# Breeding Unknown x unknown, suggested paradigm shift (Poll)



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

*Please read before you vote, there are qualifying statements and conditions that must be met and understood to fairly represent my stance and what I'm proposing*


Ok I went off on a bit of a rant about the red triv situation in this thread...
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ameerega/123065-ameerga-trivitatta-mixing.html *<---(Read that to get a more comprehensive version of my stance)*

And Now I've decided to start a poll to see if the majority is with me on this general stance, or If I've gone rogue 

*Basically as I see it, we are being to strict on nearly identical unknown locality/import year frogs being bred with other such frogs.*

I'm mostly advocating being ok with unknown x unknown, NOT for example: unknown x 2012 imports, though if the frogs are basically identical that may be something we should open up for discussion too in some cases where we have a history of failing to get multiple imports established like in the case of red/orange trivs.

*The reasoning:*
We have these unknown frogs, unknown locale/import years, or someone buys a frog with zero or questionable line/locale info, or we get one random import and then we never hear from these frogs again. The way we've dealt with this till now, has been to basically to say these frogs are untouchable, can't be bred unless somehow something comes in that we can be pretty sure is the same exact line/locale (which with "unknown line/locale" frogs is basically impossible)

So these frogs just go to waste...they fade out of the hobby and maybe in some cases never to return in any form, let alone a known locale form.

We could allow people to breed these basically identical unknowns to each other and at least have a line of frogs in the hobby that is at least fairly representative of some wild population of this species/morph... or we can just do without and hope someday that frog comes in with known locality and in sufficient numbers to get it established in the hobby.

But there is no reason we can't do both as long as we insist on labeling the frogs best we can, like for example: "WC Unknown locality 2012 x CB unknown locality 2009" *

In cases where the frogs exhibits few if any phenotypic or behavior differences and are basically certain to be the same species and morph (this is where it gets a little sketchy... Is a red/orange triv the same morph as a red triv?)... I say we let em slide on this and basically chalk it up to natural variability *

*If for example an argument arises that something is more yellow then orange, but then someone else says it looks orange to me... we take the argument as evidence that we are enough in the ball park to allow an unknown x unknown pairing.*

*Frogs breed, sold/traded under the unknown label basically come with all all the same innate protection that our peer pressure based labeling system grants any transaction of frogs. In the end we mostly just have people's word. *

In fact being so strict may be a motivation for less scrupulous people, or people just out there on their own/out of touch with the main body of the hobby to feel like they need to breed this unknown to something to get some worth out of it, or they just don't know better (under either system we are screwed there, but at least *these frogs could be brought back into the fold when they make it into people hands who do know what is up*). 

So basically it is at least possible that our strictness is in some ways putting us at risk in some instances at least... But if we apply our standard labeling/due diligence practices we really aren't at any more risk, and may actually be protecting ourselves and frog integrity further all while allowing us to have more robust lines of some species/morphs in the hobby, or at least get a specie/morph into the hobby finally that has eluded us or may serve as our our only line when known frogs fade away due to lack of breeding, inbreeding etc..etc... At least we could have some example, some version left in the hobby for people to enjoy... Just label it "unknown pumilio blue striped yellow dotted pumilio line" or something 

This would allow us to bring many frogs out there now back into the fold, without out really putting us or our current frogs integrity at any more risk then they are now. Because in the end for the most part we just have our peer pressure and peoples word to rely on anyways.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

To be a little more clear on what I'm proposing let me use the Triv example...


yellow/orange triv x red triv = Ok

Green triv x greenish yellow triv = ok

Green triv x yellow/orange triv = NO

Green triv x orange orange/red, or red triv = NO

Orange triv x red triv = Ok 

(This all assumes they are basically the WC 2 stripe versions we've been getting for years that mostly come in with unknown locale data. It excludes the greenback morph other known triv imports (most all or which originate from Understory, and then a few cases where importers managed to get some vague locale info from the collectors)


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

Dave not trying to put a "***** in the chain" IMO it all boils down to good/trackable info from sellers. Just because they look similar IMO should not mix until you have all info, up to the buyer/ seller to provide it.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Bcs TX said:


> Dave not trying to put a "***** in the chain" IMO it all boils down to good/trackable info from sellers. Just because they look similar IMO should not mix until you have all info, up to the buyer/ seller to provide it.


