# Bruno



## Guest (Dec 22, 2004)

I got these as a pair of bruno but they dont look like there the same type
does any one have any info on these


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

I'm no expert, but the second frog looks more like a Chiriqui Grande. Did you get them from the same breeder? If so, who?


----------



## joshua_delancey69 (Mar 1, 2004)

They are all farmed raised but its hard telling they should be the same with just diffrent patterns but its hard telling with the farm raised...Look at the bastis that are comming in same frog but very diffrent variations.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Those are the same frogs. The foundation stock for these were collected all in the same area. This frog is highly variable just like the bastimentos island forms from big spots to small spots to no spots, they are all the same "morph".


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Rob,

Are they Chiriqui Grande or Bruno?

SB


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2004)

Technically speaking they are neither. The founding stock was collected at a site along the Chiriqui River but not quite where the C-Grande Morph are documented to be, and not where the Bruno are documented at either.

They are a highly variable morph w/ frogs that can look like the bruno, c-grande, Isla Pastore, there have even been a few that look a little like the caya de aqua. 

We should probably consider renaming the morph (at the consumer level) to Chiriqui River. Rob, care to add more to this??


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

WillinFLa said:


> We should probably consider renaming the morph (at the consumer level) to Chiriqui River. Rob, care to add more to this??


This demonstrates exactly why I don't like the idea of named morphs and would prefer we talk about named "lines". A morph implies frogs that look similar but as we see, frogs that look alike may, or may not, come from the same population just as two frogs that look different may, or may not, come from the same population. I just think naming the lines and dropping "morphs" would be much less confusing.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

If you simply rely on lines without morphs you are basically saying that lines shouldn't be crossed. Without morph or location info (most often basically the same thing) how is someone to know that breeding my line of "green" pumilio from panama is ok to breed with Will's line of "green" pumilio from panama (which we know are the same frogs)? Ideally we should keep line data and morph or location data so that we know which frogs can and should be crossed.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification Will....

SB


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

rmelancon said:


> If you simply rely on lines without morphs you are basically saying that lines shouldn't be crossed. Without morph or location info (most often basically the same thing) how is someone to know that breeding my line of "green" pumilio from panama is ok to breed with Will's line of "green" pumilio from panama (which we know are the same frogs)? Ideally we should keep line data and morph or location data so that we know which frogs can and should be crossed.


Well it depends on your definition of "line". I think most of the "lines" in the hobby are pure BS. A line should represent a group of frogs that can be traced back to a common wild population if possible, or at least to a common importation or origin. With this definition, lines should not be crossed. I dissagree that morph and location information are basically the same thing. The pictures in this thread represent two morphs from a single location. You can also have multiple locations that exhibit the same, or similar, morphs. Here's a link to an article I wrote for the BDG that illustrates the problem: http://www.thebdg.org/library/anecdotal/population_genetics.htm

I just think all this talk about morphs leads to "morph madness" where people start thinking that frogs that look alike should be bred together and frogs that look different should be kept apart. That is selective breeding and does not preserve the unique but variable characteristics of these amazing frogs.[/url]


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

My feeling is there are at least 2 morphs and maybe 3 that the green imports represent I have some with long black lines/spots that are more yellow than green and have a different call than the other greens. Some are bright green with absolutley no spots, some are variably spotted (small and large) and some are yellowish with much larger black markings. Sure would be nice to know. The different call really makes me think there are at least 2 morphs.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> My feeling is there are at least 2 morphs and maybe 3 that the green imports represent I have some with long black lines/spots that are more yellow than green and have a different call than the other greens. Some are bright green with absolutley no spots, some are variably spotted (small and large) and some are yellowish with much larger black markings. Sure would be nice to know. The different call really makes me think there are at least 2 morphs.


Do you have evidence that these morphs come from different localities and populations in the wild? Are you suggesting that these morphs should be split out into their own breeding groups or are you saying that there are 2-3 morphs that come from the same interbreeding population?

My concern is that when you identify a morph, many people think that means you can't breed two frogs that are different morphs when, in fact, they could be brother and sister! On the other side, if you say that morphs can be mixed, it opens the door for all kinds of improper crosses.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

I am sure that some of these morphs have great variability, the same area probably produces small spot, large spot and no spot, but some of these green frogs are very different from others. When I hear a frog with a distinctivly different call I would make assumptions that it is from a different locality.
Mark


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Mark,

Do you have pictures showing what you mean? Which one/s call different than the others? 

I mean I'd like to know which my frogs would fall under: "green with yellow" or "green with no spot".

Even if some of these are in fact one morph, it is easier to later join the "man-made" morphs, than to separate a hybrid morph.

Steven


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Bruno's*

Sorry I will have to leave the stone age soon and figure out how to pics on a computer.
Mark


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Agreed that it does depend on definition of "lines" and "morphs". I think of "lines" in terms of bloodline. If I have a WC pair of X frog, any descendents are from my "line" or bloodline. Joe Schmoe may have a WC pair from the same importation and his descendants are a separate line/bloodline. And although not necessary to be producing healthy animals, IMO these should be encouraged to be "crossed".

