# Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

I knew this discussion came up before but I couldnt for the life of me find the thread.

Patrick Nabors and Sean Stewart's descriptions of either morph are opposite.

Marcus Breece says 'Regina' are fabricated, a marketing ploy and do not exist.

So....what now? I acknowledge theres a difference between the two but is it all just variability among a select group? Most every pic I find of Giant Orange have much more blue on the body then those of Regina. Marcus says theres much variability among new metamorphs within the same clutch. For those who have either 'morph', is there much variability to be seen or is coloration consistent?

And one more question: If Regina is actually a Giant Orange, hypothetically okay to interbreed the two?

Not disputing either of the mentioned above persons, just wanting some other peoples perspectives.

Regards,

C


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

this is a can of worms.

My opinion having kept "both" for >2 years now, bred both, seen both bought and sold...

is, they are different. They are different sizes, different body configurations, different colored ect. I cant prove that though, and others who know their original import status might be able to shed more light...

I bet there are mixed hybrids out there (for instance I once bought a "pair" of Regina the were a mix of a female regina and a male GO, so if that person had bred them---he wasnt successful---they would have been sold as regina and passed around the hobby).

The offspring are variable esp amongst the Regina...but NOT that variable. No way I'd mistake the 2 offspring in my collection if they were all tossed together in a tank for instance. 

That might not be true for everyone esp if they had hybridized animals???

Anyway, my original pairs came from Patrick, so all I can say is that I have what he called GO and Regina and what he kept separate as such. 

Maybe this is a case of extended line breeding separating out traits on one single original variable wild population?

Who knows more on the subject can chime in. please. 

S


----------



## ErickG (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm not an expert on the topic by far, but I, too, have both "supposed" morphs. But I will agree with Shawn as to the difference in size, and overall body configuration.

Here's my take on how I find the difference:
The "alleged" reginas I have came from Patrick, also. Looking very similar to the pictures he has on his site, containing a significant amount of yellow. Whether or not it's the switched views on them being Giant Oranges, I really dont know. My GO's typically have more blue around the leg area, and retain more black on their overall pattern. Seeing them next to each other, I can find the differences between the two.

Now, for the sake of potentially getting different bloodlines, I've picked up several of GO's from Marcus, as well. Which he says comes from two lines; S. Stewart, and a gentleman by the name of Charles Mizuhara, from Hawaii. Though there are similarities to both of my current stock, they are still too young to gauge whether the patterns will be an indication. If the patterns remain the same or the body shape differs, only time will tell at this point.

In the interest of preventing hyrbidization, I'll obviously keep them apart until someone can have concrete proof, whichever way this argument goes.

I also urge anyone who I've sold my regina's to in the past, or anyone who keep these frogs, to chime in.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

It's Charles (Chuck) Nishihara actually 

Part of the problem I think comes from how these frogs got into the hobby... via europe, wild imporations, both, or one morph one way, the other morph another? Are they like the sips, in which we kept seperate and the forms have bred to the point of more regularly producing like animals? Are they acutally from different parts of an extended wild population? Similar can of worms to Alanis/Inferalanis... there are color/body differences in them too, but does that mean they are different?

We could argue GO/Regina, Alanis/Inferalanis, Blue/Green Sips all day long. We don't know, and likely will never know. Keeping them seperate is a better safe than sorry scenario. They are walking the line of lumping/seperating.


----------



## MPepper (Feb 29, 2004)

FWIW I recently spent a few days in Holland with Ruud Schouten, owner of Rana. Ruud has over the duration of the last 20 - 25 years travelled many times to French Guyanna and was one of the first froggers to visit Regina, the locality of the regina morph. According to Ruud, the name Giant Orange originated when he exported frogs to John Uhern of reptile specialties in the early 1990's. John thought he could market them better as "Giant Orange" hence the name Giant Orange was born. Other later exportation from other european sources and to other american importers came in as regina, and regina they remained. So according to Ruud, and a few others Dutch hobbyiests I had the pleasure of speaking with, and who have seen these frogs in the biotope, they are one and the same.

I cannot expand any further than that, as I have neither been to French Guyanna, nor worked with either of these animals, but would be inclined to take their word for it. From experience with dozens of other species in the wild, the differences percieved between these two supposed morphs could very easily fall within the range of normal intrapopulational variation expressed amongst poison frogs.


----------



## ErickG (Nov 28, 2004)

thanks for the correction corey!


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Very interesting info Mark. thanks.

So it may indeed be a case of extended line breeding separating out traits. 

I'll try and grab some side by side adult pic and post them. 

Shawn


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

If this is in fact intrapopulational variation, its among one of the most consistent (if thats the appropriate word to call it) between the two variations Ive seen in one animal.

I reckin the whole blue/green sip, alanis/inferalanis would qualify as well.

C


----------



## Don1 (May 27, 2007)

Hi,
im no expert not by any means but a person i know who breeds blue sips, 
told me that he has mixed off spring of green and blue so what does that mean?
both the parents are blue.
I have also heard this off of a few people.
but then i read on the net that they were different morphs, but could they just be that nor green or blue sips breed true to colour.
i find things like this very intresting.
Thanks Brendan.


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

Theres some Tanganyikan cichlids called Cyprichromis where males have either a yellow or blue caudal fin. Yellow or blue tailed males throw either color tailed offspring. Polychromatism I think its called? The blue/green sips could be the same situation.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I have a blue- blue sip pair female w/c and male blue from 2 wc blue parents and mine throw some greens also. I believe they are the same pop. yellows though I think are different or fringe pop though


----------



## Marcus (Apr 18, 2004)

GO/Regina are all the same. 

About the alanis/inferalanis thing....
All the same...just call them all 'Alanis' in my opinion.
Some animals are more intens coloured as other but to give them another name is not correct. Maybe while importing them these more intens coloured animals were selected out of the box, gave them the Inferalanis name so there's some extra money?
The Alanis & Inferalanis are living in the same area...same population. To create a difference just pick out the more intens coloured animals.

The blue / green Sipaliwini is much more complicated discussion.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Marcus said:


> GO/Regina are all the same.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Marcus said:


> GO/Regina are all the same.
> 
> About the alanis/inferalanis thing...
> The Alanis & Inferalanis are living in the same area...same population...


Is this something you know to be certain? Were you there with the Indians who collected the animals? Not trying to be difficult but if you know this for certain I would like to know where the information is coming from as I have expended a lot of effort trying to keep these two separated based on information I was given and based on seeing the original imports side by side. If you know for a fact that these were collected from the exact same location please provide some insight as to where the information is coming from. Thanks, Robb.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

sports_doc said:


> Marcus said:
> 
> 
> > GO/Regina are all the same.
> ...


I agree that we may have created animals that reproduce a somewhat consistent and markedly different color pattern between the 2 named morphs. I had also heard years ago they are the same morph but what a can of worms eh? Too bad we can't hear from Volker Annenbach who provided many of the original specimens to the hobby but as for Mark Peppers sources and Marcus' first hand observations that would be good enough for me. 
Now do we put up a poll to see what they are called? More importantly how many will continue to keep both seperate? Comments from SNDF's would be nice as well as they have extensive experience with this species.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

The fact that blue sips do not breed true is a major part of the reasoning behind why many people think blue and green sips are the same, or possibly from different parts of the same population. Each of the three forms talked about in this thread could qualify as that... animals collected from different parts of the same continuous population... animals from one end of the population may look a bit different, differences enough that Americans have kept them seperate.

The sips particularly have another possibility... all the blue/green sips are the same, and we just sorted them by color and called them different things. We've done the same thing with the panama auratus... the "blacks" and "microspots" and "blue & bronze" and "super blues"... variations within populations that were seperated out hoping they were different and special when they really were just variations.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

gah, not more Sip talk...uh. 

All,
So is the hobby more concerned with naming by population/species and perpetuating the misguided belief that we are actually keeping wild population genetics intact by breeding true to populations??

Or are we more interesting in "that bigger morph, or the bluer morph or the thin red line not the orange" ect, ect, ect..??

I dont have the answer, even for myself, but the topic does beg the question doesnt it?

Is there room in the hobby for both camps?

S


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

sports_doc said:


> ...
> So is the hobby more concerned with naming by population/species and perpetuating the misguided belief that we are actually keeping wild population genetics intact by breeding true to populations??
> 
> Or are we more interesting in "that bigger morph, or the bluer morph or the thin red line not the orange" ect, ect, ect..??
> ...


That is a good question... Here is my reasoning on keeping Alanis/Inferalanis separate: I saw a tank full of WC Alanis right next to a tank full of WC Inferalanis. The Inferalanis (particularly females) were ALL bigger, bolder and in my opinion (again focus on opinion) a more attractive frog than the Alanis. And this was not just a few animals, there were probably 40 or so of each. So 10 years from now when my original WC's are dead, I can replace them with the same bigger, bolder more attractive animal than Alanis. Over the years I've seen plenty of both and I like the Inferalanis over the Alanis I have seen. So for me, in the case of Alanis/Inferalanis, it is more "trait" oriented than population oriented though I do believe based on what I heard from the importer and exporter (though true I wasn't there either) they are from either separate poulations or at a minimum, separate ends of a possible "continuous" population.

