not they have spots or are spotless the cuffs and white ventral side is the identifier of the population.....Each time I read it I gleen a bit more knowledge then the last time.


----------



## Azurel

Anybody start reading theirs yet?


----------



## IEatBugs

I have only been able to spend about an hour in mine and that was just glancing through and reading a couple small spots. I hope to get some time in it over the weekend.


----------



## rigel10

Azurel said:


> It is a really good book in my opinion...
> 
> Would like a discussion to start once more get a chance to read it.
> 
> Mostly about locales and how we seperate them as pointed out in the book.
> 
> Like Colon and Cristobal in the book the author describes that all the locales and frogs are all genetically the same thus no need to or should be seperated. That all the variation happends through out the populations thus shouldn't be seperated....That has been my understanding from reading it twice through.
> 
> Once others have read it please discuss.


This is a good question. I think you should open a thread about it to encourage opinions and discussions.


----------



## Azurel

rigel10 said:


> This is a good question. I think you should open a thread about it to encourage opinions and discussions.


Thats actually what this thread was for...Why I added thoughts to the title....lol.

The other thread was about selling the book...

The main parts of the book that should be discussed are:

Evolution and phylogeny and Overview of morphs.

That is the one chapter that could have an effect on how we keep and seperate locales...


----------



## Gamble

I see that you've decided to open up this can of worms after our 1st discussion? Lol

I'm interested to see what people say.

A few things that stood out to me (off the top of my head) ...

The fact that the author considers the Uyama to be a Robalo morph; contrary to what a few here in the past have argued to not be true.

Another was that Ryans & a couple other morphs were not named by what we know them as, but another name altogether.

Lastly, the author recognizes Escudo to be their own separate species. (Which is known by some here, but hasn't really been accepted or practiced as of yet).

Thx for starting this discussion James.


----------



## Spaff

Gamble said:


> The fact that the author considers the Uyama to be a Robalo morph; contrary to what a few here in the past have argued to not be true.


I've been told by very credible sources that the black and white pumilio phenotype is a population that extends a fairly large distance, and the frogs from Rio Uyama are only a small portion of that population. I took what was said as there is gene flow connecting the Rio Uyama "pinpoint" of a population with the rest of the stretch. I wasn't told if this encompasses Rio Robalo or not, but it would make sense.


----------



## Azurel

Gamble said:


> I see that you've decided to open up this can of worms after our 1st discussion? Lol
> 
> I'm interested to see what people say.
> 
> A few things that stood out to me (off the top of my head) ...
> 
> The fact that the author considers the Uyama to be a Robalo morph; contrary to what a few here in the past have argued to not be true.
> 
> Another was that Ryans & a couple other morphs were not named by what we know them as, but another name altogether.
> 
> Lastly, the author recognizes Escudo to be their own separate species. (Which is known by some here, but hasn't really been accepted or practiced as of yet).
> 
> Thx for starting this discussion James.


I did, I did....

I think these two chapters are important and worth of discussion....I need to read the two/three research papers that was used to tie some of these locales together that we as a hobby have seperated.


----------



## PumilioTurkey

There is no doubt I'd say that a lots of names are basically "merchant names" in order to keep the money flowing.

I bought my Rio Branco direclty from the source and paid a rather "low" price but I have seen others offering Rio Branco for horrid prices!


and according to Steinmann Rio Branco would be basically Guarumo.


----------



## rigel10

I have not read the book, so I can not contribute to the thread, but I am just curious to know how are indicated Ryan. Ensenada? Melci?


----------



## Gamble

The Ryans, Melci & Ensenada are all Punta Valiente.
Esperanza were Aquacate.

I'll take pictures of each Morph/Locale breakdown & post them here in a little while for all to see.


----------



## cml1287

Gamble said:


> The Ryans, Melci & Ensenada are all Punta Valiente.
> Esperanza were Aquacate.
> 
> I'll take pictures of each Morph/Locale breakdown & post them here in a little while for all to see.


definitely curious to see that


----------



## Azurel

In the book Steinnman referances I believe 3 research papers that are based on the genetics of the pumilio populations. Stating that based on the genetics the seperations and polymorphic population names isn't based on anything but marketing. Saying that there is a need to have the species to be more varied and polymorphic then it really is. Although it being quite polymorphic anyway.

It also states that the Punta Valiente being closely related to Escudo and more research needs to be done on these two population because they might actually be a seperate and different species then pumilio. I know some already think that Escudo are or should be considered a seperate species


----------



## Gamble

Here you go guys & gals. Enjoy.


----------



## Azurel

In these pictures Gamble shared you can see how the locales/populations have been grouped based on genetics and how the hobby and market has seperated them to push them being more polymorphic....


