# Keeping species/morphs going in the hobby



## fieldnstream

Hey all,
I have been thinking a lot lately about how we as a hobby can do more for the frogs we keep. I have been inspired by a recent thread to try to be more conscientious when choosing my next frogs. Though I have always chosen frogs based on coloration or behavior, I think there can be much more worthwhile ways of choosing which species to keep. I would prefer to acquire frogs that need to be stabilized in captivity rather than just some pretty/common ones that I like. I am looking for opinions on what frogs need more attention in the hobby and info/experiences with said frogs. I know that much of this information can be found in older threads, but some of the info is outdated, so I would love for this to become an up-to-date resource for all of us that want to keep species/morphs from disappearing from captivity. I don't think this thread has to focus on really expensive frogs, (I think almost everyone knows that O. histrionica, lehmanni, granulifera, sylvatica, etc...are rare) just on frogs that may be lost from the hobby. This doesn't mean that these species/morphs shouldn't be mentioned, but I hope that this can be a much more broad view of what frogs need to be bolstered in the hobby. There has been mention of some tricolor morphs that are becoming increasingly rare, I would love to hear more ideas about some of the less "glamorous" frogs that may be lost. I truly believe that this can become a beneficial thread for us all.
Thanks in advance to those who share experiences and ideas
-Field


----------



## ExoticPocket

Some of the morphs of the tricolor and anthonyi could dissapear becuase they produce soo many tadpoles and breed soo much and mabye some people don't like that. What would be cool is to just to keep one frog like a whole bunch of tricolors and anthonyis and only keep them and try to stabalize the less common morphs in the hobby.


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Field,

I think you have good intentions with wanting to work with frogs that aren't well-represented in the hobby (not just the most expensive and/or illegal frogs). My friend Mike K. gave me five Blue D. truncatus tadpoles last year and I now have a 3.2 or 2.3 group that is laying every few days. It seems that some people have trouble getting breeding pairs going, so my intention is to raise-up a large number of froglets and put breeding pairs together for people interested in working with the frog.

You could probably find a large number of frogs that have diminished in popularity in the hobby this way. Just find frogs that you also think are really cool. Nothing like raising a bunch of frogs that you really aren't that fond of.

Good luck, Richard.


----------



## fieldnstream

Richard,
Blue D. truncatus were actually near the top of my list before I even started thinking about working with frogs that are less common. I asked in the local thread but no one seems to have them, I had read that they were less common, but I didn't realize just how uncommon they really are. I wish you the best of luck expanding your collection, I'm sure you have a mile-long waitlist, but keep me in mind if/when you have some groups ready, I would love to be part of keeping the species in the hobby.

ExoticPocket,
I think that focusing on a species is a great idea. I was going to try to get all the D. leucomelas morphs, but now I'm thinking of trying to just keep a few species/morphs and try to learn as much as possible about the few I keep. I really like your Zarayunga, I hope you keep having great luck with them.


----------



## ExoticPocket

fieldnstream said:


> Richard,
> Blue D. truncatus were actually near the top of my list before I even started thinking about working with frogs that are less common. I asked in the local thread but no one seems to have them, I had read that they were less common, but I didn't realize just how uncommon they really are. I wish you the best of luck expanding your collection, I'm sure you have a mile-long waitlist, but keep me in mind if/when you have some groups ready, I would love to be part of keeping the species in the hobby.
> 
> ExoticPocket,
> I think that focusing on a species is a great idea. I was going to try to get all the D. leucomelas morphs, but now I'm thinking of trying to just keep a few species/morphs and try to learn as much as possible about the few I keep. I really like your Zarayunga, I hope you keep having great luck with them.


You can have some. Got a but load of eggs in the tank and like 7 morph outs and then some tads in the tank. hahaha  That be cool to get all the morphs of a frog... Especially pumilio


----------



## Justin Bailey

I really like this idea as keeping the ugliest frogs I can possibly find, is exactly what I'm in to. After keeping several rare (to the hobby) tree frogs, I found however, that in order to maintane*sp. A population of these frogs you would have to reproduce them at some point. When you are someone like myself who takes pride in keeping some of the ugliest frogs, you find that after breeding them no one but yourself takes interest in them, leaving you with possibly hundreds of extra froglets with no where to go. This lead me to stop keeping several of these species but I still kick myself for moving them as some are now listed as critically endangered and I may never be able to acquire them again. If there were always homes for extra offspring than this idea would work great but that isnt always the case often unfortunately.


----------



## Ed

Keep in mind that blue truncatus are more common on the west coast of the US as opposed to the east coast where yellow truncatus are more common. 

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods

I was going to mention truncatus as well.... Possibly flavovittatus? Uakarii?

Three things i'll mention. First has been mentioned already. In order to maintain a species you have to reproduce them. You have to be prepared for the possibility that no one will want your frogs. That means having a huge space dedicated to tanks to keep your offspring in.

Second, in order to maintain a species you can't just work with a single pair or a single bloodline. You need to gather as many bloodlines as possible in an attempt to maintain genetic diversity.

Third, keep in mind that the hobby goes in cycles. Chances are when you get outside of the great beginner frogs like leucs, azureus, and some varieties of auratus, it doesn't matter which frog you're working with, it will have its day of unpopularity. This seems to be the way that some frogs are lost. Something gets overbred, becomes unpopular and people stop taking care of/breeding/distributing the frog. Then when the frog becomes popular/rare again no one can find it. So it's not necessary to find frogs you're not interested in right NOW. But if you get a species, hang on to it and continue to breed it. Chances are it's time will come. This is also another reason to gather as many lines as possible as you can if you're thinking about a maintenance project. If you're only working with one line, then a few years down the road if you're the only one pumping out that frog there may not be much genetic diversity.


----------



## Ed

SmackoftheGods said:


> Three things i'll mention. First has been mentioned already. In order to maintain a species you have to reproduce them. You have to be prepared for the possibility that no one will want your frogs. That means having a huge space dedicated to tanks to keep your offspring in.
> 
> Second, in order to maintain a species you can't just work with a single pair or a single bloodline. You need to gather as many bloodlines as possible in an attempt to maintain genetic diversity.


If there are other people who are dedicated to a species, then you don't have to gather up as many of the bloodlines as possible, but you should hold back some offspring to make sure that in case something happens to your frogs, you have some backup. 

Actually it is more than just breeding the frogs.. you have to actually look to maximize the genetic diversity of the frogs that are breeding. The most common practice in the hobby is to get a group from a single breeder and then make one or more pairs from what are usually siblings or closely related cousins. This causes a loss of genetic diversity over time and puts the populations at risk not only from the popularity cycles but inbreeding depression. 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Ed said:


> If there are other people who are dedicated to a species, then you don't have to gather up as many of the bloodlines as possible, but you should hold back some offspring to make sure that in case something happens to your frogs, you have some backup.
> 
> Actually it is more than just breeding the frogs.. you have to actually look to maximize the genetic diversity of the frogs that are breeding. The most common practice in the hobby is to get a group from a single breeder and then make one or more pairs from what are usually siblings or closely related cousins. This causes a loss of genetic diversity over time and puts the populations at risk not only from the popularity cycles but inbreeding depression.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Thanks, Ed. I wanted to be more specific, but I was on my phone and typing too much with the thumbs hurts....


----------



## Ed

SmackoftheGods said:


> Thanks, Ed. I wanted to be more specific, but I was on my phone and typing too much with the thumbs hurts....


I wouldn't even attempt to answer a post like this on my phone, your a braver man than I. 

Ed


----------



## fieldnstream

Ed said:


> If there are other people who are dedicated to a species, then you don't have to gather up as many of the bloodlines as possible, but you should hold back some offspring to make sure that in case something happens to your frogs, you have some backup.
> 
> Actually it is more than just breeding the frogs.. you have to actually look to maximize the genetic diversity of the frogs that are breeding. The most common practice in the hobby is to get a group from a single breeder and then make one or more pairs from what are usually siblings or closely related cousins. This causes a loss of genetic diversity over time and puts the populations at risk not only from the popularity cycles but inbreeding depression.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


This is one of the things I am interested in...organizing small groups with unrelated bloodlines (where possible) so that diversity can be maximized. As long as there is open communication and exchange of offspring it could work out great. 
I'm sure this has been done before so any insight into how to operate a group like this would be greatly appreciated. I don't have enough connections in the hobby to lead something like this, but I will do my best to help out in any way possible. I know a good step would be to join TWI/ASN which is something I plan on doing in the next few weeks.
Anyone else have some more suggestions for species/morphs?


----------



## Ed

I should add, that it is also impractical for most if not virtually individual hobbyists to maintain enough frogs to sustain the maximal genetic diversity. As an example, to maximize genetic diversity for between 100 and 200 years, you need to start with at least 50 individuals of that population and preferably more thsn 100 individuals of that population and then breed them in a manner to maxize the genetic diversity to prevent inbreeding risks. The method that is used by the majority of the hobby doesn't do anything to ensure survival of a population of the frogs because even getting frogs from different breeders doesn't necessarily indicate degree of unrelatedness of the frogs and frogs that are well adapted and produce large numbers of offspring can swamp the population diminishing the less common alleles or contributions by frogs that do not reproduce as frequently. When this is added to the popularity cycles, the outlook for the frogs over the next 50-100 years is grim. In a different thread, it was noted that one population of dendrobatid frog has gone extinct due to a failure to ensure that it was sustained, and there is a substantial risk that other species may follow. People have to get past the idea that simply breeding a frog is ensuring that the population is doing well.... 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale

Ed said:


> Keep in mind that blue truncatus are more common on the west coast of the US as opposed to the east coast where yellow truncatus are more common.