I think we can all aggree that the likelihood of the hobby replacing WC populations is very small. The reason given for keeping hobby frogs true to their wild counterparts down to the individual population is that if they don't cross in the wild we don't cross them here. I think it is a reasonable hobby imposed "barrier" to minimize the probabilities of the opposite end of hybridizing (ie - crossing a brazilian yellow head with a citronella) which I think we all agree, no one wants to see happening.

On Regina/GO: if in fact they are from the same population, and GO was simply a name given by Uhern, I say we group them as one and call them by the location: Regina. Even if this is done, those that want to keep the GO designator can simply track them in FrogTracks so that they can line breed them with other frogs with the same GO traits. Just put GO somewhere in the description.


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

Dare I ask...but could someone breed a "Regina" to a "Giant Orange" and see what comes of a result? Perhaps the product of the two would yield an answer?


----------



## Wetts11 (Jul 2, 2006)

Im no expert but I feel strongly about the subject and from what proffessors have thought me along with the few trips I have made to various areas Im going to give my two cents...

As far as frogs varrying from "different ends" of a "continuous" population, I think this is a bunch of rubbish! All over the world in all walks of life "continuous" populations yield offspring that is so similar they cannot be seperated if you look at the "big" picture. Why should frogs be any different?

So seperation in my eyes is more or less amuzing. As previously stated we as hobbiests and dare I say consumers prefer certain colorations and sizes and strips. As mentioned with arautus we are so focused on not mixing blood lines that we infact seperate species! Are we not weeding out the variation in wild populations to fit them to our preferences? Much like we have done with dogs and various other forms of pets?

From what I have seen and what I have been tought I stick to the fact that we as humans do what we do, and we do it well. We insist on destroying natural walks of life and bending them to our needs or desires. So when you talk about seperating based on boldness or based on coloration or size, are you simply not trying to breed an entire "blond hair, blue eyes" population? The fact is you are merely selecting traits you desire and breeding them in hopes that they will remain true. Which in my OPINION is taking the "natural effect, survival or the fittest" out of the equation.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Wetts11 said:


> Im no expert but I feel strongly about the subject...
> 
> As far as frogs varrying from "different ends" of a "continuous" population, I think this is a bunch of rubbish! All over the world in all walks of life "continuous" populations yield offspring that is so similar they cannot be seperated if you look at the "big" picture. Why should frogs be any different?


Well, how about for starters they are frogs and as such have a completely different genetic makeup and completely different natural history than say humans or dogs. As far as frogs varying on different ends of a continuous population... not rubbish, in fact there are several people who can chime in with many examples of frogs that vary from yellow specimens on one end of say a river, to red specimens on the other end of the river.



Wetts11 said:


> So seperation in my eyes is more or less amuzing. As previously stated we as hobbiests and dare I say consumers prefer certain colorations and sizes and strips. As mentioned with arautus we are so focused on not mixing blood lines that we infact seperate species!


Well, auratus is a species in and of itself so not quite sure I follow you... Yes we do in fact separate species, are you advocating the interbreeding of species? Say a leucomelas X auratus hybrid, is that what you would like to see?



Wetts11 said:


> Are we not weeding out the variation in wild populations to fit them to our preferences? Much like we have done with dogs and various other forms of pets?


Possibly, but mostly when we don't have reliable or complete information on where an animal came from. Couple that with the fact that interbreeding is part of the natural history of dart frogs and there is little harm in doing so.



Wetts11 said:


> From what I have seen and what I have been tought I stick to the fact that we as humans do what we do, and we do it well. We insist on destroying natural walks of life and bending them to our needs or desires. So when you talk about seperating based on boldness or based on coloration or size, are you simply not trying to breed an entire "blond hair, blue eyes" population? The fact is you are merely selecting traits you desire and breeding them in hopes that they will remain true. Which in my OPINION is taking the "natural effect, survival or the fittest" out of the equation.


Nope, not trying to breed a "superior race" of frogs, just trying to keep the animals close to how they are found in the wild. As far as "natural effect, survival of the fittest", the fact that we have these animals in tanks pretty much rules that out.


----------



## Marty71 (Nov 9, 2006)

I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this thread closely in the hopes of seeing some kind of consensus reached. I am a year into the hobby, but I have taken a liking to both of these frogs and currently have 3 GO's from SNDF, 6 GO's (Saurian line) from a board member, 3 GO's (Saurian Line) from another board member, 4 Regina's from Aaron, and 2 GO's from Shawn. Most of these frogs are 3-9 months old, so I am not in a position to make any type of detailed comparison but...

From what I have seen there are differences as Shawn mentioned. With my frogs, the GO's from Saurian's line all have black backs with orange circling and ending on their heads. The Regina's have much more yellow, and don't have the clearly defined black backs. Ironaically neither of them have much orange, but are more a mix of yellows, blues and blacks.

I would love to see feedback from some of the people that have helped define these frogs, specifically Sean, Patrick and SNDF. A quick search of this topic will show 3-4 times this has come up with no consensus. I am not naive enough to think that the debate would be solved here, but as a relatively new hobbyist it would be nice to know if mixing SNDF GO's with Saurain line GO's is a no no, which at this point i believe it is....


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

Of both lines of GOs I have (One from Charles and one from Sean), Charles has more blue than Seans which to me looks more the "classic" Regina. BUT then again Charles' GOs dont have as much blue as Nabors or Stewarts GOs...


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Marty71 said:


> ... I am not naive enough to think that the debate would be solved here, but as a relatively new hobbyist it would be nice to know if mixing SNDF GO's with Saurain line GO's is a no no, which at this point i believe it is....


I think mixing one "line" of GO with another "line" of GO should be encouraged. What is in question is mixing GO with Regina's, more specifically if GO and Regina are in fact from the same population of frogs in the wild.


----------



## Marty71 (Nov 9, 2006)

Guess that's my point. If I mix GO's from a Saurian line with GO's from a SNDF/Stewart line technically I am not breeding unrelated pairs, I am mixing GO's and Regina's since the Saurain and Stewart definitions are opposite.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Note on the color - as Shawn's frogs can prove, these frogs can be very orange... give them naturose and they'll show their true colors


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Oh I have a great example of that too, I just need to pull them out for pics.

I picked up an adult Regina female from another frogger and the patterns are correct, but the frog is yellow. My other breeders are orange, but I'd attribute that to long term supplementation. 

Shawn


----------



## Don1 (May 27, 2007)

i found this on this site they are labled as the same morph
3rd one down???
http://www.tropical-experience.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=27

Thanks Brendan.


----------



## Marcus (Apr 18, 2004)

I haven't read everything yet after my reply..just a quick reply.

Mark Pepper already gave some information in his reply that i would write also..the part about Ruud Schouten exported the Regina's to the USA and a new name was created 'Giant Orange'.

@Rob,
Yes i was at the same place where the indians collected the Alanis. We collected a lot of animals to observe. There were intens coloured animals and less intens coloured..let we say yellow (Alanis) and light orange (which some people call InferAlanis). They all live mixed through a wide area. 

...more is coming


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

If the above is true as far as original populations, I wonder how much of the current differences we see in the hobby are due to unintentional selective breeding by hobbyists who keep them separate.


----------



## ErickG (Nov 28, 2004)

I think we're all going in the same direction here. Looks like these are all the same tincs. Just as an idea, here are some of my frogs:
Reginas
















GO:








GO froglet


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

This thread was brought to my attention and I want to point out that the Amphibian Steward Network is making an attempt to form a consensus on how these things are handled. Page 32 of the handbook provides a key (so far untested) for assigning groups of animals into populations for breeding management. I would be very interested to see someone work through that key with the animals in question here. I would also encourage people who are interested, to read the entire genetic integrity section of that manual because I think it addresses a lot of questions expressed here. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that arise. The ASN docs can be found here: http://www.treewalkers.org/projects/ASN/. 

I think a lot of the confusion about this stuff is that we, as a hobby, have not clearly defined our goals. I think we all agree that we want to maintain animals as close to the way they are found in the wild as possible. That means if you have good locality data, a good chunk of the decision of how to manage breeding has been made. But we don't have that information in most cases so we have to make some informed, but ultimately somewhat arbitrary, decisions.

Let me first state that I am a lumper at heart. I think it is important to get that bias out in the open. When I hear people splitting groups up based solely on appearance, it really bothers me because those judgements are meaningless unless you know something about the wild populations. Consider our own species. There are huge differences in morphology of humans across geographic location and a great deal of variability within a location. But we are still all the same species and trying to assign humans to a geographic location based on morphological traits alone is futile. Just looking at groups of frogs is not enough data to make reasonable decisions on unless you know something about how the morphological traits are distributed in the wild.