----------



## lookitsadam

Where did you all purchase the book? Trying to find a copy myself


----------



## Azurel

lookitsadam said:


> Where did you all purchase the book? Trying to find a copy myself


http://www.chimaira.co.uk/gp/product_info.php/info/p104_The-complete-Oophaga-pumilio.html

Where Gamble and I got ours...contact Black Jungle they have them as well


----------



## Gamble

I have obtained Frank Steinmann's (the author) permission to post these photos.


----------



## Spaff

I'm afraid this may create major confusion when it comes to managing these imports. I do agree with some of what is written (Pastores, Cristobal, Solarte, and maybe even Colon). The Bastimentos recommendations really confuse me. The first table of Bastis sounds to me like the cemetery population, but they mention RFB and Salt Creeks as alternate names whereas RFB and then Salt Creek are touched individually on the next page...not sure what they're saying there. The description of "Rio Branco" in the book seems to better fit what the EU morph guides have always called it and not what we have. The closest thing to what we have as Branco seems to be the books description of Rambala. Our Rambala may be Guarumo?

The others that I haven't mentioned yet (Robalo, Aguacate, Punta Valiente) all present the same problem. I don't doubt that these morphs may be closely related and that there may be gene flow between populations, but do they all mix freely? Frogs on one end may interbreed with frogs in the middle but not spread all the way to the opposite end, but we really can't say whether they actually do or not. 

I'll use another relatively recent example to illustrate this point. Most of us know the Paru sylvatica are intergrades between Lita and San Lorenzo with other populations dispersed along the way: Bilsa, Alto Tambo, Rio Durango...Lita and San Lorenzo are known as distinct ends of this population, and Paru are the known intergrade. We keep all of these separate because of this. If we follow the new book, it may turn out that we are combining the equivalent of Lita and San Lorenzo populations where direct interbreeding may not naturally occur. 

I'd like to say that what I'm saying is only speculation and my opinion, and I encourage healthy discussion on the topic. I think this book will turn out to be a great resource, but we need to think long and hard before making hasty management decisions based on it. I'll be getting it shortly and will show it to a colleague who's doing Panama pumilio work to get her opinion. I know she's surveyed many of these populations, so I think that may be helpful.


----------



## Azurel

Spaff said:


> I'm afraid this may create major confusion when it comes to managing these imports. I do agree with some of what is written (Pastores, Cristobal, Solarte, and maybe even Colon). The Bastimentos recommendations really confuse me. The first table of Bastis sounds to me like the cemetery population, but they mention RFB and Salt Creeks as alternate names whereas RFB and then Salt Creek are touched individually on the next page...not sure what they're saying there. The description of "Rio Branco" in the book seems to better fit what the EU morph guides have always called it and not what we have. The closest thing to what we have as Branco seems to be the books description of Rambala. Our Rambala may be Guarumo?
> 
> The others that I haven't mentioned yet (Robalo, Aguacate, Punta Valiente) all present the same problem. I don't doubt that these morphs may be closely related and that there may be gene flow between populations, but do they all mix freely? Frogs on one end may interbreed with frogs in the middle but not spread all the way to the opposite end, but we really can't say whether they actually do or not.
> 
> I'll use another relatively recent example to illustrate this point. Most of us know the Paru sylvatica are intergrades between Lita and San Lorenzo with other populations dispersed along the way: Bilsa, Alto Tambo, Rio Durango...Lita and San Lorenzo are known as distinct ends of this population, and Paru are the known intergrade. We keep all of these separate because of this. If we follow the new book, it may turn out that we are combining the equivalent of Lita and San Lorenzo populations where direct interbreeding may not naturally occur.
> 
> I'd like to say that what I'm saying is only speculation and my opinion, and I encourage healthy discussion on the topic. I think this book will turn out to be a great resource, but we need to think long and hard before making hasty management decisions based on it. I'll be getting it shortly and will show it to a colleague who's doing Panama pumilio work to get her opinion. I know she's surveyed many of these populations, so I think that may be helpful.


For sure.....I personally don't think after reading it a few times come away with the thought that Bastimentos are specifically the same in the sense that they should be mixed....One of the few island populations that maybe genetically the same but have differentiated long enough that they are specific polymorphic locales while being genetically the same...atleast as far as my reading of it...


I do agree Zach that we as a hobby shouldn't make quick wholesale changes as the research continues and every step brings more clearity....I think it also important for discussion. I think every step and discussion brings some clearity....I plan to still read it again and start reading some of the research papers that it is based on.


----------



## Gamble

In speaking to Frank, he had only quickly skimmed this thread but did state that there are some misunderstandings but could not go into detail as it was late in Germany & he was going to bed. He did say a few things before saying good night tho & stated he would be watching the thread for any more clarification that may be needed.

