# Now that we have site data for the new pums...



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

(see SNDF message in classifieds)

Now that the site data is available, what does that mean about maintaining different lines? 

Does it make sense, assuming that all "Uyama Rivers" were collected from the same site, to isolate them in captivity by color pattern (as is common with so many other species)?

Or should site data be taken into account but pattern ignored, such that "yellow reticulated cristobal" could be housed with/bred with "red cristobal?" This of course based on the assumption that these two are highly sympatric in the sites at which they were collected...

Not stating an opinion/advocating a course of action, just interested in thoughts...


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2006)

I wonder if letting the different color morphs breed together would end up with less than fantastic frogs they are now? Or are all of them now products of cross breedings between the color morphs. I wish I knew if these color morphs represented distinct populations.


----------



## NCSUdart (Oct 1, 2004)

I can't say anything except... I CAN'T FIGURE OUT IF 2 OF MINE ARE CHRISTOBAL YELLOW FINE OR RIO BRANCO YELLOW :shock: not helping me much there with some of the pictures. i'm thinking i have definitely 1 male christobal yellow and 1 riobranco yellow... but hell, all 4 could be the same or 2 could be 1 and 2 could be the other. argh!!! without having sold them with locality info this may end up making a bigger mess. oh well, a pox on me for buying them knowing full well i didn't have data.


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

So start a thread with some pics and we can try to help.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Unfortunately (someone correct me if I am wrong), I doubt each individual frog comes to the importer with locality data. Most likely, a box o' froggies shows up at the port, and the importer gets to determine what is what, just like with the last three (Bastis, Man Creek & Chiriqui River/Grande).


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

npaull said:


> Does it make sense, assuming that all "Uyama Rivers" were collected from the same site, to isolate them in captivity by color pattern (as is common with so many other species)?
> 
> Or should site data be taken into account but pattern ignored, such that "yellow reticulated cristobal" could be housed with/bred with "red cristobal?" This of course based on the assumption that these two are highly sympatric in the sites at which they were collected...


We don't mix red bastis with orange bastis, so I can't say that I would personally codone mixing these different colors. The Uyama river and to a lesser degree the rio branco variation is huge. Totally different IMHO. Now we need to figure out how to name the different types. e.g. red w/blue leg rios, red w/grey leg rios. than we have the oranges and yelows and.....................
Sheesh, this could get confusing.


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

Catfur said:


> Unfortunately (someone correct me if I am wrong), I doubt each individual frog comes to the importer with locality data. Most likely, a box o' froggies shows up at the port, and the importer gets to determine what is what, just like with the last three (Bastis, Man Creek & Chiriqui River/Grande).


No expert here, but I believe you are correct. However, it seems that when we get one morph, more of the same come in at roughly the same time. just like bastis, man creeks and chiriquis.

Look at thefrogfarm.net 04/06 shipment. they all look like the crystobal, rio branco and uyama river morphs from Marcus Breece (SNDF) with the exception of a few.


----------



## Reptiledan (Nov 23, 2004)

*Data*

NCSU
Take a look at the leg pattern, the cristabals should stick out like a sore thumb. The Uyuma rivers and Rio branco both have large spots on a very light background were the Cristabals have a reticulated pattern on the legs and its quite a bit smaller.. Just my input.. Dan


----------



## NCSUdart (Oct 1, 2004)

frogs 2 and 4 are much more orange now that they are not stressed. Their legs are also a light blueish/grey.


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

Okay NCSUdart, here's my best guess, by no means take this as the gospel truth. Simply my best guess. I see where your coming from though, this is tough.

1. crystobal
Because of the ultra fine spotting on the back and slight riticulation on the legs.

2. Crystobal
this ones tough, but the Rio Broncos that I have seen still don'thave that small of spotting on the back. The RBs seem to be mor striped than spotted
compare with image 1 here
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15827&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

3. Crystobal.
This ones super hard to guess. I was inclined to say RB but the spotting on the legs are to small. again compare with spotting in the above link.

4. Crystobal
This ones hard as well. again compare with pic 1 in the above link. medium sized irregular spotting and similar leg markings.


----------



## Reptiledan (Nov 23, 2004)

*Pics*

NCSU
My guess would be 1 and 3 Cristabals and 4 Uyuma river (brown bloches on legs), number 2 loos to be a little tough in a pic but I would guess Uyuma river or yellow basti (maybe).. Either way they are very nice frogs.. Dan


----------



## trinacliff (Aug 9, 2004)

See, here goes the problem. :roll: 

I give up staring at them trying to figure it out. hahaha

Kristen


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

NCSUdart, can you get some better pics colorwise. It's really hard to tell with the pics so browned out. I still say they are crystobals best I can tell by the pics.


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

trinacliff said:


> See, here goes the problem. :roll:
> 
> Most of those look like Rio Branco to me...then again, I'm no expert. If any are iffy, I'd say top one looks a little Christobal'ish and the second, maybe. :lol: Then again, who can really tell...anyone? hehe
> 
> Kristen


That's why we need to be looking closely at subtle differences like leg patterns and look for consitancies in morphs. I agree that it's tuff, and admittedly giving my best guess. It seems to me and other froggers that i have spoken to, that it makes no sense for a collector to be traveling all around collecting frogs when they could most likely get a good assortment of morphs in one area. I feel that they probably were all collected from the same spot and if so what's to say that some of what we call crystobals and rio Brancos aren't the same frog. Seems to me that if you collect two nearly identical frogs from the same locale that they are probably the same frog. But then again we don't know for sure if they were isolated groups or not. Who knows? 