Agreed. I would love to work with the yellow form of truncatus, but all anyone out here seems to have are the less attractive blue ones.


----------



## skylsdale

fieldnstream said:


> I'm sure this has been done before so any insight into how to operate a group like this would be greatly appreciated. I don't have enough connections in the hobby to lead something like this, but I will do my best to help out in any way possible. I know a good step would be to join TWI/ASN which is something I plan on doing in the next few weeks.


You just described the purpose and function of Taxon Management Groups (TMGs) within the ASN. You work on a TMP that will outline how a species and it's various captive morphs/populations will be worked with. Then, when enough founding participants and number of unrelated frogs are coordinated, the TMG is formed. Members within the group keep in communicated regarding husbandry and breeding, trade unrelated (or less related) frogs with one another as desired in order to maintain genetic diversity and health of the captive population, etc. Just sign up and contact either of the ASN co-directors about your passion/interests and they'll help get you going.


----------



## tclipse

Definitely a good cause, but one of the inherent problems is actually sourcing one or more breeding pairs to get started... with many of these frogs, it's rough even finding froglets. I'm experiencing this right now with Mantella laevigata, I've only found one person with froglets (and no one with available adults) and he isn't shipping during summer, so the search continues. 

For what it's worth, taking a shotgun approach and searching for several species that fit the bill will probably be easier than being completely set on one species/morph. I'm definitely with Richard on his 'make sure it's something you like' comment, but being somewhat flexible will help your chances.

edit- It's also harder being new-ish guys like us, I'm thinking that meeting some of the more seasoned hobbyists will go a long way with this type of thing.


----------



## skylsdale

tclipse said:


> Definitely a good cause, but one of the inherent problems is actually sourcing one or more breeding pairs to get started... with many of these frogs, it's rough even finding froglets. I'm experiencing this right now with Mantella laevigata, I've only found one person with froglets (and no one with available adults) and he isn't shipping during summer, so the search continues.


However, being part of a working group of people who are also focusing on the same species/morph makes available all of their footwork and connections as well, widening the pool of resources and possibility.


----------



## boabab95

fieldnstream said:


> I was going to try to get all the D. leucomelas morphs,


Hate to hijack, but aren't there only 2 "true morphs"/locales in the hobby?


----------



## thedude

boabab95 said:


> Hate to hijack, but aren't there only 2 "true morphs"/locales in the hobby?


standards, small spots, green foot, guyana banded, guyana yellow.


this could be a potentially great thread, theres already great info on it. heres a good list of some uncommon frogs that need some help, and are also somewhat obtainable (as in, not like some obligates out there).

A. bassleri 
A. trivittata
A. altamazonica
A. pepperi
A. hanheli
A. zaparo
A. femoralis
R. uakarii
R. reticulata
R. benedicta
R. ventrimaculata (Blackwater, Rodyll, Rio Napo, Borja Ridge)
R. summersi
R. flavovittata
P. vittata
P. lugubris
P. aurotaenia
H. azureiventris
O. pumilio (Uyama River, Rio Branco, Rio Guarmo, Robalo, Salt Creek, Red Frog Beach, Darklands, Cauchero, Loma Partida, Siquerres, Blue Jeans, Escudos, Chiriqui Grande, Pastores, Cayo Agua, Yellowbelly, possibly more)
D. leucomelas (Small Spot, Green Foot)
D. tinctorius (Lorenzo, Koetari River, French Guyana Cobalt, several others)
D. auratus (Mebalo, Low River, several other "ugly" populations)
A. galactonotus (Red, Solid Orange, Moonshine)
A. castaneoticus
A. quinquivittata
E. tricolor
E. anthonyi (Pasage Sarayunga, Rio Canario, Salvias, several others i cant recall)

some are way worse than others but you get the idea. its a big list, but this is partially because some frogs are quite new to the hobby, and others are subject to boom and bust cycles every few years.


----------



## fieldnstream

boabab95 said:


> Hate to hijack, but aren't there only 2 "true morphs"/locales in the hobby?


I should have been clearer...morphs and localities. Old lines (Columbian I believe)and the new imports (Guiana or Guyana...can't remember), plus the "selected" morphs. I have also heard that there are two types of bandeds, from 2 collection areas. I also believe that green foots are a locality, but I am not certain of this. So its more than just nominat and banded. I am interested in any information people have about the different leucomelas lines, morphs, localities, etc...pms with insight would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## zBrinks

Concerning leucomelas, also keep in mind that the 'standard/nominat' leucs are, for the most part, a mish-mash of different imports from Venezuela. I would say it's more than likely that at least some of these imports represent different populations.

Green foot leucs came from Venezuela in early 1995. 
I have some 'standards' that are F2 from a 1996 import, and they are the largest 'standard' leucs I've ever seen.
According to some, there seems to possibly be 3 different phenotypes of leucs coming out of Guyana. If these represent different populations is anyone's guess, but they do seem to breed true.


----------



## fieldnstream

zBrinks said:


> I have some 'standards' that are F2 from a 1996 import, and they are the largest 'standard' leucs I've ever seen.


The froglets from that import that I got from you are at least 30% larger than the the other leuc froglets, I'm excited to see what they look like as adults. 

So are the only trait-bred leucomelas the chocolates?
Maybe I should start a new thread...don't want to hijack my own thread.

I'm interested to hear from people who are working to set up safety populations, I know Ed was saying that large numbers are necessary, but it seems that if we figure out what people are trying to stabilize what species/morphs, it may influence others to set up small groups to further that work. 
Hopefully within the next few months I will be getting a couple of groups of blue D. truncatus (thank you to all of yall that have helped me with this so far), anyone else interested in trying to form a group to stabilize these animals (especially on the east coast)?


----------



## zBrinks

fieldnstream said:


> So are the only trait-bred leucomelas the chocolates and finespots?


 Fine spot azureus have been line bred - fine spot leucomelas have not been. Small numbers of them came into the country many years ago.


----------



## fieldnstream

zBrinks said:


> Fine spot azureus have been line bred - fine spot leucomelas have not been. Small numbers of them came into the country many years ago.


Thanks Zach, just found the thread where you already answered this question...didn't finish going through my search results before I asked this...I know Blasphemy!


----------



## PeanutbuttER

I thought fine spot azureus were linebred from naturally occurring fine spot individuals. Weren't a proportion of the original imports fine spot? I'm assuming they weren't as extreme as some of those that were line-bred for it, but still I thought they originally existed as a natural variation within the standard azureus population.


----------



## zBrinks

That's correct - azureus can be quite variable. I have a trio of F2s at home, and one looks like your typical azureus, while another has virtually no spotting.


----------



## Golden State Mantellas

thedude said:


> standards, small spots, green foot, guyana banded, guyana yellow.
> 
> 
> this could be a potentially great thread, theres already great info on it. heres a good list of some uncommon frogs that need some help, and are also somewhat obtainable (as in, not like some obligates out there).
> 
> A. bassleri
> A. trivittata
> A. altamazonica
> A. pepperi
> A. hanheli
> A. zaparo
> A. femoralis
> R. uakarii
> R. reticulata
> R. benedicta
> R. ventrimaculata (Blackwater, Rodyll, Rio Napo, Borja Ridge)
> R. summersi
> R. flavovittata
> P. vittata
> P. lugubris
> P. aurotaenia
> H. azureiventris
> O. pumilio (Uyama River, Rio Branco, Rio Guarmo, Robalo, Salt Creek, Red Frog Beach, Darklands, Cauchero, Loma Partida, Siquerres, Blue Jeans, Escudos, Chiriqui Grande, Pastores, Cayo Agua, Yellowbelly, possibly more)
> D. leucomelas (Small Spot, Green Foot)
> D. tinctorius (Lorenzo, Koetari River, French Guyana Cobalt, several others)
> D. auratus (Mebalo, Low River, several other "ugly" populations)
> A. galactonotus (Red, Solid Orange, Moonshine)
> A. castaneoticus
> A. quinquivittata
> E. tricolor
> E. anthonyi (Pasage Sarayunga, Rio Canario, Salvias, several others i cant recall)
> 
> some are way worse than others but you get the idea. its a big list, but this is partially because some frogs are quite new to the hobby, and others are subject to boom and bust cycles every few years.


To build on Adam's post:

_M. cowani
M. bernhardi
M. haraldmeieri
M. milotympanum
M. pulchra
M. expectata 'standard'
M. expectata aff.
M. crocea_
_M. ebenaui_ (not "rare," though not many hobbyists working to further them in the trade)
_M. madagascariensis
M. nigricans_ (genetically identical to M. baroni)
_M. baroni_ (genetically identical to M. nigricans)
_M. laevigata
M. viridis_

Only _M. aurantiaca_ was left out, mainly due to the high number of keepers (both vets and novices) having such success breeding them.