So what is at risk? Nothing really. Robb already mentioned that most (all?) frogs in the hobby are not suitable for reintroduction to the wild. Once the exact wild origins and genetic history of a frog become uncertain, the use of that animal for reintroduction is lost. Almost all of the animals in the hobby have uncertain origins so let's forget about trying to make them somehow worthy of return to the wild (more on this later). But these animals still have a great conservation value. If they are lost from the hobby, or if they are bred to the point they no longer resemble wild type animals, then there will be market pressure to re-import them, which usually means putting more pressure on the wild populations to supply the pet trade.

Ounce the origins of frogs become hazy, I suggest we concentrate on maintaining their wild type characterisitics. This gives us a fair amount of flexibility in deciding whether to keep these lines in question separate, or lump them back together. Individuals of both lines represent a wild type animal. But as a whole, they may or may not represent the natural variability found in the wild population. If they have been artificially split into two groups by breeding "like with like", then variability has been lost and we have two selectively breed groups - each a genetic subset of the orginal population. But if they indeed orginate from separate populations and we lump them together, then we are adding artificial variability. The population will be more variable than found in the wild, but the individuals will still be indistinguishable from wild animals to us - and that is what really matters. So the choice is ours to make. The important thing is to make a decision on how the populations as a whole will be handled and manage them appropriately from this point forward. We just need to accept the fact that there are many populations in captivity that we will never know for sure if they were split or lumped from wild populations. All we can do is gather as much information as possible, draw a line around groups of animals to form "founding populations" and move forward with the idea of preserve the wild traits.

Finally, even if we discover without a doubt that these two lines were actually split from a wild population, we cannot restore the genetic integrity by mixing them back together. There are two components to genetic integrity: diversity and frequency. When we obtain wild stock from a population, we hope to capture as many of the genetic alleles found naturally in that population as possible. But once we have those alleles, we want to breed them in a way that maintains the frequency of those alleles as they are found in the wild. In other words, rare alleles remain rare, and common alleles remain common. Selective breeding is the process of altering allele frequencies. Taken far enough, selective breeding also reduces allele diversity because desireable alleles are made common and undesireable alleles are eliminated. The point being that once you subdivide a natural population into lines and breed those lines for a generation or two, you have altered the allele frequencies of the original population. Putting the two lines back together later may restore much of the original genetic diversity, but it will not restore the alleles to their original frequency.

Maintaining genetic integrity of wild population requires coordinated management from the very start. But the real value of good management in the hobby is to maintain captive wild type specimens so there is no need to continue exploiting wild populations. To do this, we need to gather as much information as we can, make informed decisions about management, and realize that orgins of many groups will remain uncertain and that is okay.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2007)

Okay, I thought I would take up Brent's "challenge" and try and insert my recently acquired Giant Oranges into the ASN guidelines and see what happens. This way, we can try working this thing through in an actual 'real world' situation work through this in a more hands on manner and use it as an opportunity to deal with any questions and confusion that might arise. 

*1.* I just acquired a trio of Dendrobates tinctorius 'Giant Orange' last weekend at NWFF. At the time, I knew nothing about their lineage other than who I bought them from Justin (jschroeder). So, since I knew nothing else about their lineage, I thought I would try constructing a _breeding group web_ (p. 33 of the ASN Guidelines).

*2.* I managed to figure out that Justin obtained his animals from Shawn (sportsdoc). I have not yet heard back from Shawn to confirm details about his frogs, but from this thread it appears as though he obtained his GO's from Patrick Nabors of Saurian.net. According to Patrick's web site, he obtained all of his GO's from Sean Stewart of Herpetologic.net. 

*3.* Now, it's fairly common knowledge that these two people refer to Reginas and GOs in opposite manners--what Patrick considers a GO, Sean considers a Regina, and vice-versa--so I had to keep that in mind. This seems to also be confirmed by the fact that my frogs are identical to what tincs Sean calls Regina...but not as similar to what he calls a GO. So, on this website, I am looking for lineage info in regards to his Regina tincs. He states that his breeding stock are from two bloodlines originally established in the early 1990's from animals that were acquired from Holland, and were initially called GO.

*4.* If I take what has been said in this thread by both Mark and Marcus, it seems the original Dutch collectors and exporters of these frogs claim that they are from the same population or area, and consider them to be the same frog, but as was stated, the term "Giant Orange" was given to them in order to make them more marketable in the trade.

At this point there are plenty of places where gaps can be filled in the web (and hopefully others will chime in and do so). However, its seems that the GO designation is being based purely on perceived visual differences and cues, but not at all on actual locality info.

So, given all of this...what do I do? Let's say I want to enter my frogs into the FrogTracks database? There are designations for both GO and Regina. Do I enter them as both? Or as Regina but with a comment that they were sold to me as GO (as was mentioned earlier in this thread)?

From my perspective, this means we have to go through the ASN key twice: once with the assumption that no geographic locality info for the specimen is known...and once with the assumption that the speciment is associated with accurate geographic locality information (assuming that it is indeed from the Regina population).

I haven't yet had a chance to do this...but maybe in the meantime someone else can run through the key and see what they get, then post their results here.


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

Here are my....Frogs, that came from SNDF.

Chuck Nishihara line.









Sean Stewart line.









Chuck's frogs look to me whats generalized to be "Regina." Less blue on the legs and more yellow belly.

Seans frogs look like it could be an intermediate. Not as much blue as a "giant orange" but more than a "regina." More blue on the belly but not as much as a classic "giant orange."

Dont know where all of this leaves things...


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> From my perspective, this means we have to go through the ASN key twice: once with the assumption that no geographic locality info for the specimen is known...and once with the assumption that the speciment is associated with accurate geographic locality information (assuming that it is indeed from the Regina population).
> 
> I haven't yet had a chance to do this...but maybe in the meantime someone else can run through the key and see what they get, then post their results here.


Ron, I'm very glad you took the time to run through this. I would say that the next step needs to be some verification. If I understand your narrative right, there are two issues with these animals. The first is whether GO and Regina names have been used consistently. Let's assume for a minute they are really distinct populations. Even if they are, it sounds like both names have been used for both populations at various times. Is that correct? If so, I think we have to use an assumption that any animals that cannot be traced straight back to an importation are potentially mixed between the two. This could lead to potentially 3 "lines" as an outcome. Two would be actual Regina and GO that can be verifiably traced back to imports and not mixed, and the third would be animals that whose trail we have lost so they should be assumed to be not "pure". They could still be managed as a line, but should be distinguished from the "pure" animals that can be verified.

The second issue is whether the Dutch exporters did, indeed, rename the animals which came from the same location. If this can be verified, it would make it much easier on all of us as it would strongly indicate that the two lines in question are actually one. The hobby could still decide they want to manage them as separate lines. In that case, the issues in the above paragraph would still need to be resolved. And a third (mixed line) would still likely emerge and would be the one that ASN would manage as the "wild type" (because all the animals share a common wild ancestry).

Finally, at this point I don't think you need to go through the key twice. You only need to key the information for your frogs. So far, I think you have uncovered evidence that your animals may trace back to the same wild location as all Regina and GO frogs. But, at the moment, this is based on hearsay evidence. Marcus and Mark may be able to provide more information to help verify the Dutch renaming. ASN has some records that may help contact those exporters (no promises). So there is a little leg work left before you could confidently key those animals as "traced to a known geographic locality". But other GO frogs are likely to have a different provenance from yours so they may plug into the key differently, and thus pop out as a different management population from yours.

How much leg work goes into tracing these things depends on the willingness of the Taxon Management Groups and the ASN stewards to do the work. In this case, it sounds like you have very quickly revealed that all of these frogs may be able to be traced to a common, and known, wild locality. That suggests additional work would be worthwhile because it could change these frogs from management category 1 status to category 3. It could also greatly simplify the management of these frogs if they all came from the same place. I think this serves as an example of the potential for de-mystifying the orgins of these animals and providing some guidance for management.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Brent-

Definitely great to see the key in action - potentially a powerful tool.



> If this can be verified, it would make it much easier on all of us as it would strongly indicate that the two lines in question are actually one. The hobby could still decide they want to manage them as separate lines.


I understand that you are not advocating this, but why in the world would we want to do this? I'm a lumper also, and I am well on my way to being totally convinced that GO and Regina are the same frog... Is there any reason why "we" may want to keep the lines separate in the face of evidence that they are the same frog?



> Of both lines of GOs I have (One from Charles and one from Sean), Charles has more blue than Seans which to me looks more the "classic" Regina. BUT then again Charles' GOs dont have as much blue as Nabors or Stewarts GOs...


I had to laugh when I read this... what a beautiful summation of how these types of things get started. We're so hung up as a hobby on minute phenotypic variation... I wouldn't be surprised if the true number of tinctorius "morphs" in the wild is about half what it is in the hobby.

In any case, I think Marcus and Mark have given some pretty powerful testimony about the legitamacy of "GO" and "Regina" being two distinct morphs...

