# Cayo, cay, key, ile, eiland, isle, isla, isola, and......



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Cayo, cay, key, ile, eiland, isle, isla, isola, and island all mean essentially island. To label one pumilio (or any other frog for that matter) morph 'Cayo' is saying that it is an island morph. Just a rough guess but I would assume that about half of the known morphs of Panama pumilio are 'cayos'. I bring this up because of the huge amount of posts I read using 'Cayo' to describe solely Cayo de Aqua pums.
Rich


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

*Re: Cayo, cay, key, ile, eiland, isle, isla, isola, and.....*



Rich Frye said:


> Cayo, cay, key, ile, eiland, isle, isla, isola, and island all mean essentially island. To label one pumilio (or any other frog for that matter) morph 'Cayo' is saying that it is an island morph. Just a rough guess but I would assume that about half of the known morphs of Panama pumilio are 'cayos'. I bring this up because of the huge amount of posts I read using 'Cayo' to describe solely Cayo de Aqua pums.
> Rich


But that has been the standard to label pumilio from the name of the location they are from and cayos are from Cayo. So I dont think its a big deal. But I get what you are saying.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I think that the issue is more for future than now. For instance, the official name of Nancy Key is either Isla Solarte or Cayo Nancy. All of the other islands that have frogs, except Cayo de Agua, are officially named Isla X. There are the the Cayos Zapatillas, which I don't believe have frogs on them. I'd have to check, but Escudo may be named Cayo as well. It wouldn't take much to have someone import Solartes and call them Cayo Nancys at which point people could start getting confused with people referring to Cayo de Aguas as Cayos.

It's just best to refer to them with as complete a name as possible. Just like my pet peeve with the Popa Norths simply being called Popas. I'm sure it'd be much better, if you had to refer to Cayo de Agua with a short name, to refer to them as Aguas (which, then, could be confused with Aguacates).

I'm soon going to be getting irritated with Colons simply called Colons since there's at least two populations on the island. Same with Bastimentos.


----------



## DF20 (Jul 7, 2007)

i guess it only really matters if you want to be super techincal about it. Everyone knows cayo de agua as the green pum with a yellow stomach. If your that concerned with how they are being named or "mistaken identity" i think you are worring way to much. People in the frog world are not that stupid. In which case if you must be technical about every word used to describe a frog, why not just write a breif description of the frog and what it looks like and its locality, shoot while your at, attach a pdf thats 20 pages long of everything there is about the frog and make that the name. The point im trying to make is, as you can tell by the overwelming popularity of your post that most people dont really care about being *THAT* technical about the names. I guess you should get on everyones case about using nicknames for them, such as "leuc" "amy" "fants" "tincs"... if you want to be that technical... your post was educational yes... but thats just it. telling people how to say the name or how they *SHOULD* call it above and beyond the already tons of names to remember and memorize, is just being a lil anal... just my 2 cents


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Well, for a hobby that is trying to maintain the wild genetics, it's important to remain technical. If you start slipping with short hand like Cayo, you start to get issues with confusion. Popa South is also green with yellow bellies and look VERY much like Cayo de Agua frogs. I have no doubt that, while the majority of people call the island Isla Popa, there is some maps and some people that call it Cayo Popo. In fact, one of the GPS that I used called the island Cayo Popo. Also, there's Cayo Pelicano that has a frog morph on it (very similar to Shepherd's in appearance). It's not in the hobby, to my knowledge, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to get it in at some point (especially since the very small island is severely threatened by development).

I won't divulge more than this, but I've been told that there is a second morph on Cayo de Agua (that IS different from the green and yellow ones we see), so I think that it's important to be as specific as possible.