Somebody with a little more Pum experience get in here and straighten us out already.


----------



## NCSUdart (Oct 1, 2004)

i'll see what i can snap tommorrow. i definitely don't think they are uyama river. but it may be a toss up between rio branco and christobal


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

NCSUdart said:


> i'll see what i can snap tommorrow. i definitely don't think they are uyama river. but it may be a toss up between rio branco and christobal


agreed.

I say that it's a pretty good bet that #1 at least is a crystobal based on the samll spots on the back and the leg pattern. 

The others are admitedly a tough call.


----------



## trinacliff (Aug 9, 2004)

I'm kind of thinking that subtle differences are what makes things so complicated. These frogs seem to be so variable, that if a subtle difference makes it a different morph, then we will get into the selective breeding and make even more of a huge mess. 

I definitely think #3 is Rio Branco...1 could be Christobal, and 2 could be also, I suppose...but I think 1 looks more like all the photos I've seen of the ones we know to be Christobal. (Like shown on the tropical experience website, for example) 2 even has some of the more broad lines like Rio Branco rather than spots down towards the bottom. 4 has a few of those also. 

Hmmm...

Kristen


----------



## NCSUdart (Oct 1, 2004)

took some pictures today, colors came through a lot better. first picture is frog 1, also the only male i have apparently.
light blue/grey legs, a light yellow body








frog number 2, probable female. i currently have her paired with frog 1
blue/grey legs a brighter blue than number 1, orange body. I didn't get a good back shot, but i already have a good one posted








good color on the legs









frog number 3, also probable female. yellow body grey/green legs


















frog number 4, also probable female. very orange grey/blue legs


















i snapped the pictures really quickly, but they are better than the previous batch color wise.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2006)

Ohhh!!! Those pumi's are gorgeous! I love those blue legs. I really hope these are all available in time for my next viv project.


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

With the new pics I Changed my mind a little and am gonna say:

1. Crystobal

2. Crystobal

3. Rio Bronco

4. Rio Bronco


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "That's why we need to be looking closely at subtle differences like leg patterns and look for consitancies in morphs. I agree that it's tuff, and admittedly giving my best guess. It seems to me and other froggers that i have spoken to, that it makes no sense for a collector to be traveling all around collecting frogs when they could most likely get a good assortment of morphs in one area. I feel that they probably "endsnip

Doesn't this statement assume that there is little to no phenotypic variation within a population? 
What if the variation within the population is overlaps the distinctions that are being made between the populations? 

Ed


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

Ed said:


> What if the variation within the population is overlaps the distinctions that are being made between the populations?


Actually, that's what I thought Paul was saying with the rest of his sentence:




Paul E. Wog said:


> ...I feel that they probably were all collected from the same spot and if so what's to say that some of what we call crystobals and rio Brancos aren't the same frog. Seems to me that if you collect two nearly identical frogs from the same locale that they are probably the same frog...


But maybe I read it wrong...

--Diane


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I thought that was what he was saying but then, there were still attempts to id the frogs on the best guess analysis. 

Everyone is also talking like a shipment consists of the frogs collected by one individual. I strongly suspect that the shipments consist of the efforts of more than one collector. 

Ed


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

Even though they purportedly come from the same general area(s), huh? Interesting.

I love the way pumilio importations are always shrouded in mystery... 

--Diane


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

We know the frogs are shipped from the same general area. We do not know that they were collected from the same general area. 
Wildlife exports typically involve a couple of different stages. The collector who gathers and holds the frogs for the middleman. The middleman (who can also be the exporter) makes the trip through at variable periods of time (which is why within a shipment there can be such differences in how healthy the animals actually are) to pick up the animals from the collector for shipment. This person then takes the animals to the exporter who waits (multiple deliveries from differnet people) for a sufficient number to be delivered to make export worthwhile. 

Until someone is on the ground from collection to export we have no clue whether these are the same morph (variations within the morph), or multiple different morphs... 

Ed


----------



## Reptiledan (Nov 23, 2004)

*Collecting*

What if the goverment is dictating were the frogs are collected and how many can be taken from that area. It would make since to establish harvest programs so one specific area is not over harvested and different morphs are consistantly being made available to keep the market active. If I owned the farm I would for sure be cleaning out the green houses of Almirante and adding ??? just to keep bussiness high. 
There are no established lines in the wild saying frogs from Rio B cannot cross into Uyama R. If you look at collection history it shows those locations as being fairly close together, then toss Guarmo river into the mix and thing keep getting more confussing. 
I have a few morphs of Cristabals or Almirante that look like Punta Verdas, by dendrobase.com discription. A few more Pumilio showed, that looked like nothing I have every seen??? Just to get to the point I dont think they are all from the same area, It looks like they come from all over Panama, maybe Escuado de Varagaus is next!!! 
Dan


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

Paul E. Wog said:


> npaull said:
> 
> 
> > Does it make sense, assuming that all "Uyama Rivers" were collected from the same site, to isolate them in captivity by color pattern (as is common with so many other species)?
> ...


populations of frogs are so variable. I dotn know if its a good idea to start just keeping the red leg frogs in groups and the orange and yellows ect..... I dont know how specific the site data is and how large of a range it covers. but ti owuld be nice to know if all the different color variations of each morph interbreed.