As an aside, we see the exact same type of thing with standard imitator. Evan Twomey has said that he's essentially positive that all "standard" imitator come from a very restricted geographic location. Yet, people are still anal about "Sens line versus Nabors line" imitator... I really worry that we are inbreeding the hell out of these "lines" for absolutely no reason. Some of the differences I've heard touted about the different lines are really ridiculous...


----------



## urion (May 31, 2007)

@bbrock
First I want to say that your analysis of the issue is the best and most in depth I've read so far. It touches on a number of important points I have thought about but never written of on this board. Until now I have written hardly anything on the subject of hybridization, mainly because I will do what I like without anyone's consent and I would give others the same respect. I am writing now because even though I plan on doing what I like and don't mind letting others do the same I still find the discussion fascinating and want to contribute. So here are a few points that you mentioned that I wanted to touch on.

#1


> I think a lot of the confusion about this stuff is that we, as a hobby, have not clearly defined our goals. I think we all agree that we want to maintain animals as close to the way they are found in the wild as possible.


I don't agree with this. The reason most people are in this hobby is not to maintain an animal's appearance so that they look like the ones in the wild. People are in this hobby because they find poison dart frog beautiful and interesting and they want to bring that into their home in a small and manageable way.

#2


> Let me first state that I am a lumper at heart. I think it is important to get that bias out in the open. When I hear people splitting groups up based solely on appearance, it really bothers me because those judgements are meaningless unless you know something about the wild populations. *Consider our own species. There are huge differences in morphology of humans across geographic location and a great deal of variability within a location. But we are still all the same species and trying to assign humans to a geographic location based on morphological traits alone is futile.* Just looking at groups of frogs is not enough data to make reasonable decisions on unless you know something about how the morphological traits are distributed in the wild.


I would like to stress this point even further! Not only is it futile but it is considered racism of the worst kind to suggest that a person of a certain color only be allowed to mate with another person of the same color. This makes it incredibly hypocritical to say that PDF's should be segregated to prevent their interspecies breeding.

#3


> So what is at risk? Nothing really.


I think this is exactly true.

#4


> But these animals still have a great conservation value. If they are lost from the hobby, or if they are bred to the point they no longer resemble wild type animals, then there will be market pressure to re-import them, which usually means putting more pressure on the wild populations to supply the pet trade.


I can understand this point of view. The big problem I have with this though is that it is a circular argument. This is why:


> I think we all agree that we want to maintain animals as close to the way they are found in the wild as possible.


 This is exactly the thought process that causes the problem you just mentioned. It doesn't make sense to maintain a species as it is in the wild because if it changes people will want the original so that will cause it to be taken from the wild. If people want frogs that look like the ones in nature than there would be no need to convince them not to hybridize. Nothing happens without cause. If people want hybridized frogs the demand will be there. If people want frogs that look like the ones in nature there will be a demand for those. This will only cause a split in the market not a collapse of either side. Both types of frog will be present within the trade and both will have their swings back and forth in popularity. No only will there be frogs that look like the ones in nature, but there will also be new hybrids to choose from. So, far from loosing something we will actually have gained something!

#5


> Ounce the origins of frogs become hazy, I suggest we concentrate on maintaining their wild type characterisitics.


There is no reason for this. If you breed two frogs with different characteristic, even over a period of time, you can still separate them later with selective breeding, so nothing is lost. If the origins of both are already lost then interbreeding them and then selective breeding them to regain both lines loses nothing. Likewise keeping population in captivity by its nature alters variability because there are inherently fewer bloodlines involved in the first place. 

#6


> All we can do is gather as much information as possible, draw a line around groups of animals to form "founding populations" and move forward with the idea of preserve the wild traits.


This is an idea that should be maintained by professional conservation institutes not hobbyists. I am not trying to sound callous or indifferent to the plight of frogs in the wild. What I am saying is that the average hobbyist, which most of us are around here is incapable of such things. In order for us to reliably do such a thing we would have to collect the frogs from the wild ourselves. This is both illegal and uneconomical! I think that this hobby has been shown to be unreliable when it comes to what you are asking, to follow and maintain records on the origin of a group of frogs. It has failed in the past already and if you are correct about the reason for this hobby,"...to maintain animals as close to the way they are found in the wild as possible." Then we have already tried. 
I believe strongly in the conservation of species that are becoming extinct because of human activity, very strongly, but trying to preserve the possible traits of species that occur in the wild within a hobby is not the way to preserve the species, especially when it is meaningless as far as reintroduction to the wild goes. So in the end maintaining the "wild" traits of a species not what the issue is about. It seem that it is more about certain people wanting to maintain the the look of their favorite frogs.


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

npaull said:


> > Of both lines of GOs I have (One from Charles and one from Sean), Charles has more blue than Seans which to me looks more the "classic" Regina. BUT then again Charles' GOs dont have as much blue as Nabors or Stewarts GOs...
> 
> 
> I had to laugh when I read this... what a beautiful summation of how these types of things get started. We're so hung up as a hobby on minute phenotypic variation... I wouldn't be surprised if the true number of tinctorius "morphs" in the wild is about half what it is in the hobby.


Its just an *observation* so I see nothing funny of it. Im just going off of whats..."recognized" as two morphs that are said to be one in the same. The differences are consistent, making it hard to think two differenly marked are the same. 

Since you're mocking me for an observation, got any material to back up your implications that the two morphs are the same?



npaull said:


> In any case, I think Marcus and Mark have given some pretty powerful testimony about the legitamacy of "GO" and "Regina" being two distinct morphs...


If you had spoken to Marcus recently, he will have you told you Regina does not exist and is a marketing device.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Mods - this may need to be split...



> People are in this hobby because they find poison dart frog beautiful and interesting and they want to bring that into their home in a small and manageable way


But they are beautiful and interesting precisely because natural selection has crafted them so exquisitely. Ergo, maintaining wild phenotypes (and thus genotypes) IS a goal of captive management - even if "maintaining beauty and interesting behaviors" is the proxy - we're talking about the same thing.



> Not only is it futile but it is considered racism of the worst kind to suggest that a person of a certain color only be allowed to mate with another person of the same color. This makes it incredibly hypocritical to say that PDF's should be segregated to prevent their interspecies breeding.


I don't mean to sound demeaning, but this is a ludicrous statement. It would be considered inhumane to house human beings in enclosures proportional to a dart frog vivarium, yet we do it to dendrobatids all the time... is that hypocrisy? It's absurd in the extreme to apply human standards of racism (of all things) to concerns about interspecies breeding of dendrobatid frogs. Again, I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I really don't even know how to begin illustrating the differences between the two, the gulf is so vast...



> If people want frogs that look like the ones in nature than there would be no need to convince them not to hybridize. Nothing happens without cause. If people want hybridized frogs the demand will be there. If people want frogs that look like the ones in nature there will be a demand for those. This will only cause a split in the market not a collapse of either side.


However, you assume that all (or even most) hybridizations occur or are at risk of occurring from an a priori desire to create a hybrid. I disagree with this. Many, many times, people get into this hobby with an idea of creating a multi-species utopia. They really have no idea that hybridization may occur. Part of the GOOD that comes from anti-mixing harping (a subject on which I have decidedly mixed feelings, though on finer points, not the gist) is to help prevent beginners from making accidental mistakes that stem from mixing, one of which is the creation of hybrids. I feel (although I have no evidence) that the majority of the market for dendrobatid frogs IS for "wild type" colors etc. Furthermore, I think that the conspicuous absence of a significant hybrid market is probably a pretty good indicator of the absence of a demand for them, which is further reason why I think that most hybridization that occurs (or is at risk for occurring) is actually "accidental" hybridization.



> There is no reason for this. If you breed two frogs with different characteristic, even over a period of time, you can still separate them later with selective breeding, so nothing is lost. If the origins of both are already lost then interbreeding them and then selective breeding them to regain both lines loses nothing.


This is your biggest misunderstanding and a fundamental problem both with line-breeding and with hybridization. You cannot simply separate out pure species (or phenotypes or what have you) after mixing for a variety of reasons, among them crossing over and other recombination events that occur during meiosis. A simple thought experiment - if an Asian and European human have children, and those children go on to have children with other offspring from the same racial cross, the F2 generation is not a nice breakdown of European and Asian phenotypes again. The genes have recombined into something novel. It is a practical and biological impossibility to retrieve "founding" genotypes by breeding offspring from a mix like that. Even with selective breeding - we aren't recreating the same selective pressures which created the genotype of the parents in the first place, so we may get something similar to the parents' phenotypes, but it is not the same thing, and who knows what may be lost in the bottleneck of artificial selection that need be imposed to get close... Also, the randomness of genetic recombination events makes it phenomenally difficult to "luck" back into a phenotype approaching that of the parents, especially after a few generations have passed.

Brent often runs another thought experiment along these lines - how long do you think it would take you to get a wolf back by breeding together a labrador and a German shepherd?



> Likewise keeping population in captivity by its nature alters variability because there are inherently fewer bloodlines involved in the first place.


