# Are there any species with varying colors?



## Pacblu202 (May 8, 2012)

I recall seeing a frog in the past that had a few colors within the species that was okay to 'mix'. I vaguely recall it being Sipaliwini but wasn't sure. I also know Terribilis come in a few colors as well, but don't believe those should be mixed (correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

There are several varieties of Sipaliwini frogs including green, yellow, blue, and true. However all are their own variety and should not be mixed. Most likely what you are seeing is situations where a line of say 'green' Sipaliwini have offpsring that are blue in color instead of green. Those frogs should be kept with green Sipaliwini not blue Sipaliwini.

If this is confusing and odd, well you are not alone. It is thus very important to buy from a reputable breeder that can correctly trace the lineage of the frog.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

minorhero said:


> There are several varieties of Sipaliwini frogs including green, yellow, blue, and true. However all are their own variety and should not be mixed. Most likely what you are seeing is situations where a line of say 'green' Sipaliwini have offpsring that are blue in color instead of green. Those frogs should be kept with green Sipaliwini not blue Sipaliwini.


Do you have evidence for this? I understand that all these are 'Green Sips' and that they throw different colors ("True Sips" are a different morph, though).

Some locales of _O. pumilio_ have some natural variability, but frogs from different lines/imports shouldn't be mixed simply to have color variety in one's viv, IMO.

Some different lines of _Ranitomeya_ locales (e.g. imitator 'Varadero') are typically differently colored, but again shouldn't be mixed.

OP, I believe what you are asking if there is any locale or morph that has variable colors between individuals of that locale/morph; most dart *species* do, of course.


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Do you have evidence for this? I understand that all these are 'Green Sips' and that they throw different colors ("True Sips" are a different morph, though).


Do you mean do I have proof that green sips have offspring that aren't very green on occasion? Sure, I see them mentioned every so often on facebook. TCS I believe has some. Here is a picture from the TCS website of 'green' sips:










The one in the background is not very green. I have seen more prominent examples of this on facebook but I have sadly found that trying to search facebook for something I saw a month or more ago is basically the same thing as trying to search for car keys you last saw a few years ago... in another house... that you sold... then moved... and moved again.... and then maybe moved again...

Anyway there are also some yellow sips out there that don't have much if any yellow. 

My understanding is that 'True' sips is the name given to a very select line of frogs that were imported with Suriname's permission and from a specific location. They look identical to yellow sips, the name 'true' sip signifies their lineage more then their appearance.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

No, I mean can you offer support of this:



minorhero said:


> There are several varieties of Sipaliwini frogs including green, yellow, blue, and true. However all are their own variety


It would help if you clarify what you mean by "variety". Are you saying that green, blue and yellow sips are each a naturally occuring morph? Or that each represents a wild population? Or that each breeds true? Or that each were imported separately?

I understand that the yellow and blue are line-bred standardizations of natural variation; if this is true, then any argument against crossing them is going to be pretty weak.


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> No, I mean can you offer support of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah I see. Yes I consider green, blue, yellow, and true to each be their own morph. This based on me seeing them all being advertised separately as their own morph, and also my understanding of the term 'morph'. Beyond the 'true' sip though I am not aware of the history of how they got into this country or what if any locale information came in with them. A green sip that is blue in color is still a green sip though. Same for a yellow sip that is blue or greenish in color. You shouldn't move say a yellow sip that happens to be green into an enclosure with actual green sips. They should still be kept with yellow sips. This is why I emphasized the importance of a reputable breeding knowing the lineage of the frog.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

minorhero said:


> Ah I see. Yes I consider green, blue, yellow, and true to each be their own morph. This based on me seeing them all being advertised separately as their own morph, and also my understanding of the term 'morph'. Beyond the 'true' sip though I am not aware of the history of how they got into this country or what if any locale information came in with them. A green sip that is blue in color is still a green sip though. Same for a yellow sip that is blue or greenish in color. You shouldn't move say a yellow sip that happens to be green into an enclosure with actual green sips. They should still be kept with yellow sips. This is why I emphasized the importance of a reputable breeding knowing the lineage of the frog.


What is your "understanding of the term 'morph'"? The bit about 'being advertised as' certainly isn't diagnostic; a car isn't a performance car simply because Chevy advertises it as one. 

I'm hoping what you say can help me to understand how a 'green sip' can be blue but is still a 'green sip' while there is also an actual 'blue sip' (possibly green in color?). Were the morphs named as they were imported (and how did the importer know they weren't just 'green sips' that happened to be blue)? And since any of these "morphs" can produce offspring of any of the colors....

