# Color enhancers



## Rich Frye

I'm going to take this a step further and ,maybe a bit off course, and throw in that I find it incredible there are froggers who dust with 'color enhancers' which may have unknown side effects. My experience with WCs held for years in captivity has , to me , shown that they lose no natural color and need no further enhancing. 

Rich

Split from Albino thread. Oz


----------



## bbrock

Rich Frye said:


> I'm going to take this a step further and ,maybe a bit off course, and throw in that I find it incredible there are froggers who dust with 'color enhancers' which may have unknown side effects. My experience with WCs held for years in captivity has , to me , shown that they lose no natural color and need no further enhancing.
> 
> Rich


My experience is quite different. I've had blue jeans pumilio that faded over time to a dull orange and for years froglets were almost brown and no comparison to even the faded WC adults. Clearly something was missing in the diet and dusting with Naturose brought them all back to their wild glory. Also, in Lotters et al, they mention for both bicolor and terribilis that animals in the wild tend to have an orange coloration that is lost in captivity. I can say that bicolor fed with Naturose dusted foods develop an orange cast that appears much more similar to photos I've seen of wild animals.

But your point is well taken. I get a bit nervous about color enhancers myself. The way I look at it is that if cb animal's color is different from wc, then something is missing in their environment and that difference is probably nutritional. I think dietary supplements that include natural color enhancing compounds are justified in that case. But at what point does color enhancement become just another artificial manipulation of the frog's appearance?


----------



## Rich Frye

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to take this a step further and ,maybe a bit off course, and throw in that I find it incredible there are froggers who dust with 'color enhancers' which may have unknown side effects. My experience with WCs held for years in captivity has , to me , shown that they lose no natural color and need no further enhancing.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is quite different. I've had blue jeans pumilio that faded over time to a dull orange and for years froglets were almost brown and no comparison to even the faded WC adults. Clearly something was missing in the diet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure if I can totally agree with the "clearly " statement. From what I have read Brent, you feed a much more varied diet than I, and my pums , and other forgs, don't lose their color and don't morph out dull.
> 
> 
> 
> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in Lotters et al, they mention for both bicolor and terribilis that animals in the wild tend to have an orange coloration that is lost in captivity. I can say that bicolor fed with Naturose dusted foods develop an orange cast that appears much more similar to photos I've seen of wild animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it is not an orange but......A totally non-enhanced yellow terribilis;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any great pics of my oranges , but my experience again is that of non-loss of what I would consider natural color with age and CB maturity.
> 
> 
> 
> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at what point does color enhancement become just another artificial
> manipulation of the frog's appearance?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.


Rich


----------



## Ed

As one of the original proponents of astaxanthin.. 

One of things we have been aware of for a number of years was that some amphibians (like some pumilio, Cynops sp, Bombina orientalis (and some reptiles like Clemmys guttata, Emydura subglobosa) ) when fed restricted diets display less color than animals from the same regions in the wild so there is something obviously lacking in the diets. As a result people working with different genera were all trying different carotenoids to see if they could get the colors back to normal. These typically included items like paprika, sweet potato, yam, spirulina beets, carrot, bell pepper all of which worked well with greens, yellows and some oranges but not with what ended up being the holy grail of red. As more data came out it became apparent that the main reason this didn't work with reds was because most of these foods provide beta carotene as the main carotenoids (in paprika the reds are polar and are poorly absorbed as a result). This caused a lot of people to start looking are red non-polar carotenoids that were readily available. This lead people to canthoxanthin which has the significant drawback of causing liver damage. There are a number of products out there that are used to enhance reds for fish and birds (like roxanthin red for captive flamingos) which is where people originally got the idea to try canthoxanthin). One of those that is readily available, widely found in and used for food items for human consumption is astaxanthin. The studies on this that showed that astaxanthin didn't show signs of liver damage unlike canthaxanthin. ( I think I posted them on frognet). 
This is how we got to astaxanthin as a color supplement. Most of the other "color" supplements including spirulina supplies beta carotene. 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye

Is it possible to get some 'before and after' shots of frogs that were dull, but not so much now?
Being one who has never jumped on the 'need for enhancement ' band wagon I have to wonder why my animals all seem to retain their natural colors , even when their diet consists of almost nothing but fruit flies and springtails. Scratch the springtails from the terriblis' diet. I have many more vavs in the 20 gal range than I do in the 90+ range so a varied diet of hitch-hikers is not happening with most of my Darts.
I am not saying that there are color enhancers out there that are not safe and effective, just that their are some that are not and I have yet to produce a dull Dart or even see one produced.
Is it possible there are other factors turning these frogs dull?

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye

Here are a few pics of what is as close to a Blue Jean (aesthetically) as I work with. A WC San Cristobal Island pum, in captivity for quite some time (enough time for any color loss to show up I would assume). Fed only FFs and springtails.





























So , scientifically we would need to find what was lacking in Brent's frogs' diet that is not lacking in my frogs' diet to make a statement that diet would be the only factor with color loss. 
My frogs being fed less of a diverse diet makes me guess that diet is not the only factor.
Rich


----------



## AaronAcker

what about husbandry? Could humidity, temp, or light make the difference. What type of lighting (as this is my guess?) do you use Rich? Or perhaps if it is diet, could the ff medium make a difference in the nutrients of the ffs?


----------



## Ed

Rich Frye said:


> Is it possible to get some 'before and after' shots of frogs that were dull, but not so much now?
> Being one who has never jumped on the 'need for enhancement ' band wagon I have to wonder why my animals all seem to retain their natural colors , even when their diet consists of almost nothing but fruit flies and springtails. Scratch the springtails from the terriblis' diet. I have many more vavs in the 20 gal range than I do in the 90+ range so a varied diet of hitch-hikers is not happening with most of my Darts.
> I am not saying that there are color enhancers out there that are not safe and effective, just that their are some that are not and I have yet to produce a dull Dart or even see one produced.
> Is it possible there are other factors turning these frogs dull?
> 
> Rich


Unlikely as the color of the frogs (and other amphibians) is due to the interplay between chromatophores, melanopores and iridiopores. 

For good example of a frog that is lacking in correct coloration look at some of the captive bred morphs of E. tricolor/anthoyni.. Wild caught frogs were pink/red while captive bred animals were brownish.. (main body color not stripes). This is perhaps the best example I can think of off the cuff for dendrobatids (although there are also discussions on some pumilio morphs like true Blue-jeans, BriBri and red Bastimentos not being as intense as wild specimens). Bombina orientalis is a more classic example as wc toads have a red/dark orange ventral coloration and captive bred animals are yellow. Also long-term captives slowly fade out to yellow/orange. 

However we should also keep in mind that the use of carotenoids has other benefits for the frogs, conversion to retinol/retinoic acid, antioxidant activity as well as use in pigments for vision (to name a few). (for a reference on its disease resistance effects in salmon see Christiansen, R., Glette, J., Lie, Ø., Torrissen, O.J., Waagbø, R., 1995b. Antioxidant status and immunity in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., fed semi-purified diets with and without astaxanthin supplementation. J. Fish Diseases 18,
317-328.) 
This is an important aspect that is often overlooked in these discussions. 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye

AaronAcker said:


> what about husbandry? Could humidity, temp, or light make the difference. What type of lighting (as this is my guess?) do you use Rich? Or perhaps if it is diet, could the ff medium make a difference in the nutrients of the ffs?