Credit to Rain_Frog and stemcellular for building the list (minus a couple of additions by me  ) in another thread.


----------



## Ed

Golden State Mantellas said:


> Only _M. aurantiaca_ was left out, mainly due to the high number of keepers (both vets and novices) having such success breeding them.


I wouldn't leave them off as they were fairly scarce just a few years ago and very little interest. I can remember a certain IAD where a breeder had captive bred animals and sold none during the course of the show.. the recent imports are what put some life back into that species. 

Ed


----------



## botanyboy03

thedude said:


> standards, small spots, green foot, guyana banded, guyana yellow.
> 
> 
> this could be a potentially great thread, theres already great info on it. heres a good list of some uncommon frogs that need some help, and are also somewhat obtainable (as in, not like some obligates out there).
> 
> A. bassleri
> A. trivittata
> A. altamazonica
> A. pepperi
> A. hanheli
> A. zaparo
> A. femoralis
> R. uakarii
> R. reticulata
> R. benedicta
> R. ventrimaculata (Blackwater, Rodyll, Rio Napo, Borja Ridge)
> R. summersi
> R. flavovittata
> P. vittata
> P. lugubris
> P. aurotaenia
> H. azureiventris
> O. pumilio (Uyama River, Rio Branco, Rio Guarmo, Robalo, Salt Creek, Red Frog Beach, Darklands, Cauchero, Loma Partida, Siquerres, Blue Jeans, Escudos, Chiriqui Grande, Pastores, Cayo Agua, Yellowbelly, possibly more)
> D. leucomelas (Small Spot, Green Foot)
> D. tinctorius (Lorenzo, Koetari River, French Guyana Cobalt, several others)
> *D. auratus (Mebalo, Low River, several other "ugly" populations)*
> A. galactonotus (Red, Solid Orange, Moonshine)
> A. castaneoticus
> A. quinquivittata
> E. tricolor
> E. anthonyi (Pasage Sarayunga, Rio Canario, Salvias, several others i cant recall)
> 
> some are way worse than others but you get the idea. its a big list, but this is partially because some frogs are quite new to the hobby, and others are subject to boom and bust cycles every few years.



Would you consider Campana to be one of the "uglier" morphs? They're definitely not the most flashy or outgoing, but I like my breeding pair. 

I'm working with H azureriventris, but no breeding yet. AND I am soon to have A. pepperi come September, YAY.


----------



## Golden State Mantellas

Ed said:


> I wouldn't leave them off as they were fairly scarce just a few years ago and very little interest. I can remember a certain IAD where a breeder had captive bred animals and sold none during the course of the show.. the recent imports are what put some life back into that species.
> 
> Ed


You know, I had originally included _M aurantiaca_, due to its CITES status, though I removed it due to so many having such luck with breeding the species. As always, thanks for the correction Ed.




botanyboy03 said:


> Would you consider Campana to be one of the "uglier" morphs? They're definitely not the most flashy or outgoing, but I like my breeding pair.
> 
> I'm working with H azureriventris, but no breeding yet. AND I am soon to have A. pepperi come September, YAY.


The "ugly" morphs, or those suffering from LBF syndrome, are some of my favs. Particularly _M ebenaui_ and _M bernhardi_.


----------



## thedude

botanyboy03 said:


> Would you consider Campana to be one of the "uglier" morphs? They're definitely not the most flashy or outgoing, but I like my breeding pair.
> 
> I'm working with H azureriventris, but no breeding yet. AND I am soon to have A. pepperi come September, YAY.


i wouldnt consider them ugly, but others do. its really all opinion. they are pretty common still, but since they only go for $25 each it would be easy for them to slip away quickly from little interest.

azureiventris are interesting, they are great frogs that are extremely nice looking, but they breed like CRAZY. problem is, people have to morph out 19 males for every female, so when they arent selling and disappear, they could be lost fairly easily. actually almost happened in europe.


----------



## thedude

Golden State Mantellas said:


> To build on Adam's post:
> 
> _M. cowani
> M. bernhardi
> M. haraldmeieri
> M. milotympanum
> M. pulchra
> M. expectata 'standard'
> M. expectata aff.
> M. crocea_
> _M. ebenaui_ (not "rare," though not many hobbyists working to further them in the trade)
> _M. madagascariensis
> M. nigricans_ (genetically identical to M. baroni)
> _M. baroni_ (genetically identical to M. nigricans)
> _M. laevigata
> M. viridis_
> 
> Only _M. aurantiaca_ was left out, mainly due to the high number of keepers (both vets and novices) having such success breeding them.


id say cowani and haraldmeieri shouldnt be on the list because they are to mantellas what rare obligates are to darts. the chances of them being around are slim, and the people working with them are probably already working on some type of breeding project with them.


----------



## Justin Bailey

Can someone dig deeper in to the tincs they believe could use more work? I'm very interested in acquiring many of these species for this purpose and would like to know others oppinions.


----------



## PeanutbuttER

PM Woodsman. I'd be willing to bet that he'd be able to help you out with that one. He's also a pretty friendly guy, which is an added plus


----------



## SmackoftheGods

thedude said:


> i wouldnt consider them ugly, but others do. its really all opinion. they are pretty common still, but since they only go for $25 each it would be easy for them to slip away quickly from little interest.


Are they $25 because they're common, or are they $25 because of a lack of interest? Personally, I don't know anyone who has them....


----------



## Golden State Mantellas

thedude said:


> id say cowani and haraldmeieri shouldnt be on the list because they are to mantellas what rare obligates are to darts. the chances of them being around are slim, and the people working with them are probably already working on some type of breeding project with them.


My apologies, I missed the part where you said "uncommon and somewhat attainable" in your first post. I completely agree.


----------



## frogfreak

Justin Bailey said:


> Can someone dig deeper in to the tincs they believe could use more work? I'm very interested in acquiring many of these species for this purpose and would like to know others oppinions.


Any of the rarer Tincs could use some help, Justin.

Green Sips
Yellow Sips
True Sips
New Rivers
Bakhuis
Lorenzo
Oyapok

That's all I can think of at the moment. I think keeping a pair of Alanis would be a nice too. They don't seem to be one of the most popular morphs, but I'm not sure why. They're a stunning frog IMO.


----------



## frogfreak

SmackoftheGods said:


> Are they $25 because they're common, or are they $25 because of a lack of interest? Personally, I don't know anyone who has them....


I think it's a lack of interest. Pictures don't do them justice at all, Jake. Everyone that see's mine in person wants them. The cream on brown with the reticulated pattern makes them a very attractive frog IMO.


----------



## PeanutbuttER

And that's part of the problem if pictures don't show them off well. I've met 1 guy locally that has a couple auratus, but I've never seen them so aside from pictures (that don't do much for me) there's really very little to interest me about them sadly...


----------



## fieldnstream

I had a lone D. auratus campana (bought as kahula and cream...I believe they are the same thing, please correct me if I am wrong) 6 years ago and you really have to see them in person to appreciate them. I didn't want to get it...I was guilty of a little LBF racism...but my GF was steadfast in her desire to get one. Once it grew a little its 3-shade reticulations were definitely interesting enough to get past the brownness. I remember seeing ads for freshly imported ones a couple of months ago, hopefully they are in good hands.


----------



## Golden State Mantellas

No discriminating against the LBF's!


----------



## botanyboy03

frogfreak said:


> I think it's a lack of interest. Pictures don't do them justice at all, Jake. Everyone that see's mine in person wants them. The cream on brown with the reticulated pattern makes them a very attractive frog IMO.


I agree with this as well. It was my first frog that I bred and the ones I got when I started back in on frogs, a bit older and more responsible( Back when I started, I was stupid and younger and I got a couple G&B auratus and a bicolor and mixed, and didn't use supplements as I should and sadly I lost them, but I am beyond all that now, thanks to the forum. Please don't flame me, I don't mix now and I supplement with every feeding, but I digress). I was attracted to the color, but also I hadn't ever heard of this morph and I thought I could do my part and keep something that not many people had.


----------



## fieldnstream

botanyboy03 said:


> Back when I started, I was stupid and younger and I got a couple G&B auratus and a bicolor and mixed, and didn't use supplements as I should and sadly I lost them, but I am beyond all that now, thanks to the forum. Please don't flame me, I don't mix now and I supplement with every feeding, but I digress


I think this may be a pretty common experience. My first viv was a mixed tank with 6 different D. auratus morphs (WC adults and CB froglets) and some D. leucomelas. I lost all of them within 6 months )shocker right). After that happened I discovered DB and realized that I had been doing everything wrong...the experience had a very strong impact on me which is why I am against mixing now in most cases. We all learn somehow...just wish I had discovered DB earlier instead of taking the advice of the local pet store owner.


----------



## botanyboy03

fieldnstream said:


> I think this may be a pretty common experience. My first viv was a mixed tank with 6 D. auratus morphs (WC adults and CB froglets) and some D. leucomelas. I lost all of them within 6 months )shocker right). After that happened I discovered DB and realized that I had been doing everything wrong...the experience had a very strong impact on me which is why I am against mixing now in most cases. We all learn somehow...just wish I had discovered DB earlier instead of taking the advice of the local pet store owner.


