# Understory (Mark Pepper) Tarapoto discussion (split from wanted ad)



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Mark Pepper has a # of lines of each type of frog that he breeds as far as I know. Since they are sent in a group representing 2-5 or more? different lineages of frogs and we can not know who and if any are related to each other, each person owning frogs from a shipment from Mark should be treated as different lineages and outbred accordingly, even though some of them will be related. There is no single Mark Pepper line of anything that I know of, except maybe Mantellas and they may be wc groups so that there is more than one "line" represented.


----------



## gary1218 (Dec 31, 2005)

*Re: looking for some specifics: thumbs, leucs...*



frogfarm said:


> Mark Pepper has a # of lines of each type of frog that he breeds as far as I know. Since they are sent in a group representing 2-5 or more? different lineages of frogs and we can not know who and if any are related to each other, each person owning frogs from a shipment from Mark should be treated as different lineages and outbred accordingly, even though some of them will be related. There is no single Mark Pepper line of anything that I know of, except maybe Mantellas and they may be wc groups so that there is more than one "line" represented.


Hmmmmmmmmmm.....................So how about tarapoto imitators that came in from Mark Pepper by way of SNDF 12/07??? How are others referring to them?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: looking for some specifics: thumbs, leucs...*

Probably, mistakenly, that they all came from one pair of frogs. You`d have to contact Mark or Marcus to know if there were and how many lines are probably represented. Just my take on things as I`m not sure how many individuals came in or how many pairs he has of each. Just that this is the way it should be done to maximize the gene pool when dealing w/ unknowns.


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: looking for some specifics: thumbs, leucs...*

But - the population info is just as important. So, Gary is right in identifying that he has Tor's Tarapoto (the old line) and some of the new Tarapoto imports (in this case from Mark). These populations shouldn't be mixed.

To maximize genetics - then yes we would ideally need to know what pair of Mark's frogs produced what offspring - and those offspring would remain ID'd from date of morph to date of sale to the buying party. But, at least in my past conversations with Mark, that much specific info isn't available.

As for how many individuals came in, I asked Mark about this some time ago (info to use in the Imitator TMP - which I hope will be finished completed sometime in the near futuer). 

--The founding stock of the Peruvian population of the Tarapoto Imis comprised about a dozen frogs. 
--They produced the F1 stock that Mark is breeding in Canada (a few breeding groups of 5-6 frogs). 
--And, the frogs sold by Understory through Marcus are the offspring of those groups breeding groups.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: looking for some specifics: thumbs, leucs...*

which means we should treat all frogs from Mark as unrelated since we can`t tell which are related, and not breed offspring. Some of Mark`s are unrelated to others that came in. Treating them all like they came from the same pair would be wrong. Anyone who got pairs from the original import may have unrelated genetics which shouldn`t be lost.


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Aaron -

We can't quite assume that they are all unrelated, but we can assume that they all came from a founder population of 12 frogs.

I have to admit I don't quite understand what you are arguing for/advocating - since we all seem to be in the same boat conceptwise. Gary was simply mentioning that he has two populations of frogs. If the buyer chooses to work with the Understory imports - then it is their responsibility (hopefully following a little coaxing by the seller) to look for unrelated offspring from the same population to establish their breeding frogs.

As for not breeding offspring - to maximize the genetics of these frogs - there are at least 3 things that should be done:

1) Make pairs/groups of frogs originating from the imports from Mark Pepper from different individuals who received the frogs. We can't be sure that two different breeding pairs are unrelated - but the odds are certainly higher than if you breed siblings.

2) The frogs that originated from Mark (exact location has not been publicly released for the protection of the frogs) are, based on suggestions by both Mark and Jason Brown, the from the same area as the frogs imported by Sean Stewart in 2007. As such, these frogs should be mixed. And by making pairs of Tarapoto from the Understory imports with Stewart 2007 frogs - you can almost guarantee unrelateds.

3) and perhaps most importantly - *Register your frogs with ASN*. If we know the origins of all of the frogs - then coordinating breeding groups to maximize genetics will be possible. To capture >99% of the genetics - you need at least 20 founders. Between the frogs brought in by Mark, Sean Stewart (and there was one other small import of frogs from the exact same locale) - we have that founder population. Now we just need to responsibly manage them.