Well, I know that as far as humidity goes my vivs are propably all more humid than Brents, from past posts of his I have read. Temps are probably very similar . And lighting is all over the board for me . I definatley hedge on the 'less is better for the frogs' side of wattage.
My recipe is a very simple one used by tons of froggers here. 8 potato flake, 2 powdered sugar, 1 brewer's yeast, sprinkles of baker's yeast, and vinegar water. I just started using my expiered supps mixed in with my culture recipe.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye

Ed said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to get some 'before and after' shots of frogs that were dull, but not so much now?
> Being one who has never jumped on the 'need for enhancement ' band wagon I have to wonder why my animals all seem to retain their natural colors , even when their diet consists of almost nothing but fruit flies and springtails. Scratch the springtails from the terriblis' diet. I have many more vavs in the 20 gal range than I do in the 90+ range so a varied diet of hitch-hikers is not happening with most of my Darts.
> I am not saying that there are color enhancers out there that are not safe and effective, just that their are some that are not and I have yet to produce a dull Dart or even see one produced.
> Is it possible there are other factors turning these frogs dull?
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely as the color of the frogs (and other amphibians) is due to the interplay between chromatophores, melanopores and iridiopores.
> 
> For good example of a frog that is lacking in correct coloration look at some of the captive bred morphs of E. tricolor/anthoyni.. Wild caught frogs were pink/red while captive bred animals were brownish.. (main body color not stripes). This is perhaps the best example I can think of off the cuff for dendrobatids (although there are also discussions on some pumilio morphs like true Blue-jeans, BriBri and red Bastimentos not being as intense as wild specimens). Bombina orientalis is a more classic example as wc toads have a red/dark orange ventral coloration and captive bred animals are yellow. Also long-term captives slowly fade out to yellow/orange.
> 
> However we should also keep in mind that the use of carotenoids has other benefits for the frogs, conversion to retinol/retinoic acid, antioxidant activity as well as use in pigments for vision (to name a few). (for a reference on its disease resistance effects in salmon see Christiansen, R., Glette, J., Lie, Ø., Torrissen, O.J., Waagbø, R., 1995b. Antioxidant status and immunity in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., fed semi-purified diets with and without astaxanthin supplementation. J. Fish Diseases 18,
> 317-328.)
> This is an important aspect that is often overlooked in these discussions.
> 
> Ed
Click to expand...

Ed,
How long is "long term" , why are we not consistently seeing fading or the production of dull CB reddish pums and what diet factor/s is keeping my animals bright?
Are there 'before and after' pics out there? Not just WC and CB compared ,but before and after the use of safe enhancers?
Rich


----------



## bbrock

These are bad pictures, but I posted this several years ago which gives an idea:

http://www.bbrock.frognet.org/informati ... _color.htm

Now all of the frogs (including some in these pictures) are bright red and indistinguishable from the original wc parents. There is also an article in Pilgiftaren and reprinted in the first issue of Leaf Litter on this. If I can find your email address, I'll send you a copy.

A few things to clarify about how I keep my frogs and their environments. Remember that my work with this large viv and these pumilio spans 9 years and I've made a lot of changes over time. For example, I use to feed a lot of meadow plankton but haven't done so for 5 years now. About all the frogs get are ff, springtails, and whatever lives in the viv which is a pretty good variety of invertebrates. Until the last 2-3 years, my vivarium was just as humid as the next guys. I added recirculating air to help with orchid growing but found that it created a sweeter environment and just "seems" healthier for the frogs. However, the last time I measured the humidity (a couple weeks ago) the hygrometer stood at 84% so it isn't exactly dry. And that vivarium gets misted 5 times a day. Regardless though, the color issues occured before any of the ventilation changes. I played around with a variety of fruit and vegetable supplements to broaden the spectrum of caratenoids available in the diet, but it wasn't until Ed turned me on to astaxanthin that things really changed. And the results were remarkable. Almost nothing in this hobby wows me anymore but this stuff is incredible.

BTW, the reason I said "clearly something is missing" in my first post is because if we can't produce cb animals that look, act, and reproduce just like their wc counterparts, then we are doing something wrong in the husbandry. Given the established dietary links with coloration in birds, reptiles, and amphibians, it seemed logical that the place to start if cb offspring are not colored the same as their parents is with the diet.

Your terribilis color is almost spot on to how my bicolor looked before astaxanthin. Now I did not set about to "enhance" the color of my bicolors. But Naturose looks like a pretty good nutrient supplement (it's just an algae) so I didn't see any harm in using left over dust from the pumilio to dust flies for other frogs. Over time, the bicolor developed an orange sheen which I just thought was odd and actually thought of it as a bit of an unwanted side effect. But after reading Lotters and noticing pics of wc animals, I'm wondering if this orange cast is more the "normal" color for these animals. Interestingly, I picked up a male at NWFF last year and didn't realize how orange my females had gotten until I had him for comparison. After several months of the same feeding regiment, he is still much more yellow than the females but you can see his color closing the gap. I suspect after another year, he'll look just like the females.


----------



## sports_doc

You might consider an experiment yourself, on a couple of your 'red/orange' animals. IME the color change can be dramatic, so is it possible that what we can come to know as 'normal' captive animals coloration is in fact faded? 

I dont have the 'animal in the wild experience' to say what I have is close to wild type or not, just that colors do brighten with enhancement. A brightening that I didnt think was possible until I tried it myself.

Now your ? of necessity or safety I cant answer.

S
An 'enhanced' Bri Bri, CB









An "enhanced' xRio Branco '06, FR/WC









An 'enhance' Regina pair. 









Now I have Regina from other sources purchased as adults that are yellow not orange and look quite different then my other adults that were essentially raised on supplemented food sources, and despite supplementing now these other animals havent darkened much. I have wondered if there is a time in development when supplementing might be most effective?

The effects are seen with tricolors and intermedius as well.

I suspect some of the effects of early supplementation remain permanent or at least long lasting, as I no longer supplement as frequently now as I did say a year ago.

S


----------



## Rich Frye

Interesting stuff Brent, thanks. My email address is [email protected]
A couple things. I do produce frogs that look very much as they do in the wild. Frogs cited that lose color for some.
Orange terribilis will throw siblings from same clutches that are all over the board . From pumpkin orange to almost yellow. Fed exactly the same bugs. I really, really, do not want my yellow terribilis to start turning orange. I think their color is quite stunning, especially in person.
I still would like to know why if we are feeding the same stuffs some are noticing fading, others not. A very important part of science (definition) is being able to constantly reproduce outcomes.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye

sports_doc said:


> You might consider an experiment yourself, on a couple of your 'red/orange' animals. IME the color change can be dramatic, so is it possible that what we can come to know as 'normal' captive animals coloration is in fact faded?


I may do that with some safe enhancers, but I take pics of all my animals, especially the WC pums as soon as they come in. I compare pics and see zero fading. I also procuce offspring that are equal in color to the non-faded parent . All the time.

Rich


----------



## roxrgneiss

Some things that occur to me: is it possible that wild frogs (and captives) produce offspring with varied coloration (even slightly) in some or all populations of some species? Possibly some more than others? Do collectors of wild frogs for export look for the most brightly colored specimens generally, or do they just collect a random sample (and photographers)? I can see where factors like these and diet could play a part..

Mike


----------



## Ed

sports_doc said:


> Now your ? of necessity or safety


As for safety, this isn't known for some carotenoids but with others safety data is well established. For example there really isn't an upper level to consumption of beta carotene (unless you mind the yellowing of the skin.. or are a smoker or an alcoholic).. Astaxanthin has been shown to be shown to be safe in fairly large amounts (less than 8000 mg/kg)(see references at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/docket ... vol170.pdf )





sports_doc said:


> I cant answer.Now I have Regina from other sources purchased as adults that are yellow not orange and look quite different then my other adults that were essentially raised on supplemented food sources, and despite supplementing now these other animals havent darkened much. I have wondered if there is a time in development when supplementing might be most effective?


