# MS "turquoise and bronze"/PN "green and bronze"



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

From my understanding Michael Shrom's "turquoise and bronze" and Pat Nabor's "green and bronze" are among many lines of auratus derived from imports without location specific data and can be considered the same morph for breeding purposes.

Both seem like they'd fall under the "'Bronze blue or green" described here: www.tropical-experience.nl - Dendrobates auratus morphguide and the "Turquoise" morph described here:Welcome to JB EXOTICS | "Where Introducing you to the Rainforest's Jewels is what we do"

_'Turquoise' - AKA blue/green, teal. These animals range from pure green to a bright blue (tho rarely as deep a blue as the 'Blue' form) on a background of black to bronze, and the blue coloration can vary in intensity in individual animals over time. These frogs morph out with black backgrounds, which may stay black or lighten to a pale bronze as they age. Patterns range from mostly turquoise with little bronze, to mostly bronze animals with almost reticulated patterns. These animals can produced the whole range of colors (green, turquoise, blue, black, bronze, patterning) in a clutch, tho some lines tend to produce certain characteristics more than others - such as the Super Blue line which produces blue animals with more bronze with more regularity than other lines. Blue and Bronze are a similar case, being very blue animals from this morph, and do not breed this coloration true, showing the typical 'Turquoise' range of clutch color and pattern, tho they likely have a higher chance of producing more blue animals. Microspot are animals of this morph with very little bronze, resulting in animals with bronze "spots", pattern opposite of the 'Acon Hill' animals... it does not breed true. _

In your opinion, is it OK to mix?


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

I'd keep the lines separate but that's me. If I wanted to buy some I'd want to know the origin and a mixed group doesn't sound good. 

It's sort of true that locality data is sparse on those auratus. You could be mixing guys that weren't close in the wild and therefor producing something that wouldn't be found in the wild to begin with. It's not necessarily the idea that they would be fit to be released in the event of extinction, but that they were collected from the same area to begin with and therefor representative of frogs from one specific area that would matter to me.

That's just my opinion, though.

-Nish


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

nish07 said:


> I'd keep the lines separate but that's me.
> -Nish


Thanks - I should be more specific about my dilemma.

At this point, I can't keep them separate - I have six froglets raised from tadpoles or eggs in the same shoebox, one of which is the Michal Shrom line, the rest Pat Nabors. I can only positively identify one from the PN line which I suspect has SLS. I was under the impression that these were for all purposes the same morph until some off-board conversation with the member I got the PN line eggs from.

As I see it, I can:

1. Euthanize all of them due to my screw up if I decide they shouldn't be mixed.
2. Forever keep the males and females separate once sexable.
3. Keep them together and sell the offspring as "D. auratus, green and bronze, F3 from Michael Shrom and Pat Nabors lines."
4. Sell them now as "D. auratus, either Michael Shrom turquoise and bronze or Pat Nabors green and bronze."

Hoping opinions posted here will help me make the decision.

Thanks


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

It depends on whether or not you're against euthanizing them. If you don't like the idea of letting them go, you can keep them together but not let them breed (pull eggs or leave nowhere for them to transport but they'll continue to try). I wouldn't sell them, they'll just end up going to someone who might sell them as one or the other. You might give them to friends who just want to keep them as pets with no intention of breeding them and tell them not to sell/give them away.

-Nish


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

I just had this question the other day & let me see if I can shed some light on the issue. 

Yes - most if not all of the turquoise & bronze & the green and bronze came out of the same shipment. This was the first farm raised auratus shipment that came in (2002 - 2004 I found an invoice but don't remember getting those frogs  ). There were also a few others shortly after this that can be included in this group, but I can only talk about the first one. 

Some of the frogs were separated, fine spot, turquoise, green etc... and sold for their characteristics. Of the original trio we got, we have sold offspring to a number of people, including Michael who added them to his breeding groups to strengthen the blood line. See image below. 










These are also the same frogs which Brian @ Brian's Tropicals has offspring that produce the Albinos. 

As I have stated before, I think too many people are concentrating on line breeding these guys. The base stock were Panamanian Green & Bronze auratus. I think as long as people realize these were in some of the first shipments you will be ok. 