Oz


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

What is the reason for keeping the stewart/understory frogs separate from the tor line if they are all tarapoto imis? I would assume since they are both tarapoto lines that they should be good to mix. What do I not know here?


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

jubjub47 said:


> What is the reason for keeping the stewart/understory frogs separate from the tor line if they are all tarapoto imis? I would assume since they are both tarapoto lines that they should be good to mix. What do I not know here?


The INIBICO/UE frogs have site data while the Tor line do not, so that is the main reason for the distinction, we just don't know exactly where the Tor line came from geographically.


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

The reason to keep the old line Tarapoto (Tor Linbo's line) and any other European line Tarapoto (that did not originate from Mark Pepper or the Sean Stewart Peru 2007 Tarapoto) is that with the population of frogs coming from Understory/Stewart - we can trace those frogs back to their original population (with locale info). That hasn't been possible with Tor's frogs - they were acquired by Tor through a European importation by another individual many years ago. As such, we can't trace them back to an exact location. 

As there are alot of frogs that look alike that can originate in very different locations, we don't want to mix frogs based on looks alone. And having worked with both groups of frogs - Tor's line looks distinctly different. However, that being said - there is a ton of variability in the Stewart/Understory frogs in both color and patterning. I have produced offspring from those frogs that could pass as Linbo line Tarapoto. So, it is possible that the Linbo line of frogs came from a similar location, but with a small founder populations and a couple of generations of "selective" breeding, those phenotypic traits have been locked in. Does that mean that the Linbo line of frogs are of no value? Absolutely not. But for ASN, it changes how they are managed. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I was just trying to bring this all out/ the way they should be handled. Lines are always confusing terminology and I was making sure that was understood not to advocate crossing Mark`s w/ Tors and to search out offspring from different pairs from those imports to at least get a chance of breeding half related/unrelated or at least offspring from a different pair if they were related. Breeding a group of 12 allows a tremendous amount of combinations of genetic "lines to be had if all 12 were unrelated to start. not just this pairs line but this male w/ this female and the same male w/ a different female, etc. All lines should be treated as seperate lines from the original import to allow for the greatest diversity of future offspring and not to allow one frog to be lost because it could represent a "rare" pairing of 2 animals that only coupled up once. It is to preserve the greatest diversity of combinations of what we have since we don`t know relatedness, exactly.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> and to search out offspring from different pairs from those imports to at least get a chance of breeding half related/unrelated or at least offspring from a different pair if they were related.


And on that note, it would be great if when you received frogs from UE, the frogs were labeled (or some type of ID) that said which breeding pair they came from so you could tell if they were offspring or not. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.. but it would certainly help with managing populations in captivity.


----------



## gary1218 (Dec 31, 2005)

So when we talk about the taras from Understory is it enough to say they're Understory taras? Or do we need to specify that they are Understory taras that came in 12/07?


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Mark would have to answer that question. It would depend on whether more frogs (from Peru) are added that would expand the initial founder population. If so - those frogs should be identified differently - as they would be more likely to be unrelated to the frogs from previous imports.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Corpus Callosum said:


> The INIBICO/UE frogs have site data while the Tor line do not, so that is the main reason for the distinction, we just don't know exactly where the Tor line came from geographically.


Not to create a diversion. But this is the same for the Intermedis. Uhern (Tarlton) should be seperate from Tor, and they should all be seperate from the Huallaga Line Intermedius that some have in the hobby. This is the same as the reason given above. The Huallaga Imitator Intermedius are site specific, and noone knows for sure where the Uhern or Tor came from geographically so they should be treated as seperate.


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

Are UE's breeding stock frogs registered with TWI/ASN?


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

Not that I know of though people register them as they get them. He doesn't distinguish from which groups his offspring come. (He just might in special circumstances but I'd imagine you'd probably need to meet him in person at a show or live in Canada for something like that).

-Nish


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Mywebbedtoes said:


> Not to create a diversion. But this is the same for the Intermedis. Uhern (Tarlton) should be seperate from Tor, and they should all be seperate from the Huallaga Line Intermedius that some have in the hobby. This is the same as the reason given above. The Huallaga Imitator Intermedius are site specific, and noone knows for sure where the Uhern or Tor came from geographically so they should be treated as seperate.