His response was as follows:

"I will take a closer look these days, for I just flew over the thread.. I dont want to be too fast in my decisions...It´s 0.30 pm right now and my eyes are watering ;-) I will find some sleep now...

One thing: 
The genetics and morphometric and vocal-related genetics on escudo were made a few years back already, but on samples (well you know the toe thing) that weren´t officially allowed to take out off Panama....(stupid export restrictions, no bribes, no frog leaves the country as it seems)...same with the frogs from Valiente eastwards...seems def. not to be pumilio! All that small populations like Melci and co....the small "Nicky" instead seems to be a "mixture" of Bastimentos eastern part and Popa and maybe some more...related to connections between the islands long ago....interesting stuff...keeping pumilio seperated in captivity just because of phenotypical thesis is of course not very clever....but as I said...I don´t want to be no guru, science is full of dynamics and I never would pronounce my book (it is not even my scientific work, but the work of great people in the field), I just collect together, fill and fit in and try to break all that DNA down for the non-scientist to understand....to be honest, I don´t even keep frogs at home anymore...I stopped for I have some moral problems after travelling and observing the frogs in nature...that is just my personal statement and I don´t judge folks that herp at home... I am glad for every keeper that I reach 
somehow with my thoughts towards the hobby.. Over and out...I have to sleep...Thank you for your time!!"

Then he stated something else ... 

"There is just one big thing: Don´t buy these "Farm frogs"..I reckon this is all wc frogs and besides the creation of new "morphs" by calling the after local points noone has the proof of the frogs being collected there anyhow, it is poison for the hobby and science as well...just google for farm bred pumilios from Panama and you will find a page showing a facility and a photo of hundreds of adult red Bastimentos or another reddish morph stuck together..if this is breeding stock, well I got something wrong about male aggression of frogs....Okay, so for the rest: Of course I will follow the thread, I got no critics about the book at all, so it is a good way to start over seas ;-) Good night..."


----------



## oldlady25715

I don't have the book, but it sounds like it's making distinctions based on genetics. The trade makes distinctions based on collection points and phenotypes. While the genotypes are useful to determine the species, hobbyist'sperspectives are generally based on phenotype. For hobby management it would be useful to do the genetic analysis to sort through what's what and then apply a layer of additional qualitative analysis based on collection points and phenotype.

I suppose what I'm saying is If all three boxes can be checked for genetic, geographic, and phenotype, then the hobby could confidently state the frogs appropriate locale.


----------



## Frank St

Please consider, that the statements in the book not just rely on genetics! Also morphometrical (incl. evolutionary settlements and migration), vocalization and behaviour of the frogs were considered to place a careful classification of the morphs and finally the three group model.


----------



## Azurel

Frank St said:


> Please consider, that the statements in the book not just rely on genetics! Also morphometrical (incl. evolutionary settlements and migration), vocalization and behaviour of the frogs were considered to place a careful classification of the morphs and finally the three group model.


Thanks for your input Frank.... All of those need to be discussed and considered in the discussion as well....


----------



## cbreon

Spaff said:


> I'm afraid this may create major confusion when it comes to managing these imports. I do agree with some of what is written (Pastores, Cristobal, Solarte, and maybe even Colon). The Bastimentos recommendations really confuse me. The first table of Bastis sounds to me like the cemetery population, but they mention RFB and Salt Creeks as alternate names whereas RFB and then Salt Creek are touched individually on the next page...not sure what they're saying there. The description of "Rio Branco" in the book seems to better fit what the EU morph guides have always called it and not what we have. The closest thing to what we have as Branco seems to be the books description of Rambala. Our Rambala may be Guarumo?
> 
> The others that I haven't mentioned yet (Robalo, Aguacate, Punta Valiente) all present the same problem. I don't doubt that these morphs may be closely related and that there may be gene flow between populations, but do they all mix freely? Frogs on one end may interbreed with frogs in the middle but not spread all the way to the opposite end, but we really can't say whether they actually do or not.
> 
> I'll use another relatively recent example to illustrate this point. Most of us know the Paru sylvatica are intergrades between Lita and San Lorenzo with other populations dispersed along the way: Bilsa, Alto Tambo, Rio Durango...Lita and San Lorenzo are known as distinct ends of this population, and Paru are the known intergrade. We keep all of these separate because of this. If we follow the new book, it may turn out that we are combining the equivalent of Lita and San Lorenzo populations where direct interbreeding may not naturally occur.
> 
> I'd like to say that what I'm saying is only speculation and my opinion, and I encourage healthy discussion on the topic. I think this book will turn out to be a great resource, but we need to think long and hard before making hasty management decisions based on it. I'll be getting it shortly and will show it to a colleague who's doing Panama pumilio work to get her opinion. I know she's surveyed many of these populations, so I think that may be helpful.