FYI - we actually have 2 groups of Green & Bronze breeders. Just because you got them from us, doesn't mean it was the 1st group (pictured above) or our 2nd pair. If we didn't identify them to you when we sold them - all I can tell you is you have F1 Green & Bronze auratus from us. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## kristy55303 (Apr 27, 2008)

so melissa you are saying you support mixing pat nabors green and bronze morph and michael shrom definite turquoise and bronze? I have seen them. they look totally different. wouldnt that be hybridizing? mixing the lines is a different story if in fact beyond ashadow of a doubt it is the same morph. then it helps the gene pool rather than breeding down the lines. but mixing to different morphs would be hybridizing them imo. kristy


----------



## porkchop48 (May 16, 2006)

I think what melissa may be saying is that they majority of them all came from the same place/ shipment of farm raised dart. They were sold based on the characteristics. Not because they were "different" frogs

If you read correctly some of the ones Melissa produced were sold to Michael and added to his breeding group. 

The turq and bronze that I have came from Mike Shrom as well ( a round about way) and look more blueish. But yet they potentially came from the same frogs that Melissa and Brian's tropicals produces.

I was one of the ones that recently inquired about this to Melissa. I asked about the ones that Brian had that were albinos. Well I asked Brian and he said his were from Melissa. So then I moved on to Melissa. Melissa answered my question than and this just helps explain it a bit more. I was thinking of purchasing one of the albino from Brian when I get the extra cash ( I am not made of money right now) but I wanted to make sure I could add it to my group. After reading this and her email answer I have no problems adding one to my group and still will be able to sleep at night and not think that I am mixing


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

Kristy - Is your Caps Lock button broken on your keyboard? 



kristy55303 said:


> so melissa you are saying you support mixing pat nabors green and bronze morph and michael shrom definite turquoise and bronze? I have seen them. they look totally different. wouldnt that be hybridizing? mixing the lines is a different story if in fact beyond ashadow of a doubt it is the same morph. then it helps the gene pool rather than breeding down the lines. but mixing to different morphs would be hybridizing them imo. kristy


I didn't say any such thing. If that is what you perceived by my post you are incorrect. It is important to know the founding stock of the animals you purchase. Most of the founding stock established breeders have came out of the Panamanian Green & Bronze shipments. The early shipments are much different than the ones that come in today. So, unless you know the history and were privy to all the information available then making a statment that this is hybridizing is careless and more misinformation. 

My Green & Bronze spotted 'microspotted' auratus produce turquoise & bronze, green & bronze & their offspring have produced albinos all of them have varying degrees of spotting...some circular and symmetrical why others not at all. If I were to take your approach - only albinos could be breed together, or microspots, etc.... All we would do is weaken the lines.

Many of these frogs came from the 1st 3 shipments. They were split out at that time & sold & then breeders split them out some more and created pairs. Some produce true, others don't. 

So, before anyone begins culling animals get the real story. Don't take hearsay from the forums as fact. Since I have spoken to Michael about this issue personally & have some of those frogs from that shipment I think I am qualified to comment about it. 



kristy55303 said:


> I have seen them. they look totally different.


As an example. Super Blue auratus. Currently there is an add in the classifieds for some. I know the person who has them for sale and I actually spoke to him last night. Since the add will be trimmed I am going to insert some images so people can follow this conversation in the future.

Super Blue parents - 











can produce offspring like this: 










and like this:










He actually gets the brown ones out about 10% of the time. Under your assumptions, because these frogs "look different" they are "different" and if breed together are "hybrids". Well - you are wrong. 

These are the same frogs, same lines, etc. His adults are from the same "super blue" lines and are F1s if I remember correctly as many other breeders. 

In addition, froglets of these guys can actually have subtile coloration changes as they age. 

So - if you don't know who the seller is and can't trace the linage back line breeding can occur just because frogs look different. Luckily, most people are responsible enough to find this information out and not "judge a book by it's cover" so to speak.

Melissa


----------



## kristy55303 (Apr 27, 2008)

i was asking politely as i did not know the actual positive answer, just what i thought. so thanks for the clarification. I ask so i can learn as well...dont know melissa what you mean by i"s my caps lock on"....or if you meant something else by it jokingly, but my capslock is off. As far as them looking different i guess i should have reworded my post. my green and bronzes have looked similar indeed but have thrown a couple still green but with a blue cast if you look carefully.not blue though. Thats what i meant by that. just wanted clarification it wasnt hybridizing. kristy


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

There is some supposition that the entire line is a mixed bag or mutt if you know what I mean. So many thing can come out of it and they do. 