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Doesn't this statement assume that there is little to no phenotypic variation within a population?
> What if the variation within the population is overlaps the distinctions that are being made between the populations?
> Ed


No i do not believe that there is little to no phenotypic variation within the population. Look at any number of frogs of the same morph and it is quite obvious that there can be huge variations between the them. 

What I mean by what I said is: *Assuming* that these frogs are indeed Crystobal and/or Rio brancos. It would seem logical to me that if we are going to be so adamant about determining whether a frog is a cristo or Rio (based often on opinion) than we should be looking closey at the common physical traits of "known" cristos and "known Rios to try to figure out what morph an unknown frog from the same general locale is. Is it a sure fire solution, absolutely not; but what other means do we have?

Sometimes I feel as though some frogs are over identified. It seems that some people jump at the chance to call the same darn frog something else. If we have an assumed red cristo and an assumed red rio that were collected from the same general area. and the cristo has smaller spots on its legs but otherwise looks the same, than as far as I am concerned, it's probably the same frog. But so many people in this hobby are so adamant (ubderstanably so) about not mixing morphs that we end up selectively breeding physical traits into our fogs just because one has small spots and the other has big ones.

I think where you were getting confused is the difference between what I feel is possibly the same frog and what this hobbies collective opinion forces me to abide by. If the general concensus is to only breed x spotted frog with another x spotted frog than I will acquiesce even though I don't nessesarily agree. Don't misunderstand, I am not in any way advocating mixing morphs. I just think that we nitpick ourselves into selective breeding.

To furhter compound this problem, who decides what morph the frog is when it is shipped to us? from what I have heard it would be the exporter. And on top of that what makes him/her so qualified to decide what is what?



ED said:


> I thought that was what he was saying but then, there were still attempts to id the frogs on the best guess analysis.


See above.
Don't take this the wrong way, but how else are we supposed to do it?



ED said:


> Everyone is also talking like a shipment consists of the frogs collected by one individual. I strongly suspect that the shipments consist of the efforts of more than one collector.


Okay, that is a definate possibility and not one that should be quickly discredited, but in speaking to people selling these new imports I have found that many of them don't feel as though that is the case. I was just restating what has been relayed to me by them.



ED said:


> Until someone is on the ground from collection to export we have no clue whether these are the same morph (variations within the morph), or multiple different morphs...


Very true, One of the many annoying things about pumilio shipments. But what are we suposed to do? Guy 1 has a pair of pums and guy 2 has an identical pair do we sell the young as guy1 morph and guy2 morph even though they are probably the same frog?


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

*GREASER* said:


> [quote="Paul E. Wog":1flloc5a]
> 
> 
> npaull said:
> ...


populations of frogs are so variable. I dotn know if its a good idea to start just keeping the red leg frogs in groups and the orange and yellows ect..... I dont know how specific the site data is and how large of a range it covers. but ti owuld be nice to know if all the different color variations of each morph interbreed.[/quote:1flloc5a]

I understand where your coming from and agree in many ways. But like I said in my previous post, it seems that the hobby forces us not to mix them even though say an orange basti is possibly just a lighter colored red. I feel that we are to nitpicky but the "ethical hobbiest stigma" pressures us to be that way. Maybe we need to start reevaluating whether or not what we think is right, actually is.


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

I appoligize for any confusion, sometimes when we try to consolidate our posts into readable paragraphs; our intentions become muddled due to lack of detail.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

i will only breed frogs that look similar. mine came from will and i picked 2 (with wills help) that look very similar. what everyone descides to call them in the end is still up for debate. i picked them because they were attractive to me, not for a name. i think F1s will help solve a little of this debate.i hope they do breed true but i also think it will be funny to see what people say when F1 "red cristos" come out looking like rios and uyma.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "No i do not believe that there is little to no phenotypic variation within the population. Look at any number of frogs of the same morph and it is quite obvious that there can be huge variations between the them. 

What I mean by what I said is: Assuming that these frogs are indeed Crystobal and/or Rio brancos. It would seem logical to me that if we are going to be so adamant about determining whether a frog is a cristo or Rio (based often on opinion) than we should be looking closey at the common physical traits of "known" cristos and "known Rios to try to figure out what morph an unknown frog from the same general locale is. Is it a sure fire solution, absolutely not; but what other means do we have? endsnip 


I didn't believe you were making that assumption. The interpretation I got from other people who posted is that this was the interpretatpion as there were comments made based on what appear to be intermediate characteristics. 

Along these lines, the hobby has segregated frogs via colors that can be affected by genetic make-up as well as carotenoid supplementation. For example the differences in red, orange and yellow (while maybe having a genetic component) may also simply be due to the composition of the sequestered carotenoids in the chromatophores. If we are segregating the frogs on colors that are nutritionally influenced we are limiting the population.... 

snip " I think where you were getting confused is the difference between what I feel is possibly the same frog and what this hobbies collective opinion forces me to abide by. If the general concensus is to only breed x spotted frog with another x spotted frog than I will acquiesce even though I don't nessesarily agree. Don't misunderstand, I am not in any way advocating mixing morphs. I just think that we nitpick ourselves into selective breeding. "endsnip 

I think people are making arbitrary designations to extend what they something is so it can be comfortably cubbyholed. 