That I think is all what we'd all like to see, and we definitely should continue our efforts to pressure import/exporters to get and provide that info. but that isn't always going to be the reality or the reality with some frogs already out there. Some of these frogs in the hobby now, don't have info, never will and there is nothing to do but let them fade away or find a way to keep them valid and viable in the hobby. *We can bring these frogs back into the fold in a manageable way that really doesn't subject us to any more risk then we are currently shouldering.*

What concerns me though is all the frogs that it has become to late for, or have slipped through the cracks and are out there in our hobby, often in the hands of people who don't care, or don't know better. I think we are handling them all wrong. 

We've adopted this let em fade away mentality which basically IMO sucks because these frogs do not have to be invalid in our hobby. In fact they could serve as our back up in case some of our old lines start puttering out due to small numbers, lack of breeding, inbreeding, unpopularity, etc...

We are getting to the point where the hobby has been around long enough and grown large enough that is is difficult to track all the branching points back to their origin. Some of the old time froggers that these lines originated from are no longer in the hobby or eventually won't be.

Humans don't live forever so at some point we are going to be completely reliant on a string of promises from a crap ton of people. Oh wait that is pretty much the point we are at. And because of the branching from the origin and the fact the person at the origin is no longer in the hobby or deceased this is just going to get worse.

In the end we are relying on mostly people's ethics/word to validate the integrity of the best most known frogs in the hobby with our peer pressure/labeling system as it is, why not extend this to unknown x unknown breeding events in the case of frogs that by most or all accounts seem nearly identical? True we may be wrong, but at least we can perpetuate these frogs in the hobby and have something to keep in our vivs if new known locality/moprhs don't come in. 

Basically I'm just talking about making use of the unknown frogs in the hobby and giving people some practical guidelines on how to deal with them, and when/where they can be bred to other unknown frogs and when they can't.

*Our current methodology and attitude IMO is build on a lot of hopes, dreams, promises, and wishful thinking... Not a particularly good system, and one that excludes a lot of frogs floating around out there.

If 2 people have 2 green and bronze looking auratus and neither have origin info why not allow them to breed and label them "unknown g & b auratus pairing"?... How does that put us at any more risk then what we are currently doing? As long as we enforce the same peer pressure/labeling system as we do on other frogs the risks are equal.*

We have more frogs in the hobby that can be kept and bred to perpetuate the hobby and perhaps one day save it if the genetics of all these very small founder populations start to fail us, or known line/locality frogs fade away due to not being popular or at least become much more rare... Under the revised system I propose we'd at least get to have more of a chance to have some frog in the hobby that is similar to those frogs we used to keep while not really taking on any more risk.

P.S. this is all said with a  so please don't take it any other way


----------



## bradlyb (Jul 22, 2013)

This is a question I have pondered with my snakes. I breed two species, Lampropeltis geluta and Lampropeltis alterna (or California Kingsnake and Grey Banded Kingsnakes respectively). The trends in the hobby differ by species. Much like Pythons, California Kings are bred for morphs, or genetic mutations, and locality specimens are in little demand. On the flip side, grey banded kings are typically locality bred, where localities are considered to be different road cuts that could be within less then a mile of each other.

There are some very obvious differences between these and our frogs. Though the California Kings are bred between very isolated populations (like Northern California X Baja California) one thing I debate (with myself) is what the actual goals of our breeding are.

Why do we breed localities together? Is it for conservation purposes? To represent local populations? Or should we be driving to maintain genetic diversity?

By breeding few specimens together that are locality specific we are essentially line breeding within the trade, which homogenizes the traits of our frogs and limits genetic diversity, and in turn can eventually produce dissimilar specimens then the populations we are trying to emulate. Is this beneficial in the long run? 

(Think genetic drift vs gene flow)

I may have missed some of my own points here, I have been writing off and on for over an hour when I have breaks at work. I'll add more later.