The difference between Leuc and Cayo is that nothing is going to be confused with Leucomelas. Several things can be confused with Cayo.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

If you want to be technical, ditch names and go to a code. Names are confusing as Rich has already pointed out and is exemplified by JP's comment of there being a second population on Cayo de Agua.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I think that that's even more unlikely than people calling "Cayos" Cayo de Aguas :lol: 

One step at a time


----------



## DF20 (Jul 7, 2007)

i really dont think its that big of an issue. If your dumb enough to not know what a frog is before purchasing it...your prob not going to very successful with taking care of it. Like most new froggers say when they get here.... they do a ton of research before buying or even getting into frogs. Most veterans know the differences between the frogs.. and ask the questions needed to know what the frogs is and its locality....would you buy a car on the internet or at a show soley based on appearance or a picture posted in the classifieds? I would think most people would ask a lil more information...give people the benefit of the doubt...the lines are being well kept by the major breeders and have been doing so by everyone using terms..call it laziness but i would rather type cayo and have everyone know what it is.... vs having to type out Pumilio: Cayo De Agua. All i am saying is.. its not really a big deal...if you dont know what someone means when they say "cayo" ... the logical anwser would be to ask them the locality and more information about the pum. EVERYONE that is an avid frog keeper and davels into Pums(pumilio) for you technical kids out there, knows the common term, Cayo, for the frog Cayo de Agua. Why go and change how everyone else is calling it, based soley off a couple people who prob have some sort of OCD and want things the way they want them, because thats how they want to say them. Currently there are not a TON of cases of mistaken identity....Im all for uniform names which for the majority we already have but whos going to decide it? If so have someone make a list of all the names to be used.... and post it on dendro for everyone to see and start using....and have everyone agree to use those names... it can be done... but who is going to put the time into doing so? and how effective is it going to be? it would be interesting to see...


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

MonarchzMan said:


> I think that that's even more unlikely than people calling "Cayos" Cayo de Aguas :lol:
> 
> One step at a time


I don't care what people call them in conversation, but that there isn't a solid backbone to the way we manage names for populations is annoying.


----------



## UmbraSprite (Mar 2, 2007)

Don't get me started on "Rio" which could, of course, be any frog found near a river.

:?


----------



## Conman3880 (Jul 8, 2007)

Why dont we call Cayo de Aguas "CDA's".

That way there's no mistaken identity, AND you get to type LESS letters than you would typing "Cayo".

Everyone is happy


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

DF20, it was brought up to me in private, why don't we call Bastis "Islas?" It after all would be easier than typing Basti or Bastimentos. There is some acknowledgment there as far as confusion goes, so why not extend it to Cayo de Agua. Like I said, there are several islands in the archipelago that are labeled as Cayo. As per my example, it would not surprise me if Cayo Pelicano showed up before too long. Given the rarity and threatened status of that morph, it would seem to me to be enough impetus to import some. When that happens, what then?

It's not really OCD, it's just avoiding confusion now and especially in the future. Like I've been going on about with the Popa Norths. Yes, they're the only Isla Popa morph found in the hobby at the moment, but what happens when the completely different Popa South gets imported? Sure we can call the Popa Norths simply Popas right now, but in order to avoid confusion in the future, it's best to nip that in the bud and call them Popa Norths. Same with Cayo. And like I've said, I've been told that there is a supposed second morph of Cayo de Agua (that is completely different how I heard it described). What happens if/when that gets imported? It seems a very big assumption to say that everyone who dabbles in pumilio know Cayo means Cayo de Agua. I wouldn't assume that. Maybe here on Dendroboard, yea, but elsewhere, I doubt it.

Let's be honest here. If we were to post names on these frogs and what they should be called, would you really use them? Who would you consider credible as far as being people who made up such a list? People who have experience with rearing many pumilio morphs? Rich is a great example of that. People who have done research on pumilio in situ? Well, then I'm a good example of that. I'm in the works with Brent and Chris on the Pumilio TMP which will list all of the known morphs, both in the hobby and not, with their official names and locations, but will you honestly look at that and say, "Okay, yea, they're officially called Cayo de Agua, so I should reference them as such?" It's not like Rich or myself are a couple of randoms wanting people to be technical. From a purely conservation minded approach, which I have and I imagine that Rich has too, it makes sense to be as specific as possible, which leads into Mike's suggestion.

Mike, I agree. That's the ideal method. Maybe Chris, Brent, and I can work in some labeling onto the TMP to get things rolling...