Auratus are an under rated group and it is easy to mix them up. We have tried very hard to keep the multiple ones we have separate. 

Pet peeve about caps locks. Being a smart ass. 

The frogs from Adam are a good example of the opposite of albinoism. Some of the green & bronze auratus that were brought in throw these as well. See this page for more information: Welcome to Robbster.com Dart Frogs Page Robb did a very good job documenting these.




kristy55303 said:


> i was asking politely as i did not know the actual positive answer, just what i thought. so thanks for the clarification. I ask so i can learn as well...dont know melissa what you mean by i"s my caps lock on"....or if you meant something else by it jokingly, but my capslock is off. As far as them looking different i guess i should have reworded my post. my green and bronzes have looked similar indeed but have thrown a couple still green but with a blue cast if you look carefully.not blue though. Thats what i meant by that. just wanted clarification it wasnt hybridizing. kristy


----------



## kristy55303 (Apr 27, 2008)

thanks for the clarification melissa, by no means did i mean to come off as a "smart A**" i apologize if you took it that way. i was under the assumption they were two different morphs. i guess auratus are very confusing. Someone once tried selling some ancon hills asgreen and bronze as well....those are two different morphs correct? kristy


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

Yes, they are - and they also came in on some of the same imports . 

I had a vendor at a show try to sell me some not too long ago. He had to ask me what they were. I might be wrong - but they are on the wholesale lists a lot. I am clueless regarding their current importation status. Could just be someone mass producing them and selling them out too. My guess is there are still some auratus coming is since the ones I see at shows are cheap and adults. 

Kinda goes back to knowing who you are buying for. If your BS meter starts going off trust it. 




kristy55303 said:


> thanks for the clarification melissa, by no means did i mean to come off as a "smart A**" i apologize if you took it that way. i was under the assumption they were two different morphs. i guess auratus are very confusing. Someone once tried selling some ancon hills asgreen and bronze as well....those are two different morphs correct? kristy


----------



## kristy55303 (Apr 27, 2008)

yes. i definately wasnt about to buy those, lol, thanks for clarifying that. It was a while back anyways. aprreciate your help. kristy


----------



## salix (Mar 28, 2008)

To put this subject in terms of dog breeding.

Saying you can't breed the same morph together that look different color-wise would be the same as saying you can only breed a black lab to a black, a chocolate to a chocolate and a yellow to a yellow. In fact, you can breed any of those colors together and get all three colors in the same litter.

Mixing would be breeding a Lab to a Poodle and producing a "Labradoodle" The bigger offense is people advertise these mutts for $500-$1,000. A designer mutt is still a mutt. The only thing worse is people buy these designer mutts, cockapoos, puggles, etc. Sorry, I showed dogs for too many years, I read the ads and just shake my head, *WAKE UP PEOPLE, THEY ARE MUTTS!!!* These "breeders", should be neutering the progeny and giving them away. 

Sorry, I went semi off topic with one of my pet peeves. But it still qualifies as the topic of mixing.


----------



## ckreef (Aug 29, 2008)

Not to get off topic I dont like mixed breed dogs either. But in the early 1900s many of the breeds we have today were from mixing breeds. Also I think it is going to happen in frogs. People will breed for colors and designer morphs. I hope that many original morphs can be kept up. Also just out of curiosity what is the likelihood of any of us common hobbyist ever having our frogs released back to nature?


----------



## salix (Mar 28, 2008)

ckreef said:


> Also just out of curiosity what is the likelihood of any of us common hobbyist ever having our frogs released back to nature?


No matter how much some people like to think of themselves as conservationists, my guess for 99.9% of hobbyists, that would be *ZERO*!

Both, totally invented statistics on my part, just to be clear 

And yes, I understand breeds originally came from crossing to develop a complete package to serve a purpose (such as the Jack Russell Terrier). However, I can't take seriously any "new" breed which is created by combining two names in a cutesy format. Developing a new breed is a serious project. I could expand on the topic with our experiences with breed and variety (color) development while breeding rabbits, but I don't want to go too far off topic and bore the snot out of people. Suffice it say, it is a well regulated process governed by the parent organization, in that case American Rabbit Breeders Association.