D wrote: 

snip "See above. 
Don't take this the wrong way, but how else are we supposed to do it? "endsnip 

The most conservative response would be to make this designations within a shipment and until more is known keep the pairing within frogs of that shipment and offspring from frogs in that shipment... 


snip "ED wrote: 
Everyone is also talking like a shipment consists of the frogs collected by one individual. I strongly suspect that the shipments consist of the efforts of more than one collector. 


Okay, that is a definate possibility and not one that should be quickly discredited, but in speaking to people selling these new imports I have found that many of them don't feel as though that is the case. I was just restating what has been relayed to me by them. "endsnip 

I did import frogs etc in the pet trade in the very early 1990s and all of the shipments were due to the efforts of more than one collector. Maybe it changes since then. 
As a thought exercise consider the number of frogs being imported over the period of time into all of the countries that are recieving them and think how large a population of frogs does it take to support that many adult frogs to make it economical for one collector to pull out all of those frogs.... Add in the length of time it may take to collect those frogs etc. Depending on who supplied the frogs, there maybe someone calling themselves the collector but they are probably buying them from locals who are collecting them (or children) who may be getting them from multiple subpopulations.. 


Some more things to ponder....

Ed


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> i will only breed frogs that look similar


This statement makes very little sense to me, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it would seem that (assuming the motive/ideal is morph purity) this practice would assume that a given population has low phenotypic variability. I believe there is ample evidence to indicate that this is simply untrue, perhaps especially so for pumilio.

Second, it simultaneously assumes that allopatric (or sympatric, for that matter) species will NOT look alike (let alone morphs). This is also demonstrably untrue - witness variabilis & imitator, banded intermedius & fantasticus, speciosus and bri-bri pums (are theys till considered different species) and many of the histrionicus/lehmanni morphs. Heck, Sean Stewart has a frog on his website that is indeterminate between bicolor and terribilis. Granted, it's not impossible to tell any of these guys apart (most of the time), but it shows the potential complications involved in using pattern as the distinguishing feature, or as an overriding characteristic. The inherent complications become all the richer if you look at intra-species morphs; ie Koetari tincs that look enough like azureus to pass to an untrained eye, etc.

On these two points alone, the requirement for pattern/color uniformity as a precursor for pairing off and breeding seems to be inadequate to achieve the desired result: namely, the maintenance of natural diversity. And it may begin to propagate inbred, isolated lines.

It sounds like I'm jumping on you - I don't mean to be. It does appear to be true that many morphs share both a specific geography and characteristic markings; I'm not denying their usefulness. And as someone said earlier, "what else can we do?"

Anyway, the only reason I'm responding to this statement specifically is because it segues back to the reason I started this thread - I generally feel that dart froggers love to be "splitters" rather than "groupers" in the age-old taxonomic battelground. And my *hunch*, especially in looking at the Uyama river morphs, is that there's going to be an effort to subdivide on ambiguous differences. If it turns out that all the Uyama rivers can indeed be found along the same hundred yards of said river, why on Earth would we try and isolate polymorphisms in captivity?


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

> If it turns out that all the Uyama rivers can indeed be found along the same hundred yards of said river, why on Earth would we try and isolate polymorphisms in captivity?


From what I understand, there can be substantial variation exhibited by separate populations of the same species even within a range as limited as 100 yards. Seemingly dismissible barriers like a slow running stream that pose no hindrance to a human collector can separate, say, a bluish Uyama population from a green one. Just one of the thousand possibilities standing in the way of us garnering appropriate info regarding the diversity of these shipments.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> If it turns out that all the Uyama rivers can indeed be found along the same hundred yards of said river, why on Earth would we try and isolate polymorphisms in captivity?


You're right. I should have added to the above sentence, before the first comma, one of two things:

1) (and it can be shown that different "morphs" in fact interbreed in the area in which they are found)

OR

2) or if crosses of the same "morph" from the same area reproduce or partially reproduce the phenotypic variation of the area in total


----------



## Paul E. Wog (Jan 2, 2005)

npaull said:


> > Anyway, the only reason I'm responding to this statement specifically is because it segues back to the reason I started this thread - I generally feel that dart froggers love to be "splitters" rather than "groupers" in the age-old taxonomic battelground. And my *hunch*, especially in looking at the Uyama river morphs, is that there's going to be an effort to subdivide on ambiguous differences. If it turns out that all the Uyama rivers can indeed be found along the same hundred yards of said river, why on Earth would we try and isolate polymorphisms in captivity?


I've been thinking a lot about that lately myself. It reminds me of when I was keeping african cichlids and you could never keep the sp. straight because some over zealous person was always reclassifying a fish for some arbitrary difference. 