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Bottom line here is that no, Cayo has not been used as a label for Cayo de Aquas for longer than 'cayo' has been used for Nancies. Period. Ask any of the 'old timers' what morph 'cayo' brings to mind and most likely they will instantly say Nancy. How many Cayo de Aquas were in the U.S. hobby before Nancies? Nancies came first and therefore were the first to be 'slanged' and that's what it is, slang. 
Very simply put , to say 'cayo', means island. To say 'rio' means river. And there are TONS of island and river morph pums out there both in the wild (undiscovered) and in captivity. Aqua rolls of the tongue and computer screen just as nicely as 'cayo'. And is a much better description. Getting into the different morphs per island is another matter in and of itself.
In this world of many 'best guess pums' the least we can do is be a tad more descriptive.


----------



## porkchop (Aug 29, 2005)

Interesting topic, I understand the importance of naming details for sure.
I have couple pairs of Cayo's, (green w/ yellow belly) I tried to get as much site info as possible before I purchased, but the info I was given by seller was simple, Imported from Island in panama, "Cayo de Agua". Thats all he would tell me cause thats all *HE* knew, (or was willing anyway)
You could say, "dont buy them then w/o site specific info.", but I wanted them, and thats all the info. I have on them. 
So thats what I have to go on in this hobbie. What else can I do?
And I use term Cayo to describe because its easy (lazy) and I thought it is given that a Cayo de Agua was only the green w/ yellow belly morph, 
I now know a little more, and thats what this board is for.... Thanks.


----------



## dragonfrog (Feb 16, 2006)

Personally, I think it is very important to be name specific. Yes, a good share of us are "seasoned" in this hobby and should know what someone is taking about, but there are even more out there who are not. Take a look at the dates on peoples profiles, most are newbies with only 1 or 2 years time on dendroboard. If frog names are not kept specific, these people get confused, heck, I get confused sometimes. 
When on the internet, nothing bothers me more that someone that uses internet "slang", and we all know what that is. Example: U = You. A lot of people are lazy when it comes to typing on the computer and I think it is a shame that we let that carry over to a forum like this.


----------



## dragonfrog (Feb 16, 2006)

Oh, and before anyone razes me about my signature, I use short descriptions for the frogs I have because we are limitied to the amount of letters we can have in our signature.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Bottom line here is that no, Cayo has not been used as a label for Cayo de Aquas for longer than 'cayo' has been used for Nancies. Period. Ask any of the 'old timers' what morph 'cayo' brings to mind and most likely they will instantly say Nancy. How many Cayo de Aquas were in the U.S. hobby before Nancies? Nancies came first
> 
> 
> Aqua rolls of the tongue and computer screen just as nicely as 'cayo'. And is a much better description. .



I agree. But I dont see a problem calling these yellow and green guys "Cayos" as long as it is followed by Aqua. So I would think as long as teh full name "Cayo de Agua" is used I dont see it being a problem. So yes I would say calling them just cayos is wrong. I think the problem is that people get lazy and drop the Aqua. 

And I would imagine any frogger concerned enough about things like this would know enough that Nancies and and the yellow and green frogs do not come from the same location. If they cant even handle that concept there are lots of other things that we should worry about.


----------



## DF20 (Jul 7, 2007)

agree with *GREASER*


----------



## frog_newbie (Sep 5, 2007)

I think if you are lazy on the message board that is fine. The boards are supposed to be fun as well as informative. As long as people use the full name in their sell/trade adds then I dont see a problem with it. H


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Really there is no debate here. If you want to incorrectly label something or use slang then that is your choice. True Cayo de Aqua pumilio should at least be called Aquas for those who don't want to use the full Cayo de Aqua. 
The only other thing that has been brought up here that is worth debating now is the fact that there are tons of pumilio in our hobby that we just don't know how to label. The 'SNDF 07 May Import' or 'Green 05 June import pums' or the like is really the most accurate way of labeling a lot of the stuff that came in but everyone wants to think/feel like they have an Uyama River or a Cayo de Aqua or one of the truly known morphs. But the reality is most people who have asked 'what pumilio do I have' don't even include measurements with their pics. 'Yellow Belly' would be the next most accurate description of non-verified pums that look like some Cayo de Aqua.
So , if you KNOW FOR A FACT that you have Cayo de Aqua pumilio then call them such or abbreviate if you like to Aqua but here is my last example of the simplicity of my original post's statement.
You will not find fish keepers labeling single salt water species as simply 'Salts'. Not due to slang, not due to laziness. It just does not make sense to call an animal solely 'Salt' , 'Rio' or 'Cayo' IF you know the actual name of the species.

