# Dendrobates duelmanni



## NickJR (Jul 28, 2011)

Is this species available Dendrobates duelmanni

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

Not that I am aware of.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

It doesn't even exist at all! It's now Ranitomeya ventrimaculata.


----------



## frog dude (Nov 11, 2011)

...which still doesn't exist! Most R. ventrimaculata was reclassified as R. Amazonica! I remember hearing that what wasn't reclassified as Amazonica was moved into the variabilis group, but nobody sells 'R. variabilis, formally Ventrimaculata' So I am not completely sure.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Right, ventrimaculata as was known for years doesn't exist because the original description for that taxa was actually what was long called duelmannii. The same frog was described again later on (this is where the name duelmannii comes from). According to the rules of taxonomy, the first name takes presidance, meaning the frog "duelmannii" is actually ventrimaculata. Originally variabilis was to be sunk into the old "ventrimacula", sans the new amazonica. Since the name ventimaculata was already taken, variabilis held presidence, so all the "non-amazonica" vents are now variabilis, while duelmannii is ventrimaculata.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Check it.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...u4CABw&usg=AFQjCNHS1_FBvMHCDs7Wk31-2IlLPTLqKQ


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

I swear the only thing missing from Jason's explanation is ...

There is *no* ... rule six!

s

[yes, it's a little obscure, but google it if you're unawares.  ]


----------



## EthanA (Feb 10, 2013)

Up Here in Canada, we have 4 morphs of ventrimaculata, 'rodyll', 'borja ridge', 'iquitos', and 'backwater'. With the changes in taxonomy, 'rodyll', 'borja ridge', and 'backwater' are now variabilis, and the 'iquitos' is amazonica. But most people still just call them vents


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Here is the article on the recent revisions of Ranitomeya:

Dendrobates.org - Publications

And an excerpt from above article: 

"For the poison frog enthusiast, these changes can be summarized as follows:

- Everything that used to be called duellmani is now called ventrimaculata
- Everything that used to be called ventrimaculata is now called variabilis
- Everything that was called variabilis is still called variabilis"

Amazonica is still amazonica. New data suggests that it is a valid taxa. So, any Red or Orange frogs from the old ventrimaculata group are now amazonica (eg. Iquitos vents are now (still) amazonica).


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Couple people contradicting eachother.....which one is the right one?

And where do the new arena blanca fall?


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

Mark Pepper listed this:Ranitomeya amazonica - "Arena Blanca" -


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

As far as what's available in the hobby ....

Amazonica: old line red, old line gold, Iquitos, Arena Blanca, French Guiana

Variabilis: Borja Ridge, Blackwater, Highland, Southern

As far as Rodyll, I can't find any confirmation one way or the other.

EDIT: 1: I may be wrong about Blackwater. 2: Another name for Rodyll is Pongo de Cainarachi, so maybe it can be figured out from there.


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Which they are red. But so are blackwater but someone above said they are something different.

I just call variabilis variabilis and the vents vents. What they all were before. I'd like to see the real answer though.....

I don't get what the purpose of this change really was. Same with the lamasi/sirens is. The genus changes did make sense though....just my opinion.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

The purpose of the species changes was to try and make all the species monophyletic. The names are there to show relationships. It was shown that lamasi and biolat fit comfortably within sirensis. It was also shown that amazonica, long disputed as a valid taxon, is indeed a separate species. It was also shown that variabilis and what were called ventrimaculata are, as was long thought , a single species. Although it's a little confusing, switching the hobby to the new names now will keep even worse confusion from happening in the future.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

These changes were all made official (Zoobank.org has the final say on taxonomical names) in 2011. This is referenced in the first line of the summary posted first by Jason as a downloadable .pdf, and second by me via a link to said summation. This is not new information, relatively speaking. We are (should be) responsible for keeping up with these changes. In almost two years, this information should be the standard, not the exception.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

epiphytes etc. said:


> Right, ventrimaculata as was known for years doesn't exist because the original description for that taxa was actually what was long called duelmannii. The same frog was described again later on (this is where the name duelmannii comes from). According to the rules of taxonomy, the first name takes presidance, meaning the frog "duelmannii" is actually ventrimaculata. Originally variabilis was to be sunk into the old "ventrimacula", sans the new amazonica. Since the name ventimaculata was already taken, variabilis held presidence, so all the "non-amazonica" vents are now variabilis, while duelmannii is ventrimaculata.





Scott said:


> I swear the only thing missing from Jason's explanation is ...
> 
> There is *no* ... rule six!
> 
> ...


I was gonna go with Who's on first?


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> The purpose of the species changes was to try and make all the species monophyletic. The names are there to show relationships. It was shown that lamasi and biolat fit comfortably within sirensis. It was also shown that amazonica, long disputed as a valid taxon, is indeed a separate species. It was also shown that variabilis and what were called ventrimaculata are, as was long thought , a single species. Although it's a little confusing, switching the hobby to the new names now will keep even worse confusion from happening in the future.