I'm coming at this from the knowledge of a couple other herps that have the same morphological variability even within locales but aren't best paired up on the basis of those characteristics -- in part, because like in sips, apparently, it simply doesn't tend to yield uniform offspring, but if it did it would have the effect of making lines of morphologically uniform animals where previously such lines didn't exist (i.e. line breeding, in the negative sense).


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> What is your "understanding of the term 'morph'"? The bit about 'being advertised as' certainly isn't diagnostic; a car isn't a performance car simply because Chevy advertises it as one.


My definition comes from the dictionary. If there is a more exact definition I am just not familiar with it. 



Socratic Monologue said:


> I'm hoping what you say can help me to understand how a 'green sip' can be blue but is still a 'green sip' while there is also an actual 'blue sip' (possibly green in color?). Were the morphs named as they were imported (and how did the importer know they weren't just 'green sips' that happened to be blue)? And since any of these "morphs" can produce offspring of any of the colors....


Well if you own some green sips, and they lay eggs and most of those grow up and look just like their parents but one of the froglets is blue instead of green. Is it now a blue sip? Should you sell it to another hobbyist as a blue sip? Or should you sell it as a green sip that happens to be blue? This last is what I have seen on facebook. To the extent that folks are labeling these frogs blue sips I simply do not know.



Socratic Monologue said:


> I'm coming at this from the knowledge of a couple other herps that have the same morphological variability even within locales but aren't best paired up on the basis of those characteristics -- in part, because like in sips, apparently, it simply doesn't tend to yield uniform offspring, but if it did it would have the effect of making lines of morphologically uniform animals where previously such lines didn't exist (i.e. line breeding, in the negative sense).


I am of the opinion that a lot of the frogs we stick definitive labels on then defend that label to the Nth degree are probably pretty closely related to each other. I mean, cobalts, blue sips, green sips, yellow sips, patricia, robertus, Citronella, Nikita, powder blue, powder grey, etc etc etc. They all have native ranges inside of Suriname and many overlap in other areas as well. Given that we believe some portion of the present hobby population either was not collected legally, or have ancestors of same, or have ancestors that were collected before laws 'firmed' up in this area, well who knows how careful people were in collecting X frog and then selling it as Y morph. 

The reality is we really don't know a lot about these frogs ranges in the wild (near as I can tell anyway) and what their breeding habits are in the wild (vis-à-vis will they interbreed when their ranges overlap). We do know that they look VERY similar to each other and occasionally will have offspring that look a LOT more like one of the other morphs then their parents. 

And we also know is that gosh darn hobbyists care a lot if a frog is a Patricia, Robertus, or a Cobalt. So when it comes to figuring out what frogs can be put in the same enclosure its probably a good idea to keep track of the lineage so you can straight up tell the person who ends up inheriting/buying your froglets in the years to come that these are 'green' sips even though that guy in the corner is blue etc. 

Frankly I think its all a bit much but there is no denying this is the state of the hobby.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

minorhero said:


> My definition comes from the dictionary. If there is a more exact definition I am just not familiar with it.


That's a bit weak, but OK. It doesn't help, though, since if a pair of "Green Sips" produce both green offspring and blue offspring, then definition 2b has that clutch of offspring (and presumably the "Green" parents themselves) being of different morphs, since they are phenotypically distinct from each other, and definition 2a doesn't help any of this because there is no locale data or wild interbreeding studies. It also completely dodges my question of what makes a green sip a "Green Sip" if it is blue, and same for "Blue Sips" that are green.

One reason I'm pushing this is because every old thread I can drag up here seems to assume -- or state outright -- that all sips that are green or blue are actually "Green Sips"; the blues are offspring of, or in some cases selectively bred from, "Green" stock. There are knowledgable claims that even the yellows are derived from one multicolor original line:

https://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/48040-green-sips.html#post418186

Just because folks give different colors different names doesn't imply that they are a different morph (see USA Frog for a knockdown reason). Just because animals are a different color or pattern doesn't mean they are from different populations (see Lampropeltis alterna and L. leonis for non-frog examples).