And of course, there is never any intention of releasing domestic dogs/rabbits into the wild. They would not be returning to repopulate, they would just be feral terrorists.


----------



## kisanjong (Sep 21, 2008)

interesting post

interesting these turquoise and bronze are Dendrobates auratus 'El Copé' ?

and the green and bronze are ?

the reason i ask is i purchased some here in the uk not so long a go.


----------



## kristy55303 (Apr 27, 2008)

i'm confused as i read that site as well. I also have emailed a couple twi/asn members that say they would not mix. so trying to get down to the bottom of this is rather pulling me in two different directions. kristy


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

From what I can tell it all comes down to import / site data from what Melissa said.

The best thing at this point if you want to interbreed 2 lines is to get ahold of the person who originally got them from the importer as WC and get the import data from them. People should do this anyways if they are interested in not hybridizing. If you don't get the lineage all the way back to the spot they were collected then you really don't know what your dealing with.

I have been told that likely if they came in on the same import (same importer same date) they are likely from the same site.

Mind you I am just putting up here what I have read / been told.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Email from Michael Shrom:

"They are probably the same line."


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Thanks for all the discussion, I'm back to my original take: Both originated from the same shipments with only very general location data, both exhibit a wide but same range of characteristics, so allowing them to interbreed is not mixing.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

From Pat Nabors:

_(P)ersonally I would direct this question to Michael Shrom, since my "green and bronzes" are a fairly well recognized morph....they came in by the hundreds a few years ago ... So, Mike Shrom is saying his are torqouise and bronze....this is either a morph he feels is different, or his name for them......_

As Pat is deferring to Michael who says they're the same line, both came from the same group of shipments, and because of the great info from Melissa here, I think we've gathered anough expert opinion to conclude that they are the same morph and its OK to allow them to interbreed.

Both breeders obtained their original stock from the same mass imports. Neither breeder claims they are different morphs, Michael says they're the same "line". Michael has intentionally introduced into his bloodline genes from Melissa's frogs, which also came from the same shipments. They are the same morph and its OK to further interbreed lines as long as those lines originated from the 2002-2004 Panama shipments.


----------



## jeffreyvmd (Oct 16, 2004)

I have 2 pairs from the 2002 imports, one is green and bronze while the other is more of a turquoise and bronze. I call both pairs green and bronze. They will both throw F1's that are a green, some turquoise and also some blue. As stated before, there is even a difference in clutches. I have never agreed to the selling of them as turquoise and bronze, even though you can see the difference. I never seem to get the same pattern and recently got some froglets that only have one spot on their whole body. I have never gotten an albino, but then again I only breed the WC and not the F1's together. If I remember correctly, breeding microspots do not only produce microspots. Now again, I could be wrong with this. So when I see people selling the frogs as turquoise, I just smile. I think that we are line breeding way too much and therefore weakening the frogs. So Kristy, I guess what I am saying is that I could send you 5 frogs from the same parents that would look so different, you would not believe that they are related. So again, the point is, do we continue to breed related frogs or do we "mix" the frogs from the same import?

And Salix, labradoodles are not a good example of you example. A true labradoodle originated in Australia years ago and they had already had 12-14 generations at that time they were first seen in the U.S. There is really 3 sizes of labradoodle that will breed the same looking dog. Unfortunately, someone who has a lab and a poodle thinks that by breeding them together they will get a labradoodle, but as you said it really is a mutt. To get a true labradoodle, it costs about 3000-4000 for a puppy. But otherwise, I agree with you, these "designer" breeds such as cockapoos etc are just mixed breed dogs.


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

I actually ours came in on the original imports in 2002. The reason I stated 2002 - 2004 is that is when I have email records I could find from the importer. 

I also remember the first few years they came in the appearance & information of the auratus were consistant and most sold/resold at that time were considered this 'morph'.


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

I honestly don't know. 



MrKing said:


> interesting post
> 
> interesting these turquoise and bronze are Dendrobates auratus 'El Copé' ?
> 
> ...


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

melissa68 said:


> I actually ours came in on the original imports in 2002. The reason I stated 2002 - 2004 is that is when I have email records I could find from the importer.


