# HYBRIDS? - Pics and Questions



## chinoanoah

I am hoping this can be a thread where photos of Poison Dart Frog Hybrids can be found. I rarely ever see pictures of them. Also if users could input the background behind them, and the current state of each frog.

Secondly, I have one question. Do hybrids ever come about in the wild?


----------



## Julio

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/38798-nice-pic.html


----------



## james67

you may have opened up a can of worms here... the reason you don't see pictures is because (if you don't already know) hybridizing is frowned upon greatly. this happens because of many reasons. those who do have hybrids (whether as the result of a mistake or not) are unlikely to post pictures because of the general attitude towards mixing/ hybridizing. we as a community get a set of frogs of a particular morph and generally that's it. one or two shipments of a locality and that's the end of it. because of this, and the fact that over time many of the original shipment's frogs will die (for many factors including falling in to the hands of in-experienced keepers, etc.) thinning out the gene pool in the hobby. dont beleve me? it has happened many times and examples include histos, bluejeans, lorenzos,etc, etc. when frogs are in short supply a true and wild gene pool is a necessity. hybrids are often a burden because the owner of such hybrids may need to keep the frogs for their entire life and in a manner that ensures that no further breeding occurs, because by letting hybrids out to the public they can literally pollute the gene pool. in this hobby a lot is done by word of mouth and trust. and leaking hybrids can be big big problem.

there is debate on whether or not frogs interbreed in the wild. it likely happens but IMO that is for nature to sort out and not us. if you want to mix animals look into snakes or lizards, (leopard geckos are a good way to go in that direction)

just my 2cents. i don't mean to offend anyone with hybrids, and i certainly don't want to hijack this thread, however it will undoubtedly come up, so there it is. my point is that IMO it will be unlikely to see many pics here, people get ostracized for hybridizing and asking people to post pics of their hybrid frogs may be a lot to ask. 

also, i think that the fear of the "minority" on these forums, is not that responsible people are experimenting with the knowledge that animals can never be released into the hobby, but that young (and lets be honest here i would venture to guess that most people on this site are below age 20) and naive people who come and go (as most do, unfortunately) can see that someone says IT'S OK, and next thing you know the hobby is nothing but designer trends and interbreeding, leaving the real minority of dedicated keepers to clean up the mess and deal with the impure lines.

on a side note i hope you get what your looking for without catching too much heat form others.


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Noah,

Thanks for suggesting this thread. Given the tremendous number of color morphs that exist in pdfs in the wild (I am mostly familiar with D. tinctorius), one has to wonder if some of the morphs are simply "hybrids" between two other morphs (if you look at the photo of a "yellow Sipaliwini" on Sean Stewart's website Herpetologic, it's easy to imagine that a Green Sip and Citronella could have mated and created this particular color morph). 

It is a very difficult matter to openly propose the kind of research that would help answer some of these questions on this board, as (I believe) there is a pretty ravenous minority of froggers who either don't understand the science being suggested, or have some sort of knee-jerk reaction that is re-enforced by other ravenous froggers on this site. I was fortunate recently to have a group of "Alanicits" (Alanis X Citronella) at a regional meeting. Expecting the worst, I was really surprised at the positive responses to the frogs and the project that I am working on. I think the most important part of this kind of work is to be completely transparent about the project (anyone interested is welcome to view my collection and breeding projects any time) and to develop a personal code of conduct with regard to the animals produced (especially, to not allow any of the animals produced be sold into the hobby in general, and to provide photos of the crosses that will help people identify them when the see them).

I would hope that any other froggers that have produced morph crosses would post photos of the animals they have produced, even if there will be the inevitable flaming by some on this site. We all have some skeletons in our closets....Let's take them out and give them a little tanning!!

I'll post some of my animals here for you to review. Take care, Richard in Staten Island.


----------



## chinoanoah

I am not trying to purchase, breed, or prolong the existence of these hybrids, I would just like to see them. Thank you for all of your information, though!


----------



## SamsonsFrogs

If members posted any Hybrid I am sure they would get reamed for having it.


----------



## chinoanoah

Why can't we all just post pics no questions asked? I don't see the harm in that. I don't see the harm In any of it as long as the bloodlines stay pure.


----------



## jubjub47

I did a search and found this

Between Image & Object - last pic is a hybrid

Ed K - This page appears to have something to do with Ed, so he may be able to explain these crosses a bit

Most of the crosses I have seen are quite ugly


----------



## skylsdale

If you do a search, there is also a fairly recent hybrid thread where multitudes of images of actual hybrids were posted (I believe the thread was started by redeyetreefrog, but I could be wrong).


----------



## Ed

jubjub47 said:


> I did a search and found this
> 
> 
> Ed K - This page appears to have something to do with Ed, so he may be able to explain these crosses a bit


Those are hybrids that I inherited from another area many many years ago when that keeper quit and left. She had deliberately bred groups of frogs. They were sent to another facility who wanted some generic dendrobatids with a written agreement with that institution that they were not to be bred or housed in a group that was to be allowed to breed. 

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods

chinoanoah said:


> I am not trying to purchase, breed, or prolong the existence of these hybrids, I would just like to see them. Thank you for all of your information, though!
> 
> Why can't we all just post pics no questions asked? I don't see the harm in that. I don't see the harm In any of it as long as the bloodlines stay pure.


Forgive me, but it seems to me that by encouraging the display hybrids we also end up rewarding those who have created them. Rewarding those who have created hybrids seems to encourage "prolonging the existence" and the "breeding" of these hybrids.

Also, I'm curious how the bloodlines of hybrids can remain pure... seems to me that the very concept of a hybrid _is_ the mixing of bloodlines.

I'm not advocating destroying those hybrids already in existence. It's not the frog's fault it was created. But I'm still going to do everything I can to discourage the creation/propogation/distribution of hybrids. It's a personal opinion, but that's how I feel.


----------



## chinoanoah

Let me add some words to clarify myself. 
_
I don't see the harm In any of it as long as the bloodlines *of the original non-hybrid dart frogs*stay pure._

This argument is a stretch but... Viewing photos of the holocaust doesn't make it more likely for it to happen again, but probably more along the lines of the opposite effect. 










This image does not create more ligers. Clearly the liger is a pretty weird looking mixture. I don't really want to find a way to make an army of ligers or anything. This photo makes me want to look at more pictures of them.


----------



## Toby_H

SmackoftheGods said:


> Forgive me, but it seems to me that by encouraging the display hybrids we also end up rewarding those who have created them. Rewarding those who have created hybrids seems to encourage "prolonging the existence" and the "breeding" of these hybrids.


All too often... curiosity kills the cat. People wonder "what does a species x crossed with a species y look like?"... since there aren't any pictures readily available to answer that question, some people may step out there and make some... Satisfying the curiosity and showing them that the hybrids aren't anything special compared to the pure species... this may discourage some people from producing hybrids.

Also many people simply want things that are rare... and since it appears hybrid are very rare, some people may find motivation in that to produce hybrids. Again, allowing people to see that hybrids aren't anything special, while educating them that keeping species / bloodlines pure preserves the diversity so many of us love about these frogs, this could reduce the motive to make hybrid frogs.

I personally have no interest in producing or owning hybrid frogs... and I understand and value the benefits of preserving diversity through maintaining pure strains... yet I do not support the mood of suppressing the idea of a hybrid or being harsh to those who own them.

It’s all about education man…


----------



## chinoanoah

Toby, I agree with you completely. Well said. Much better than my pictures of ligers.


----------



## Toby_H

chinoanoah said:


> Let me add some words to clarify myself.
> _
> I don't see the harm In any of it as long as the bloodlines *of the original non-hybrid dart frogs*stay pure._
> 
> This image does not create more ligers. Clearly the liger is a pretty weird looking mixture. I don't really want to find a way to make an army of ligers or anything. This photo makes me want to look at more pictures of them.


But how many people on the planet are breeding lions or tigers? Now how many people on the planet are breeding Dart Frogs?

What percentage of those people breeding lions/tigers are extremely educated on the subject… What percentage of the people breeding dart frogs are extremely educated on the subject…

Since there are many many people on the hobbyist level breeding Dart Frogs the potential for mislabeled frogs “staining” otherwise pure strains is very high… 

So on one hand I see no harm in sharing pictures of the hybrid frogs people may have… I do see a potential harm in them being spread into the hobby mislabeled… or even properly labeled but falling into the hands of people who simply do not care (or understand) the effect of polluting pure strains…

But by openly discussing the (possible) benefits and the (possible) negatives of hybrid frogs in the hobby, we give a chance for people to make their own educated decisions on the subject. Suppressing the subject every time it comes up with “hybrids are bad!” creates an “us and them” mood and restricts a balanced perspective…


----------



## Ed

Toby_H said:


> But how many people on the planet are breeding lions or tigers? Now how many people on the planet are breeding Dart Frogs?"…


I'm in a bit of a hurry to pull up the lion numbers but there are between 10,000 and 15,000 tigers in the USA... 



Toby_H said:


> What percentage of those people breeding lions/tigers are extremely educated on the subject… What percentage of the people breeding dart frogs are extremely educated on the subject…
> 
> Since there are many many people on the hobbyist level breeding Dart Frogs the potential for mislabeled frogs “staining” otherwise pure strains is very high…
> 
> So on one hand I see no harm in sharing pictures of the hybrid frogs people may have… I do see a potential harm in them being spread into the hobby mislabeled… or even properly labeled but falling into the hands of people who simply do not care (or understand) the effect of polluting pure strain..


This argument basically falls apart when we are discussing charismatic species.... for example, virtually all of the tigers in the USA are useless for the purposes of conservation as all of the "bengal" tiger lines outside of Zoos were interbred with Amur (Siberian) tigers but those self same educated breeders. 
Furthermore none of the lines of white tigers are pure bengals...... 

Unless there is a mechanism in place that indicates the interbreeding of different species/subspecies/morphs is not acceptable to the trade as a whole, then we can expect the fate of the captive dendrobatids to be the same as the tiger... as the desire for a quick dollar or status of having "animals" that can be percieved as cool is a massive short term incentive for those to whom the hobby is a passing phase (for example, how many people have been on here for more than 3 years, 4 years, 5 years......)..... 



Toby_H said:


> But by openly discussing the (possible) benefits and the (possible) negatives of hybrid frogs in the hobby, we give a chance for people to make their own educated decisions on the subject. Suppressing the subject every time it comes up with “hybrids are bad!” creates an “us and them” mood and restricts a balanced perspective…


I know that every time I have gotten involved in the discussion, I know I have not limited it to the bad/good argument... 
Even those who have an interest in maintaining the bloodlines of the frogs often fall into the trap of visually identifying frogs from a picture and building a consensus on the identification when intergrades between morphs can be vary potentially resulting in a frog looking more like one or another or even a third morph.. the same same can occur with species/subspecies hybrids.... 

Ed


----------



## JoshK

I would like to say I have strongs feelings against "hybrids", but was very curious what pics would show up. On the page titled "Ed K" the pic of the luec/tinc mix really bothered me, the markings on the head are very similar to one of my luecs but it had the body of a tinc. I think it is ugly, two great features from two different frogs and it wasn't half as nice as either original.

I hope these pics show people that two beautiful morphs crossed, do not make a beautiful frog.


----------



## jubjub47

That's my thoughts exactly. Typically they don't turn out very nice looking.


----------



## Bcs TX

Yes Tim and Ed I agree. The frogs are so gorgeous in ther own right as nature intended, why would anyone want to change it???? Also they are disapearing and threatened in the wild it will probably be up to the hobbiyists and zoos to keep each species intact, otherwise all will be lost on these gorgeous frogs ,soon to be destroyed by man. While the almighty dollar might count to some (customizing and hybridizing the frogs) to me it is rediculous and defeating the fact of owning them. 

Not to mention all of the pictures of the mixed species in my opinion are less attractive than the "nature original."

-Beth


----------



## SmackoftheGods

chinoanoah said:


> This argument is a stretch but... Viewing photos of the holocaust doesn't make it more likely for it to happen again, but probably more along the lines of the opposite effect.


I'm going to have to disagree again (at least with this example as an analogy to the PDF hobby).

I understand that many of the people who devote a lot of time to doing research into PDF's end up seeing hybridized dart frogs as abominations, seeing a mixture of characteristics and thinking the originals are better than the product. But, we've seen on several occasions here on the board of pictures being posted of hybrids and newbies flocking to those pictures. "What are these?" "They're so pretty!" "Where might I acquire some of this species?"

Through education of what a serious hobbiest looks for in a frog an individual will, on many occasions, come to an understanding of what makes these creatures so extraordinary. However, to the untrained eye the uniqueness of a hybrid can be very appealing.

This goes along with Toby's comment about education. Yes, education is important. However, the question is what kind of education should be taught. Through posting pictures of hybrids some people _may_ be deterred from producing hybrids. However, there is at least an equal (and if history on this board has anything to say about it, probably a greater) chance that it will encourage those who are not already educated on these topics to procure hybrids.

In my opinion, the chance is not worth it.


----------



## chinoanoah

This may be off topic but it got me thinking. 



Bcs TX said:


> .....The frogs are so gorgeous in ther own right as *nature intended*, why would anyone want to change it???? ....


What does nature intend? If humans kill off the frogs, or if humans save every last frog -- which did nature intend?


----------



## Toby_H

Ed,

While I am not and can not argue any of the facts you provided… I do not see how, or agree, that those facts cause my previous post to ‘fall apart’… please clarify if I am missing something… Also bare in mind the lions/tigers/lygers were not “my example” they were an example of someone else’s I was working off of…

I do accept that “educated” people on any subject matter are able to make mistakes or decisions of poor judgment, as your explanation of crossing “bengals” with Amur Tigers shows… We will always be plagued with the imperfections of our own species…

Properly labeling frogs per their species/morph/locale is (in my opinion) the responsibility of the breeder/distributor… and anyone who wishes to take their hobby to the level of distributing offspring should embrace this responsibility… yet I accept ‘enforcing’ this is impossible (damn our species and their imperfections)…

I do not agree with the idea of distributing hybrids, as they can very easily fall into the hands of someone who will not care (or understand) the impact of polluting pure strains and they may further breed them and mislabel the offspring.

I do understand that “keeping a strain pure” requires competent and honest breding/lableling and can easily be polluted by one individual mislabeling a frog or allowing a hybrid to be used in place of a pure species in a breeding line. The only solution I see to this is relying on frogs that are wild caught or can directly be traced back to wild caught specimen, which has it’s own concerns as are being discussed in another thread.

While I can understand or agree with what you shared in your previous post… I just do not see how it makes any of my shared perspectives “fall apart”…

Also, I did not take your post as ‘offensive’ and did not write this one in a ‘defensive’ mood. I’m simply trying to see what I missed or to clarify a miscommunication either one of us may have made.


----------



## Toby_H

Please forgive the above post Ed (& others), I see where I misread your previous post… You were saying my ‘argument’ about breeding tigers fell apart… which I was only mentioning to point out it wasn’t a fair example previously made… then you pointed out that the process was more flawed than I was suggesting…

The edit option was not available when I noticed this (I’m not sure why) so I could remove/replace the previous post. Sorry. 



Ed said:


> Even those who have an interest in maintaining the bloodlines of the frogs often fall into the trap of visually identifying frogs from a picture and building a consensus on the identification when intergrades between morphs can be vary potentially resulting in a frog looking more like one or another or even a third morph.. the same same can occur with species/subspecies hybrids....
> 
> Ed



Which fully supports the importance of responsibility in the breeders / distributors properly identifying each and every specimen they distribute...

Even properly marked hybrids risk falling into the hands of a hobbyist who will house them with other frogs... purposefully or coincidently produce offspring... and distribute them potentially mislabeled.

As the desire for pure strain frogs is real... and the staining of pure strains via hybridization is real... many people are more inclined to purchase wild caught frogs or frogs closer to wild caught (easier to properly identify)... which promotes the removal of frogs from the wild... which is a concern we have already been discussing in another thread...

Based on that understanding I do not wish to own hybrids... I hate to see anyone selling hybrids... yet I (personally) would not hold it against someone if they did own one, I would simply suggest they do not spawn the frog and highly suggest they do not distribute any frogs produced by a hybrid...

And with that view, the only way I will ever know what the crosses look like, is by seeing pictures others may have...


----------



## Ed

I should have been more clear as to what I was referring. 

Ed


----------



## Woodsman

There you go. You had to call them "abominations". This is one of the reason I feel you and the other members of the kabal are just acting like frog Nazis. It really is none of your business what anyone else does with their frogs. If you believe that you do, I would like you to set-up an account at Josh's Frogs for $200 per month to cover the rearing of my frogs on your behalf.

ABOMINATION!!! Really? Your friend, Richard in Staten Island. (BTW, I'd like you to reference one prominent frog researchers who would call "hybrids" abominations....If you can't, I recommend that you speak for yourself and not for the scientific community).



SmackoftheGods said:


> I'm going to have to disagree again (at least with this example as an analogy to the PDF hobby).
> 
> I understand that many of the people who devote a lot of time to doing research into PDF's end up seeing hybridized dart frogs as abominations, seeing a mixture of characteristics and thinking the originals are better than the product. But, we've seen on several occasions here on the board of pictures being posted of hybrids and newbies flocking to those pictures. "What are these?" "They're so pretty!" "Where might I acquire some of this species?"
> 
> Through education of what a serious hobbiest looks for in a frog an individual will, on many occasions, come to an understanding of what makes these creatures so extraordinary. However, to the untrained eye the uniqueness of a hybrid can be very appealing.
> 
> This goes along with Toby's comment about education. Yes, education is important. However, the question is what kind of education should be taught. Through posting pictures of hybrids some people _may_ be deterred from producing hybrids. However, there is at least an equal (and if history on this board has anything to say about it, probably a greater) chance that it will encourage those who are not already educated on these topics to procure hybrids.
> 
> In my opinion, the chance is not worth it.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Oops.... There was a bad word choice there, but it wasn't the word "abomination." It was the word "research." I see how that might imply that scientists would refer to hybrids as abominations... not my intent.

However, if you'll notice I didn't say "hybrids are abominations," I said there are people who spend a lot of time with PDF's who consider them as such. There have been several threads on this forum where hobbyists with more experience than myself (a.k.a. people who spend a lot of time with PDF's) throw the term around. Anyway, point is I wasn't trying to speak for the "scientific community." Just what I've seen around the board.

And Rich, in my opinion hybrids are every hobbyist's business. Maybe not what _you_ do with them in _your_ own home. But the second they leave your home and make their way onto the board (generating interest by inexperienced hobbyists), or make it out your door and into the hobby (further increasing the accessibility of hybrids) it becomes everyone's business. Do I care what you do behind closed doors? No, do whatever you want. Do I care whether or not one of your hybrids comes through my door because it was mislabeled (or if someone else's hybrid comes through my door because of an irresponsible post glorifying hybrids encourages another breeder to hybridize frogs and mislabel them)? Hell yes I do.

Edit: As a side note I'd like to point a little something out that has nothing to do with this particular debate.



Woodsman said:


> I feel you and the other members of the kabal are just acting like frog Nazis.


In another thread I made mention of this kind of argument. Last post on this page: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/feedback-questions/40511-reputation-yet-again-7.html#post359898



SmackoftheGods said:


> mindless bickering with no resolve and generally invokes Godwin's Law.


Consider Godwin's Law invoked....


----------



## flyangler18

I fully support the study of hybrids by those who have both the drive and the ethics to keep accurate detailed records about the lineage of those specimens and *not* release them into the hobby where a breakdown in lineage records could prove disastrous to those working to maintain wild-type genetics. 

Serious study of hybrids and intergrades could prove very enlightening.

It's unfortunate that this is just one of those polarizing topics where emotions run amok and stifle meaningful discussion. I abhor the line-bred designer morphs and mutations of leopard geckos, ball pythons, etc. and I suspect that is the source of the 'bad taste' that many PDF keepers experience when the hot button word 'hybrid' gets mentioned.

Some comments
Jason


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog

well said Jason


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog

haha, well someone left a long cowardly message on my reputation board for saying... "well said Jason".... anyways, the person felt the need to tell me how selfish I am with my frogs, and telling me I'm ruining the hobby.... I would really love to know how I have ruined the hobby buddy...I mean lets think about it, there are tons of froggers out there that do actually sell cross breeds, and they don't even let ppl know about it. I've let people know about what i had done, i took pictures along the way to document them. Everyone knows what they are a cross of, and what they look like. None of these frogs are in the hobby, I thought what Jason said was very well stated, that's it. 

- Do you really even know what you are talking about? or are you just following the "word of the Board"? I feel that if you really did your research you might not be so quick to judge. I admit, i was wrong to mislead people at first, but i felt it was the only way i could post these pictures before i got flamed instantaneously. I do not feel that i was wrong in letting them pro-create, i mean hey....they are the same species...its not like i crossed and American bull frog, and Dendrobates Leucomelas, I crossed dendrobates tinctorius Morphs

- the other place i was wrong, was the number that was created, i figured since they were cross breeds, that they may not have healthy off spring....well turns out most all of them were healthy resulting in too many cross breeds.

-Just an FYI for the person who left that message, I do Breed Dendrobates Azureus, Citronella, and Alanis. . . I'm not this PRO Cross breeder. It initially happened accidentally, then I let it get out of control,-I take responsibility for that.

The reason i said "well said Jason" is bacuse I feel that he made some good points, and i think that the crossbreeds, do need to be taken into consideration for study, to help us all understand some morphology, locality, and other morph traits that the tinctorius have. At the moment there are very few Tinctorius species that we actually have locality on.


----------



## Rich Conley

SmackoftheGods said:


> Forgive me, but it seems to me that by encouraging the display hybrids we also end up rewarding those who have created them. Rewarding those who have created hybrids seems to encourage "prolonging the existence" and the "breeding" of these hybrids.
> 
> Also, I'm curious how the bloodlines of hybrids can remain pure... seems to me that the very concept of a hybrid _is_ the mixing of bloodlines.
> 
> I'm not advocating destroying those hybrids already in existence. It's not the frog's fault it was created. But I'm still going to do everything I can to discourage the creation/propogation/distribution of hybrids. It's a personal opinion, but that's how I feel.


This argument seems very similar to the "if kids don't know about X, they won't do Y" (Whether we're talking about sex, drugs, or rock and roll). 


I think that a library of hybrid pics could be useful. If people knew what common crosses looked like, they'd be more likely to say "oh, thats a hybrid", instead of "oh, thats a citronella" when someone with a blue and yellow frog they bought at "discount pet" wants to know what it is.


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog

Yes Rich, what i feel that alot of people need to understand is, someone that iscreating hybrids or crossbreeds, and is not letting them be seen(pics), or heard(forums) about, are a much greater harm to to the hobby, rather than someone who creates/has created hybrids/crosses and documents pictures and data on them. . . which I feel can be quite beneficial to the hobby


----------



## Rich Conley

RedEyeTroyFrog said:


> Yes Rich, what i feel that alot of people need to understand is, someone that iscreating hybrids or crossbreeds, and is not letting them be seen(pics), or heard(forums) about, are a much greater harm to to the hobby, rather than someone who creates/has created hybrids/crosses and documents pictures and data on them. . . which I feel can be quite beneficial to the hobby


Completely agree. The big danger with hybrids is that at some point they get mistaken for a clean animal, and get mixed into the breeding population. Documentation is always a plus.


----------



## Jellyman

I was under the assumption that genetic material could now be preserved for the purpose of being reintroduced back into a species when needed or for cloning as it becomes perfected(not that it will probably ever be totally perfected). Would this not remove any need of the hobbiest to refrain from creating hybrids for the hobby since the arguement is to keep the bloodlines pure for future conservation efforts? I would think that maintaining a genetic bank of frog DNA would be much more accurate then relying on anything that is currently setup in the hobby.

Just something I had been wondering.


----------



## flyangler18

> The reason i said "well said Jason" is bacuse I feel that he made some good points, and i think that the crossbreeds, do need to be taken into consideration for study, to help us all understand some morphology, locality, and other morph traits that the tinctorius have. At the moment there are very few Tinctorius species that we actually have locality on.


Sorry you drew some fire, Troy! That certainly wasn't my intent. 

Jason


----------



## Rich Conley

Jellyman said:


> I was under the assumption that genetic material could now be preserved for the purpose of being reintroduced back into a species when needed or for cloning as it becomes perfected(not that it will probably ever be totally perfected). Would this not remove any need of the hobbiest to refrain from creating hybrids for the hobby since the arguement is to keep the bloodlines pure for future conservation efforts? I would think that maintaining a genetic bank of frog DNA would be much more accurate then relying on anything that is currently setup in the hobby.
> 
> Just something I had been wondering.


You'd really have to save thousands of individuals from each species to keep the species intact. Bottlenecking the population by just preserving a couple animals is just as bad (if not worse) than excessive inbreeding.


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog

flyangler18 said:


> Sorry you drew some fire, Troy! That certainly wasn't my intent.
> 
> Jason


I know Jason, but believe me when ever i post on DB, or DD, I'm ready for the Inferno...


----------



## Jellyman

Rich Conley said:


> You'd really have to save thousands of individuals from each species to keep the species intact. Bottlenecking the population by just preserving a couple animals is just as bad (if not worse) than excessive inbreeding.


I figured as much, but is that not what they are already doing for endangered species?? 

I do not know, I am simply asking.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

Rich Conley said:


> I think that a library of hybrid pics could be useful. If people knew what common crosses looked like, they'd be more likely to say "oh, thats a hybrid", instead of "oh, thats a citronella" when someone with a blue and yellow frog they bought at "discount pet" wants to know what it is.


There is such a great deal of variability within wild populations that it would be difficult to identify a hybrid based on morphology alone (generally speaking). Even in cases where the frog actually isn't a hybrid, identification can still be difficult.. just take a look at the all the _O. pumilio_ identification threads over the past 2-3 years on these forums, some _D. tinctorius_ identification threads as well. We should be moving away from trying to identify animals based on the way they look and focusing more on acquiring animals from reputable sources. A responsible breeder should have no problem telling you where they got their parental stock from and you can do your own homework from there. I do see the value in what you're suggesting but I think personal responsibility in hobbyists will go a longer way than some type of identification guide which could potentially be inaccurate.


----------



## Rich Conley

Corpus Callosum said:


> There is such a great deal of variability within wild populations that it would be difficult to identify a hybrid based on morphology alone (generally speaking). Even in cases where the frog actually isn't a hybrid, identification can still be difficult.. just take a look at the all the _O. pumilio_ identification threads over the past 2-3 years on these forums, some _D. tinctorius_ identification threads as well. We should be moving away from trying to identify animals based on the way they look and focusing more on acquiring animals from reputable sources. A responsible breeder should have no problem telling you where they got their parental stock from and you can do your own homework from there. I do see the value in what you're suggesting but I think personal responsibility in hobbyists will go a longer way than some type of identification guide which could potentially be inaccurate.


I don't disagree with anything above. The problem is, right now, every single one of these animals that gets out is getting classified as something. Generally as part of some species its only partially part of.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Rich Conley said:


> This argument seems very similar to the "if kids don't know about X, they won't do Y" (Whether we're talking about sex, drugs, or rock and roll).
> 
> 
> I think that a library of hybrid pics could be useful. If people knew what common crosses looked like, they'd be more likely to say "oh, thats a hybrid", instead of "oh, thats a citronella" when someone with a blue and yellow frog they bought at "discount pet" wants to know what it is.


I don't remember saying hybrids shouldn't be discussed or mentioned at all. But to publically display pictures of hybrids is, in my opinion, to glorify them. If you want to use your analogy, if a sex ed teacher wants to encourage abstinence that teacher is going to have a discussion about _why_ an individual should abstain from having sex. The teacher is _not_ going to put on a porno for the students to watch and conclude the lecture by saying "and that is why you shouldn't have sex." Dendroboard already has plenty of discussions about why hybrids should not be introduced to the hobby. We don't need a thread cluttered with pictures of undesireable frogs just so that (as Corpus Callosum pointed out) frogs can continue to be mis-identified based on appearance.