Rich


----------



## DF20 (Jul 7, 2007)

how about someone or someones come up with a list for all known PDFs currently and not currently in the frog hobby with the name that should be used to best fit the frog. Post the list online here on dendroboard and other forms... have a poll...ask people to either be in support of or agasint the list. If you have 75% of people or more saying they agree.. then thats what we should use...keep the list constanly updated and display it where people can easily access it. i think that it would be pretty easy to follow if everyone agrees on the list of names and starts to use it. my only fear is that this will turn into what they call in the salt water fish forums as the "tang police" people that go around correcting everyone on how to use the names and how to manage their frogs... thats my only concern, because it gets rather annoying when people keep correcting you for your punct. and "correctness" within using words and sentence structures. i think its best to say that some people just dont care about saying or typing in the "politically correct" name for a frog. i for one have no problem calling a frog a cayo.. if very few other frogs are being called cayo... most people when using the term cayo... have a brief description of the frog or a picture to back up what they are saying...i dont see a lot of ads out there or pictures out there for cayo nancy or nancy cayo. And the 2 frogs are really compeletly different in appearnce until there is another strain or different strain of cayo de agua... i dont think cayo is really a big deal...but falling under the pressures of the select OCD that are over paranoid about it.. i think there should be some sort of universal list of names to be used and followed. i dont mind just calling my frogs Aguas... but cayo de agua and cayos sounds so much cooler and along with the name being part of it, it also says where they are from. 

No offense rich but your last example was pretty weak....

All fish that live in the ocean or a salt water evi. are SALTWATER fish.

Yes we know cayo de aguas are FROGS... that live on an ISLAND. Your example would then say that we are calling all frogs. "lands" or "islands" when we clearly have distince names and ways of telling them apart.
Personally i think the biggest issue is making sure the importers have the correct info and names as well...

But the differnece with pums is that correct me if im wrong, they dont all live on islands. So to state the island where they come from would be more location specific. Thus thats where the frogs inhabiting the island get their name. Unless theres different species/morphs living on the same island its safe to say that all Pums on Cayo De Agua are the same morph/species. 

Now lets say there were 2 different morphs/species well you would then have to be more specific. 

Your "salts" example would better be illustrated if you used a common name for saltwater fish.. Such as "clowns" where there are multple kinds of clowns and you didnt specify on the tank label what kind of clownfish it was. Just having a label saying "clowns" instead of Clownfish: Pecula, Ocealris, Saddleback, True Pecula, Sabae etc etc.

Since there are not a BUNCH of morphs/species of Pums on the island of Cayo de Agua its not as complicated...


----------



## Conman3880 (Jul 8, 2007)

DF20 said:


> Yes we know cayo de aguas are FROGS... that live on an ISLAND. Your example would then say that we are calling all frogs. "lands" or "islands" when we clearly have distince names and ways of telling them apart.


I think that's the exact point Rich was trying to make. Saying "Cayo" _is_ like calling them "islands".


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I've pretty much said what I had to say. It is a pretty simple concept.
There are already names in place from the people who actually live there or by those who actually discovered the frogs. No real need for renaming anything. Just for using proper names.

Rich


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Why aren't Colons or Bastimentos called "Islas?" If there's that distinction, why not the distinction with Cayo?

Personally, I would defer to the "experts" when it comes to names, not the general public. The general public doesn't always know what's best (look at the current administration ), but experts in the field would. Or they would at least know better than the general public would. The problem with a "general poll" is that newbies who don't know about other morphs or what's currently going on with the complex, so you'd likely end up with the general majority wanting something that is not reflective of the wild populations.