To add to your point, there are quite a few differences between these types of intergrades occurring in a natural setting among a vibrant population as opposed to happening in a controlled setting with a potentially limited gene pool.


----------



## PumilioTurkey

Totally off-topic...but I just realized there is a picture of me in the book


----------



## Gamble

I'm really surprised that there isn't more of a discussion taking place here considering how many people actually bought this book.

Even more so that the author is willing to participate. 
How often do we have access to that kind of information?

Like Smokey told Craig ... "Take Advantage man, Take advantage".


----------



## Azurel

Gamble said:


> I'm really surprised that there isn't more of a discussion taking place here considering how many people actually bought this book.
> 
> Even more so that the author is willing to participate.
> How often do we have access to that kind of information?
> 
> Like Smokey told Craig ... "Take Advantage man, Take advantage".


No doubt.....Lets get this going...


----------



## lookitsadam

Gamble said:


> I'm really surprised that there isn't more of a discussion taking place here considering how many people actually bought this book.
> 
> Even more so that the author is willing to participate.
> How often do we have access to that kind of information?
> 
> Like Smokey told Craig ... "Take Advantage man, Take advantage".


I haven't been able to purchase the book yet but I'd love to read discussions about it's content by people who have!


----------



## FroggyKnight

Agreed! I am quite eager to learn about what this book has to offer, but I haven't purchased it as of yet. It is definitely on my wish list of good reads. 

I will be following this thread ALL THE WAY! You just might not see me posting much

John

EDIT: I just purchased my first pumilio mere days ago and I find it fascinating how the species is divided morph/locale wise. The more information I have on my little guys the better!


----------



## pumiliochaser

I just received my copy today and on first glance, I am quite impressed. These are just my first impressions: I think the discussions about O. pumilio biology and natural history look interesting, but what makes this book stand out to me are the chapters on captive husbandry. To illustrate the varied captive husbandry chapters, there are multiple detailed images of perhaps the most amazing frogroom I have ever seen (Andreas Maxion's "Frog Chamber"?). Some detailed plans for a German style glass front-opening, "Euro-vent" vivarium. The vivariums are stunning and the frogroom is an absolute inspiration. I would say this might be the best book ever published on poison frog husbandry just for its pure photographic inspiration and I would love to see it expanded to cover other species in detail. An excellent book, wonderful photography, don't hesitate to buy it.


----------



## pumiliochaser

I did some more in-depth reading of the book tonight after dinner. I can see where some of the information on morph variation would be seen as controversial (i.e. lumping of trade names into fewer morph designations). This is the downside of a popular interpretation of the scientific literature. The categories he suggests (e.g. Darklands, Esperanza, Cauchero lumped together as "Aguacate") seem to come from a paper that did some refined genetic analyses and determined these were very closely-related, in fact, genetically "identical" taxonomic units. I have not read this paper but if this sort of information is important to you, my advice is to go straight to the primary literature and base your opinions on that. I have not read these papers..but from my reading of this book…I get the impression that according to these studies, these populations are genetically identical according to this *particular analysis*, which could change as more refined analyses take place in the future. Though they are clearly closely related and may represent the same evolutionary lineage, for our purposes they are unique and should be treated as such. I think it is a mistake to think of them lumped in this way without some greater field experience and insight into their natural variation. I can't speak to the entire range of variation found in all of these populations but I can tell you some of these variants that Mr. Steinmann suggests should be lumped together show very real biogeographic separation, distinct grades of colors and patterning and mixing them in captivity according to the categories he represents is not consistent with any fine-scale natural patterns…and I don't even think that is what he is suggesting be done. There is likely something lost in translation here. My opinion of the book remains unchanged-- it is awesome and will advance our understanding of O. pumilio-- but the book is not without its controversies.


----------



## Azurel

I agree it would be a mistake especially with main land morphs/ locales to make wholesale changes to how we keep them in the hobby right now off the insights in the book. Each step makes a muddier picture clearer although it might be many years till we get more insight.

What did you think of the thoughts on Isla Cristobal and Colon? Those two impeticular I had interest in not only because I keep those but from what I have read in past and now this book, I have always wondered if these populations were infact whole and showed gene flow across the population. 
These locales are all basically the same frog all populations on these two island locale/morphs show the same variations(genetics) with in the specific local populations as well as according to the research all show the same vocalization patterens....It appears that these two island populations should be mixed and not seperated in the same respect as Isla Escudo morph. 

What was your thoughts on those?


