# Why not Natural Selection ?



## Nicholas (Mar 16, 2010)

Hello Froggers!,

I have a question, and it MAYBE one of those "Taboo" questions on this form, i don't know. But it seems like it could be a good practice...

As we all know in the wild our frogs wouldn't make it. Beside's a small percentage of our frogs would actually survive. The mortality rate in the wild is called "Natural Selection" as we all know... So,... why do we let every frog that can live in captivity live? Are we hurting the frog's we love so very much because we allow most of them to live? Are we weakening their Gene Pool, to a Gene Pool in captivity that is already hurting, from having the same bloodlines and the issues of bottlenecking? and genetic diversity?

So why not Natural Selection in captivity? this way when you get a clutch of 5 - 8 carnivorous tads Only 2 survive. maybe None survive... but thats nature's way isn't it ? Natures way of ensuring that only the strong survive... in the same sense that females choose there mates according to Genetic Traits one have other the other, allowing that male a shot to pass along his genes...

Say you get a clutch of 5 Carnivorous Tadpoles. and you put them all in the same jar, let them eat each other, and one survives,... is that tad not bigger? is it not fatter? is it not healthier? is it not stronger than it's sibling were? I would say yes, yes it is... and then think THIS FROG should grow up with some strong genetic lines... most in part like their wild caught ancestors, and distant cousin's... and lets say it grows up am survives... to reproduction age. and you put it in a tank thats plenty big to hold 3 frogs... 3 territorial frogs... 2 males and 1 female... let the males fight. if one die's in the process, then one die's in the process, the victor is obviously the better, stronger frog and has earned the right to reproduce and spread its gene's right ?


and human's i guess we are taught right and wrong, and this may seem wrong when you put feeling and human emotion into this, but its life. maybe not the life humans live as we have become "civilized" but this is how it happens in nature and it keeps a species bloodline in check and it allows only those genetic traits to that are stronger and better to be passed on. us as humans this is not so anymore and i would be called all sort's of psycho if i use humans as a comparison, but i will anyways...

look at the general population. you have handicaps, from physical to mental one's if we were still ape's do you think they would survive and given the opportunity procreate ? i believe not. also look at obesity issues... which cause all sort of ailments medically and physical and even mentally. i do not believe they would survive either. now look at people who are god awfully skinny or just not in any kind of shape what-so-ever, they would always be beaten out by the bigger and stronger when it came down to mating and some even killed in the process.

i am sure their are medical and physical ailments in frogs as well as with every other species on this planet because their is no one perfect species that does not need some sort of natural selection process provided by nature, thats how you get your perfect specie's... they survive. this also allows gene's and traits that cause medical and physical traits to not be passed along to another... helping to "get it right" you could say so the specie's can thrive and survive for the longevity of time... if traits that are not good for the specie's pass threw and threw and threw, it will lead to a weaken species and possibly the fall of that species.? 


So the question is... Why not Natural Selection ?

(keep in mind some species this may not be feasible to do with as they are hard enough to try and establish CB populations this is more for the one's that are now well established)


Any thought's or opinions are extremely welcome, and Highly encouraged!

BUT keep in mind that a EMOTIONAL RESPONSES are highly discouraged. as they do not allow for intelligent thinking and don't promote discussions or arguments more rather fights.

Moral Flexibility may be required here for some audiences


----------



## JJhuang (Feb 5, 2010)

I think your completely right about the human emotions thing. I think some people just dont want to see potential frogs be eaten. Ive heard of people keeping darts with sls alive even though they should be put down.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Yes we are and we're hurting the future of the hobby. I've been arguing that for years.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

So wouldnt setting up group tanks also be the key to having them battle it out for a dominate breeding pair to ensure that only the stronger healthier frogs breed and continue the stronger lines?


----------



## NDokai (Nov 13, 2009)

I see your point, and I know that a lot of weaker frogs are "nursed" along until they are strong enough to sell. These, IMO, are ones that should never be bred. There are some things we can do to encourage that the most robust frogs are the ones that are bred, and I think it is a good practice to encourage this type of breeding in the vivarium. I don't think letting tads canibalize eachother would help much in this practice, but I guess that depends on your ultimate goal. We can't replicate all the variables that would influence natural selection in wild frog populations. Whatever goes on in captivity is going to be unnatural, especially when we are the ones deciding what animals are allowed to reproduce. Certain behaviors that make a frog thrive in the vivarium, may actually be a disadvantage in a wild setting.
I would call it responsible selective breeding, instead of natural selection.
Again, I do think this is a good idea, to some degree, but I don't think it can truly be a natural type of selection in a captive environment.
Good topic.

