# Iquitos Vents or Amazonicus?



## octo (Mar 4, 2006)

you should be aware that you are dealing with amazonica according to:

JASON L. BROWN, RAINER SCHULTE, KYLE SUMMERS in "A new species of Dendrobates (Anura: Dendrobatidae) from the Amazonian lowlands in Perú"

All "Red ventrimaculatus" from Iquitos Perú are in fact amazonica.

But congratz, its a cool frog, I am breeding them myself


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

That is a great looking frog you got there. So nice!




octo said:


> you should be aware that you are dealing with amazonica according to:
> 
> JASON L. BROWN, RAINER SCHULTE, KYLE SUMMERS in "A new species of Dendrobates (Anura: Dendrobatidae) from the Amazonian lowlands in Perú"
> 
> ...


I read that D. amizonicus is not in fact a legit species name for any frog in the Dendrobatid family. It was a name given to a group of frogs that came from the Iquitos region based on color differences from the normal yellow you find in the other ventrimaculatus morphs.


----------



## RGB (Jan 15, 2006)

Great frogs, vents are so often overlooked even though they are such a cool species!



Frogtofall said:


> I read that D. amizonicus is not in fact a legit species name for any frog in the Dendrobatid family. It was a name given to a group of frogs that came from the Iquitos region based on color differences from the normal yellow you find in the other ventrimaculatus morphs.


Yeah, i believe they are just another population of vents, just like intermedius being a seperate population of imitator. Niether it considered to be it's own species even though the way we use the names makes it sound like they are. We should probably be using the nomenclature _D. ventrimaculatus amazonicus_ and _D. imitator intermedius_


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

RGB said:


> Great frogs, vents are so often overlooked even though they are such a cool species!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would suggest that amazonicus is a subspecies which to my understanding, it isn't even that. D. i. intermedius is a true subspecies. I could see calling them D. ventrimaculatus "Amazonicus" but really they are "Iquitos."

Enough hi-jacking from me. Nice frog!


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

octo,

This is not true, as with the new imports they are now named by location, and have since been determined to be sub-species of ventrimaculatus. The old "amazonicus" do not have recorded collection locations therefore could be from separate populations.

Im sure someone will help further explain this as I do not have all of the details handy.

The full name of what he has should be state as such:
DV-CIN - Iquitos Red-Orange 

The use of codes is gathering a bit of backing and adds a great value to keeping populations separate.

This information is covered in the care sheet:
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17627


----------



## octo (Mar 4, 2006)

In the latest taxomoni amazonica is considered at true species because of difference in coloration, call and that when you interbred red ventrimaculatus and amazonicus they produce infertile offspring, that i why it is so important to keep them appart.

By the way, intermedius isnt considered a subspecies of imitator but as a specie in the new revision, Ranatomeya intermedia.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Yes and no, it was my understanding amazonicus went the other way from a separate species to under ventrimaculatus. On the other hand with the latest information that to my understanding has not been completely accepted there are more than a few changes. Until those are accepted though we are left with the best information prior to that. Including amazonicus, intermedius, and Azureus being classified as a Tinc. The reference you had posted on amazonicus is dated information if I am not mistaken.

Maybe KeroKero will respond as she has a much better understanding of this than I.


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

octo said:


> In the latest taxomoni amazonica is considered at true species because of difference in coloration, call and that when you interbred red ventrimaculatus and amazonicus they produce infertile offspring, that i why it is so important to keep them appart.
> 
> By the way, intermedius isnt considered a subspecies of imitator but as a specie in the new revision, Ranatomeya intermedia.


"New Revisions" can't be accepted immediately. They take time, and we're waiting for the experts down south to give us the go ahead.


----------



## octo (Mar 4, 2006)

kyle1745 said:


> The reference you had posted on amazonicus is dated information if I am not mistaken.


Its from 2006, i dont have any knowledge of something newer



> "New Revisions" can't be accepted immediately. They take time, and we're waiting for the experts down south to give us the go ahead.


Off course, but it would be a shame to destroy a captive strain of "maybe-amazonica" because of ignorance, better safe than sorry. Personally i dont care if you call them Iquitos red vents, but the problem is when people are selling them as just red vents, it happens very often. My guess is in Europe, that a very big percentage of the "red vents" are in fact Iquitos red vents / amazonica, and that is a big problem.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Octo,

This is exactly why I am pushing the use of the codes.

Also do you have the exact paper or information you are referencing? As I think the current naming from the frog farms are most likely as accurate as we can get right now. This is why we should stick with how these are named for now and stick with the "old" amazonicus like being named as such.