Yes and no. This isn't really a diversion, as it is also a discussion at the heart of the idea managing such frogs in programs like ASN. I agree that the Huallaga Valley Intermedius with locale data are separate. But for Tor's Intermedius and the Uhern/Tarlton Intermedius - whether to lump or split is a point of contention. As we don't have exact locale information for either - but have infomation that they both originated from the same approximate location - and we don't even know if they already share a common captive ancestry - the argument could be made to mix anyway. Then you would be maximizing the variability of a population of already questionable origin. There is a good description/logarithm to run through frogs in a similar situation and whether or not they should be split or mixed.

But - what the individual does with that information is up to them. If someone wanted to mix Linbo and Uhern intermedius - and registered each of the parents as such in ASN, and their offspring were tracked - then it would evident which frogs had what origins. That way - if information ever surfaced about the origins of the frogs (unlikely, but possible), further management could be based on that information.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

rozdaboff said:


> Yes and no. This isn't really a diversion, as it is also a discussion at the heart of the idea managing such frogs in programs like ASN.


Interesting Oz. This is of high interest to me becasue I have the opportunity pick-up both a breeding pair of of Tor or a breeding pair of Uhern. I currently have a pair of Uhern, and was recently under the impression that I should stick with adding Uhern (I have a large tank that I want a small 5-6 colony in).

But for ASN purposes, you will not be making this distiction, as long as the frogs are properly tracked?


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayne -

The Imi TMP will recognize and acknowledge the "lines" of frogs - but not necessarily ID them as two unique populations that should receive management. We are still working out the details - but that is the way it looks like it will end up.

Now, for my personal opinion (probably not representing the opinion of the whole of ASN) - if you are planning on maintaining a colony of frogs in a single tank - then I would stick with either all Uhern or all Linbo. The reasoning for this is in a group setup - you won't know which male and which female produced each offspring. So - any tank offspring would potentially be a mix of any of the breeders. You won't be able to tell if they were Uhern*Linbo cross, Uhern*Uhern cross, etc. It would allow for the offspring to be better characterized.

If you were to go to single pairs/tank - then you would be certain of the frogs lineage (which male with which female) - and they could be better "managed". However, to further confuse the situation - the Stewart/Understory Tarapoto imis will be managed as a Category 3 frog within ASN (because of their known locality). As such, these frogs will be actively managed to maintain diversity. The Uhern/Linbo Taras will be "maintained" as Category 1. In this case, an attempt will be made to ensure that the frogs do not disappear from the hobby, but they will not receive the same level of genetic management as the Category 3 frogs.

I hope that makes sense.

Oz


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

100%! I will stick with my plan then and add a few more from some Uhern lines and leave the Tor for another person. I want to do my part to ensure not only are Intermedius sticking around, but that they won't be overly line bred for specific traits. Thanks for clearing that up Oz!


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

You know, it's interesting. 12 individuals, depending on the species of course, across most management plans would be a bare minimum for a minimum viable population which, to me, would indicate that they should be bred to one another and kept track of.

The hobby has this stigma to keep separate importations separate, and while I agree to that to an extent, I wonder if by doing so, we are separating them into extinction within the hobby at least. Some of it seems silly to me.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

rozdaboff said:


> ...the Stewart/Understory Tarapoto imis will be managed as a Category 3 frog within ASN (because of their known locality). As such, these frogs will be actively managed to maintain diversity. The Uhern/Linbo Taras will be "maintained" as Category 1. In this case, an attempt will be made to ensure that the frogs do not disappear from the hobby, but they will not receive the same level of genetic management as the Category 3 frogs.


As a side note, I want to mention that frogs managed as Category 1 are just as important as frogs managed as Category 3. I say this because I've noticed among some the idea that only Category 3 frogs (which could theoretically be used in an in situ repopulation situation) are the "really important" animals, and Category 1 frogs (which would not able to be used for in situ projects) are in some way sub par. They both work for conservation when managed properly, each in different ways. While Category 3 frogs may possibly be used to someday help repopulate dwindling numbers in the wild...having decent numbers of frogs that represent wild type animals (Category 1) help prevent further wild collection to satisfy demand within the hobby by ensuring an ample supply of CB frogs.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Breeding a group of 12 allows a tremendous amount of combinations of genetic "lines to be had if all 12 were unrelated to start.