I think you're right. The only way you learn is to fail.


----------



## frogface

botanyboy03 said:


> Would you consider Campana to be one of the "uglier" morphs? They're definitely not the most flashy or outgoing, but I like my breeding pair.
> 
> I'm working with H azureriventris, but no breeding yet. AND I am soon to have A. pepperi come September, YAY.


When I saw your Campana at the show, I gasped. I thought they were stunning and was bummed that I didn't have any money.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

botanyboy03 said:


> Please don't flame me, I don't mix now and I supplement with every feeding


IME, people get flamed when they mixed stupidly and are obstinate toward those who have more experience. Those who are willing to remedy the issue don't take heat.... We've all made stupid mistakes. If we're taking steps to fix them, then what's the point in making someone feel bad about something that can't be changed?


----------



## botanyboy03

frogface said:


> When I saw your Campana at the show, I gasped. I thought they were stunning and was bummed that I didn't have any money.


I did also. I have plenty of babies on the way, but you know that.

I feel like I am at a Mixing/frogging no-no's Anonymous meeting.


----------



## stemcellular

Golden State Mantellas said:


> You know, I had originally included _M aurantiaca_, due to its CITES status, though I removed it due to so many having such luck with breeding the species. As always, thanks for the correction Ed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "ugly" morphs, or those suffering from LBF syndrome, are some of my favs. Particularly _M ebenaui_ and _M bernhardi_.



I would be wary of saying aurantiaca are established. How many cb subs and adults are being sold? Like most sp., when the imports cease they will be hard to find. I will have F3 juveniles available soon. Dont think any others will.


----------



## fieldnstream

tclipse said:


> I'm experiencing this right now with Mantella laevigata, I've only found one person with froglets (and no one with available adults) and he isn't shipping during summer, so the search continues.


Have you seen this: 
kingsnake.com Classifieds: CB M.Laevigata 
I don't know anything about the seller, but it may be something to check out if you haven't already done so.


----------



## Golden State Mantellas

stemcellular said:


> I would be wary of saying aurantiaca are established. How many cb subs and adults are being sold? Like most sp., when the imports cease they will be hard to find. I will have F3 juveniles available soon. Dont think any others will.


I did not say, nor did I mean to imply that they are established. I do agree with you in that most CB animals offered are F1, rarely F2. I stand corrected on leaving _M aurantiaca_ off my list, my point was that in the short term, quite a few keepers are having great success breeding, in the long term there is still work to be done for the sustainability of the species in the hobby, esp. if/when Madagascar stops exports.



fieldnstream said:


> Have you seen this:
> kingsnake.com Classifieds: CB M.Laevigata
> I don't know anything about the seller, but it may be something to check out if you haven't already done so.


Good luck getting a response on those ads...


----------



## fieldnstream

Just adding this to flesh the thread out a little bit.
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/34607-most-underappreciated-frogs.html
I know its an older thread, but its along the same lines as this one.


----------



## JimO

Patrick Nabors sells them and it seems that they are always available, despite their low price. Some frogs aren't very photogenic but are stunning in person. I've never seen Camps in person, but frankly, they have never appealed to me based on photographs. And, I don't want to see them in person because I'd want some and I am seriously at my limit with 18 vivs, a reef tank, two snakes, a bearded dragon, a dog, and four teenage **** sapiens (which usually tip the scale). My wife is a saint, but I hit her tolerance limit when I thawed a frozen rat in our new microwave, especially when she heard it popping (the feet cook faster). 



frogfreak said:


> I think it's a lack of interest. Pictures don't do them justice at all, Jake. Everyone that see's mine in person wants them. The cream on brown with the reticulated pattern makes them a very attractive frog IMO.


----------



## JimO

Although I didn't know anything about the problems with mixing, the only reason I didn't mix frogs is that I could only afford one group of froglets when I got my first frogs back in 1999. I picked up five tiny azureus. I also knew nothing about passive aggression and their territorial nature. I didn't understand why they slowly disappeared until only one was left. And, it didn't make it long after that, probably because the humidity in the viv was too low.

Anyway, six years ago I had read everything I could get my hands on and then bought a fantastic sexed pair of azureus from Patrick Nabor. I only discovered DB about 18 months ago when I really got into it and, fortunately, I have managed to avoid serious problems. Through the reading I did, online videos by Josh and others, and discussions with Patrick, I managed to avoid a lot of my prior mistakes and learned early not to mix. I also had to get used to the idea of only having a pair of tincs in a 29-gal viv. Fortunately, I developed a great interest in the plants as well.



botanyboy03 said:


> I feel like I am at a Mixing/frogging no-no's Anonymous meeting.


----------



## chuckpowell

Getting back to the original questions, except for a few species and morphs that have been around and breed well for the past 20+ years it doesn't matter which species/morph you choose to keep as long as you keep it long term. Almost all the frogs we keep are rare at time and common at other times. Keep them a long time and you keep away from these cycles. I have noticed that the less colorful species, especially the Epipedobates seem to cycle more than others and the cryptically colored Epipedobates have all but disappeared, again. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## fieldnstream

Bump....I know some more people have info to add!


----------



## Rede

Hi everyone

I've been reading the forum for a few months now as I'm considering entering this hobby, but I'm still in the learning phase and haven't had any comments or questions to add yet. However, after reading this thread I do have some thoughts.

Does anyone maintain a central database of frog owners to aid with individual species conservation, and if not should one be established?

Here is how I imagine such a database might function:

*Visitors*

Visitors would enter the website and be presented with a list of frog species and morphs in alphabetical order. They would select one of these which would take them to the page for that frog. The first thing on the page would be a picture of the species, a few basic facts, and perhaps links to further information.

Underneath the basic information would be a list of people who own or breed that particular species, sorted by most recently updated listings first. If there were a lot of results it would be possible to restrict them by specifying a state or country, for example, or just display breeders. When an owner/breeder is selected it would take the visitor to a new page which displays more information about that person. It might include a short bio, or breeding information, and it would include a list of species being kept. There would be a link to contact that owner, where the visitor would enter their email address and a question, which the site would send on to the owner.

Visitors would be able to register as an owner or breeder of frogs and set up their own listing.

*Owners/breeders*

Owners of a particular species would register with their email address which would be kept secret. They would have the option of entering their location and some information about their frog setup. They would select which species they keep, and whether or not they breed each of these frogs.

Every 12 months owners would receive an email asking them to renew their listing for accuracy. At the time of renewel they would confirm that they still keep all of the species listed in their profile. They would also be able to log in at any time and modify their information.

Owners who had registered or renewed their listing in the past 12 months would be displayed as green or valid owners. These would be displayed as the first results in a search. Those who had not renewed for more than 12 months would be displayed as amber or possible owners, and those who had not renewed their listing for more than 24 months would be displayed as red or formerly valid owners. After 3 years of non-renewal the listing would disappear from view entirely. If a particular species lost all of its known keepers it would be possible to call up a list of the last known owners and the date they were last heard from.

Visitors to the site would be able to contact a breeder or owner with questions by completing a contact form. The form would not disclose the email address of the breeder but would send the collected information to them via email. It would then be their decision whether or not to make formal contact.

Owners/breeders would also be able to submit pictures, information and links for the individual species pages, which would have to be approved and added by whoever maintains the database.


----------



## Ed

You mean like Amphibian Steward Network | Tree Walkers International 


Ed


----------



## fieldnstream

Hey Rede,

Amazing first post. Very well thought out and some great ideas. I don't think there is any one site like that, but similar info is available from different sources. I know of a site that has a hobbiest map and ASN does some data collection with their steward program (which has been mentioned previously in this thread). Maybe some of the higher-ups in TWI will see your post and get inspired.

-Field

*edit* Ed beat me to it!


----------



## skylsdale

It's not so much about getting inspired as it is logistics. All of those things we (TWI) have discussed before and are frustrated by as well. Here's the lowdown:

The 'problem' with frog tracking systems that have been developed before is that they only track animals on an individual basis. The ASN (Amphibian Steward Network) uses the ISIS database used by professional zoological institutions around the world--this is as good as it gets. One of the great benefits of this system is that we can track animals at the population level, not just individual animals. TWI annual membership fees help pay for TWI's membership to use this system. When ASN stewards accession their animals, they are registering them into this massive database (this is all explained on the TWI website, so I won't rehash all of it here...).

However, one of the drawbacks is that the ISIS system wasn't developed or designed for a numerous member org like TWI--it was designed for zoological institutions that would have one or two taxon officers handling all of the data, surfing the database of registered animals, etc. The downfall is that, currently, any given ASN steward can't access the database because we can only allow 1-2 officers to do so. 

Another aspect to all of this is that the ZIMS system was just released, which is supposedly much more user friendly and might allow us more access (it has been YEARS in waiting for this to come out). As an institution we have to pay a fee to access it, and are currently in the process of this (the rollout of the system is happening in phases, and TWI and other small institutions aren't at the top of the list). So we will update folks as we get closer to this switchover as to what that means for accessions and whatnot.

So we're using the world's most developed and advanced system...but it just wasn't set up for hobby-level access. Hopefully ZIMS gives us a bit more.