It is possible that in some species the ability to sequester/express carotenoids is going to depend on the part of the life cycle at which they are offered in the diet. This could be (in theory) due to a feedback mechanism controlling the number of chromatophores (in at least one species the number of chromatophores/iridiopores and melanopores could be manipulated through via the diet). 
People need to also keep in mind that in some species what we are seeing as the stable colors are due to the effect of pterins in the chromatopores possibly interacting with melanopores and/or iridiopores (the yellow in Bombina ventral surfaces is due to a pterin for an example) and there are red pterins. The stable reds in some species could also be due to pterins and any "enhancement" would be due to the interation of the astaxanthin (or other similar carotenoids) with the pterins.


----------



## bbrock

This is a great discussion. Several things to comment on.

First, Rich's terribilis. There could be two different things going on. First is that "orange" and "yellow" terribilis come from different subpopulations of the species and are come from different portions of the Rio Saija drainage. From what I can gather, there is variation in morphology of frogs found at any location within the species' range but there are tendencies toward one coloration or another at different locations. The upshot being that there may be subtle genetic differences between individuals that sets the potential range of colors that can be expressed, and diet is able to modify coloration only within those genetic limits. So it is quite possible that the "natural orange" (for lack of a better term) can never be as yellow as "natural yellows" but the yellows could be orange depending on diet. Just a thought anyway.

As for the variability, it is even worse than from breeder to breeder. My wc male that faded held its color well for 4-5 years. Actually it was probably gradually fading but not noticeably. But after about 7 years it had faded enough that it was noticeable. However, a female that I'd had during the same time and housed in the same vivarium, remained fire engine red the whole time. I should note also that the male was never as bright as the female, even when he first arrived from the wild. I know I've also talked to people who had no problems with color on bri bri, but blue jeans were a different story. So there are clearly a lot of complexities going on here.

Also, I agree completely that there is variability in the wild. We know that for a fact. Some of that variability may be due to genetic differences among individuals, but some is likely do to random chance in the types of diets the frogs ingest. We should remember that these carotenoids are derived from plants so ingesting color enhancers in the wild probably depends on eating the right bugs at the right time. I also agree that when frogs are collected from the wild, there is going to be a bias toward the pretty ones.

So there are a lot of complexities involved here. But it seems clear to me that diet (both in captivity and in the wild) is a major influence on coloration for some species. It reminds me of when the first cb common clownfish hit the aquarium shops. I was thrilled to see $3 clownfish offered but those washed out pink looking things barely resembled the wc fish in the next tank. It took a few years for the breeders to figure out the diets to make the cb look just like their wc counterparts.


----------



## Rich Frye

Shawn, 
I keep coming back to your pics. Those are some of the brightest darts I have ever seen. More so in-fact than I have ever seen in the wild. Now I know the 'Bronco" best guess has nothing to reference it too, but I have never seen Regina/GO or Bri Bris that color. Are those pics good true representatives of the actual color?

Rich


----------



## bbrock

Another comment about "window of opportunity" I forgot to mention before. For several years I noticed that vittatus tadpoles fed with foods containing beta carotene grew up to have very bright orange (some people even described them as red) stripes on their backs. But those that didn't get the carotenes grew up with washed out pale orange stripes. Dusting with paprika (a source of beta carotene) and vitamin powder containing beta carotene as adults never worked to bring the color of the stripes up to those who got the supplement as tads.


----------



## sports_doc

Female Bri Bri in with the male pic earlier displayed. 










I have another Bri Bri pair that are more rust.









Non supplemented Regina female added to the group.










All the pics are taken with the same camera Rich. I have to admit I posted the brightest darn examples I have :wink: , and the colors are close to the real thing for sure...I dont think most point and shoot dig cameras get it perfect though. I pull pics straight to picasa not photoshop generally so the pics comes off the camera and then is cropped in picasa. Sometimes I brighten the pic with fill light.

Anyway, I point being many of my frogs that I thought were bright and colorful definately show even more color on Naturose powder.


----------



## Rich Frye

Coming full circle. If enhancing food stuffs have proven nutritional value , are safe, and produce natural colors where natural colors are lacking, I am all for them. Food stuffs not proven to be safe, that add no nutritional value and/or that enhance our frogs beyond natural coloration are something that I would take issue with.

Rich


----------



## Anoleo2

Here's a really representative pic of the true color of one of Shawns G.O. (although it is washed out in a couple places).


----------



## bbrock

Rich Frye said:


> Coming full circle. If enhancing food stuffs have proven nutritional value , are safe, and produce natural colors where natural colors are lacking, I am all for them. Food stuffs not proven to be safe, that add no nutritional value and/or that enhance our frogs beyond natural coloration are something that I would take issue with.
> 
> Rich


I like this summary. Next question is, what do we use for reference of "natural coloration"? In some respects I think dietary supplements will only enhance an animal's color up to its genetic potential and are thererfore unlikely to exceed the range of variability found in the wild. But I wouldn't want to make a bet on that assumption.


----------



## Onagro

This disscusion has piqued my curiousity. I have 4 orange bicolor and only one even displays a little orange on her back. Paprika does not seem to affect their color anymore. However, my aurotaenia went from pale orange bands to reflective orange after a few months of paprika. There is some naturose on the way and I would be willing to take before and after photos of the bicolor and post them here.


----------



## Rich Frye

*Re:*



bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming full circle. If enhancing food stuffs have proven nutritional value , are safe, and produce natural colors where natural colors are lacking, I am all for them. Food stuffs not proven to be safe, that add no nutritional value and/or that enhance our frogs beyond natural coloration are something that I would take issue with.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> I like this summary. Next question is, what do we use for reference of "natural coloration"? In some respects I think dietary supplements will only enhance an animal's color up to its genetic potential and are thererfore unlikely to exceed the range of variability found in the wild. But I wouldn't want to make a bet on that assumption.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to refernce all of the species out there either. So I guess the statement was one of general concern more than exactness. But there are a decent number of good photos (one of the things the books in our hobby are good at) so we have some reference. 

Rich


----------



## KeroKero

Wow, I guess it's about time I jumped in this thread. Mostly just stating my opinion which is shared by others... I know Brent, Ed and I have talked about this numorous times.

I don't agree with the term "color enchancement". I don't color "enhance" my frogs... I try and get their coloration as close to wild as I can, not artificially supplementing them to show coloration different than they have in nature (like how some of these supplements are actually used). We've become so used to what our CB animals look like (assuming we even had WCs imported to this country to compare them to) that most people don't even know what the wild animals actually look like. Having seen some of the WC frogs, I couldn't (and still can't) just sit back and be happy with what I had (this originally started with some E. anthonyi and I had the WC parents to compare my juvies to).

How do we actually know what most of the terribilis are supposed to look like? It's hard for me to swallow that the frogs look like they do in the wild when you do not have the animals' specific ancestors to compare them to. I've only seen a couple of WC bicolor... and after peprika and naturose I finally feel mine are up to similar to the WCs (otherwise they tend to be more yellow with hints of orange). Are yellow terribilis truely supposed to be that yellow? I know many of the "orange" tinc forms seem to have been in the hobby long enough that most people forget they have actually orange on them... Suri tincs, brazil cobalts, regina/giant orange (they are called giant ORANGE for a reason!). Now give a truely yellow cobalt some naturose, not much happens. Give an orange tinc some peprika, you seen some change... give them naturose and you see them as they truely should be (at least when compared to decent photos of them in the wild).

Yes, the Bri Bri are pretty much bright red... most of the populations around them are too (the spider webbed with black animals north of BriBri are pretty intense!). The pumilio with lots of true red are the ones like bri bri that go brownish without naturose, and red-orange with peprika. I suspect part of the reason that you don't see a lot of differences in your Panama forms Rich, is because many of them have a strong orange base to their red... I know when I saw Man Creeks in hand for the first time I noticed they had a slightly orange base to them rather than the true red of the blue jeans I had seen in hand weeks before (the inner artist coming out). Maybe frogs with more orange in their color (even if not noticable to our eyes when caught) seem to fade slower for that reason?