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## pumiliochaser

I don't think it would do much harm to mix the various locales of Isla Colon and Isla Cristobal that are in the hobby. Ultimately, our frogs are hobby frogs, once removed from nature, their evolutionary significance is reduced to zero and we should be managing them for their suitability to be good captive frogs…and bred for attributes that make them good pets. The subtle natural variations that might make the difference between say a Boca del Drago and La Gruta in the wild probably aren't too important to preserve in captivity when faced with more important qualities like good color, vigor, genetic variability, adaptability to the vivarium, etc. The problem is that you will face some difficulties marketing your offspring as the hobby seems to frown on mixing "locales", even if this genetic mixing occurs in nature.

However, I do believe there is subtle but real morphological variation between localized subsets of each island population. For example, Frank recognizes three populations on Isla Bastimentos-- "Bastimentos", "Red Frog Beach" and "Punta Vieja". From my own field observations, I can tell you the frogs from Salt Creek and Punta Vieja are different enough that I would not feel comfortable mixing them in captivity-- the Salt Creek frogs show lots of variation and irregular amounts of red on the limbs where the Punta Vieja frogs are almost always brown-limbed. However, Frank is right to suggest that they are very closely related and gene flow between Punta Vieja and Salt Creek is apparent. If I didn't have the field experience with these frogs, I would not know that this real variation exists and probably just recommend that Punta Vieja and Salt Creek could be mixed…and would that really be the end of the world?

You would have to have lots of field experience throughout the islands and mainland to notice these subtle variations like I have noticed between Salt Creek and Punta Vieja…it's possible that Mr. van der Lingen had this knowledge but his legacy has now been interpreted through Frank Steinmann and so the picture of pumilio variation has been painted with those broad brush strokes of someone interpreting another's field work. Just reading this book has got me itching to go back to the pumilio lands and do more exploring. I hope it does the same for you guys and you get out there and reveal the subtle textures in this amazing story of frog evolution.


----------



## Azurel

pumiliochaser said:


> I don't think it would do much harm to mix the various locales of Isla Colon and Isla Cristobal that are in the hobby. Ultimately, our frogs are hobby frogs, once removed from nature, their evolutionary significance is reduced to zero and we should be managing them for their suitability to be good captive frogs…and bred for attributes that make them good pets. The subtle natural variations that might make the difference between say a Boca del Drago and La Gruta in the wild probably aren't too important to preserve in captivity when faced with more important qualities like good color, vigor, genetic variability, adaptability to the vivarium, etc. The problem is that you will face some difficulties marketing your offspring as the hobby seems to frown on mixing "locales", even if this genetic mixing occurs in nature.
> 
> However, I do believe there is subtle but real morphological variation between localized subsets of each island population. For example, Frank recognizes three populations on Isla Bastimentos-- "Bastimentos", "Red Frog Beach" and "Punta Vieja". From my own field observations, I can tell you the frogs from Salt Creek and Punta Vieja are different enough that I would not feel comfortable mixing them in captivity-- the Salt Creek frogs show lots of variation and irregular amounts of red on the limbs where the Punta Vieja frogs are almost always brown-limbed. However, Frank is right to suggest that they are very closely related and gene flow between Punta Vieja and Salt Creek is apparent. If I didn't have the field experience with these frogs, I would not know that this real variation exists and probably just recommend that Punta Vieja and Salt Creek could be mixed…and would that really be the end of the world?
> 
> You would have to have lots of field experience throughout the islands and mainland to notice these subtle variations like I have noticed between Salt Creek and Punta Vieja…it's possible that Mr. van der Lingen had this knowledge but his legacy has now been interpreted through Frank Steinmann and so the picture of pumilio variation has been painted with those broad brush strokes of someone interpreting another's field work. Just reading this book has got me itching to go back to the pumilio lands and do more exploring. I hope it does the same for you guys and you get out there and reveal the subtle textures in this amazing story of frog evolution.


Quite right on the Bastimentos....I have always thought and read there are distinct differences in the populations on Bastimentos. Even from keeping the various locales one can tell there are differences. 

But the Cristobal and Colon in reading the idea that maybe marketing also plays a role in the sense of Cristobal and Colon(as well as others) by making them local specific there is more money in that then saying here is an import of Colon or Cristobal. 
Having kept both(Cristobal and Bahia Grande) both WC looking one couldn't tell major differences other then the Bahia Grande were a bit more nice if one was to judge.

Take Bahia Grande Cristobal for example. Those were being charged a bit of a premium for partly due to locale specifics and being stunning frogs. What if the locale didnt matter due to them being no different then the rest. 

So what if in fact there is no difference but the method the hobby has of keeping them is being used on the hobby? This allows the exporter and importer to charge more for these "locale" specific frogs. 

I really appreciate your imput Steve. Having never traveled there I cannot speak on those differences and appreciate those that can. 

I like this kind of discussion if not to only help clearify but also answer and clearify questions I have. I don't plan on changing how I keep and seek out frogs but do like the search for clearity....