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> That's a bit weak, but OK. It doesn't help, though, since if a pair of "Green Sips" produce both green offspring and blue offspring, then definition 2b has that clutch of offspring (and presumably the "Green" parents themselves) being of different morphs, since they are phenotypically distinct from each other, and definition 2a doesn't help any of this because there is no locale data or wild interbreeding studies. It also completely dodges my question of what makes a green sip a "Green Sip" if it is blue, and same for "Blue Sips" that are green.
> 
> One reason I'm pushing this is because every old thread I can drag up here seems to assume -- or state outright -- that all sips that are green or blue are actually "Green Sips"; the blues are offspring of, or in some cases selectively bred from, "Green" stock. There are knowledgable claims that even the yellows are derived from one multicolor original line:
> 
> ...


To the extent that folks care about the lineage of morphs this is why knowing the ancestry is so important since the darn things don't necessary look like the parents ;P

Anyway I personally feel folks put too much emphasis on the different morphs. As I've said all of these Suriname sip looking frogs look like each other and probably are related and at some point in the wild bred with each other. This being based off of the offspring looking like other morphs.

I spent a lot of time over the spring and summer going for hikes with my daughter and catching local frogs. The best frog to catch (for most fun) are Green Frogs. They are pretty good size and have bright colors. Or at least most of them do. I have caught Green Frogs that are bright vivid green all over. Ones that are muddy brown all over, ones that are bright green only on their head, and ones that are bright green only on their head and back etc. They are all within a few dozen miles of each other but if I were to ship them off to some other country where they don't live and give each one a label based on how I was feeling that day maybe some hobbyist would have a very heated argument about how the Green Head frog can't be kept in the same enclosure with the Brown Body frog since they are different morphs even though I found them within a few hundred yards of each other.. /shrug

That's how I feel about it but unless you can trace the lineage of the frogs back far enough to show they are all the same darn frog I can't help but feel the INTERNET will be upset if you stick a frog sold as a green sip in with a frog sold as a blue sip. On the other hand, they are your darn frogs (hypothetically speaking of course) so you know, do what you want ;P


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Are you sure that the brown and the brown with green on the tree frogs werent just chromatophore phases?


----------



## Pacblu202 (May 8, 2012)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Do you have evidence for this? I understand that all these are 'Green Sips' and that they throw different colors ("True Sips" are a different morph, though).
> 
> Some locales of _O. pumilio_ have some natural variability, but frogs from different lines/imports shouldn't be mixed simply to have color variety in one's viv, IMO.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I was just wondering if there's anything that, similar to the Sips, have a wide variety of color. Not looking to mix Morphs or locales by any means. Just could have sworn there was something else other than Sips that had a 'wide' range of color. More than what you'd see in Leucs or something (going from slightly orangish to bright yellow). Maybe I'm just thinking of Terribilis which are different Morphs and I'm confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tachikoma (Apr 16, 2009)

Socratic Monologue said:


> One reason I'm pushing this is because every old thread I can drag up here seems to assume -- or state outright  -- that all sips that are green or blue are actually "Green Sips"; the blues are offspring of, or in some cases selectively bred from, "Green" stock. There are knowledgable claims that even the yellows are derived from one multicolor original line:
> 
> Green Sips?


As far as I understand it there are currently three sip morphs circulating in the hobby with up to three others debated. 

True sips - Standard morph that everyone agrees on (more on this later)

Green sips - A variable sip that can throw both blue, green, and yellow (which I have never seen an adult yellow sip from green sip parents so I'm a bit reluctant to believe this claim)

Yellow sips - A true yellow sip, will only throw completely bold yellow offspring with deep blue legs. Not lime green, green, blue, no bleeding of the colors on the flanks etc.. 

I have a trio composed of a WC female yellow sip purchased directly from SNDF in 2013 that was collected by Marcus himself. My two males are F2 from F1's from WC parents collected by Marcus of SNDF from 2008 or 2009 (Barbara couldn't remember the exact year they got them in) produced by Sean Stewart.

I contacted Sean when I bought my frogs from him to ask about his thoughts on the yellows and he had this to say:

"I think that the yellow morph is a locale of the sips. The ones I am working with are yellow as froglets and adults. They produce all yellow offspring. Same with my green sips, they produce all green sips. My blue sips have produced blues and greens-blues. The true sips are different all together and are closer to azureus in locale."

Both Sean and Marcus seem to agree on the status of an actual separate Yellow morph. 


Possible others:
Green sips that breed true that Sean mentions.
Blue Sips which Sean also mentions throws green and blue seems inversed from what the hobby calls green.
Recent imports of possibly mislabeled "True Sips" (2013 and newer) I have read some people think these may be mislabeled cobalts. Although I am not too up to date on this debate. 