Yes, it seems to be that the specificity of information about the Panama imports from those years is so vague, they're all the same. Cool that you still have some of the first!


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

MrKing, I would keep your El Cope frogs very seperate from other 'bronze' morphs of auratus. They are definitely from a distinct location from the mountains around El Cope...and I have never heard anything to suggest that any "_____ and bronze" auratus were collected near that area.


----------



## kisanjong (Sep 21, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> MrKing, I would keep your El Cope frogs very seperate from other 'bronze' morphs of auratus. They are definitely from a distinct location from the mountains around El Cope...and I have never heard anything to suggest that any "_____ and bronze" auratus were collected near that area.



i will be keeping them separate for sure and i understood that they are from the el cope mountains etc when i purchased them.

I was unsure if they are the same thing etc , now i know they are not, thanks for that


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

I asked Matt Mirabello about this - his response ("that" refers to the 2002-2004 shipments):

_"My take on it is that lots of frogs came in that were bronze with green OR blue. but no bronze/turquoise ones. Thus I feel they should remain separate."_

Both my sub-adult PN G&B's are turquoise. Of the six PN G&B's out of seven of my froglets in question, four are turquoise, two metallic green and one dull/powdery blue, so the explanation doesn't seem to pertain to the frogs I have, unless they will lose the turquoise as they age. I sent a follow up, haven't heard back.

Any insight on Matt's take ... thought I'd post what I got back as off the board I've received emails pointing to him as an expert on auratus morphs. Thanks.


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Bottom line:
Regardless of what they look like, you have to go by what the breeder says they are, if you want to maintain any sort of lineage record.

If you don't trust what the breeder/seller of the frogs said they are, you are left to make up you're own mind...

Shocking Elk bronze has a nice ring...

(just kidding)


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

That gives me an idea - I should breed turquoise and bronze elk!

About trusting the breeder/seller, definitely. And I'd extend that to trusting the breeder over the seller when the breeder is known. The seller in this case thinks it important I consider Mirello's take - which either I don't understand or references a morph that isn't under discussion here.

I'm at peace going with the opinions of the breeders here, but at the same time wanted the most clearly stated argument against to be heard.



Dancing frogs said:


> Bottom line:
> Regardless of what they look like, you have to go by what the breeder says they are, if you want to maintain any sort of lineage record.
> 
> If you don't trust what the breeder/seller of the frogs said they are, you are left to make up you're own mind...
> ...


----------



## james67 (Jun 28, 2008)

just thought i might add that i have two sub-adult "blue and bronze" and i have seen the parents which were definately blue and bronze, however one offspring is blue the other is somewhere between green and blue (turquoise) so they are IMO the same morph. and the differance is simply diversity within the morph.

james


----------



## Frank St (Mar 20, 2005)

Sorry for intervening from the other side of the pond...
I am a pro-dartfrog breeder from germany, mainly working with auratus and still being occupied with creating a book about this underestimated frog!
Mainly I focus on the difficulties about not mixng local morphs and the underestimatet caring about the original localization of the different morphs. To receive genetically clean breeding stock is a main goal in professional breeding I suppose!
About the bronze morph: There is big uncertainty about that frogs but let me shine a light:
The bronce-morph (in Germany refered to as the "Birkhahn-morph" or Birkhahn-line) was first mentioned by the German biologist Holger Birkhahn who introduced the frog into the hobby. The German aquaristic-magazine "Datz" published the first article displaying the bronce line and some other until that uncommon morphs of auratus. To keep away smugglers from the true finding spots, Birkhahn crypted the exact finding spot and named the frogs after an own pattern of numbers and letters (fish-freaks might know that from the L-catfishes). The article was published in 1994! The frogs are found in the eastern part of Central Panama on a certain mountain and reach elevations in spreading from 500 to 800m NN. Birkhahn describes the large variety of color from a metallic green to green, blue and turquoise. All color forms tend to mix and create mixtures of shades of green, metallic green and blue and turquoise. When aging the bronce ground color tends to lighten up. Though in my experience you can mix these frogs for sure -sure meanwhile it´s hard to sort out all the origins of bronce frogs due to further mixing by not-knowing people with whatever, though praise the folks that still breed with true "Birkhahn-Bronce" in F whatever generations. These frogs are found here in Germany still and often.
The metallic green and bluish looking frog named "El Copé" is a total different morph that is found around the Copé area in Panama. I never found that morph in the park "El Copé" actually, but in the surrounding hills! Copé (Actually in the park)frogs I found were as big but more green not that metallic! If you travel further eatswards you will find other highland morphs, amongst them also the so called "Microspot" morph and finally if going further east: the Birkhahn-bronce morph.
I really suggest the interestet folks among you visit and sign in at "dendrobase" (google), the most pro webside about dartfrogs on the net! OK, bad disadvantage: it´s mainly in German language - but I reckon the navigation is available in English. E.g. the auratus-page is packed with morphs and really reliable informations about the different local morphs, with maps and all! Don´t hesitate to sign up there - it´s totally reliable, spam free and worth a glimpse!!
Tropical experience is surely a good morphguide (sorry Marcus, your still my buddy ;-))but dendrobase is the way best source for informations that are scientifically proven!
Though I hope I could help somehow - even if you might find some miss-spellings or syntax error - please don´t feel offended - I try my best to conversate in English!
Cheers from Germany,
Frank