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## pumiliochaser

Azurel;1754714
Take Bahia Grande Cristobal for example. Those were being charged a bit of a premium for partly due to locale specifics and being stunning frogs. What if the locale didnt matter due to them being no different then the rest.
So what if in fact there is no difference but the method the hobby has of keeping them is being used on the hobby? This allows the exporter and importer to charge more for these "locale" specific frogs.
[/QUOTE said:


> I've never been to Isla Cristobal but I can imagine that there are going to be some really stunning frogs mixed in a population of average looking animals. I have seen this in other island pumilio. You see this in any animal population where sexual selection operates on color, body ornamentation and courtship behavior. Seeing these frogs in the wild is really a revelation-- every frog is an individual but also conforms to a range within a "type" or "morph". They might be stand-out examples, but still part of that range in natural variability. Sorta like the super models of a human population…they are rare but they are out there, and they look amazing.
> 
> The "Bahia Grande" could just be really nice examples, the super models of the Cristobal pumilio…seems like a big enough island that there would be a few subpopulations with unique morphologies but I have no field experience there and can't say for sure. The problem with understanding the natural variability of these frogs is that few of us have enough time in the field to document and study it all or to have a good opinion of any of them. The Ph.D. students that have taken to the pumilio of Bocas del Toro are largely asking experimental questions about very specific topics in natural selection using pumilio as the animal model of choice and not just going out and doing observational, descriptive studies. I've made six trips to Bocas del Toro and they have all been vacations, not enough time to know much of anything other than they are amazing frogs…these pumilio populations are complex systems that deserve someone devoted to their study and conservation, full time.


----------



## Gamble

Azurel said:


> So what if in fact there is no difference but the method the hobby has of keeping them is being used on the hobby? This allows the exporter and importer to charge more for these "locale" specific frogs.


This has crossed my mind more than once.
And I've wondered about more than just Pumilio.
(IE. CV Imis & Standards ... etc)


----------



## Frank St

Please consider the fact, that I don´t claim to hold the truth about the genetic origin of pumilio inmy hands! Of course there will be new revisions, others, betters. In my/our book I just quote the scientists work that I personally think might be the "best" so far. Of course some populations like Bastimentos are likely more researched than others - this leads to the more specific allocation maybe.
I dont say "this is the omne truth" please consider that!
Regarding the sell out of morphs: There is so much differnce even in one population due to polyporphism.....this year the frogs are red with white sleeves, in two years the majority of the same population might be brownish-orange....
We alls hould consider that selling "farm" frogs, imported frogs is business for the folks that ship them. And why should be the business with frogs differ from selling cars, coffee machines or else? You want to make profits, as mcuh as possible....you pick the most beautiful individuals of a population, pick a fancy name and tataah...folks dig it!
I still refer to auratus: Same thing: Highland blue, Highland turquoise, Highland green and brown, Superblue, Semi-whatever.....confusions and sellouts....in the end artificial lines were sold..O mean I don´t care if the hobbyist might ebd up creating own morphs, but please step back then from claiming "conservational" ideas...that´s just breeding guys.
(How can we conserve something at all, when the environement fades..another topic).
And for auratus: The interesting thin is that populations that are just black and green and black and blue are being treated like they are all the same..and here the show starts to get weird....One cannot judge a frog just by it´s look, color or pattern. All folks that visited Bocas e.g. know what i mean...you will always find at least on totally different morph...and for the western population of the beloved Basti frogs I stated already there even might have been cross breedinsg with frogs broght from Colon manually....so what happens is nothing but chaos and this tends to be an evolutionary instrument too...
Excuse my French....


----------



## Baltimore Bryan

I don't have the book yet, but it sounds like a really good read with nice pictures.



Azurel said:


> One of the parts where he is talking about Bastimentos Red Frog Beach he states they are easy to identify beyond doubt with the white cuffs and pure white ventral side. Wither or not they have spots or are spotless the cuffs and white ventral side is the identifier of the population.....Each time I read it I gleen a bit more knowledge then the last time.


Can you clarify what you mean by "cuffs"? Or maybe share a picture for an example? Do the cuffs just mean white on the feet, or white extending up to a ring around the wrist/ankle? Is it for both front and back legs, or just one? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand what he meant by that.



Frank St said:


> and for the western population of the beloved Basti frogs I stated already there even might have been cross breedinsg with frogs broght from Colon manually


Frank, can you elaborate on this? Haven't heard too much about it, any idea when they may have been brought over or how many got mixed in? Where did you hear this or what led you to this conclusion?

Thanks for the insight guys.
Bryan


----------



## Azurel

Baltimore Bryan said:


> I don't have the book yet, but it sounds like a really good read with nice pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you mean by "cuffs"? Or maybe share a picture for an example? Do the cuffs just mean white on the feet, or white extending up to a ring around the wrist/ankle? Is it for both front and back legs, or just one? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand what he meant by that.