----------



## Shockfrog (Apr 14, 2004)

> you should be aware that you are dealing with amazonica according to:
> 
> JASON L. BROWN, RAINER SCHULTE, KYLE SUMMERS in "A new species of Dendrobates (Anura: Dendrobatidae) from the Amazonian lowlands in Perú"
> 
> All "Red ventrimaculatus" from Iquitos Perú are in fact amazonica.


Yes it's a 2006 paper. The thing is that this paper is about the discription of D. uakarii. D. amazonicus is named as a species in this paper but this name was used from a much older and dated paper, schulte 1999. If you read on the paper mentions: The taxonomic validity of D. variabilis and D.
amazonicus is currently an issue of contention.

As for the latest paper on taxonomy. This paper hasn't been fully accepted by many people. Allthough it's a fine work in many ways, there are many flaws. Amazonicus and intermedius and their species status are two of those flaws but there are more. There's also some very important names missing in their paper which suggests that some leading researchers did not support or not even see this paper before it was published.

There are two more upcoming papers on Dendrobatid taxonomy from other research groups. So I think it's best to wait untill the other two papers have been published before fully accept the Grant 2006 paper.

Cheers,
Remco


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I split this discussion from the other thread and moved it here:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

This is a perfect example of why I have been arguing strongly that we need to be managing frogs at the population level and forget about morphs and "blood lines". Octo is right that the "amazonicus" should be kept separate from other vent groups because they do represent a different wild population. I disagree though that amazonicus has risen to the level of speceis but that is because I am American. It seems the European hobby has been quick to adopt some of the new taxonomic schemes that have been published recently while the North American hobby has decided to wait until competing schemes are published and they all go through an appropriate debate and revision process. This has always been a problem in taxonomy and systematics but it won't matter too much to us so long as we stick to managing frogs at the population level. That way the Europeans can call them D. amazonicus and we can call the D. ventrimaculatus "Amazonicus" or whatever so long as we understand these are the same thing and they are different from anything else.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

A lot of the reason we've been slow to accept the taxonomic changes is that recently there have been some researchers (who actually know what they are talking about and can simplify it down for those of us who don't have an advanced genetics background) this side of the pond who've given some good reasons not to jump on the bandwagon. Yes, a huge revision is needed. Was the recent Grant et al. paper the best way about it? Maybe not, and there might be some better work published in the near future. If you want to read more about this, I suggest reading the Dendrobatid systematics article on Dendrobates.org. 

I am going to really generalize a bit here... please note that I am not a geneticist, and am using explanations from people who know such things that has been simplified and applied to my knowledge of the hobby. 

Simply put, _D. ventrimaculatus_ is more of a species complex, and taxonomically... very ugly. Don't believe me? Check out this illustration... see all the different vents? Yeah.... and that does not cover all the frogs currently falling under the label of "_D. ventrimaculatus_". I'm not sure how many species it will end up as, but probably a bunch...

"D. amazonicus" has bounced around taxonomy with validity... the main problem with this designation is that genetically it might be the same species as the type locality of _D. ventrimaculatus_... meaning they are the same thing, and thus _D. amazonicus_ is invalid. End of story.

The problem arises with the fact that the former Amazonicus (aka _D. ventrimaculatus_ 'Amazonicus', as it is now just a population and I don't believe currently has subspecies status), as mentioned before, doesn't genetically mix well with other "Vents". The problem is not that Amazons are a seperate species, but that the other "Vents" that they were bred with to produce the funky "hybrids" may not actually be Vents. In fact, a few populations of Vents in the hobby may eventually work out to not be vents at all. The only true, definite _D. ventrimaculatus_ is from the type locality the species description was based off of (Sarayacu, Ecuador), and whatever populations that turn out to be the same species (such as Amazons). Everything else will get new names.

In the US hobby, "Amazonicus" is used now as part of a population/"morph" designation to differentiate from other D. vent populations in the hobby (Red Vent, etc) which are in fact different frogs and possibly different species (won't that be fun to figure out). The newly imported farm raised frogs from Peru, such as the 'Iquitos Red/Orange' follow current taxonomic findings, so they are not designated Amazons. Genetic work would have to be done to figure out which, if either, of the red/orange Amazons already present in the hobby were the same population, but that will be a long way away seeing as how much work needs to be done with frogs in the field before we've got genetics to compare captive stock with. Not all Amazons are the same, we had 3 distinct populations in the US before the UE importation of the Iquitos Red/Orange. Until better captive management occurs, its important to keep these different designations so we know what is what.

(Edit for my inability to spell)


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Thanks Corey!

I had bits and pieces of that information, but by no means could put that into words as you did....


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Octo is right that the "amazonicus" should be kept separate from other vent groups because they do represent a different wild population. I disagree though that amazonicus has risen to the level of speceis .


Thats how I feel.


----------