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

No problem Dave. I see your point, I tend to be short on words and you are well....the opposite. IMO yes there are frogs that go in and out of popularity,then hard to find, which makes tracking lineage difficult, a shame because all of them have their merits (my first frogs were bb auratus still in my collection and will not sell them). I still do my homework so to say a better way to match breeders than the visual methods.
I will say Mark Pepper has done a great job making the ameerga and pepperi available to the hobby and before throwing this and that together, I would send them an e-mail, Elaine and Mark are great to share info and advice.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

bradlyb said:


> This is a question I have pondered with my snakes. I breed two species, Lampropeltis geluta and Lampropeltis alterna (or California Kingsnake and Grey Banded Kingsnakes respectively). The trends in the hobby differ by species. Much like Pythons, California Kings are bred for morphs, or genetic mutations, and locality specimens are in little demand. On the flip side, grey banded kings are typically locality bred, where localities are considered to be different road cuts that could be within less then a mile of each other.
> 
> There are some very obvious differences between these and our frogs. Though the California Kings are bred between very isolated populations (like Northern California X Baja California) one thing I debate (with myself) is what the actual goals of our breeding are.
> 
> ...



You brought up "Goals" and that is an important question for us to consider in this issue.

I think our goals that most apply here are...

1. To have captive frogs, preferably CB that accurately represent their wild cousins.

2. To maintain genetic integrity in the hope that if necessary some day our captive frog may aid in replenishing wild populations/reintroduction.

So let's address those goals and the effect unknown x unknown may have on them...

1. I get this, and I support it... But as it stands right now we are just letting unknowns fade away or people are unknowingly or secretly breeding them to either other unknowns or mixing them with known frogs... 

Allowing a system that gives people more options or anticipates errant behavior allows us to in a way self correct when these frogs make it to the people who know what is up and are following the general will of the hobby... Thus we get to have our cake and eat it to... and at no more risk because all that bad crap is going to still happen if we do nothing, and if we do what I propose we may limit it some, or at least be able to compensate for it and keep frogs valid, or make invalid frogs valid in some way. 

2. This is probably a pipe dream, but supposing it isn't we are still subject to the same risks with either system since they both rely on people's word. Even the frog tracking efforts can't negate that.

I can easily get a WC red triv say it is DFC line and register it if I want to... who's going to stop me? I am going to stop myself cuz I'm a fairly ethical guy, but not everyone is going to play by the rules, so the same risk exist either way only my proposed change may limit it by allowing more options and compensating for ignorant or deviant behavior and allowing us to separate out and to some extent keep better track of these unknowns if/when they finally enter the hands of responsible keepers.

Again with a labeling system for unknowns we have all the same protections of the current system, and probably a few more overall...and far fewer frogs need be considered invalid and allowed to fade from the hobby. 

The current system only works if eventually all invalid frogs are eliminated now and for all time, and all future frogs that enter the system either all die out before we get more known imports of the same frog. 

If they only come in once or twice and don't result in a sustainable population, they'll end up being dead end frogs, and thus invalid for any breeding even if there are other frogs floating around that seem identical and are the same species/morph but have unknown locality... Wasted, and possibly never to be seen again in captive collection once those few frogs die.

*The new system should probably start only with unknown x unknown.* Where things get tricky is when we start looking into letting "SNDF pumilio 09 with locale data x unknown" or "Strictly pumilio unknown locale 05" events occur. I would agree then it becomes potentially more convoluted and risky, but as long as we stick to unknown x unknown we incur no more risk then we already have. People are free to be as ethical or unethical as they have ever been but at least some might have options that would allow them to give into their better nature.

* So just allowing unknown x unknown (when virtually identical) allows us to re-validate many invalid/dead end frogs, potentially limits future risk, does nothing to cause more risk, except allowing these frogs to exist longer and possibly fall into ignorant and/or deviant hands, but does nothing to upset the rest of the status quo
*

*In red is the one risk I see with my proposed change... 
Is that one risk worth all these invalid/dead end frogs (especially when in some ways it compensates or diminishes the need/desire of that deviant behavior that causes or perpetuates them), ?
Or have we grossly overreacted to the threat at the cost of the hobby as a whole?*


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

We've got 2 confused votes so far, and my guess is that is related to (Me talking funny, and...) differentiating between "unknown x unknown breeding events" and "unknown x known events". 
For now lets focus on unknown x unknown events that involve virtually identical frogs, and insist they be labeled as unknown (and any possible differences noted. In essence full disclosure) 
For the purposes of this poll imports that are only designated by a month/year/ and or vendor and do not come with solid locality info will be considered "unknown".