I couldn't disagree more. The effective population size here is certainly less than 12 and the inbreeding coefficient is probably dismal. Without actually doing the calculations, I'd say that heterozygosity would probably be lost very quickly even if all twelve were kept together as one population. I don't think 12 frogs would meet the minimum viable population for even the weakest of management plans.

If I get a few extra minutes I'll crunch the numbers, but with a population size of 12 my experience tells me that without even knowing the family size variance, sex ratio, etc., the stats will be quite dismal.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

The minimum number of founders to capture 97.5% of the original populations genetic alleles is 20 individuals, but the key is that those 20 founders should be unrelated. 20 is the minimum, not the recommended, but it depends on how much genetic integrity your management plan is seeking to maintain. There is a condensed explanation in pages 35-42 of the ASN handbook but I have the papers/references that these numbers came from and can email them over if you want an interesting read.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

That`s a bigger founder stock than we have for most if not all other groups we have in captivity. I know their weren`t 12 founder stock for any of the terribilis morphs, bicolor, aurotaenia, most tincs and even azureus only 12 were brought back by Ron Gagliardo(maybe 12 pairs). Not to mention thumbs and pumilio till recently and we`ll see if 12 original individuals from any of the pumilio morphs being brought in even make it to produce offspring that live till adulthood and keep their line in the pool.


edwardsatc said:


> I couldn't disagree more. The effective population size here is certainly less than 12 and the inbreeding coefficient is probably dismal. Without actually doing the calculations, I'd say that heterozygosity would probably be lost very quickly even if all twelve were kept together as one population. I don't think 12 frogs would meet the minimum viable population for even the weakest of management plans.
> 
> If I get a few extra minutes I'll crunch the numbers, but with a population size of 12 my experience tells me that without even knowing the family size variance, sex ratio, etc., the stats will be quite dismal.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> You know, it's interesting. 12 individuals, depending on the species of course, across most management plans would be a bare minimum for a minimum viable population which, to me, would indicate that they should be bred to one another and kept track of.
> 
> The hobby has this stigma to keep separate importations separate, and while I agree to that to an extent, I wonder if by doing so, we are separating them into extinction within the hobby at least. Some of it seems silly to me.


No not into extinction just something they aren`t in the wild anymore. We`ve inbred over 12 generations so far w/ no percievable negative breeding effects so far. If each animal breeds for 10 or more years we should be able to keep the generations going for at least 120+ years. It`s in keeping the originals alive that matters most to not jump down to 12th generation inbred in 6 years. I have a 13 year old pair of f2 orange bicolor and others have 15 year old pairs that still produce.
Longevity of your animals and in the hobby is what matters most at this juncture. Not loosing lines or adults before their time.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Corpus Callosum said:


> The minimum number of founders to capture 97.5% of the original populations genetic alleles is 20 individuals, but the key is that those 20 founders should be unrelated. 20 is the minimum, not the recommended, but it depends on how much genetic integrity your management plan is seeking to maintain. There is a condensed explanation in pages 35-42 of the ASN handbook but I have the papers/references that these numbers came from and can email them over if you want an interesting read.


Yes, 20, but 20 individuals is the genetically effective population, not the census population (actual population). The census population may need to be much greater depending on sex ratio, variance in family size, and population size fluctuations. Additionally, these calculations are only correct if this population is maintained as one unit. If these individuals are spread out amongst several breeders the census population needs to be much, much greater.


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

MonarchzMan said:


> You know, it's interesting. 12 individuals, depending on the species of course, across most management plans would be a bare minimum for a minimum viable population which, to me, would indicate that they should be bred to one another and kept track of.


12 is a number that is less than ideal. But in this case, the Tarapoto imported by Sean Stewart (also in 2007) were identified by Mark and Jason Brown to be from the same area as those imported/bred by Understory. The number of frogs that were imported by Sean IIRC was about 40 which were all potentially unrelated - but I would need to verify that.

So - the effective founder population is a little larger in this case.


----------