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

> The bronce-morph (in Germany refered to as the "Birkhahn-morph" or Birkhahn-line) was first mentioned by the German biologist Holger Birkhahn who introduced the frog into the hobby. The German aquaristic-magazine "Datz" published the first article displaying the bronce line and some other until that uncommon morphs of auratus. To keep away smugglers from the true finding spots, Birkhahn crypted the exact finding spot and named the frogs after an own pattern of numbers and letters (fish-freaks might know that from the L-catfishes). The article was published in 1994! The frogs are found in the eastern part of Central Panama on a certain mountain and reach elevations in spreading from 500 to 800m NN. Birkhahn describes the large variety of color from a metallic green to green, blue and turquoise. All color forms tend to mix and create mixtures of shades of green, metallic green and blue and turquoise. When aging the bronce ground color tends to lighten up. Though in my experience you can mix these frogs for sure -sure meanwhile it´s hard to sort out all the origins of bronce frogs due to further mixing by not-knowing people with whatever, though praise the folks that still breed with true "Birkhahn-Bronce" in F whatever generations. These frogs are found here in Germany still and often.


For those in the states that may be unaware, this "Bronce/Birkhahn" (also sometimes referred to as "Panamaspecial") morph that Frank is referring to has been sold here as "Highland Bronze." 

Frank, Dendrobase is a wonderful resource, and I glean as much from it as I can...but you can only get so much from a sketchy Google translation from German to English! Some things just don't translate.


----------



## Frank St (Mar 20, 2005)

...well I reckon that it is very unsatisfying to get a bad translation...I really would appreciate the guys of db would start to translate the stuff - but it´s way a hard deal to maintain the page in German and keep it updated and stuff - so one day maybe....;-)
If you got serious problems in understanding certain terms that keep you from navigating through the page - just ask me - I really like to help! 

Concerning the US term "Highland-Bronce", well aamof I don´t know any lowland population of bronce auratus from Panama. I doubt there is one. So please consider the bronce and Birkhahn or Panama Special (this is the Netherlands term for Birkhahn!) to be one morph!
I hold this DATZ article by Birkhahn as 300dpi PDF in color, but guess which language? - right - anyway if anyone is fit in German reading I can upload it to some server or hoster whatever..It´s a nice article as there are not many scientific reports but mainly amateur travel reports and pseudo-Indy-trips that lack of proven infos...
Cheers,
F.


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

This is slightly off topic but sorta on topic as well. 

I also would like to see Dendrobase in English and have noticed there is an English link but does not work. I get varying degrees of errors when I try to surf it with google translator or others.

A possible suggestion is a donation drive specifically to purchase one of the many server side tools that would automatically translate the site? I think there are even some free solutions. Another part of this is dependent on how much control the admins have over the server that the website is running on.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I scanned through the thread so I might have missed something.. 
From what I gathered, the original concern was over some froglets from 2 different groups that are mixed together and cannot be readily identified as to which parents they originated. Is this correct? 
The next point I gathered was whether or not these are actually the same lines and if so, is it okay to mix them (mainly so there would be clarity on the froglets)? If this is also correct,

then what would be the problem with simply labeling them as auratus, bronze and turquiose/green unknown lineage (which is true since you cannot tell them apart). If someone wanted these then the issue could be explained and as long as they were listed as unknown lineage, there isn't a problem in this respect. Until such as time as there is a definitative proof of an answer to whether or not they are actually all the same and have not been interbred with other auratus morphs, this would probably be the best way to resolve the issue and not have to euthanize or supply confusing information. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## kristy55303 (Apr 27, 2008)