So the revised system would allow you to breed your "man creek 08" to "man creek 09" (which I bet many have been doing anyways), or "unknown red and yellow pumilio 07 to unknown red and yellow 2013" (fictional frogs as far as I know), assuming both frogs are nearly identical, and preferably there is some consensus that each group of imports had similar variability and behavior, size, etc...


*So you ok with that?
If they do that, and label it right when the 2 frogs are virtually identical and known to at least be the same species?*

That's what I'm asking


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Moved to beginner section? Hmm, I've been in the hobby almost 10 years and I still find knowing what can be bred to what and what the hobby community will accept confusing/difficult to determine sometimes


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

The honor system does NOT WORK. Labeling 
"Unknowns" as such is great, until the seller can't sell them.... Then they become whatever they can sell them as. 
Unknown import location pumilio from different years with similar phenotype might be the only exception. These are not a beginner frog, and are unlikely to be pawned off as something they are not.

I would seriously not support this behavior. Wanna make $$ breeding frogs? Buy breeder stock from reputable sources so there is no confusion. Be responsible breeders!!!! Don't help people make excuses!


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

frogparty said:


> The honor system does NOT WORK. Labeling
> "Unknowns" as such is great, until the seller can't sell them.... Then they become whatever they can sell them as.
> Unknown import location pumilio from different years with similar phenotype might be the only exception. These are not a beginner frog, and are unlikely to be pawned off as something they are not.
> 
> I would seriously not support this behavior. Wanna make $$ breeding frogs? Buy breeder stock from reputable sources so there is no confusion. Be responsible breeders!!!! Don't help people make excuses!


I get where you're coming from, but we need to be careful not to oversimplify nor be reactionary...
*
We are already on the honor system.* And if we start accepting unknown lines into the hobby as long as they are labeled, kept separate just like we do other lines, and people don't get attacked for breeding/buying them, then we negate the "can't sell them so label something we can sell" problem.

Nothing prevents people from doing what you're talking about with their frogs right now other then the vendor or some other hobbyist ratting them out. The revised system would give some people/frogs a little more flexibility and we could perpetuate those pumilio imports that came in and label them "unknown line" and we would essentially have the same amount of protection when dealing with those lines as we do known lines.
*
The only increased risk is there would just be more frogs out there that theoretically could be mixed with our known lines by ignorant or unscrupulous people, but this revision gives us a way to mitigate that to some degree.
*
When those frogs or the offspring of those frogs make it into the hands of a good hobbyist In some cases they could be reentered into the hobby under the "unknown line" label and used to perpetuate that yellow and red pumilio in the hobby so we'd at least have some frog in the hobby that to a fair degree represented a frog that exists or once existed in the wild. *(So this could allow is in the future to save something that is very very similar to an endangered or now extinct species. Better then nothing/complete extinction isn't it?) *

*And instances like the pumilio example is basically exactly what I'm talking about,* nothing more...

The red/orange triv example is essentially the same issue. Lots of frogs have come in with no locality data but are nearly identical and/or only have small variations in spotting or hue. Like one is clearly orange, one is very red, one is light orange... Very easily could be natural variability in the population and/or result of loosing color because of captive diet. 

It is instances like that where I'm talking about us loosening up a bit, and allowing an "unknown x unknown" breeding event.

The problem with the current system is it assumes that if we harp on people enough to never buy unknown frogs, always insist importers get locality data when offering new frogs etc...etc.. is that we have no recourse when that doesn't happen or someone forgets/looses line info, a new person who is ignorant buys frogs and breeds them before joining the forums, or a new unscrupulous person enters the hobby. 

So either way we are just as screwed, only with the proposed change in some cases we have a recourse, and a little bit of leeway (which may be enough to prevent some semi unscrupulous people from screwing us over).

It is wishful thinking that we will ever end unknown/dead end frogs... What if someone dies? Collection goes to family, frogs breed, they sell them not knowing better because they don't frequent Dendroboard. What were the lines? Who bought them? What did they breed them to? No idea, and we couldn't do anything to stop it, but the proposed change may allow some of those frog to be diverted into unknown line category even after changing hands a few times. As it is now we can only hope we catch it before it happens or convince someone not to breed them... but that is only if we get to those people in time, and we often don't. 

