# Tinctorius reference papers available?



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

I am hoping that some of the Dendroboard members can direct me to reference papers or other publications on the evolutionary biology and/or taxonomy of D. tinctorius and its color morphs. Also, does anyone know of any locality maps that have been put together for D. tinctorius?

Most of my work revolves around endangered native plants of the eastern U.S., which often involves trying to understand the evolutionary biology of these species and their taxonomic relationships to closely allied species and/or hybrids. I have become very interested in rearing and breeding D. tinctorius (in part) due to the seemingly endless variety of color morphs that exist in the hobby. The primary hypothesis that I hear reiterated here and elsewhere is that all of the color morphs are from geographically isolated populations and this is what has led to their unique phenotypes. Given that a number of the morphs I see available to the hobbyist (such as the "yellow sipaliwini") appear to be intermediate between other morphs (here, between the green sipaliwini and citronella), I can't help but wonder if the geographic isolation hypothesis is true, or if we have made selections as part of the collection process based on our own "aesthetic".

If the goal of the PDF community is to conserve the animals in the hobby as close to the forms that exist in nature (which I think is a wonderful goal), then the genetic interactions that might exist between and amongst the various color morphs should be well understood and taken account of. Otherwise, I worry that we are making artificial selections (something akin to breeding purebred dog lines) and concentrating on the pureness of these "bloodlines" at the expense of the natural processes that brought them into being in the first place.

I have been breeding D. leucomelas for about 10 years, but have only begun to concentrate on D. tinctorius in the last 2. I would greatly appreciate any guidance that anyone might be able to share. Thanks in advance,

Richard Lynch (Staten Island, NYC) 718.273.3740, [email protected]

1.1.4 Giant Orange
1.1 Patricias
1.0.4 Citronellas
0.0.3 Powder blues
0.0.4 Oyapocks
1.0.2 Suriname cobalts
0.1 Green sipaliwini
1.1 Azureus
2.2 D. leucomelas
0.0.3 D. auratus (Panamanian)


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Rich,

I think this is what you are looking for 

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

APT Online - Polymorphism Versus Species Richness—systematics of Large Dendrobates from the Eastern Guiana Shield (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae)

some background to recent changes 
ScienceDirect - Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution : Phylogeny and Classification of Poison Frogs (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae), Based on Mitochondrial 16S and 12S Ribosomal RNA Gene Sequences



Ed 

PS: you might want to check out Tree Walkers International - » home if you are interested in long-term sustaining of specific morphs.


----------



## ETwomey (Jul 22, 2004)

You can find some more papers on Brice Noonan's website:
Brice P. Noonan Publications

Also, Tropical Experience has a very nice morph guide:
www.tropical-experience.nl - Dendrobates tinctorius morpghuide

-Evan


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Woodsman said:


> If the goal of the PDF community is to conserve the animals in the hobby as close to the forms that exist in nature (which I think is a wonderful goal), then the genetic interactions that might exist between and amongst the various color morphs should be well understood and taken account of. Otherwise, I worry that we are making artificial selections (something akin to breeding purebred dog lines) and concentrating on the pureness of these "bloodlines" at the expense of the natural processes that brought them into being in the first place.


One more piece of reading to add to your list, pages 30 - 43 of the following:

http://www.treewalkers.org/treeftp/GlobalConservation/ASN/public/ASNHandbook_1_0.pdf

also check your email.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks for the leads here. I found Brice's paper on refugial isolation and secondary contact most interesting, as it helps to explain (through refugial isolation) how the various D. tinctorius morphs came into being and (through secondary contact) how we see the great deal of secondary heterogeneity within the morphs that exist in the hobby. It would be interesting to know which morphs represent the more ancestral (refugial) types and which represent the more derived (or secondarily-derived) types, based on mitochondrial DNA studies or the like.

I am curious to know, though, if the ASN project intends (ideally) to maintain the genetic diversity that would be inherent in 20 unrelated wild PDFs of a given morph, how do we look at the (oft times) non-ideal situation that exists in the hobby today (i.e. no known locality data for color morphs and the obvious in-breeding that has occurred since the animals came into the hobby some years ago) as amenable to the goal of creating potentially wild-restorative populations? Also, given that the community that is currently most active in the rearing and breeding of PDFs is primarily of an amateur nature ("hey mom, look what I bought at the reptile show!!"), shouldn't the work of the ASN be better addressed to zoological collections than to the lay hobbyists?

I profess to know nothing of the ecology of these awesome frogs, except in that I love rearing and breeding those in my collection at present (I had intended to include a good deal of tropical ecological work as part of my career, but the local endangered native plant "scene" ended-up being as much as I could handle). I fully intend to certify as many of the D. tinctorius in my collection as possible and to comply with the goals of the ASN, but I still have some feelings of dread that (given the lack of original collection data for the morphs currently in the trade), we may be creating bloodlines that are too narrowly focused given the profound heterogeneity that probably exists amongst the color morphs in the wild. I'm sure I still have a lot to learn on this subject (!!!) and am always willing to be educated by informed sources!! Thanks again,

Richard Lynch.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Richard,

I am not the best person for explaining how the ASN progect works.. but we are using the same software that Zoos use to register and track genetic relatedness of animals. 