Nick


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Throwing a bunch of tads together for the purpose of having them eat each other to produce "super frogs" seems a little off base. Wild frogs tend to only deposit 1-2 tads in a single vessel with the innate knowledge that only one is likely to survive, and minimal survival is generally a poor approach to continuation of a species. I have put a few cannibals together in the past, and generally the ones that make it out are bigger than normal, but is it due to genetic predisposition, or just because they had a few large, high-protein meals?
You could allow your frogs to raise all their tads themselves to further imitate natural behavior/selection, but in our confined, limited-diet enclosures these froglets tend to morph out smaller than their hand-reared counterparts.
A more logical approach (although not easy/cheap) could be to catalog the sizes of wild neonate froglets, and try to maintain that standard, while culling any morph outs that are obviously smaller or less capable than the wild counterparts. Hope that's not too emotional of me...

edit: Another thing to ponder in the cannibal scenario; Do overly aggressive tadpoles wind up as overly aggressive frogs?


----------



## ktewell (Dec 17, 2009)

NDokai said:


> Whatever goes on in captivity is going to be unnatural, especially when we are the ones deciding what animals are allowed to reproduce. Certain behaviors that make a frog thrive in the vivarium, may actually be a disadvantage in a wild setting.
> I would call it responsible selective breeding, instead of natural selection.
> Again, I do think this is a good idea, to some degree, but I don't think it can truly be a natural type of selection in a captive environment.
> Good topic.
> ...


For example, if a frog is very bold and comes out to eat when it sees you approach the tank (which one of mine always does) then it will get a lot of the food. In captivity this means she produces a lot of eggs; in the wild maybe it means she gets eaten or killed for not being timid enough. It would be harder than I'd realize to choose which frogs are the fittest and should breed. Like Nick said, I don't think we'd be perfect at selective breeding.

But it's still a great idea, and one that has been tossed around periodically since I've been here. I know a couple breeders that at least make their froglets prove their physical capabilities in order to survive (they have to crawl straight up out of their tadpole cup to be kept) but also there will always be people who try to keep every one alive and I don't fault them. It is fun to raise these animals.

I think that yes, it's a valid issue, but a greater issue will always be the health and viability of the wild populations and that is what I focus on instead. It would be nice to have thriving, healthy frogs in the hobby, but the purpose here is to enjoy frogs and I think even if their gene pool gets diluted that enjoyment will still happen. It's when the species or morph goes extinct in the wild that real damage is done.


----------



## puckplaya32 (Jan 6, 2008)

In a lot of ways letting "natural selection" occur, would aid our hobby. From my experience tads raised communally tend to produce larger more robust froglets, and likely mimics more the size of froglets that make it in the wild. As well breeding frogs in groups does likely weed out weaker frogs from breeding or at least prevent them from breeding as often, which helps ensure stronger genes.

Obviously we cannot completely reproduce the challenges these animals face in the wild such as predation and a pretty much limitless territory, and we cannot completely mimic their natural environment but we can control a small amount of the husbandry and try to produce a big, better, healthier animal

But when it comes down to it many people are just trying to raise as many froglets as possible to either make some money off of it or to have more options for trade. This is often done with little regard to the future of the hobby whether deliberately or unintentionally. This also floods the market and only makes the trends of the new "in" species/morph more pronounced.


----------



## ktewell (Dec 17, 2009)

chuckpowell said:


> Yes we are and we're hurting the future of the hobby. I've been arguing that for years.


Do you think it would help if, once someone becomes aware of this problem, they start asking about culling practices from breeders before they buy from them?