Some trends in pigmentation that we've seen pop up... tincs and pumilio seem to need it in low levels throughout their lives to keep it. The epipedobates/tricolor group seem to only need it until around 2 years old then they kinda stick with what they've got. P. vittatus have color determined by supplementation as tads... and tinc group as well as tricolor group seem to benefit from being supplemented as tads as well (reaching full color faster and possibly reaching full potential when supplemented as juvies).

And for true color comparison via photos we've got to take into account a few things... lighting, color interpretation by the camera, screens displaying the pics... and none of these pics have a standardized color spectrum on it that can be used to color correct the photos, so that they are actually comparable. Short of sticking two frogs, one supplemented and/or WC, one not, in the same pics, showing two different pics doesn't mean much scientifically.

Mike - yes the frogs should produce a general range of color and pattern, but this variation would be seen even in supplemented animals as well. Some populations do have more variation than others, but the populations causing the color concerns don't have the variation that would take them from being generally a light pumpkin orange to all the CB animals being yellow. Wild frogs for export are generally whatever the exporter can get their hands on, the prettiest get selectively weeded out after they get here :? Exporters often are more worried about #s...

My idea of "natural" is the coloration generally exhibited by the ancestrial population in the wild. I'm not as worried about overdoing it right now since we still generally are significantly underdoing it... and have no accurate (with color spectrum in the photo to color correct) photos of the wild animals anyways so how exact are you expecting to get? I've not seen serious signs of exceeding their natural potential yet...


----------



## Rich Frye

KeroKero said:


> I don't agree with the term "color enchancement". I don't color "enhance" my frogs... I try and get their coloration as close to wild as I can, not artificially supplementing them to show coloration different than they have in nature (like how some of these supplements are actually used). We've become so used to what our CB animals look like (assuming we even had WCs imported to this country to compare them to) that most people don't even know what the wild animals actually look like. Having seen some of the WC frogs, I couldn't (and still can't) just sit back and be happy with what I had (this originally started with some E. anthonyi and I had the WC parents to compare my juvies to).


I'm not sure that this thread needs to spin off into a semantics debate, but if you don't like the term 'enhance' I'm fine with that. Although I need another term to take it's place now :wink: . I do know what the majority of the frogs I work with look like in the wild and they are highly varied. Highly. Making a 'standard' reference of "close to the wild" even harder. 



KeroKero said:


> How do we actually know what most of the terribilis are supposed to look like? It's hard for me to swallow that the frogs look like they do in the wild when you do not have the animals' specific ancestors to compare them to.


I'm going to take another tack on this and say It's hard for me to swallow that frogs don't look like they do in the wild. With very little observation of WCs we are speculating either way.



KeroKero said:


> I've only seen a couple of WC bicolor... and after peprika and naturose I finally feel mine are up to similar to the WCs (otherwise they tend to be more yellow with hints of orange). Are yellow terribilis truely supposed to be that yellow? I know many of the "orange" tinc forms seem to have been in the hobby long enough that most people forget they have actually orange on them... Suri tincs, brazil cobalts, regina/giant orange (they are called giant ORANGE for a reason!). Now give a truely yellow cobalt some naturose, not much happens. Give an orange tinc some peprika, you seen some change... give them naturose and you see them as they truely should be (at least when compared to decent photos of them in the wild).


I'm gonna take your line of thought and say that as giant orange are called ORANGE for a reason, yellow terribilis are supposed to be yellow , for that same exact reason. Is it true or not? Again, speculation.



KeroKero said:


> Yes, the Bri Bri are pretty much bright red... most of the populations around them are too (the spider webbed with black animals north of BriBri are pretty intense!).


No, some bribri in the wild are bright red, as are some blue jeans, some nancies, some man creeks, the list goes on. Show me a pic of one bright and I'll show you a pic of one dull, picked up off the ground right next to the bright 'red' one. The only thing consistent is the variability.

I think the bottom line is that there have been pretty much zero scientific studies to show exactly what species lose what at what rates and why. Do some frogs lose some color for some people sometimes? Yes. 

Is it healthy for your frogs to be eating what you feed them? Is the coloration from this feeding practice what you belive to be as close to the wild coloration as possible? If the answer to those two questions is yes, go for it.

Rich


----------



## KeroKero

I ususally just stick with color "supplement". With all the vitamin and mineral "supplement" we do for health reasons, it's makes sense to me that we should be adding the color "supplements" to the diet as well, to make them all that nature made them to be (healthy, bright little frogs).

As for the yellow terriblis... I got really confused when I saw some naturosed yellows that were a light orange...made me wonder where the label yellow got attached to them. Because they were the most yellow? Because they are supposed to be canary yellow? Because the first person in the US that had them called them yellow? That's part of the problem... did these guys get named for their WC ancestors being yellow or because the CB offspring where yellow :? 

As for natural variation... yes, there is variation... but at least with the pumilio in question - the Costa Rican onces at least which I saw many populations in the wild in person - I refer to the most common color found in the population. The CR populations can be rather monotypic, especially compared to the Panama forms which define variation... not just in the species, but within a population as well. I think you have to take classifications of the typical wild coloration on a case by case basis because some forms are more variable than others... bri bris may be shades of red, but bastis can be white, green, orange, yellow, to red and all still be "typical".

I've added naturose to the diets of all my frogs and noticed a distinct change in some... and a complete lack in others. I've left it up to the frogs' bodies to decide if they need the supplement.


----------



## Rich Frye

KeroKero said:


> As for the yellow terriblis... I got really confused when I saw some naturosed yellows that were a light orange...made me wonder where the label yellow got attached to them. Because they were the most yellow? Because they are supposed to be canary yellow? Because the first person in the US that had them called them yellow? That's part of the problem... did these guys get named for their WC ancestors being yellow or because the CB offspring where yellow :?


This has been gone over a number of times. The line has been tracked back to Europe. The label is attached because of consistently different traits from orange . Smaller, different calls, different color, different eggs, different mating habits and the fact that they throw 99% true yellow offspring where orange throw all over the board , all the time. Consistency would be the biggest factor , being that these animals were most likely not in the hobby long enough to consistently produce these traits through selective breeding. These animals consistently produce all of the mentioned traits.

Rich


----------



## bbrock

Not to throw the thread off track but I have to admit that I place zero credence to the hobby's ability to distinguish population level differences between animals based on observed characteristics. The problem here is that we almost never (no, make that never) know what the original sample size was of the founders of said line. In a variable population, any parental lineage will produce offspring that have a set of characteristics that tend to distinguish them from other members of a population. And these characteristics can remain persistent (read: "breed true") for several generations. Which is why siblings tend to look similar to each other and often bear a striking resemblance to grandparents, great grandparents, and even beyond. So whenver I hear that a "morph" has been delineated in the hobby based on a set of characteristics that "breed true", alarm bells go off. We only need to look as far as dogs to see how many morphs that can be produced and breed true as a result of intentional, or unintentional, artificial selection. So whenever these justifications for morphs come up, I am very skeptical.

Consider, for example, that if a shipment of 1,000 frogs collected from the same location came in and there were 5 albinos in the group. Assuming we knew nothing about genetics, we might be tempted to say, "hey, those 5 frogs look like a different morph". And if we paired them up to see if the bred true, we would confirm our suspicion that they were, indeed, a true genetic morph because all of the offspring would exhibit albinism. Indeed, they are a true genetic morph. But that morph is the product of allele frequecies and random chance found within a much larger interbreeding population.