The cuffs is the white feet that comes up over the ankles....

Here is a picture from google search- not my image

http://www.frognet.org/albums/album55/basti1.sized.jpg

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Baltimore Bryan

Azurel said:


> The cuffs is the white feet that comes up over the ankles....
> 
> Here is a picture from google search- not my image
> 
> http://www.frognet.org/albums/album55/basti1.sized.jpg
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


Thanks for clarifying. I think there may be more variation than that though, for example both photos below are from RFB and you can see one with the "cuffs" and one with just white toes and red wrists:


















And this frog below has white "cuffs" and white ventral, but is actually from the "cemetary" population, not RFB.









Just goes to show I guess that there frequently is a lot of subtle variation and it's hard to find set-in-stone rules with these frogs.
Still interested in hearing about the possible Colon-Bastimentos crossing that may have happened. Was this mentioned at all in the book as well, or just something Frank brought up in that post?
Thanks,
Bryan


----------



## Frank St

Here comes the problem with translated language...honestly I never had the chance to get a hold on an English version of the book! The translations were done by a third party...
So for me it is not always clear, what quote you guys are refering to....
As for the Red Frog Beach: Of course it is total nonsense to identify this population/morph just by cuffs - in the German book it says something like "often you can identify..." but this is of course not a hint that one could determine local morphs by its phenotypical (What typical??) color....BUt if you compare the RFB morph e.g. the one displayed above on the pics to another Bastimentos motph you see that clear white ventral line....this is seen very often and the western part morph doesn´t show this strict border of colors...BUT this is not a 100% sure thing, you will always find individuals that prove you´re wrong....but RFB frogs tend also to be a bit smaller in size than Western Bastimentos frogs - see chart.
For the mixture with Colon frogs - well, the genetics that were done in this population (western) showed often clear traces of "Colon DNA" (CSI Bocas ;-)) and the "story" of the people from Bastimentos (black descendants of the banana plantage workers that were once "enslaved" on the islands) goes like, that the black folks wanted to have the green frogs from Colon too, so this is no privilege of the white man on Colon anymore....well urban legends but they are being told...but genetically possible, there is a lot of trafficking with frogs - I witnessed folks bringing a whole bucket of Cristobal frogs to Bastimentos and setting them free there - there is loads of tourists having frog safaris and for the normal people it is not a crime to spread the colored frogs amongst the islands....how far this might end up in remarkable genetic impact is another question....the distance between Colon and Bastimentos (west) might have been closer in the past or there were frogs drifting between the islands (e.g. like the iguanas that drifted to Galapgos once to become the marine iguana...) There is plenty of space for ideas and romatic stories ;-)
I do not claim to be right in every point once again! There can not be one frog pointed out for a whole population in color....


----------



## Frank St

PS: Also the morphs may show total change in color or pattern generation-wise! The RFB-population e.g. looked totally different when a friend visited the island a year ago - so there might be genetic drifts and stuff having patterns and colors disappeared and changed...


----------



## Azurel

Frank St said:


> Here comes the problem with translated language...honestly I never had the chance to get a hold on an English version of the book! The translations were done by a third party...
> So for me it is not always clear, what quote you guys are refering to....
> As for the Red Frog Beach: Of course it is total nonsense to identify this population/morph just by cuffs - in the German book it says something like "often you can identify..." but this is of course not a hint that one could determine local morphs by its phenotypical (What typical??) color....BUt if you compare the RFB morph e.g. the one displayed above on the pics to another Bastimentos motph you see that clear white ventral line....this is seen very often and the western part morph doesn´t show this strict border of colors...BUT this is not a 100% sure thing, you will always find individuals that prove you´re wrong....but RFB frogs tend also to be a bit smaller in size than Western Bastimentos frogs - see chart.
> For the mixture with Colon frogs - well, the genetics that were done in this population (western) showed often clear traces of "Colon DNA" (CSI Bocas ;-)) and the "story" of the people from Bastimentos (black descendants of the banana plantage workers that were once "enslaved" on the islands) goes like, that the black folks wanted to have the green frogs from Colon too, so this is no privilege of the white man on Colon anymore....well urban legends but they are being told...but genetically possible, there is a lot of trafficking with frogs - I witnessed folks bringing a whole bucket of Cristobal frogs to Bastimentos and setting them free there - there is loads of tourists having frog safaris and for the normal people it is not a crime to spread the colored frogs amongst the islands....how far this might end up in remarkable genetic impact is another question....the distance between Colon and Bastimentos (west) might have been closer in the past or there were frogs drifting between the islands (e.g. like the iguanas that drifted to Galapgos once to become the marine iguana...) There is plenty of space for ideas and romatic stories ;-)
> I do not claim to be right in every point once again! There can not be one frog pointed out for a whole population in color....