----------



## Nicholas (Mar 16, 2010)

Dane said:


> Throwing a bunch of tads together for the purpose of having them eat each other to produce "super frogs" seems a little off base. Wild frogs tend to only deposit 1-2 tads in a single vessel with the innate knowledge that only one is likely to survive, and minimal survival is generally a poor approach to continuation of a species. I have put a few cannibals together in the past, and generally the ones that make it out are bigger than normal, but is it due to genetic predisposition, or just because they had a few large, high-protein meals?
> You could allow your frogs to raise all their tads themselves to further imitate natural behavior/selection, but in our confined, limited-diet enclosures these froglets tend to morph out smaller than their hand-reared counterparts.
> A more logical approach (although not easy/cheap) could be to catalog the sizes of wild neonate froglets, and try to maintain that standard, while culling any morph outs that are obviously smaller or less capable than the wild counterparts. Hope that's not too emotional of me...
> 
> edit: Another thing to ponder in the cannibal scenario; Do overly aggressive tadpoles wind up as overly aggressive frogs?



Few good points here you stated...

as for throwing tads in with each other to produce super frogs... this is not going to happen and would also be against laws of nature... (super frogs would do more harm to nature than good by eating up the already delicate natural food chain)

as for having tads "battle it out" for the more superior and more aggressive of the tads is perhaps the whole point of it maybe ? maybe it is these gene's that have made these particular frogs so successful in the wild. so maybe carnivorous tads, need to be the more aggressive frogs. and this would be a way to ensure only the more aggressive one's live... all tads even carnivorous tads will still have to be fed and hand reared. that does not mean its first couple meals cannot be a brother or sister, to ensure the bloodlines are not being weakened... you only want the ones with the genetic predisposition to live. why is this ? because those are the new, more evolved gene's that would survive... yes understood they are captive breed and not wild breed, but we can still ensure the gene's are not weak to ensure a good strong healthy breeding stock for future populations.

one issue i have with what you said about cataloging wild specimen's is the fact that the wild specimen's are constantly evolving. natural selection drives evolution.... so if you made a "standard" for this year, i would surly be different with the next generation (even very very slightly different) but in a decade to 2 decade's it would be even more different (thins time slightly different) but if you say 100 years from now. i.e. next century you data on the "standard" will be dated... 

Example... in the 1950's humans almost all humans in america, had ear lobes, if you look at the WWII generation, thee majority of males all had ear lobes... TODAY, the majority of people have a more connected ear lobe. or even lacking a ear lobe (we all have ear lobes im talking about the ones that dangle)

does this sound like evolution to a modern day human? from natural selection genetic's or what ? it does to me, even we change (consider you pinky toe...)
so who is to say frogs don't change we are looking at 100 years for humans to loose their ear lobes... (white males that is) what could a frog loose... compound that by a couple centuries.... or even dog population breeding... how did we get do many different types of dog's ? selective breeding (not allowed with frogs IMO) but natural selection has just as great if not a greater impact...
good issues you brought up.


----------



## Nicholas (Mar 16, 2010)

selective breeding not allowed with frogs IMO means that i do not believe that frogs of the same specie's should mixed... i.e. azureus x cobalt ect... to get desired result like in breeding dogs...

i did not mean by selectively choosing what to frogs you have and breeding them i actually encourage breeding that way to ensure good blood lines...


but i am a newbie... so what the hell do i know about breeding... i just got my first 4 leucs 5 days ago...

but to me this just all makes sense... just because i am new to the hobby does not mean i am not intelligent


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Nicholas said:


> Example... in the 1950's humans almost all humans in america, had ear lobes, if you look at the WWII generation, thee majority of males all had ear lobes... TODAY, the majority of people have a more connected ear lobe. or even lacking a ear lobe (we all have ear lobes im talking about the ones that dangle)
> 
> does this sound like evolution to a modern day human? from natural selection genetic's or what ? it does to me, even we change (consider you pinky toe...)
> so who is to say frogs don't change we are looking at 100 years for humans to loose their ear lobes... (white males that is) what could a frog loose... compound that by a couple centuries.... or even dog population breeding... how did we get do many different types of dog's ? selective breeding (not allowed with frogs IMO) but natural selection has just as great if not a greater impact...
> good issues you brought up.


I don't think you are outining an evolutionary trait so much as in increase in genetic variabiliy due to a population dynamic shift.


----------



## carbonetc (Oct 13, 2008)

Beyond emotional reasons I'm guessing it comes down to money.

Two genetically unremarkable froglets will yield twice the profit of one Überfroglet.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

To me there is a fine line between _natural_ selection and _forced_ selection.

Dane pointed out that many cannibalistic frogs only deposit a small number of tads in a small area. That's just one example. You used the argument to put an aggresive trio in the same box and let the males battle it out, whichever male lives is the stronger male and deserves its chance to breed.