What I am aprehensive about is, where do we daw the line? Now this is completely hypothetical, so please take it as such. Asuming that alll rio broncos come from the same locale, and further assuming that you can find any number of different color morphs within the same collony; then would it be OK to breed a say for instane a yellow Rio with a red Rio?
Or would we narrow it down to red rios with other red or orange rios. And then after that, we have red and orange rios that have green legs or blue legs or grey legs or white or......... It reallly is very confusing.

I for one don't want to be the one that everybody comes down on for making a poor breeding decsion. I feel that we collectively as a hobby need to start eveluating these things, especially when it comes to the confusion surround pumilio.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

npaul, when i said i would only breed frogs that look alike i was refering only to the newly imported frogs. i would never knowingly breed different morphs/species just because they looked similar. i was also just stating what i am going to do with my frogs. well know more when we see F1s like i said before. i do undrestand there is widly variable phenotypes within a given population, but i prefer the red fine spoted/blue leg and will breed them in hopes of getting more of the same. 

how can we be such sticklers in advocation of mixing phenotypes of pumilio and then turn around and slam someone for mixing tincs that probiably mix in the wild?


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

> how can we be such sticklers in advocation of mixing phenotypes of pumilio and then turn around and slam someone for mixing tincs that probably mix in the wild?


The key word there is "probably".


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> npaul, when i said i would only breed frogs that look alike i was refering only to the newly imported frogs. i would never knowingly breed different morphs/species just because they looked similar. i was also just stating what i am going to do with my frogs. well know more when we see F1s like i said before. i do undrestand there is widly variable phenotypes within a given population, but i prefer the red fine spoted/blue leg and will breed them in hopes of getting more of the same.
> 
> how can we be such sticklers in advocation of mixing phenotypes of pumilio and then turn around and slam someone for mixing tincs that probiably mix in the wild?


Hey Josh,

I didn't mean to imply (I hope I didn't) that I thought you'd only use this criterion to plan your breeding projects (no one is that much of a simpleton!). I was mostly playing devil's advocate to approach the "difference in phenotype as a proxy for isolated wild genotype" approach that is prevalent in the hobby. I really didn't mean to pick on you or critize the integrity of your breeding efforts- sorry if it came off that way.

I think your desire to breed two individuals you like in the hopes of producing more of that pattern is totally valid and fine; whether it should be a "strictly enforced hobbyist guideline" (ie, only breeding like x like regardless of what goes on in the wild) could be argued forever...

Your last point is very good. My adamance about captive genetic isolation of questionably distinct tinc morphs is weak already, and would crumble completely in the face of 1) sympatry and 2) natural, wild cross breeding.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

no harm no foul npaul, just explaining a lil more of what i was saying.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

as far as i can see there are 5 different things to look at.
1 back background color
2 leg background color
3 leg pattern color and patterning
4 back pattern and color of that pattern- if any
5 belly color

so far i have seen every possible combination and then some.
red,yellow and orange blue and green back w/ blue tan grey legs w/ or w/out patterning.

it seems almost impossible to find matches for many of them. also some have green/orange backs or a tinge of brown/bronze tinting the background color. 

either they are intergrades of where a couple morphs converge or they are the most diverse group of pumilio since the bastis mainland population.

the 6 i got today are simply gorgeous. the orange sky blue contrast is incredible.

the only way to find out w/out going down there is to see if like individuals breed true. if my orange rio branco/uyuma river looking pumilio throw blue/tan and green offspring it`s all one morph, if not we need more data from many breedings to figure it out.

the other option is hypomelanism or anerythrism changing black to brown in some or washing it out completely. very unlikely though. 

even the man creeks coming in now have the same leg patterns and colors as the rb and christobals. are they rb and cristibals w/ no back pattern or another local/type of man creeks?


----------



## Tripod (Jun 5, 2006)

*A beginner's perspective...*

Wow, what a complicated and convoluted subject! I find it both fascinating and troubling. The engineer in me screams to find a solution. At great personal risk, I am going to offer a newbie’s perspective on this topic. I hope that my fresh, top down look at this discussion (via the multitude of similar threads on this board and others) will provide an unbiased, macroscopic viewpoint of such an opinionated (and often detailed) debate. I fully realize and accept the probable outcome of taking such a chance, but I have a hardy constitution and I am quite flame retardant...

Let’s begin with a thesis:
The goal of keeping a _perceived_ wild genetic line intact within this hobby is impossible regardless of _accurate _collection data or not.

There are several key underpinnings to this statement, any one of which is detrimental to the stated goal. Taken together, they create a systemic problem that is almost insurmountable. I will touch on each briefly.

Problem #1 - Collection Data Accuracy
It is apparent that as of today, there are no truly accurate sets of collection data per imported frog. The only acceptable data would be detailed (i.e. GPS coordinates) range information gathered over a period of time for each wild frog before it was collected. Males and females of the same species that have intersecting ranges could be paired. I don’t know of any means of collecting this information. Even if it were available, the only truly allowable pairings would be of those whose territories overlap, since no one is able to prove that individuals separated by one or two territories would ever meet in the wild.

The other possibility is the chance that a collector might happen upon a male and female that were obviously together (i.e. courting). These could be taken and kept together as a pair.

Problem #2 - Inbreeding and/or Crossing
I contend that both husbandry methods lead to deviant genetic lines from those in the wild simply because of the lack of a large enough cross section of individuals that do not have Problem #1. 