Now in the case of P. terribilis, it becomes complicated because there may be microgeographical differences in morphology within the species' limited range. So I don't want my comments to be interpreted that I don't believe the orange morph of terribilis is a distinct population. I simply don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion. But I will say that if it is true that the orange were cleaved off as their own morph after arriving in Europe with no supporting evidence of geographical distinctions in nature, then I am highly skeptical. If our goal is to maintain captive populations as genetic representatives of wild populations (and I'm not saying that it is), then once we lose the wild context of an importation, we are left with deciding the lesser of two evils. On the one hand we can subdivide the importation based on morphology which narrows the gene pool of the resulting lines and may, or may not, constitute artificial selection. Or we can ignore possible population level differences which results in a broader, and more variable, gene pool, but may result in hybridization between naturally occuring populations.


----------



## Rich Frye

bbrock said:


> Not to throw the thread off track but I have to admit that I place zero credence to the hobby's ability to distinguish population level differences between animals based on observed characteristics. The problem here is that we almost never (no, make that never) know what the original sample size was of the founders of said line. In a variable population, any parental lineage will produce offspring that have a set of characteristics that tend to distinguish them from other members of a population. And these characteristics can remain persistent (read: "breed true") for several generations. Which is why siblings tend to look similar to each other and often bear a striking resemblance to grandparents, great grandparents, and even beyond. So whenver I hear that a "morph" has been delineated in the hobby based on a set of characteristics that "breed true", alarm bells go off. We only need to look as far as dogs to see how many morphs that can be produced and breed true as a result of intentional, or unintentional, artificial selection. So whenever these justifications for morphs come up, I am very skeptical.
> 
> Consider, for example, that if a shipment of 1,000 frogs collected from the same location came in and there were 5 albinos in the group. Assuming we knew nothing about genetics, we might be tempted to say, "hey, those 5 frogs look like a different morph". And if we paired them up to see if the bred true, we would confirm our suspicion that they were, indeed, a true genetic morph because all of the offspring would exhibit albinism. Indeed, they are a true genetic morph. But that morph is the product of allele frequecies and random chance found within a much larger interbreeding population.
> 
> Now in the case of P. terribilis, it becomes complicated because there may be microgeographical differences in morphology within the species' limited range. So I don't want my comments to be interpreted that I don't believe the orange morph of terribilis is a distinct population. I simply don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion. But I will say that if it is true that the orange were cleaved off as their own morph after arriving in Europe with no supporting evidence of geographical distinctions in nature, then I am highly skeptical. If our goal is to maintain captive populations as genetic representatives of wild populations (and I'm not saying that it is), then once we lose the wild context of an importation, we are left with deciding the lesser of two evils. On the one hand we can subdivide the importation based on morphology which narrows the gene pool of the resulting lines and may, or may not, constitute artificial selection. Or we can ignore possible population level differences which results in a broader, and more variable, gene pool, but may result in hybridization between naturally occuring populations.


Brent,
I think the common thread here is that we don't have many answers to many of these questions. Having Darts with true local data is a wonderful, if not often, thing.  
What I do know is that there were more yellows that came into the hobby (Europe) than orange. And there are more yellow in the wild than orange. Breeding for an aesthetic trait that is common (yellow) from something that is not as common (orange) makes little sense , relative to the Dart hobby . If all oranges are in-fact cleaved from yellows , then I know for a fact mine are yellow :wink: .
Albinos being a selective breeding example not really relative to this particular animal .How long would you guess (taking into account the age needed for the start of breeding, along with all other terribilis breeding 'quirks') it takes for all of the traits mentioned with my yellows to breed true as a result of selective breeding practises? I know there are fine spot this , and lemon drop that. How long did it take those selectively breeding for those traits to get their animals to breed true? How many generations before we have true breeding yellows, from orange, once thought to be yellows? 

Rich


----------



## KeroKero

Depends on the complexity of the genes controlling the color/pattern. Something like the albino genetic quirk is a simple genetic color quirk, the selectively bred traits are more complex, and vary from case to case. Some less typical color/pattern traits can "breed out" the more typical color/pattern traits and exclude the others faster than others...


----------



## Rich Frye

KeroKero said:


> Depends on the complexity of the genes controlling the color/pattern. Something like the albino genetic quirk is a simple genetic color quirk, the selectively bred traits are more complex, and vary from case to case. Some less typical color/pattern traits can "breed out" the more typical color/pattern traits and exclude the others faster than others...


But I am not simply looking at aesthetic traits. I would like to know how long it would take to selectively breed from oranges to consistently produce the exact ( long list) traits I listed above. At a rate of 99%.

Rich


----------



## bbrock

Rich Frye said:


> KeroKero said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the complexity of the genes controlling the color/pattern. Something like the albino genetic quirk is a simple genetic color quirk, the selectively bred traits are more complex, and vary from case to case. Some less typical color/pattern traits can "breed out" the more typical color/pattern traits and exclude the others faster than others...
> 
> 
> 
> But I am not simply looking at aesthetic traits. I would like to know how long it would take to selectively breed from oranges to consistently produce the exact ( long list) traits I listed above. At a rate of 99%.
> 
> Rich
Click to expand...

Possibly not long at all. Whenever you select an animal from a group based on a trait, you are never just selecting for the genes that produce that trait, you are also selecting for genes that are linked to the genes that produce that trait. So it is not at all unheard of for something like orange coloration to tend to be packaged with something like small clutch size. And then if you add to that the possibility that related animals tend to have similar genes, it raises the possibility that animals that exhibit distinctive traits among a population, may be closely related. So from a pure genetic standpoint, it is quite plausible that artificial selection would result in the selection for a whole suite of traits beyond the one or two that were originally targeted. I'm not saying that is what happened with terribilis but I think you said it best when you said, "I think the common thread here is that we don't have many answers to many of these questions. Having Darts with true local data is a wonderful, if not often, thing."

And since I am picking on the hobby. Another thing that raises alarms is when people say frogs have "different this, or different that". What I always want to know is, different from what? And how different? How extensive of a survey was done to determine the differences in calls? I know from experience that northern cardinals living in Lee's Summit Missouri have a distinctively different call from those living in Topeka, KS a mere 70-80 miles apart. Yet they are part of a single contiguous population. Again, I'm not saying that the calls of the orange terribilis are not a good indicator of the morph. It is quite plausible that these differences in calls are the result of some geographic separation of populations in the wild. But even taxonomists can't agree on the importance of such characteristics for determining genetic relationships. So when we try to apply them to animals that have been removed from their wild context, it become even more impossible to make sound decisions. And even if the delineation was made on impeccable arguments, those arguments are passed by word of mouth so that when some schmuck like me questions the validity of the arguments, the important details have been lost and there is no defense. When a species is described, the merits of the taxonomic classification are published so that anyone can judge those merits. We have no such system in the hobby.


----------



## sports_doc

Interesting.

I wonder, anyone know how long it took Sean to make a 'sky blue' Az? and how consistent are his results? I assume these are 'man made'. 

Interestingly I have experimented a bit with this myself, with a group of intermedius with specific patterns. It took about a year to acquire offspring randomly with the patterns I was looking to replicate and then only one generation to have an almost 100% success rate in reproducing the said pattern, out of an otherwise highly variable group of frogs. I assume [havent tried yet] that it wouldnt take but one back breeding to the nominate form to get the variability back.