This is true, largely because of genetic drift. The problems with drift are greatly magnified, as you say, when dealing with smaller populations. Hence my fear of line-breeding. But, hybridizations also create incredibly small and isolated populations prone to massive drift. It's another reason why the idea of "selective breeding" as a tool to restore wild-type genotypes is fundamentally impossible.



> This is an idea that should be maintained by professional conservation institutes not hobbyists. I am not trying to sound callous or indifferent to the plight of frogs in the wild. What I am saying is that the average hobbyist, which most of us are around here is incapable of such things.


But this type of management is precisely what is proposed by ASN, a program geared not exclusively to the ultra-professional, but also the modest but committed hobbyist. The beauty of the program (vis a vis the internet) is to create larger and integrated populations out of the fragmented collections of hobbyists. It's a powerful and practical management framework that has not been tried before, but has all the ingredients to succeed.


There's lots of selective breeding and hybridization going on in the herpetocultural community, and it's sometimes hard to see why it is so accepted among colubrid breeders (or in the boa community or what have you) and so condemned in the dendrobatid world. One thing that's often overlooked, but I think plays a significant background role, is the incredibly special evolutionary status of dendrobatids. Unlike, say, a cornsnake, which is a pretty well established animal and pretty damn distinct from a black rat snake, dendrobatids are, in many cases

a) very, very localized and
b) VERY, VERY new (to Earth)

SO many of these frogs are *just barely* down the road of speciation - it's like we're looking at the first new growth on a little branch of the evolutionary tree. Of course, that's why all this hybridization is even possible - many aren't yet reproductively isolated species. The dazzling diversity displayed by each genus is even more remarkable given the youth of its members. Coupled with the inherent fragility of many natural populations (some of which are found in areas as small as a single rainforest valley) there seems something distinctly perverse about creating a genetic ratatouille out of alleles nature has so elegantly plucked into individual dishes.

It's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one, but it rings true for me, anyway.

The idea that hybridization leads to more diversity may be true in the short-run, but in the long-run it is patently false: hybridization kills genetic diversity in time. It's just gene flow writ small - but if you get enough gene flow, you end up with one population where before you had two. Selective breeding CAN then restore some diversity, but it won't replace the alleles lost because of drift, let alone those that were selected AGAINST.

And though, as you correctly point out, our captive populations are prone to drift and immune to selection going on in the wild, we can, at worst, do our best to smooth the grit on the grindstone of captive genetics.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Its just an observation so I see nothing funny of it. Im just going off of whats..."recognized" as two morphs that are said to be one in the same. The differences are consistent, making it hard to think two differenly marked are the same.


tinctoritus - Forgive the confusion, please. I did not mean to laugh at you - merely the complexity of the situation in which we find ourselves. It's funny that we are reduced to doing our best based on these phenotypic comparisons, given that they are so inadequate! I do not mock you for trying, and laugh only at the hopeless tangle in which we are collectively stuck. 

Your observations were great because they summed up the situation so well - that's why I quoted you. Hope that clears it up.



> Since you're mocking me for an observation, got any material to back up your implications that the two morphs are the same?


Let me be the first to admit that I have none, and am shooting entirely from the hip, which I probably shouldn't do but the cat's out of the bag. I am laughing as I write this because MY thoughts that they are one and the same are based on the EXACT same method others use to call them TWO morphs - I'm just looking at them!

Again, sorry if I offended, my comments were aimed in a completely different direction.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Nate already gave an excellent response but here are a few other points.



urion said:


> #1
> 
> 
> > I think a lot of the confusion about this stuff is that we, as a hobby, have not clearly defined our goals. I think we all agree that we want to maintain animals as close to the way they are found in the wild as possible.
> ...


This is debatable. I think the dialogue here and on frognet strongly indicates that the majority of people in the hobby are in favor of maintaining wild characteristics. Granted, there may be a silent majority who disagree but we rarely hear from them. I can tell you thought, that more than 90 hobbyists have signed onto the idea that we want to preserve wild type amphibians by joining Tree Walkers International.



> [quote:38rigx6g]Let me first state that I am a lumper at heart. I think it is important to get that bias out in the open. When I hear people splitting groups up based solely on appearance, it really bothers me because those judgements are meaningless unless you know something about the wild populations. *Consider our own species. There are huge differences in morphology of humans across geographic location and a great deal of variability within a location. But we are still all the same species and trying to assign humans to a geographic location based on morphological traits alone is futile.* Just looking at groups of frogs is not enough data to make reasonable decisions on unless you know something about how the morphological traits are distributed in the wild.


I would like to stress this point even further! Not only is it futile but it is considered racism of the worst kind to suggest that a person of a certain color only be allowed to mate with another person of the same color. This makes it incredibly hypocritical to say that PDF's should be segregated to prevent their interspecies breeding.[/quote:38rigx6g]

Although they weren't always classified this way, humans are all of the same species. So my example should not be taken to mean there is no reason to segregate by species. The last I new, human x chimpanzee crosses are frowned upon. The point being that the natural distribution of the varies races of humans has become pan-global. But we cannot ignore the fact that racial traits of humans impart local adaptation to specific environments (dark skin to protect against tropical sun, stouter body configuration and more body fat to protect against arctic cold, etc.). That's really the point of genetic management for conservation is to conserve those traits that make animals adapted to their particular environment.



> [quote:38rigx6g] But these animals still have a great conservation value. If they are lost from the hobby, or if they are bred to the point they no longer resemble wild type animals, then there will be market pressure to re-import them, which usually means putting more pressure on the wild populations to supply the pet trade.


I can understand this point of view. The big problem I have with this though is that it is a circular argument. This is why:


> I think we all agree that we want to maintain animals as close to the way they are found in the wild as possible.


 This is exactly the thought process that causes the problem you just mentioned. It doesn't make sense to maintain a species as it is in the wild because if it changes people will want the original so that will cause it to be taken from the wild. If people want frogs that look like the ones in nature than there would be no need to convince them not to hybridize. Nothing happens without cause. If people want hybridized frogs the demand will be there. If people want frogs that look like the ones in nature there will be a demand for those. This will only cause a split in the market not a collapse of either side. Both types of frog will be present within the trade and both will have their swings back and forth in popularity. No only will there be frogs that look like the ones in nature, but there will also be new hybrids to choose from. So, far from loosing something we will actually have gained something![/quote:38rigx6g]

There are a number of historical example that indicate this is not true. Nate mentioned cornsakes. I was in the snake hobby at the time the first albino cornsnakes hit the market (same goes for albino California kingsnakes). Within a few years, the mutant genes had permeated the captive collections and it was nearly impossible to find a wild type specimen that was captive born. If someone wanted a wild type animals (a market demand), their only choice was to recollect from the wild. The most pointed example can be found in the orchid trade. The craze to hybridize and selectively breed orchids was so rampant that when the hobby decided it wanted to help preserve specimens for conservation, many had to be recollected from the wild. The problem is that in unmanaged breeding programs, the genetic change is only one way. Once genes have been mixed, they cannot be unmixed. So unless a group of organisms are set aside to have their genes preserved as wild type specimens, eventually all specimens end up with mixed genetics.




> [quote:38rigx6g]Ounce the origins of frogs become hazy, I suggest we concentrate on maintaining their wild type characterisitics.


There is no reason for this. If you breed two frogs with different characteristic, even over a period of time, you can still separate them later with selective breeding, so nothing is lost. If the origins of both are already lost then interbreeding them and then selective breeding them to regain both lines loses nothing. Likewise keeping population in captivity by its nature alters variability because there are inherently fewer bloodlines involved in the first place. [/quote:38rigx6g]

Nate already cover this very well but it is patently false. To fully answer why this isn't true would require a review of the structure of DNA and the mechanisms by which genes combine during sexual reproduction. But you cannot unmix the traits, let alone the actual genes, after the fact.



> [quote:38rigx6g]All we can do is gather as much information as possible, draw a line around groups of animals to form "founding populations" and move forward with the idea of preserve the wild traits.