Repeated inbreeding through multiple generations of the same bloodline is obviously going to introduce mutations and differences that natural selection would keep to a minimum.

Crossing the few limited bloodlines without perfectly reliable location data will only lead to unnatural pairings.

Either way, we obviously do not have a large enough, accurate sampling of genetic material available within the hobby to even approximate natural selection.

Problem #3 – Breeder Selection
Even if an individual breeder was to keep a large selection (population) of reproducing, wild caught frogs (of the same species) which had verifiably correct collection data, THEN the breeder would have to be disciplined in his approach to pairing up the offspring from different parents so as to keep the genetic diversity a close approximation of that found in nature. *The breeder would then have to resist the overwhelming urge to pair according to his or her own biases (i.e. color, pattern, size, etc.) and allow the frogs to pair according to THEIRS (detailed in Problem #4).* 

This process would also require that any offspring sold to other breeders would join different populations of the same species kept under the same conditions. These captive bred frogs would have a recognized, documented pedigree. Those bred outside of these conditions without documented lineage would be considered “mutts”. A system such as this does not exist. A frog registry addresses lineage, but does nothing to ensure a suitably large enough selection of genetic stock.

Problem #4 (the Biggie) – PDF’s are a Hobby and a Business NOT a Conservation Project!
I believe this is the single most pervasive and insurmountable of the problems associated with attempting to keep secure genetic lines, but it is also the most understandable.

People like to keep darts because of their unique markings and beautiful colors…period. This is the draw of these wonderful little creatures. Given the opportunity to select from a limited group of specimens of the same species (i.e. froglets from the same clutch), *every single person involved in this hobby* will select those that appeal to his taste and opinions as to the most beautiful, unique, colorful, etc. This desire, in-and-of-itself, leads to selective breeding for particular traits. (Honestly, how many breeders and hobbyist actually pair frogs that do not have similar appearance of one or more attributes, even if they are siblings?) These traits grow in dominance over others – human influenced morphs, as it were.

The market forces that result from this selection leads to an indirect effect on the visual classifications used to justify “possibly” unique morphs. Case in point: the somewhat humorous attempt on pages 1 and 2 of this thread to identify/classify the four pumi’s. I have a hunch that some of the true (and probably unconscious) underpinnings of such debates has less to do with keeping the genetics pure and more to do with creating notches on the “gotta have it because it’s different” post. 

No two frogs are identical. Because of Problem #1, without genetic testing on each frog and a hobby accepted numerical threshold to differentiate morphs, no one can claim to make scientifically accurate claims regarding morph variances based on visual examination and draw conclusions on acceptable breeding. (Personally, I would love to see the resultant debate of someone posting pictures of the same frog from different angles and ask for everyone to categorize the “different” specimens.)

My personal conclusion…
Since it appears to me that keeping pure, healthy genetic lines of PDFs within the HOBBY is all but impossible given the current circumstances, I can not argue for choosing either method of husbandry (inbreeding or crossing).

I think that both methods are useful tools for expanding this wonderful HOBBY and I would hope that the combination of both will allow us to enjoy those aspects of each species that we personally find so appealing while keeping a lid on certain forces that would lead us to producing unnatural exaggerations or mutations because of the “coolness” factor.

I ultimately will probably start with several specimens as close to F1 or wild caught generations across as many bloodlines as possible (difficult, I know.). I will select individuals according to personal tastes and attempt to create two or more “quasi” bloodlines for production of offspring. This is not pure according to the verbalized strictures of the HOBBY, but, I believe, much closer to the reality of the pastime.

So, I will take a rest and see what sort of responses this post generates. I am eager to see if anyone can justify a given position while adequately addressing problems 1 through 4. Remember, logic does not allow for a thesis to be disproved by a single example that refutes one argument only under certain circumstances. You either have to disprove one argument under all circumstances OR all arguments under one common circumstance. It is quite a challenge.

I’ll sit back now, give my fingers a rest and wait for the deluge. I fully expect a good number of “being a beginner…” and “what do newbies know” sorts of responses, but it’s OK. The fire extinguisher is at hand so…flame on!


----------



## Tim F (Jan 27, 2006)

Wow.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Tripod, don't expect much flaming as the points you brought up are nothing new. They've been re-hashed frequently, with proponents on all sides of the various arguments. Well worded post, though.


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

Tripod,

Hear, hear!


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Tripod,
Great post! I certainly hope that nobody flames your post as it is an expression of your opinion! Too often on this board, people flame opinions and I’m glad somebody is willing to state theirs even with the risk of flame!
That said, I hope that my acceptance of your challenge is not interpreted as a flame of any sort. I can assure you that I will not use the phrases “being a beginner…” and “what do newbies know.” Statements like that are ridiculous as there isn’t a single person out there who should be calling themselves an expert. There is always more to know, there are always more questions to be asked! Once answered, there will always be more questions that result from them!
Anyway, I’m rambling…I will try to address each of your 4 problems that relate to your hypothesis:

The goal of keeping a perceived wild genetic line intact within this hobby is impossible regardless of accurate collection data or not.

