# unknown epipedobates species



## Shockfrog

Does anyone know exactly what species this is. I've had these for about 1,5 years now but still don't know what they are. I bought a group of these from a Hungarian guy at a German frogday. He told me they where E. pictus. But clearly they are not. They about one centimeter smaller that the Bolivian E. pictus I work with. they sound very different, look different, behave different. 
Please don't bother giving suggestions like E. hahneli or A. femoralis if you don't know it for sure.


----------



## Guest

What about Colostethus inguinalis
Check out the picture here
http://www.dendrobatiden-db.de/show.cgi?a=Colostethus&B=inguinalis&c=D


----------



## Scott

That... is pretty close!

s


----------



## Guest

If I had to make a guess it really resembles E. Bassleri same banding color etc.


----------



## Guest

The picture on the above mentioned website shows them much more washed out they are usually more your frogs color and the dorsal lines extend over their eyes like yours.


----------



## Shockfrog

These frogs are not Colosthetus inguinalis. They don't look like them either.
They really are an Epipedobates species. Anybody???

Remco


----------



## Guest

I would put money on E. Bassleri. That one looks identical to what i've seen.


----------



## khoff

It could be E. Boulengeri. There is a pic of one at the link below.

http://www.frognet.org/gallery/MickBajc ... i_1_Bajcar


----------



## EricM

*unknown Epipe*

Remco,

It definately is an Epipedobates. My first thought is femoralis, it has the body shape of that group and the general color scheme of femoralis. The frog pictured is too robust to be picuts/hahneli group which is the most closely resembling species.

Do you have any info on where it was collected? This may not help much as femoralis and pictus are found together in most countries north of the amazon. Femoralis have basal webbing on the toes which pictus lack.

The femoralis I keep are larger than any pictus/hahneli species that I've seen here in the US, they have a two pitched peep-peep call, not a trill as other Epipes.

Have your frogs started breeding or shown any courting behavior?

Hope this helps
Eric


----------



## Scott

Kevin - I note in his species worked with list that E. boulengeri is something he's familiar with.

s



khoff said:


> It could be E. Boulengeri. There is a pic of one at the link below.
> 
> http://www.frognet.org/gallery/MickBajc ... i_1_Bajcar


----------



## Shockfrog

they are deffinitly not E. bassleri or E. boulengeri. They boulengeri I keep are about half an inch while these are about 3/4 of an inch, they sound very different and look very different too. 
I used to keep E. bassleri too and those are about 2 or 3 times larger, also sound very different and they don't have signal spots where these frogs have 3 pairs of signal spots. 

Femoralis usually are very shy frogs where these are very bold and outgoing. They sounds kinda like E. pictus but alot shorter calls and lesser volume.

They are probably collected in Peru or Brazil (somewhere around the border), so I was told.

My frogs have laid many eggs for me, about 700 till this day and they just started laying again after having stopped for half a year. There's only one big problem which I also see in my E. pictus and sometimes in E. tricolor clutches. The eggs develope normally till after a week or 10 days the larva start to blow up like a balloon and pop. The clutches do seem to get I little better over time but still no viable larva.

Unfortunatly I don't have any better pics, but some can be found on a German website http://www.tropenfroesche.de

Greetings Remco


----------



## chuckpowell

*Epipedobates boulengeri*

If the first finger is longer than the second its probably _E. boulengeri_. They range in size from 15 to 21 mm so .075 inch is in that range. 

Best,

Chuck[/i]


----------



## chuckpowell

*Epipedobates boulengeri*

If the first finger is longer than the second its probably _E. boulengeri_. They range in size from 15 to 21 mm so .075 inch is in that range. 

Best,

Chuck[/i]


----------



## Shockfrog

As you can see in my posts, I am familiar with E. boulengeri and it sure isn't that. My boulengeri are even smaller, lacking any flashmarks and produce a very different call.

Greetings Remco


----------



## jbeetle

Is the belly coloration white, or something else?


----------



## Shockfrog

It's white...

Greetings Remco


----------



## Guest

This looks alot like Epipedobates cainarachi. Your image is pretty washed out making it difficult to compare the actual coloration. Here is a pic of an 
E. cainarachi. Hope this helps.

-Bill J.


----------



## Guest

I'm nearly positive it isn't... from what I remember they have more of a red back and definitely have gorgeous blue on the underside and some of the legs/sides. I don't know what it is, but something in the E. femoralis group certainly would make sense.
j


----------



## jbeetle

I am with Yeager, it doesn't look like any cainarachi I have ever seen (which are few lol) or have heard described. E. cainarachi has much more color then this frog, although I personaly find your unknown frog very beautiful.


----------



## jbeetle

*E. pictus?*

I know you said it isn't like your other E. pictus, but here are some pics of E.pictus that look just like yours:


















Cool, frog... wish I could get some lol. THe pics are from this site: http://www.dendrobates.hu


----------



## Shockfrog

Those are pictures of the species that I keep. I also bought mine as E. pictus, but I doubt they are pictus. This guy probably doesn't doubt because he does not keep real E. pictus and cannot compare. 

Greetings Remco


----------



## jbeetle

I have also recently heard that there are lots of different E. pictus morphs/localities... so maybe it is just from another location then your other pictus, but still is a pictus??? Maybe lol. Really cool frogs though, love their patterns (top and bottom) as well as those brighte flash marks.


----------



## RSines

Hey,
Not to jump on this late, but Jon may have a point. 

Here is a picture of E. pictus which looks identical to your frog. (bottom right)

http://www.tropical-experience.nl/artic ... &submenu=0 

Intresting topic.

-Richard


----------



## jbeetle

Not to get off topic, but on the same page Richard posted the link for there is a *very* nice E. bassleri  . I really want some of them lol.


----------



## RSines

Haha.


----------



## KeroKero

*Can of worms...*

To throw out another species name without going by anything but a picture, why not E. petersi?

http://www.dendrobates.hu/english/index.html - click on gallery, first frog top left.



jbeetle said:


> I have also recently heard that there are lots of different E. pictus morphs/localities... so maybe it is just from another location then your other pictus, but still is a pictus??? Maybe lol. Really cool frogs though, love their patterns (top and bottom) as well as those brighte flash marks.


The genus epipedobates has not exactly been studied well compared to other groups we commonly kept in the hobby. Many of these species have massive ranges and very color wise and build/size wise over these ranges and may actually be species complexes we have yet to break down. Our captive populations rarely show the range (except maybe in modern auruatus or tincs we get a view) but rather get very select and different populations (different enough to start a new market for them, new and different looking stuff is what we tend to go for). What we keept fighting over might indeed just be another form of pictus or it could be a different species currently held as E. pictus until further study. D. auratus used to be held as D. tinctorius auratus until the species was more closely examined. More thumbnail species are being 'discovered' in peru not just because people are looking around, but rather taking a closer look and breaking down the D. vent species complex into the populations that are distinct enough by someone's definition to be a species.

Maybe the vendor was wrong, maybe he only said what he knew (what HE was told) and that might actually be all anybody knows. Its not garenteed that frog has even been seen by science before it was collected. It would be interesting to get some of those frogs genetically tested and see where they fall. For now, E. 'pictus' might be the best name for it until you either find out exactly where they were collected and find out what that population is called, or send off a sample to be genetically tested.

Ok, thats my bit. I'm off to bed... I've got tents to fix tomorrow.


----------