You're right in that pumilio morphs occur both on islands and the mainland. However, that is FAR to vague a generalization. If you look at it that way, there are about 12 or 13 morphs that occur on islands, and likely the same number that occur on the mainland. Since much of the islands are not full explored by researchers, it's best to be as specific as possible right now. For instance, there are at least 4 different morphs (at least what I would consider separate morphs) on Bastimentos, but the only one in the hobby is Western Bastimentos. It has been so ingrained into people's minds that Bastis simply refers to Western Bastimentos that if an import of one of the other morphs happened, there would be confusion all around. In fact, I would guess that to the general public, it would come as a surprise that there are 4 morphs on Bastimentos. Why not avoid that with Cayo de Agua (it is, after all, a very big island and the chances of more morphs being there is high)?

Once again, for conservation purposes, it's important to be specific. If we get in the habit of calling Cayo de Aguas simply Cayos, that'll be the common name for these frogs, and once an import in another island that has Cayo in its name, there will be confusion, both among people selling and among people trying to maintain populations for programs like TWI.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Forgot to mention that when I say label as Cayo de Aqua, that is the broadest name I'd like seen for that morph. I'm sure new 'morphs' (or possibly as slight as the difference between Darklands and Caucheroes :wink: ) will be discovered in the future on Cayo de Aqua.

Rich


----------



## froglet (May 18, 2005)

Well I for one love Cayos, but not the frog just the Spanish dish ... 


Yumy yummy cayos

=)


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Really there is no debate here. If you want to incorrectly label something or use slang then that is your choice. True Cayo de Aqua pumilio should at least be called Aquas for those who don't want to use the full Cayo de Aqua.
> The only other thing that has been brought up here that is worth debating now is the fact that there are tons of pumilio in our hobby that we just don't know how to label. The 'SNDF 07 May Import' or 'Green 05 June import pums' or the like is really the most accurate way of labeling a lot of the stuff that came in but everyone wants to think/feel like they have an Uyama River or a Cayo de Aqua or one of the truly known morphs. But the reality is most people who have asked 'what pumilio do I have' don't even include measurements with their pics. 'Yellow Belly' would be the next most accurate description of non-verified pums that look like some Cayo de Aqua.
> So , if you KNOW FOR A FACT that you have Cayo de Aqua pumilio then call them such or abbreviate if you like to Aqua but here is my last example of the simplicity of my original post's statement.
> You will not find fish keepers labeling single salt water species as simply 'Salts'. Not due to slang, not due to laziness. It just does not make sense to call an animal solely 'Salt' , 'Rio' or 'Cayo' IF you know the actual name of the species.
> ...



I agree and when it comes down to it I really dont care what name sticks with the frogs and would be decided on. It is more important that the importatiom dates are matched with the frogs and those dates stick with each individual frog and there offspring. 

Is there a lot of debate at the moment if the Aguas are truely from Cayo De Agua? What I would be more concerned about is that De Agua is like MonarchzMan mentioned a large island and if more frogs turn up from there a more specific name will be needed to keep the morphs seperate. But again. I would be a lot more concerned with taht then worrying about them getting mixed up with frogs from other islands ect.... because those frogs should already have a different name weahter Cayo is used in it or not.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*GREASER* said:


> I agree and when it comes down to it I really dont care what name sticks with the frogs and would be decided on. It is more important that the importatiom dates are matched with the frogs and those dates stick with each individual frog and there offspring.


Which is a good argument for joining ASN and accessioning our collections. All of this information is stored in a central database so when people obtain an animal from an ASN population, they get the complete history of the animal including its pedigree without having to rely on faulty memory and word of mouth.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

*GREASER* said:


> [quote="Rich Frye":2opibmqv]Really there is no debate here. If you want to incorrectly label something or use slang then that is your choice. True Cayo de Aqua pumilio should at least be called Aquas for those who don't want to use the full Cayo de Aqua.
> The only other thing that has been brought up here that is worth debating now is the fact that there are tons of pumilio in our hobby that we just don't know how to label. The 'SNDF 07 May Import' or 'Green 05 June import pums' or the like is really the most accurate way of labeling a lot of the stuff that came in but everyone wants to think/feel like they have an Uyama River or a Cayo de Aqua or one of the truly known morphs. But the reality is most people who have asked 'what pumilio do I have' don't even include measurements with their pics. 'Yellow Belly' would be the next most accurate description of non-verified pums that look like some Cayo de Aqua.
> So , if you KNOW FOR A FACT that you have Cayo de Aqua pumilio then call them such or abbreviate if you like to Aqua but here is my last example of the simplicity of my original post's statement.
> You will not find fish keepers labeling single salt water species as simply 'Salts'. Not due to slang, not due to laziness. It just does not make sense to call an animal solely 'Salt' , 'Rio' or 'Cayo' IF you know the actual name of the species.
> ...





Is there a lot of debate at the moment if the Aguas are truely from Cayo De Agua? What I would be more concerned about is that De Agua is like MonarchzMan mentioned a large island and if more frogs turn up from there a more specific name will be needed to keep the morphs seperate. But again. I would be a lot more concerned with taht then worrying about them getting mixed up with frogs from other islands ect.... because those frogs should already have a different name weahter Cayo is used in it or not.[/quote:2opibmqv]

I would guess that I could come up with three frog pics, two of which were not from Cayo de Aqua and you would not be able to tell me which was the real Cayo de Agua. I would also guess that I could come up with three frogs from Cayo de Aqau that most would mis-label if the 'general dart public' were doing the naming.
Not sure exactly how much debate is on-going. But about the only way we certainly know a true morph is if you are (or know absolutely the collector's info is true) the collector who picked them up off the ground. And this (grabbin' and sellin') is not supposed to be happening with the current Panamanian laws set up for these (cough, cough, cough, cough) 'farm raised ' animals. :wink: :shock: :wink: 
A few reasons why good information is gold when dealing with these pums. Proper labels fall under good info.


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

I think we need to really nail down the importers and get more specifics of local names, collection/breeding sites. Maybe closest city or GPS coordinates. It is up to them to determine much of this information.

I do agree with you Rich, that one must be as specific as possible when describing their frogs or species/morphs could get mixed and it would end up like a snowball effect for generations to come.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Jason said:


> I think we need to really nail down the importers and get more specifics of local names, collection/breeding sites. Maybe closest city or GPS coordinates. It is up to them to determine much of this information.


Native Joe in Panama will get 25 cents per pumilio he collects for the next shipment. Joe happens to know of an area where he can collect dart frogs and really does not know or care what these dart frogs are called. Joe has no GPS and will never have one. Joe treks out to the area he knows has Pumilio. Along the way to the spot eight miles away he happens upon a group of darts and catches a few . Joe treks along to the final collection spot and catches as many as he can find. Joe walks home and lucky, lucky for Joe finds another nice group of pumilio not related (or the same 'morph) as the first two populations Joe collected. Joe is now at home with a bag full of three distinctly different pumilio. What pressure is going to change this?
Another situation. Jill charters a plane or chopper and lands on pumilio turf, grabs a bunch and flies off to ship them directly to the U.S. About the only way Jill will know exactly what is what and pass that along. Jill should be able to give GPS info.
Two situations.

Rich


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> [quote="*GREASER*":1oppp56w][quote="Rich Frye":1oppp56w]Really there is no debate here. If you want to incorrectly label something or use slang then that is your choice. True Cayo de Aqua pumilio should at least be called Aquas for those who don't want to use the full Cayo de Aqua.
> The only other thing that has been brought up here that is worth debating now is the fact that there are tons of pumilio in our hobby that we just don't know how to label. The 'SNDF 07 May Import' or 'Green 05 June import pums' or the like is really the most accurate way of labeling a lot of the stuff that came in but everyone wants to think/feel like they have an Uyama River or a Cayo de Aqua or one of the truly known morphs. But the reality is most people who have asked 'what pumilio do I have' don't even include measurements with their pics. 'Yellow Belly' would be the next most accurate description of non-verified pums that look like some Cayo de Aqua.
> So , if you KNOW FOR A FACT that you have Cayo de Aqua pumilio then call them such or abbreviate if you like to Aqua but here is my last example of the simplicity of my original post's statement.
> You will not find fish keepers labeling single salt water species as simply 'Salts'. Not due to slang, not due to laziness. It just does not make sense to call an animal solely 'Salt' , 'Rio' or 'Cayo' IF you know the actual name of the species.
> ...