I'll give examples of the reason I say most often morphs (not necessarily names of morphs) equate to locations. D. tinctorious (Oelemarie) - population collected near the Oelemarie river. D. tinctorious (Alanis) - population collected in Suriname in a specific village. D. pumilio (bastimentos) - population collected on bastimentos island. Same with Cayo de Agua, Pope Island, Solarte, etc. D. auratus (El Cope) - collected at high elevations in an area of the El Cope mountain range. I would think that any bastimentos pumilio imported this year should certainly be able to be bred to any bastimentos pumilio imported next year.

On defining morphs I don't see the two frogs on this page as two morphs from a single location, I see it as a variable morph. Similar to many Auratus where there are variations within animals that have been produced from a small sampling of a small wild population. Take for instance the Green & Bronze "morph". These produce everything from Green to Tuquoise to Blue and Bronze froglets. Now if two Blue & Bronze frogs from these produce all Blue & Bronze froglets now we are talking what I consider line breeding for specific traits. I won't go into whether this should be encouraged or not, that's a different discussion.

I actually think we are basically saying the same thing just using different terminology. Frogs collected from the same area should be bred together because they are from the same wild population. Frogs that look the same (or very similar) but are from two separate wild populations should not. As a simple example although D. tinctorious (Oelemarie) looks very similar to D. tinctorious (Alanis), they should not be crossed because they are from two separate and distinct populations in the wild. The names to me are just incidental and done for convenience (for the most part) because "Oelemarie" is easier than saying "the tincs that were imported from Surinam from a population that occured along the Oelemarie river".

Addressing Marks thoughts that they are two different morphs because of different calls. I can say that I have several pairs of these, bastimentos and other pumilio and the calls of the different males are not exactly the same, some are much more subdued than others, some have a different tambre. How much of a difference are you talking about? Is anyone else noticing a big difference? I guess one way we'll know is when two no spots throw out spotted frogs, and vice versa.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

steelcube said:


> Even if some of these are in fact one morph, it is easier to later join the "man-made" morphs, than to separate a hybrid morph.
> 
> Steven


True enough in theory but in the many years I've been at this, what I've seen is that frogs keep getting sliced into narrower and narrower lines or morphs and our record keeping is really crappy. The result is that we chop the frogs into narrow genetic lineages but we have lost the information needed to stitch them back together.

I have also argued that it is safer to keep them apart when in doubt since they can be joined back together in the future. I still believe that to a point. But so many people are inventing their own reasons for keeping frogs apart and not keeping track of what they have done that I fear we are creating big problems for the future. I think it would be much better if we would educate ourselves about where our frogs come from and base our breeding lines on sound decisions rather than whim or gut feelings.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

rmelancon said:


> I actually think we are basically saying the same thing just using different terminology. Frogs collected from the same area should be bred together because they are from the same wild population. Frogs that look the same (or very similar) but are from two separate wild populations should not.


I agree that we are on the same page with how it should work but I still take exception to how the terms "line" and "morph" are being used. I agree that line as you have defined it is in popular use but I think this is a worthless definition that serves no purpose other than to stroke someone's ego of having their own "line". If I buy frogs from Joe Schmoe and a couple others from John Doe, I haven't created a new line if all the frogs can trace their roots back to the same boat from Panama. I've tried to trace the origins of a couple of species like vents and imitator and it's funny that there are dozens of "lines" being claimed but the people who really know the hobby seem to be able to only come up with about 3-4 breeders who obtained wild frogs. I just think it clears up a lot of confusion if lines only refer to frogs that share a common origin. I do agree that "line" is a bloodline but I think that the origin of that bloodline is determined by natural history rather than arbitrarily by breeders.

I also don't agree with how you define morph. The very term is derived from "morphology". Here's what Merriam Webster calls a morph:

"2 a : a local population of a species that consists of interbreeding organisms and is distinguishable from other populations by morphology or behavior though capable of interbreeding with them b : a phenotypic variant of a species"

Both uses of the word specifically refer to morphology or phenotype meaning that the grouping is based on appearance or observable behavior. Blue eyes and green eyes in people are different morphs under definition b, as are orange bastimentos and yellow bastimentos. Of course if everyone used the term morph as you have defined it, there would be no problem. But the term has a dual meaning that is being used interchangeably in the hobby which is really bad and is leading to some bad choices about breeding frogs.

I just think it makes the most sense to use "morph" to just describe the morphology of a frog and "line" to place it within a group of frogs that should be interbred. But even if we don't follow these definitions, it would be really good if we would all be talking about the same thing when we discuss morphs and lines..... if we still want these frogs to look and act like wild frogs in 20 or 50 years.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

> steelcube wrote:
> Even if some of these are in fact one morph, it is easier to later join the "man-made" morphs, than to separate a hybrid morph.
> 
> --------------------
> ...


Brent,

Yep.. you've said something similar in the past... which I agree in this case. 