What really interests me is that Sean's green sips breed true, as well as his blue sips that don't, does that mean somewhere along the lines the variable green sips in the hobby were bred with a blue sip or was it the other way around, or are there just coincidentally two different lines of each? It's a mess to untangle for sure.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

@tachikoma -- that's all useful info.



tachikoma said:


> What really interests me is that Sean's green sips breed true, as well as his blue sips that don't, does that mean somewhere along the lines the variable green sips in the hobby were bred with a blue sip or was it the other way around, or are there just coincidentally two different lines of each? It's a mess to untangle for sure.


Yes, definitely a mess. 

Based on examples from reptiles (there is a lot more informal data on how crossing and line breeding works there than there is with darts, for sure), I was thinking it more likely that the lines of sips that breed true were simply more "refined" (i.e. selectively bred, whether intentionally or not). 

I can't think of any analogical cases of crossing of polygenetic morphs (that's apparently what is the case in sips; if this were a single-gene mutation breeders should be seeing statistical patterns in offspring coloration) that lead to future descendants of that line repeatedly throwing such distinctly polymorphic clutches.


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Kmc said:


> Are you sure that the brown and the brown with green on the tree frogs werent just chromatophore phases?


Ah not the tree frog. I was referring to Lithobates clamitans.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Pacblu202 said:


> Yeah, I was just wondering if there's anything that, similar to the Sips, have a wide variety of color. Not looking to mix Morphs or locales by any means. Just could have sworn there was something else other than Sips that had a 'wide' range of color. More than what you'd see in Leucs or something (going from slightly orangish to bright yellow). Maybe I'm just thinking of Terribilis which are different Morphs and I'm confused.


Part of the confusingness is due, I think, to the two conflicting tendencies of people to keep lines pure to natural type (locales) and to keep lines pure to morphology. The dart hobby isn't so large that both of those goals can exist simultaneously, it seems, whereas for many reptiles they both can be pursued without tension (i.e. for one species, some people keep locale-specific lines and other people breed for specific morphological traits, and there is enough 'space' to keep that all straight).

It might be fun to hunt up a small group of sips from someone who claims theirs give quite variable offspring, and pair them off randomly as they become sexable, and see what shakes out. If you're looking for multiple colors in a group-tolerant frog, though, this becomes a whole lot closer to impossible, though.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

minorhero said:


> Ah not the tree frog. I was referring to Lithobates clamitans.


Oh ok, still same question though, about it being chromatophore aggregate, and not a 'type' ?


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Kmc said:


> Oh ok, still same question though, about it being chromatophore aggregate, and not a 'type' ?


To my knowledge they do not change colors. I admit I have not kept them longer then a few minutes in hand but I haven't seen anything mentioned about them changing colors in the articles I've read. I do see mention of them having a bronze type and a blue type as well:





































None of those pictures are mine, just things I found on a google image search. I've seen frogs that look similar to all of these except the blue one. I would probably have a blue-green frog pet if I ever caught one of those ;p


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

No, thats not quite what I mean. not axanthic, and not another subspecies, but a shift of chromatophores that happen to a greater or more subtle degree with many frogs, most actually.


----------



## Johanovich (Jan 23, 2017)

I seem to remember that exports of Mantella milotympanum from certain populations could give both red and green offspring. But it seems that those frogs from mixed populations were lost in the hobby for some years already. All the ones I see now are red.


----------



## Tijl (Feb 28, 2019)

Diffenrent colors/paterns on the same morph, same locality :



I know O.H'Bullseye' has yellow, orange, black, brown,.. 
O.P. Rio Colubre has blue, blue orange, orange,.. all in the same area.

Tinctorius i'm not so sure..



I agree colormorphs should not be mixed in the hobby.


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Kmc said:


> No, thats not quite what I mean. not axanthic, and not another subspecies, but a shift of chromatophores that happen to a greater or more subtle degree with many frogs, most actually.


In that case this is just over my head. I looked up chromatophores and really couldn't figure out how this is different in say a green frog vs say a green sip. Not saying they aren't but I have very little biology in my education so I couldn't figure out what was going on ;P


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

minorhero said:


> In that case this is just over my head. I looked up chromatophores and really couldn't figure out how this is different in say a green frog vs say a green sip. Not saying they aren't but I have very little biology in my education so I couldn't figure out what was going on ;P


Im sorry I didnt mean to derail the topic it was just suggesting perhaps the frogs you caught with patchy or partial dark pigment wasnt a permanent 'type'

On another note that Blue guy is a Screamer, jeez.


