# relation between Dendrobates azureus and D. tinctorius



## Greg (Dec 25, 2007)

I have noticed that a D. azureus seem to be very closely related to a D. tinctorius, in many respects it appears that a D. azureus could be considered as a subspecies or morph of a D. tinctorius. One thing that is notable is that D. tinctorius has many identified and designated subspecies (morphs), where as to my knowledge there are no officially recognized subspecies of D. azureus. This fact could lean towards a D. azureus being a D. tinctorius spp. azureus. I was interested in other opinions or information regarding this subject.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

The verdict is in on this one. Azureus is a variant of tinctorius.

KATHARINA C. WOLLENBERG, MICHAEL VEITH, BRICE P. NOONAN, AND STEFAN LOTTERS, 2006, Polymorphism Versus Species RichnessSystematics of Large Dendrobates from the Eastern Guiana Shield (Amphibia:
Dendrobatidae): Copeia, 2006(4), pp. 623629.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Brent,

Funny you bring this paper up ..... I recently examined it in great detail.

Unfortunately this paper has a few problems. Some of the data is erroneous. For example, on Table 1, the GenBank accession numbers for at least two frogs are not correct. To many, these may sound like small errors but, as I am sure you will agree, it’s difficult to take a paper seriously when there seems to be a lack of attention to detail.

Secondly, their choice of algorithms is not the greatest. For example, quartet puzzling, to many, is basically junk and not very widely accepted. 

I recently ran their data set using Bayesian Inference (Mr. Bayes) and did not come up with the same results (tree). This was based purely upon the molecular data. Currently, I am using both the molecular data set and the morphological data set with some other models and algorithms. We'll see what shakes out.

I’m not saying they are wrong, just that there seems to be some problems


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Well, after 200 years it was bound to happen that ONE paper would finally squeak past the peer-review process containing questionable methods.... that's a joke in case anyone missed it.

Thanks for the info Donn. I look forward to hearing what you learn about their basic conclusions. Personally, I'll be a little surprised if azureus fall out as their own species. But this isn't really my area of expertise so my opinion is worthless.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Then ignore the genetic data and focus on the physical. The features used to originally distinguish _D. azureus_ from _D. tinctorius_ are all now found in various morphs of _D. tinctorius_. Therefore, _D. azureus_ is an isolated form of _D. tinctorius_ and at best a subspecies. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Or D. tinctorius needs to be split up... I believe at some point in the past it was brought up how Tincs on the table mountains may have been different from the lowland populations... at least as much as azureus was, for similar reasons (climatic shift causing a geographical barrier to prevent breeding)


----------