The rest though, what exactly the species/morphs you are talking about... Care to give more concrete examples? This perhaps need a separate topic.. and I am interested to find out details...

Steven


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Brunos*

I would agree a line of frogs is the same population and can be bred together no matter how variable or what they look like. A different morph is a different geographic location. The differences in the calling I heard are not small, most Pumilio I know of have a continuous quack, quack, quack (for lack of a better term). Out of the yellowish green with lots of black I heard a chirping not unlike a cricket, a completely different call than I have ever heard from a Pumilio. I will report again if I can confirm a difference.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Ok, so I am using the word morph contrary to what the dictionary says. Which is probably why I put quotes around morph a lot of times when speaking about it. So I'll revise my statement that using websters definition, these are two different morphs from the same population of frogs. The problem I see with this definition is that when do you quit sub dividing into more morphs? How different is different enough to be a separate morph? I've got some animals that are inbetween spotted and no spots, they have a very light speckling and is not quite green and not quite yellow. Do I call this another morph of the same animal? Using that definition I can see how you would want to do away with the whole morph thing entirely. Which is probably why I and others have used the term morph, contrary to the dictionary's definition, to distinguish a species population/location. So in this case we need a new word to use instead of morph, because according to the definition I see it as pretty useless. Again it goes back to location/population being the important factor, and how do you lable these conveniently? Apparently we've done it by using our own definition of morph.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

rmelancon said:


> Ok, so I am using the word morph contrary to what the dictionary says. Which is probably why I put quotes around morph a lot of times when speaking about it. (the rest deleted)


Yes, this is the problem as I see it as well. You, and many others use the definition of "morph" which is appropriate for responsible breeding but not everyone understands this implied definition. Then there is the work itself which immediately makes one think "morphology" so some people say "Ah, morphs are suppose to be bred true, and morph depends on the morphology, so frogs with the same morphology should be bred together. So yes, I think the term is almost (but not quite) worthless. Let's say we named Nicaraguan blue jeans pumilio as the Nicaraguan pumilio line (I know, bad name). That doesn't tell me what they look like so it is still helpful to know that this line is the "blue jeans" morph. With bastis, knowing the line gives me an idea of what they look like but doesn't tell me what color they are so knowing the morph helps. But as a breeding management tool, it has a lot of problems.

The term "line" use to be used pretty synonymously with a population. Someone would import frogs and either they, or an immediate buyer would breed the frogs and become the major source of that "line" to the hobby. Understandably, the line would tend to get named after that supplier. But within the last few years, it seems like people are naming their own lines right and left. They get some frogs from Fed and some from Joe, breed them together and name a new line. But they don't know that Fred and Joe both had frogs that started out way back when with John who was the original major supplier. It seems to me that this definition of "line" which use to be a fantastic breeding tool, has changed over the years and the only reason I can see for the change is that some people are eager to stamp their name into the hobby by having a line named after them. I'd like to get us back to the old way where frogs that belong to the same line trace back to a common group of ancestors that were determined by wild location, an importation, a shipment, or at least the first breeders of the group. If we did that, we could forget about using morphs to make breeding decisions and just stick with lines.... which, are exactly the same as how you are using morph.

I know it's just semantics but I think important.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

I agree with most of what you have said. So using your term "line" how would you propose these frogs be "named" or referred to?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

steelcube said:


> The rest though, what exactly the species/morphs you are talking about... Care to give more concrete examples? This perhaps need a separate topic.. and I am interested to find out details...
> 
> Steven


Azureus for sure. We know where these frogs came from and they all came from the same place. So why are there different lines and morphs of them? French Guiana vents and the common imitator (whatever they are called seem to have more lines than original sources now.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Getting back to the original question of if these frogs are from the same location: anyone who has the Christmann books can look in Volume III on page 337 and see a picture of similar pumilio, one with spots and one with no spots. This is in the breeding section and the frogs are obviously one of the authors or friends breeding pairs of pumilio.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

rmelancon said:


> I agree with most of what you have said. So using your term "line" how would you propose these frogs be "named" or referred to?


In a perfect world, I would like to see lines named after locations of origin as many morphs are now. Bastimentos seems like a fine name for a line... sort of... but I understand their may be a distinct sub population on the island. Lacking origin information, I don't mind seeing lines named after the person that really got them started in the hobby although that type of "fame" seems to induce some people into having their own lines while some of the old froggers who have had lines named after them uncomfortable. Anyway, the naming is less important than how the names are grouped. However, it does seem like names that describe color or pattern variants are the ones that really lead to confusion. Seems like recently I saw someone looking for a fine-spotted azureus because they needed a mate for their and didn't want to create a hybrid with those other azureus. What other azureus?

Of course what this really all boils down to... again, is the need for a registry. Even if we got everyone on the same page with definitions and terms, the grapevine effect would still creep in and create confusion without a place for people to go and look up standardized names.

Sorry this thread got hijacked but it sounded like the original question had already been settled.


----------