----------



## chatterbox0099

i have 4 citronells 1 blue. they have what looks like blisters on there legs. can anyone tell me what it is and how to treat it?


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog

chatterbox, this isnt the thread for that kind of question....


----------



## Toby_H

SmackoftheGods said:


> I don't remember saying hybrids shouldn't be discussed or mentioned at all. But to publically display pictures of hybrids is, in my opinion, to glorify them. If you want to use your analogy, if a sex ed teacher wants to encourage abstinence that teacher is going to have a discussion about _why_ an individual should abstain from having sex. The teacher is _not_ going to put on a porno for the students to watch and conclude the lecture by saying "and that is why you shouldn't have sex." Dendroboard already has plenty of discussions about why hybrids should not be introduced to the hobby. We don't need a thread cluttered with pictures of undesireable frogs just so that (as Corpus Callosum pointed out) frogs can continue to be mis-identified based on appearance.


On the contrary... when the teacher suggests "don't do drugs", they often show you pictures of drugs... and education on the harmful effects they have to offer...

Visual aids as a part of education is a common tool... Suppressing information is a manipulative tool that inspires rebellion... 

If, you/we/I truly believe that creating hybrids is a bad idea and holds potentially bad results... what do we have to hide? Let both sides share their thoughts, ideas, conclusions... and even pictures...

I hold an odd place in this debate… while I do not agree with the creation and especially not the distribution of hybrids… I support sharing pictures of those which are in existence…


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Toby_H said:


> On the contrary... when the teacher suggests "don't do drugs", they often show you pictures of drugs... and education on the harmful effects they have to offer...
> 
> Visual aids as a part of education is a common tool... Suppressing information is a manipulative tool that inspires rebellion...
> 
> If, you/we/I truly believe that creating hybrids is a bad idea and holds potentially bad results... what do we have to hide? Let both sides share their thoughts, ideas, conclusions... and even pictures...
> 
> I hold an odd place in this debate… while I do not agree with the creation and especially not the distribution of hybrids… I support sharing pictures of those which are in existence…


There is a reason that providing pictures of people who have experienced negative affects from drugs is so effective. Everyone knows what a healthy human being is supposed to look like. Provide a picture of an unhealthy human being and tell someone that drugs caused the illness, that person is more likely to avoid drugs.

Believe it or not, most people don't even know what a _healthy_ frog looks like as shown by: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/lounge/39698-another-skinny-frog-pic-major-company.html and http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/38154-unacceptable-sad.html . If people (not just arbitrary individuals, but professional photographers no less) can't tell what a _healthy_ frog looks like, what makes you think that people would be able to distinguish the abnormalities in a hybrid? Pictures of hybrids are not going to help deter anyone from producing or acquiring hybrids until they know what to look for in ideal specimens. That is why the few threads we have of hybrids also have a lot of newbies requesting information on where such a morph might be obtained. This is why I think it's irresponsible to post pictures of hybrids in a place that is accessible by any person regardless of that person's experience with dart frogs.


----------



## james67

the point here is that it seems some folks love to stir up this junk over and over, and by putting it in the faces of everyone (especially younger members) it does justify to some that its ok.
i dont want this to sound too harsh but it is really annoying to see this again and again. 

let me put it this way.... the same way that the vast majority of imports of oophaga species are lost to death, many times from falling into the hands of those who are new and, unintentionally or not, provide improper care, because they saw someones collection of pums or even histos, lehmanni, etc. in every color of the rainbow, and said they had to have one , and as their first frog. they do not heed the warnings as to the necessity of a knowledgeable "advanced" keeper, rather they tell themselves "hey if someone else can do it so can i". it is a part of adolescence. the belief that one can do what they want regardless of others suggestions, and yes it does start from threads like this one, where there is an argument, that as ALWAYS leads nowhere because the same group of stubborn people feel that they can do what ever they want because they PAID for the animal. not true! by purchasing the animal you have made a commitment to it and its well being and to the community as a whole if you breed them. and furthermore anyone who believes that they can do what they want because they paid for an animal. is insane. that's the same reason i heard for people wanting to purchase rabbits to feed to pit bulls to train them to fight. and while you may not see the relevance between killing a rabbit and mixing your dart frogs remember that achieving breeding stock to create an atmosphere where one CAN only buy CB as some have expressed is the ONLY way to create a ecologically friendly environment(in the hobby). there needs to be honesty and pure breeding of specimens, and by mixing you are either signing up to care for all of the offspring for the 25yr lifespan (which most of us cant REALLY say we can do because you haven't been in the hobby, perhaps even alive, that long) or acknowledge AND OPENLY that you intend to euthanize ALL offspring. which is selfish in itself in my book. 

so lets just all go on with our business and stop bickering, and those who want to discuss why they have the knowledge and authority to even chance leaking a hybrid and potentially destroy the hard work of many individuals, should take a step back and look at what this and every other thread about ANYTHING mixing related have come to. but we all know that they will undoubtedly continue defending their stance, however remember that there are others like you who will see this and say hey i too can defy the trusted knowledge of others and do my own thing because im more important than the big picture.

btw how many of the requested pics have been posted on this thread??????????
everyone needs to stop inciting this argument and stop creating new threads about this crap. it WILL lead to this an entirely unproductive pissing match.


----------



## Woodsman

I have heard time and time again the argument against inter-morph crosses (not "hybrids", but simply crosses within a single species) that we would be polluting the "pure bloodlines" that exist in the hobby today. The people who stole these frogs from the wild in the first instance were not egalitarian non-profit entities, they were (are) out for the "cash money" (that's why importers like to give frog morphs enticing names such as "Citronella", "Giant Orange", "Regina", etc.). Frogs will be collected in the hundreds to thousands (essentially everything that can be found at a particular locality). So now the importer has hundreds of frogs, some of them large, some of them small, some of them with dark blue legs, some of them pastel. What if he said, "I'll put the little white ones in one box and call them "Oyapocks", I'll put the little yellow ones in another box and call them "French Guyana Dwarf Cobalts", the green-spotted ones in another and call them "Green Sipaliwini", and the blue-spotted ones "Blue Sipaliwini".

Some on this board seem to believe that all of the morphs are clearly-defined animals from a single locality at which no other color morphs exist. The truth is that this isn't the case, that no records have ever been kept on the majority of our frogs (except perhaps, Azureus and "True Sipaliwini"), that we might be doing more harm to the future of these frogs in the hobby by maintaining them in artificially-arranged groups that do not represent their populations in nature. Also, due to the geneticall-restrictive nature of the way PDFs are kept in the hobby, they are not good candidates for any effort at potential future reintroduction efforts.

Even the most ardent breeder of "purebred" canines understand that if he/she doesn't work to increase the genetic diversity within their breeding program, they will inevitably produce animals that may have multiple health and behavioural abnormailties. So, by only having one bloodline of morphs such as Giant Orange in the hobby and only breeding sib to sib generation after generation, this will most likely doom the bloodline to extirpation within the hobby (and, clearly, would not be a candidate for a re-introduction project).

All I have ever suggested here is that we have the ability to ask some basic questions about how morphological traits are inherited in D. tinctorius and that (as a group of hobbyists possessing awesome abilities at animal husbandry) we are well-suited to the task of answering some of these basic questions. Done in a responsible manner, this project bears no resemblence to the greedy dealer who just wants to make a buck offering the "latest and greatest". I can promise that in my professional conservation work with endangered native plants of the Northeast U.S., I hold myself (and those I work with) to a higher ethical standard than any of the pet animal dealers I have ever met. I do not buy and will never by an animal that was stolen from the rainforest (I think this is the real issue that the PDF hobbyist community should be more focused on, as the results of this plunder does have direct negative impact on frog populations in the wild).

Flame away! Richard in Staten Island.


----------



## Woodsman

You should ask yourself who is actually doing the pissing. There is a difference between educational discourse and simply defending a position as the wisdom of the more experienced hobbyist. I have been keeping and breeding PDFs since 1998, so I do not consider myself a "noob" (which I presume to be a perjorative term used to keep someone one who disagrees with in their place). There is no consensus in the hobby about this kind of work and people that proclaim it so aren't correct just because they proclaim it so. So maybe we do need to have a conversation, not just the pissing match.




james67 said:


> the point here is that it seems some folks love to stir up this junk over and over, and by putting it in the faces of everyone (especially younger members) it does justify to some that its ok.
> i dont want this to sound too harsh but it is really annoying to see this again and again.
> 
> let me put it this way.... the same way that the vast majority of imports of oophaga species are lost to death, many times from falling into the hands of those who are new and, unintentionally or not, provide improper care, because they saw someones collection of pums or even histos, lehmanni, etc. in every color of the rainbow, and said they had to have one , and as their first frog. they do not heed the warnings as to the necessity of a knowledgeable "advanced" keeper, rather they tell themselves "hey if someone else can do it so can i". it is a part of adolescence. the belief that one can do what they want regardless of others suggestions, and yes it does start from threads like this one, where there is an argument, that as ALWAYS leads nowhere because the same group of stubborn people feel that they can do what ever they want because they PAID for the animal. not true! by purchasing the animal you have made a commitment to it and its well being and to the community as a whole if you breed them. and furthermore anyone who believes that they can do what they want because they paid for an animal. is insane. that's the same reason i heard for people wanting to purchase rabbits to feed to pit bulls to train them to fight. and while you may not see the relevance between killing a rabbit and mixing your dart frogs remember that achieving breeding stock to create an atmosphere where one CAN only buy CB as some have expressed is the ONLY way to create a ecologically friendly environment(in the hobby). there needs to be honesty and pure breeding of specimens, and by mixing you are either signing up to care for all of the offspring for the 25yr lifespan (which most of us cant REALLY say we can do because you haven't been in the hobby, perhaps even alive, that long) or acknowledge AND OPENLY that you intend to euthanize ALL offspring. which is selfish in itself in my book.
> 
> so lets just all go on with our business and stop bickering, and those who want to discuss why they have the knowledge and authority to even chance leaking a hybrid and potentially destroy the hard work of many individuals, should take a step back and look at what this and every other thread about ANYTHING mixing related have come to. but we all know that they will undoubtedly continue defending their stance, however remember that there are others like you who will see this and say hey i too can defy the trusted knowledge of others and do my own thing because im more important than the big picture.
> 
> btw how many of the requested pics have been posted on this thread??????????
> everyone needs to stop inciting this argument and stop creating new threads about this crap. it WILL lead to this an entirely unproductive pissing match.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Woodsman said:


> I have heard time and time again the argument against inter-morph crosses (not "hybrids", but simply crosses within a single species) that we would be polluting the "pure bloodlines" that exist in the hobby today. The people who stole these frogs from the wild in the first instance were not egalitarian non-profit entities, they were (are) out for the "cash money" (that's why importers like to give frog morphs enticing names such as "Citronella", "Giant Orange", "Regina", etc.). Frogs will be collected in the hundreds to thousands (essentially everything that can be found at a particular locality). So now the importer has hundreds of frogs, some of them large, some of them small, some of them with dark blue legs, some of them pastel. What if he said, "I'll put the little white ones in one box and call them "Oyapocks", I'll put the little yellow ones in another box and call them "French Guyana Dwarf Cobalts", the green-spotted ones in another and call them "Green Sipaliwini", and the blue-spotted ones "Blue Sipaliwini".
> 
> Some on this board seem to believe that all of the morphs are clearly-defined animals from a single locality at which no other color morphs exist. The truth is that this isn't the case, that no records have ever been kept on the majority of our frogs (except perhaps, Azureus and "True Sipaliwini"), that we might be doing more harm to the future of these frogs in the hobby by maintaining them in artificially-arranged groups that do not represent their populations in nature. Also, due to the geneticall-restrictive nature of the way PDFs are kept in the hobby, they are not good candidates for any effort at potential future reintroduction efforts.
> 
> Even the most ardent breeder of "purebred" canines understand that if he/she doesn't work to increase the genetic diversity within their breeding program, they will inevitably produce animals that may have multiple health and behavioural abnormailties. So, by only having one bloodline of morphs such as Giant Orange in the hobby and only breeding sib to sib generation after generation, this will most likely doom the bloodline to extirpation within the hobby (and, clearly, would not be a candidate for a re-introduction project).
> 
> All I have ever suggested here is that we have the ability to ask some basic questions about how morphological traits are inherited in D. tinctorius and that (as a group of hobbyists possessing awesome abilities at animal husbandry) we are well-suited to the task of answering some of these basic questions. Done in a responsible manner, this project bears no resemblence to the greedy dealer who just wants to make a buck offering the "latest and greatest". I can promise that in my professional conservation work with endangered native plants of the Northeast U.S., I hold myself (and those I work with) to a higher ethical standard than any of the pet animal dealers I have ever met. I do not buy and will never by an animal that was stolen from the rainforest (I think this is the real issue that the PDF hobbyist community should be more focused on, as the results of this plunder does have direct negative impact on frog populations in the wild).
> 
> Flame away! Richard in Staten Island.



I'm just having a little trouble understanding where you're coming from, Rich. You've made it known on several occasions that you abhor the concept of keeping wild caught animals, which I suppose is admirable in some sense (I admit that I used to have the same ideology myself). But you seem to also actively subject yourself to a hobby that simply could not exist without the introduction of captive wild caught animals. It seems apparent that you are concerned with the genetic diversity in our captive animals, but you protest the attempts that are made to import new bloodlines (and therefore increase the genetic diversity of our captive animals) into the hobby. Instead it seems that your solution is to hybridize (for lack of a better term when referring to cross-breeding morphs) frogs to increase that genetic variability. However, it also seems that without more information about the locale of these morphs that arbitrarily cross breeding different morphs is (at least _potentially_) defiling the natural beauty that nature (or God or Allah or whatever superhuman diety you choose to worship) has provided. Show me two socially constructed "tinctorius morphs" that actually share the same locale and perhaps I'll support you in your efforts to cross those two morphs. But it seems that without more specific locality information we should do our best to preserve the natural speciation of these animals rather than crossing morphs and _then_ finding out that those morphs really _were_ from different localities and potentially destroying that naturally occuring (and naturally isolated) morph forever.

Thoughts? I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you here. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## james67

excuse me but i have been keeping PDFs since 99' so please d dont think that you can intimidate me with your experience. 

and what exactly in the way of educationally important discoveries do you think has come of these topics?

i have seen NONE and am simply suggesting that people stop this useless argument that (perhaps not in your case) is predominantly fed by those who are inexperienced ('noobs as you call them"

furthermore i do not know you but over reading your posts you have an attitude that is not appreciated. you have on numerous occasions made contradictory statements, and i truly believe that (from what i have seen) you seem to be trying intentionally to stir up and continue arguments. this is further proven by your statement "Flame away!" which to me shows that you are obviously intending to receive negative responses, because of the abnormally aggressive stance you take towards others.

at least for my part i am not appreciative of this and i think you need to take a look at the way you address others.

so much of what you have said if off track i dont know where to start.
i am getting back to more important things thank you for your input


----------



## RecycledAgain

Chatterbox, I wish i were able to answer your question. I would repost it in the heath and treatment section. I belive many of these folks can point you in the right direction if they wernt so polarised at the moment. 

Repost it ,, People will try and help.

Dan


----------



## Woodsman

Without having locality data associated with the frogs in the hobby, it isn't possible to say definitively that two morphs come from the same area. The best we can do is to look at sites such as Marcus' Tropical Experience and look at where he located tinctorius morphs in the wild. He clearly states the belief that some of the morphs we seperate (such as Alanis and Infer-alanis, Blue-legged and Grey-legged Powderblues, and Reginas and Giant Oranges) are from one population and that the morphs that exist in the hobby have been selected-out from the more diverse native populations.

So, by keeping bloodlines seperate, not only do we create a bottle-neck for the bloodlines in the hobby, we force the frogs to breed in ways that they did not in nature. I have spoken to a number of good froggers who agree that we are doing Giant Oranges and Reginas no service by keeping the limited bloodlines seperate and that carefully planned crosses from known stock or bloodlines could help restore the genetic diversity that exists in nature (or at least be moving us in the right direction). So here, the "hybrid" created is actually more demonstrative of the genetic diversity of the wild population than currently exists in the hobby frogs.

Another group that may have been spilt-up by the importers is the one containing Oyapocks and French Guyana Dwarf Cobalts, both of which come from the same area of French Guyana. If I were to take a black and white photo of the two frogs side-by-side, I think it would be difficult to tell the two apart. It makes me wonder where the "dwarf" tincs came from, if they are truly seperate populations in which no "large" tincs occur or if the dwarf and standard morphs occur in the same population (when they occur in our breeding programs, we call them "runts", but I have a number of runty Giant Oranges that are sexually-mature and fully capable of breeding). I do currently have a pair containing an Oyapock male and French Guyana Dwarf Cobalt female begining to breed and seem as comfortable with each other as my breeding pair of Oyapocks.

Also, I am a proponent of not collecting wild animals for the dart frog hobby. I leave it to zoological collections to collect and maintain genetic diversity of captive animals through careful collection from the wild (and with the legal permission of the countries involved). Unfortunately, when it comes to importers and smugglers, the last thing they are concerned with is the long-term viablility of hobby frogs. I would not want my enjoyment of these frogs (and believe me, I am more in love with these frogs than I ever thought possible!!) to come at the destruction of any wild populations. The hobby just isn't worth that risk.

I hope that answers some of your concerns. Take care, Richard.



SmackoftheGods said:


> I'm just having a little trouble understanding where you're coming from, Rich. You've made it known on several occasions that you abhor the concept of keeping wild caught animals, which I suppose is admirable in some sense (I admit that I used to have the same ideology myself). But you seem to also actively subject yourself to a hobby that simply could not exist without the introduction of captive wild caught animals. It seems apparent that you are concerned with the genetic diversity in our captive animals, but you protest the attempts that are made to import new bloodlines (and therefore increase the genetic diversity of our captive animals) into the hobby. Instead it seems that your solution is to hybridize (for lack of a better term when referring to cross-breeding morphs) frogs to increase that genetic variability. However, it also seems that without more information about the locale of these morphs that arbitrarily cross breeding different morphs is (at least _potentially_) defiling the natural beauty that nature (or God or Allah or whatever superhuman diety you choose to worship) has provided. Show me two socially constructed "tinctorius morphs" that actually share the same locale and perhaps I'll support you in your efforts to cross those two morphs. But it seems that without more specific locality information we should do our best to preserve the natural speciation of these animals rather than crossing morphs and _then_ finding out that those morphs really _were_ from different localities and potentially destroying that naturally occuring (and naturally isolated) morph forever.
> 
> Thoughts? I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you here. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## herper99

Woodsman said:


> I do currently have a pair containing an Oyapock male and French Guyana Dwarf Cobalt female begining to breed and seem as comfortable with each other as my breeding pair of Oyapocks.


Rich,

Are you intentionally breeding your Oyapock male and F.G. Cobalt female?


----------



## SmackoftheGods

I don't disagree with the smugglers versus legal importers argument. Sounds fine to me. But that doesn't mean we should shun all wild caught frogs. It just means we need to pay attention to who is doing the importing.

It sounds to me like a lot of this cross morphing information is mere conjecture. Phrases like "states the belief" and "group that _may have_ been split up" cause me to question whether or not they were _actually_ split up. It is possible that the morphs you mention have been "selected-out from the more diverse native populations." But until we have specific locality information isn't it just as likely that these morphs were _not_ split-out and actually _do_ exist separate from one another (or at the very least that there occurs sexual selection such that when offered the choice between a frog's own morph and a frog not of the same morph they choose to breed within their own morph)?

My question is: is it worth it to cross breed different (presumed) morphs on suggested data that those frogs _may_ have overlapping localities?



Woodsman said:


> Without having locality data associated with the frogs in the hobby, it isn't possible to say definitively that two morphs come from the same area. The best we can do is to look at sites such as Marcus' Tropical Experience and look at where he located tinctorius morphs in the wild. He clearly states the belief that some of the morphs we seperate (such as Alanis and Infer-alanis, Blue-legged and Grey-legged Powderblues, and Reginas and Giant Oranges) are from one population and that the morphs that exist in the hobby have been selected-out from the more diverse native populations.
> 
> So, by keeping bloodlines seperate, not only do we create a bottle-neck for the bloodlines in the hobby, we force the frogs to breed in ways that they did not in nature. I have spoken to a number of good froggers who agree that we are doing Giant Oranges and Reginas no service by keeping the limited bloodlines seperate and that carefully planned crosses from known stock or bloodlines could help restore the genetic diversity that exists in nature (or at least be moving us in the right direction). So here, the "hybrid" created is actually more demonstrative of the genetic diversity of the wild population than currently exists in the hobby frogs.
> 
> Another group that may have been spilt-up by the importers is the one containing Oyapocks and French Guyana Dwarf Cobalts, both of which come from the same area of French Guyana. If I were to take a black and white photo of the two frogs side-by-side, I think it would be difficult to tell the two apart. It makes me wonder where the "dwarf" tincs came from, if they are truly seperate populations in which no "large" tincs occur or if the dwarf and standard morphs occur in the same population (when they occur in our breeding programs, we call them "runts", but I have a number of runty Giant Oranges that are sexually-mature and fully capable of breeding). I do currently have a pair containing an Oyapock male and French Guyana Dwarf Cobalt female begining to breed and seem as comfortable with each other as my breeding pair of Oyapocks.
> 
> Also, I am a proponent of not collecting wild animals for the dart frog hobby. I leave it to zoological collections to collect and maintain genetic diversity of captive animals through careful collection from the wild (and with the legal permission of the countries involved). Unfortunately, when it comes to importers and smugglers, the last thing they are concerned with is the long-term viablility of hobby frogs. I would not want my enjoyment of these frogs (and believe me, I am more in love with these frogs than I ever thought possible!!) to come at the destruction of any wild populations. The hobby just isn't worth that risk.
> 
> I hope that answers some of your concerns. Take care, Richard.


----------



## Ed

Woodsman said:


> Some on this board seem to believe that all of the morphs are clearly-defined animals from a single locality at which no other color morphs exist. The truth is that this isn't the case, that no records have ever been kept on the majority of our frogs (except perhaps, Azureus and "True Sipaliwini"), that we might be doing more harm to the future of these frogs in the hobby by maintaining them in artificially-arranged groups that do not represent their populations in nature. Also, due to the geneticall-restrictive nature of the way PDFs are kept in the hobby, they are not good candidates for any effort at potential future reintroduction efforts.
> .


Hi Rich,

If I get what your saying but I am waiting for some meds to kick in so I might not be totally coherent or get it... 

Most of the varieties of say D. tinctorious can be traced back to localities in the wild where the population does show some minor variations but are predominately that color patter (a number of these are listed in Lotter's Book for an example including some interesting Brazilian variations). The natal populations are "true breeding" but the minor variations that do pop-up are then often selectively line bred resulting in other lines of the frogs (fine spot azureus for example). 

At this time, if the hobby begins to take an active role in maintaining the ratio of alleles in the hobby, they could at some time be valuable for bolstering a population (with anurans, the release of tadpoles may be the most effective method for those species that can be returned to larger bodies of water (streams or pools or vernal puddles as opposed to the phytotelmata breeders). But is totally up to the hobby. 

Ed


----------



## Lilypad87

Just as a somewhat neutral point on the issue (i personally dont mix but am not taking sides), but nature does have its way of nipping mixing species in the bud. For example, the mule is a mix between a horse (and a donkey i believe), which is sterile therefore unable to continue breeding. The liger previously discussed is another example of this. Im not sure if this affects some frogs as well, i dont remember reading Redeyetroyfrog's froglets have continued to interbreed. Just something to think about too.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Lilypad87 said:


> Just as a somewhat neutral point on the issue (i personally dont mix but am not taking sides), but nature does have its way of nipping mixing species in the bud. For example, the mule is a mix between a horse (and a donkey i believe), which is sterile therefore unable to continue breeding. The liger previously discussed is another example of this. Im not sure if this affects some frogs as well, i dont remember reading Redeyetroyfrog's froglets have continued to interbreed. Just something to think about too.


I believe you're right when it comes to mixing different genus (if we were able to hybridize, say, R. Imitators and O. pumilio). However, we're not just talking about interspecies, but different morphs of the same species. Many of us are not just interested in preserving the species but the different phenotypes displayed in different localities. For instance, there are numerous morphs of tincs, but many of them show up in different places in the wild. So, if we were to preserve localities we would want to avoid interbreeding different morphs of tincs. However, because they are the same species, if we were to "hybridize" different morphs of the same species they should be completely fertile.


----------



## Ed

Lilypad87 said:


> Just as a somewhat neutral point on the issue (i personally dont mix but am not taking sides), but nature does have its way of nipping mixing species in the bud. For example, the mule is a mix between a horse (and a donkey i believe), which is sterile therefore unable to continue breeding. The liger previously discussed is another example of this. Im not sure if this affects some frogs as well, i dont remember reading Redeyetroyfrog's froglets have continued to interbreed. Just something to think about too.


Actually the idea that all ligers are infertile has been shown to be untrue.. it was long thought the male ligers were infertile due to some genetic combinations which cause the ligers to continue to grow through thier lives (basically remain as a prepubescent adolescent growth phase) but this has since been shown to not be the case and I believe that there are now lion x liger, tiger x liger, tigron x liger... 

Ed


----------



## Dragonfly

What I keep seeing is argumentativeness. Healthy scientific discussion is really not apparent in this discussion (a few posters aside). 

I want to say that while I don't support mxing, hybridizing, in this hobby - or in other hobbies, my hackles rise when I hear or see the word abomination and even more so when i see people refer to nazis. 

We should all remain civil. And even in a hotly disputed topic avoid extremist language.


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Chris,

Yes, the make a very sweet pair and seem quite smitten with each other. I'll post some baby photos when they become available.

Take cxare, Richard.



herper99 said:


> Rich,
> 
> Are you intentionally breeding your Oyapock male and F.G. Cobalt female?


----------



## Woodsman

Please specifiy the numerous occasions on which I made contradictory statements. This is exactly what I meant by flaming, the use of "immflamatory" rhetoric without any basis. It sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about.




james67 said:


> excuse me but i have been keeping PDFs since 99' so please d dont think that you can intimidate me with your experience.
> 
> and what exactly in the way of educationally important discoveries do you think has come of these topics?
> 
> i have seen NONE and am simply suggesting that people stop this useless argument that (perhaps not in your case) is predominantly fed by those who are inexperienced ('noobs as you call them"
> 
> furthermore i do not know you but over reading your posts you have an attitude that is not appreciated. you have on numerous occasions made contradictory statements, and i truly believe that (from what i have seen) you seem to be trying intentionally to stir up and continue arguments. this is further proven by your statement "Flame away!" which to me shows that you are obviously intending to receive negative responses, because of the abnormally aggressive stance you take towards others.
> 
> at least for my part i am not appreciative of this and i think you need to take a look at the way you address others.
> 
> so much of what you have said if off track i dont know where to start.
> i am getting back to more important things thank you for your input


----------



## MarcNem

It really seems like a few of your guys just wait for these type of topics to come up so you can "stir the pot". It's like watching "The View". All he asked was to see a few pics of hybrids if you had them, and to add the background information on them, and the current state of each frog.
Either you have pics and want to post them, or you don't. We all can really do without the long opinions. 
While I do not inter-breed my frogs, all I can do is share with others why I don't do it, not why no one in the world should do it. And Education! Come on guys....Would someone please tell me who's doing the educating? And since when does your opinion about the hybridization of dart frogs become the rule in the hobby? We are talking about opinions about hybrids! Reading between the lines it seems like your telling chinoanoah that this is the way we play here, and if you don't think how we think, then you should go play somewhere else. UNBELIEVABLE!