As the hobby grows the problem grows, and this gives us a way to deal at least in part with those issues. *Nothing says we can't still encourage due diligence, demand locality info from importers, etc... *

P.S. How many instances were there of man creek/almirante (or however it is spelled) being called "strawberry dart frog", or "blue jeans", and how many almirante got crossed with man creeks? This revision allows us to use all the same tools we have been using to fight these problems, and introduces a new one, allowing us in some instances to recover/cope with instances like the pumilio example.

Once the person was informed their frog was suspect it could go into the unknown Red/blue legged pumilio pool, and they wouldn't have to feel so screwed or limited... nor would they likely be as motivated to pull the wool over someone's eyes in the future,if they could breed those frogs with other nearly identical unknowns, and the sales were accepted into the hobby. Thus the revision actually protects us more then harms us in this case, and the hobby benefits by having another example of red/blue legged pumilio similar to blue jeans, man creek and almirante if ever something should happen to those known line frogs... At least we'd have something fairly representative of them for our hobby and even possible reintroduction. That wouldn't be the ideal frog to reintroduce to replace extinct blue jeans in the wild but it might be the next best thing in some cases.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

*Could the people voting "Confused", please post about what is confusing them so I/we can at least try to clarify?*


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

I'd like to hear people's ideas on the Sipaliwini's. It seems as though people are breeding greens with blues and yellows, and all the people I've talked to have an unknown line. However, they still remain very popular frogs, and their offspring is obviously fertile, making their genetics very similar. 

I guess my point is... this is already happening, isn't it?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Fantastica said:


> I'd like to hear people's ideas on the Sipaliwini's. It seems as though people are breeding greens with blues and yellows, and all the people I've talked to have an unknown line. However, they still remain very popular frogs, and their offspring is obviously fertile, making their genetics very similar.
> 
> I guess my point is... this is already happening, isn't it?


Well they're not supposed to be (as far as I know)...
But those frogs have been popping up a lot lately it seems. I swear for like 5 years I didn't hear anything about sips hardly except when I was trying to figure out if I had yellow or green sips because the true yellow were pretty rare and had high price/trade value, but it turned out that I most likely had greens. I think they died due to some pathogen in the tank, or a euphorbia plant I pruned and didn't know was toxic at the time... so it became a mute point.

But ya supposedly they are variable and that is why you are seeing blue sip pics with green sips in the mix and vise versa... I'm not sure what to make of it. But while I'm not sure if we ever had good origin data on those (I'm not a tinc buff), I'm fairly sure breeding green to blue to yellow etc... was bad. They were all considered distinct morphs, yet there was some variability and sometimes a blue would throw a green, and greens would sometimes throw very yellow offspring. Frankly I'm not sure we ever really knew for sure what was what with the sips, but like I said I'm no tinc expert, nor am an encyclopedia of hobby history . 

But I think a lot of things happen that we never hear about. I think there is a lot more of "Well this frog looks identical to that frog, and what they don't know won't hurt them" going on then some of us would like to believe.

That is one reason why I'm proposing this system, because it means less reason for people to feel a need to keep secrets and allows us to cope with the issue in yet another way beyond the methods we already employ, but we still get to use those methods too. Yes there would be more unknowns out there and that is a risk, but new unknowns are would still happen even if we stick to the current system, because not everyone tracks their line info, does their due diligence, nor knows to rules and a few don't care even if they do know.

So despite our best efforts unknown/dead end lines are still going to occur, but in secret much of the time. We can't stop it because there are always new people coming in and out of the hobby, and others that really never get involved in the community online or in real life much, except to sell frogs occasionally. 

This revision would shine a light on things and give many a chance in a way validate their frogs, and have no need to do unscrupulous things in the shadows. It makes it easier for people to do the right thing, while only incurring minimal additional risk while at the same time mitigating some risks.

We could even go so far on the boards to insist that vendors post pics of the parent frogs in any DB, DD, DFZ, or PDF forum Ads if we could get the admins of those boards to agree to that. Then we can evaluate their phenotypic similarity for ourselves.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

It is true that the honor system fails easily. But look at it this way say you breed an unknown into a line for whatever reason. If you stick with the line, eventually over time the genes of unknown are unlikely to remain. In various hybrids they will say something like after X generations its pure bred again. I realize that isn't always true but its likely. 