Not saying they didn't have their reasons, just saying that is a minor change compared to the genus names. It was a lot less confusing before this change, otherwise these discussions wouldn't be taking place. Back then it was easy.


So what did they determine the difference between a vent and amazonicus? was


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

The hobby never seems to accept changes of nomenclature easily. Science must go forward, however! Hahaha...


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Blue_Pumilio said:


> The hobby never seems to accept changes of nomenclature easily. Science must go forward, however! Hahaha...


I'm not disputing...I like the genus change. I just don't like sirensis. I like the name lamasi better. Ha


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

I feel your pain! As someone who has gone to school for molecular biology I have a keen feeling towards systematics. I'm a splitter if the data supports it, though I personally don't believe in the logic of subspecies.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

mydumname said:


> I'm not disputing...I like the genus change. I just don't like sirensis. I like the name lamasi better. Ha


I friend just recently got some R. sirensis. I like to tease him and call them R. lamasi every chance I get. Hasn't been many chances, but I'm looking forward to more in the future.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

mydumname said:


> So what did they determine the difference between a vent and amazonicus? was



From the link I posted earlier ....
" Phylogenic and bioacoustic evidence support the retention of _R. amazonica_ as a valid species related to _R. variabilis_ as defined by this paper."


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

"Phylogenic and bioacoustic "

And this is why I don't read those papers. 

I reread your earlier post and I think I made sense of it. This quote:

"ventrimaculata as was known for years *doesn't exist *because the original description for that taxa was actually what was long called duelmannii. The same frog was described again later on (this is where the name duelmannii comes from). According to the rules of taxonomy, the first name takes presidance, meaning the frog "duelmannii" is actually ventrimaculata."

The bolded part is what threw me off and why I thought I was reading contradictions. But after rereading it, I follow what you are saying. And why I didn't think it all made sense is here........."According to the rules of taxonomy"...........I didn't know about this. That explains why. They "had" to name it this way. Would have been easy to leave duellmani alone, call what it wanted vents, variabilis, and amazonicus, but cause of the rules, they had to shuffle some things around.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

The rules of taxonomy can be confusing. This particular rule, about the first description, also assures that the origional descriptor retains the credit. It would suck to lose being the first, simply because someone comes along later, and gives a different name to the same example of life. The end result is confusion, but in today's digital age that confusion is so much easier to rectify. Could you imagine having to search for weeks, years even, through University, Zoo, and Museum records/collections, just to make certain the work your claiming as your own is in fact origional? Personally, I feel us froggers are fortunate. I'm sure Jason will agree; try keeping up with kingdom Plantae, much less a genus within Plantae. Those taxonomist must be insane! That is why I've always said: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't lead a horticulture. Dendrobates.org ! Anyone who considers themselves a frogger should have that site bookmarked, and added to their google search function.


----------



## NickJR (Jul 28, 2011)

Ok what vent is this then as I have not seen any like it


http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1735


Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## NickJR (Jul 28, 2011)

Here are pics



























Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

It looks like the Rio Itaya population of R. ventimaculata (duelmannii). It's not in the hobby, but since it's a Peruvian population, we can dream that one day UE will bring them in.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

There are at least 2 other places working with darts in Peru now, so...more chances. 



epiphytes etc. said:


> It looks like the Rio Itaya population of R. ventimaculata (duelmannii). It's not in the hobby, but since it's a Peruvian population, we can dream that one day UE will bring them in.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

If you like the look, have you checked out R. uakarii?









Dendrobates.org - Ranitomeya uakarii


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

EthanA said:


> Up Here in Canada, we have 4 morphs of ventrimaculata, 'rodyll', 'borja ridge', 'iquitos', and 'backwater'. With the changes in taxonomy, 'rodyll', 'borja ridge', and 'backwater' are now variabilis, and the 'iquitos' is amazonica. But most people still just call them vents


Actually blackwater are a amazonica population. As are arena Blanca.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I have always been interested in this frog and somewhat confused by exactly what frog it is...and if it is in the hobby.

When I think Duelmanni, This is basically what I think of...









But I've seen few frogs at least in pics of them in captivity that are that truly red short of retics, and maybe a few pics of red vents (which I wondered if they were what I though of as duelmanni), but often these aren't really all that red, sometimes or seemingly ever (at least the many vent/amy morphs) ... so I have never been sure if any of them were the right frog, it was loss of coloration due to captivity or individual variability, and since I haven't been to the jungle or even seen most of these in captivity (I had gold amys way back in the day, but 99% of my hobby lives online, and pics are all I've seen of many frogs, even some common unless I owned them), I'm still fairly confused/unsure if what I think of as duelmanni is or has ever been in the hobby 

So what the hell is that thing above? A striped retic? A red amy/vent? etc..etc...?

Hell google image search "dendrobates duelmanni" or "frog duelmanni", and look at the variety of crap that comes up, even uakari in there... Is this frog even real? 

Oh and here is an old thread with 2 duelmanni/uakari imports to add to the confusion...
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...uellmani-understory-frogs-ulkarii-import.html


----------