Oh, and if any one of you wanted to share how much "The Community", and I use that term loosly, feels about hybrids, someone could have simply suggested that he do a search on hybrids or post a link to one of the many threads on this board. 

Here's a thought: How about one of you know it all, self proclaimed dart frog gurus, start a thread called:
*How we feel about hybrids on Dendroboard*. Then the topic will never be bought up again. 

Again, Unbelievable!

Marc Knox


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Ed,

This is the point at which I become frustated at the (apparent) lack of detailed information on the population ecological relationships of D. tinctorius morphs in the wild. It seems that most of the collections that I can find citations for relate to a population of frogs at a given site, then some distance is either driven of flown, and another site is studied for its local population.

I don't know how popular transect studies are in herpetological studies, but they are a mainstay in the study of how plant communities vary over distances. It seems very unlikely that all of the morphs of D. tinctorius that are seen in the hobby represent discrete isolated populations that are closed from breeding with any other populations. The paper you suggested by Wollenberg (et al) (2006), did not address this subject, only the molecular diversity within the group as a whole ((I am not particularly a fan of molecular taxonomy, as it suffers from many of the same perils that traditional macroscopic (phenotypic) taxonomy does in the long run)).

I had always intended to work on some aspect of tropical ecology in my career, but have been permanently side-lined with my botanical studies here in New York (not that I don't love it and feel I am making a difference to some very endangered native plants). So I find myself greatly frustrated in what I can never learn from my frogs (i.e. where they were collected, were they found in mixed populations that were segregated by greedy importers, etc.) The best plan of attack I have come up with is to look at the inheritence patterns that can be determined by these (albeit limited) studies involving inter-morph crosses. Not having the locality data is perhaps a fatal delimitation of the "study", but it at least gives me the chance of gaining some novel insight into these charasmatic creatures that have stolen my heart (I like to think the if D. tincotorius had been available for live study during Darwin's lifetime, that they certainly would have become a favorite study organism for him!)

Gregor Mendel had his peas. I have my PDFs. I hope I learn something useful!!

Take care, Richard.



Ed said:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> If I get what your saying but I am waiting for some meds to kick in so I might not be totally coherent or get it...
> 
> Most of the varieties of say D. tinctorious can be traced back to localities in the wild where the population does show some minor variations but are predominately that color patter (a number of these are listed in Lotter's Book for an example including some interesting Brazilian variations). The natal populations are "true breeding" but the minor variations that do pop-up are then often selectively line bred resulting in other lines of the frogs (fine spot azureus for example).
> 
> At this time, if the hobby begins to take an active role in maintaining the ratio of alleles in the hobby, they could at some time be valuable for bolstering a population (with anurans, the release of tadpoles may be the most effective method for those species that can be returned to larger bodies of water (streams or pools or vernal puddles as opposed to the phytotelmata breeders). But is totally up to the hobby.
> 
> Ed


----------



## jubjub47

Woodsman said:


> Another group that may have been spilt-up by the importers is the one containing Oyapocks and French Guyana Dwarf Cobalts, both of which come from the same area of French Guyana. If I were to take a black and white photo of the two frogs side-by-side, I think it would be difficult to tell the two apart.


Unfortunately, these frogs are not black and white so your reasoning really holds no water. For your example, a blue frog and a red frog would look similar in black and white yet they are different colors in nature for a reason. Many tincs carry a similar pattern and would look similar in black and white. That in no way dictates that they should be mixed and are of similar locales. With that type of reasoning I might as well use black and white photos to pair up some P. bicolors and P. terribilis. I mean, they look so similar in black and white. There is no place in this hobby to turn such a wide spread family of frogs into a black and white issue when it clearly is not. There are a large number of people who dedicate their lives to these animals that would and do strongly disagree with your view on these frogs.


----------



## james67

richard, i am done talking about your "experiments" just please keep them (offspring) to yourself. 

i dont have a definite answer, nor do i claim to, the point is that openly discussing mixing creates an atmosphere that indirectly (or in some cases directly) says to others that ITS OK to mix. and while you don't believe that a few different animals are truly different, others have worked very hard to keep pure lines, based on what we as a hobby were given (regardless of what MAY be the case in nature). there is a good reason why so much emphasis is put on the locality of a frog.

im sorry if i offended anyone, that was never my intention. 

james


----------



## frogparty

woodsman, Mendels peas were a lucky break because all the traits he observed were single gene expressed traits, its obvious that frog patterning is not that way, so I feel thats not an apt comparison. He also bred thousands of peas, do you plan on breeding thousands of cross morph tincs?


----------



## IN2DEEP

The curious side of me would like to an encyclopedia of hybrid frogs, pics, and descriptions. The more logical side of me would use that as a guide of what to be aware of when buying new additions. Last year when I bought a pair of El Dorado I was choosing from 5 different color variations of orange, some with spots, some with colored feet/legs........ and I was thinking I haven't heard of this local yet and am I the sucker of the day. In the end it all came down to: they look cool and I trust the seller is telling me the truth.


----------



## Woodsman

Your post goes right to the heart of the point I have been trying to make here, that we think we know more about these imported frogs than (in fact) we do. A number of writers have referred to the "ethical" importers, keeping records and not taking too many frogs from the wild. We would love to think this kind of guy exists, but it isn't true and he doesn't. If money is involved, no one should be surprised that the frogs ultimately take a back seat to the fast buck.

Personally, I would be greatly in favor of the board trying to develop a code of ethics for the hobby that includes discouraging froggers from producing inter-morph crosses. More importantly, a code that also discourages hobbyists from purchasing wild stolen animals or their F1 progeny. If "new blood" is desired for the hobby, perhaps TWI/ASN could work with zoos and other researchers to secure animals from the wild that are carefully studied and managed (to gaurd against catastrophic loss of wild populations). If collections were made through a scientific institution, better records could be kept as to the localities involved and the population dynamics within those population (whether there is endemic diversity of color morphs within a single population, etc.) Then we could establish bloodlines within the hobby that really are locality driven and not just color driven.

Thanks for your post, Richard.




IN2DEEP said:


> The curious side of me would like to an encyclopedia of hybrid frogs, pics, and descriptions. The more logical side of me would use that as a guide of what to be aware of when buying new additions. Last year when I bought a pair of El Dorado I was choosing from 5 different color variations of orange, some with spots, some with colored feet/legs........ and I was thinking I haven't heard of this local yet and am I the sucker of the day. In the end it all came down to: they look cool and I trust the seller is telling me the truth.


----------



## Toby_H

Woodsman said:


> Your post goes right to the heart of the point I have been trying to make here, that we think we know more about these imported frogs than (in fact) we do. A number of writers have referred to the "ethical" importers, keeping records and not taking too many frogs from the wild. We would love to think this kind of guy exists, but it isn't true and he doesn't. If money is involved, no one should be surprised that the frogs ultimately take a back seat to the fast buck.


Based on your above statement it would be safe to conclude that all of your professional conservative work is self centered and self serving... That the plants you have dedicated your work to preserving take the back seat to your bank account… yet I bet you would be offended if I suggested as much...

Just because someone finds a career in their beloved field, don't make them a criminal...

I don’t see the world through rose colored glasses… but they aren’t the shade of blood either… :-S


----------



## Woodsman

Equating the work of professional conservation scientists to that of smugglers and importers doesn't make much sense to me. Also, you should know that my work is conducted through a not-for-profit organization which has a mandate the conseervation work and not any profit motive. Anyone who has been to my place (or seen my crappy car!) would attest to the fact that I am not leading the "high" life.

As far as my work be self-centered and self-serving, I would say you are probably right. Given that the Earth was quite capable of taking care of itself for the last 4 billion years (and will be quite capable of persisting once humans have finally run their course on Earth), I do find my work of greater value to my own psyche than to that of the planet. It is very difficult, though, to live in an area where human expansion very often causes the destruction of native plant communities that will no longer persist. It can be a very emotional experience to see places that I played and prayed in as a child being bull-dozed and woodchipped into oblivion. But still, I think you are right to say that I am self-centered (who else could I be?)

I'm sorry if I said anything to offend you personally, Richard.

As for all the boys holding their little pity party over on Rich's site, I think it is very brave of you to cut pieces from this thread and re-publish them on Dart Den as a means to be able to launch personal attacks from a distance. It makes a certain sense though that Rich would use this technique, as we all know his penchant for drama (i.e. the many postings he made to remind us that he was leaving Dendroboard forever). I think this group has a number of issues; much of it seems to revolve around issues of turf and respect. It might be useful for these guys to have their testosterone levels checked, as I can only image that over-production of this hormone to be responsible for some of the bad behavior. (BTW, the word "prosess" has a "c" in it....Spellcheck yourself!)




Toby_H said:


> Based on your above statement it would be safe to conclude that all of your professional conservative work is self centered and self serving... That the plants you have dedicated your work to preserving take the back seat to your bank account… yet I bet you would be offended if I suggested as much...
> 
> Just because someone finds a career in their beloved field, don't make them a criminal...
> 
> I don’t see the world through rose colored glasses… but they aren’t the shade of blood either… :-S


----------



## Toby_H

Woodsman said:


> Equating the work of professional conservation scientists to that of smugglers and importers doesn't make much sense to me.


I completely agree... You have suggested a few times that anyone who gets paid for what they do is a bad guy… I don’t agree with that…

Comparing the work of those who have an inexplicable love/passion for tropical environments and tropical animals who have found a way to make a living in such a field… to smugglers… is rude and offensive to such people…

The comments about testosterone / hormone issues is also immature and offensive… Stick to the educational posts but drop the insults… they make your (often) otherwise valuable posts hard to read…


----------



## roxrgneiss

I don't want to enter an argument or cyclical ethical debate, but I would like to say something, since a little release is good for the mind.

A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right? Isn't this approximately how the the orchid hobby became what it is today; _full of hybrids_? As I understand it, long ago orchid enthusiasts had similar disagreements over the fate of their captive specimens and eventually the hybridizers had their way, and were able to make flowers just as attractive or 'better' than the original parents to supply a growing demand. A hybridizing trend begins with misguided logic being applied to defend people, who want everyone to see and appreciate _their creation_. However, I don't want to equate our hobby to closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species.

I also think there is no real (meaningful) scientific basis for a hobbyist to cross morphs, ssp, or sp in their own homes - this is the realm of psuedo science. Plus, Darwin wouldn't be quite as famous without Wallace.  And I dare say neither sat at home cross-breeding beetles or finches, field collection/observation was pivotal.

The innocently posted pictures leading to expressions of awe could eventually take this hobby down the road of D. tinctorius "Willie's Pride" hybrid dart frogs for sale in greater numbers than true morphs and species as we know them today. As has been mentioned in this thread already, the allure of money is very powerful.

My forecast: if hybrids become common in the hobby, concerned purists will only continue and potentially increase the importation of wild frogs, because being sure that one has a true morph/species will become increasingly difficult to determine with any certainty over time - putting greater pressure on wild populations. This possibility may not happen in our lifetime, but I would expect something along those lines - just imagine the confusion over lineages in a generation or two without hybrids in the equation. Of course, that is assuming there is still a dart frog hobby or wild frogs that far into the future. How many things can you list that make you think, 'hmm, I wish those [humans] who came before me had done this differently/more responsibly'?

No offense to you, Richard, but even though you feel you may be able to do some good with hybrids, have you thought about considering for whom or what you might be paving the way?

Mike


----------



## Rich Conley

Toby_H said:


> I completely agree... You have suggested a few times that anyone who gets paid for what they do is a bad guy… I don’t agree with that…


Having your own interest in mind does not make you a bad guy. *Everything* that *everyone* does serves their own interest in some manner or another. Whether its simply the pleasure of giving, or feeling like you're making a difference, its still acting in your own interest, because you are deriving pleasure from the activity.


----------



## Rich Conley

roxrgneiss said:


> A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right?


I don't see where anyone indicated that we should intentionally create more hybrids.


----------



## flyangler18

Rich Conley said:


> I don't see where anyone indicated that we should intentionally create more hybrids.


Nearly all of Richard's postings in this thread have had that impetus.


----------



## steelheader

roxrgneiss said:


> I don't want to enter an argument or cyclical ethical debate, but I would like to say something, since a little release is good for the mind.
> 
> A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right? Isn't this approximately how the the orchid hobby became what it is today; _full of hybrids_? As I understand it, long ago orchid enthusiasts had similar disagreements over the fate of their captive specimens and eventually the hybridizers had their way, and were able to make flowers just as attractive or 'better' than the original parents to supply a growing demand. A hybridizing trend begins with misguided logic being applied to defend people, who want everyone to see and appreciate _their creation_. However, I don't want to equate our hobby to closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species.
> 
> I also think there is no real (meaningful) scientific basis for a hobbyist to cross morphs, ssp, or sp in their own homes - this is the realm of psuedo science. Plus, Darwin wouldn't be quite as famous without Wallace.  And I dare say neither sat at home cross-breeding beetles or finches, field collection/observation was pivotal.
> 
> The innocently posted pictures leading to expressions of awe could eventually take this hobby down the road of D. tinctorius "Willie's Pride" hybrid dart frogs for sale in greater numbers than true morphs and species as we know them today. As has been mentioned in this thread already, the allure of money is very powerful.
> 
> My forecast: if hybrids become common in the hobby, concerned purists will only continue and potentially increase the importation of wild frogs, because being sure that one has a true morph/species will become increasingly difficult to determine with any certainty over time - putting greater pressure on wild populations. This possibility may not happen in our lifetime, but I would expect something along those lines - just imagine the confusion over lineages in a generation or two without hybrids in the equation. Of course, that is assuming there is still a dart frog hobby or wild frogs that far into the future. How many things can you list that make you think, 'hmm, I wish those [humans] who came before me had done this differently/more responsibly'?
> 
> No offense to you, Richard, but even though you feel you may be able to do some good with hybrids, have you thought about considering for whom or what you might be paving the way?
> 
> Mike


I completely agree. You express in words a lot better than I can


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Toby,

Maybe I could have been clearer. When I refer to smugglers, I am referring to smugglers (people who illegally take animals from the wild and transport them to other countries without a permit). I think projects such as the INIBICO have taken some pains to obtain permission from their host countries and CITIES, making their project a legal one (though, even here, I would like to see more scientific study performed and referenced that demonstrates that the work is having no long-term negative impacts on wild populations). When someone offers a "new bloodline" of D. galactonotus or other Brazilian dendrobatid, they are offering smuggled animals. I would hope that we all could agree that illegal smuggling is something we should oppose.

Also, I did need to address the fact that parts of this conversation involving me are being exerpted and personal attacks being made against me on Dart Den. While I feel very strongly that I shouldn't act in ways that cause any harm to other people, I feel just as strongly that I should respond to these folks that only wish to bully me. Please remember, I am from New York City, so I hope you'll acknowledge that I am using some amount of restraint in dealing with this issue!!

Again, thanks for the constructive comments, Richard.



Toby_H said:


> I completely agree... You have suggested a few times that anyone who gets paid for what they do is a bad guy… I don’t agree with that…
> 
> Comparing the work of those who have an inexplicable love/passion for tropical environments and tropical animals who have found a way to make a living in such a field… to smugglers… is rude and offensive to such people…
> 
> The comments about testosterone / hormone issues is also immature and offensive… Stick to the educational posts but drop the insults… they make your (often) otherwise valuable posts hard to read…


----------



## roxrgneiss

Rich Conley said:


> I don't see where anyone indicated that we should intentionally create more hybrids.


Oh, no? 



Woodsman said:


> I had always intended to work on some aspect of tropical ecology in my career, but have been permanently side-lined with my botanical studies here in New York (not that I don't love it and feel I am making a difference to some very endangered native plants). So I find myself greatly frustrated in what I can never learn from my frogs (i.e. where they were collected, were they found in mixed populations that were segregated by greedy importers, etc.) *The best plan of attack I have come up with is to look at the inheritence patterns that can be determined by these (albeit limited) studies involving inter-morph crosses. Not having the locality data is perhaps a fatal delimitation of the "study", but it at least gives me the chance of gaining some novel insight* into these charasmatic creatures that have stolen my heart (I like to think the if D. tincotorius had been available for live study during Darwin's lifetime, that they certainly would have become a favorite study organism for him!)
> 
> Gregor Mendel had his peas. I have my PDFs. I hope I learn something useful!!
> 
> Take care, Richard.


That's close enough for me - this is just asking for more and possibly suggesting a scientific benefit the the production of more hybrids.


What I wasn't merely suggesting that the production of more hybrids is the open topic, but that the topic will generate more interest in hybrids - and my argument is that is a bad thing. Please, don't dissect every line typed, take the entire post for it's intended meaning. Glad to see someone's a good critical reader though.

Mike


----------



## flyangler18

> When someone offers a "new bloodline" of D. galactonotus or other Brazilian dendrobatid, they are offering smuggled animals.


Can you elaborate on this statement for the edification of those involved in this conversation? 

How are you substantiating this claim?

As a note: I am fully aware about the lack of export permits regarding _galactonotus_. There was a huge smuggling exportation in the late 90s that pushed some animals through Suriname and Europe.


----------



## skylsdale

Woodsman said:


> Your post goes right to the heart of the point I have been trying to make here, that we think we know more about these imported frogs than (in fact) we do. A number of writers have referred to the "ethical" importers, keeping records and not taking too many frogs from the wild. We would love to think this kind of guy exists, but it isn't true and he doesn't. If money is involved, no one should be surprised that the frogs ultimately take a back seat to the fast buck.


I would somewhat agree with this. I don't think you can lump all importers and their mindsets and practices any more than you can lump all hobbyists and their mindsets and practices. I think the Understory model is about the best we currently have which, yes, is about some sort of profit margin...but some of that profit does actually go back into the purchase of actual, tangible rainforest in the natural range of many of these Peruvian species. Also, Mark is on the ground scouting out locations, documenting the species and where they come from, what their distribution is and how variable the populations are. His animals are classified by location codes (much like the killifish hobby)...not nicknames that are deemed to make the animal more marketable. Is the model perfect? Probably not...but I would by no means place it in the same category as a hack-n-slash collector indiscriminantly grabbing whatever frogs he finds, collecting animals over stretches of hundreds of miles and from among different isolated populations, then throwing them all into the same box together and shipping them off to an importer.



> Personally, I would be greatly in favor of the board trying to develop a code of ethics for the hobby that includes discouraging froggers from producing inter-morph crosses. More importantly, a code that also discourages hobbyists from purchasing wild stolen animals or their F1 progeny.


A code of ethics or best practices would be nice (and I will say that something similar is in development), but it's only as useful to the extent that it's put into practice. I'm not sure the hobby really understands how much actual change depends on their actions, buying practices, etc. 



> If "new blood" is desired for the hobby, perhaps TWI/ASN could work with zoos and other researchers to secure animals from the wild that are carefully studied and managed (to gaurd against catastrophic loss of wild populations). If collections were made through a scientific institution, better records could be kept as to the localities involved and the population dynamics within those population (whether there is endemic diversity of color morphs within a single population, etc.) Then we could establish bloodlines within the hobby that really are locality driven and not just color driven.


The possibility of our (TWI) actually being able to work with zoos in this sort of capacity (e.g. for this reason) is very slim...for reasons that have been discussed in another recent thread (don't have the time to find and link it at the moment). However, the records and archived information and management of animals that you mention is exactly the purpose behind the ASN: we manage animals just as the zoos do, with the exact same ISIS software, in the same studbook fasion. If a zoo is looking for _O. pumilio_ to stock in one of their displays, and they search the database...they will see any pumilio registered via the ASN right along with any pumilio currently being kept in zoos.

The purpose of the TMPs (Taxon Management Plans) is to coordinate information, husbandry, and proper captive management of each respective species. With a handful of TMPs now under our belt, we are preparing to begin actively managing populations for longterm genetic diversity and to maintain wild type animals in captivity. If for some reason hybridization does become a more common trend/fad in the hobby, the actively managed populations of animals within the ASN will serve as protected populations as animals with dubious or unclear histories will not be allowed into the official tracking/monitoring/breeding of these populations. This will hopefully help safeguard the PDF hobby, to some degree, against the pitfalls of hybridization and selective breeding that has befallen most of the other herp hobbies (there have been times in the snake hobby where you couldn't find wild type specimens of certain species because so many had been selectively bred into designer morphs). Through the actively managed populations, there will still be a source of wild type and genetically diverse animals within the captive hobby, which will hopefully curb the need for further collection of wild animals to bring them back into the hobby (although I understand the collection/importation model is much more complicated than just that).

Also, on the basis of science, I have to disagree with what I glean to be the opinion that any frog collected from the wild is damaging the wild population of that species. I don't think we can accurately or definitively conclude that until studies are done on that specific population to determine the impact of collection (and size/rate of collection) would have on a population. For example, if I were to go out and annually collect 1,000 Pacific treefrogs (_Pseudacris regilla_) from the valley I live in, I doubt I would have much of an impact on the population, let alone the species as a whole. However, if I were to go and collect 1,000 _O. pumilio_ from Escudo de Veraguas...the impact could be quite different. Some species may be able to handle appropriate collection fine, others may not. The unfortunate thing for us is that there hasn't been much in the way of actual scientific studies and assessments done on Dendrobatid populations, probably because, in the herp hobby at large, the PDF hobby makes up a relatively small sliver. All that to say, I don't think we can make a blanket statement that all collection of wild animals is evil when it, in fact, may not have much, if any, of an impact on a population if done properly and sustainably



IN2DEEP said:


> The curious side of me would like to an encyclopedia of hybrid frogs, pics, and descriptions. The more logical side of me would use that as a guide of what to be aware of when buying new additions. Last year when I bought a pair of El Dorado I was choosing from 5 different color variations of orange, some with spots, some with colored feet/legs...


On one hand I see your point...but on the flipside there is a danger to these morphguides and the use of a couple photos (if you're lucky...usually it's just a single image) to make a determination on the origin of a single animal. For instance, from what I understand, the pumilio known as El Dorado (at least in the states) is from the southern extant of the Bri Bri population (so much for the theory that pseudonyms keep collection locales secret...). From what I've seen, there is some amount of natural variation in Bri Bri pumilio...heck, with ANY pumilio population. So we have to be open to the fact that animals that don't seem to fit the stereotypical image of what a population/morph is "supposed" to look like aren't necessarily a hybrid...but we still need to be open to the fact that something that looks different from our preconceived notions could very well be something of mixed origins. It's a fine line we need to walk, and it's well within the bounds of the hobbyiest (and the hobby at large) to expect more information regarding the animals they are purchasing and are being imported.

Also, I feel I need to mention that animals currently in the hobby that don't actually have source/locale informations aren't worthless, either. A "green and black" Panamanian auratus may not have a role to play in a controlled breeding group (is it from Colon? David? Taboga?), HOWEVER, it still satisifies the desire a person may have to simply have a few frogs in their living room that represent a certain type of frog that live in Panama. They don't need to know the specific river bank or hilltop these frogs were from...and that's perfectly okay. It's important that we understand the distinct value and importance of each that we currently have in the hobby.


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your comments about the "hybrid theory", but (as a collector of species orchids) I don't spend my days being angry with orchid hybridizers. There is currently a large communtiy of species orchid enthusiasts, so the community was not over-thrown by the hybridists. Even within the species only communtiy, it is inevitable that growers will make selections from their seedlings for larger bloom size, longevity of flowers, etc. I feel quite certain that such selections are occuring in frog breeding all the time (breeding for brighter colors, etc.) It seems this is a fundamental part of human husbandry, to "improve" the positive qualities of the animals or plants in our care.

That said, I have never advocated the general distribution or sale of inter-morph tinctorius within the hobby. I know that many believe that, simply by producing a small number of these frogs, they will invariably make their way into the wrong hands. I make to you a personal promise that, should any of my frogs out live me, I will have my family include all of them in my casket before being sent off to the crematorium!! (Well, I may have to work on that promise and get back to you!)

Very appreciative of your comments, Richard.



roxrgneiss said:


> I don't want to enter an argument or cyclical ethical debate, but I would like to say something, since a little release is good for the mind.
> 
> A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right? Isn't this approximately how the the orchid hobby became what it is today; _full of hybrids_? As I understand it, long ago orchid enthusiasts had similar disagreements over the fate of their captive specimens and eventually the hybridizers had their way, and were able to make flowers just as attractive or 'better' than the original parents to supply a growing demand. A hybridizing trend begins with misguided logic being applied to defend people, who want everyone to see and appreciate _their creation_. However, I don't want to equate our hobby to closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species.
> 
> I also think there is no real (meaningful) scientific basis for a hobbyist to cross morphs, ssp, or sp in their own homes - this is the realm of psuedo science. Plus, Darwin wouldn't be quite as famous without Wallace.  And I dare say neither sat at home cross-breeding beetles or finches, field collection/observation was pivotal.
> 
> The innocently posted pictures leading to expressions of awe could eventually take this hobby down the road of D. tinctorius "Willie's Pride" hybrid dart frogs for sale in greater numbers than true morphs and species as we know them today. As has been mentioned in this thread already, the allure of money is very powerful.
> 
> My forecast: if hybrids become common in the hobby, concerned purists will only continue and potentially increase the importation of wild frogs, because being sure that one has a true morph/species will become increasingly difficult to determine with any certainty over time - putting greater pressure on wild populations. This possibility may not happen in our lifetime, but I would expect something along those lines - just imagine the confusion over lineages in a generation or two without hybrids in the equation. Of course, that is assuming there is still a dart frog hobby or wild frogs that far into the future. How many things can you list that make you think, 'hmm, I wish those [humans] who came before me had done this differently/more responsibly'?
> 
> No offense to you, Richard, but even though you feel you may be able to do some good with hybrids, have you thought about considering for whom or what you might be paving the way?
> 
> Mike


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Jason,

It is my understanding that Brazil (or Suriname) does not currently permit the export of dendrobatid frogs to the hobby. If I am not correct, please feel free to clarify the issue.

Thanks, Richard.



flyangler18 said:


> Can you elaborate on this statement for the edification of those involved in this conversation?
> 
> How are you substantiating this claim?
> 
> As a note: I am fully aware about the lack of export permits regarding _galactonotus_. There was a huge smuggling exportation in the late 90s that pushed some animals through Suriname and Europe.


----------



## Woodsman

Thanks for the very helpful comments, Ron,

In an effort to collect as much information about the tinctorius that have been the focus of my collection (and in preparation of registerng them with TWI/ASN), I have contacted the breeders/suppliers of my frogs. I was pretty shocked at how little information is kept about frog lineages (even from some of the most well-known and respected breeders). The best I have been able to accomplish is to be able to say "I received my frogs from "X," who purchased them from "Y"". It has left me with a very disquieting feeling that the purity or knowledge of our known "bloodlines" is far from complete. This is the main reason I react negatively when other poster suggest that we have to oppose inter-morph crosses so as to protect the "pure" bloodlines (as if we had these complete records at hand).

I also agree with you that the effort to protect wild-type animals in the hobby requires a greater commitment from the hobby. As I mentioned, I do intend to register all my frogs with TWI/ASN and to help in the creation of a TMP for D. tinctorius. As a new generation of hobbists comes into being (and older members leave), it will become more difficult to ask the pertinent questions as to the origins of the frogs in the hobby. I think this is why it is so important to support the work of TWI/ASN at this very critical time.