Throwing a bunch of cannibalistic tads into the same five oz container, putting aggressive trios in the same viv (which is really just a box) seems to me _forced_ selection. If two male tincs came across each other in the wild they would fight and one would submit, then the submissive one would have the entire jungle to run away from that dominant male. 

Are we hurting the hobby by helping along every frog we possibly can just to make the extra money or because we become emotionally attached to the frogs that can't help themselves? Yes. Does this mean that in our attempt to categorize the "strongest" frogs we should go about killing as many specimens as we can (like putting two healthy male tincs in the same box, for instance, or like putting six cannibalistic tads in the same container so only one can survive when in nautre maybe three or four of the six would have survived)? No.

I think the question isn't so much "are we hurting the hobby?" I think many people would agree that we are. I think the better question is "how can we make natural selection truly _natural_ in our artificial set-ups?"


----------



## NDokai (Nov 13, 2009)

The problem with the tadpole idea, is that it seems to encourage an unnatural form of selection. Putting a whole clutch of canibalistic tads into one water container is contrary to typical dart frog behavior. Most of the dendros that I have dealt with will carry only one or two tads at once, and place them in seperate bodies of water. A second point, is that a plastic container, is almost imposible for a tadpole to escape from. In the wild, a small puddle, bromiliad axil, or other body of water, may provide some way a tadpole could distance its self from a hungry sibling. I don't think this is the way to go. Like you said, the effects of such selective breeding practices can be apparent within only a few generations. I don't know what this will produce, in the long run.

Nick


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

puckplaya32 said:


> In a lot of ways letting "natural selection" occur, would aid our hobby. From my experience tads raised communally tend to produce larger more robust froglets, and likely mimics more the size of froglets that make it in the wild. As well breeding frogs in groups does likely weed out weaker frogs from breeding or at least prevent them from breeding as often, which helps ensure stronger genes.


Does it actually weed out the weaker frog or does it select for the frog that is more adapted to take advantage of the captive conditions? For example, in a group of frogs, if you have some males or females that divert resources from parental care to courtship and greater egg production you are selecting the frogs for greater egg production at the expense of parental behaviors. 




puckplaya32 said:


> Obviously we cannot completely reproduce the challenges these animals face in the wild such as predation and a pretty much limitless territory, and we cannot completely mimic their natural environment but we can control a small amount of the husbandry and try to produce a big, better, healthier animal



Correct, and because of this we cannot have natural selection in captivity. I almost passed this thread up as there have been many versions of this discussed here... but either we actively attempt to maintain the maximal allele frequency in captivity or through one or more selection methods (passive, and relaxed selection are going to be greatest potential problem causers..) 

And as a correction, the frog's territory in the wild is not limitless. The size of the territory is determined by resource location in the wild.. the more dense the resources the smaller the territory needed to accomedate the needs of the animal... 



puckplaya32 said:


> But when it comes down to it many people are just trying to raise as many froglets as possible to either make some money off of it or to have more options for trade. This is often done with little regard to the future of the hobby whether deliberately or unintentionally. This also floods the market and only makes the trends of the new "in" species/morph more pronounced.


Unless it is done randomly, choosing which animals are allowed mature and reproduce is a problem as it will skew the gene ratios... .

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Nicholas said:


> Hello Froggers!,
> 
> I have a question, and it MAYBE one of those "Taboo" questions on this form, i don't know. But it seems like it could be a good practice...


Because any attempts to reproduce natural selection in captivity won't produce natural selection, instead it will produce a form of artificial selection causing the lose of allele frequencies in the captive population. If we are going to do this, then we should just draw up some breed standards and start a AKC for dart frogs as the choices won't be random and the frogs will be selected for various traits. 



Nicholas said:


> As we all know in the wild our frogs wouldn't make it. Beside's a small percentage of our frogs would actually survive. The mortality rate in the wild is called "Natural Selection" as we all know... So,... why do we let every frog that can live in captivity live? Are we hurting the frog's we love so very much because we allow most of them to live? Are we weakening their Gene Pool, to a Gene Pool in captivity that is already hurting, from having the same bloodlines and the issues of bottlenecking? and genetic diversity?


