# Is my brown Dendrobates leucomelas odd?



## choco (May 1, 2009)

I have a brown pigmented D. leucomelas (as well as a regular black one) and I was wondering if anyone else does as well? I'm curious how normal or odd my little guy/girl is 

Thank you!


----------



## ggazonas (May 11, 2008)

That is quite normal. I won't get into the genetics of it right now, but basically it has no pigment so the skin looks brown. These trait have been bred over and over again that they are usually sold as Chocolate Leucs. So it is not unusual to find these, except that they are sold under the name I previously mentioned. It is okay to keep her with the normal leuc considering they are not genetically speaking different frogs.

Beautiful frog by the way


----------



## Elf_Ascetic (Jan 31, 2009)

They're amelanetic. That's the lack of black pigment. It's genetic, and they *WILL *pass this to their offspring. (I don't know if this trait is recessive or not)


----------



## ggazonas (May 11, 2008)

Elf_Ascetic said:


> They're amelanetic. That's the lack of black pigment. It's genetic, and they *WILL *pass this to their offspring. (I don't know if this trait is recessive or not)


Thats what I meant


----------



## afterdark (Jan 16, 2007)

Yep - you scored a 'designer' frog and didn't even know it! Great looking animal - I really like the brown leucs.


----------



## choco (May 1, 2009)

afterdark said:


> Yep - you scored a 'designer' frog and didn't even know it! Great looking animal - I really like the brown leucs.


Ggazonas and Afterdark, thank you for the information. 

I knew that this wasn't a regular leuc when I purchased it, I actually paid quite a bit since the breeder was loath to part with it and I really wanted it for my collection. May I ask if you know what these Chocolate leucs generally go for? I'm curious if I over paid extensively for the little guy or not, for future reference.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

I don't remember where, but I've seen chocolate leucs go for as much as $90 before. Quite a difference compared to the $35-$40 for a "normal" leuc.

This is one of the few frogs it's okay to mix/breed with frogs that don't look very similar. This is because they're line bred. In fact, there are a few members on this board who think all chocolate leucs _should_ be bred with normal leucs since it's not a naturally occuring trait (when I say this I mean to say that it would be extremely odd to find one in the wild, they are far more of an oddity in the wild than in the hobby).


----------



## jelly_shrimp (Apr 17, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, if you were to mate a chocolate with another chocolate would you get another chocolate? And what if you mated a normal with a chocoalte? Is this chocolate gene (tell me if there's a proper term) recesive? Dominant? I need more info about this, I'm definately doing some research on this subject. Because there are so many possibilities. Recessive chocolate with dominant normal, dominat chocolate with recesive normal, both dominant, both recesive, etc. If anybody knows a good bit of genetics maybe you could throw your 2 cents into the pot of confusion and enlighten us a bit (or me, if I'm the only one curious). Also, does this chocolate come out of accident for mating two normals just randomly? Because if this is a "sub-species" then it might actually be a really common mutation, and we find it as an oo-awe kinda thing but it may be a real issue. Or alas it might be because it's kinda late and I'm tired...


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Seeing's how leucs were line-bred for this trait, it seems logical to assume that the chocolate trait is a recessive trait. When it is mated with a "normal" leuc (assuming that the "normal" leuc doesn't have any of the recessive genes for the chocolate trait) the offspring should all be "normal" (I use the word "normal" for lack of a better word). I would assume this is why others (those who look down on line-breeding for specific traits) want them mixed with "normal" leucs (i.e. to dispose (attempt to dispose) of the chocolate trait).