Thanks again for the comments, Richard.



skylsdale said:


> I would somewhat agree with this. I don't think you can lump all importers and their mindsets and practices any more than you can lump all hobbyists and their mindsets and practices. I think the Understory model is about the best we currently have which, yes, is about some sort of profit margin...but some of that profit does actually go back into the purchase of actual, tangible rainforest in the natural range of many of these Peruvian species. Also, Mark is on the ground scouting out locations, documenting the species and where they come from, what their distribution is and how variable the populations are. His animals are classified by location codes (much like the killifish hobby)...not nicknames that are deemed to make the animal more marketable. Is the model perfect? Probably not...but I would by no means place it in the same category as a hack-n-slash collector indiscriminantly grabbing whatever frogs he finds, collecting animals over stretches of hundreds of miles and from among different isolated populations, then throwing them all into the same box together and shipping them off to an importer.
> 
> 
> 
> A code of ethics or best practices would be nice (and I will say that something similar is in development), but it's only as useful to the extent that it's put into practice. I'm not sure the hobby really understands how much actual change depends on their actions, buying practices, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> The possibility of our (TWI) actually being able to work with zoos in this sort of capacity (e.g. for this reason) is very slim...for reasons that have been discussed in another recent thread (don't have the time to find and link it at the moment). However, the records and archived information and management of animals that you mention is exactly the purpose behind the ASN: we manage animals just as the zoos do, with the exact same ISIS software, in the same studbook fasion. If a zoo is looking for _O. pumilio_ to stock in one of their displays, and they search the database...they will see any pumilio registered via the ASN right along with any pumilio currently being kept in zoos.
> 
> The purpose of the TMPs (Taxon Management Plans) is to coordinate information, husbandry, and proper captive management of each respective species. With a handful of TMPs now under our belt, we are preparing to begin actively managing populations for longterm genetic diversity and to maintain wild type animals in captivity. If for some reason hybridization does become a more common trend/fad in the hobby, the actively managed populations of animals within the ASN will serve as protected populations as animals with dubious or unclear histories will not be allowed into the official tracking/monitoring/breeding of these populations. This will hopefully help safeguard the PDF hobby, to some degree, against the pitfalls of hybridization and selective breeding that has befallen most of the other herp hobbies (there have been times in the snake hobby where you couldn't find wild type specimens of certain species because so many had been selectively bred into designer morphs). Through the actively managed populations, there will still be a source of wild type and genetically diverse animals within the captive hobby, which will hopefully curb the need for further collection of wild animals to bring them back into the hobby (although I understand the collection/importation model is much more complicated than just that).
> 
> Also, on the basis of science, I have to disagree with what I glean to be the opinion that any frog collected from the wild is damaging the wild population of that species. I don't think we can accurately or definitively conclude that until studies are done on that specific population to determine the impact of collection (and size/rate of collection) would have on a population. For example, if I were to go out and annually collect 1,000 Pacific treefrogs (_Pseudacris regilla_) from the valley I live in, I doubt I would have much of an impact on the population, let alone the species as a whole. However, if I were to go and collect 1,000 _O. pumilio_ from Escudo de Veraguas...the impact could be quite different. Some species may be able to handle appropriate collection fine, others may not. The unfortunate thing for us is that there hasn't been much in the way of actual scientific studies and assessments done on Dendrobatid populations, probably because, in the herp hobby at large, the PDF hobby makes up a relatively small sliver. All that to say, I don't think we can make a blanket statement that all collection of wild animals is evil when it, in fact, may not have much, if any, of an impact on a population if done properly and sustainably
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand I see your point...but on the flipside there is a danger to these morphguides and the use of a couple photos (if you're lucky...usually it's just a single image) to make a determination on the origin of a single animal. For instance, from what I understand, the pumilio known as El Dorado (at least in the states) is from the southern extant of the Bri Bri population (so much for the theory that pseudonyms keep collection locales secret...). From what I've seen, there is some amount of natural variation in Bri Bri pumilio...heck, with ANY pumilio population. So we have to be open to the fact that animals that don't seem to fit the stereotypical image of what a population/morph is "supposed" to look like aren't necessarily a hybrid...but we still need to be open to the fact that something that looks different from our preconceived notions could very well be something of mixed origins. It's a fine line we need to walk, and it's well within the bounds of the hobbyiest (and the hobby at large) to expect more information regarding the animals they are purchasing and are being imported.
> 
> Also, I feel I need to mention that animals currently in the hobby that don't actually have source/locale informations aren't worthless, either. A "green and black" Panamanian auratus may not have a role to play in a controlled breeding group (is it from Colon? David? Taboga?), HOWEVER, it still satisifies the desire a person may have to simply have a few frogs in their living room that represent a certain type of frog that live in Panama. They don't need to know the specific river bank or hilltop these frogs were from...and that's perfectly okay. It's important that we understand the distinct value and importance of each that we currently have in the hobby.


----------



## flyangler18

Woodsman said:


> Hi Jason,
> 
> It is my understanding that Brazil (or Suriname) does not currently permit the export of dendrobatid frogs to the hobby. If I am not correct, please feel free to clarify the issue.
> 
> Thanks, Richard.


_Galactonotus_ were never legally exported from Brazil - so the CB offspring that are offered are obstensibly illegal in that regard. However, given the difficulty of breeding this species in captivity, the more hobbyists working seriously to manage the populations of these frogs, the better in the long-term. Heck, even the legality of _azureus_ is questionable by the same token.

To use another amphibian species as an example, a number of pet stores were raided in the late 90s for offering _Typhlonectes natans_ and lots of animals were confiscated (and I believe this is where the Philadelphia Zoo's natans came from? Ed - am I right?). Why? Because these animals wound up in shipments of tropical fish and labeled as 'rubber eels'. Like Brazil, Colombia didn't permit the export of these animals like they did with tropical fish species, farmed iguanas and farmed boas.


----------



## roxrgneiss

Woodsman said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I appreciate your comments about the "hybrid theory", but (as a collector of species orchids) I don't spend my days being angry with orchid hybridizers. There is currently a large communtiy of species orchid enthusiasts, so the community was not over-thrown by the hybridists. Even within the species only communtiy, it is inevitable that growers will make selections from their seedlings for larger bloom size, longevity of flowers, etc. I feel quite certain that such selections are occuring in frog breeding all the time (breeding for brighter colors, etc.) It seems this is a fundamental part of human husbandry, to "improve" the positive qualities of the animals or plants in our care.
> 
> That said, I have never advocated the general distribution or sale of inter-morph tinctorius within the hobby. I know that many believe that, simply by producing a small number of these frogs, they will invariably make their way into the wrong hands. I make to you a personal promise that, should any of my frogs out live me, I will have my family include all of them in my casket before being sent off to the crematorium!! (Well, I may have to work on that promise and get back to you!)


Yes, the orchid hobby is very large. I did say that, "_However, I don't want to equate our hobby to[o] closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species._", but perhaps I understated the differences in the two hobbies. Not only are we a smaller group, but orchids are mass-produced and are easily thrown away when an undesirable cross is made. Also, not all orchids must be kept in tanks like our frogs, so there is plenty of shelf space for the mass quantities. There will be only so much room on shelves and in basements for both species and hybrids of dart frogs - some already seem to have a shortage of space... The similarity of the two hobbies is the trend towards hybridizing, and my point is that that would have a more negative effect on this hobby.

The overall point I'm trying to make is that you are publicly advocating what is considered to be a very destructive behavior to this hobby - this could result in the production of more hybrids by others, besides those needed for your 'research' and subsequently increasing the pressure on wild populations - and you don't seem to mind (which is why I was compelled to post). So, what happens to your frogs after you die may be in your control, but what of the others? - you are not king of the 'hybridizers'; they will do as they please, after your example though. My question is, do you think you are setting a good example in this thread? Have you given a lot of thought to the position you've taken up as champion of hybrids?


If what I say is a 'hybrid theory', then what of your plans to do morph 'research' by 'studying' hybrids you and others make? We know little (not enough) about our frogs' wild counterparts and you hope to learn from bastardizing them??

Mike


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Mike,

I was just about to say that I don't think we are all that different in our views on the hobby and that I put "hybrid theory" in quotes because I was making a pun on the album by Lincoln Park. Then you had to go and call my interests in the hobby "bastardizing" the frogs. You lose the argument because you feel the need to lower the discussion in this way. Good for you.



roxrgneiss said:


> Yes, the orchid hobby is very large. I did say that, "_However, I don't want to equate our hobby to[o] closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species._", but perhaps I understated the differences in the two hobbies. Not only are we a smaller group, but orchids are mass-produced and are easily thrown away when an undesirable cross is made. Also, not all orchids must be kept in tanks like our frogs, so there is plenty of shelf space for the mass quantities. There will be only so much room on shelves and in basements for both species and hybrids of dart frogs - some already seem to have a shortage of space... The similarity of the two hobbies is the trend towards hybridizing, and my point is that that would have a more negative effect on this hobby.
> 
> The overall point I'm trying to make is that you are publicly advocating what is considered to be a very destructive behavior to this hobby - this could result in the production of more hybrids by others, besides those needed for your 'research' and subsequently increasing the pressure on wild populations - and you don't seem to mind (which is why I was compelled to post). So, what happens to your frogs after you die may be in your control, but what of the others? - you are not king of the 'hybridizers'; they will do as they please, after your example though. My question is, do you think you are setting a good example in this thread? Have you given a lot of thought to the position you've taken up as champion of hybrids?
> 
> 
> If what I say is a 'hybrid theory', then what of your plans to do morph 'research' by 'studying' hybrids you and others make? We know little (not enough) about our frogs' wild counterparts and you hope to learn from bastardizing them??
> 
> Mike


----------



## roxrgneiss

Woodsman said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I was just about to say that I don't think we are all that different in our views on the hobby and that I put "hybrid theory" in quotes because I was making a pun on the album by Lincoln Park. Then you had to go and call my interests in the hobby "bastardizing" the frogs. You lose the argument because you feel the need to lower the discussion in this way. Good for you.


Well, if not a bastardization of two distinct populations, then what is hybridizing to you, an improvement?

This is my intended definition: 1. To lower in quality or character; debase.
bastardization - definition of bastardization by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Edit: Trust me, this isn't me arguing. I'm hoping to persuade and ignite more thought. 

Mike


----------



## flyangler18

I'm still unsure what it is that you are trying to learn scientifically from creating intergrade crosses, Richard.

Mate selection?
Isolating genetics?

I do hope you can enlighten me, because I'm more and more puzzled the more that I read your postings.


----------



## roxrgneiss

One last thing I'd like to add; since you've put your motives and ideas on trial, you should not avoid other's questions if you hope to win any ground. I'm not saying this to pick on you, but you've been dodging some pretty direct questions.

Mike


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Jason,

I am finding it very difficult to both express and to respond to issues in a forum such as this (which seems very disorganized and somewhat random). Maybe we could determine to meet as a group of interested parties in the future (perhaps at the American Museum of Natural History here in NYC?) to have a more organized discussion of the hobby as a conservation tool, the role of science in informing the hobby, etc. The arguments here tend to quickly becoming circular and (ultimately) not vey productive

Perhaps this is something that TWI/ASN would be interested in sponsoring?

Take care, Richard.



flyangler18 said:


> I'm still unsure what it is that you are trying to learn scientifically from creating intergrade crosses, Richard.
> 
> Mate selection?
> Isolating genetics?
> 
> I do hope you can enlighten me, because I'm more and more puzzled the more that I read your postings.


----------



## flyangler18

> Perhaps this is something that TWI/ASN would be interested in sponsoring?


Sounds intriguing, but I'm afraid I'm not in a position to make decisions like this, as I'm not a member of the Executive Committee. You'd be best served by contacting Mike Khadavi here on DB (Corpus Callosum) about organizing something like this.


----------



## Dragas

You seem open to discussion , except when someone asks what scientific knowledge there is to gain. 

This isn't the first time you have avoided the question by trying to take it offline.


----------



## frogparty

yeah, Since you know mendelian genetecis is based on single gene expressed traits, and that frog color and pattern are obviously not, and you know the number of crosses necessary for any experiment of this nature, tell me what your hypothesis is, how many crosses you expect to produce from your "experiment" and what the fate of the crosses are once your "experiment" is over. Where is the science behind this? Really. The fact remains that you cant compare this to orchid hybridizing, you can clone species orchids and keep them alive in perpetuity, by division or meristem. Not so for the frogs
We'llprobably see these crosses for sale on kingsnake soon enough


----------



## Corpus Callosum

> Maybe we could determine to meet as a group of interested parties in the future to have a more organized discussion of the hobby as a conservation tool, the role of science in informing the hobby, etc. Perhaps this is something that TWI/ASN would be interested in sponsoring?


TWI has discussed this as a possibility before but there isn't anything concrete yet. We will continue to look into it and make an announcement should it come together.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Woodsman said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I was just about to say that I don't think we are all that different in our views on the hobby and that I put "hybrid theory" in quotes because I was making a pun on the album by Lincoln Park. Then you had to go and call my interests in the hobby "bastardizing" the frogs. You lose the argument because you feel the need to lower the discussion in this way. Good for you.


Kind of reminds me of another post.... Something about one user calling another user a Nazi.... Hmm....


----------



## herper99

Richard,
While I can appreciate your love and passion for the hobby, I as a biologist am failing to see the science in this as well. In my view, there is nothing new to learn here. If you are hybridizing for your own pleasure, that's one thing, and I would hope you plan to account for any and all offspring in a responsible manner to preserve the hobby. However, if you are saying this is for science, I am curious as to your methodology here. In addition, do you plan to publish any results for peer review?If you are just saying you want to hybridize the frogs to "see what happens," that's isn't science. That is personal curiosity. You appear to care for your frogs well and that is certainly important, but let's be honest here. Is this science or curiosity? If it is science, then please explain to those of us who are science educated, what hypothesis you are trying to "test".


----------



## chinoanoah

So....no one is going to post pics?

And who dented my "reputation"? Eh, I don't really care anymore.


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Noah,

I'm sorry the discussion has led far from where you hoped this thread would go. I am a strong believer that informed people make the best decisions, so having photographs of the different inter-morph crosses can only educate. I'll try to post some photos of the group I am working with here, but there are some interesting crosses pictured at Tropical Experience as well. Maybe Marcus will allow us to republish them here.

Take care, Richard.



chinoanoah said:


> So....no one is going to post pics?
> 
> And who dented my "reputation"? Eh, I don't really care anymore.


----------



## jubjub47

chinoanoah said:


> So....no one is going to post pics?
> 
> And who dented my "reputation"? Eh, I don't really care anymore.


I posted a few links with pics that I found on the first page. They are quite ugly in my opinion. Your not gonna find many pics because they are not desired.


----------



## Woodsman

Amotopo is a putative cross of Azureus and Regina/Giant Orange.

Agreja is a putative cross between Azureus and Powderblue.

In my opinion, not at all ugly as some have stated.


----------



## JoshK

Woodsman said:


> Amotopo is a putative cross of Azureus and Regina/Giant Orange.
> 
> Agreja is a putative cross between Azureus and Powderblue.
> 
> In my opinion, not at all ugly as some have stated.


 

My Azureus are way cooler than your Amotopo and my Powders are 10X more attractive than your Agreja.


----------



## jubjub47

Woodsman said:


> Amotopo is a putative cross of Azureus and Regina/Giant Orange.
> 
> Agreja is a putative cross between Azureus and Powderblue.
> 
> In my opinion, not at all ugly as some have stated.


The fact that you or somebody has decided to name these hybrids is in itself a problem and probably the first unfortunate step towards these getting mistaken for true morphs by unexperienced hobbiest.


----------



## stitchb

It kinda sucks that the OP went through all of this to get only *2* pertinent posts, sorry Noah...


----------



## R1ch13

jubjub47 said:


> The fact that you or somebody has decided to name these hybrids is in itself a problem and probably the first unfortunate step towards these getting mistaken for true morphs by unexperienced hobbiest.


I agree totally with this...

I nearly fell for the Amatopo thing a while back, when I hadnt researched as much.

Everything has gotten really personal in this thread.

Richie


----------



## jubjub47

stitchb said:


> It kinda sucks that the OP went through all of this to get only *2* pertinent posts, sorry Noah...


I agree with you, but unfortunately hybrids is a strongly debated topic and even a posting just wanting to see what does happen in pics gets the whole debate stirring again. There are not many pics of what the OP is after so once that has been saturated, the topic kinda takes a life of it's own. There has been a lot of good debate in this thread and once the original topic has peaked I don't see any harm in letting things develop as they go.


----------



## stitchb

jubjub47 said:


> I agree with you, but unfortunately hybrids is a strongly debated topic and even a posting just wanting to see what does happen in pics gets the whole debate stirring again. There are not many pics of what the OP is after so once that has been saturated, the topic kinda takes a life of it's own. There has been a lot of good debate in this thread and once the original topic has peaked I don't see any harm in letting things develop as they go.


I deffinately agree with you on that-there has definately been alot of valuable input offered on both sides of the debate...

I just feel bad for chinoanoah, he only got 2 responses that were actually what he asked for and got negative rep to boot!

But you're absolutely correct


----------



## chinoanoah

Yeah thanks friends. How DARE I ask for photographs of animals. 

Glad you all had your little fight, though.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Woodsman said:


> Amotopo is a putative cross of Azureus and Regina/Giant Orange.
> 
> Agreja is a putative cross between Azureus and Powderblue.
> 
> In my opinion, not at all ugly as some have stated.


See, this worries me all over again, and not just because someone's gone ahead and given them names. The first pick of the "amotopo" could easily be passed off as a cobalt to the untrained eye, a newbie wouldn't know what hit him.


----------



## Paul G

Yeah, I think this got a little personal.

Even though there seems to be some useful info in this thread it basically comes down to a rehacking of other hybrid threads.

Sucks for you chinoanoah....I know you were just seeking some pics out of curiosity but history shows that these type of threads cannot be made without argument. (kind of like religion or politics)

I don't see the "science" in it without actual documation of a study by qualified individuals. 
People in the hobby seem to crossbreed species/morphs for 1.Profit 2.Ego & 3.Ego

“It’s alive! It’s alive! In the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!”


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog

you guys realize where Richard got those photos, . . . right? ...oh there is also a 50% chance that the Weygoldt, is a real morph....lol

Dendrobates tinctorius morphguide

oh and the comment by joshieluv...about your animals being "cooler looking" . . . thats you opinion to what you think looks better, and your entitled to it. I believe what Richard was trying to get across, is that crossbreeds are not ugly like most of the board members here will try to beat in our minds.


----------



## ErickG

gothaicus said:


> “It’s alive! It’s alive! In the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!”


And, plucking these frogs from the wild, paying for their offspring, watching them in a glass/acrylic house, knowing when/what to feed, determining what/who it mates with, pre-determining the fate of their offspring... yada yada yada... doesnt make YOU a God?!

Please... people, this discussion is gonna go over and over.. and over.. and over. 

We're all guilty of supporting an immoral cause. Before you point fingers, look at yourself. Just let it go. 

I dont post much, but some things that have been said on here are just crazy. Why cant we all just get along?


----------



## roxrgneiss

ErickG said:


> And, plucking these frogs from the wild, paying for their offspring, watching them in a glass/acrylic house, knowing when/what to feed, determining what/who it mates with, pre-determining the fate of their offspring... yada yada yada... doesnt make YOU a God?!
> 
> Please... people, this discussion is gonna go over and over.. and over.. and over.
> 
> We're all guilty of supporting an immoral cause. Before you point fingers, look at yourself. Just let it go.
> 
> I dont post much, but some things that have been said on here are just crazy. Why cant we all just get along?


I think if we all had that kind of attitude, we may as well just say OK to the sale of hybrid/cross-morphs then and embrace them in the hobby. This is what your message comes across like: 'I'm not in the military, therefore there shouldn't be a military'. 

I would like to see the end of these threads popping up, especially when they have been going on non-stop for what seems like half a year (not saying there haven't been others before). The problem is that everyone knows this is a topic that gets people worked up and there are a few people that seem to enjoy that and start these kinds of threads for 'kicks'. Who doesn't know where these threads lead once they have begun? Seriously now. These threads are instigations in my opinion. Thanks for the opportunity to have a 'little fight'. I do wish everyone could get along more though. 

I really think this ended days ago, and people just won't let it go. So, now that the reasons behind why it became personal are in question, here are two major problems I have with the other 'side' and the second one is a major pet peeve of mine:


1. I can see where this kind of logic in support of hybrids could take the hobby. Who knows, maybe it's a hybrid tsunami, which cannot be stopped or reasoned with?

2. Invoking science in the name of this cause is sort of like using religion to justify war. War has little to do with faith (am I right?) and much to do with hate and greed. Still we fight. The bottom line is, I don't see where "On the Origin of Species Cross-Morphs" can be written in the comfort of your own home. To learn anything of real value about where populations intersect and how morphs are formed, it seems like (years of) field observation would be necessary. 

If you want to see this thread/type of debate go away, stop posting. (I mean that in the least hypocritical of ways )

Mike


----------



## frogparty

I only bring up the quality of the science when its used as justification
there is no such thing as the frog police, and honestly, I dont care if people make designer frogs or not, just call it like it is and dont use a half assed attempt at justifying it as science when it clearly is not. And if its going to be called science, use relevant comparative examples


----------



## thedude

ok i only made it half way through reading the thread before i had to reply to this. im not even sure where to start with this one.

woodsmen,
first off, it doesnt make much sense to say that we dont know if 2 morphs are the same and therefore we need to breed them to help the gene pool. plus, if we find out that they are the same morph then we can start breeding them together to improve the gene pool. but if we breed them and find out they dont interbreed then there is no reversing it, they will always be tainted. also, i realize most people dont consider two morphs being mixed a hybrid, but science and taxonomy is always changing! so the 2 morphs could split into 2 species if we learned more about them. example: fanstasticus and summersi were just split up recently, along with bassleri being split up as well. also, even if they are only "morphs" crossing them and then releasing them back to a certain locale can have really bad affects. at that point it could be invasive, many different things can happen that would be terrible for the eco system.

i get that its bad to take animals from the rain forest (especially just so that we can enjoy them) but things are for the most part different now than in the 90's. now we have people like understory enterprises that takes a few from the wild, breeds them and sends their kin up here. much better then letting a local shove a bunch in a tiny box and ship them to us with 50% dead and the rest half dead.

but back to hybrids. hybrids are for the most part bad. we can learn something from them, which is great, but it should be done as an experiment by biologist in a lab with no chance of the frogs getting out. i realize they are YOUR frogs, but its everyones hobby. so why not make it a nice one that respects the environment as well? there arent a lot of hobbies (pets or otherwise) that are as caring for nature as this one. so i think we should keep it that way and continue to conserve the gene pools the best we can. especially with frogs that have KNOWN local data. i have yet to see a hybrid show up in the wild on sites like dendrobates.org which has people going down and finding new morphs. even when several different species and morphs live in the same area. im not saying a species didnt evolve from wild hybrids by the way. but even if animals did hybridize, we cant start doing that too. it would be too difficult to know exactly how often they should be hybridized and mixed. example: they have found crosses between polar bears and grizzlies in the wild....but that doesnt mean that every few years the zoos are going to crossbreed them too.

ok im sure i missed something i wanted to comment on but oh well.

oh and also, ya breeders of cainines have to increase the diversity of the gene pool as you stated. but the dog breeding business was essentially founded on crossing and domestication. its not even close to the same thing.




Woodsman said:


> I have heard time and time again the argument against inter-morph crosses (not "hybrids", but simply crosses within a single species) that we would be polluting the "pure bloodlines" that exist in the hobby today. The people who stole these frogs from the wild in the first instance were not egalitarian non-profit entities, they were (are) out for the "cash money" (that's why importers like to give frog morphs enticing names such as "Citronella", "Giant Orange", "Regina", etc.). Frogs will be collected in the hundreds to thousands (essentially everything that can be found at a particular locality). So now the importer has hundreds of frogs, some of them large, some of them small, some of them with dark blue legs, some of them pastel. What if he said, "I'll put the little white ones in one box and call them "Oyapocks", I'll put the little yellow ones in another box and call them "French Guyana Dwarf Cobalts", the green-spotted ones in another and call them "Green Sipaliwini", and the blue-spotted ones "Blue Sipaliwini".
> 
> Some on this board seem to believe that all of the morphs are clearly-defined animals from a single locality at which no other color morphs exist. The truth is that this isn't the case, that no records have ever been kept on the majority of our frogs (except perhaps, Azureus and "True Sipaliwini"), that we might be doing more harm to the future of these frogs in the hobby by maintaining them in artificially-arranged groups that do not represent their populations in nature. Also, due to the geneticall-restrictive nature of the way PDFs are kept in the hobby, they are not good candidates for any effort at potential future reintroduction efforts.
> 
> Even the most ardent breeder of "purebred" canines understand that if he/she doesn't work to increase the genetic diversity within their breeding program, they will inevitably produce animals that may have multiple health and behavioural abnormailties. So, by only having one bloodline of morphs such as Giant Orange in the hobby and only breeding sib to sib generation after generation, this will most likely doom the bloodline to extirpation within the hobby (and, clearly, would not be a candidate for a re-introduction project).
> 
> All I have ever suggested here is that we have the ability to ask some basic questions about how morphological traits are inherited in D. tinctorius and that (as a group of hobbyists possessing awesome abilities at animal husbandry) we are well-suited to the task of answering some of these basic questions. Done in a responsible manner, this project bears no resemblence to the greedy dealer who just wants to make a buck offering the "latest and greatest". I can promise that in my professional conservation work with endangered native plants of the Northeast U.S., I hold myself (and those I work with) to a higher ethical standard than any of the pet animal dealers I have ever met. I do not buy and will never by an animal that was stolen from the rainforest (I think this is the real issue that the PDF hobbyist community should be more focused on, as the results of this plunder does have direct negative impact on frog populations in the wild).
> 
> Flame away! Richard in Staten Island.


----------



## Ben E

we are for the most part talking about crossing different populations of the same species. These different morphs readily identify each other as the same. Color and pattern does not seem to be evolutionarily conserved among tinctorius (or many other dendrobatids for that matter). Could our human visual bias be making a bigger deal out of these crosses than is genetically, evolutionarily, or ecologically important? Would a population of introduced powder blue x azureus fair worse than a "pure" morph? Is a "wild type" frog any more "real" than a mix of two different colored ones if both are sitting in an isolated glass box in your living room? Is it ok that the elk re-introduction in Tennessee used a different subspecies than what once naturally occurred? Do we place too much emphasis on the differences between these frog populations because of our visual bias? Is it ok to mix azureus that were collected from two different isolated island forests? If powder blues looked the same as patricias but were from their current locales would it be ok to mix them then? Are hawaian auratus still panama auratus?

oh, and just to keep with the original posters request....


----------



## NathanB

whats that ^


----------



## jubjub47

Ben E said:


> we are for the most part talking about crossing different populations of the same species. These different morphs readily identify each other as the same. Color and pattern does not seem to be evolutionarily conserved among tinctorius (or many other dendrobatids for that matter). Could our human visual bias be making a bigger deal out of these crosses than is genetically, evolutionarily, or ecologically important? Would a population of introduced powder blue x azureus fair worse than a "pure" morph?


Species and morphs colors and patterns change as the animals breed through generations. They reach their currents looks because that is what is necessary for them to succeed in their current environment. Either for predatory or other reasons. It's more than possible that introducing powder blues into a location with cobalts for example could lead to quick predation of the powder blues. There are many references to this throughout these boards.


----------



## Ben E

jubjub47 said:


> Species and morphs colors and patterns change as the animals breed through generations. They reach their currents looks because that is what is necessary for them to succeed in their current environment. Either for predatory or other reasons. It's more than possible that introducing powder blues into a location with cobalts for example could lead to quick predation of the powder blues. There are many references to this throughout these boards.


do cobalts have different predation pressures than powder blues? not sure if references from these boards will clear this up.....


----------



## jubjub47

The references I'm remembering were actually posted by Ed and he did link some different scientific data I believe to go along with it. 

Cobalts and powder blues absolutely will have different predation pressures. Take a basic example of a bird species in the cobalt's locale that has grown to know that the pattern of this frog means non-palatable. Now put a powder blue in the cobalts locale and that bird doesn't recognize that as a non-palatable meal and tries to eat it. The frogs adapt to what works in their local environment....maybe powder blues used to live in this environment but were picked off for various reasons leaving frogs with the cobalts colors as the "strong that survived". I know those are very basic ways of putting it, but the point is easily seen I believe.