The amount of harm occured to the population is going to be of the same magnitude if we start to "select" the frogs as if we don't but there is a difference in the long term.. in the longer term, the allele frequency available to the population overall will have a better chance of being statistically more variable in those populations where the breeder did not actively select the frogs as surviving to reproduce is going to be more random. Instead of forcing one or more forms of selection on the population, the allele frequency in the population needs to be kept at the widest possible variation as possible (and this has been hashed and rehashed here multiple times in many threads). 



Nicholas said:


> So why not Natural Selection in captivity? this way when you get a clutch of 5 - 8 carnivorous tads Only 2 survive. maybe None survive... but thats nature's way isn't it ? Natures way of ensuring that only the strong survive... in the same sense that females choose there mates according to Genetic Traits one have other the other, allowing that male a shot to pass along his genes...


Because it isn't natural selection and no it isn't nature's way as the conditions are artificial and without controls, it would be very probable that you would only be selecting the frog's that are most adapted to captivity to the detriment of one or more other traits (such as parental care (see my post above). 



Nicholas said:


> Say you get a clutch of 5 Carnivorous Tadpoles. and you put them all in the same jar, let them eat each other, and one survives,... is that tad not bigger? is it not fatter? is it not healthier? is it not stronger than it's sibling were? I would say yes, yes it is... and then think THIS FROG should grow up with some strong genetic lines... most in part like their wild caught ancestors, and distant cousin's... and lets say it grows up am survives... to reproduction age. and you put it in a tank thats plenty big to hold 3 frogs... 3 territorial frogs... 2 males and 1 female... let the males fight. if one die's in the process, then one die's in the process, the victor is obviously the better, stronger frog and has earned the right to reproduce and spread its gene's right ?


There are a lot of assumptions here that are not proven... what if the size is due not to consuming it's siblings but because the pheremones from the crowded conditions resulted in a delayed metamorphosis? There are some strong indications that aggressivness in Dendrobates is a function of availability of animals protein, so the fact that one tadpole ate the others does not indicate that it has a better genetic makeup... Keep in mind that a group of tadpoles in a tank or cup is not the same as a group of tadpoles in a puddle or pool or even a bromeliad as there are a lot of differences in cover and enviroment as well as food availability. 




Nicholas said:


> i am sure their are medical and physical ailments in frogs as well as with every other species on this planet because their is no one perfect species that does not need some sort of natural selection process provided by nature, thats how you get your perfect specie's... they survive. this also allows gene's and traits that cause medical and physical traits to not be passed along to another... helping to "get it right" you could say so the specie's can thrive and survive for the longevity of time... if traits that are not good for the specie's pass threw and threw and threw, it will lead to a weaken species and possibly the fall of that species.?


This ignores the whole issue that what is a negative today may not be a negative tomorrow in a population and we have no way to evaluate which trait is a positive or a negative at this time.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

chuckpowell said:


> Yes we are and we're hurting the future of the hobby. I've been arguing that for years.


The more I look into the enviromental effects of husbandry regimens, the more I suspect the problems are not with the frogs' themselves but how we rear them. I guess, this is my cue to try and pull together a bunch of the literature and review it with respect to these issues. 

For example... it is well known in the anuran literature that size at metamorphosis has a signficant effect on the size at sexual maturity. Size at metamorphosis is directly affected by a large number of factors including but not limited to photoperiod, spectrum of light, diet, temperature, water quality, and crowding... 

As for coloration... until relatively recently, the frogs were pretty much only fed a couple of carotenoids (mainly beta carotene) and it has only been in the last few years that we have begun to add different carotenoids to the diet of the frogs. Even in that brief period of time we have already begun to see improvements in coloration which gives some anecdotal indications we are on the right track. 

Ed


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

Though this may be an oversimplification, in some cases with an animal like this I would think that the environmental factor plays a larger role in natural selection process than the actual animal itself. 

Think of it this way: In the wild if a "weak" frog happens to get lucky and get put in a good situation (aka: find a location that is safe and provides lots of food) it might do just fine and live to reproduce and pass on its "inferior" genes.

So in the grand scheme of things (with a few exceptions) I would say we arent necessarily changing the process in the way that you would expect. Seeing as how the environment is directly tied to the husbandry provided by the owner, in some cases the weaker will be weeded out by poor enviornmental conditions (aka: poor husbandry practices by their owner) while in other cases the weaker frog will be supported by exceptional environmental conditions (good husbandry practices).