----------



## fieldnstream

Hey Ron,
Definitely did not mean to minimize any of the work you and others are doing, sorry if I sounded like a butt. I really meant that it would be a cool future addition if one had the skills necessary to make it happen (I sure don't, can barely figure out how to attach a word document to an email). I'm sure it gets frustrating when there are so many great ideas floating around and not enough people to implement them. Can't wait to check out ZIMS when the switch takes place. 
Thanks for all of the info.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Bumping this because it's a great thread

I've recently been thinking about taking the next step in the hobby. I want to continue to learn and grow in this hobby. I love all the frogs I currently have, some would judge them as "beginner frogs" though I hate that tag. I'm interested in working with other less apreciated, under represented species. I hope to talk to a lot of you at Frog Day and find some frogs that need help to stay in the hobby. 
Thanks to Field for sending me a link to this thread, you're a good guy...I don't care what anyone says about you.


----------



## thedude

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Bumping this because it's a great thread
> 
> I've recently been thinking about taking the next step in the hobby. I want to continue to learn and grow in this hobby. I love all the frogs I currently have, some would judge them as "beginner frogs" though I hate that tag. I'm interested in working with other less apreciated, under represented species. I hope to talk to a lot of you at Frog Day and find some frogs that need help to stay in the hobby.
> Thanks to Field for sending me a link to this thread, you're a good guy...I don't care what anyone says about you.


I would say the frogs that probably need the most help are some Ameerega and phyllobates. Aurotaenia and vittata being the biggest concern with phyllobates.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Adam thanks for the response. I guess I'm doing some good already as I have a nice breeding group of 5 P. vittatus. with a bunch of tads in the water.


----------



## winstonamc

One thing I've noticed that could use some work is having a longer-term commitment to the locales (in need of viable presence in the hobby). It seems like some people switch out their frogs for "cooler" ones too readily. And then there's folks like Ray who often pick their frogs based on trying to sustain them in the hobby.

If you're gonna sell off your frogs and they aren't, as a population, in great shape in the hobby, try to sell them as a group rather than scattering them to the wind.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Ed

winstonamc said:


> One thing I've noticed that could use some work is having a longer-term commitment to the locales (in need of viable presence in the hobby). It seems like some people switch out their frogs for "cooler" ones too readily. And then there's folks like Ray who often pick their frogs based on trying to sustain them in the hobby.
> 
> If you're gonna sell off your frogs and they aren't, as a population, in great shape in the hobby, try to sell them as a group rather than scattering them to the wind.
> 
> Just my two cents.


I would actually prefer to see people working with the frogs that do not have locality data as much as those that do since those frogs also represent a significant history for the hobby and to simple disregad them since they aren't locality specific would be to lose more than a little of what got the hobby going.... 
The problem with locality specificity can be seen in other hobbies (as well as this one) where they are attributed a higher status and value... The non-locality frogs in the hobby are just as important as those with locality data. 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties

That as well as there is usually very limited blood to continue most site specific lines without continuous line breeding. The key to whats here and what comes in is going to be managing it and making sure we know where to get ahold of unrelated offspring and continue to seek new blood when available. People buying up these frogs coming in should consider a few breeding pairs or groups of one locale over a pair of everything so that the populations can be better managed.


----------



## poison beauties

skylsdale said:


> It's not so much about getting inspired as it is logistics. All of those things we (TWI) have discussed before and are frustrated by as well. Here's the lowdown:
> 
> The 'problem' with frog tracking systems that have been developed before is that they only track animals on an individual basis. The ASN (Amphibian Steward Network) uses the ISIS database used by professional zoological institutions around the world--this is as good as it gets. One of the great benefits of this system is that we can track animals at the population level, not just individual animals. TWI annual membership fees help pay for TWI's membership to use this system. When ASN stewards accession their animals, they are registering them into this massive database (this is all explained on the TWI website, so I won't rehash all of it here...).
> 
> However, one of the drawbacks is that the ISIS system wasn't developed or designed for a numerous member org like TWI--it was designed for zoological institutions that would have one or two taxon officers handling all of the data, surfing the database of registered animals, etc. The downfall is that, currently, any given ASN steward can't access the database because we can only allow 1-2 officers to do so.
> 
> Another aspect to all of this is that the ZIMS system was just released, which is supposedly much more user friendly and might allow us more access (it has been YEARS in waiting for this to come out). As an institution we have to pay a fee to access it, and are currently in the process of this (the rollout of the system is happening in phases, and TWI and other small institutions aren't at the top of the list). So we will update folks as we get closer to this switchover as to what that means for accessions and whatnot.
> 
> So we're using the world's most developed and advanced system...but it just wasn't set up for hobby-level access. Hopefully ZIMS gives us a bit more.


Ive heard the ZIMS setup is more advanced but has it been disigned to deal with species like DartFrogs that have numerous clutches with decent egg count? Most setups have been designed for tracking mammal reproduction.


----------



## winstonamc

poison beauties said:


> That as well as there is usually very limited blood to continue most site specific lines without continuous line breeding. The key to whats here and what comes in is going to be managing it and making sure we know where to get ahold of unrelated offspring and continue to seek new blood when available. People buying up these frogs coming in should consider a few breeding pairs or groups of one locale over a pair of everything so that the populations can be better managed.


Totally. And, we should think long and hard about what's really awesome about this hobby when we sell off / split up the merry little breeding group we have after a year or two 'cause we've never had benedictas, let alone that sweet new locale!


----------



## thedude

Ed said:


> I would actually prefer to see people working with the frogs that do not have locality data as much as those that do since those frogs also represent a significant history for the hobby and to simple disregad them since they aren't locality specific would be to lose more than a little of what got the hobby going....
> The problem with locality specificity can be seen in other hobbies (as well as this one) where they are attributed a higher status and value... The non-locality frogs in the hobby are just as important as those with locality data.
> 
> Ed


I can understand that, but to me the site specific frogs are still more important. Mainly when it comes to frogs that are represented by both a known locality, and a non locality population. Like with Copperhead fants, I think keeping the INIBICO line going is more important than the old line. Just my opinion though.


----------



## frogface

I would like to see more people successfully breeding tinc Lorenzos.

As far as I know, Bill Schwinn is the only one who consistently produces offspring. Mike Steel has a few froglets but he no longer has the breeding pair. Richard Lynch has a tadpole (is that right?). I have a pair that is breeding but have yet to get anything past tadpole stage.

Who else is breeding Lorenzos? Is anyone who got Lorenzos from UE breeding?

I worry about anything happening to Bill's pair.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

frogface said:


> I would like to see more people successfully breeding tinc Lorenzos.
> 
> As far as I know, Bill Schwinn is the only one who consistently produces offspring. Mike Steel has a few froglets but he no longer has the breeding pair. Richard Lynch has a tadpole (is that right?). I have a pair that is breeding but have yet to get anything past tadpole stage.
> 
> Who else is breeding Lorenzos? Is anyone who got Lorenzos from UE breeding?
> 
> I worry about anything happening to Bill's pair.


Kris do you know why Lorenzos are so uncommon? Is there some obstacle to either breeding or tad rearing that you know of?


----------



## frogface

I don't know why, but, for some reason they seem to be difficult to breed through to froglet stage.


----------



## thedude

frogface said:


> I don't know why, but, for some reason they seem to be difficult to breed through to froglet stage.


It could be because the gene pool for the captive population is very small. Given that they are a brazillian population, they were most likely smuggled to Europe, and I doubt it was very many. Then only a few from there would have come over here.


----------



## frogface

What about the UE Lorenzos? I haven't heard anything about them since they were shipped out to folks.


----------



## Ed

thedude said:


> I can understand that, but to me the site specific frogs are still more important. Mainly when it comes to frogs that are represented by both a known locality, and a non locality population. Like with Copperhead fants, I think keeping the INIBICO line going is more important than the old line. Just my opinion though.


 The problem is that the frogs from the unknown localities not only have history attached to them but they could actually represent a snapshot before the changes occured to thier enviroment. Check out the discussion on panguana lamasi on frognet... 

a snippet from the discussion from Tor Linbo


> I have 6 groups of "panguana" that represent 6 distinct past
> importations... I'm not talking about the "standard" yellow... I have
> those too... but they are very different.
> 
> But off these 6 groups... they are different... it's the same
> species... but not the same population... or at least they seem to
> be distinct populations. I read the descriptions as there is an area
> that once had distinct populations... these populations lay along a
> path that had a road put in... that road created habitat that was
> colonized by the frogs (we know dart frogs are trash frogs... that's
> why they populated islands well... live in areas with people... )
> these populations start to smear...
> 
> but what if you set back and collected the populations when the road
> was going in? when they were still separated?


Here we have a potential example of populations that due to habitat alterations potentially resulted in them intergrading. 

Ed


----------



## thedude

frogface said:


> What about the UE Lorenzos? I haven't heard anything about them since they were shipped out to folks.


UE doesn't work in Brazil, so I'm sure their stock is from someone in the states.


----------



## frogface

thedude said:


> UE doesn't work in Brazil, so I'm sure their stock is from someone in the states.


Yes but what happened to the frogs? They should be breeding age by now (I think. Don't recall exactly when they were shipped out to folks). Why is everyone so quiet about Lorenzos. Very few of us even mention our frogs here. Are they supposed to be a secret?