----------



## Ben E

jubjub47 said:


> The references I'm remembering were actually posted by Ed and he did link some different scientific data I believe to go along with it.
> 
> Cobalts and powder blues absolutely will have different predation pressures. Take a basic example of a bird species in the cobalt's locale that has grown to know that the pattern of this frog means non-palatable. Now put a powder blue in the cobalts locale and that bird doesn't recognize that as a non-palatable meal and tries to eat it. The frogs adapt to what works in their local environment....maybe powder blues used to live in this environment but were picked off for various reasons leaving frogs with the cobalts colors as the "strong that survived". I know those are very basic ways of putting it, but the point is easily seen I believe.


i think this example demonstrates individual learned behavior by the predator, but not much more.....if colors and patterns were so important for anti predation would these not be evolutionarily conserved traits resulting in much less variation?....i think this is going off topic...my bad


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Ben E said:


> we are for the most part talking about crossing different populations of the same species. These different morphs readily identify each other as the same. Color and pattern does not seem to be evolutionarily conserved among tinctorius (or many other dendrobatids for that matter). Could our human visual bias be making a bigger deal out of these crosses than is genetically, evolutionarily, or ecologically important? Would a population of introduced powder blue x azureus fair worse than a "pure" morph? Is a "wild type" frog any more "real" than a mix of two different colored ones if both are sitting in an isolated glass box in your living room? Is it ok that the elk re-introduction in Tennessee used a different subspecies than what once naturally occurred? Do we place too much emphasis on the differences between these frog populations because of our visual bias? Is it ok to mix azureus that were collected from two different isolated island forests? If powder blues looked the same as patricias but were from their current locales would it be ok to mix them then? Are hawaian auratus still panama auratus?
> 
> oh, and just to keep with the original posters request....


I like to think of it, not in terms of species, but incipient species. You're right in understanding (for instance) tinctorius morphs as the same species. However, we can't help but notice a massive amount of variation within this species. Not only that, but many (most?) morphs of that species have different locales. This is evidence that different populations of the same species are going down different evolutionary paths and that ultimately the different morphs will either die off (in nature) or become true separate species rather than variations on the same species. Whether these paths have been chosen because of sexual selection, natural selection or another evolutionary motivator is irrelevant. What _is_ relevant is that for some reason populations of the same species are diverging in such a way that they are becoming notably different. To interbreed morphs from different locales is not to play God (like, for instance, taking these animals from the wild and keeping them in glass cages as suggested in a previous post) but to defile the evolutionary progression that nature intended for these animals.


----------



## jubjub47

Ben E said:


> i think this example demonstrates individual learned behavior by the predator, but not much more.....if colors and patterns were so important for anti predation would these not be evolutionarily conserved traits resulting in much less variation?....i think this is going off topic...my bad


I don't have a whole lot of time to search back to the original posts that this was posted with better reference, but I did find a few of Ed's recent posts that do have some tidbits about this topic.



> Originally Posted by *frogparty*
> _So in the frog world, if a canyon or something gets cut off from an influx or outflow of genes, and there were 2 distinct morphs there at the start, once they start to breed together, the f1's will all look similar for the most part, the f2 offspring from these hybrids will vary greatly, then subsequent breedings will eventually start looking more and more similar until... voila! a new morph is created. These wouldn't necessarily look like the original f1 offspring of the cross, but they would eventually all look similar._
> 
> (Ed)
> Not necessarily. This is an assumption based on a lack of impact on predation and/or mate selection on the coloration of the populations. If the mate selection choices are strong enough or predation is strong enough, then there may be no changes in the patterns as the intermediates would either be removed from the populations or predated upon. This is what appears to be occuring with pumilio in the wild and why there are so many different populations.
> (see Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies AND Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio -- Siddiqi et al. 207 (14): 2471 -- Journal of Experimental Biology for some references)
> 
> Ed





> Originally Posted by *jackj921*
> _What would the conservationistas say to keeping and propagating and existing wild caught pair of hybrids. If there were a naturally occurring hybrid population in a very small area of Costa Rica would it be OK to acquire and breed them with a goal of expanding that population? Is the answer that if it occurs naturally it is OK but if humans create it, it is not?
> When does a group of similar hybrids in the wild become a "morph"? (Is Darwin still alive?)
> In my newbie view, with the small number of people who keep Darts today and the even smaller number of hybrids available to anyone, I think the weakest argument against hybrids is the remotely possible introduction into the wild, at least at the present time._
> 
> (Ed)
> Some clarification here.. as I understand the thread.. the discussion is due to a crossing of two different morphs of the same species. There are no fertility issues with the offspring as they are the same species...
> with respect to the integradation of a morph between two different patterns on the same species.. this depends. If it is stable in and of itself then it is due to specific pressures in that region which shows that it is a morph in its own right as the other two patterns do less well in that region. If it is not a stable pattern in and of its own right then that shows that the pattern is not sufficient to enable survivial in that location and then it is of little conservation value other than as a curiosity. The fact that neither of the parental color patterns is sufficient to enable it to survive over the other is also indication that area is probably a population sink and not suitable for either species overall.
> 
> Ed


There is more detailed postings of this somewhere on the forums, but I couldn't figure out which search strings to use to give me a short listing to browse as opposed to 10 or so pages.


----------



## Ed

Hi Rich,




Woodsman said:


> Hi Ed,
> 
> This is the point at which I become frustated at the (apparent) lack of detailed information on the population ecological relationships of D. tinctorius morphs in the wild. It seems that most of the collections that I can find citations for relate to a population of frogs at a given site, then some distance is either driven of flown, and another site is studied for its local population..


The D. tinctorius morph locations could be viewed as islands where over time intermittant linkages occur allowing gene flow but in the inbetween periods the are between the "islands" are population sinks (animals move in and don't move out). This is not a new concept in herpetology (for example look at the disjunct populations of Pine Barren's Treefrogs (Hyla andersonii) but in most of those cases we don't see the polymorphism seen in the dendrobatids. The current hot theories on the polymorphism is due to the dual pressures of mate selection and predation which shift pattern in advantageous manner (there is a great study done in O. pumilio which is very polymorphic potentially over shorter distances). So at this time, there isn't any interconnectedness between the morphs but historically there have been... 

If you want to look at a more extrement form of polymorphism within a species check out the breeding patterns in the native rainbow darters.... Its the same species but different watersheds a few miles apart can look very different. A number of annual killifish present the same interesting polymorphisms. 




Woodsman said:


> I don't know how popular transect studies are in herpetological studies, but they are a mainstay in the study of how plant communities vary over distances. It seems very unlikely that all of the morphs of D. tinctorius that are seen in the hobby represent discrete isolated populations that are closed from breeding with any other populations. The paper you suggested by Wollenberg (et al) (2006), did not address this subject, only the molecular diversity within the group as a whole ((I am not particularly a fan of molecular taxonomy, as it suffers from many of the same perils that traditional macroscopic (phenotypic) taxonomy does in the long run))..


Transects were historically too popular in some respects (like collecting every salamander, larva and egg in and within 30 feet of a stream banks for two miles of a stream...) but have been performed in many areas. The researchers I spoke to who worked with azureus described the habitat in Suriname as effectively being little islands with population sinks between them.... 



Woodsman said:


> I had always intended to work on some aspect of tropical ecology in my career, but have been permanently side-lined with my botanical studies here in New York (not that I don't love it and feel I am making a difference to some very endangered native plants). So I find myself greatly frustrated in what I can never learn from my frogs (i.e. where they were collected, were they found in mixed populations that were segregated by greedy importers, etc.).


I don't think historically there was as much seperation at the exporters based on what might be of greater value.. some of that may have occured here in the states.. but given the fuss over known locality pumilio, over the last 10 years or so, I would not be surprised if some of that wasn't occuring. 
Typically in the literature mixed populations are not typically the morphs (there are some exceptions in pumilio) but in the total number of species like imitator and the species it is copyiing... 





Woodsman said:


> The best plan of attack I have come up with is to look at the inheritence patterns that can be determined by these (albeit limited) studies involving inter-morph crosses. Not having the locality data is perhaps a fatal delimitation of the "study", but it at least gives me the chance of gaining some novel insight into these charasmatic creatures that have stolen my heart (I like to think the if D. tincotorius had been available for live study during Darwin's lifetime, that they certainly would have become a favorite study organism for him!)
> 
> Gregor Mendel had his peas. I have my PDFs. I hope I learn something useful!!
> 
> Take care, Richard.



I don't think anyone has totally worked out the inheritance of the color patterns in anurans but some of it is simple (like some of the forms of albinism).. but if you are ignoring mate choice as a driver in the polymorphism then I don't know how the direct inheritance will play out..... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Ben E said:


> we are for the most part talking about crossing different populations of the same species. These different morphs readily identify each other as the same. Color and pattern does not seem to be evolutionarily conserved among tinctorius (or many other dendrobatids for that matter). Could our human visual bias be making a bigger deal out of these crosses than is genetically, evolutionarily, or ecologically important? Would a population of introduced powder blue x azureus fair worse than a "pure" morph? Is a "wild type" frog any more "real" than a mix of two different colored ones if both are sitting in an isolated glass box in your living room? Is it ok that the elk re-introduction in Tennessee used a different subspecies than what once naturally occurred? Do we place too much emphasis on the differences between these frog populations because of our visual bias? Is it ok to mix azureus that were collected from two different isolated island forests? If powder blues looked the same as patricias but were from their current locales would it be ok to mix them then? Are hawaian auratus still panama auratus?
> 
> oh, and just to keep with the original posters request....



Hi Ben,

With the new data coming out is appears that mate selection is a heavy driver of the polymorphism seen in dendrobatids and when combined with predation is a heavy selector of the variation and intolerent of other variations. Check out the posts above. 

I've got to go... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

jubjub47 said:


> Unfortunately, these frogs are not black and white so your reasoning really holds no water. For your example, a blue frog and a red frog would look similar in black and white yet they are different colors in nature for a reason. Many tincs carry a similar pattern and would look similar in black and white. That in no way dictates that they should be mixed and are of similar locales. With that type of reasoning I might as well use black and white photos to pair up some P. bicolors and P. terribilis. I mean, they look so similar in black and white. There is no place in this hobby to turn such a wide spread family of frogs into a black and white issue when it clearly is not. There are a large number of people who dedicate their lives to these animals that would and do strongly disagree with your view on these frogs.


Hey,

I'm a little confused here...are you referring to how they would look to a predator? If that is the case then it would have to be non-avian, non-saurian, non-primate predator. 

Ed


----------



## frogparty

I wonder how much predation on dendrobatids is from arachnids..... just a thought, and I dont know if they see colors


----------



## jubjub47

Ed said:


> Hey,
> 
> I'm a little confused here...are you referring to how they would look to a predator? If that is the case then it would have to be non-avian, non-saurian, non-primate predator.
> 
> Ed


Hey Ed, I was just making a comment to Richard based off of his reasoning for crossing morphs. He used the example that he could show two different morphs side by side in black and white pics and you could not be able to tell the difference. 

Tim


----------



## jubjub47

frogparty said:


> I wonder how much predation on dendrobatids is from arachnids..... just a thought, and I dont know if they see colors


There is a pic somewhere of a tarantula eating an auratus. It does happen, but couldn't tell you how much.


----------



## Ben E

with tinctorius as an example i could see mate selection as being more of a driving force than predation.... take two close populations of tincs with different patterns....say true sips and azureus.....dont you think those two would have fairly similar predation pressures? and what about the populations that have a good amount of variation within them for example yellow backs....what if tinctorius prefer mates with variation in pattern (novelty)....


----------



## Ed

jubjub47 said:


> Hey Ed, I was just making a comment to Richard based off of his reasoning for crossing morphs. He used the example that he could show two different morphs side by side in black and white pics and you could not be able to tell the difference.
> 
> Tim


Thanks Tim,

I missed some of that.. thanks



Ed


----------



## Ed

jubjub47 said:


> There is a pic somewhere of a tarantula eating an auratus. It does happen, but couldn't tell you how much.


There has been some research done on this when (I think auratus) shares the burrow with some of the local tarantulas and its the taste of the skin toxins that makes them usually drop the frog. In the SE USA, Narrow-mouthed toads are known to share the burrows of trapdoor spiders. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Ben E said:


> with tinctorius as an example i could see mate selection as being more of a driving force than predation.... take two close populations of tincs with different patterns....say true sips and azureus.....dont you think those two would have fairly similar predation pressures? and what about the populations that have a good amount of variation within them for example yellow backs....what if tinctorius prefer mates with variation in pattern (novelty)....


Mate selection is a huge driver but apparently there is some predation issues as well... maybe blue in those close locations is important not as an aposomatic discourager but as a camoflage aspect (like blue tails in some juvenile wood land skink species). 

Ed


----------



## hyperborean

Sensing some hostility on this thread but i want to bring up a topic i believe to be unbreached on this subject. different morphs of auratus are well known, but i believe some of these are the invention of selective breeding by man, and would quickly dissipate in the wild, reticulateds for a prime example. retics are an isolated breeding line of hawaiian auratus.
see: PUMILIO.COM - Frog Of The Month

also, all hawaiian auratus come from panama originally! so, without the intervention of man, all of these morphs would be one. can you honestly tell me that a man would be found despicable for allowing these morphs to interbreed?!

PS keep in mind i'm not doing this, i'm just saying it would have happened in nature.


----------



## Philsuma

hyperborean said:


> Can you honestly tell me that a man would be found despicable for allowing these morphs to interbreed?!


The despicable thing would be for a man (or woman) to put a great deal of thought and energy (intent) towards creating mixed morphs for the purpose of transfering / selling / distributing them to new and/or unwitting hobbyists.

....most likely for personal gain - profit.


----------



## hyperborean

Philsuma said:


> The despicable thing would be for a man (or woman) to put a great deal of thought and energy (intent) towards creating mixed morphs for the purpose of transfering / selling / distributing them to new and/or unwitting hobbyists.
> 
> ....most likely for personal gain - profit.


Agreed, if you imply that the person is intending to con people, however the original question is unanswered. I'm sure that this isn't unique to auratus, but it's a good example: is it "bad" to breed a panamanian to a hawaiian (or a reticulated since that is just a variation of hawaiian) considering the lineages have only been separated (by man) less than 4 generations (about 50 years) ago?


----------



## Philsuma

hyperborean said:


> Agreed, if you imply that the person is intending to con people, however the original question is unanswered. I'm sure that this isn't unique to auratus, but it's a good example: is it "bad" to breed a panamanian to a hawaiian (or a reticulated since that is just a variation of hawaiian) considering the lineages have only been separated (by man) less than 4 generations (about 50 years) ago?


Bad? Not to me personally, or to many hobbyists I know - _if _I may speak for them..

but

please be direct here. Why would you want to selectively breed these animals? What is your specific goal?

Only then, your question, fully answered, may be......


----------



## Ed

hyperborean said:


> Agreed, if you imply that the person is intending to con people, however the original question is unanswered. I'm sure that this isn't unique to auratus, but it's a good example: is it "bad" to breed a panamanian to a hawaiian (or a reticulated since that is just a variation of hawaiian) considering the lineages have only been separated (by man) less than 4 generations (about 50 years) ago?


If I remember correctly (and I may have misremembered) there are several different areas of Panama which have distinct populations of Auratus. Are you referring to Panama in total or the location where the Hawaiian populations specifically originated? 


Ed


----------



## thedude

hyperborean, 
you bring up a good point about breeding the hawaiian auratus. the thing is, even though they havent been seperated from the original panama population (tabogo?) for very long, they have still evolved to look different. and are now considered a different "morph". so they shouldnt be interbred. and even though man is what seperated them, we need to treat it as if they were geographically isolated (since they are now) and not mix them. europeans introduced foxes to north america, which have evolved to look different now, that doesnt mean we can reintroduce them to europe because now they are a seperated population.


----------



## hyperborean

Ed- you are correct, and i believe that even the costa rican auratus is indigenous to parts of panama, so there are definitely distinct populations within panama. Where the hawaiians come from is the Taguba (?) population.

I just think that we are drawing some pretty sharp lines for something that is naturally shades of grey. Who's to say that the 20 or so generations of auratus bred in the trade aren't genetically different from the original populations (even though they may maintain their coloring)? They are definitely genetically isolated, and for probably as many generations since we 'encourage' them to breed in captivity by providing them with optimal year-round breeding seasons.


----------



## skylsdale

hyperborean said:


> Ed- you are correct, and i believe that even the costa rican auratus is indigenous to parts of panama, so there are definitely distinct populations within panama. Where the hawaiians come from is the Taguba (?) population.


The founding populations introduced on Oahu were collected from Taboga Island, just off the coast south of Panama City. I believe occasional reticulation occurs in the Taboga Island populations...but it is randomly occuring. What the hobby has done is taken frogs with that trait and specifically line bred for it. Same thing has happened with "microspot" auratus, as well as various morphs of D. leucomelas and azureus, etc.


----------



## Ed

hyperborean said:


> Ed- you are correct, and i believe that even the costa rican auratus is indigenous to parts of panama, so there are definitely distinct populations within panama. Where the hawaiians come from is the Taguba (?) population.
> 
> I just think that we are drawing some pretty sharp lines for something that is naturally shades of grey. Who's to say that the 20 or so generations of auratus bred in the trade aren't genetically different from the original populations (even though they may maintain their coloring)? They are definitely genetically isolated, and for probably as many generations since we 'encourage' them to breed in captivity by providing them with optimal year-round breeding seasons.


I'm guessing with the Costa Rica comment, you are referring to the idea that Costa Rica was colonized by them and not introduced correct? 

With respect to the comment on captivity, if we disregard that auratus are one of the more commonly confiscated dendrobatids (extrapolated from seizures reported by CITES in TRAFFIC) and ignore that they have been pretty much continually imported for the last 20 years... then we might have some concerns.. However even without those genetic inputs, we can still work to maintain a frog that is as close to the wild gene pool as possible with each population. 

With some exceptions where patterning was selected for within locality lines, the populations in captivity still show a remarkable ability to maintain that locality pattern without further inputs.. and we still see (in those that choose to allow the frogs to do so) parental behaviors. If we are selecting for anything in these frogs, it is a lack of parental behaviors as most breeders and hobbyists do not permit the frogs to demonstrate those behaviors which means that frogs that show less parental behaviors can be more successful than those that have more parental behaviors as energy can be allocated to calling that might have gone to caring for the eggs or moving the tadpoles. 

Is the Taboga population genetically uniform across the island or is made up of several populations with no current gene flow (like the tinctorius morphs)? If there is little or no gene flow and/or there are seperate stable population morphs on Taboga, then the Hawaiian auratus should not be mixed back into that population unless one can show that the Hawaiian auratus are not made up from disparate localities. 

TWI is working on a population plan on auratus which will contain some recommendations on how the populations are to be managed to ensure long term maximal genetic diversity. It is up the hobby to choose to participate and keep the frogs as close to the wild as possible or to develop these frogs into another amphibian version of the guppy.. 

Ed


----------



## Dragonfly

Taboga Island or Taboguilla Island auratus is the source of the Hawaiian auratus. 

Both localities have reticulated auratus. 

The reports I have read is that if the reticulated are bred together the offspring are always reticulated. However, it is possible for the standards to be bred with the reticulated and have both standards and reticulated offspring. 

The limited information I have located so far doesn't specify any percentage of the 2 morphs imported in the 200ish frogs introduced to Hawaii to help control the mosquitos. 

Personally, given the number of years since the introduction to Hawaii, I would be include to suspect that there may be some differences from the environmental considerations which could be used to justify treating these as different morphs and not breeding the morphs from Panama with the Hawaiian.


----------



## hyperborean

Both very well formed responses. I suppose if the isolated populations of auratus do not show any genetic drift, and are being introduced into the trade regularly to keep what little drift there is consistent in the captive populations, then it would stand to reason that captive populations are a good retainer for genetic information as long as they are kept from breeding with frogs that would not be available to them in the wild. I do think, however, if the frogs in Hawaii have become so genetically different from the frogs in Tagoba in a short time, that they will continue to to show genetic drift (due to environmental selection) and will quickly become genetically different than the Hawaiians in captivity if they are not regularly integrated into the trade.

Sorry if I seem caught up in this, I don't mean to be emotional. I'm just an arguer and I don't like arbitrary lines that make people get all angry when there's not really a good reason besides 'we don't do it because it's bad.'


----------



## Philsuma

hyperborean said:


> Both very well formed responses. I suppose if the isolated populations of auratus do not show any genetic drift, and are being introduced into the trade regularly to keep what little drift there is consistent in the captive populations, then it would stand to reason that captive populations are a good retainer for genetic information as long as they are kept from breeding with frogs that would not be available to them in the wild. I do think, however, if the frogs in Hawaii have become so genetically different from the frogs in Tagoba in a short time, that they will continue to to show genetic drift (due to environmental selection) and will quickly become genetically different than the Hawaiians in captivity if they are not regularly integrated into the trade.
> 
> Sorry if I seem caught up in this, I don't mean to be emotional. I'm just an arguer and I don't like arbitrary lines that make people get all angry when there's not really a good reason besides 'we don't do it because it's bad.'


You are advancing a very big supposition that HI frogs are being managed by anyone at all. I haven't heard.....if they indeed are.

You still haven't answered my question. Are you planning on breeding a HI line or crossing........or what? Let's have a specfic reason for this discussion.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

hyperborean said:


> Both very well formed responses. I suppose if the isolated populations of auratus do not show any genetic drift, and are being introduced into the trade regularly to keep what little drift there is consistent in the captive populations, then it would stand to reason that captive populations are a good retainer for genetic information as long as they are kept from breeding with frogs that would not be available to them in the wild. I do think, however, if the frogs in Hawaii have become so genetically different from the frogs in Tagoba in a short time, that they will continue to to show genetic drift (due to environmental selection) and will quickly become genetically different than the Hawaiians in captivity if they are not regularly integrated into the trade.


One of the goals of managing populations in captivity to be representative of the wild population genetics, is that you don't have to continue importing them (or "regularly integrated into the trade" as you said) to maintain a captive population that is like the one in the wild.


----------



## hyperborean

As mentioned before, I'm not planning on breeding frogs at all right now, they are just a hobby for me. I'm in vet school and don't have the time required at this moment to take care of tads/sell the offspring. It will probably be a year before I consider doing any of that.

If one of the purposes of breeding in captivity is to maintain the genetics of the wild populations, the point remains that the wild populations are constantly evolving. We can't put the same selective pressures on captive frogs that they receive in the wild, thus we can't cause their genetics to keep up with the constantly drifting (though very slowly in some cases) wild populations'. I will go back to my example of the Hawaiians: They have obviously been evolving very quickly to become a separate morph from the Tagoba Panamanians in just 50 years. If they aren't integrated regularly into the trade, they will continue to evolve (most likely) in the wild, and the ones in the trade won't. Then, we have created even another morph that must be maintained separately.

My reasoning for discussing this is entirely selfish: I want to know your perspective and make you defend it to convince me of your point. I am all about conserving genetics, one of my instructors was the head of restoring the black-footed ferret to it's natural environment with just 8 of them in existence (think of how complicated it would be to resist inbreeding depression there). However, it is obvious to me that many of you are privy to information that I'm not, otherwise I would be just as persistent as you in condemning interbreeding of frog 'morphs' in any form.


----------



## Philsuma

hyperborean said:


> My reasoning for discussing this is entirely selfish


No problem with that...we all have wants and asking for things, even free things in life is ok in my book.



hyperborean said:


> I want to know your perspective


My personal opinions and perspectives on this issue have been well documented on this forum over the past couple years - in sufficent detail, I may add. Please spend a few hours with the search pulldown and you will get personal perspecives and opinions of many members of this forum. You should have all the info you need by using his method. You must realize how painful and redundant it is to keep addressing the hybrid / morph issue in a reoccuring manner ad nauseum.



hyperborean said:


> and make you defend it to convince me of your point.


See above...


----------



## hyperborean

Philsuma said:


> No problem with that...we all have wants and asking for things, even free things in life is ok in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinions and perspectives on this issue have been well documented on this forum over the past couple years - in sufficent detail, I may add. Please spend a few hours with the search pulldown and you will get personal perspecives and opinions of many members of this forum. You should have all the info you need by using his method. You must realize how painful and redundant it is to keep addressing the hybrid / morph issue in a reoccuring manner ad nauseum.
> 
> 
> 
> See above...


Totally understood, and trust me, I have tried. However, there are more than a few of said threads when I utilize my search bar, this one being the only active one I found 'this' time. Searching through these I find many of your opinions and well defended in some cases, but have yet to find any substantial arguments to your opposition. If you are tired of defending yourself, it is understandable, and I have faith that someone else may argue your point in your place, should you bow out. I have what I believe to be a "new" and well educated perspective, though I can honestly say that everything I have said may have been said before without me seeing it, I cannot cipher through the thousands of threads on this subject.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

Simply breeding frogs in captivity like most of the hobby does is different from having an actively managed captive population, but you are probably aware of that. I also wasn't very clear in my last statement, what you said is true and an important point, evolution is always occurring at any point in time and the animals will adapt to the selection pressures of the environment they are in. For that reason, the moment an animal leaves the wild, it can no longer be considered a wild animal with respect to evolution and what we define as a wild animal. In captivity we have different selection pressures, and an animal that adapts to this environment could be considered a domesticated animal. In conservation genetics, you are not genetically managing the population to be directly representative of the current wild population, you are essentially freezing the captive population in time and trying to have an animal that is genetically representative of the wild animal from the moment in time that it was taken from the wild. Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I explained it correctly but I have a few papers on conservation genetics I can send you (and perhaps I should reread myself). So since evolution is ongoing and the wild population is constantly evolving to the wild, you can never have a population in captivity that mimics the selection pressures of the wild, but you can have a population in captivity that is managed to be genetically representative of a wild population from a given moment in time.

I actually don't have a point I'm trying to defend, just trying to get a better handle on the perspectives of scientists, hobbyists, and how humans as a whole perceive the wild animals and how the various classes of thought overlap with one another.


----------



## Tony

Would you mind sending those papers my way Michael? Sounds like they could be interesting, and maybe helpful for TMP purposes. tony(dot)casler(at)gmail(dot)com


----------



## hyperborean

I hope I haven't inspired any resentment. I have learned from our discussion, probably nothing that hasn't been stated before. 

We can't create morph hybrids because then we lose the integrity of the trade as a reservoir for genetics of wild populations. One prolific hybrid can cause devastating detriment to this integrity as it and its offspring are bred indefinitely. The method we have is not perfect, it can't mimic the natural pressures the species would encounter in the wild, but we can adhere to it as strictly as possible to keep it as close as possible.

I don't see why hobbyists need to be held responsible for preserving the integrity of a species. Ornate box turtles are a travesty in the eyes of nature I'm sure, with inbreeding and selecting for unnatural characteristics, but that doesn't mean they aren't decent pets.


----------



## Tony

hyperborean said:


> I don't see why hobbyists need to be held responsible for preserving the integrity of a species. Ornate box turtles are a travesty in the eyes of nature I'm sure, with inbreeding and selecting for unnatural characteristics, but that doesn't mean they aren't decent pets.


It's not that hobbyists NEED to be held responsible, it's more that a certain number have CHOSEN to TAKE responsibility. Selective breeding has it's appeal to a large number of people in the herp hobby, and it's not necessarily a bad thing as long as the animals are clearly identified. The frog community tends to be concerned with conservation and maintaining wild type animals more so than the reptile side, which has led to the ASN project. This will eventually lead to stable populations of genetically managed wild type animals that are unaffected by the fads of the larger herp hobby. "Pet quality" and "conservation quality" animals can exist together as long as they are properly identified and managed.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

hyperborean said:


> I hope I haven't inspired any resentment. I have learned from our discussion


None at all.. at least not on my part.



hyperborean said:


> We can't create morph hybrids because then we lose the integrity of the trade as a reservoir for genetics of wild populations.