S


----------



## Rich Frye

sports_doc said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I wonder, anyone know how long it took Sean to make a 'sky blue' Az? and how consistent are his results? I assume these are 'man made'.
> 
> Interestingly I have experimented a bit with this myself, with a group of intermedius with specific patterns. It took about a year to acquire offspring randomly with the patterns I was looking to replicate and then only one generation to have an almost 100% success rate in reproducing the said pattern, out of an otherwise highly variable group of frogs. I assume [havent tried yet] that it wouldnt take but one back breeding to the nominate form to get the variability back.
> 
> S


I am interested also in the time it took/takes to consistently produce certain aesthetic traits. 
But as stated , I not only look at aesthetic traits but traits such as size, egg tendencies (some being size of eggs, clutch size, color of eggs, shape of eggs, viscousness, and hatch out rates), mating differences, consistency of color as opposed to non-consistency from the closest relative (being orange terribilis) ,calls, morphing times, and a few other more intuitive almost intangible differences. Having worked with what I belive to be three distinctly different (but again, who know for sure) lines of orange terribilis I just find it hard to belive there would be any intentional selective breeding for most of these traits early on in the hobby. I'll touch on that again later. That would leave us with the possibility that these traits all happened from a few clutches that happened to be un-intentionally bred in a very shot period of time . And produce different traits than any orange I have seen or worked with, at crazy consistent frequency. Could it happen? Yes, as Brent says. Theoretically. Did it happen that way? I am going to speculate (because that is all we are all doing here at this point) no. Anecdotal experience, talking to others , reading, working with different lines, ect. , is all I have to go on here. So while there has been no true scientific experiments to prove the traits I claim are in-fact truly different from the orange I have worked with I make the statement with as much possible factual information as is out there right now.
While orange here,in the States, have been sold in very large numbers and yellows just starting to get out in any numbers by froggers other than myself, and knowing that for some time now there were some in the hobby that kept back their 'yellowest' orange terribilis as yellows, I think that if the selective breeding route would have worked here via holding back of yellowish oranges (and/or all of the other traits I mention) we just may have some orange producing consistent 'yellow' offspring by now. We don't.

Rich


----------



## bbrock

Rich Frye said:


> And produce different traits than any orange I have seen or worked with, at crazy consistent frequency. Could it happen? Yes, as Brent says. Theoretically. Did it happen that way? I am going to speculate (because that is all we are all doing here at this point) no. Anecdotal experience, talking to others , reading, working with different lines, ect. , is all I have to go on here. So while there has been no true scientific experiments to prove the traits I claim are in-fact truly different from the orange I have worked with I make the statement with as much possible factual information as is out there right now.


It's a bit more than theoretical. In fact, it happens every time an animal reproduces. We need to step back and take a look at the process of meiosis. During meiosis, the long strands of DNA get packaged up into bundles called chromosomes. The chromosomes come in pairs, one from each parent. During meiosis, those bundles are brought together and recombined. As an analogy, think of the chromosome as a 2 meter long piece of rope with every genetic allele being 1 cm of that rope. If you laid the two lenghths of rope from each parent next to each other and cut the same half meter long chunk of rope our of each strand and swapped them, you would be doing something similar to the recombination that happens during meiosis. So the individual genes are not just shaken up and resorted randomly. They go in large chunks with genes closest to each other on the DNA strand being the most closely linked because genes close together are most likely to be moved together during recombination. So if you select a bunch of blond haired kids out of a group, you will find that a large portion of them also have blue eyes and pale skin even though you weren't paying any attention to eye or skin color. Most of the black haired kids will have brown eyes and will tend to have darker skin. And most of the red haired kids will have pale skin with freckles. So selecting on just one trait tends to pull a bunch of other traits along with it.

Now if we reverse this and say we have all these frogs with this one trait, but look, they also share all of these other weird traits so they must be from a different population. Well, maybe, but maybe not. It could just be that the genes egg shape, color, etc. all live along the same stretch of chromosome as that skin color gene. So it could be that if orange frogs are pulled out of a group, then they will automatically share these other traits. That said, a good chunk of current taxonomy is based on morphometric analysis and other observable characterisitics. Combining these observations with geographic distributions of specimens makes for a stronger case, but that isn't always possible. One thing is for certain though. Genetics is much more fascinating than we ever realize.


----------



## Rich Frye

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> 
> And produce different traits than any orange I have seen or worked with, at crazy consistent frequency. Could it happen? Yes, as Brent says. Theoretically. Did it happen that way? I am going to speculate (because that is all we are all doing here at this point) no. Anecdotal experience, talking to others , reading, working with different lines, ect. , is all I have to go on here. So while there has been no true scientific experiments to prove the traits I claim are in-fact truly different from the orange I have worked with I make the statement with as much possible factual information as is out there right now.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit more than theoretical. In fact, it happens every time an animal reproduces.
Click to expand...

No Brent, 'it' as I described in the full post is not more than theoretical and does not happen every time an animal breeds. It being the possibility of how the yellow terribilis in our hobby in the States ended up how they are. Theory and speculation on both of our parts, only. 'It' as you cited is more than theory, but not known to be what happened to my frogs. The possibility of my frogs being actual yellow terribilis from an isolated population from that of orange is at least a feasible as that of selective hobby breeding. With known populations of yellows in the wild, but no known successful selective breeding for the descibed traits I list.

Rich


----------



## bbrock

Rich Frye said:


> No Brent, 'it' as I described in the full post is not more than theoretical and does not happen every time an animal breeds. It being the possibility of how the yellow terribilis in our hobby in the States ended up how they are. Theory and speculation on both of our parts, only. 'It' as you cited is more than theory, but not known to be what happened to my frogs. The possibility of my frogs being actual yellow terribilis from an isolated population from that of orange is at least a feasible as that of selective hobby breeding. With known populations of yellows in the wild, but no known successful selective breeding for the descibed traits I list.
> 
> Rich


You're right. What I was referring to that happens everytime an animal reproduces is that whole suites of genes are inherited as a unit. Just as when they airline loses your luggage. They typically lose everything inside a suitcase, or nothing at all. I've never had them just lose my favorite shirt. Nor have they managed to lose my shirts that were left hanging in my closet but they probably are working on technology to do that. 

But, like you say, whether these orange are the result of a form of selective breeding is pure speculation. We have two very plausible possibilities. But for me, the narrow natural range of the species and the absence of any information supporting a geographical difference makes me very skeptical. Perhaps at one point there was a geographical argument that has been lost. Something as simple as the frogs that came in one year looked one way, but those that came in later looked another. That would provide at least a hint that perhaps we had importations that had been collected from different locations.

But I've known some good froggers who have gotten shipments of animals and separated them out into most similar looking. Then breeding those to see if traits run true. I do not buy into that methodology at all. You might as well read tarot cards IMO.


----------



## markbudde

Sorry, but I just can't help from chiming in when it comes to genetics. Let me preface by stating that I'm not arguing against anyone specifically, but that I just love talking about genetics. 



> I not only look at aesthetic traits but traits such as size, egg tendencies (some being size of eggs, clutch size, color of eggs, shape of eggs, viscousness, and hatch out rates), mating differences, consistency of color as opposed to non-consistency from the closest relative (being orange terribilis) ,calls, morphing times, and a few other more intuitive almost intangible differences. Having worked with what I belive to be three distinctly different (but again, who know for sure) lines of orange terribilis I just find it hard to belive there would be any intentional selective breeding for most of these traits early on in the hobby.