If unknown x unknown becomes commonplace then I think that means even reputable breeders will start doing it and then those stocks get out to people who pass them off as specific lines. 

Basically it's not a black or white issue, its an odds issue. If you frown upon it in the hobby it reduces the likely hood of it becoming a problem that comes back to specifically effect you. That said plenty of the older frogs are just sold as the species and no one has a clue what the morph is. And ya I agree there are probably plenty of people who strait up lie. Like say you go to a show and you say to a vendor I want an F1 Azureus, he looks it over and grabs 2 from the back and says there you go buddy, but all he has are older unknown line CB azureus. If a sales man knows what you want, not all, but many of them will deliver it. Any time you as a buyer play your cards up front you have a HIGH risk of getting conned like this. So don't tell people what you want, ask people what they have. That will also lesson unknowns. And also look for signs like the breeder actually writes all the info including species, morph, line right on the container. 

As far as ethics are concerned, I have no real problem with unknowns, or just species populations in the hobby. But as others say its a slippery slope. Everyone in this hobby who breeds is looking for frogs that fetch more money, perhaps the real problem with liars is ultimately us, the buyers. If we demand F1s, Demand UE line and are willing to pay more for it, well then we bring incentive to lie. If we just said we are only going to pay price X for species Y maybe it would reduce the reasons to be deceptive.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

I can step in here. I saw pictures of the original importation of Sip and they were all mixed up color-wise. Blue, yellow, green, they all arrived in the original importation. As far as I'm concerned they should all be breed together, but hobbyist don't seem to work that way. The various lines we have now are artificial. I believe these self imposed restrictions on what can breed with what is doing more harm to the community than it is helping. But I've said that before (and will likely get into it again, but not here).

Best,

Chuck



Dendro Dave said:


> I'm fairly sure breeding green to blue to yellow etc... was bad. They were all considered distinct morphs, yet there was some variability and sometimes a blue would throw a green, and greens would sometimes throw very yellow offspring.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

chuckpowell said:


> I can step in here. I saw pictures of the original importation of Sip and they were all mixed up color-wise. Blue, yellow, green, they all arrived in the original importation. As far as I'm concerned they should all be breed together, but hobbyist don't seem to work that way. The various lines we have now are artificial. I believe these self imposed restrictions on what can breed with what is doing more harm to the community than it is helping. But I've said that before (and will likely get into it again, but not here).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


Chuck, 
Is this because the importers split this frog into different groups based on color alone? How would the general hobby know any of this information without getting it from the importer firsthand?


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

At least one breeder tried to breed for the "green" morph only.

Yellow and blues still pop out of greens, though.

It does appear that at least a few of the "yellow sip" varieties that have been offered the past few years are different then the green/blue/yellow sips.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

chuckpowell said:


> I can step in here. I saw pictures of the original importation of Sip and they were all mixed up color-wise. Blue, yellow, green, they all arrived in the original importation. As far as I'm concerned they should all be breed together, but hobbyist don't seem to work that way. The various lines we have now are artificial. I believe these self imposed restrictions on what can breed with what is doing more harm to the community than it is helping. But I've said that before (and will likely get into it again, but not here).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


Thanks Chuck, that was new info for me. I had assumed given that we've been treating these as individual lines/morphs that they were all separate importations. If we've had a reputable eye witness all this time, why did we do this and, why are we continuing this?




Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Chuck,
> Is this because the importers split this frog into different groups based on color alone? How would the general hobby know any of this information without getting it from the importer firsthand?


We shouldn't stand for importers just deciding if something is going to be a morph/line. We definitely need to continue to demand more transparency/info from importer/exporters, and it would probably be helpful if we updated care sheets regularly with new import info, regardless if we have a paradigm shift or not. 



Blue_Pumilio said:


> At least one breeder tried to breed for the "green" morph only.
> 
> Yellow and blues still pop out of greens, though.
> 
> It does appear that at least a few of the "yellow sip" varieties that have been offered the past few years are different then the green/blue/yellow sips.


I had some sold to me as yellows years back, but then it appears there was some confusion and they were greens. They originated from an EU import. I can tell you those frogs were damned yellow though. None looked green at all. I think I had 3, maybe 4. I don't know if they were part of the batch that Chuck saw or not, or came from the same EU breeding population. I'd be curious to know, but probably never will.