I never said that, and there are no such properly documented reservoirs in the trade (at least at the population level). But there are hobbyists and organizations trying to establish them.



hyperborean said:


> One prolific hybrid can cause devastating detriment to this integrity as it and its offspring are bred indefinitely.


If there are managed populations (or "reservoirs" as mentioned) which are properly documented, tracked, and actively managed, then what is outside of that population should not affect them. The hybrids don't devastate these populations as long as they are kept separate and the population is properly maintained.



hyperborean said:


> The method we have is not perfect, it can't mimic the natural pressures the species would encounter in the wild, but we can adhere to it as strictly as possible to keep it as close as possible.


As I said before, in conservation genetics you are not trying to be as close as possible to the wild environment selection pressures, you are just trying to manage the genetics of a captive population so it is representative of the alleles in a population from the moment it was taken from the wild, stopping evolution and maintaining a genetic "snapshot" of time and space. We are not trying to mimic the wild environment in respect to evolution (but in respect to husbandry conditions is another discussion).



hyperborean said:


> I don't see why hobbyists need to be held responsible for preserving the integrity of a species.


They don't need to be, there are institutions that are working on this and there are also organizations that work with hobbyists that have the same goal. Hobbyists don't need to held responsible for it, but for those that want to be, there are avenues they can explore.


----------



## Ed

Some comments.....

What evidence do we have that the introduced population in Hawaii is rapidly evolving? Fixation of pattern frequency really is not a good indicator in polymorphic anurans even without further gene flow from the natal populations. I am going to refer those interested to the work done on polymorphism in O. pumilio and D. tinctorius.


On a different note: one of the reasons a number of are against the mixing of distinct populations is that some of have been around long enough to have witnessed the loss of distinct variations in the hobby (and the subsequent need to collect new wild stock (if possible) to reestablish those animals. Once those captive populations are mixed, they can't be seperated and a unique variation can be lost to the hobby forever.

For those interested in some well documented examples check out the history of annual killifish as documented in the JAKA (and some of those populations are now extinct in the wild so they are truley lost forever.

Ed


----------



## hyperborean

I don't mean to sound stupid here, I have been reading all of the responses, and I wrote my last message before I had read Corpus' 'snapshot' explanation, but if the hobbyist's collection of frogs isn't useful to the conservation of genetics of a species, what's the problem with breeding and selling hybrids all across the spectrum? Preserving the integrity of the species being handled by breeders and conservationists means that the average hobbyists frogs aren't ever going to be reintroduced into the wild nor recruited for genetic stock, so why all the hostility at a cool-looking hybrid entering the trade?


----------



## hyperborean

Ed said:


> Some comments.....
> 
> What evidence do we have that the introduced population in Hawaii is rapidly evolving?


My only evidence is the recognition of it as a separate morph. If you can make a separate morph in the wild in 50 years, I would personally call that rapid evolution.


----------



## Tony

The main problem is that since the stable managed populations have not been established yet, there is the possibility that a hybrid appearing similar to a natural morph could accidentaly slip into the founding group and contaminate the gene pool, leading to the potential loss that Ed wrote about.


----------



## Philsuma

hyperborean said:


> what's the problem with breeding and selling hybrids all across the spectrum? Preserving the integrity of the species being handled by breeders and conservationists means that the average hobbyists frogs aren't ever going to be reintroduced into the wild nor recruited for genetic stock, so why all the hostility at a cool-looking hybrid entering the trade?


You started off asking a reasonable question about HI Auratus populations and related genetics, purportedly for captive breeding purposes.

Then you admitted to not having an interest in selective breeding (at this time).

Now you are further trying to "stir the pot" and are ham handedly tranisitioning to starting an argument ref "cool looking hybrids" and the hobby - which you refer to as the "trade".

I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I have no patience for such a blatant attempt at trollery.


----------



## Ed

hyperborean said:


> My only evidence is the recognition of it as a separate morph. If you can make a separate morph in the wild in 50 years, I would personally call that rapid evolution.


If I wasn't working off of an I-phone I would provide some citations that I think you need to review as the "evolution" of the expression of a stable pattern frequency in anurans (and many fish such as Rainbow Darters) doesn't imply or even indicate any trend towards speciation. Mammalian or Avian evolution standards don't apply. 

However due to the weird inheritance genetics of some of the locality patterns it wouldn't take much to lose one or more morphs in the hobby potentially for ever. Some of the most commonly cb reptiles needed to have wild caught stock to get the original patterns again (dig around in the leopard gecko and corn snake enthusiasts for awhile...) The loss was due to hybridization to get new morphs( with Emory's ratsnakes) or breeding to the new cool ( expensive) morph to the exclusion of the normal morphs (leopard geckos) both cases causing the loss of genetic diversity in the originial populations.....


Ed


----------



## JoshK

Philsuma said:


> You started off asking a reasonable question about HI Auratus populations and related genetics, purportedly for captive breeding purposes.
> 
> Then you admitted to not having an interest in selective breeding (at this time).
> 
> Now you are further trying to "stir the pot" and are ham handedly tranisitioning to starting an argument ref "cool looking hybrids" and the hobby - which you refer to as the "trade".
> 
> I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I have no patience for such a blatant attempt at trollery.


 
I'm definately with Phil.


----------



## hyperborean

Philsuma said:


> You started off asking a reasonable question about HI Auratus populations and related genetics, purportedly for captive breeding purposes.
> 
> Then you admitted to not having an interest in selective breeding (at this time).
> 
> Now you are further trying to "stir the pot" and are ham handedly tranisitioning to starting an argument ref "cool looking hybrids" and the hobby - which you refer to as the "trade".
> 
> I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I have no patience for such a blatant attempt at trollery.


I thought it was a perfectly reasonable question, and I understand you have enough of a stake in this to be personally offended, but I had no intention of stirring the pot. I believe my trollery aside, hybrids can look cool (a matter of personal opinion, I suppose) - see previous posts with pictures - and I don't think discussing the subject without insulting any member or their 'trade' (meaning business) should be worthy of reprimand.

I have also noticed that in responding to 4 or 5 different people simultaneously, I have caused confusion. Corpus specifically- I did not mean to put words in your mouth, I was trying to summarize the input of several people who said that frogs in the hobby serve as representative of the wild populations ("However even without those genetic inputs, we can still work to *maintain a frog that is as close to the wild gene pool as possible* with each population.-Ed). The loss of integrity of the captive gene pool was based on that, as well as hybrids causing damage.

And, finally, my big apparent sucker punch about trading hybrids was based on: "If there are managed populations (or "reservoirs" as mentioned) which are properly documented, tracked, and actively managed, then what is outside of that population *should not affect them*. The hybrids don't devastate these populations as long as they are kept separate and the population is properly maintained."-Corpus Callosum.

I will quit this discussion, since the dendroboard seems to be whole-heartedly insulted by my line of reasoning.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

I didn't feel insulted by anything you said and hope you did not feel that way from anything I said, it was a good discussion while it lasted  . I'll PM you some citations later and we can continue the back and forth there.


----------



## Dragonfly

Let me just clarify that I was questioning if since 1932 the population of auratus in Hawaii can be determined to be distinctly evolved enough to consider these as separate morphs from their originating morphs. Lacking clarification, I would, if I were to have the auratus in question would not treat as one genetic morph of auratus and interbreed because I would not want to risk the hybridization. 

With the information I have at current, I am better at posing quesitons and defining the guidelines I would follow without added information.


----------



## BChambers

hyperborean said:


> I will quit this discussion, since the dendroboard seems to be whole-heartedly insulted by my line of reasoning.


I really hate to start this up again, but I thought I could give another perspective. Having just recently reentered the hobby after a decade-long absence, I just want to say how impressed I am at the progress the community as a whole has made. In general, almost everyone seems more serious, more thoughtful, and even, dare I say, scholarly in their approach to the keeping of these diminutive jewels. And CERTAINLY far more accomplished, on average. Species which were considered all-but-impossible to keep and breed in the 90s (i.e pumilio and reticulatus) are now routinely (if not yet easily) bred-and those considered actually impossible (outside a greenhouse), like histrionicus, are meeting with at least a modicum of success. It just blows me away when I see efforts like TWI-especially when i contrast this to other areas of herpetoculture of which I am better-acquainted!

I think the "sensitivity" to issues like hybridization, intergradation, and "morph mixing" is a logical result of this more serious and reasoned approach. Like physicians, we seek to "first, do no harm". Dendrobatids are, first and foremost, creatures inextricably imbedded in their unique habitats. I think most frog keepers have a deep respect for this. And it does us credit that we seek to preserve that relationship as much as is humanly possible. Can we expect, over the long haul, to keep our captive stock completely true to the founder material? Of course not. 

But can we, with a little luck and skill, hope to bring a few forms successfully through the current extinction event and out the other side? MAYBE. And isn't that chance worth the effort?


----------



## Philsuma

If after reading the post directly above, you do not feel utterly proud.......then you need to have your pulse checked.


----------



## thedude

Philsuma said:


> If after reading the post directly above, you do not feel utterly proud.......then you need to have your pulse checked.


ya i thought the same thing! good reputation points!


----------



## Smashtoad

This whole thing is amazing to me...literally...amazing. The detail and depth of the opinions in this discussion...Wow.

On the first page of this gargantuan thread, someone said they preferred to not intentionally hybridize frogs, but rather, preferred to "let nature sort it out". They say this while simultaneously keeping frogs captive in little glass boxes. Is it just me, or is that not HIGH-larious? It's almost like some believe there will someday be a glorious reintroduction of all captive herps back into the wild, so we must keep strains pure.

This forum is fantastic. The wealth of knowledge I have gained from it is invaluable to me and I appreciate it immensely. My terribilis tank looks sweet because of the ideas shared here.

But if someone ever bred a runt orange terribilis and a giant fantasticus (it's hypothetical...don't swallow your tongue)...I would be first in line for the babies...and most of you would be elbowing me trying to take my place. If not, sweet.

As herpers, these issues are important to us, and we can't walk around on egg shells, afraid we are going to offend someone who will cast us from the clique. 

Because those cliques are made up of the people and groups that make it possible for Al Gore to stand in front of a room of "journalists" and deny that polar bear populations are increasing (which he just did)...even though every survey says they ARE increasing. They scream science, while ignoring scientific evidence and heralding theory.

And if you think radical environmental groups are the friends of herp hobbyists...you're nuts. If they have their way, we'll keep nothing, and all captive breeding efforts will cease, except for those in the "accredited institutions" that'll gladly kiss the ring. Dang thing bout drove Frodo cuckoo for coco puffs...count me out. 

GO STEELERS!


----------



## Ed

Smashtoad said:


> On the first page of this gargantuan thread, someone said they preferred to not intentionally hybridize frogs, but rather, preferred to "let nature sort it out". They say this while simultaneously keeping frogs captive in little glass boxes. Is it just me, or is that not HIGH-larious? It's almost like some believe there will someday be a glorious reintroduction of all captive herps back into the wild, so we must keep strains pure.!



It would be helpful if you had quoted the reference acurately as what was said and what you imply are two different things. 

This is the actual quote 
snip " there is debate on whether or not frogs interbreed in the wild. it likely happens but IMO that is for nature to sort out and not us. if you want to mix animals look into snakes or lizards, (leopard geckos are a good way to go in that direction)"endsnip

The let nature sort it out is a reference to any potential intergradation zones in the frogs natal habitat and really is regardless of whether or not the person keeps frogs in little glass boxes. 

While there are a number of people in the hobby who do try to maintain pure lines with the idea that there could at sometime be a reintroduction into the hobby others do not believe that is ever likely and still want to see the frogs maintained as pure morphs as we have already seen several morphs disappear in the hobby (how many people have blue truncatus any more?) due to a failure to keep them around. 




Smashtoad said:


> As herpers, these issues are important to us, and we can't walk around on egg shells, afraid we are going to offend someone who will cast us from the clique.


Based on this and the comment that you would be first in line to purchase hybrids, I guess you are advocating hybridization. Is that correct? 
If you are going to hybridize or get them, then I hope you do not follow the trend seen in other aspects of the herp hobby where hybrids are then sold as pure morphs when the pure morphs rise in value (ala corn snakes, some boas, rankin dragons to name a few off hand..)....
I'm not sure how you think a clique would cast you out... but based on this I suspect trolling is really your game. 



Smashtoad said:


> Because those cliques are made up of the people and groups that make it possible for Al Gore to stand in front of a room of "journalists" and deny that polar bear populations are increasing (which he just did)...even though every survey says they ARE increasing. They scream science, while ignoring scientific evidence and heralding theory.


Please cite where the discussion on hybrids and population fluctuations in the hobby has ignored scienctific evidence or clarify how does this personal opinion on what is a political issue have to do with the hybrid discussion. 



Smashtoad said:


> And if you think radical environmental groups are the friends of herp hobbyists...you're nuts. If they have their way, we'll keep nothing, and all captive breeding efforts will cease, except for those in the "accredited institutions" that'll gladly kiss the ring. Dang thing bout drove Frodo cuckoo for coco puffs...count me out.


If I follow your opinion line here, those that advocate maintaining pure lines of the different morphs in the hobby to prevent losses of natural variations and or allel frequency in the captive populations are now linked to radical anti pet activist? And because in your opinion, they are the same you want no part of maintaining natural morphs long-term? 

And if you are going to reference something please at least make the attempt to get it right.. The commercial character is Sonny not Frodo and Frodo didn't go crazy for not kissing the ring.... A short google search would have pulled it right up.... 

I really don't expect a cohesive response as the post really does seem to be aimed at trolling up a thread that had quited down. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Rich Conley

Smashtoad said:


> Because those cliques are made up of the people and groups that make it possible for Al Gore to stand in front of a room of "journalists" and deny that polar bear populations are increasing (which he just did)...even though every survey says they ARE increasing. They scream science, while ignoring scientific evidence and heralding theory.


Polar Bear populations are one of the most misunderstood statistics around.


Yes, Polar Bear populations are higher than they were in the 50s. The problem is, they were so low in the 50s because they were hunted almost to extinction at the beginning of the century.

Yes, we have 20K polarbears now and we had 5K in 1950. The problem is, it is estimated that there were almost 100K animals right before the turn of the century. Yes, their numbers as a whole appear to be going up, but its doubtful that they'll return to their historic numbers. 

The real problem is that several populations ('collection locations') are dying out. Yes, several are also doing well, but theres a good chance they disappear from a couple of areas.


----------



## UmbraSprite

:: munches popcorn ::


----------



## HunterB

Polar Bear jack?


----------



## HunterB

HunterB said:


> Polar Bear jack?


sorry bout the above post 
apparently someone got annoyed by it...and didnt leave there name after the lil red mark


----------



## Rich Conley

HunterB said:


> sorry bout the above post
> apparently someone got annoyed by it...and didnt leave there name after the lil red mark


As the person who committed to the polar bear jack, I'd tell you it wasn't me, but there's no way to actually know, which is kind of sad.


----------



## Smashtoad

Ed said:


> This is the actual quote
> snip " there is debate on whether or not frogs interbreed in the wild. it likely happens but IMO that is for nature to sort out and not us. if you want to mix animals look into snakes or lizards, (leopard geckos are a good way to go in that direction)"endsnip
> 
> The let nature sort it out is a reference to any potential intergradation zones in the frogs natal habitat and really is regardless of whether or not the person keeps frogs in little glass boxes.


My point was that the hypocrisy of some hobbyists knows no bounds. Breeding beautiful hybrids, from a big picture standpoint, is no more harmful than keeping them in captivity in the first place.



Ed said:


> ...we have already seen several morphs disappear in the hobby (how many people have blue truncatus any more?) due to a failure to keep them around.


I cannot argue this point. Seems to be a valid concern.



Ed said:


> Based on this and the comment that you would be first in line to purchase hybrids, I guess you are advocating hybridization. Is that correct? ...but based on this I suspect trolling is really your game.


I am not advocating it as much as decrying the ferocity with which some people rally against it. There is no game...just wanted to weigh in. 



Ed said:


> Please cite where the discussion on hybrids and population fluctuations in the hobby has ignored scienctific evidence or clarify how does this personal opinion on what is a political issue have to do with the hybrid discussion.


Granted...this was a vague point. My feelings on this were prompted by the current witch hunts being waged against anyone who dares to question Al Gore or man's role in climate change. Al is a man who refuses to publicly debate his "science", lies openly in public, and is never called on it, because those who would call him on it are kept out.

I would not advocate hybridization when the result is a muddying of genes and total loss of a certain species or variant. I suppose in some cases that could be the result, and I would not be into that. 



Ed said:


> And if you are going to reference something please at least make the attempt to get it right.. The commercial character is Sonny not Frodo and Frodo didn't go crazy for not kissing the ring.... A short google search would have pulled it right up.....


Lord of the Rings' Frodo, not Godfather. And I know that that Frodo didn't actually kiss the ring either...it was a joke. 



Ed said:


> I really don't expect a cohesive response as the post really does seem to be aimed at trolling up a thread that had quited down.


I don't want to make people upset, just make them think. So anyone who disagrees is trying to encite angst?


----------



## pedan

Jeeze, I've been thinking all wrong for years now. I always supported be happy with those you loved.

But I guess we should be preserving the morphs of humans as well, keep the races separate. After all we wouldn't want to loose a pure line of race would we?
What was I thinking all that time.


----------



## skylsdale

pedan said:


> But I guess we should be preserving the morphs of humans as well, keep the races separate. After all we wouldn't want to loose a pure line of race would we?


Actually...line breeding and designer morphs in the hobby are, using your example, more akin to what you just mentioned: keeping races seperate. And then, if some individuals in that race were to be born with lighter colored feet, only allowing them to marry and have children. Hybridization would be more along the lines of force-breeding humans with Bonobos.


----------



## pedan

skylsdale said:


> Actually...line breeding and designer morphs in the hobby are, using your example, more akin to what you just mentioned: keeping races seperate. And then, if some individuals in that race were to be born with lighter colored feet, only allowing them to marry and have children. Hybridization would be more along the lines of force-breeding humans with Bonobos.


Ron, although I was trying to be way out there to make a point, I understand what you mean and I think that was a flaw in my explanation. I was referring to the conversation regarding mixing morphs of a particular species. I was not referring to the mixing of species. But whenever this topic comes up they both seem to be discussed on top of one another, and I think they are different topics.


----------



## skylsdale

I figured you were trying to be way out there, Josh...at least I was hoping so: the analogy is a pretty far reaching one. 

I also think we have to choose our wording carefully in these types of conversations and communally define what we mean. For instance...what you mean by the term "morph" may be different than what I mean.

I think the term "population" is a much better phrase and gives an indication as to what's going on in the wild. For example, let's say there are two isolated populations of _R. imitator_ in the wild...they don't come into contact with one another, they don't interbreed, etc. Then in captivity I would say it would be best to keep them managed and bred seperately. However, let's say within one of those two populations (which has individuals genetically represented in captivity) there are a few random frogs that have red feet. Only breeding frogs together with this trait would then be the line breeding, designer morphing, etc. that we see. Responsible captive management would say that the red-footed frogs should be bred regularly and randomly in with all the other frogs.

However, what if in captivity there were three seperate "morphs" of a frog...but those frogs had actually come from a single population in the wild that expressed quite a bit of diversity in color? Those animals, as a reflection of their wild counterparts, would best be managed and bred together. This "mixing" would actually be the best method for maintaining these animals longterm in captivity...however, due to false seperations the hobby had created among the frogs, by the hobby's standards, it could be viewed as hybridization.

I understand that people get tired of these same discussions popping up, but people need to realize that this hobby has a constant influx and rotation of members, and for some people this is the first time they may be reading and thinking about this topic. As tiresome as it may be for some of us, it is definitely something that needs to be discussed. It is currently estimated that close to half (up from 1/3) of all amphibian species on the planet are either in decline or have recently gone extinct. If we want to help conserve and/or alleviate the pressures we put on wild populations (especially the pressure of collection for a private hobby), then I think we need to take this conversation seriously and continue having it in a civil and respectful way. Those who are tired of it are by no means bound to keep clicking on this thread.


----------



## Ed

pedan said:


> Ron, although I was trying to be way out there to make a point, I understand what you mean and I think that was a flaw in my explanation. I was referring to the conversation regarding mixing morphs of a particular species. I was not referring to the mixing of species. But whenever this topic comes up they both seem to be discussed on top of one another, and I think they are different topics.


Hi Josh,

There are problems with mixing the morphs just as much are there with mixing the species.. for example, there are a number of tinctorius morphs that are no longer imported nor are they likely to ever be reimported.. now combine the idea of using these patterns to create designer morphs with the trend in the hobby to visually identify and sort morphs based on visual characteristics.. there are a number of thread.. I got this/these frog(s), what do you think they are... intergrades between the morphs will in the first offspring will in all probability be different in the first generation post intergredation.. but the second and further generations should show a range of patterns and traits ranging from one parental pattern to the other.. which unscrupulous people could then sell (particuarly if the value is higher) as pure morph.. or they could end up in the hands of people that then assign them to that morph being unaware of the mixed parentage. 
Now this wouldn't be a problem if the hobby wasn't so prone to fluctuations and loss of morphs and species... there are a number of examples within this hobby itself over the years such as the blue truncatus I referenced earlier... and this is an ongoing issue. 
These morphs developed these stable patterns for specific reasons and represent specific lineages of those frogs in the hobby and we as the hobby have shown that we have issues maintaining them long term (I've been around 20 years) without the added pressures of intergrades and hybrids creating designer morphs. This is where and to some extent people get emotional about the whole issue. It wouldn't be an issue if people did not assign specific species and morph data to frogs of unknown provence and/or we could believe that people would not misrepresent the frogs. It wouldn't take a whole lot to wipe out a distinct genetically determined pattern of the frogs potentially forever in the hobby. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Smashtoad said:


> My point was that the hypocrisy of some hobbyists knows no bounds. Breeding beautiful hybrids, from a big picture standpoint, is no more harmful than keeping them in captivity in the first place.


It depends on how big a picture you are using.. on a global scale probably not.. on the hobby scale it is a big problem. As I noted in a seperate post.. there is a trend in the hobby to visually identify frogs based on thier patterns when they are of unknown provence. This is where intergrades and/or hybrids have a real risk of destroying the genetic stability of genetic controlled patterns. When you consider that the frogs can have a life span reaching 20 plus years and the rapid turnover in the base of this hobby combined with the trend to visually pigeon hole frogs based on pattern.. (and that is assuming the breeder or seller is being honest and scrupulous). 

Also it should be noted that a number of hybrids are not that good looking... 



As for the angst comment... one of the few things that really gets my angst roiling is apparent deliberate misquoting..... 
That and misrepresentation of data/facts are usually good to get me rolling... 

Ed


----------



## Tony

Ed, was it you that posted about Azureus being re-imported for zoo collections due to existing bloodlines being tainted by hybridization? I can't find the post now, but I swear it was you and I'm curious to read more about it.


----------



## Ed

Tony said:


> Ed, was it you that posted about Azureus being re-imported for zoo collections due to existing bloodlines being tainted by hybridization? I can't find the post now, but I swear it was you and I'm curious to read more about it.


There was some serious speculation that they had been outcrossed with another tinctorious morph at some point but also that they couldn't determine the degree of relatedness of the frogs that were in the zoos so a new group was imported and tracked via a studbook. 

Ed


----------



## Tony

What was the cause of that speculation? Are frogs in the hobby descended from them?


----------



## pedan

And thank you for the negative rep for politely arguing a point.


----------



## Smashtoad

Ed said:


> As for the angst comment... one of the few things that really gets my angst roiling is apparent deliberate misquoting.....
> That and misrepresentation of data/facts are usually good to get me rolling...Ed


Me too...100% I deliberately misquoted no one. But I see Pedan got a rep point for stating something someone didn't like...this type of action is partly what prompted me to post in the first place.

Rich...Polar bear population estimates from the turn of the century? Are you serious? This is exactly the type of scientific claim that many laypeople and science wannabes just swallow hole, no questions asked. 

Who exactly was doing comprehensive polar bear population studies at the turn of the century? All I know is that last year, the first polar bear in 15 years to travel to Iceland did so and got shot. 

From what I read, polar bears only travel that far outside the arctic circle in heavy ice years, yet Mr. Gore would have you believe the ice is in IMMINENT DANGER!!!

And even if there were 100K bears in 1900, and there aren't now...may I be so bold as to ask who cares, and what the ramifications are? Are seal populations exploding? My guess is that would make the Innuit people very happy.


----------



## Philsuma

Polar bears and Al gore.....in a hybrid thread.

I think this is what got you, the red hat in the past.


The other post about refering to hybrids being just like people was ridiculous as well.


----------



## Rich Conley

Smashtoad said:


> Who exactly was doing comprehensive polar bear population studies at the turn of the century?


The same amount of people who were doing comprehensive polar bear population studies in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that your argument relies on: no one. Pretty much all the data and approximations prior to the 90s comes from harvest reports.


----------



## Brian Ferriera

It never ceases to amaze me how long people on here can continue arguing over the same thing....at what point is every one going to relies that thier are just somethings we can not agree on..
Brian


----------



## McBobs

This thread might be a relative topic to read for some of the posters in this thread....

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/lounge/42206-how-not-get-negative-reputation-point.html

-Matt


----------



## mattolsen

So my question to all you hybrid frowners out there is....how do you think their became so many morphological differences in all of the diverse species today? I personally do not hybridize any of my frogs. However, I think that anyone who thinks that it is wrong to attempt to do it is flat out ignorant. Actually, you can have your opinions but please do not ever come down on someone for doing what they believe in. If anyone would like to debate this please feel free to pm me. I will say that I think that this site is a great resource for aquiring knowledge and such in the hobby of dart frogs although, many people on this site like to jump on anyone who disobeys their general "frog belief" system. To all of those people, get a life and understand that no matter what opinion you may have there are thousands who think you're wrong. My point is... can't we all get along?


----------



## Ed

mattolsen said:


> So my question to all you hybrid frowners out there is....how do you think their became so many morphological differences in all of the diverse species today??


It wasn't by hybridization if that is what you are implying... 



Ed


----------



## mattolsen

ps. for that hybridize through leopard geckos and such.... leopard geckos are leopard geckos. there is no hybridization there. they are both the same genus/species. That's genetic diversity not hybridization. Albinism and hypomelanism and other morphs are not. FYI. Besides that most snakes and lizards follow the same game plan. With the exception of a few....bloodballs, carpondros, etc.


----------



## Ed

mattolsen said:


> ps. for that hybridize through leopard geckos and such.... leopard geckos are leopard geckos. there is no hybridization there. they are both the same genus/species. That's genetic diversity not hybridization. Albinism and hypomelanism and other morphs are not. FYI. Besides that most snakes and lizards follow the same game plan. With the exception of a few....bloodballs, carpondros, etc.


Well given that there are multiple subspecies (and at least one seperate species that was recognized as a subspecies..) used in making the various morphs we recognize as leopard geckos.. it is hybridization. For a list of the 5 subspecies of leopards see The Learning Center - Leopard Gecko Morphs and the other closely related species that are also probably in the gene pool of the captive leopards gecko population. 

It isn't genetic diversity it is hybridization.. 

To quote the inestimatible Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 

Ed


----------



## frogparty

thats awesome ED!!!!