Also, this whole idea of "battling it out" seems entirely skewed to me. I would think it has very little to do with natural selection because we are pitting several frogs against each other in extremely small territories compared to what they would be exposed to in the wild. I have no reference for it but I would imagine in the wild the frogs do not have to compete for resources in any similar fashion as how they do in captivity. While I know they do fight in the wild, I always assumed the level of fighting we see in captivity is a desperation thing due to their being in a (relatively) small tank.


----------



## Nicholas (Mar 16, 2010)

Exactally what i wanted 

alot of good info here.... as i stated i am new to the hobby, so i dont knwo crap really. thats why everything i said is in Question form...

Ed tore my thoughts apart and got some good points to this and that...

it would be more accurate if it was random wouldn't it ? say if you pick and choose and identify that these frogs would be better, or these frogs lay more eggs ect... you would be trading it for something else i.e. parenting skill, traits that make a good captive frog vs. a good wild frog... 

GOOD INFO HERE ON THIS SUBJECT...
GREAT THOUGHTS AND IDEA's...


----------



## Nicholas (Mar 16, 2010)

I do believe their are some practices maybe in breed that would be beneficial tho...

maybe everyone can help elaborate and select good standards ...

weak frogs that cannot make it out of the jar or brom. should not be allowed to live.

sick or diseased frogs (genetic diseases not parasitic or bacterial unless animal has a weak immune system genetically)

things like this... 

what would be good breeding practices ? i am sure TWI/ASN have some rules or idea's and thoughts that can and should be published to the people in the hobby that breed...


----------



## Nicholas (Mar 16, 2010)

that makes alot of sense... the whole "battling it out thing" because in the wild... they other frog would submit and run away but of course in a captive environment this would not be the case...

all good points... anyone got more to add?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

carola1155 said:


> Also, this whole idea of "battling it out" seems entirely skewed to me. I would think it has very little to do with natural selection because we are pitting several frogs against each other in extremely small territories compared to what they would be exposed to in the wild. I have no reference for it but I would imagine in the wild the frogs do not have to compete for resources in any similar fashion as how they do in captivity. While I know they do fight in the wild, I always assumed the level of fighting we see in captivity is a desperation thing due to their being in a (relatively) small tank.


Actually the are known to compete against each other in the same way as seen in the enclosure. The difference is that the in the wild, the loser can escape from the winner. In captivity, unless there are escape routes (such as sight barriers) provided, the dominent animal will often continue the battle (as the failure to leave is continuing the battle). 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Nicholas said:


> it would be more accurate if it was random wouldn't it ? say if you pick and choose and identify that these frogs would be better, or these frogs lay more eggs ect... you would be trading it for something else i.e. parenting skill, traits that make a good captive frog vs. a good wild frog...


Actually, the best method is to manage the allele frequency as close as possible to the founder population. Any other method risks reducing the genetic variation found in the captive population. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Nicholas said:


> what would be good breeding practices ? i am sure TWI/ASN have some rules or idea's and thoughts that can and should be published to the people in the hobby that breed...


While the ASN manual is available on the website, it is under review for updating based on some new advances in the literature. 

Ed


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

The worst kind of artifical selection occurs when the frogs are originally collected from the wild. If a hundred frogs are collected by Amer-Indian tribes people and stuffed into bottles, then stored under their huts until somebody comes by and offers them a few cents for each bottle, then drags the frogs around the country of origin until they reach some port city, then onto some ill-equipped ship for a long voyage to a big ill-equipped warehouse in Miami, where they may or may not be treated for illness, and sold as quickly as possible to whoever will pay for them, who gets the small percent of surviving frogs into the hobby.

It's clear that the current method provides that the fewest number of alleles are conserved through this sort of collecting. This is why the many calls for "new blood" (!) from the hobby really don't make much sense. Unless we overhall the ways in which frogs are collected from the wild, we only ensure that we are importing "weakened" bloodlines into the hobby.