As to your question on Zoological collections, I can easily answer that one.. there is not enough space or money for Zoos to attempt to maintain in the long term more than one species of dendrobatid. At this time, AZA registered Zoos are concentrating on D. tinctorius var azureus and for the most part are not supposed to be keeping other dendrobatids in space that could be used to hold Bufo baxteri, Atelopus zeteki, etc.. This means that for the purposes of diversity there is practically no real diversity in Zoos. For example, when I last checked the Zoo's database, there was only one Zoo in the United States holding R. ventrimaculatus.... and only the D. tinctorius var azureus is being managed in a way to sustain it gentically over time. 

So if the hobbyists don't start managing the frogs we will have the differnet frogs subject to the vagaries of popularity and potentially lose significant genetic variation in the population due to a loss of popularity (as already occured with tricolor/anthyoni). It is not out of the ability of the dedicated hobbyists hands as this path has already been trod by killifish enthusiasts in keeping locality populations alive as well as cichlid keepers. 
Some of the others on TWI are much better equipped to discuss the actual mathmatics behind maintaining the diversity of 20 wc pdfs and how we are addressing those of unknown provence but this task is made simpler by the long lifespan of a number of these frogs in captivity. For example, there are records of D. tinctorius breeding well after 15 years in captivity (and I have worked with tincts this old). 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Hi Richard,

I'm one of the authors of the ASN Handbook and your questions are right on target. For "lines" with origins that are fuzzy or completely lost, our strategy is to maintain the status quo to maintain a "wild type" animal. We feel this has conservation merit by maintaining a captive population of animals that look and act like wild ancestors so we can satsisfy the market for this type of animal without having to continually collect more animals from the wild. Most people don't want or need frogs that are "genetically pure" to a wild population, but without management to preserve wild type genes, we will see the morphology of these animals transition into domestic forms that no longer resembel the original wild stock. We've seen this happen with other captive taxa and often it results in pressure to recollect wild specimens to satisfy the 'wild type' market. So although these animals are not suitable for repatriation in the wild, they still have conservation value in reducing the demand for wild collections.

For those animals that do have reliable pedigrees that trace to single wild populations, we manage those animals as extensions of the zoological collection. Currently ASN as more than 1,300 specimens registered in the ISIS database (the database use by zoological institutions) and for most dendrobatid species, there are more specimens in the TWI "collection" than in any other zoo. In effect, TWI has become an enormous "zoo" which specializes in amphibians and the collective "holdings" of TWI members can now be tracked and managed seamlessly with the zoological collection.

Our approach to minimizing the problems of creating captive lines that are genetically too narrow or too wide is to focus on the population as the unit of conservation. Obviously our understanding of wild populations is lacking so we concentrate on "locality" as a surrogate for population. We begin with the basic assumption that animals collected from the same location are from the same interbreeding population. It is much more difficult to figure out whether animals collected from two localities are from separate populations, or from a single contiguous population. ASN offers a dichomotous decision tree to aid in assigning animals to a population using a logical framework. But it is less than perfect. What we really need is good field data about the distribution and genetic diversity of animals found in the wild. For now, we take a rather conservative approach and use locality as our best surrogate for a population. This way, we can at least manage genetics according to the founders at a locality. If we discover that two localities are part of the same population, we can mix them together later. This should at least restore genetic diversity. Restoring gene frequencies of the larger population would require more work.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Brent,

Thanks so much for the clarification of the aims of the ASN. Given the many "shrouds" that cover both the origins (localities) and the lineages of the PDFs that populate many collections, I was worried that some of these questionable frog lines could be considered for possible reintroduction projects in the future. It's nice to see that there is a clear distinction between those lines that are essentially "educational" and those that represent real opportunities for conservation in the wild.

The flip side of this work (wanting to get PDF populations with known locality data and representing real genetic variability) seems to support the (I think) unconscionable persistent trade in wild caught frogs. How many times have I seen offered for sale "F1" froglets, which clearly identifies the parent frogs as having been wild caught and imported. Whether these importations are legal or not, it seems to run completely contrary to the goals of those who love these frogs and wish to see them persist in the wild. If the wild "takings" were clearly part of establishing the 20 wild caught lines that you estimate would be required to maintain a reasonable amount of heterogeneity for the ASN project, I think most would be supportive. Unfortunately, it seems that the importation of PDFs remains an ad hoc affair (please educate me if I am wrong on this point).

As a relative "newbie" in raising PDFs (I started with standard leucomelas breeding in 1998, but have only expanded my interests to tinctorius morphs in the last two years), it can be difficult to locate frogs of known lineages that could be of some real conservation value. Is there a more defined database of PDF breeders that are TWI/ASN stewards that new hobbyists can purchase frogs from (knowing that they are having an immediate positive impact on the good work of TWI)?

I do tend to write from the top of my head. I promise to read through all the good documents you have created (which, I'm sure, contain all the answers to the questions I've just posed). Any offense to all your good work on behalf of PDFs is entirely unintentional. 

Take care, Richard.


----------