Disregarding the philosophical problems of calling genetic mutations "accidental," I'd guess that you could occasionally find a chocolate leuc in the wild (since those genetic traits had to have existed in _some_ animals in the wild, if there weren't there would be no point in attempting to line-breed for a trait that couldn't exist), but since we know for sure that chocolate leucs were line-bred for their unique coloration there's no reason to insist that they're a different morph/locality than the basic nominat leucs, and thus mixing them with nominats shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## ggazonas (May 11, 2008)

jelly_shrimp said:


> Just out of curiosity, if you were to mate a chocolate with another chocolate would you get another chocolate? And what if you mated a normal with a chocoalte? Is this chocolate gene (tell me if there's a proper term) recesive? Dominant? I need more info about this, I'm definately doing some research on this subject. Because there are so many possibilities. Recessive chocolate with dominant normal, dominat chocolate with recesive normal, both dominant, both recesive, etc. If anybody knows a good bit of genetics maybe you could throw your 2 cents into the pot of confusion and enlighten us a bit (or me, if I'm the only one curious). Also, does this chocolate come out of accident for mating two normals just randomly? Because if this is a "sub-species" then it might actually be a really common mutation, and we find it as an oo-awe kinda thing but it may be a real issue. Or alas it might be because it's kinda late and I'm tired...


I'm not positive on this but from my understanding if you breed two chocolates togther you will get more chocolates but you can also get normal leucs as well. And if you breed a chocolate and a normal you will get mainly normal leucs but you may also get a couple of chocolates from time to time. Again they were bred for there coloration so they are not a naturally occuring species which is why it is okay to breed them with normal leucs since they are normal leucs just minus so genes.


----------



## jelly_shrimp (Apr 17, 2009)

Thanks Smack, and Gozonas, that all cleared up a lot. I just seems like this could be a mutation. Just one that people like.


----------



## McBobs (Apr 26, 2007)

ggazonas said:


> I'm not positive on this but from my understanding if you breed two chocolates togther you will get more chocolates but you can also get normal leucs as well. And if you breed a chocolate and a normal you will get mainly normal leucs but you may also get a couple of chocolates from time to time. Again they were bred for there coloration so they are not a naturally occuring species which is why it is okay to breed them with normal leucs since they are normal leucs just minus so genes.


This isnt quite true. For the chocolate phenotype to occur, the individual frog has two recessive genes for the chocolate coloration. We'll call the genes "cc". Since the chocolate coloration is recessive, this means that it does not carry the dominant gene for the normal coloration. If a frog is normal colored, there are two possibilities. It can have 2 dominant genes "CC", or 1 dominant and one recessive, "Cc". 

So, if you breed to homozygous dominant individuals together (CC), all offspring will carry the "CC" genes because there is not a recessive gene in the mix at all. 

If you breed 1 homozygous dominant individual (CC) with a heterozygous individual (Cc), the off spring will be split 50/50. Half of the individuals will be homozygous dominant (CC) and the other half will be heterozygous (Cc) for both traits. All though half of the offspring are carriers for the recessive gene, they will not show the recessive trait because it is overridden by the dominant normal trait. 

If 2 heterozygous individuals are bred (Cc) the results will be split three ways. 25% of the froglets will be homozygous dominant (CC), 25% of the froglets will be homozygous recessive (cc), and the remaining 50% of the froglets will be heterozygous (Cc) like the parents but will not show the phenotype at all. 

And then last but not least, if you breed 2 homozygous recessive individuals (cc) the results will be all the same homozygous recessive (cc). 

SO in short, if you breed 2 chocolate leucs together, the offspring should be all chocolate leucs as well. 

Hopefully this clears up some confusion. 

-Matt


----------



## jelly_shrimp (Apr 17, 2009)

I could have said some of that if I wasn't failing the genetics section I'm in right now. MAKES NO SENCE!!!


----------



## salix (Mar 28, 2008)

McBobs said:


> Hopefully this clears up some confusion.
> 
> -Matt


What he said, I love the mathematics of genetics (math/biology were my favorite subjects, guess that's why I'm an accountant type now and a huge animal fan), I just didn't have the energy to type that all out again.

Thanks Matt! 