My guess is there has been some intentional and unintentional mixing with the sips. I guess it will be up to the hobby if they wanna continue to essentially line breed these frogs (which is generally frowned upon), or just decide they are all the same frog and start mixing, similar to the escudo colors.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Hi Dave,

You can't blame the importers for this one. They were all imported and sold as Sip's, I believe. It was hobbyist that started the green, yellow, blue designations. Some later importers followed those designations. Then there was the controversy about them not being true Sip after Ron Gagliardo wrote the article in ADG Newsletter about collecting azureus with the Baltimore Aquarium. I believe this is true but the name stuck. 

The importers are businessmen and their going to do whatever makes them the most money and it looks like business is good judging by the prices I've seen in the last year. If people would stop lusting after wild caught animals prices would go down. And, in my opinion, we haven't yet learned how to keep our animals as well as they do in the wild. Wild animals are larger and more colorful - lets learn to do that with our cb animals and eliminate the need for wc animals. 

Best,

Chuck



Dendro Dave said:


> Thanks Chuck, that was new info for me. I had assumed given that we've been treating these as individual lines/morphs that they were all separate importations. If we've had a reputable eye witness all this time, why did we do this and, why are we continuing this?
> 
> We shouldn't stand for importers just deciding if something is going to be a morph/line. We definitely need to continue to demand more transparency/info from importer/exporters, and it would probably be helpful if we updated care sheets regularly with new import info, regardless if we have a paradigm shift or not.


----------



## zedly (Jul 19, 2013)

well im surprised my noob question was enough to spark such a debate! here's my 2 cents on all this and keep in mind i'm a noob and i'm sure there are more like-minded individuals out there right now.

I have a red triv. according to DFC it is found in the rainforest of Suriname.
I've been looking around to find something from the same area but i have not been able to do so. I want to breed my red triv, but not for profit. i want to breed him because i enjoy raising animals and it would be fun for me to deal with tadpoles and more frogs. chances are i'm not going to be able to find another red triv from the same locality so if i can get a frog that is close enough i'm more than likely going to use it to breed my frogs. That said, i doubt i would try to sell my frogs but say i was posting pics because i was proud of having them and someone was interested in them am i supposed to say "sorry i cant sell these frogs because they aren't purebred." no way, i'm going to let him have one even if the locality of the second parent frog was unknown. obviously i'm going to disclose this information to him but that doesn't change the fact that my frogs weren't purebred and are now in the hands of another individual who may have a similar thought process. this behavior may be taboo but i promise i'm not the only one who is going to do something like this and allowing this to happen in a more widely accepted manner would surely give people fewer reasons to lie about their frogs origins.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

zedly said:


> well im surprised my noob question was enough to spark such a debate! here's my 2 cents on all this and keep in mind i'm a noob and i'm sure there are more like-minded individuals out there right now.
> 
> I have a red triv. according to DFC it is found in the rainforest of Suriname.
> I've been looking around to find something from the same area but i have not been able to do so. I want to breed my red triv, but not for profit. i want to breed him because i enjoy raising animals and it would be fun for me to deal with tadpoles and more frogs. chances are i'm not going to be able to find another red triv from the same locality so if i can get a frog that is close enough i'm more than likely going to use it to breed my frogs. That said, i doubt i would try to sell my frogs but say i was posting pics because i was proud of having them and someone was interested in them am i supposed to say "sorry i cant sell these frogs because they aren't purebred." no way, i'm going to let him have one even if the locality of the second parent frog was unknown. obviously i'm going to disclose this information to him but that doesn't change the fact that my frogs weren't purebred and are now in the hands of another individual who may have a similar thought process. this behavior may be taboo but i promise i'm not the only one who is going to do something like this and allowing this to happen in a more widely accepted manner would surely give people fewer reasons to lie about their frogs origins.


There is a reasonable chance that DFC will have more reds, or That people with dfc reds will have some luck. You might be able to get a mate for it then. It is a tad so you got a little while to see how things unfold


----------



## zedly (Jul 19, 2013)

yeah, i mean i'm going to have to wait until it's an adult to be able to sex it so i can get a proper partner so i've still got time to look. That was just a possible scenario


----------