This is an idea that should be maintained by professional conservation institutes not hobbyists. I am not trying to sound callous or indifferent to the plight of frogs in the wild. What I am saying is that the average hobbyist, which most of us are around here is incapable of such things. In order for us to reliably do such a thing we would have to collect the frogs from the wild ourselves. This is both illegal and uneconomical! I think that this hobby has been shown to be unreliable when it comes to what you are asking, to follow and maintain records on the origin of a group of frogs. It has failed in the past already and if you are correct about the reason for this hobby,"...to maintain animals as close to the way they are found in the wild as possible." Then we have already tried. 
I believe strongly in the conservation of species that are becoming extinct because of human activity, very strongly, but trying to preserve the possible traits of species that occur in the wild within a hobby is not the way to preserve the species, especially when it is meaningless as far as reintroduction to the wild goes. So in the end maintaining the "wild" traits of a species not what the issue is about. It seem that it is more about certain people wanting to maintain the the look of their favorite frogs.[/quote:38rigx6g]

I think you misunderstood. As I mentioned before, over 90 members have joined Tree Walkers International. A major project of TWI is The Amphibian Steward Network. The whole idea behind ASN is to bring private individuals into the conservation captive breeding efforts of amphibians. The Amphibian Ark (the professional coalition leading breeding programs) has been very receptive to this idea because we all realize that the amphbian crisis is much larger than professional institutions alone can handle. It is not illegal, and we are doing it. There is already a successful model out there in the form of the Turtle Survival Alliance. TSA is another group of private and professional breeders working to conserve turtles and tortoises and they have many successes. The objectives of ASN are to preserve wild characteristics of amphibians in captivity to reduce market demand for wild caught specimens, and to assist professional captive breeding programs as best we can. There may be a spin off benefit to those who want to hybridize animals because the program creates a registry and captive management plan to maintain wild characteristics. That means that whatever happens outside the registry no longer impacts the genetics of animals inside the program.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

npaull said:


> > If this can be verified, it would make it much easier on all of us as it would strongly indicate that the two lines in question are actually one. The hobby could still decide they want to manage them as separate lines.
> 
> 
> I understand that you are not advocating this, but why in the world would we want to do this? I'm a lumper also, and I am well on my way to being totally convinced that GO and Regina are the same frog... Is there any reason why "we" may want to keep the lines separate in the face of evidence that they are the same frog?


Alan Cann posted a very interesting link on the TWI forums over the weekend which suggests that fragmenting populations into narrower genetic lines may increase adaptation to the wild upon reintroduction.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03399.x

This is contrary to current conservation breeding guidelines but if the idea stands up to criticism and become part of recommended practice, then we may, indeed, want to preserve these pseudolines. We aren't at that point yet but it just shows how policy and practice could change.

Another reason might be simply because the hobby wants to maintain those lines for aesthetic reasons. Those wouldn't be the lines that ASN would focus on for conservation but the possibility exists to accomodate all tastes and desires. The point being that once we secure the management of wild type animals, we no longer have to resort to threats and peer pressure to keep hybridization and/or selective breeding from polluting the genetics.


----------



## urion (May 31, 2007)

Okay, I will try to make this more brief than my previous response mainly to keep it simple and more to the point. The points I have come away with for reading what bbrock wrote are these:

1. Current populations held by hobbyests are not viable for release into the wild due to lack of lineage information.


> Once the exact wild origins and genetic history of a frog become uncertain, the use of that animal for reintroduction is lost.


2.Hybrids should not be created because they cause frogs with "natural traits" to disappear and cause poaching of indangered species.


> If they are lost from the hobby, or if they are bred to the point they no longer resemble wild type animals, then there will be market pressure to re-import them, which usually means putting more pressure on the wild populations to supply the pet trade.


3. There should be breeding programs created to ensure that a "natural" captive population can be created to one day to maintain demand for the "natural traits" of wild frogs.

If these points are correct let me know.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Alan Cann posted a very interesting link on the TWI forums over the weekend which suggests that fragmenting populations into narrower genetic lines may increase adaptation to the wild upon reintroduction.
> 
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.c...07.03399.x
> 
> This is contrary to current conservation breeding guidelines but if the idea stands up to criticism and become part of recommended practice, then we may, indeed, want to preserve these pseudolines. We aren't at that point yet but it just shows how policy and practice could change.


Fascinating proposition and paper...


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

urion said:


> Okay, I will try to make this more brief than my previous response mainly to keep it simple and more to the point. The points I have come away with for reading what bbrock wrote are these:
> 
> 1. Current populations held by hobbyests are not viable for release into the wild due to lack of lineage information.
> 
> ...


Correct. But that doesn't mean they don't have conservation value (#3 below), only that they are not suitable for release to the wild.



> 2.Hybrids should not be created because they cause frogs with "natural traits" to disappear and cause poaching of indangered species.
> [quote:vp7voej7]If they are lost from the hobby, or if they are bred to the point they no longer resemble wild type animals, then there will be market pressure to re-import them, which usually means putting more pressure on the wild populations to supply the pet trade.


[/quote:vp7voej7]

This one is close, but needs some modification. 

First, we aren't saying that hybrids should not be produced. Not producing them would be my personal preference. But people have other opinions and who am I to force my values on others? Rather, we need to manage "natural trait" lines to preserve their genetic integrity which includes not allowing hybridized animals into the gene pool. The problem is that the current system is everyone does their own thing which makes it neary impossible to even reliably determine wild type groups (hence this thread), let alone prevent hybrids from muddying the gene pools. Maintaining wild genetic purity requires management, hybridization doesn't. We just need a system to keep them separate. Frog Tracks is a big step in that direction. ASN takes it a step further by providing some management tools and an organized system of managing the genes.

Second, It's not just endangered species, it is the unregulated, or improperly managed extraction of any amphibians from the wild. We (TWI) aren't against extracting animals from the wild if it is done responsibly, and hopefully with a feedback that supports wild amphibian conservation. But much of the extraction from the wild is unregulated - either outright illegal, or just poorly managed because inadequate science and monitoring are done to protect the wild resource. Also, export markets tend to not be stable. Countries close their borders to exports frequently. So we can't assume that wild animals will always be available to meet market demand (without smuggling which we don't like). All this points to us needing to be good stewards to preserve sustainable populations of amphibians in captivity the retain their wild characteristics. We don't want to end up in a situation like they have with our grain crops where researches have had to search high and low to find vestiges of wild wheat and other grain crops so they can recover genes that had been lost through selective breeding. Some of those wild strains are now apparently extinct. Others were salvaged in the nick of time.



> 3. There should be breeding programs created to ensure that a "natural" captive population can be created to one day to maintain demand for the "natural traits" of wild frogs.
> 
> If these points are correct let me know.


Correct. That breeding program actually already exists. Not only can it maintain "natural trait" frogs, but if locality data are available, those animals potentially might be suitable for reintroduction. It's a way for hobbyists to put their husbandry skills to work for captive breeding conservation.


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

npaull said:


> tinctoritus - Forgive the confusion, please. I did not mean to laugh at you - merely the complexity of the situation in which we find ourselves. It's funny that we are reduced to doing our best based on these phenotypic comparisons, given that they are so inadequate! I do not mock you for trying, and laugh only at the hopeless tangle in which we are collectively stuck.
> 
> Your observations were great because they summed up the situation so well - that's why I quoted you. Hope that clears it up.


My apologies as well for jumping the gun. You have clarified your intentions and I see now you meant well and no harm intended. *thumbs up*

Thank you for your input, a tangle this issue certainly is! :shock:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Wetts11 said:


> As far as frogs varrying from "different ends" of a "continuous" population, I think this is a bunch of rubbish! All over the world in all walks of life "continuous" populations yield offspring that is so similar they cannot be seperated if you look at the "big" picture. Why should frogs be any different?


I kept meaning to comment on this. Clinal variation (differing at the ends of a continuous population) is pretty well founded. An example in North America: Lampropeltis getulus ranges from the eastern chain king in the east, to the speckled king in the middle, to the California king in the west. In between there are all kinds of intergrades in between. At one point this species was considered to be about a half dozen species but when you look across the whole range, you do see that the morphology grades from one form to the other - a continuous population. Nevertheless, if someone hands you a wild caught specimen, you can make a pretty decent guess at where the snake was captured based on morphology.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Hi all,

I spent a little time taking the information in this thread and diagraming a breeding group web. I'm not sure I got all of the info correct, but it should be close. It was hard to tell from some posts whether animals from multiple sources were being managed separately, or as one group. So there may be some mixing represented in this diagram that isn't real.










This web is for GO only. A few things stand out. If Sean and Patrick really do have reverse designationsfor Regina and GO, then I think we have to assume that most of the animals out there are mixed (regardless of wild origin) because most animals (in this subsample) trace back to these two sources so the potential for confusion is very high.

Second, Chuck's line may be an enigma. I don't want to say too much until I get some clarification from him.

Overall the case is pretty strong that GO is an invented morph. And regardless of whether it was invented, confusion over the designation has likely led to a lot of mixing between the lines. The possible outlier are frogs that trace only to Chuck. Hopefully we'll learn more about that.

addendum: this story wouldn't be complete without point to Mark's post in this thread that was brought to my attention. http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1227&highlight=patrick+nabors+hybridI didn't include this information in the diagram. Sorry to bring up a bad topic Mark but I think it is important for a complete picture.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I spent a little time taking the information in this thread and diagraming a breeding group web. I'm not sure I got all of the info correct, but it should be close. It was hard to tell from some posts whether animals from multiple sources were being managed separately, or as one group. So there may be some mixing represented in this diagram that isn't real.
> 
> ...


The diagram in my last post has now been updated with information I got from Chuck. Chucks animals were F1 he obtained from a European import about 15 years ago. They came to him as GO and Jack Cover handled the importation. Whether they were part of the same imports that went to Sean, I don't know.