Awesome insight Frank...Thanks for having an input in the conversation....You could be correct with the slight differences in print due to translation. That in itself didn't occur to me but a single word change can have a huge difference in impact.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## cbreon

Frank St said:


> PS: Also the morphs may show total change in color or pattern generation-wise! The RFB-population e.g. looked totally different when a friend visited the island a year ago - so there might be genetic drifts and stuff having patterns and colors disappeared and changed...


Based on personal accounts from those who have visited Bocas Del Toro the various colon populations seem to have quite a bit of variability too and that variability seems to change year-to-year, also potentially resulting from genetic drift. 

Pictures from CVD and others of the Del Drago population show frogs with white legs, while the "Del Drago" morph that we see in the hobby seem to consistently produce those orange/yellow legs. This could quite possibly be the product of a small sample size taken from a select population. While the older hobby lines seem to produce white legs, yellow legs, darker green, lighter green, and the occasional no spot animal, which seems to be in line with the pictures taken by CVD from various populations all over the island. From what I have heard from people that have spent time on Bocas Del Toro, the island has few natural barriers and the population is quite possibly contiguous. 

I think the same type of year-to-year change seems to be occuring on smaller island populations such as Escudos De Varagues as well. These phenotypical changes seems to be part of the normal cycle that occurs in many of the pumilio populations based on the pictures and articles that I have read.


----------



## Baltimore Bryan

Frank St said:


> For the mixture with Colon frogs - well, the genetics that were done in this population (western) showed often clear traces of "Colon DNA" (CSI Bocas ;-)) and the "story" of the people from Bastimentos (black descendants of the banana plantage workers that were once "enslaved" on the islands) goes like, that the black folks wanted to have the green frogs from Colon too, so this is no privilege of the white man on Colon anymore....well urban legends but they are being told...but genetically possible, there is a lot of trafficking with frogs - I witnessed folks bringing a whole bucket of Cristobal frogs to Bastimentos and setting them free there - there is loads of tourists having frog safaris and for the normal people it is not a crime to spread the colored frogs amongst the islands....how far this might end up in remarkable genetic impact is another question...


Hi Frank,
Thanks for clearing that up and expanding on the colon-Bastimentos question, I really appreciate you're insight. It's upsetting to hear that they may be intentionally mixed across islands because I love the natural variation that's already there.
Although I believe I recall hearing that the Bocas islands were above land and connected at one point, then the sea level rose and cut off the different islands, allowing the different populations to evolve. Maybe since Colon is so close to the west end of Isla Bastimentos they were naturally an integrated population before being separated and that's why there are some genetic similarities.
Bryan


----------



## Gamble

Hi Frank -
Can you possibly give some clarification on your statement about the Uyama River & Robalo?

You stated in the book that these are indeed one in the same, but hobbyists in the past have argued that this is not true.

Since you were in the field & have seen it 1st hand, (I assume),
Can you state why you feel they are the same frog?

Thx Frank


----------



## MarcNem

Gamble said:


> Hi Frank -
> Can you possibly give some clarification on your statement about the Uyama River & Robalo?
> 
> You stated in the book that these are indeed one in the same, but hobbyists in the past have argued that this is not true.
> 
> Since you were in the field & have seen it 1st hand, (I assume),
> Can you state why you feel they are the same frog?
> 
> Thx Frank


Hey Nick,

I have read thru several of your post and other similar discussions, but did you ever get any clarification on the question of "Uyama River" & "Robalo"?

Marc


----------



## furraan

Last year I was on Isla Popa and Isla Bastimentos. Isla Bastimentos difference in coloration between Oophaga pumilio variety,, Red Frog Beach " was this:


http://www.fotosik.pl/zdjecie/ee20764465882f75



http://www.fotosik.pl/zdjecie/11967ead4c91c4b3

And this variety ,, Cemetery " :


http://www.fotosik.pl/zdjecie/91039c240cde8be9


http://www.fotosik.pl/zdjecie/c63ea122fef95df0


http://www.fotosik.pl/zdjecie/c63ea122fef95df0


http://www.fotosik.pl/zdjecie/031579fb1597b5f9

Sorry for my English


----------



## Gamble

MarcNem said:


> Hey Nick,
> 
> I have read thru several of your post and other similar discussions, but did you ever get any clarification on the question of "Uyama River" & "Robalo"?
> 
> Marc


Based on the conversations I've had with Frank, they are one in the same. 

But you'll have some Froggers who will still debate that, and I suspect it had more to do with money than anything else. 

Ultimately though, it is not definitively certain either way.


----------