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

minorhero said:


> Do you mean do I have proof that green sips have offspring that aren't very green on occasion? Sure, I see them mentioned every so often on facebook. TCS I believe has some. Here is a picture from the TCS website of 'green' sips:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look at those green ones just completely ignoring the poor blue fella. They are probably talking about him behind his back. Jerks.

Mark


----------



## Pacblu202 (May 8, 2012)

Tijl said:


> Diffenrent colors/paterns on the same morph, same locality :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What frog is in that picture?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tijl (Feb 28, 2019)

Oophaga Sylvatica 'Paru'


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

All right, I am going to take a poke at this. I am always using the wrong terms when I address some of this stuff. I use "morph" a lot when maybe I should use "locale" or "line", that sort of thing. My understanding of what this topic has become is that, if frogs can be traced back to a specific import (somebody's name, 2011, for instance) or locale (Tarapoto, Abiseo, etc.), we should try to breed our frogs with others of the same (with a possible exception of multiple import dates from the same locale). If, however, we take a group of frogs that throws different colors from the very beginning of the import, select a specific color we like and split the offspring up by color, that is line breeding and can introduce bias into the genetics based on the selection exclusively by color. This is to be avoided, in my opinion, for the long-term health of the animals. It is done, however. Aren't Chocolate Leucs the results of this type of line breeding?

There are certain groups of frogs that have quite a bit of variability in offspring, to answer the original question. Another that I would add to the list are the green and bronze auratus (and green and turquoise?, and green and brown? can't recall - it's been a while - but NOT Highland Bronze). These can throw green, blue and in-between offspring. I had heard that this was because when they were imported, frogs from different locales were thrown in together so the genetics were more variable than a specific locale import would have been. Anyway, those can have significant variability in offspring color. 

The take-home message for this question, though, is the if you want multiple colors of frogs, that's easiest and best to do with multiple enclosures. In terms of frogs, bigger doesn't mean that you can mix more stuff in there. Heck, it may not even mean that you get to have more than a pair! It means that your frogs are probably happier with a larger tank. But if you think you want more than one color of frog, plan space for multiple tanks.

Mark


----------



## Pacblu202 (May 8, 2012)

Encyclia said:


> All right, I am going to take a poke at this. I am always using the wrong terms when I address some of this stuff. I use "morph" a lot when maybe I should use "locale" or "line", that sort of thing. My understanding of what this topic has become is that, if frogs can be traced back to a specific import (somebody's name, 2011, for instance) or locale (Tarapoto, Abiseo, etc.), we should try to breed our frogs with others of the same (with a possible exception of multiple import dates from the same locale). If, however, we take a group of frogs that throws different colors from the very beginning of the import, select a specific color we like and split the offspring up by color, that is line breeding and can introduce bias into the genetics based on the selection exclusively by color. This is to be avoided, in my opinion, for the long-term health of the animals. It is done, however. Aren't Chocolate Leucs the results of this type of line breeding?
> 
> There are certain groups of frogs that have quite a bit of variability in offspring, to answer the original question. Another that I would add to the list are the green and bronze auratus (and green and turquoise?, and green and brown? can't recall - it's been a while - but NOT Highland Bronze). These can throw green, blue and in-between offspring. I had heard that this was because when they were imported, frogs from different locales were thrown in together so the genetics were more variable than a specific locale import would have been. Anyway, those can have significant variability in offspring color.
> 
> ...



Well put, Mark. I by no means plan on mixing *Insert whatever you want to call morph, line, species, etc*. I was just looking to see if Sips were the only ones that throw a little variety in their colors or if there were other frogs that do as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

Yeah, that's how I read your original post. After some of the further discussion, I thought I would throw my hat in the ring about what some of the other folks brought up. 

I guess it maybe obvious, but since Sips are Tincs, you are best with a pair, so just two frogs. So, if you are good with two different colors, that fits the bill. If you are looking for a group frog with variety in colors, I don't know much other than those auratus I mentioned earlier. In the pairs category would also be several different pumilio. You would open yourself up a bit if you were willing to consider frogs that throw different patterns 

Mark


----------



## Pacblu202 (May 8, 2012)

Did you have any particular frogs in mind? Im just getting back into the hobby after a while out of it so I'm always open to a refresher on some fun frogs. It's a 75g horizontal tank. I'd like to get a decent size grouping in there (5 or so) which rules out Tincs. I'm also not super interested in putting thumbnails in this tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Encyclia said:


> If, however, we take a group of frogs that throws different colors from the very beginning of the import, select a specific color we like and split the offspring up by color, that is line breeding and can introduce bias into the genetics based on the selection exclusively by color. This is to be avoided, in my opinion, for the long-term health of the animals. It is done, however. Aren't Chocolate Leucs the results of this type of line breeding?