IMO, Richard.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

As I thought this over, I seem to remember seeing a lot about "larger" frogs and "larger" tadpoles. It's easy for us when we use the simplified term for natural selection "survival of the fittest" or "survival of the strongest" to mean that those specimens which are larger or more aggessive are obviously the ones that are going to be selected for and everything else will die off, but the only thing "survival of the fittest" means is its ability to survive. Sometimes bigger is better. Bigger animals can dominate other smaller animals. But there are other specimens out there that are also selected because, for instance, while they may give up size they may gain speed which would allow for escape from predator (even cannibalistic tadpoles). Point being if we only artifically select (I think it's been settled that any selection in captivity would be artificial) only the largest, boldest, most aggressive specimens we would be over-looking other factors that are more difficult to select for or even notice in a captive environment.

Nicholas, many of us do not let froglets that have severe deformities or that can't get out of broms/grow-out tanks live. The most obvious case would be frogs with SLS. There are some froggers out there that try to keep SLS froglets alive, but I have a feeling most of them fail. I remember seeing a post a while back, a member had a frog that morphed out with five legs. The frog was functional so the member took pity on the frog and took full ownership of its well-being. Even though this member had pity on the frog, it was still not allowed to get out into the hobby where someone might try to breed the frog and was not allowed to breed in this member's collection. Sometimes there are other ways to deal with deformed specimens that equivocate some form of selection without needing to cull the frog.

Ed, I'm curious (if you remember, I won't make you dig through all the literature) what kind of photoperiod and spectrum of light during development encourage the largest frogs.


----------



## Nicholas (Mar 16, 2010)

that brings a great point to the table... largest and strongest is only the as you put it "easiest" way to help describe what i was thinking... 

But most certainly, agreed it does not have to be the largest and strongest, it could also be the fastest and quickest, like this frog's main escape plan is to hop away quickly... soooooo this frog here has a greater hopping ability than this one. and is a bit faster, so maybe i should breed that one.... ect...

but ed got me to a point of thinking that variety maybe the best way to help ensure the longevity of healthy bit of frogs with a good genetic pedigree 

it would definitely suck if all the frogs died off

but it would suck even more if we didn't take care of what we got properly so when we would have to re-populate a species or morph that it would not be able to sustain it's self in the wild...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Ed, I'm curious (if you remember, I won't make you dig through all the literature) what kind of photoperiod and spectrum of light during development encourage the largest frogs.


I was just reviewing some of it... ideally a photoperiod of that stays close to 12:12 (a little longer (no more than 14:10) is better than shorter in a number of species). Exposure to red light and UVB (UVB is dose dependent) can induce metamorphosis at a smaller size. The reason for this is that melatonin plays an important role in timing of and metabolism of metamorphosis. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Nicholas said:


> but it would suck even more if we didn't take care of what we got properly so when we could have to re-populate a species or morph that it would not be able to sustain it's self in the wild...


Just to make it clear.... currently there are no frogs in the hobby that meet the standards for repatriation/reintroductions so that is highly unlikely to occur unless there are significant changes to how the hobby operates. 

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Ed, to clarify, it is better to _avoid_ red light and UVB if possible while still providing a 12:12 photoperiod?

This is a question I've had for a while but opportunity hasn't really arisen to ask it, but: what specific changes need to be made in the hobby to meet reintroduction standards? I've read a lot of old threads that have suggested that we make changes, but I haven't seen any specific suggestions of specific changes that need to be made.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Ed, to clarify, it is better to _avoid_ red light and UVB if possible while still providing a 12:12 photoperiod?
> 
> This is a question I've had for a while but opportunity hasn't really arisen to ask it, but: what specific changes need to be made in the hobby to meet reintroduction standards? I've read a lot of old threads that have suggested that we make changes, but I haven't seen any specific suggestions of specific changes that need to be made.


The literature is pointing towards avoiding excesses at either end (outside of what is commonly seen in natural sunlight). Keep in mind that occasional disruptions aren't a problem but continual changes to photoperiods can have signficant impacts. It is hard to be specific with photoperiod as there are significant differences in response not only betweeen species but within the species. 

None of the animals currently in the hobby are suitable for reintroductions/repatriation as 
1) there is little effort to stabilize the maximal allele frequency within the populations
2) the animals to be considered for reintroduction would have to have been housed in a manner that prevented the risk of aquiring pathogens/parasites novel to that population. Animals would have to be housed with some level of biosecurity to prevent this and ideally each locality would not be housed in the same room.... 

Check out some of the references I cited in this thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/lounge/46700-anyone-else-breed-other-reptiles-4.html on why released animals can be a threat to the wild populations. 

Ed


----------