What has been discussed so far is how long it would take for someone to try and make a frog with a set of predefined specified traits. The fact is that very few of these traits, perhaps other than obvious aesthetics, were needed to be selected for. Brent has done a nice job explaining linked traits, but that is unnecessary for the topic at hand. The most important aspect, and one that needs to be discussed, is the effect of genetic diversity and inbreeding. Assuming that the founding population was significantly large to have a diverse population, it would be possible to produce and astonishing amount of variation in a short time. Everytime that animals are inbred, 50% of heterozygous traits become homozygous. In a large population this doesn't matter, because during the next round of breeding animals if two animals homozygous for a different allele of the same gene mate, they will produce all heterozygous offspring, and increase the genetic diversity of the offspring. In captive inbreeding, however, everytime a gene goes to homozygosity you have now created a true breeding trait. If you have 4 traits, say: orange color, animal size, egg size, and development time; each controlled by a single heterozygous gene, after one round of inbreeding 2 of these traits are now fixed. For instance, now our line of frogs are all lacking orange with small eggs. After each round of inbreeding fix 50% of the remaining heterozygous traits and very quickly you have a unique line of frogs. Now take every trait imaginable, inbreed for ONE generation, and you will have many traits which are now true breeding for a variant initial population. Just ONE round of inbreeding. You couldn't have predicted which traits they would be, but now they are all true breeding, and these could include size, egg tendencies, mating differences, and color. 

This isn't entirely true, because frogs reproduce sexually, so you don't go to homozygosity so fast, but the idea is the same. Also, most traits involve multiple genes so it's not so simple, but inbreeding will still effect these traits in striking ways. And remember, there is pressure on a wild population to maintain heterozygosity. It is good for a wild population to have extremely fast developing frogs and extremely slow developing frogs, because you never know how long the water will last. Ditto for many traits. Bottom line, inbreeding quickly removes this genetic diversity and gives you a phenotypically different subpopulation. Andy if you have a strain with little diversity, chances are that is because it has been inbred.


----------



## KeroKero

Shawn... it took Sean only as long as it took to come up with the name "Sky Blue" to make the Sky Blue azureus. They are regularly present in the population, can pop up in any azureus pairing (with good genetic backgrounds, wouldn't be suprised if they have been bred out of some lines) but pop up more often with parents showing the "sky blue" phenotype. Even breeding these animals together, he probably produces a smaller percentage of them - even from both parents being Sky Blue - than many think... mostly because you don't see as many of the "normal" azureus for sale from him. It's not that he doesn't produce them, it's that they likely get shipped to other markets, where as in the American market, he can really only sell the "sky blue" patterned animals with any profit. Our understanding of the variability in captive animals is often skewed not just because of small foundation populations, but of selling practices that lead one to believe something that isn't true... like Sean's sky blues only produce sky blues. The Sky Blue/fine spot situation is similar to your intermedius situation, and yes, it only takes one "typical" frog tossed into the gene pool again to go back to the more varied range of patterns. I think the sky blue/fine spot phenomenon has caused lines to be predominantly one or the other rather than the nice range of patterns I've seen from WCs and F1s :?


----------



## bbrock

markbudde said:


> And remember, there is pressure on a wild population to maintain heterozygosity. It is good for a wild population to have extremely fast developing frogs and extremely slow developing frogs, because you never know how long the water will last. Ditto for many traits. Bottom line, inbreeding quickly removes this genetic diversity and gives you a phenotypically different subpopulation. Andy if you have a strain with little diversity, chances are that is because it has been inbred.


First, I think I should get some credit for resisting mentioning wolves for 3 pages. But now I must. There is actually pretty good evidence that wolves exploit inbreeding and homozygosity as an adaptive advantage. Because they occupy such a huge species range (second only to humans) and exploit so many different prety types and habitats, inbreeding actually allows them to rapidly fix those traits that are most adaptive for a particular locale. This is done through a dynastic social heirarchy in which parent-offspring, or sibling matings are very common. Of course there is some geneflow across large areas which maintains wide genetic diversity across the species, while maintaining unique sets of traits with a geographic area.

Nice post Mark. One thing I keep thinking is that although the probability of any one trait going homozygous in an inbreeding event is 50% so we would expect 2 of 4 to go in any given round, when you consider 4 traits out of thousands, then the probability of all 4 going homozygous in a single round of inbreeding is not terribly low either.


----------



## Rain_Frog

Hey guys, I'm thinking about purchasing Naturose. It is bitterly cold at night, and above freezing during the day. Will that ruin my Naturose in the mail?

I'd like to try it on my frogs.

I have noticed that my CB mantella ebenaui are much more orange than the two females I have from Mark Pepper. I fed my ebenaui tadpoles fish foods that contained astaxanthin.


----------



## Ed

If they package it in a sealed container then it should be fine. I would be more concerned if it sat in a mail box in the sun in July or August than that sort of minimal temperature variation. 

Ed


----------



## dmartin72

Very interesting read.


----------



## volcano23000

This intrigued me and i read a little bit of this thread but not all. Excuse me if this has already been discussed but is it possible to enhance the blues in a frog such as a tinctorius (specifically oyapok)? I wouldn't do this if it wasn't risk free but i am very interested.


----------



## frogparty

You must not have read too much....
The answer is no. You can't accentuate blue because the cyanophores are not affected by diet


----------



## volcano23000

frogparty said:


> You must not have read too much....
> The answer is no. You can't accentuate blue because the cyanophores are not affected by diet


Thanks. Yeah, i only read a little.


----------



## Athena

Thanks for resurrecting this _ancient_ thread, never would have seen it otherwise! I wonder in the 5 years since it's start if anyone's got the molecules on this issue at all? Hmmmm... must peruse to see who doing the cell/molec on dendrobatids (if any are). I can't imagine there are very many folks working with these critters.



> First, I think I should get some credit for resisting mentioning wolves for 3 pages. But now I must.


BWHAHAHAHAHA! I died on this. _sooo_ know that feeling 

_"ugh... there is such GORGEOUS literature on this... no no! I mustn't! It's a freakin frog forum.... I will resist. 

But it's sooooo gooooooodd! How annoyed will they all be with me if I bring up wolves... Too weird. 

Garrr! I'm going to do it. They can deal with it._

Of course, I do it with bacteria and ferns  (I promise that's not as lewd as it sounds)

Thanks all for the geek out!!!


----------



## Dendro Dave

Athena said:


> Thanks for resurrecting this _ancient_ thread, never would have seen it otherwise! I wonder in the 5 years since it's start if anyone's got the molecules on this issue at all? Hmmmm... must peruse to see who doing the cell/molec on dendrobatids (if any are). I can't imagine there are very many folks working with these critters.
> 
> 
> 
> BWHAHAHAHAHA! I died on this. _sooo_ know that feeling
> 
> _"ugh... there is such GORGEOUS literature on this... no no! I mustn't! It's a freakin frog forum.... I will resist.
> 
> But it's sooooo gooooooodd! How annoyed will they all be with me if I bring up wolves... Too weird.
> 
> Garrr! I'm going to do it. They can deal with it._
> 
> Of course, I do it with bacteria and ferns  (I promise that's not as lewd as it sounds)
> 
> Thanks all for the geek out!!!


<---Fox owner 

Anyways to be slightly on topic, I'm going to hit my red trivs with some supplements/color enhancers when they come in and see how that works out.


----------



## Ed

frogparty said:


> You must not have read too much....
> The answer is no. You can't accentuate blue because the cyanophores are not affected by diet


 
Cough cough iridiopores....... Cyanopores to date (as far as I can find out) are only found in one genus of fish.... Synchiropus 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## Ed

Athena said:


> Thanks for resurrecting this _ancient_ thread, never would have seen it otherwise! I wonder in the 5 years since it's start if anyone's got the molecules on this issue at all? Hmmmm... must peruse to see who doing the cell/molec on dendrobatids (if any are). I can't imagine there are very many folks working with these critters.


 
Which molecules, the specific carotenoids? Yes... there is a lot of evidence on that with respect.. even though there are well over 500 different types of carotenoids on various analysis we see six primary ones located in the tissues of the frogs (and research on this goes back for decades... (at least back to 1949 (see Carotenoids, vitamin A and 7-dehydrosteroid in the frog (Rana temporaria)).... 