Yes, that is true of Chocolate leucs. Remixing them with whatever they came from -- standard leucs? perhaps it isn't known -- wouldn't be much of a loss, but it would make for some offspring that don't fit into any current category. Mixing the true-breeding blue sips that came from Green Sips with the variable-offspring-producing Green Sips would produce, uh, Green Sips as far as I can tell.

This -- backcrossing -- is done with other herp species with beneficial outcomes; inbred morph leopard geckos are crossed with wild subspecies, and the resulting offspring are more healthy and nicer looking. Sometimes these are identified as backcrosses, and sometimes not since morph leopard geckos are already intergrade mongrels.


----------



## Johanovich (Jan 23, 2017)

Encyclia said:


> There are certain groups of frogs that have quite a bit of variability in offspring, to answer the original question. Another that I would add to the list are the green and bronze auratus (and green and turquoise?, and green and brown? can't recall - it's been a while - but NOT Highland Bronze). These can throw green, blue and in-between offspring. I had heard that this was because when they were imported, frogs from different locales were thrown in together so the genetics were more variable than a specific locale import would have been. Anyway, those can have significant variability in offspring color.


Highland bronze (which is the same as panama special) auratus originally stem from the Wasmann and Birkahn line and come from a large population that also had frogs with green, turquoise and blue. There are also indications that the microspot morph is actually line bred from these as well, but that is unclear. This does not mean that these should be mixed with the others, just wanted to point this out


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Pacblu202 said:


> Did you have any particular frogs in mind? Im just getting back into the hobby after a while out of it so I'm always open to a refresher on some fun frogs. It's a 75g horizontal tank. I'd like to get a decent size grouping in there (5 or so) which rules out Tincs. I'm also not super interested in putting thumbnails in this tank.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You have a few options depending on what else you are looking for. Leucs, auratus, mantella, Phyllobates and Santa Isabel leap to mind immediately. Auratus has a quiet call the others have loud calls. Phyllobates are the biggest (I think?) and will be the most terrestrial. Santa Isabel are known for being rapid breeders so you will either have to cull eggs or find homes for a lot of tadpoles/froglets. With a few exceptions for some morphs, they are all known to be various levels of bold. So which one you go with just depends on your particular preferences.


----------



## Pacblu202 (May 8, 2012)

minorhero said:


> You have a few options depending on what else you are looking for. Leucs, auratus, mantella, Phyllobates and Santa Isabel leap to mind immediately. Auratus has a quiet call the others have loud calls. Phyllobates are the biggest (I think?) and will be the most terrestrial. Santa Isabel are known for being rapid breeders so you will either have to cull eggs or find homes for a lot of tadpoles/froglets. With a few exceptions for some morphs, they are all known to be various levels of bold. So which one you go with just depends on your particular preferences.



Side form the mantella, that's pretty much been my list haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## minorhero (Apr 24, 2020)

Pacblu202 said:


> Side form the mantella, that's pretty much been my list haha
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am in the process of building a vivarium that will have a similar footprint as a 75 but be 36" tall. For me the choice was always going to be Auratus because I need the quiet call. This tank will be in the middle of my living room and I have small children that sleep during the day (and in the years to come I have definite plans to sleep in past sunrise gosh darn it). I am not sure yet on the morph. Everything I have read indicates that most of the morphs (but not all) will become bold if in a high traffic area which this tank will be located in. If I didn't care about the call I would probably go with something like Terribilis because they are just so darn chill and there seems to be decent demand for them so I shouldn't have trouble offloading the froglets.


----------



## Pacblu202 (May 8, 2012)

minorhero said:


> I am in the process of building a vivarium that will have a similar footprint as a 75 but be 36" tall. For me the choice was always going to be Auratus because I need the quiet call. This tank will be in the middle of my living room and I have small children that sleep during the day (and in the years to come I have definite plans to sleep in past sunrise gosh darn it). I am not sure yet on the morph. Everything I have read indicates that most of the morphs (but not all) will become bold if in a high traffic area which this tank will be located in. If I didn't care about the call I would probably go with something like Terribilis because they are just so darn chill and there seems to be decent demand for them so I shouldn't have trouble offloading the froglets.



Yep, mines the same situation. Tho I'd risk a loud call waking me up. It's dead center in my living room tho with views from 3 sides. It'll be a sweet tank once it's done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