IMO, since they seem to be difficult to breed, we should be all be comparing notes and getting them going.


----------



## thedude

Ed said:


> The problem is that the frogs from the unknown localities not only have history attached to them but they could actually represent a snapshot before the changes occured to thier enviroment. Check out the discussion on panguana lamasi on frognet...
> 
> a snippet from the discussion from Tor Linbo
> 
> Here we have a potential example of populations that due to habitat alterations potentially resulted in them intergrading.
> 
> Ed


I get that and others are free to keep what they like. But for me, I like the known local frogs better. The old line Copperheads have history in the hobby from before we had local data with frogs, but now we have ones that have data. It makes sense to me to go for the ones with data, especially if they look similar.

Sounds like those Panguanas have local data with them...


----------



## thedude

frogface said:


> Yes but what happened to the frogs? They should be breeding age by now (I think. Don't recall exactly when they were shipped out to folks). Why is everyone so quiet about Lorenzos. Very few of us even mention our frogs here. Are they supposed to be a secret?
> 
> IMO, since they seem to be difficult to breed, we should be all be comparing notes and getting them going.


See my comment about their importation. Even if they are breeding age, the gene pool might be small enough that there are complications.

Sounds like you have a good idea there, better start something up for them


----------



## frogface

thedude said:


> See my comment about their importation. Even if they are breeding age, the gene pool might be small enough that there are complications.
> 
> Sounds like you have a good idea there, better start something up for them


Ok, I'm not a scientist or even a particularly knowledgeable frog person, but, couldn't we breed between our pairs to help out with that? I don't mean all of us who have Bill's offspring, but, maybe Bill's with UE? Theirs did not come from Bill and even look a little different than Bill's Lorenzos. Maybe they've been separated long enough.

But not if we don't even know who has them or is trying to breed them.


----------



## Ed

thedude said:


> I get that and others are free to keep what they like. But for me, I like the known local frogs better. The old line Copperheads have history in the hobby from before we had local data with frogs, but now we have ones that have data. It makes sense to me to go for the ones with data, especially if they look similar.
> 
> Sounds like those Panguanas have local data with them...


Not really.. It's kind of like assigning "locality" to farmed pumilio... 

I have significant concerns about greater status being assigned to locality specific frogs since there are "locality specific" frogs that have a very small founding population while the ones without a locality have been supplemented with founders repeatedly over time (some of the auratus populations for example). Assigning higher status to locality specific animals can result in a large number of frogs vanishing from the hobby even when there isn't a known locality available since they won't carry the same status as other frogs from known localities. 
In the last 10-15 years we have seen a shift from larger dendrobatids like the tinctorius group to thumbnails and then when Panama reopened a mad rush for the farmed pumilio (with huge emphasis on assigning locality based on pattern from pictures)... now we are seeing emphasis on "locality specific" frogs..... Particularly with no way to ensure people won't assign unknown frogs to locality to increase status of the frogs... If non-locality frogs and locality frogs are of the same status we don't have to worry about it... 

If you want to concentrate your collection on locality specific frogs, that is okay but care should be taken on how it is presented since it could result in the loss of frogs in the hobby and increased demand for wild collected animals (smuggled for example and then assigned to that population...) 

As I've noted, it is a big threat to populations and I've seen divestment and loss of entire captive populations (which drove greater wild harvests), to meet the status of having specific locality crazes..(rosy boas for one example). 
I'm getting off the soapbox on this topic so you don't have to worry about further pontificating on my part. 

Ed


----------



## thedude

frogface said:


> Ok, I'm not a scientist or even a particularly knowledgeable frog person, but, couldn't we breed between our pairs to help out with that? I don't mean all of us who have Bill's offspring, but, maybe Bill's with UE? Theirs did not come from Bill and even look a little different than Bill's Lorenzos. Maybe they've been separated long enough.
> 
> But not if we don't even know who has them or is trying to breed them.


Yes you can help with maximizing genetic variation by attempting to breed together unrelated or distantly related animals. I don't know how many of these originally came in, but what I'm saying is that MOST LIKELY the pairs Mark is working with, as well as Bills, came from the same founding stock of animals that came here from Europe. So lets say that originally there were 40 animals (speculation) brought to Europe where they started breeding them. Eventually here, someone imported some from there. Now what you have is potentially the founder affect happening, where only a certain number of alleles were imported to Europe, and then even less of those alleles were imported here. So there is a chance that the gene pool of the population here, is quite small, and that can lead to breeding complications (which we have seen in other frogs). If a group was organized (which was what I was insinuating you could try and do), then a Taxon management plan could be developed and the group could attempt to maximize their gene pool.


----------



## frogface

Thank you. I just might do that


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> Ok, I'm not a scientist or even a particularly knowledgeable frog person, but, couldn't we breed between our pairs to help out with that? I don't mean all of us who have Bill's offspring, but, maybe Bill's with UE? Theirs did not come from Bill and even look a little different than Bill's Lorenzos. Maybe they've been separated long enough.
> 
> But not if we don't even know who has them or is trying to breed them.


The first thing you have to do is to try and work out issues that are the result of the impacts of husbandry... as an example (not saying it fits here), if lack of survivial to the froglet stage is due to hypovitaminosis of A in the form of retinoids.. or insufficient D3 is causing them to feed inefficiently..... It is also possible that the frogs are adapted to a different husbandry regimen and what you are seeing is due to maladaption traits. 

The second thing needed is to backtrack them to determine how many generations seperate the frogs in different locations. If they are all from the same parents, and are F1, then you are unlikely to be able to resolve the issue with crossing. What you are thinking of is called purging the genetic load. It doesn't always work and it can result in significant issues in the long term as this is also accompanied by losses in genetic diversity in important genetic groups (like the major histocompatability complexes which changes it's ability to resist disease and parasites (for example the susceptiabilty of rottweilers to parvovirus infections is an example of this sort of problem). 

Ed


----------



## thedude

Ed said:


> Not really.. It's kind of like assigning "locality" to farmed pumilio...
> 
> I have significant concerns about greater status being assigned to locality specific frogs since there are "locality specific" frogs that have a very small founding population while the ones without a locality have been supplemented with founders repeatedly over time (some of the auratus populations for example). Assigning higher status to locality specific animals can result in a large number of frogs vanishing from the hobby even when there isn't a known locality available since they won't carry the same status as other frogs from known localities.
> In the last 10-15 years we have seen a shift from larger dendrobatids like the tinctorius group to thumbnails and then when Panama reopened a mad rush for the farmed pumilio (with huge emphasis on assigning locality based on pattern from pictures)... now we are seeing emphasis on "locality specific" frogs..... Particularly with no way to ensure people won't assign unknown frogs to locality to increase status of the frogs... If non-locality frogs and locality frogs are of the same status we don't have to worry about it...
> 
> If you want to concentrate your collection on locality specific frogs, that is okay but care should be taken on how it is presented since it could result in the loss of frogs in the hobby and increased demand for wild collected animals (smuggled for example and then assigned to that population...)
> 
> As I've noted, it is a big threat to populations and I've seen divestment and loss of entire captive populations (which drove greater wild harvests), to meet the status of having specific locality crazes..(rosy boas for one example).
> I'm getting off the soapbox on this topic so you don't have to worry about further pontificating on my part.
> 
> Ed


I don't mind the soapbox, I'm on mine often  

I completely see your point as I said before. I'm not trying to say they are better or worth more, I just find them more appealing because I know where the frogs came from. And when I'm going for frogs with local info, that means frogs from UE because I know they were harvested sustainably. I would never charge more or pay more for local data. I've explained supply and demand quite a few times on here during other threads...

Also, while I admit a lot of people are keeping thumbnails now, I still think the majority of people have tinctorius. They always seem to sell, and a lot of people seem to want to collect every morph and population of them.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

I think I see both sides of this debate. Adam you are saying you concentrate on locale specific frogs because it's a known quantity and therefore easier to keep the genetic lines pure.
Ed, you're saying that every frog we have is important regardless of locale specifics. 
I don't know that there is a right answer, but I understand where you both are coming form.


----------



## thedude

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> I think I see both sides of this debate. Adam you are saying you concentrate on locale specific frogs because it's a known quantity and therefore easier to keep the genetic lines pure.
> Ed, you're saying that every frog we have is important regardless of locale specifics.
> I don't know that there is a right answer, but I understand where you both are coming form.


More or less, either way it's just my preference and opinion.


----------



## frogparty

I'm actually leanin more towards obtaining more of the "old school" lines of frogs and keeping them around in the hobby. Like Ed said, there's a pretty good chance that there's a lot more genetic variation due to many years of import under the same name. Plus I don't think they should be less valuable at all. My standard lamasi don't have locale info and I don't care. The old lines are what got this hobby started and are still some of the best looking frogs.

One of my good buddies has the original line of yellow back tinctorius from the early 90s going and DAMN those are good looking frogs.


----------



## thedude

frogparty said:


> Plus I don't think they should be less valuable at all.


Again, I'm not saying frogs with local info are more valuable, nor would I ever charge more for them.


----------



## Ed

thedude said:


> More or less, either way it's just my preference and opinion.