Deb


----------



## salix (Mar 28, 2008)

jelly_shrimp said:


> I could have said some of that if I didn't fail the genetics section I'm in right now. MAKES NO SENCE!!!


Hmmm, back to why you are getting no allowance this year 

And it's "sense", how are you doing in english/grammer/spelling? 

Deb

(Don't get made, I'm teasing him about his other post about not having the money to set up a tank because he might have to go to summer school. His parents will withhold his allowance. I'm just being a parent, I already had these battles with my son )

Just keep at that schoolwork and you'll be ready when your parents are ready to relent on the frogs you want. And leucs are not that loud and they sound a bit like canaries. I think your parents would like them! Go to one of the websites with frog calls (like mistking) and let them hear the call for themselves. I love the sound. I have two tanks of terribs, one of leucs and one of tricolors all in my livingroom just for the seranade.

Deb


----------



## jelly_shrimp (Apr 17, 2009)

salix said:


> Hmmm, back to why you are getting no allowance this year
> 
> And it's "sense", how are you doing in english/grammer/spelling?
> 
> ...


HAHAHAAA!! Payback, it's spelt mad! Ha, lol just messing with you!


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

McBobs said:


> This isnt quite true. For the chocolate phenotype to occur, the individual frog has two recessive genes for the chocolate coloration. We'll call the genes "cc". Since the chocolate coloration is recessive, this means that it does not carry the dominant gene for the normal coloration. If a frog is normal colored, there are two possibilities. It can have 2 dominant genes "CC", or 1 dominant and one recessive, "Cc".
> 
> So, if you breed to homozygous dominant individuals together (CC), all offspring will carry the "CC" genes because there is not a recessive gene in the mix at all.
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, are we sure that this phenotype occurs due to a monogenetic sequence? Seems that if this were the case the chocolate coloration would occur far more often in nature. However, the chocolate coloration required a polygenetic sequence (you need (cc) (bb) and (xx) for instance) then mendellian genetics wouldn't apply so strictly and it would be extremely uncommon for these to occur in the wild....


----------



## salix (Mar 28, 2008)

Personally I have no idea if color genetics have been studied in dart frogs. The explaination given by Matt is just how dominant/recessive works.

I've done quite a bit of study in color probabilities in dogs and rabbits, but you can't apply that to a different species. I have no idea if there are modification factors involved.

However, I think it's fairly clear that chocolate is recessive to black, since black parents can produce chocolates. You can't get a dominant color from breeding two recessives, because you can hide a recessive gene, but not a dominant one. (It used to drive me nuts on TV shows when a brown eyed actor played the child of blue eyed parents, someone was fooling around! But I suppose that was a little anal on my part.).

Contrary to what common sense would seem to dictate, given long enough the world will only be populated by species in their recessive forms. With dominate forms the recessive gene can always be hiding there somewhere. With dominant genes, once they are lost to the eye, they are lost forever.

Deb


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

It's likely a single gene. I don't know what's missing to make it this way, though. There's a good possibility you can find these in nature about roughly as much as you see leucistic animals (moonshine galacts are possibly leucistic).

The question is, how common are they in the wild? They may not be as uncommon as you think if you were able to see every leuc in existance in the wild (even more interesting to see into the frogs to know how many are carriers of the recessive allele). Also, does one have a slightly harder chance surviving if it expresses the trait (other frogs choosing not to breed with it or a harder time dealing with the sun and/or a harder time converting vitamins using the sun).

Personally, I like both the chocolate and the green footed leucs shown in the book "Poison Frogs."


-Nish



SmackoftheGods said:


> Just out of curiosity, are we sure that this phenotype occurs due to a monogenetic sequence? Seems that if this were the case the chocolate coloration would occur far more often in nature. However, the chocolate coloration required a polygenetic sequence (you need (cc) (bb) and (xx) for instance) then mendellian genetics wouldn't apply so strictly and it would be extremely uncommon for these to occur in the wild....


----------