Problem #1 – Collection Data Accuracy
There are accurate sets of collection data on several frogs. These frogs don’t typically end up in the hobby, however, so I will not use them as an example.
You make a very good point that there doesn’t exist a ‘truly accurate set of collection data’ per imported frog. Ideally, GPS information would be provided, but I’m sure the exporters don’t have the resources or care to do this. That being said, a simple location is better than nothing, and I hope to show that it is possible to maintain relatively healthy, genetically distinct and diverse populations.
At the microscopic level, a male’s territory is very important, you are correct. Realistically, he will not breed with a female that is located in the same valley only 10 miles away. However, we are talking about maintaining genetically healthy populations. That is, all of the genes within the entire ‘morph.’ Within this population, there will be a certain percentage of alleles. For the purposes of this post, lets use a simple case of color. This allele frequency should be represented in a small sampling of the population if it was collected at random. Now, we can’t show that it was collected at random, but we can assume that the collectors go out and start collecting frogs locally depleting a local population. This dip in population is going to allow collectors in different areas to collect relatively more specimens and thus bring in relatively more pay. I feel that this will promote collectors to spread out and try to get the biggest ‘bang for their buck’ in collections, resulting in spread out collecting. This spread out collecting should provide us with a population of exported individuals representing an allele frequency at/or very close to the wild population. If 25% of the wild population within this region is green and 75% teal and assuming that collectors don’t have special instruction to collect only green or only teal and that either color doesn’t make it easier for them to be seen, we should have 25% of the exported specimens being green. I realize that there could be pressure to collect teal ones, or that perhaps the collector sees green ones easier, or perhaps the genes for color pattern are linked with genes that code for bold behavior, but we have to simplify if we are going to get anywhere and have posts that are less that 30 pages a piece. Anyway, it’s where we go as hobbyists from this point that we’ll run into trouble. 

Problem #2 – Inbreeding and/or Crossing
This is where we’ll ‘run into trouble’ as I mentioned above. The in/linebreeding crossing debate is one that the jury is still out on (although, I am very curious as to why…). A genetic management strategy must be put in place if our goal is to maintain populations that accurately represent allele frequencies of the wild populations.
I cannot disagree with you about husbandry methods leading to deviant genetic lines. However, I do think that it is possible, with proper genetic management, to maintain allele frequencies near the wild population even with a small sample. The problem is that in the absence of predators, weather, etc. we are going to allow drift to take its toll on the population. This is where sustainable importation comes into play. Once our captive population is established and following a strict responsible genetic management program, occasional importation should prevent the negative effects of drift. Export back to the wild in small numbers could also be discussed here although I don’t want to hijack and start a massive debate. Allowing parents to raise offspring, feeding diverse diets, allowing sexual selection of both females and males will help reduce other negative effects that will occur with a captive population. An essential portion of this genetic management strategy must involve randomness. We randomly shuffle our trios to allow some sexual selection and some maintenance of genetic diversity. It’s our way of artificially creating a flood or hurricane or something that would pluck individuals from one end of the natural range and place it in another part. You do make a point, however, that I don’t believe many can argue with and that is the point that in captivity we can not re-create natural selective pressures. We can create some, but most people are not willing to introduce predators, weather, etc. into their terraria. Hopefully most of these behaviors are genetically regulated and so this problem would be abolished by the sustainable importation.

Problem #3 – Breeder Selection
This is a very, very, very big problem in the ‘hobby’ and is where my responsible genetic management strategy comes in. Randomly shuffling tankmates will reduce the problems associated with inbreeding but will also result in a lot of offspring that don’t possess the traits that the breeder wants. It’s not just pattern either, we put a LOT of artificial selection of these animals by removing their clutches 48 hours or whatever people have claimed the ‘hobby standard’ time is. Parent raising is the only way to maintain these traits…the problem? They crank out less eggs which means less money for people who are in this as a business. If we had a genetic management strategy and could convince people that natural was more beautiful than artificial (cornsnake/leopard gecko people please don’t flame me…), there could be chance to maintain a healthy population.

Problem #4 (the biggie) – PDF’s are a Hobby and a business NOT a conservation project
Personally, I don’t believe that a hobby and conservation project must mutually exclude each other. If we have the desire to keep healthy, diverse (genetically speaking) populations of frogs, we could conceivably be participating in both. Certainly not on the large scale that many zoos and research institutions are capable of, but we could do our part.
People do like to keep darts because of their color. But there are many other interesting aspects such as behavior that are a reason that I keep them. In fact, there are many people on the board who prefer behavior to color and keep Colostethus, etc. You do make a point though about the artificial selection and selling offspring. I have the optimistic opinion that people are as random in their tastes as PDF’s are in their patterns and if we randomly paired up our frogs and sold offspring, somebody would think that the ones we thought were ugly were beautiful and buy them.
We will never come to a numerical standard that defines morphs or species, you are correct. Saying “you differ by 236 base pairs in this highly conserved gene, therefore you are a different morph” will probably never make it to the primary literature. Therefore, we are doing the best of a bad job. Taking frogs that occur together, randomly shuffling them up, and letting sexual selection take its course. Of course, I can keep mentioning this ‘genetic management strategy’ in all of these passages, but without actually producing it, it pretty much invalidates my arguments so I hope that you can imagine (based on the very few pieces of critical features of it) what it should be like (anyone willing to sit down and write one should…and then pass it around for a peer review).