Which is perfectly acceptable. I'm just worried that this could become a trend. 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties

Did anyone with these locale or site specific frogs gain the info as to what generation theres have been bred to as well as find out exactly how many unrelated frogs were brought in? The common problem is people grab up 2-3 frogs and breed them and it continues to go this way further breeding down the lines. Very few actually seek out unrelated frogs fewer realize how limited they are to gaining unrelated blood. What I do like about the continued imports right now is that some people are realizing the long term benefits now of managing them and they are buying iin larger groups to establish unrelated wc breeding pairs sowe can start offering truely unrelated offspring.


----------



## Ed

poison beauties said:


> Did anyone with these locale or site specific frogs gain the info as to what generation theres have been bred to as well as find out exactly how many unrelated frogs were brought in? The common problem is people grab up 2-3 frogs and breed them and it continues to go this way further breeding down the lines. Very few actually seek out unrelated frogs fewer realize how limited they are to gaining unrelated blood. What I do like about the continued imports right now is that some people are realizing the long term benefits now of managing them and they are buying iin larger groups to establish unrelated wc breeding pairs sowe can start offering truely unrelated offspring.


The problem is that unless the frogs and the offspring are tracked, within a generation or two, determining which are actually unrelated or distantly related will be a big problem. All it takes 
is for a couple of keepers to be more successful than others in producing froglets to swamp the genetics of the population and determining this down the road can be difficult. Even institutions can have trouble with this down the road. When AZA brought in new stock of azureus one of the reasons was because when they tried to make a studbook to track the population, they couldn't determine degrees of kinship for the frogs. 

With respect to your question about ZIMS, they supposedly made changes to how the offspring are tracked to deal with animals with large clutch size (and dendrobatids are small potatos compared to say A. zeteki where individual clutches are in the hundreds). A lot of this depends on how the individual or institution decides to track the animals. Individual tracking of each animal from egg onward is possible under both ISIS and ZIMS. However under ISIS, it is a logistical nightmare for the person entering the data since they have to account for each egg, tadpole and subsequent froglet. This requires an individual number for each egg, which has to be updated when it hatches, or doesn't hatch, when it metamorphs or doesn't, if it dies, is sold or paired up. Under ISIS one of the ways to deal with this is to assign a colony number to each clutch and then update it after they metamorph (at which time they can be kept as a colony or assigned individual numbers or assigned individual numbers when transferred to a new keeper). 
Under ZIMs, this process is supposed to be easier, as well a possibility that more people can do the entering with oversight by several individuals. One of the main problems that has been seen under ISIS is incomplete information being submitted, or incorrect information is used (such as incorrect numbers, sexes etc, and not updated until it gets flagged by the system which is a lot of work for the person doing the entries). 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## thedude

Ed said:


> Which is perfectly acceptable. I'm just worried that this could become a trend.
> 
> Ed


I've never been a trend setter  



poison beauties said:


> Did anyone with these locale or site specific frogs gain the info as to what generation theres have been bred to as well as find out exactly how many unrelated frogs were brought in? The common problem is people grab up 2-3 frogs and breed them and it continues to go this way further breeding down the lines. Very few actually seek out unrelated frogs fewer realize how limited they are to gaining unrelated blood. What I do like about the continued imports right now is that some people are realizing the long term benefits now of managing them and they are buying iin larger groups to establish unrelated wc breeding pairs sowe can start offering truely unrelated offspring.


With respects to UE I heard the number of animals initially collected is something like 50 but it wasn't from Mark so it could be wrong. What we are receiving here in the states are F2's I believe. Atleast with frogs from their Peru project.


----------



## ShelbyFFS

If there are two locales of the "same" frog, is anyone keeping any notes on the phenotype/ genotype differences between the populations?


----------



## frogparty

TRACKING GENOTYPE DIFFERENCES WOULD BE EXPENSIVE. I know I dont have the time to run all those gels and PCRs 

Phenotypic differences WITHIN the same import/collection dateand location should be embraced as signs of a genetically diverse founding population.


----------



## ShelbyFFS

I know some have been crossed for study, like the strawberry dart frogs. They learned a few things. I know crossbreeding for collections is bad, but using data from such study should have followed the parent frogs. Because some of these were found to be simple recessive genes, you do start building some genotype knowledge without doing any gels.

Phenotype difference between locales must exist. Are they recorded?


----------



## Ed

ShelbyFFS said:


> I know some have been crossed for study, like the strawberry dart frogs. They learned a few things. I know crossbreeding for collections is bad, but using data from such study should have followed the parent frogs. Because some of these were found to be simple recessive genes, you do start building some genotype knowledge without doing any gels.
> 
> Phenotype difference between locales must exist. Are they recorded?


Coloration in O. pumilio appears to be polygenic while pattern (spotting) appears to be single locus within the populations tested. This is different than what you are implying. See BioOne Online Journals - Cross-Breeding of Distinct Color Morphs of the Strawberry Poison Frog (Dendrobates pumilio) from the Bocas del Toro Archipelago, Panama (not free access) 

There are also issues using some of the methods for determining whether pigmentation is controlled by simple recessives or not see for example (free access) Revista de Biología Tropical - Phenotypic and molecular variation in the green and black poison-dart frog Dendrobates auratus (Anura: Dendrobatidae) from Costa Rica

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## ShelbyFFS

I have read those before.

I will take that as no, no one is building any genotype information in the hobby. At least not publically.


----------



## fieldnstream

Thought this would be a good link to include in this thread (though much of the info has been repeated here):
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/34751-frog-trends-danger-species-loss.html


----------



## MonarchzMan

ShelbyFFS said:


> I have read those before.
> 
> I will take that as no, no one is building any genotype information in the hobby. At least not publically.


To what point and purpose? As frogparty said, it would be prohibitively expensive. No, you don't have to do PCR and gels to get an idea of what is in a population, but you need time and resources and numbers to discern anything of note.

It is easy to do such studies on fast reproducing, small organisms such as fruit flies, but when you start looking at more slower producing animals, such as frogs, it becomes prohibitive. Under absolute ideal circumstances, frogs mature at 6 months (well, the small frogs, the larger frogs like leucs or tincs are anywhere from a year to two years). If you're dealing with pumilio, then you have to let parents care for them and you'd probably be lucky to get 20-30 offspring from a given pair. For the non-egg feeders or facultative ones, you can get higher production, but you are still only dealing with anywhere from a couple to a dozen eggs at a time every two weeks, and then you have two months or so while you wait for frogs to morph out. And then once they do, depending on what traits you're interested in, you need to wait until they have adult coloring which could take another 4-6 months depending on the species/morph.

But you can't just leave it at F1 since that often doesn't tell you much confidently. You'd need to take it to F2, which means another year and a half devoted to determining inheritance patterns.

In order to figure anything out, you'd need 2-3 year minimum to complete the observations. But then you also have to deal with numbers. You need enough in the way of numbers that you can detect changes in particular traits. Doing so with a few pairs isn't likely to warrant you much in the way of useful information.

So I get back to my original question, to what point and purpose does the hobby need genotype information? The only reason I can think of would be if people want to hybridize or line breed so that they can predict what offspring would result from particular crossings.

I know of several scientists who are working on the genotype stuff for frogs and isolating what features are where in the genome for a particular frog, and rest assured that they will publish the results when they get it, but it really isn't going to be much use to the hobby. It will be all of a "huh, neat, spots are at one locus" sort of reaction and that'll be it.


----------



## ShelbyFFS

I find knowledge fascinating and useful. A rainforest study on dart frogs may take two years and many resources to learn anything. Forget it if it takes too long?


----------



## MonarchzMan

I agree that knowledge is useful to obtain, and that sometimes it can take a considerable amount of time to do so. However, motivations are different for different people. For a scientist, understanding evolution, ecology, genetics, behavior, etc. is worth the time invested.

However, for the hobbyist, devoting time, space, and personal funding to a study that will take many years and have little to no value in the hobby is not generally considered worth the effort. 

I have no doubt that a number of the traits in frogs will be eventually discerned by scientists with the space, time, and funds to work on them (I will likely be involved in such work, actually), but it will take time and while it is a general interest to those seeking to acquire knowledge, it won't really be of use to anyone in the hobby. 

Not unless, like I said, people are interested in using it to hybridize or line breed frogs, which won't gain much traction within the hobby.


----------



## ShelbyFFS

I can see much value in knowing even small details. Especially when it was already done by someone anyway, why not record it and make it available to the hobby? You seem to be a bit obsessed about linebreeding stuff but I can think of other reasons to know. It could tell me if something is a cross. It can tell me the frequency I should expect to see something. It can tell me not to repeat a mating. It can tell me how long two populations have been apart, relatively speaking. It can tell me two populations are the same.

Your stance reminds me a bit like taking a bite out an apple at the serpents bidding. LOL.

Knowledge isn't evil, ignorance not always bliss.

But each to her own, variety the spice of life.


----------



## MonarchzMan

If one keeps records on where their frogs come from, then you would be able to tell if something is a cross or not (but looking at a single frog will not tell you anything without doing testcrosses to see if it is in fact a cross, which requires time, space, and resources). If you are not hybridizing and simply doing intrapopulation breeding, then you should know what to expect: everything to look like the parents. My leucs have laid plenty of eggs, and every offspring produced from them was as I expected.