Is there a lot of debate at the moment if the Aguas are truely from Cayo De Agua? What I would be more concerned about is that De Agua is like MonarchzMan mentioned a large island and if more frogs turn up from there a more specific name will be needed to keep the morphs seperate. But again. I would be a lot more concerned with taht then worrying about them getting mixed up with frogs from other islands ect.... because those frogs should already have a different name weahter Cayo is used in it or not.[/quote:1oppp56w]

I would guess that I could come up with three frog pics, two of which were not from Cayo de Aqua and you would not be able to tell me which was the real Cayo de Agua. I would also guess that I could come up with three frogs from Cayo de Aqau that most would mis-label if the 'general dart public' were doing the naming.
Not sure exactly how much debate is on-going. But about the only way we certainly know a true morph is if you are (or know absolutely the collector's info is true) the collector who picked them up off the ground. And this (grabbin' and sellin') is not supposed to be happening with the current Panamanian laws set up for these (cough, cough, cough, cough) 'farm raised ' animals. :wink: :shock: :wink: 
A few reasons why good information is gold when dealing with these pums. Proper labels fall under good info.[/quote:1oppp56w]


If you want to be on the safe side then I would not pair up the imports with the few Aguas that were already here with site data from the individuals collecting them. But as far as if the new imports came off of Cayo De Agua I would say probably yes. But there are populations off popa that look very much like the known mroph on De Agua. 

Cayo De Aqua was one of the populations that I didnt have time to make it to but I really wish I did. I would have liked to compare them to the imports.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

*GREASER* said:


> Cayo De Aqua was one of the populations that I didnt have time to make it to but I really wish I did. I would have liked to compare them to the imports.


Alright first, while we're on labeling, and because I am OCD, it's Cayo de Agua, not Cayo de Aqua 

Second, I only got to the lagoon side of the island, and they were very stunning frogs. Lime green backs, lemon yellow bellies, and sky blue legs (I would have said blueberry blue to continue with the fruit motif, but they're much lighter than blueberry blue :lol. Very few of them had spots and very few of them had the grayer legs that are typically found on Popa South. It's too bad that there isn't site data for the imports because I'm curious where on the island they were collected.

I'd really like to get to the sea side of the island and see the frogs on that side to see what difference there is (and I'm sure there are differences).


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Jason said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to really nail down the importers and get more specifics of local names, collection/breeding sites. Maybe closest city or GPS coordinates. It is up to them to determine much of this information.
> ...


Joe and Jill should not get a dime unless they have collection location information. Legal importers should mandate this, I understand that illegal importation is a different story. The hobby should mandate that all purchases from importers have this location or importers don't get a dime. Joe and Jill should receive more money for frogs with specific location information. If we are spending $300+ per frog from an importer why shouldn't we get this?


----------



## Conman3880 (Jul 8, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> Alright first, while we're on labeling, and because I am OCD, it's Cayo de Agua, not Cayo de Aqua


Because I have OCD, you should have said "I _have_ OCD".

Hehe, sorry I couldn't resist. :lol:


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Not if I'm using OCD as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder*ed*


----------



## Conman3880 (Jul 8, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> Not if I'm using OCD as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder*ed*


Touché  

Sorry for hi-jacking.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Jason said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Jason said:
> ...


Ask Jill.....


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> *GREASER* said:
> 
> 
> > Cayo De Aqua was one of the populations that I didnt have time to make it to but I really wish I did. I would have liked to compare them to the imports.
> ...


So the 'g' is a native spelling ? I assume it still mean water? I have seen it spelled both ways for that morph and want to get it right :wink: .

Rich


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Agua is the correct term for water in Spanish. Aqua comes from Latin so the two are highly related.

Bill


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

elmoisfive said:


> Agua is the correct term for water in Spanish. Aqua comes from Latin so the two are highly related.
> 
> Bill


I knew I should have listened to the Spanish and not Latins!


----------