----------



## james67

Smashtoad said:


> Me too...100% I deliberately misquoted no one. But I see Pedan got a rep point for stating something someone didn't like...this type of action is partly what prompted me to post in the first place.


i should be able to clear this up since it was me you are quoting (if im not mistaken).

yes you did misinterpret what i was saying. the argument was made that since some morphs MIGHT overlap and MIGHT interbreed, people should be able to mix morphs in captivity. this is nothing more than a case of someone trying to justify an action that they know is wrong, by trying to make themselves feel better about it. my comment was stating that while some oddities may occur in nature, it isnt our place to purposefully mix animals, particularly based on the assumption that they mix in the wild. 

this hobby (as it is currently arranged) values the purity of morphs, and more recently the collection data from these animals. a lot of people have devoted decades to this hobby and justly dont want to see some selfish person muddy the lines that have been protected so far, by introducing their hybrids (morph hybrids) into the public because when their 6 months in the hobby is up they realize that they cant get rid of hybrids and end up selling them to another newcomer as morph X.

this is not science fiction, this is what could easily happen, and it is important to stress this to others since some seem to be blinded by their own egos. 

james


----------



## Rich Conley

james67 said:


> yes you did misinterpret what i was saying. the argument was made that since some morphs MIGHT overlap and MIGHT interbreed, people should be able to mix morphs in captivity. this is nothing more than a case of someone trying to justify an action that they know is wrong, by trying to make themselves feel better about it. my comment was stating that while some oddities may occur in nature, it isnt our place to purposefully mix animals, particularly based on the assumption that they mix in the wild.
> 
> this hobby (as it is currently arranged) values the purity of morphs, and more recently the collection data from these animals. a lot of people have devoted decades to this hobby and justly dont want to see some selfish person muddy the lines that have been protected so far, by introducing their hybrids (morph hybrids) into the public because when their 6 months in the hobby is up they realize that they cant get rid of hybrids and end up selling them to another newcomer as morph X.


While I mostly agree with you here, the problem with these sort of statements is there are plenty of "morphs" being preserved in the hobby that aren't actually real populations. There are probably 20 different "morphs" of auratus that all come from the same population, and most of them from the same import group. The importer just said "these are green, sell them as green auratus, these are blue, put them in a different box, etc". 

People are linebreeding these things because of a false idea of what the natural populations are, and screwing the bloodlines up just as much as people who are hybridizing.


----------



## Philsuma

Rich Conley said:


> People are linebreeding these things because of a false idea of what the natural populations are, and screwing the bloodlines up just as much as people who are hybridizing.


This still does not mean that we should throw our hands up and not care what we do in this hobby.

I don't think the words "false idea" are accurate here. I think most hobbyists are "doing what they can" in terms of responsible breeding and transfering practices. 

The reverse of all this is to "let open the floodgates" and from what I've seen posted on this forum, I think most people would not want to do that.


----------



## Taron

Hybrids definitely add a different perspective to the hobby but should not be allowed to be sold in the hobby which would stop most idiots from trying it. I think we should vote to ban any hybrids from being sold in the classifieds or traded in the traded forum.

Tell me what everyone thinks.

PS I wouldn't mind owning some hybrids but i do understand they should never be mixed. The leuc azureus cross is pretty wicked!


----------



## Boondoggle

ReptilesEtcetera said:


> Hybrids definitely add a different perspective to the hobby but should not be allowed to be sold in the hobby which would stop most idiots from trying it. I think we should vote to ban any hybrids from being sold in the classifieds or traded in the traded forum.
> 
> Tell me what everyone thinks.


I wouldn't purchase a hybrid, but I would stop short of banning the sale. It is a very rare occasion that you see hybrids for sale on this board, and they generally come with an explanation.


----------



## james67

Philsuma said:


> This still does not mean that we should throw our hands up and not care what we do in this hobby.
> 
> I don't think the words "false idea" are accurate here. I think most hobbyists are "doing what they can" in terms of responsible breeding and transfering practices.
> 
> The reverse of all this is to "let open the floodgates" and from what I've seen posted on this forum, I think most people would not want to do that.


this is an important point. im not suggesting that ALL lines are true to their wild origins, far from it in fact, and auratus are some of the most confusing. what i am saying is that we can only do our part to keep the lines pure with the information we are given. anything other than that can be more of a hindrance than a benefit. the community as a whole gathers information about the lineages, and these should not be interbred, regardless of whether there is speculation about the purity of the morph, since that achieves only more confusion. 

the only way to truly settle these disputes, would be to re-collect ALL known species and morphs (with GPS data) and to get rid of everything we have, and we all know that wont ever happen, so its up to us to keep things as close to the original import as possible, to ensure there is no further degradation of the lines.

i dont think there is a need to BAN mixing or hybrids, as this would surely create a surge in their popularity (dont kid your self MANY of the posters on DB are in their rebellious teen years, and while not directed solely at them, there is a good chance that banning hybrids would be counterproductive at best) we need to educate and show why there is NO need to mix. there are so many varieties of PDF, and with so much to choose from and with nothing to gain (monetarily, and IMO scientifically) from hybrids WHY? 

james


----------



## jgibeau

I have been into the darts a long, long time. (Dendroboard, Heck, this kindof web page setup and style, didn't exist. Think Frognet Digest. circa 1996.)

About four or five years ago I let my then *really* big mouth say some things that while factual, were worded in a way that brought a good man's character into question. 

Shortly thereafter I re-entered the Army and gave up all of my poison frogs to various other froggers in the PNW. 

I have spent the last 3.5 hours reading through all this hybrid talk. (Again, just from new and much much younger names)

I have made them. A few others that are considered "Frog Gods" (Do *NOT* include me in that category, I *never* hit it.) have too. 

It's the same roundabout punch in the back of the head for the person in possession of a hybrid all over again, though some of the personal nastiness that was swapped around like teenage spit on Valentines day in this whole crazy long thread was somewhat dis-heartening. 

I have never, once, *not ever*, seen this discussion topic stay civil once people start posting pictures of their hybrids. The topic has been a major 3rd rail for the poison frog community since I was a "noob" (_I cannot *believe* I just used that term - Next thing you know, I am going to forget that the bill on a baseball hat is there to keep the sun out of my eyes and walk around with my pants around the underside of my butt_.) 

Personally, I was struck by how some of the "hybrids" looked almost exactly like frogs I still look at in my original hardback "Jewels of the Rain Forest" (OH YEA! ) And I wonder, how many frogs that we labeled back in the nineties as Hybrids, are considered a "morph" today, simply because of some of us straying from the hobby, or dying of old age (some of us are REALLY old) or being too addled from discussing North Korean Nuke Proliferation, polarizing politics, and Starbucks Creamy Non-Fat Soy Lattes?

I was looking at "Brazilian" Cobalts earlier today; They did not look like Brazilian Cobalts to me, and I should know what they look like, I have morphed hundreds of them.

What else has slipped by?

Did it slip by at all, or is there actually something to be said for diversity inside morphology for the Tinctorious, and most of us running around screaming the sky is falling because this tinc or that tinc looks different, really *DO* look and sound like chicken little?

I really don't know why I am saying anything at all, it's not like I have not gotten the keyboard beating of a lifetime inside a hybrid discussion before, but then again, years ago, someone said they loved reading my posts, it was always a "train wreck in text" - they put their hands to their face and then spread a couple of fingers, because you just can't look away from a train wreck, real or text.

Trust me everyone, my posts will be very rare. I just completed 2 tours in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan, and my stomach for these things is very weak, but I just had to point out - WOW, has this "religion" grown. Froggers are *purists*, we are *elitists*. We tend to be *more* involved, *more* willing to galvanize ourselves into doing something. You will *NEVER* see a discussion on a Ball Python Forum talk about how cool it would be to release en masse all the Mojave Platinum Super Bumble Bee Albino Silver Bullets back into Africa to replenish the population. Different sort of folk; It's not about what they can GIVE back, it's about what they can GET. We on the other hand, will look at our little (insert your favorite colors here) frogs, and actually stop and think about where they come from, and what is happening there, and what can we do to *SAVE* some of it before it is gone, despite the fact that most of us will never see the place.

You are a FROGGER. That alone makes you just cool as heck in my book, but really, it sets you above and away just a bit from the rest. I commend you.

Now if you read this drivel all the way down to here, recognize that I said I read this PLANETARY SPANNING ** (_really, from Coast to Coast as well as Germany and England commented, and I promise you, plenty of Asia read it, they just didn't say anything_) for over three hours. _Then_ I wrote this *wandering* response. Yea, and in PST it is 0540, and I wrote a few friends and responded to PM's saying "hi" and "Welcome Back" and all that around midnight. I am getting tired. *Please* don't anyone think I said anything to point any fingers or be mean to anyone. *Trust me*, I have been plenty mean in the last four or five years, and no more. (If I can help it.)

*Don't ever shy away from the hard topics, or posts.That's how we learn.*

BTW - I am so Bummed. Are the Blue Truncs really gone? FOREVER? Todd? Tor? Patrick? Aaron? Darren, Phil; *nobody*?

*See*? That's why we have to pay attention. Those were some super beautiful frogs that I always loved, and really wanted. 

G'nite all.


----------



## Malaki33

First i want to say thank you for your service, we are safe because of it and I know "being an ex Sailor/Soldier myself, that tends to get forgotton. 

I am not going to post to long a thread, but being an Ex breeder of snakes I have ssen how Hybridization and line breeding dirtied the Herpatological pool. I personally think that hybridization is dangerous I think in the end it can and will hurt the breeds that are being hybridized, Have you seen how unhealthy some of the most popular breeds of dogs have become due to selective breeding?(pomeranians for example). I think if there are hybrids out there they should be held, I dont feel they should be sold (even if sold as a hybrid, not an impersonator). And really thats all I wanted to say.


----------



## Rich Conley

james67 said:


> this is an important point. im not suggesting that ALL lines are true to their wild origins, far from it in fact, and auratus are some of the most confusing. what i am saying is that we can only do our part to keep the lines pure with the information we are given. anything other than that can be more of a hindrance than a benefit. the community as a whole gathers information about the lineages, and these should not be interbred, regardless of whether there is speculation about the purity of the morph, since that achieves only more confusion.
> 
> james


I agree with that, the problem at this point is that we KNOW that some of the Auratus lines/morphs are all from the same location and part of the same population, and yet people refuse to breed them together. 

Linebreeding is just as bad as hybridizing. You're creating something that just does not exist in the wild. You're making the animal less healthy and less adaptable.


----------



## Dragonfly

My 2 cents on this is thank you for your tours of duty and welcome back to the PNW. Anything any of us can do to honor our vets is important. 

Sorry I am too new to help with the frogs you are looking for....


----------



## swirlygig

All in all, go Beau! 

I am a fair newb to darts, but not others in this hobby...

I got bashed hard on this forum a few times for asking questions when I was new on here...The personal attacks and responses have sickened me, but i find myself coming back because I like this hobby...

I think we as Free Civilians who work hard should be able to do as we wish. As long as we are caring for gods creatures, it shouldn't matter, even if that means making a cross of something...

I can bet most of everyone on here is a mutt themselves...Some of the most beautiful things are mutts...

my 2 cents...


----------



## jubjub47

swirlygig said:


> All in all, go Beau!
> 
> I am a fair newb to darts, but not others in this hobby...
> 
> I got bashed hard on this forum a few times for asking questions when I was new on here...The personal attacks and responses have sickened me, but i find myself coming back because I like this hobby...
> 
> I think we as Free Civilians who work hard should be able to do as we wish. As long as we are caring for gods creatures, it shouldn't matter, even if that means making a cross of something...
> 
> I can bet most of everyone on here is a mutt themselves...Some of the most beautiful things are mutts...
> 
> my 2 cents...


You're free to do as you wish. The fact still remains that people have dedicated their lives to work with these animals and keep them as close to their wild type as possible. There are no laws against creating hybrids, but you also need to remember that the vast majority of people in this hobby are against hybridizing species and morphs. I'm sorry that you have been sickened by the responses, but you need to understand that the thought of hybridizing sickens those who work so hard to keep these animals in as close to a wild type as possible. I'm not trying to be rude in any way, but as a newbie to pdf's as you claim to be I don't think that you can fully understand the stances of those that have put in way more time into these frogs.


----------



## thedude

swirlygig said:


> All in all, go Beau!
> 
> I am a fair newb to darts, but not others in this hobby...
> 
> I got bashed hard on this forum a few times for asking questions when I was new on here...The personal attacks and responses have sickened me, but i find myself coming back because I like this hobby...
> 
> I think we as Free Civilians who work hard should be able to do as we wish. As long as we are caring for gods creatures, it shouldn't matter, even if that means making a cross of something...
> 
> I can bet most of everyone on here is a mutt themselves...Some of the most beautiful things are mutts...
> 
> my 2 cents...


there is a difference between human "mutts" and wildlife that is in trouble. and also, if god wanted them to be crossed, they would have been hybridizing in nature in the first place.

im sorry you have been bashed. its good you keep coming back  but hybrids arent welcome here. these are animals that have very distinct sub-populations in the wild and as jubjub said, a lot of people have worked very hard to keep those populations pure. just because we are "free" people doesnt mean we can do whatever we want if it harms other people and wildlife.


----------



## Jellyman

thedude said:


> there is a difference between human "mutts" and wildlife that is in trouble. and also, if god wanted them to be crossed, they would have been hybridizing in nature in the first place.
> 
> im sorry you have been bashed. its good you keep coming back  but hybrids arent welcome here. these are animals that have very distinct sub-populations in the wild and as jubjub said, a lot of people have worked very hard to keep those populations pure. just because we are "free" people doesnt mean we can do whatever we want if it harms other people and wildlife.


Please do not make assumptions for us all. There are more then a few that do welcome hybrids, mixed enclosures, new ideas, and new members that take the time to care for the frogs they have decided to keep as pets. We also have respect for those that choose to keep pure bred animals and ask the same respect in return.

I was reading up for a test I have to take and a deep thought came upon me...what if God's plan was for humans to creat a super frog and hybridizing darts is the meaning of life...

Please be aware that the above deep thought is a joke, meant only for laughter to lighten things up a bit.


----------



## JoshK

thedude said:


> there is a difference between human "mutts" and wildlife that is in trouble. and also, if god wanted them to be crossed, they would have been hybridizing in nature in the first place.
> 
> im sorry you have been bashed. its good you keep coming back  but hybrids arent welcome here. these are animals that have very distinct sub-populations in the wild and as jubjub said, a lot of people have worked very hard to keep those populations pure. just because we are "free" people doesnt mean we can do whatever we want if it harms other people and wildlife.


 
I really agree, as I've said before this stems from the "nothings ever good enough" attitude that people have. People can't just appreciate what we have, they have to try and make something "better". Some people just can't be pleased.


----------



## jgibeau

swirlygig said:


> All in all, go Beau!
> 
> I am a fair newb to darts, but not others in this hobby...
> 
> I got bashed hard on this forum a few times for asking questions when I was new on here...The personal attacks and responses have sickened me, but i find myself coming back because I like this hobby...
> 
> I think we as Free Civilians who work hard should be able to do as we wish. As long as we are caring for gods creatures, it shouldn't matter, even if that means making a cross of something...
> 
> I can bet most of everyone on here is a mutt themselves...Some of the most beautiful things are mutts...
> 
> my 2 cents...


Since the nineties, that has been the problem I have seen. I used to wonder how many good kind folks left this hobby in disgust right after they experienced the Rolled newspaper across their butt, and then nose in the pee or poop followed by "*BAD DOG!!!!!*" remedy that some people out there seem to think is the way to bring these people with real curiosity _"into line"_.

Unfortunately, when you beat your dog during training, you hurt your relationship with the dog. So it goes with new members trying to learn and understand. If you think "Good riddance, they would have been a *hybridizer *(well, it's a word now, deal with it) You just betrayed another mantra we have always tried to portray as a community - That of _kind gentle and good teachers. _

There is room for hybrid talk, without fear of reprisal, _especially_ here. My advice? If someone rips your ass because you are trying to learn something, ignore the *jerk*, and *you* come ask *me*. They are most likely just as new as you are, and playing parrot (a very good analogy I heard recently) to whatever else they have heard from those they are trying to curry favor with. I have crossed leucs with auratus, tincs of many types, even a few thumbs (Vents with imitator, imitator with variabilis, fantasticus with intermedius) Guess what? All showed as compatible, and furthermore, were able to breed amongst themselves, so the term "hybrid" may not even be accurate, since as far as I know, hybrids can't, or aren't supposed to be able to breed.

I don't have pictures anymore, and I got rid of the frogs (read that as humanely destroyed) but the studying and learning, for me anyway, is done. I have some good knowledge on this, so if you have questions, drop me a line, I will answer in as unbiased a fashion as I can. 

I found an ignore feature on this board, I suggest you use it for those who are exceedingly nasty or pushy when it comes to *their* opinion on the future of poison frogs in the world. Most of them join an organization or two, and think they know something. They don't. There is a vast difference between knowledge and experience. Knowledge can be gained simply from reading up on something. Experience only comes from getting in there and doing it. Ie - You can know the Barrett .50 Sniper Rifle inside and out from diagrams, and can hit targets all day with it, it is a joy to shoot. You might even be able to do the minute of angle in your head for the round you are sending. You might even be good enough to watch your trace go downrange and make your adjustments without a spotter. All of this is *knowledge*. Be able to do all that while someone is sending their *own* ammunition your way in a *hostile* fashion and still *drill *their ass - that is *experience*. 

BTW - There were some really pretty albinos out there a few years ago; I personally worked with the ventrimaculatus, both T+ and T-, trying to connect the dots on the dominant and co-dominant, as well as the recessive from the parents - It may sound like "snake breeder talk", but play with this in your head; The father is an albino, the mother is a het - so roughly 50% of the froglets are going to be albino right? That's the _easy_ part. When do you know "what" is going to be albino? ie - Will the tads be white? The eggs? Will the eggs all show the parent color, and change through development? Will the reverse of the parents listed above give you any white froglets? Again, will the tads be white? What about a pair of hets? I just described two years worth of work for someone interested. (I did it and had a great time!)

Also, does the whole "albinos get picked off quick" theory apply to an animal that is aposematic? If so, why won't predators steer clear of the brighter or more "startling" colors of the albino? (I was never able to answer that one, because I was unwilling to allow predators into my frog tanks (though a few spiders over the years really pissed me off a few times - Nothing like coming home to an aerotaenia all wrapped up by a spider you never knew was in there getting bigger and bigger on a steady diet of fruit flies...)

Swirly, feel free to give me a call, anytime you want - I will talk frogs with you all day long. 253 376 8206.


----------



## Rain_Frog

I think its very hypocritical for people to bash anyone asking about hybrids when a LOT of our frogs do not have locale data.

Appearances of animals do not necessarily equate to same species / same morph. Such is the problem with a frog like Mantella ebenaui. We do NOT know if the ebenaui we have in captivity are the southern or northern population. We assume that they're the northern population. The southern population of this mantella is betsileo. The species was formerly betsileo as a whole, but a few years ago they split the species into two after a DNA analysis. And they're nearly impossible to tell apart.

Recently, I asked a mantella researcher if blushing mantella is a different species or a different morph of expectata. While we do not have locale data, the researcher told me that they are probably the Isalo Massif morph of expectata. 

And some frogs hybridize freely in the wild-- and there are "intermediate zones" where frogs look in between.


----------



## edwardsatc

Really, was there really a need to resurrect an old mixing thread?


----------



## Ed

Rain_Frog said:


> I think its very hypocritical for people to bash anyone asking about hybrids when a LOT of our frogs do not have locale data..


A lack of locality data does not automatically mean that there has been any hybridization, it simply means that the actual collection locality is unknown. 



Rain_Frog said:


> Appearances of animals do not necessarily equate to same species / same morph..


Correct, which is why until it is known either through correct data or via DNA analysis (I don't know if the markers are out there yet..), imports should be kept seperate. This is true because visual determinations of the identity of animals should be treated as suspect (As has been noted elsewhere..) 




Rain_Frog said:


> Such is the problem with a frog like Mantella ebenaui. We do NOT know if the ebenaui we have in captivity are the southern or northern population. We assume that they're the northern population. The southern population of this mantella is betsileo. The species was formerly betsileo as a whole, but a few years ago they split the species into two after a DNA analysis. And they're nearly impossible to tell apart..


This is why until you can get them identified via DNA analysis, they should be maintained by isolated imports as it is unlikely you will get both populations within a single export/import. 
As for prior imports that might have been mixed they can be kept as thier own seperate population until analysis has been performed to determine species or hybrid origin. 



Rain_Frog said:


> Recently, I asked a mantella researcher if blushing mantella is a different species or a different morph of expectata. While we do not have locale data, the researcher told me that they are probably the Isalo Massif morph of expectata.


Does that equate to a exact identification or a best guess scenario? Are you willing to potentially intergrade your animals based on a best guess? 



Rain_Frog said:


> And some frogs hybridize freely in the wild-- and there are "intermediate zones" where frogs look in between.


Doug, the way this last sentence is phrased looks like you are saying all because there are some species that intergrade in the wild, this is okay for all species in captivity...is that what you really mean to say? 

Along those lines, I'm not sure what you were trying to get out of your post... how do your statements support attempting to maintain long-term viability of various morphs/and or species in captivity? 

Ed


----------



## samual989

blah blah blah no one here is gonna save the world of dart frogs & no one person is going to end the world of dart frogs go attack the logging, coffee, cocoa, opium, & all the other industries that are the real threat not hobbyists we have so little impact on the world as a whole so get off your armageddon high horses & for those of you who are from america just remember this is a free country so save the strains or hybrid them but all he wanted was pictures not your rederick propaganda bullsh,, i personally do not hybridize my tropical fish but parrots have been hybriding for a very long time so it varies by what i want ,not what is accepted be a leader do not follow the path of their self rightousness... be free & just chill while doin whatever makes you happy in this world... as to this thread you guys have butchered it & the admin. should have stopped you guys because your comments do not pertain to pictures of hybrids.. i will not come back to this thread and i find some of you veterans to be very rude, i am absolutly sure you know more about dart frogs but razing someone for what he wanted as a thread is not at all acceptable for a good community... i know tropical fish like the back of my hand i can give you a detailed list of species i have successfully bred & reared ... i have 24 yrs exp. but i would not hate someone or talk down to someone if they do hybridizing. i just acquire pure strains because i know how... i dont worry about un educated buyers or sellers. letssss see some pictures please!!!! no more blah blah cry cry ... tieing yourself to a tree dont work no more guys because big business will bury you with the tree and not think twice, do any of you even drink shade grown coffee if not then u are part of the poison dart frog problem .... educate, communicate, & pro-create lol sorry so big of post im done ... PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL


----------



## McBobs

samual989 said:


> blah blah blah no one here is gonna save the world of dart frogs & no one person is going to end the world of dart frogs go attack the logging, coffee, cocoa, opium, & all the other industries that are the real threat not hobbyists we have so little impact on the world as a whole so get off your armageddon high horses & for those of you who are from america just remember this is a free country so save the strains or hybrid them but all he wanted was pictures not your rederick propaganda bullsh,, i personally do not hybridize my tropical fish but parrots have been hybriding for a very long time so it varies by what i want ,not what is accepted be a leader do not follow the path of their self rightousness... be free & just chill while doin whatever makes you happy in this world... as to this thread you guys have butchered it & the admin. should have stopped you guys because your comments do not pertain to pictures of hybrids.. i will not come back to this thread and i find some of you veterans to be very rude, i am absolutly sure you know more about dart frogs but razing someone for what he wanted as a thread is not at all acceptable for a good community... i know tropical fish like the back of my hand i can give you a detailed list of species i have successfully bred & reared ... i have 24 yrs exp. but i would not hate someone or talk down to someone if they do hybridizing. i just acquire pure strains because i know how... i dont worry about un educated buyers or sellers. letssss see some pictures please!!!! no more blah blah cry cry ... tieing yourself to a tree dont work no more guys because big business will bury you with the tree and not think twice, do any of you even drink shade grown coffee if not then u are part of the poison dart frog problem .... educate, communicate, & pro-create lol sorry so big of post im done ... PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL



This is probably the most worthless post in this entire thread. 

The name of the thread is HYBRIDS? - Pics and *Questions*

Someone asks a question and the question is answered. There are SOOOOO many threads pertaining to this particular topic that it has been absolutely beaten into the ground. Maybe some of the "veterans" have come off as rude, but your know it all stance in your latest contribution to this thread makes you no better than anyone else. 

There are no pictures of hybridized poison dart frogs because most people have so much work into keeping frogs somewhat true to what nature has provided. Sure there will always be hybridized frogs and crossed lines, but that can never be avoided 100%. 

*YOU* my friend, have done absolutely NOTHING to further this discussion and if you have nothing helpful to bring to the table, then keep it to yourself. 

-Matt


----------



## Philsuma

Yep, that troll post was horrible.....the unfortunate byproduct of the loss of the reputation system.

Where's that red hat when you need it now????


----------



## jubjub47

Here's another example of dart frogs being compared to the fish hobby and now also to parrots. I don't understand why these always have to be compared when they really aren't all that similar. I would also like ask, who says that what they are doing in the fish hobby is right? We don't have to follow what is being done with fish. I for one am not in favor of keeping glo darts(as interesting as those could be). There is so much wrong with the fish hobby that doesn't need to migrate over. Same can be said for what has gone on with ball pythons and leopard geckos. I bet there are people who work extensively with those two animals that don't have a clue what a wild specimen looks like and that is a sad thing.


----------



## Ed

jubjub47 said:


> Here's another example of dart frogs being compared to the fish hobby and now also to parrots. .


It was hard to tell but I think he was reffering to the three way hybrids that created the parrot cichlids.. For a number of years, they were pretty much all infertile and then some fertile ones were discovered and used as the founder stock.. 

Ed


----------



## jubjub47

Ed said:


> It was hard to tell but I think he was reffering to the three way hybrids that created the parrot cichlids.. For a number of years, they were pretty much all infertile and then some fertile ones were discovered and used as the founder stock..
> 
> Ed


Yeah, guess he could be talking about parrots. If that's the case it also falls into what I was referring to with the fish hobby that I personally don't want to see with dart frogs.


----------



## sports_doc

Philsuma said:


> Yep, that troll post was horrible.....the unfortunate byproduct of the loss of the reputation system.
> 
> Where's that red hat when you need it now????


And the responses that follow just as 'horrible' 

Lets try and *report* posts people....click the little ! icon and send the mod team a note.....

....before you waste more 'precious' thread space complaining about someones complaining post 

Removal of the little 'red thingy' doesnt condone a free for all.


----------



## ElfGoneBad

I have a question, please don't chew me out as I am only curious. Is there a difference if hybrids are bred personally as opposed to commercially?

I have none yet, and am not going to breed hybrids. I am simply curious..


----------



## skylsdale

ElfGoneBad said:


> I have a question, please don't chew me out as I am only curious. Is there a difference if hybrids are bred personally as opposed to commercially?
> 
> I have none yet, and am not going to breed hybrids. I am simply curious..


_One_ of the problems, regardless of whether it's done personally or commercially, is when they are dispersed into the hobby at large. They are most often not labeled as being hybrids and can then be bred with frogs of actual known locality/provenance, etc...watering down and decreasing the already minimal viable captive genetic material currently present in the hobby. When done commercially, it just happens in greater doses than personally.


----------



## Energy

Philsuma said:


> Yep, that troll post was horrible.....the unfortunate byproduct of the loss of the reputation system.
> 
> Where's that red hat when you need it now????



Gone- Thank goodness! I'm glad the rep system is done -only because I believe in freedom of speech-without worry of silent retribution.


Back on topic- Has there been any pictures posted or are we scaring away anyway that may have some? If this is the case then maybe we as a "frogging" community need to do a little self moderation.

We can express our opinions either way but also need to do so with some moderation. The experts and the more experienced 'froggers" can be intimidating.


----------



## jgibeau

I sure hope I am never lumped into that "intimidating" category!!!


----------



## Philsuma

Hi there Energy,

Yep...the rep system is gone. I was one of the people that helped do away with it. There were too many people complaining that people were "hiding behind it" or something to that effect and it was forever the crutch of the whiners.