The issue with two populations being apart and whether they are the same is best done with molecular genetics, which is beyond the scope of what most hobbyists have access to (and does require doing PCR, gels, and sequencing).

I am not saying knowledge is evil at all. I am a scientist. My entire field is about the pursuit of knowledge. However, not all knowledge is useful to all realms. Quantum physics is not of great use to dart frog breeders, for example. Understanding genetic inheritance patterns in dart frogs is an interesting bit of knowledge, but not of great use to hobbyists.

I am all for keeping records of your frogs so that you can track what you get from what pairs and all, but that does not mean that you need to determine inheritance patterns of all traits.


----------



## ShelbyFFS

If you don't care to know you don't care to know. It is OK.

I'm more the exploring type. Why doesn't that froglet look like its parents kinda stuff.

Anyway, I don't breed my frogs. They are my pets. I just try to keep them happy. Smiling frogs.


----------



## jacobi

ShelbyFFS said:


> If you don't care to know you don't care to know.


He didn't say that at all. Can we PLEASE not have this derail into a pointless argument? Thank you.


----------



## MonarchzMan

No worries. I have nothing else to say. I was just explaining why people are not likely doing studies to determine genotypes of frogs or why it wouldn't be of much use to the hobby. I think it is very interesting stuff, personally, but it's a slippery slope for utilizing it to do line breeding and hybridization.


----------



## jacobi

MonarchzMan said:


> No worries. I have nothing else to say. I was just explaining why people are not likely doing studies to determine genotypes of frogs or why it wouldn't be of much use to the hobby. I think it is very interesting stuff, personally, but it's a slippery slope for utilizing it to do line breeding and hybridization.


Would there be any practical value to doing those studies? I'm not even sure what I'm asking... um. Not hobby related? Conservation perhaps?


----------



## MonarchzMan

There could be conservation value in it. It would be useful to be able to identify, for example, particular genes that may be linked with particular traits. Or identifying rare genes in a given population. However, if folks bred frogs like they do in zoos, knowing those things would be a nice quirk, but not necessary for conservation breeding programs.

Most of the studies I know of really inquire about regions of the genome that control particular things in frogs. My lab is involved with figuring out the locus of the gene that controls red color in Heliconius butterflies, for example. Understanding the genetics helps us understand the diversity seen in the organisms of interest. But, at this point, most times it's not feasible for hobbyists to do the studies because they require more advanced techniques than they have available to them.


----------



## ShelbyFFS

And some things that were never looked at are now lost.

My aunt is a zoologist works for a major zoo. I am going to get to talk to the dart frog keeper there now. I have been behind the scenes for other area (the poisonous snakes was a bit scary) but this will be the first time in this area. Hopefully this summer.


----------



## Ed

MonarchzMan said:


> There could be conservation value in it. It would be useful to be able to identify, for example, particular genes that may be linked with particular traits. Or identifying rare genes in a given population. However, if folks bred frogs like they do in zoos, knowing those things would be a nice quirk, but not necessary for conservation breeding programs.
> 
> Most of the studies I know of really inquire about regions of the genome that control particular things in frogs. My lab is involved with figuring out the locus of the gene that controls red color in Heliconius butterflies, for example. Understanding the genetics helps us understand the diversity seen in the organisms of interest. But, at this point, most times it's not feasible for hobbyists to do the studies because they require more advanced techniques than they have available to them.


In general there is little value in it for conservation programs unless you are looking for hybridization or outbreeding events that render an animal without value as a breeder for a conservation program. This for example was the case for virtually all of the Amur (Siberian) tigers held outside of zoological institutions since they had been outcrossed with Bengal tigers (different subspecies) to spread the white tiger phenotype. Typically what they do in cases of suspected hybridizations or outcrosses is to simply look for a marker gene that can distinguish between the two (or more) populations since it is just as effective for the purpose of conservation programs since you don't need the whole genome to determine if it is part of a targeted population or not. It is much more important to track degrees of kinship and how much a founder is represented in the captive population as that gives you degrees of inbreeding and risk to sustainability of the captive population (and why simply breeding like to like is a risk to the long-term stability of a population). 

As a hypothetical example, I can easily see how determining if a captive population is pure or not could put a wild population under significant risk... for example, the initial founder population of the azureus morph of tinctorious started with ten frogs with subsequent illegal and quasi-legal founders added occasionally.. If the captive population was determined to be hybrids, I can easily see a demand for pure frogs which would put the population in Suriname under risk.... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

ShelbyFFS said:


> And some things that were never looked at are now lost.
> 
> My aunt is a zoologist works for a major zoo. I am going to get to talk to the dart frog keeper there now. I have been behind the scenes for other area (the poisonous snakes was a bit scary) but this will be the first time in this area. Hopefully this summer.


There are several keepers and ex-keepers on here that are from major zoological institutions.. for example I spent almost 19 years working for the oldest Zoo in the United States, specifically with a specialization on amphibians including several different general of dendrobatids..... 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan

Ed said:


> In general there is little value in it for conservation programs unless you are looking for hybridization or outbreeding events that render an animal without value as a breeder for a conservation program. This for example was the case for virtually all of the Amur (Siberian) tigers held outside of zoological institutions since they had been outcrossed with Bengal tigers (different subspecies) to spread the white tiger phenotype. Typically what they do in cases of suspected hybridizations or outcrosses is to simply look for a marker gene that can distinguish between the two (or more) populations since it is just as effective for the purpose of conservation programs since you don't need the whole genome to determine if it is part of a targeted population or not. It is much more important to track degrees of kinship and how much a founder is represented in the captive population as that gives you degrees of inbreeding and risk to sustainability of the captive population (and why simply breeding like to like is a risk to the long-term stability of a population).
> 
> As a hypothetical example, I can easily see how determining if a captive population is pure or not could put a wild population under significant risk... for example, the initial founder population of the azureus morph of tinctorious started with ten frogs with subsequent illegal and quasi-legal founders added occasionally.. If the captive population was determined to be hybrids, I can easily see a demand for pure frogs which would put the population in Suriname under risk....
> 
> Ed


Right. The use is minimal for conservation. It really is more of a quirk. There is little need or use for it in the hobby, especially if people keep accurate records of their own breedings. If folks breed to zoo standards (e.g., HW and all) and keep records, risk of loss of alleles is minimal. You don't actually need to know what those alleles are to keep them from being lost.


----------



## ShelbyFFS

Ed I said what you said, just without needing as big a breath LOL. "It could tell me if something is a cross" is the same as "In general there is little value in it for conservation programs unless you are looking for hybridization or outbreeding events that render an animal without value as a breeder for a conservation program. This for example was the case for virtually all of the Amur (Siberian) tigers held outside of zoological institutions since they had been outcrossed with Bengal tigers (different subspecies) to spread the white tiger phenotype. Typically what they do in cases of suspected hybridizations or outcrosses is to simply look for a marker gene that can distinguish between the two (or more) populations since it is just as effective for the purpose of conservation programs since you don't need the whole genome to determine if it is part of a targeted population or not." Just more efficient in words. Just picking on you a bit. 

I love zoos. My aunt has taken me into the big freshwater aquarium to feed the fish, the amazon exhibit with the giant turtle to feed and the reptiles. Way fun!


----------



## Ed

ShelbyFFS said:


> If there are two locales of the "same" frog, is anyone keeping any notes on the phenotype/ genotype differences between the populations?





ShelbyFFS said:


> Ed I said what you said, just without needing as big a breath..."It could tell me if something is a cross" is the same


Actually no you didn't. If you examine the start of your position on genotype, it is clear you are referring to the whole genotype and how it is expressed as the whole phenotype. You made that clear when you were implying that Monarchman doesn't care about knowledge... This is very different than what I pointed out... Either you actually don't understand the difference or you are simply acting as a troll by deliberately misunderstanding the information. I suggest reading the TOS since baiting and insulting people even in a backhanded manner are a violation of the TOS.... 

Ed


----------



## ShelbyFFS

Are you kidding? Are you an adult?

Not worth my time.


----------



## jacobi

ShelbyFFS said:


> Are you kidding? Are you an adult?


Lol. If you examine this question, the person asking and the person being asked, its actually quite funny...

This thread has been very interesting and informative, please keep it that way.


----------



## skylsdale

Bassleri are cool. And no one keeps them.

http://www.jasonleebrown.org/jasonleebrown.org/pubs/PDFs/Roberts_etal_2007_JBiog_Bassleri.pdf


----------



## jacobi

skylsdale said:


> Bassleri are cool. And no one keeps them.
> 
> http://www.jasonleebrown.org/jasonleebrown.org/pubs/PDFs/Roberts_etal_2007_JBiog_Bassleri.pdf


They're on my wish list of animals I want to work with.


----------



## fieldnstream

Bumping this for newer members


----------



## punctata

Breeding and caring for H. calcaratus (convicts) and hatchet frogs have my attention. Hopefully Hyla punctata will be joining it also soon. I found my niche of frogs to work with.


----------



## ngeno626

This is a great thread.
its ironic that you would bumpo it now, ive been trying to get my hands on the old Tor Linbo Variabilis line which has seemingly all but disappeared from the hobby.
A perfect example of this thread!!!


----------