But here's where it gets interesting. From Chuck, "According to collectors active at the time Reginas were from South of the area where "Giant Oranges" were collected. As I did not collect these myself, I have no idea if this is true or not. As a note, I never even heard of the name Regina being used until at least 2 years after I received my G.O."

So we have at least three trusted, reliable, and knowledgeable sources with information that takes us to different conclusions. There are a number of possible scenarios that could reconcile the accounts, but none of them help unscramble the mystery. 

Bear in mind I knew nothing about these tinctorius morphs before reading this thread. I just saw an opportunity to test some of the ASN tools.


----------



## xfrogx (Jul 5, 2006)

Ive been reading this thread from the start, Has everyone just kinda gave up on it? I hope not I think its pretty interesting. what are peoples final thoughts?


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2007)

There seems to be a correlation between the increasing length of posts in a thread and the lack of responses that follow. 

It's actually unfortunate (and ironic) as this thread is now actually engaging a few of the things that a lot of people are frequently talking about wanting to deal with and get sorted out...but then the whole discussion gets deserted and never completely waded through.

Hopefully a few people will chime in and add whatever bits and pieces they can to the web that's been started...


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Brent no problem, that info is something that people need to be aware of, I do know however that Pat Nabors went to great lengths to seek out all that got those frogs and was pretty well satisfied that they had all been accounted for...at least the offspring he sold. I know some breeding of these animals took place but it was fairly well publicized in the community at the time and I know none of those animals were sold, at least to people who have some profile in the community
I am pretty sure all we see for sale these days are clean lines as they are both somewhat limited availability wise.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

The way to deal with the hybrid info will be to add a separate chain on the diagram to indicate the hybrid line that dead ends with Patrick. I'll do that when I get a chance.

A big question I have is whether diagraming these webs provides a useful tool for guiding breeding decisions. Does this diagram make it easier to understand the situation than just the narrative accounts? Does the information presented here suggest a coarse of action for managing these animals (e.g. lump or split)? Has anyone changed their mind about whether they should be lumped or split based on this information?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I just wanted to bump this topic. I'm a bit disheartened by the apparent lack of interest in this. These questions about origins come up over and over again. We've finally developed some tools to possibly unravel these mysteries and properly track and manage these animals but they do no good unless they are used. Is the hobby more interested in just talking about these things than actually improving management? Just asking.


----------



## ErickG (Nov 28, 2004)

you've got my support. What's the next step?


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I think a big part of the hobby is looking for an easy way to get what they want. Are any of the founding animals in the US in the Frogstracks registry yet? Doesn't look like it... that may help - especially since the names are used conversly by two of the biggest suppliers in the hobby. How do we know the GOs listed and the Reginas listed are from the same line? I guess I'm a snot and would like an explaination of the critters when looking thru the registry, but that might also be because i've been working too much on the idea of a hobby guide (which would be most beneficial tied to the registry and the caresheets)


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Just bumping this back up in the hopes that it continues beyond just talk.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

bbrock said:


> A big question I have is whether diagraming these webs provides a useful tool for guiding breeding decisions. Does this diagram make it easier to understand the situation than just the narrative accounts? Does the information presented here suggest a coarse of action for managing these animals (e.g. lump or split)? Has anyone changed their mind about whether they should be lumped or split based on this information?


Specific to these diagrams. Is this a tool that has value in determining how we should divide populations? If ASN presented a management plan that used this diagram as part of the basis for deciding which animals should be grouped together as a managed population, would people be okay with that? The bottom line is that these diagrams do require a bit of time to put together. If the resulting information is really useful for making breeding decisions, then it is effort well spent. But if it isn't something that really changes how people do things, then we should put our effort somewhere else.

As for next steps, my biased opinion is that the most important thing we could do is fill out ASN application forms and submit them. "Registration" form is probably a more accurate name as everyone will qualify for ASN stewardship at some level. The next step is to submit accession forms. They only take a couple minutes to fill out. Hopefully some day we can coordinate with Frog Tracks so that ASN and Frog Tracks can work together.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

> As for next steps, my biased opinion is that the most important thing we could do is fill out ASN application forms and submit them. "Registration" form is probably a more accurate name as everyone will qualify for ASN stewardship at some level.


For most species and morphs, this might not be much of an issue...but for this specific situation, even doing this presents some problems. For instance, one of the first questions is what species and morphs I want to register.

So what do I put down: Giant Orange or Regina? Has this chart actually decided something--do we have some sort of consensus? What sort of problems would it cause if I started to call my frogs "Regina" if they were sold to me as "Giant Orange," assuming I would continue in passing along offspring? Would it simply be a matter of making a notation on the diagram?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ron, these are all good questions. The process of accessioning in ASN is designed such that you don't really need to know the official designation of your frogs. What you would do is provide the information that you know about your animals. It is up to the taxon management group responsible for that species to use these breeder diagrams and other information to make a determination about populations to be managed. So, you might submit animals as Regina. The TMG would review your accessions and compare the information with information gathered from other sources. They may even contact you with specific questions in a case like this to get additional information about your frog's origins. In the end, they may determine that your animals have common origins with other animals that are cataloged as Giant Orange so you would be notified that this is the population your animals would be included in within ASN. Of course there can be animals from that same group that are not accessioned in ASN (that's up to the steward to decide) and those animals can be called anything you like. 

ASN initially is concerned only with determining the genetic orgins of animals so they can be managed as a population. Once those decisions are made, the original group of animals with common genetic origins would be designated as "founders" of the ASN managed population. And from that point forward, the ASN population would consist only of descendants of those founders (or additional founders could be vetted if they are found to be genetically equivalent to the original founders). At that point, there really would be a new population of this group of animals which is the ASN managed population. That means that whatever happens with animals outside of ASN, no longer impacts the genetic integrity of animals within ASN. This is somewhat similar to the process that red wolves went through where all possible red wolves were collected from the wild. Those were tested for genetic markers that indicated genetically "pure" red wolves as defined by the breeding objectives. And those animals determined to be pure were used as the founders for the reintroduction program.

As for these particular D. tinctorius, if I were on the TMG, the diagrams would suggest to me that the majority of animals in the hobby either originate from the same place, or have already been genetically mixed together from at least 2 different sources. So all those animals should be lumped into a single population. The exception appears to be animals that trace back only to Chuck N. which should be managed as a distinct population. The final group would be animals that share origins with both groups which could form a third population and could be registered in ASN but probably would not be managed. Chuck's line would probably qualify as Category 2 management (believed to be from a single geographic location but that exact location is unknown). The other group would be Category 1 (of unkown geographic origin or known to be mixed from multiple geographic origins).

An important point here is that ASN stewards are not responsible for figuring all of this stuff out. It is the taxon management group (TMG) that gathers the available information and defines the populations. Individual need only agree to follow the guidance of the TMG for managing those animals they have enrolled in the program. Of course, a steward can enroll some animals in ASN and withhold others to manage for other objectives. That's fine. The important thing is that there is a distinction between animals within the managed program designed to maintain genetic integrity, from those outside the program which can be managed for other objectives.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Regina male, Nabors line.









Regina pair 1, Nabors line.









Giant Orange, Pair 1, Nabors line.









Regina male, Nabors line









Giant Orange male, Nabors line.

I am also growing up a group of 4 "Giant Orange" from Chuck as well. They have an appearance more closely resembling the Nabors Giant Orange, not the Regina.

If these are one line, then Patrick has had them separated long enough to clearly show morphologic differences.

While I love the discussion, I just thought a page without pics is to sad to pass up. Thanks Brent


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Thanks Shawn,

That helps quite a bit. I've updated the chart once again to add new information:









Which brings up a new question. NAIB clearly had Giant Orange and those animals could be sources for some in the hobby. But where did they get their animals. I suspect from Sean but that would need verification before it could be included.

Also, there is an alternative view of how populations should be designated. I mentioned earlier a 2 population option where the Chuck N. animals are one populations and a second population is everything else because of possible confusion among those animals.

But the justification for that lumping comes largely from the possibility that two major sources (Stewart and Nabors) have flipped designations for GO and Regina. This needs to be verified. If it is true, then there could be a 4 population scenario where Nishihira, Nabors, and Steward are all pure, but we don't know exactly which frogs go with which. Shawn's post indicates that the Nishihira and Nabors GO may be the same. And if the Stewart Regina is actually the Nabors GO, then those 3 could be safely lumped. Or if it turns out that the flipping of GO and Regina is false, then all GO are the same line and should be lumped. 

But we don't have answers to these questions so another way would be to keep the 3 lines apart. Any animals mixed between any of the two lines become suspect since people pairing anything called GO may be mixing GO and Regina. So those would form a 4th (possibly mixed) population.

I guess I'm leaning toward the idea that GO and Regina possibly originated as two distinct populations from distinct localities, but that the names may have been fuddled in various ways along the way. I think any way we slice it, the origins of these animals become increasingly suspect the farther you get from the 3 main sources of animals in this country.