Conclusions – 
I believe that maintaining populations near W.C. allele frequencies is possible if we use this strategy mentioned above. Hopefully, I have shown that it is theoretically possible to maintain near W.C. genotypes in a captive population. However, the question arises if anybody would want to. Personally, of course I think we should. I feel that it is our responsibility as educated hobbyists to provide the absolute best for our captives (individually and genetically speaking). It seems to me that so often people assume that it is their 'right' to own PDF's, not a privelage. This is, in my opinion, the core of this debate. It stems from our percieved domination over nature and arrogance. That’s my opinion and hopefully doesn’t get flamed. 
Back to the question if anybody wants to maintain healthy populations...
Many people are in this for the money and therefore don’t have time to follow a strict set of genetic guidelines. To them, more eggs = more money = ability to provide food for family, right? I feel for them, definitely...nobody wants to starve their families...that's ridiculous! When given the choice of pairing sibling frogs or having your kid starve tonight, the choice is simple, right? Obviously this is an exxagerated exmple but I do feel that if the consumer wanted a genetically diverse population rather than a bunch of pretty frogs to look at (again, they don’t necessarily mutually exclude eachother), the suppliers would change their ways. It would take a lot of effort, however, and I’m not sure that many people are willing to commit.
While I didn’t really counter all of your points (or possibly any), I just thought I’d provide my input on them. I hope that none of it was interpreted as flaming because none of it was intended to be and that we can continue a healthy debate about the topic. I apologize for the end of it trailing off but I have a lot to do today and this has taken quite a while to write…

~B


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

I just noticed that my previous post was LONG! Sorry if that has bothered anybody but there was a lot of information and I tried to cut it down as much as possible...
~B


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tripod, 
Great post! I certainly hope that nobody flames your post as it is an expression of your opinion! Too often on this board, people flame opinions and I’m glad somebody is willing to state theirs even with the risk of flame! 
That said, I hope that my acceptance of your challenge is not interpreted as a flame of any sort. I can assure you that I will not use the phrases “being a beginner…” and “what do newbies know.” Statements like that are ridiculous as there isn’t a single person out there who should be calling themselves an expert. There is always more to know, there are always more questions to be asked! Once answered, there will always be more questions that result from them! 
Anyway, I’m rambling…I will try to address each of your 4 problems that relate to your hypothesis: 

The goal of keeping a perceived wild genetic line intact within this hobby is impossible regardless of accurate collection data or not. 

Problem #1 – Collection Data Accuracy 
There are accurate sets of collection data on several frogs. These frogs don’t typically end up in the hobby, however, so I will not use them as an example. 
You make a very good point that there doesn’t exist a ‘truly accurate set of collection data’ per imported frog. Ideally, GPS information would be provided, but I’m sure the exporters don’t have the resources or care to do this. That being said, a simple location is better than nothing, and I hope to show that it is possible to maintain relatively healthy, genetically distinct and diverse populations. 
At the microscopic level, a male’s territory is very important, you are correct. Realistically, he will not breed with a female that is located in the same valley only 10 miles away. However, we are talking about maintaining genetically healthy populations. That is, all of the genes within the entire ‘morph.’ Within this population, there will be a certain percentage of alleles. For the purposes of this post, lets use a simple case of color. This allele frequency should be represented in a small sampling of the population if it was collected at random. Now, we can’t show that it was collected at random, but we can assume that the collectors go out and start collecting frogs locally depleting a local population. This dip in population is going to allow collectors in different areas to collect relatively more specimens and thus bring in relatively more pay. I feel that this will promote collectors to spread out and try to get the biggest ‘bang for their buck’ in collections, resulting in spread out collecting. This spread out collecting should provide us with a population of exported individuals representing an allele frequency at/or very close to the wild population. If 25% of the wild population within this region is green and 75% teal and assuming that collectors don’t have special instruction to collect only green or only teal and that either color doesn’t make it easier for them to be seen, we should have 25% of the exported specimens being green. I realize that there could be pressure to collect teal ones, or that perhaps the collector sees green ones easier, or perhaps the genes for color pattern are linked with genes that code for bold behavior, but we have to simplify if we are going to get anywhere and have posts that are less that 30 pages a piece. Anyway, it’s where we go as hobbyists from this point that we’ll run into trouble. 

Problem #2 – Inbreeding and/or Crossing 
This is where we’ll ‘run into trouble’ as I mentioned above. The in/linebreeding crossing debate is one that the jury is still out on (although, I am very curious as to why…). A genetic management strategy must be put in place if our goal is to maintain populations that accurately represent allele frequencies of the wild populations. 
I cannot disagree with you about husbandry methods leading to deviant genetic lines. However, I do think that it is possible, with proper genetic management, to maintain allele frequencies near the wild population even with a small sample. The problem is that in the absence of predators, weather, etc. we are going to allow drift to take its toll on the population. This is where sustainable importation comes into play. Once our captive population is established and following a strict responsible genetic management program "endsnip

This is where a registry becomes really important as this way you can determine how represented a certain frog is via is offspring and to some extent how modified the genetic lines have become. This way you can maximize the genetic diversity in the hobby (this in some respect are how populations are managed in Zoos). 

(There is one registry already in place and it should expand in the future). 


Ed


----------