Ed said:


> I scanned through the thread so I might have missed something..
> From what I gathered, the original concern was over some froglets from 2 different groups that are mixed together and cannot be readily identified as to which parents they originated. Is this correct?
> The next point I gathered was whether or not these are actually the same lines and if so, is it okay to mix them (mainly so there would be clarity on the froglets)? If this is also correct,
> 
> ...



great post ed....can you do some clarifying? are turquoise and bronze and green and bronze different morphs or can they be mixed without interbreeding? still would like to know your input on this matter as well. kristy


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

kristy55303 said:


> great post ed....can you do some clarifying? are turquoise and bronze and green and bronze different morphs or can they be mixed without interbreeding? still would like to know your input on this matter as well. kristy


I don't have an opinion on this as I know too little about these animals. I have to defer to others on that point. 

I have said this elsewhere, one of the things I see fairly frequently is a post with a request tp identify this frog as to morph so the person can pair it up. This is not necessarily a bad thing but the problem comes if those animals are then sold or offspring are sold as sold as the true morph. In a number of species, there is variation within morphs that can cause a misidentification, this misidentification can in the long run cause problems with keeping different morphs true breeding as they end up being outcrossed. (this happens even with professionals.. for example, the white tigers are actually a hybrid, as bengal and amur (siberian) tigers were interbred back when the line first was established). 
There is nothing wrong with having a group of frogs of unknown lineage as long as they are then not represented as being of a specific type and there is real value in having those lines kept going in the hobby (we seem to be placing an emphasis on locality which is making non-locality known frogs less desirable even though some of those lines may go back to some of the original imports in the hobby) as they may represent some of the frogs which have been longest in captivity. 

Some other comments,

Ed


----------



## kristy55303 (Apr 27, 2008)

thanks ed...kristy


----------



## Frank St (Mar 20, 2005)

For your concerns:

Picture one shows Birkhahn-specimens from one clutch , tending to bluish and green colour.
Picture two shows offspring off F1 Birkhahn green parents - mind the slight change of colour from light green to turquoise.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Thanks Ed,



Ed said:


> I scanned through the thread so I might have missed something..
> From what I gathered, the original concern was over some froglets from 2 different groups that are mixed together and cannot be readily identified as to which parents they originated. Is this correct?


The two "groups" I originally introduced for discussion are the line of frogs from the 2002-2004 Panamanian imports bred and sold by Michael Shrom as "turquoise and bronze" and the line from the same group of imports bred and sold by Pat Nabors as "green and bronze". Emails from both confirmed that they both lines from those mass imports, just sold under different names.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Frank St said:


> For your concerns:
> 
> Picture one shows Birkhahn-specimens from one clutch , tending to bluish and green colour.
> Picture two shows offspring off F1 Birkhahn green parents - mind the slight change of colour from light green to turquoise.


Nice photos, thanks. As in my previous post, the frogs in question are all from mass imports to the US over the years 2002-2004, no locality information is known more specific than "from the Western coast of Panama.

I still haven't replaced the charger for my camera battery, but will post pics of the froglets in question soon. In the past two weeks, the variety in color from the same clutch has intensified - those that were more greenish are even more greenish, the blue more blue - and the turquoise ones perhaps the same hue but more brilliant.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Finally replaced my camera recharger - here's a photo from severral weeks ago of a Pat Nabors "green and bronze" that certainly looks turquoise to me ...


----------



## frograck (May 1, 2005)

This thread really intrigues me... I dug it up with the search button when wondering about just this topic.

Lets use reticulated auratus for an example. It is established that these are a color morph produced by "hawain" auratus. So is it right to seperate reticulated auratus and only breed them with with other reticulated auratus, thus weakening their genes and creating a "designer morph" that, while it occurs naturally, does interbreed with di-similar looking auratus.
Or is the responsible thing to do is mix "hawain" and "reticulated" animals???