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Thanks Shawn,
> 
> But the justification for that lumping comes largely from the possibility that two major sources (Stewart and Nabors) have flipped designations for GO and Regina. This needs to be verified. If it is true, then there could be a 4 population scenario where Nishihira, Nabors, and Steward are all pure, but we don't know exactly which frogs go with which. Shawn's post indicates that the Nishihira and Nabors GO may be the same. And if the Stewart Regina is actually the Nabors GO, then those 3 could be safely lumped. Or if it turns out that the flipping of GO and Regina is false, then all GO are the same line and should be lumped.


I have a group of Reginas from Marcus Breece and a pair from offspring of Patrick Nabors. My Reginas from Marcus are from frogs he originally received from Sean Stewart. 

In speaking to Marcus about the background of these animals, he was clearly of the understanding that (and Marcus, please correct me here if I'm misinterpreting you) Sean had switched how he was naming these frogs after Marcus had received these Reginas. So, the frogs that Marcus received as Reginas from Sean are now being called Giant Oranges. Marcus continues to call them Reginas, as that is what he received them as.

In comparing the frogs from Marcus with the frogs with Patrick, I don't believe that I could make morphologic distinctions between the two . . . which makes sense, because all accounts I have received indicate that Sean reversed which frogs were named what a few years back after speaking with a European individual who had been to, or near the original collection sites for the two different originating lines (or so the legend and lore goes). So, where does this leave us? 

It is said that the Europeans do not recognize a difference between the GO and the Regina. We have people who have received offspring from the exact same pair of frogs that are being called different names, depending upon when they were purchased, and offspring of those frogs are being passed on named who knows what. Thankfully, this community is a small one, and we can track down, for the most part, what the history of these frogs are because there are typically only one or two generations removed from one of these established breeders.

However, unless we can get the stories on the founding stock, and the reason for splitting the names, I don't know that we have any reason to believe or not to believe that these are separate populations. Does anyone know Sean well enough to get the back story on these?

Finally, I'll throw in my two cents here, for exactly what it's worth. I agree with the sentiment that we want to retain the wild caught characteristics of the animals we care for and reproduce. However, I have seen an overwhelming number of people that want to split off frogs as different morphs simply based upon purely morphological characteristics . . . and in a vacuum of information. Based upon the amazing amount of variability I have seen in offspring from single pairs, I think this is a dangerous path for our hobby. 

I understand that on one hand we have the danger of creating "mutts" that are still the same species, but which may be mixing populations that are not contiguous. However, on the other hand, we have the danger of line breeding only animals that look alike to their siblings, which will ultimately end in low production animals that do not thrive. I have raised killifish in the past that were so line bred that you had to create unrealistic environments to get the eggs to remain viable, while simply backbreeding them to lines of the standard morph created a generation of fish that were vastly superior to the line bred parents in health, vigor, and viability of eggs.

In instances like this, where all accounts agree that both populations are at the very least geographically close to one another, and some accounts suggest that collection sites were from geographically contiguous populations, the risk of producing deleterious effects from line breeding from the already small founding population is much greater than us, as a hobby, producing a frog that is not fairly representative of what is found in the wild.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Homer said:


> In instances like this, where all accounts agree that both populations are at the very least geographically close to one another, and some accounts suggest that collection sites were from geographically contiguous populations, the risk of producing deleterious effects from line breeding from the already small founding population is much greater than us, as a hobby, producing a frog that is not fairly representative of what is found in the wild.


An excellent observation Homer. I also agree that my tendency would be to lump these animals together. But I'm a self-confessed lumper and don't want to impose that bias. We do need to get more information directly from Sean. But I do think it looks likely that Regina and GO have been muddled back and forth enough that we can't assume most of these animals are genetically "pure" to population IF they actually originated from two populations. There is also the possibility that they were collected from different areas of a contiguous population. Which could explain the subtle morphological differences.

Where that leaves us, I don't know. We don't have a TMG for tinctorius established in ASN at this point. But it might be worth looking at the much more simple example of D. variabilis that was posted last week. It can be accessed at: http://www.treewalkers.org/projects/ASN/ At some point lines have to be drawn around captive animals to decide how they are managed from this point forward. In the case of variabilis, their are 2 populations in the US which may, or may not, have originated from the same wild population. One population is known for certain and the other is hazy. So the TMG decided to split management strategies by managing the certain population as Category 3 and the hazy population as Category 1. Basically, focus on the group you have the most confidence in and move forward.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Brent, I assume that if more specific/concrete collection information was uncovered regarding the Category 1 population, there is a possibility that it stage would change, possibly allowing the frogs being managed within that population to be introduced to the Category 3 population?


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

Hey Brent, 
beautiful frogs by the way!!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> Brent, I assume that if more specific/concrete collection information was uncovered regarding the Category 1 population, there is a possibility that it stage would change, possibly allowing the frogs being managed within that population to be introduced to the Category 3 population?


I assume you are talking about the variabilis example from the TMG that Oz wrote. If so, then yes, there are a couple ways the Cat 1 population could change. If known locality data came to light and we were confident that the animals in that population had not been mixed with other populations, then they could go to Cat 3. Another possibility would be if it was determined that there is only one wild population that fits this particular morph in which case the TMG might consider lumping. In this case I doubt it though because the Cat 3 population are the INIBICO frogs and there are plenty of them already in captivity to found a solid genetic population. Also, Oz just got word that the Understory and INIBIO variabilis are from the same wild population.

But I do want to emphasize there should be no stigma about Category 1 animals. For our purposes of just wanting captive frog populations that have all the neat traits of their wild ancestors, Category 1 frogs are just as good as animals with known locality data. We only need locality data for animals being bred as assurance colonies for possible reintroduction. Frankly, that is highly unlikely for the vast majority of species kept in the hobby. Most of our conservation gain will come from keeping captive populations "wild" so we eliminate the incentive to go collect more animals from the wild. However, when we do have locality data, it only makes sense to manage them as Category 3 since it doesn't take much extra effort. And it is good training for how to manage those species that really do need captive management with the possibility of returning them to the wild some day.


----------



## tnwalkers (Jul 15, 2012)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

so i have come across this thread 5 years later and although i am new to the hobby and have not yet collected any frogs, i am curious on the status of this.
and pardon my ignorance but couldnt there be some kind of testing with wc imports to see if the off spring did throw the traits in question? it seems to me if they are just one morph then it could be proven thru their offspring?

again im not a very educated person and im just trying to wrap my brain around this.

thanks


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

I would test mate them and see what happens. I know people get in a panic about crossing things, but here is a case that one might learn something valuable.


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

Just aquired some Giant Orange adults, so was doing a bit of research. I am amazed that this is still controversial and "up in the air". I am curius though, how many people out there are keeping the GO X Regina cross, as we all know they are being crossed and passed around.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

IMO if we created the 'Regina' we have today...after 20 years separated from the 'Giant Orange' that were originally marketed....

we end up with 2 line-bred separate lines.....

Like it or not. 

Either we created it unknowingly [splitters] or they really are from different locations in French Guiana....perhaps close to each other but who really knows?

But combining them back together in 2010 or whenever, doesnt recreate the wild type [lumpers beware]

Sad but, I think the Giant Regina 'cross' should be labeled and stay separate from the other lines, if for no other reason than the 2 separate lines had their own distinct and desirable characteristics.

Maybe some new WC genetics will enter the hobby someday.


----------



## pafrogguy (May 8, 2013)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

I still keep them separate. The Regina (Nabors definition) is still my favorite tinc morph even. Especially when they are actually orange and not washed out like many that I see. Guess we won't know for sure unless they would be exported again. But I can say I seen WC pairs of the Regina many years ago before these were available and seen the offspring produced by them. The offspring looked like the parents. Of course there were variations, but not one looked like a Giant Orange. If they were just marketed as a separate morph, wouldn't these WC animals have threw varied offspring that looked like both morphs we see today? Maybe we will see some imported again someday and get a little more insight.


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

Yeah....I had some of the original founder Regina stock YEARS ago, back in the 90's. I've never had any Giant Orange up until now. I'm inclined to leave the lines seperate that I believe have been kept seperate. I believe these used to be the same locality. But, having been kept seperate for so long, you cant turn back the clock by breedign them back together. I am not against a regina/orange cross line IF kept %100 seperate (but is this possible). I suspect the likelihood is, there are many unlabeled crosses already around in the hobby.


----------



## pafrogguy (May 8, 2013)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

You were lucky to have those. I remember when I first seen them in 98 or 99 and wanted them so bad. But, people were treating them like they were dipped in gold lol. well may as well through a picture up... here is one of my giant orange


----------



## siples (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina*

I have 4 Giant Reginas from Richard Lynch, beautiful frogs. I also have GO's, I do feel from what original importers have stated they are one and the same frog just linebred. It looks like I have 1.3, if I do breed these frogs any offspring would only be passed on as what they are exactly. While I feel crossing the two is just, I think people should know what they are getting.


----------