There is also variations on which organs end up with the majority of the a certain carotenoid outside of the circulating blood volume. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Athena

> Which molecules, the specific carotenoids?


Nah. Sorry, that's lazy ass biologist slang for [DNA/protein/those doofuses aka masochists working with RNA] work.

Kind of an all encompassing term... a little TOO all encompassing 

In other news, look like people _are_ doing some great genetics work on our little guys.. and cooler yet? COMPETEING STUDIES!!! Aww yeah... let the debate continue!

Here's links to the abstracts on none other than _O. pumillio_! Interestingly both authors use Dendrobates. I don't know when the taxonomy got 'fixed' but they're both new papers (2007, 2009). I don't have the auth passwords. May have gotten kicked off my alma maters list. Bah. Makes me want to do that whole grad school thing sooner. 

Genetic structure is correlated with phenotypic divergence rather than geographic isolation in the highly polymorphic strawberry poison-dart frog

Non-gradual variation in colour morphs of the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio: genetic and geographical isolation suggest a role for selection in maintaining polymorphism


----------



## Dendro Dave

Ed said:


> Cough cough iridiopores....... Cyanopores to date (as far as I can find out) are only found in one genus of fish.... Synchiropus
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Cool fish, they need to teach some other animals to make those cyanopores 

P.S. *Ed* did you see the Holo fairy, and holo lightning viv threads? ...I always look forward to your comments on my FX ideas/work  ...but I got no love on those 2


----------



## Ed

Dendro Dave said:


> Cool fish, they need to teach some other animals to make those cyanopores
> 
> P.S. *Ed* did you see the Holo fairy, and holo lightning viv threads? ...I always look forward to your comments on my FX ideas/work  ...but I got no love on those 2


 
Sent you a pm Dave. 

Ed


----------



## Phyllobates azureus

Color is not a word. 

British/Canadian-isms aside, I don't get how colour enhancers can be called "natural" unless they contain the same sort of pigment that is in the chromatophores.


----------



## easternversant

Phyllobates azureus said:


> Color is not a word.
> 
> British/Canadian-isms aside, I don't get how colour enhancers can be called "natural" unless they contain the same sort of pigment that is in the chromatophores.


There are a number of different type of pigments. Iridiophores are not affected by these minerals (they aren't really "enhancers" so lets just call them something else!) because they are structural. Oranges and reds in particular are affected by the dietary intake of various carotenoids, I believe Ed has probably posted info about these. Many of these carotenoids are important in basic day-to-day functioning of the frogs (e.g., metabolism) so it is important that these frogs get them. 

We as a hobby tend to live by the motto "if I can't see something wrong with the frogs, then my husbandry is fine." Unfortunately this is not the truth. In the case here, people actually saw something wrong with their frogs (dull colors compared to wild populations) so they changed their husbandry.


----------



## Phyllobates azureus

easternversant said:


> There are a number of different type of pigments. Iridiophores are not affected by these minerals (they aren't really "enhancers" so lets just call them something else!) because they are structural. Oranges and reds in particular are affected by the dietary intake of various carotenoids, I believe Ed has probably posted info about these. Many of these carotenoids are important in basic day-to-day functioning of the frogs (e.g., metabolism) so it is important that these frogs get them.
> 
> We as a hobby tend to live by the motto "if I can't see something wrong with the frogs, then my husbandry is fine." Unfortunately this is not the truth. In the case here, people actually saw something wrong with their frogs (dull colors compared to wild populations) so they changed their husbandry.


I see, thanks.


----------



## Dendro Dave

Phyllobates azureus said:


> I see, thanks.


Ya essentially you are just trying to make sure they get everything/or similar things they would get in nature that allows them to reach their full color potential...or at least keep them from fading in captivity.

We're aren't trying to dye them or anything....yet!


----------



## Ed

Phyllobates azureus said:


> I don't get how colour enhancers can be called "natural" unless they contain the same sort of pigment that is in the chromatophores.


This is a disjunct that I don't understand..they are the same molecules found in the chromatophores.. 
In reality, they should not be listed as "enhancers" as they do a whole lot more than help restore/stabilize colors... the reason we see a loss of color in reds, yellows, oranges and greens is because the carontenoids are being pulled from the sequestering in the skin tissues (after they have been pulled from other tissues) to meet metabolic and/or egg production needs. The storage of these carotenoids also don't tend to get back to the chromatophores until the other metabolic needs are being met... 

With very few exceptions, the majority of the carotenoids available to the frogs are being met via one carotenoid, beta carotene which impacts yellows, greens and to a lesser extent oranges (by yellowing it more)... the pigments we have been really lacking in the diet are met by astaxanthin and canthaxanthin (and yes they are found in the wild frogs..) for reds and oranges (deepening oranges). 
There are some other pigments which are not met via dietary sources such as the pterins and iridiopores (which are purine crystals responsible for blues and metallic hues). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Phishsaw

Very fascinating and informative discussion. Just want to bump it.


----------



## Judy S

am curious whether there are updated suggestions on feed supplements for color enhancements.....tough thread to understand for non-scientist person....


----------



## Ed

Judy S said:


> am curious whether there are updated suggestions on feed supplements for color enhancements.....tough thread to understand for non-scientist person....


Not color enhancers as they are required for normal metabolic processes in the frogs... that is kind of like saying glucose is a brain metabolism enhancer when glucose is the only energy source used by the brain. Using color enhancers as the descriptor really doesn't show the importance of these molecules in the metabolism of the frogs as they are used for more than just pigment. Its the fact that many of the diets/supplements offered the frogs are deficient in those nutrients to the point that the frog cannot accumulate them as they are used to meet other demands that people keep missing. Returning a color to the intensity to what is typical for that animal's wild population is not enhancing it. Enhancing it would mean that your taking it past where it should be in intensity and/or hue. 

As an example, a friend of mine was part of a cool study on astaxanthin in frogs and it increased fecundity and survivorship of the froglets ... 

specifically Dugas, Matthew B., Justin Yeager, and Corinne L. Richards‐Zawacki. "Carotenoid supplementation enhances reproductive success in captive strawberry poison frogs (Oophaga pumilio)." Zoo biology 32.6 (2013): 655-658. 

There are six carotenoids that are commonly found during analysis of anuran tissues but only relatively recently have they been made available in a supplement. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Judy S

well...increase in reproductivity...hmm did it also improve the coloration? So of the supplements that are available---which ones are most apt to have the carotenoids ...and how would they be specified by their "name" to be recognized by someone like me?


----------



## aspidites73

A Ketone may take issue with this statement. 


Ed said:


> ....glucose is the only energy source used by the brain.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Judy S

are keytones a source of "energy" or are they the result of energy...--for us not so scientific types....


----------



## aspidites73

It's the only other source of energy for the brain, Glucose being the typical source..



Judy S said:


> are keytones a source of "energy" or are they the result of energy...--for us not so scientific types....


----------



## Ed

aspidites73 said:


> A Ketone may take issue with this statement.


You got me. My brain fudged it as I was trying to think of an example for normal metabolic requirements and didn't double check like I normally try to do. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Judy S said:


> well...increase in reproductivity...hmm did it also improve the coloration? So of the supplements that are available---which ones are most apt to have the carotenoids ...and how would they be specified by their "name" to be recognized by someone like me?


Hi Judy,
I left the names out as linked to the articles it seemed too much like an endorsement. 

While they didn't get significant color changes in that study it doesn't mean that it doesn't occur as many people have reported changes in color and its been documented in other frogs as well. There is a great article on red-eyed tree frogs that showed not only was there a change in coloration but females grew faster and had better reproduction (and this is another species for whom color in captive bred animals is often less than wild animals from the same regions). 

I can't find the original picture now but some bastimentos I received several years ago were a washed out orange color but this is the color now. 

Ed


----------