Another example...
So supposedly a whole bunch of panamanian auratus were imported in 02-04 and breeders hand picked the imports and paired up similar looking animals with little or no location data. As a result we have things like super blue auratus and microspot auratus. So is it right to line breed these special morphs (that produce a diverse range of offspring). 
Say I have a group of super blues, what do I do with the offspring that look very different than the parents, if I sell them as superblue but they don't look like the parent, I will dissapoint the buyer who wanted a certain looking animal. 

I don't know where I stand on these examples, and I admit I may not have all the facts.
food for thought


----------



## frograck (May 1, 2005)

in other words...
If animals such as "reticulated", "super blue", and "microspot" don't exist in the wild as a unique population that breeds true, than should we be separating animals in captivity by apperances and creating these "artificial lines?"


----------



## Frank St (Mar 20, 2005)

"It is established that these are a color morph produced by "hawain" auratus"



..not exactly: reticulation is a mutation of pattern that has nothing to do with a specific morph (of auratus). There are local morphs that seem to tend to show reticulated pattern more often than others. And the Hawaiian auratus are direct descendants of Taboga auratus which were brought to the islands 1932 (206 specimens). They (the reticulated animals) are just a arbitrarily form of normal Taboga auratus. Of course you can start ro have a selected breeding line just with reticulated animals without weekening the gene-pool or whatever. You should just stick to the term auratus "Taboga" and not create some fancy name for "your line". The term "reticulated auratus" was introduced by the dealers that sold the picked frogs without knowing anything about the true origin of the frogs.....and when visiting Taboga the majority of the frogs show normal patterns so a reticulated one is very flashy and of course a collector would search for these and so it comes to unnatural selection of dealt frogs...


Pairing frogs just by their looks is a huuuge mistake..I could name several populations of Panamanian auratus that would like quite identically but populate totally different landscapes and regions....though of course "desogner frogs" put together just by their looks are rubbish when it comes to terms of conservation!

Just importing "farm auratus" and sell them by multiple artificial names (e.g. superblue, microspot, camouflage, whatever) is crap and doesn´t help to understand natural populations!


----------



## frograck (May 1, 2005)

thanks for the clarification about reticulated auratus.


----------



## frograck (May 1, 2005)

other examples include "no-dot citronella tincs" and "camo" auratus. These morphs don't exsist in the wild as a self-sustaining population, but have been selectivley "line bred" in captivity. 

I'm not sure how I feel about this and would love to hear what others think.


----------



## frograck (May 1, 2005)

I guess I'm just hungry for auratus morph info.
to correct myself, camo auratus do appear in the wild.

all I know for a fact is that turquoise and bronze auratus are freakin awesome looking and I want some!


----------



## Michael Shrom (May 20, 2004)

I was always curious if the turquoise and bronze / green and bronze might be the same thing as the "highland bronze".


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Michael Shrom said:


> I was always curious if the turquoise and bronze / green and bronze might be the same thing as the "highland bronze".


From what I understand the "Highland Bronze" aren't any more highland than most other bronzes as there are many bronze-type populations of auratus inhabiting the higher elevation areas around places like El Cope, etc. I would say it's a possibility...but who knows whether or not they are from seperate populations, or possibly part of the same contigious population, or maybe the same population but collected/imported in different years and therefore given seperate morph names...maybe the Birkhahn auratus (which is what the "Highland Bronze" were called before being renamed upon importation to the U.S.) were especially showy specimens from a pretty standard bronze population? Until we can actually get importers/collectors to provide specific locale information, I'm sure there will be plenty more room for conjecture and wondering what exactly it is we've got in our vivaria.


----------



## frograck (May 1, 2005)

To answer my own inquiry...
I suppose it is good practice to maintain pure lines in the hobby, ie "understory turquoise" or "Sean Stewart highland bronze" etc...
because we just don't have the locale data.


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 12, 2008)

kristy55303 said:


> so melissa you are saying you support mixing pat nabors green and bronze morph and michael shrom definite turquoise and bronze? I have seen them. they look totally different. wouldnt that be hybridizing? mixing the lines is a different story if in fact beyond ashadow of a doubt it is the same morph. then it helps the gene pool rather than breeding down the lines. but mixing to different morphs would be hybridizing them imo. kristy


I think shes saying they're the same line/morph, both Nabors and Shrom have just line bred them for different characteristics.


----------