I am in favour of little to NO moderation. I think that unless someone brings up a comparison to Hitler or distains someone's mother......let the people work it out. I have yet to see a post on this board that is so truly horrible that I would be offended. 

Now then.....you're not intimidated by moi are you? 

I have some time....so...what would you like to discuss about Hybrids?


----------



## ErickG

I wouldnt worry about the "expert" / more experienced folks on here. Just ask away. You'll get the occasional keyboard muscle but that's all it is. Best thing to know is that we're all in it for the same thing.


----------



## Philsuma

ErickG said:


> Best thing to know is that we're all in it for the same thing.


well...actually.....we aren't, Eric.This thread represents an ethics / moral issue that some members are definately split on....


----------



## ErickG

My point is, hybrid or not, we're all about keeping dart frogs.


----------



## Energy

Hi all- I am not referring to anyone specifically but to the overall opinion and how strongly it is voiced on this board. It can be intimidating- with that said I have freely expressed interest in collecting hybrid frogs for my system. In the fish world- Hybrids are prized and that is the world I also come from. I am not interested in rebreeding these but giving them a home and/or safe haven. It seems that some people despise these animals to the point of culling them rather than letting them live out there lives. "A person is a person no matter how small". A frog is no different - no matter how hybrid it is. If anyone has some please contact me as I would be interested in some.

They are welcome at my place.


----------



## thedude

Energy said:


> Hi all- I am not referring to anyone specifically but to the overall opinion and how strongly it is voiced on this board. It can be intimidating- with that said I have freely expressed interest in collecting hybrid frogs for my system. In the fish world- Hybrids are prized and that is the world I also come from. I am not interested in rebreeding these but giving them a home and/or safe haven. It seems that some people despise these animals to the point of culling them rather than letting them live out there lives. "A person is a person no matter how small". A frog is no different - no matter how hybrid it is. If anyone has some please contact me as I would be interested in some.
> 
> They are welcome at my place.


the problem with what you just asked is that someone might now see a demand for them and breed them to sell you. i think a better way for you to do it would be to let people know that if they have some they dont want, you will take them for free. therefore, they dont make money off of making/selling hybrids.


----------



## Philsuma

Energy said:


> It seems that some people despise these animals to the point of culling them rather than letting them live out there lives.


No one despises any frog, I assure you. The majority of people love them so much, that they would raise a deficient frog or one with SLS instead of culling it - which is a whole other health related topic.

There was one advocate of "mixing" that was culling the eggs....maybe that's what you are thinking of? Do you think that the egg has a right to live?

Mixed species vivs and hybrid frog transfer are still two seperate issues.


----------



## Energy

thedude said:


> the problem with what you just asked is that someone might now see a demand for them and breed them to sell you. i think a better way for you to do it would be to let people know that if they have some they dont want, you will take them for free. therefore, they dont make money off of making/selling hybrids.


OK good point and pretty much what I meant- thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## ZEW

OK, first of all I did not read all 24 pages of this post so I am sorry if any of this is repetitive.

I am mostly a reptile guy and I deal with and breed a lot of locality specific colubrids. If any of you guys think that darts have it bad you have another think coming. As a whole the amphibian comunity has done a much better job about not hybridizing too many animals. This does not mean that people can get complacent and trustworthy.

If you think that hybrid darts are not out there, (in large numbers) you are mistaken. If you are a purist then the responsibility is on YOU to make sure that you know where your frogs come from. You need to buy from reputable breeders who keep good records. As soon as an animal becomes available to the public you really never know what you are going to get anymore. Some people will always hybridize. You cannot control what they do. You can only control the animals that you produce.

If I want some locality specific graybands (kingsnakes), I don't go check out the fauna classifieds. I go to the handfull of breeders who collect their own stock, have photos of every animal in the bloodline, ect. My point is that if you think that you will be able to keep the US frog market "pure" (whatever that means) by ostrasizing owners of hybrids on this forum I believe it is not possible. There is always going to be curious uninformed people out there who breed whatever they want just to see what happens. They may or may not keep records or notify the people who buy the animals. The VAST majority of dart frog owners are not on this forum.

I do not believe that posting pictures of hybrids will make this situation any worse. In fact it would be great to see what hybrids look like so we can all discern them more obviously when we do come across them.

Flame suit on...


----------



## Alfy111

Obviously this topic would start an over twenty page long thread.. lol. 

So here is my take: I understand how many people put time and effort into the hobby which is why they want to conserve the species. Great. Its probably a good idea, even though there is about a 100 percent chance these species will never be re released into the wild. 

I also understand how many people want to hybridize to create new morphs, cool color patterns, and just for the purpose of experimenting. This IMO is okay as long as the person can be honest about it. With all of the bashing that occurs on the board as soon as you say the word HYBRID, people are actually making the chances that someone will pass of a hybrid as an actual morph GO UP. 

What we don't realize is that most of the "morphs" of tinctorious and some of the thumbnails are natural hybrids themselves. Yes, like Ed has pointed out, there needs to be some kind of DNA analysis. Well i found this article in which scientists have started to conduct this analysis on wild specimens. GUESS WHAT THEY FOUND. They concluded one of their specimens from nature was a hybrid: 

"Populations of D. reticulatus and a specimen of unknown species status (possibly a hybrid between D. reticulatus and D. duellmani) fall into a single strongly supported clade"

They also suggest that more DNA testing needs to be done because they feel that other species such as variablis and amazonicus may be hybrids of species such as the ventrimaculus:

"We believe that further research (particularly hybridization studies) is warranted before a conclusion on the species status of D.variabilis is reached. D. amazonicus (Schulte, 1999) also appears closely related to a population of D. ventrimaculatus from Allpahuayo, Peru."

So listen, before you bash the idea of hybrids, open your mind to the fact that most of the species and morphs we own may actually be natural hybrids. Just look at how similar some of the tinctorious morphs look to each other. It should atleast raise a question in your mind, hopefully a question that will later be answered by further DNA testing. 

HERE IS THE ARTICLE LINK: 
http://core.ecu.edu/biol/summersk/s...ematics and phylogeography of Dendrobates.pdf

So IMO hybridize all you want but please make sure to let others know the honest truth about your frogs. Because, like I said earlier, many people put a large effort into trying to conserve bloodlines.


----------



## zBrinks

I just read the full article, and did not gather that they thought most species/localities studied were hybrids. They could not identify the species of one individual, and alluded that it may possibly be a hybrid (which is possible, but does not mean one hybridization event will lead to the formation of a new species/population). Also, the reference to more "hybridization studies are needed" I believe refers to a technique to gauge the similarity between DNA samples, known as DNA-DNA hybridization (see DNA-DNA hybridization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). 

The only mention of any D. tinctorius was in reference to D. leucomelas being used as an outgroup. 

The paper seems to support the existence of geographical barriers, both past and present, that contribute to speciation, and to refute some theories, such as riverine barriers and forest refuges. I could not find were they suggested that hybridization of frogs lead to the development of new species. 

It's a good paper, thanks for posting the link


----------



## Alfy111

I was just pointing out that they had *suggested* the idea of a naturally occurring hybrid. 

They also suggest natural hybridization again when they are talking about variablis. 

"Caldwell and Myers (1990) raised several questions
about the organization of the D. ventrimaculatus group,
particularly concerning the taxonomic status of D.
variabilis. They argued that it is unclear whether D.
variabilis warrants specific status. Our analysis indicates
that D. variabilis from Tarapoto, Peru and D. ventrimaculatus
from Yurimaguas, Peru are more closely related
to each other than they are to D. ventrimaculatus
from Pompeya, Ecuador (Figs. 3–5). This is consistent
with the hypothesis that D. variabilis is a color and
pattern variant of D. ventrimaculatus."

Then they go on to say:

"We believe that further
research (particularly hybridization studies) is warranted
before a conclusion on the species status of D.
variabilis is reached. D. amazonicus (Schulte, 1999) also
appears closely related to a population of D. ventrimaculatus
from Allpahuayo, Peru."

Im not so sure they are talking about the DNA- DNA hybridization because they say that:

"Critics argue that the technique is inaccurate for comparison of closely related species, as any attempt to measure differences between orthologous sequences between organisms is overwhelmed by the hybridization of paralogous sequences within an organism's genome."

SInce they stated they are closely related species I'm not sure if this procedure would be accurate.

And this is where they suggest that geographic barriers and genetic differentiation don't account for all of the speciation (creation of new species):

"The evidence
presented here for an association between genetic divergence
and the presence of geographic barriers does
not provide an explanation for multiple speciation
events or for high levels of species diversity in northwestern
Amazonia."

You are correct though, never does it directly bring up hybridization, but it certainly opens the idea by directly stating that there are other factors besides geographic barriers and genetic divergence that influence speciation.

And thank you, I thought it was a pretty good article too.


----------



## james67

ZEW said:


> OK, first of all I did not read all 24 pages of this post so I am sorry if any of this is repetitive.
> 
> I am mostly a reptile guy and I deal with and breed a lot of locality specific colubrids. If any of you guys think that darts have it bad you have another think coming. As a whole the amphibian comunity has done a much better job about not hybridizing too many animals. This does not mean that people can get complacent and trustworthy.
> 
> If you think that hybrid darts are not out there, (in large numbers) you are mistaken. If you are a purist then the responsibility is on YOU to make sure that you know where your frogs come from. You need to buy from reputable breeders who keep good records. As soon as an animal becomes available to the public you really never know what you are going to get anymore. Some people will always hybridize. You cannot control what they do. You can only control the animals that you produce.
> 
> If I want some locality specific graybands (kingsnakes), I don't go check out the fauna classifieds. I go to the handfull of breeders who collect their own stock, have photos of every animal in the bloodline, ect. My point is that if you think that you will be able to keep the US frog market "pure" (whatever that means) by ostrasizing owners of hybrids on this forum I believe it is not possible. There is always going to be curious uninformed people out there who breed whatever they want just to see what happens. They may or may not keep records or notify the people who buy the animals. The VAST majority of dart frog owners are not on this forum.
> 
> I do not believe that posting pictures of hybrids will make this situation any worse. In fact it would be great to see what hybrids look like so we can all discern them more obviously when we do come across them.
> 
> Flame suit on...


i'll just point out one VITAL difference that you failed to mention, which is that many of the animals that are represented now may never be collected again for many reasons, and those of us who breed these animals need the lines to remain pure because we cant just go to "breeders who collect their own stock, have photos of every animal in the bloodline, ect. ". because that doesnt really exist in this hobby (there are a handful)

another important thing to remember is that the lifespan of these animals is considerably long (up to 25 years) and the individuals who want to mix morphs (IMO) tend to be short lived in the hobby meaning that they will need to sell or euthanize the animals. the fear is that these individuals may also see no wrong in passing these animals on to others as something they arent in an attempt to recoup money etc. 

james


----------



## thedude

Alfy111 said:


> Obviously this topic would start an over twenty page long thread.. lol.
> 
> So here is my take: I understand how many people put time and effort into the hobby which is why they want to conserve the species. Great. Its probably a good idea, even though there is about a 100 percent chance these species will never be re released into the wild.
> 
> I also understand how many people want to hybridize to create new morphs, cool color patterns, and just for the purpose of experimenting. This IMO is okay as long as the person can be honest about it. With all of the bashing that occurs on the board as soon as you say the word HYBRID, people are actually making the chances that someone will pass of a hybrid as an actual morph GO UP.
> 
> What we don't realize is that most of the "morphs" of tinctorious and some of the thumbnails are natural hybrids themselves. Yes, like Ed has pointed out, there needs to be some kind of DNA analysis. Well i found this article in which scientists have started to conduct this analysis on wild specimens. GUESS WHAT THEY FOUND. They concluded one of their specimens from nature was a hybrid:
> 
> "Populations of D. reticulatus and a specimen of unknown species status (possibly a hybrid between D. reticulatus and D. duellmani) fall into a single strongly supported clade"
> 
> They also suggest that more DNA testing needs to be done because they feel that other species such as variablis and amazonicus may be hybrids of species such as the ventrimaculus:
> 
> "We believe that further research (particularly hybridization studies) is warranted before a conclusion on the species status of D.variabilis is reached. D. amazonicus (Schulte, 1999) also appears closely related to a population of D. ventrimaculatus from Allpahuayo, Peru."
> 
> So listen, before you bash the idea of hybrids, open your mind to the fact that most of the species and morphs we own may actually be natural hybrids. Just look at how similar some of the tinctorious morphs look to each other. It should atleast raise a question in your mind, hopefully a question that will later be answered by further DNA testing.
> 
> HERE IS THE ARTICLE LINK:
> http://core.ecu.edu/biol/summersk/s...ematics and phylogeography of Dendrobates.pdf
> 
> So IMO hybridize all you want but please make sure to let others know the honest truth about your frogs. Because, like I said earlier, many people put a large effort into trying to conserve bloodlines.


just because there MIGHT be natural hybrids in nature doesnt mean we should be doing it with whatever we want in the hobby. if 2 types of frogs TYPICALLY interbreed in nature then it would be ok, but we dont know of that happening yet. if someone made a new morph of tinctorius and started selling it, they couldnt say "its ok, this might happen in nature" because the key word is still MIGHT. 


also, 
james very nice. you make very good points.


----------



## ZEW

james67 said:


> i'll just point out one VITAL difference that you failed to mention, which is that many of the animals that are represented now may never be collected again for many reasons, and those of us who breed these animals need the lines to remain pure because we cant just go to "breeders who collect their own stock, have photos of every animal in the bloodline, ect. ". because that doesnt really exist in this hobby (there are a handful)
> 
> another important thing to remember is that the lifespan of these animals is considerably long (up to 25 years) and the individuals who want to mix morphs (IMO) tend to be short lived in the hobby meaning that they will need to sell or euthanize the animals. the fear is that these individuals may also see no wrong in passing these animals on to others as something they arent in an attempt to recoup money etc.
> 
> james


I don't believe that changes anything I said. Snakes are just as long lived. And I wasn't suggesting that I only buy CB from from wild caught parents. My point is that their are trustworthy people out there and there are not. Its all on you how careful you want to be, but hybrids are out there, they always are and they always will be. I for one would like to see what they look like so that next time I am at a show and see a frog that looks a little funny, I have a better chance of identifying it as a hybrid instead of just an unusual variant.

As far as hybrids in nature... Of course it happens. It happens to just about all species on a fairly frequent basis. Very few species exist in a vacuum and most have ranges that overlap with similar enough species to occasionally interbreed. 

What does this really mean though? The definition of a species used to be any animals that could successfully interbreed. Now we know that this is not the only factor that must be considered. But if hybridizing in the wild was REALLY COMMON, than the two species would merge into one species. This happens a lot too and is called an intergrade zone where two populations meet. That may in fact be a trigger for speciation, and it is not impossible that historic events like this are what created some of todays dart frog species or subspecies. However, the fact that physical and behavioral differences remain, is evidence that hybridization is at best an occassional event or at least locally restricted. There is no way to justify creating captive hybrids by saying that it happens in the wild unless you know for a fact that it does REGULARLY occur. This is not currently the case with our darts. Even then, a man made hybrid is not the same as a wild intergrade. If you want one of those hybrids then go find the real thing! 

The only reason to hybridize is to see what cool looking thing pops out. Some people are that curious and don't care about the negative side effects. Again, you are not going to prevent this by disallowing posts on this forum.


----------



## frogparty

Its my understanding that in the case of many darts the opposite of an integrade zone is the case. 
Using Lampropeltis getula as an example for integrade zones, Im well aware that there are many areas where different populations (subspecies) form an integrade zone.

I think isolation from other populations is actually a more common factor in the development of the different morphs we see in regards to darts, especially tinctorius. Many exist in isolated pockets of rainforest cut off from other populations by natural barriers which prevent the influx of new genetic material from other populations. I think that this, rather than integrade zones is a bigger push towards speciation. 

Im not saying therer are not any "integrade" areas, and in fact I wouldn't be at all suprised. I also wouldn't be a bit suprised if such tinc morphs as Matecho Regina and Giant Orange were all part of a larger more diverse population, perhaps containing one or several integrade zones. 

I think the point you make about buying from respected sources is great. We have a program called THE AMPHIBIAN STUART NETWORK that can be used to track bloodlines, import dates, specific collection locales etc to help people truly interested in genetic preservation. The problem we as a hobby face isd that so many of our lines in circulation lack this information, making use of ASN difficult. 

I know there are people in many aspects of the exotic animal hobby who are dedicated to preserving species as is and who frown upon hybridization, or even crossing same species different morph animals. You are a good example, and I see similar attitudes on arachnoboard as well. 

Are you willing to pay more for an animal whose lineage you can be sure of? Probably. in the end this may be the trend with this hobby as well, and even though we on the DB aernt representing the hobby as a whole, at least we can voice our opinion(thats what the internet is for afterall) that we would like to keep things from getting that bad to where we HAVE to go to such exhorbitant lengths to make sure we are actually getting what we pay for.


----------



## tasteslikechicken

A couple of things-

Has anyone evaluated how long each "species" we know currently has been a species in the wild? There may be a natural periodic interbreeding which occurs in the wild causing both integration and separation/speciation which is normal. Human factors cause this normal process to stop and thus halt the species as they are (namely deforestation leading to destruction of habitat and/or geographical barriers preventing intermixing).

Before you freak out- I am not saying that because this intermixing might be or have at one point been natural or important that we should have free license to make random interbreeding choices.

Basically it might have been normal, or even nescessary for groups of frogs to mix periodically to introduce genetic variety. If the new genes were beneficial, the traits stayed and/or aided to prevent problems with genetic homogenicity in the population.

There are many of examples of how other animals actively seek new genetic material- for example baboon troops where females will risk death to mate with a male outside of the group, even if by appearances he is less ideal then the male leading her troop. The outsider male is appealing because he is novel.

We have done a lot to dogs in a relatively short period of time and a lot of the breeds we have created suffer from issues directly related to how we have made them. "Typey" or "Typeyness" refers to animals that have the desired traits to an extreme degree such that even though they meet the standard, they are too exaggerated. In some breeds, for example Neopolatian mastiffs there is a common, but not discussed practice to breed English mastiffs into the the stock periodically in order to maintain the integrity of breed standard as a whole. Otherwise the dogs get too gangly, too wrinkly, etc. These puppies are and have been "ghosted" into the lines for years. Largely still a European breed and only recently AKC, it will be interesting to see what happens to them when they are kept "pure."

Similarly, English Bulldogs have tons of problems. There are a few people now initiating breeding programs to make dogs that are 1/4 pug 3/4 bulldog. These dogs lack the exaggerated "typeyness" of many current bulldogs, but are otherwise indistinguishable. So far their health problems are minimal and they experience a significantly longer lifespan.

Anyway- depending on how things go (genetic mutations are a roll of the dice) the hobby could find itself needing to out-cross at some point. There may be a problem brewing that we're unaware of. Even if you are breeding pure lines to one another, you are breeding for one thing- more frogs. You're not breeding for any level of fitness. In the wild most tadpoles wouldn't survive, but most of ours do. There is no selection for anything (positive or negative) affecting the health of the frog.

just some thoughts


----------



## Philsuma

ZEW said:


> Again, you are not going to prevent this by disallowing posts on this forum.


NOBODY has EVER disallowed any post on hybrids......freedom of speech is still pretty strong here.

There ARE many strong opinions against hybrids from MANY advanced and experienced hobbyists though. A lot of the new guys look to certain people for good advice and guidence. In the end....they are solely going to be left with:

" I have read a lot of posts by "peanut butter guy" and I think his reasoning sux....

or

" Gee......that "Mike" guy is on the ball, I like totally get what he's putting down, in fact, I want to be just like him when I grow up"

Pretty simple stuff actually. Now that the rep system is gone, please don't whine and manufacture yet another crutch on why the "dendroboard frog Gods are censoring all the many many hybrid postings and the thousands of people that enjoy making them"


----------



## pl259

frogparty said:


> ... We have a program called THE AMPHIBIAN STUART NETWORK that can be used to track bloodlines,...


LOL. Last time I checked Stu didn't do amphibians!

Just teasing dude..."STEWARD"



Courtesy of your friendly spelling police(and because I saw it before Scott did)


----------



## frogparty

woops. Thats what I get for facebooking someone named stuart while on the DB at the same time. DAMN YOU MULTI TAB BROWSING


----------



## edwardsatc

Philsuma said:


> ......freedom of speech is still pretty strong here.


Really?:

"In an effort to avoid abuse new user posts will be reviewed before they show on the site. Normally this happens rather fast and if you have any questions please email [email protected]"

If I had a nickle for every post that has been shut down or thread that has been locked over the past few years, I'd be sipping from little umbrella drinks and enjoying the view from my new place in Costa Rica right now.


----------



## Catfur

edwardsatc said:


> Really?:
> 
> "In an effort to avoid abuse new user posts will be reviewed before they show on the site. Normally this happens rather fast and if you have any questions please email [email protected]"


This is an anti-spam measure, not an anti-speech, or anti-idiot measure.


----------



## ZEW

Philsuma said:


> NOBODY has EVER disallowed any post on hybrids......freedom of speech is still pretty strong here.
> 
> There ARE many strong opinions against hybrids from MANY advanced and experienced hobbyists though. A lot of the new guys look to certain people for good advice and guidence. In the end....they are solely going to be left with:
> 
> " I have read a lot of posts by "peanut butter guy" and I think his reasoning sux....
> 
> or
> 
> " Gee......that "Mike" guy is on the ball, I like totally get what he's putting down, in fact, I want to be just like him when I grow up"
> 
> Pretty simple stuff actually. Now that the rep system is gone, please don't whine and manufacture yet another crutch on why the "dendroboard frog Gods are censoring all the many many hybrid postings and the thousands of people that enjoy making them"


Disallowed may be the wrong word.

But this post started as a request for pictures of hybrids and I have yet to see one. Something tells me its not because they aren't out there.


----------



## Philsuma

ZEW said:


> Disallowed may be the wrong word.
> 
> But this post started as a request for pictures of hybrids and I have yet to see one. Something tells me its not because they aren't out there.


My opinion?

There really aren't _that_ many....in the U.S at least. 

Europe......more.


----------



## jubjub47

ZEW said:


> Disallowed may be the wrong word.
> 
> But this post started as a request for pictures of hybrids and I have yet to see one. Something tells me its not because they aren't out there.


You clearly haven't read the thread if you haven't seen any pics. I posted a link to some hybrids on the very first page. And just to clarify, I don't support hybrids.


----------



## RedEyeTroyFrog

Zew, I've started a couple threads about my crossbreeds, and people were upset about them being in numerous posts, so thats why I did not post pics in this thread. if you want to see some pics...go here

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/38335-crossbreeds-update.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/38798-nice-pic.html


----------



## Ed

Alfy111 said:


> What we don't realize is that most of the "morphs" of tinctorious and some of the thumbnails are natural hybrids themselves. Yes, like Ed has pointed out, there needs to be some kind of DNA analysis. Well i found this article in which scientists have started to conduct this analysis on wild specimens. GUESS WHAT THEY FOUND. They concluded one of their specimens from nature was a hybrid:


Actually there is nothing in the literature despite DNA analysis being performed on them that indicates that any of the naturally occuring tinctorius are hybrids. Those are all patterns that developed in response to the pressures at that locality. The localities have been isolated for a signficant period of time now. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Alfy111 said:


> I was just pointing out that they had *suggested* the idea of a naturally occurring hybrid.
> 
> They also suggest natural hybridization again when they are talking about variablis.
> 
> "Caldwell and Myers (1990) raised several questions about the organization of the D. ventrimaculatus group, particularly concerning the taxonomic status of D.
> variabilis. They argued that it is unclear whether D. variabilis warrants specific status. Our analysis indicates that D. variabilis from Tarapoto, Peru and D. ventrimaculatus
> from Yurimaguas, Peru are more closely related to each other than they are to D. ventrimaculatus from Pompeya, Ecuador (Figs. 3–5). This is consistent
> with the hypothesis that D. variabilis is a color and pattern variant of D. ventrimaculatus."
> 
> Then they go on to say:
> 
> "We believe that further research (particularly hybridization studies) is warranted
> before a conclusion on the species status of D. variabilis is reached. D. amazonicus (Schulte, 1999) also appears closely related to a population of D. ventrimaculatus
> from Allpahuayo, Peru."
> 
> Im not so sure they are talking about the DNA- DNA hybridization because they say that:
> 
> "Critics argue that the technique is inaccurate for comparison of closely related species, as any attempt to measure differences between orthologous sequences between organisms is overwhelmed by the hybridization of paralogous sequences within an organism's genome."
> 
> SInce they stated they are closely related species I'm not sure if this procedure would be accurate.
> 
> And this is where they suggest that geographic barriers and genetic differentiation don't account for all of the speciation (creation of new species):
> 
> "The evidence presented here for an association between genetic divergence
> and the presence of geographic barriers does not provide an explanation for multiple speciation events or for high levels of species diversity in northwestern
> Amazonia."
> 
> You are correct though, never does it directly bring up hybridization, but it certainly opens the idea by directly stating that there are other factors besides geographic barriers and genetic divergence that influence speciation.
> 
> And thank you, I thought it was a pretty good article too.



1) They are referring to DNA hybridization... the problem is that there may not be sufficient divergence in the markers if the species are closely related. 
2) the argument that it is a morph and not a species does not in any way support the hybrid arguement
3) the multiple speciation event also does not support the hybridization argument. 

There is a lot of data out there on the effects of naturally occuring hybrids in anurans... and in the vast majority of cases, they are lone isolated incidents that even if fertile do not go on to reproduce because if they are males, the differences in thier calls is sufficient to render them "unfit" to females of each species and hybrid females often have a hard time orienting on a male as they are programmed to look for a different call. There are a couple of exceptions like Rana esculenta but that is very much the exception to the rule. 

Ed


----------



## Alfy111

Ed said:


> There is a lot of data out there on the effects of naturally occuring hybrids in anurans... and in the vast majority of cases, they are lone isolated incidents that even if fertile do not go on to reproduce because if they are males, the differences in thier calls is sufficient to render them "unfit" to females of each species and hybrid females often have a hard time orienting on a male as they are programmed to look for a different call. There are a couple of exceptions like Rana esculenta but that is very much the exception to the rule.
> 
> Ed


Thank you for pointing all of that out, and I appreciate all of the information you're able to provide. You clearly know your stuff. I also came across another study in which they crossed many color morphs of the pumilio and produced viable offspring. My question to you then is how do we know this isn't happening in the wild, and this isnt why we have so many different color variations and keep discovering more and more? 

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Also, why is it that some hobbyists consider green footed leucs a complete different morph and get upset when they are mixed with standard leucs? And why are there over 10 different morphs of E. Anthonyi? Im just wondering if we are actually crossing different morphs all the time in the hobby? It sounds like a legitimate concept that "hybrids" have been made since the hobby originated and continue to be made unknowingly.


----------



## Alfy111

and here is another perfect example of natural hybridization. In this case frog A crossed with frog B to produce frog C. frog C exists, is discovered to be less viable, so frog A breaks off from the entire population to evolve into a different species that will only breed with its own kind. but still at teh end of the day, frog A, frog B, frog C, and NOW frog D all exist. Thats 4 different "species" (i guess u can call them that) that started out as just 2. 

Wildlife Extra News - Australian frogs create new species in record time


----------



## thedude

Alfy111 said:


> Thank you for pointing all of that out, and I appreciate all of the information you're able to provide. You clearly know your stuff. I also came across another study in which they crossed many color morphs of the pumilio and produced viable offspring. My question to you then is how do we know this isn't happening in the wild, and this isnt why we have so many different color variations and keep discovering more and more?
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> Also, why is it that some hobbyists consider green footed leucs a complete different morph and get upset when they are mixed with standard leucs? And why are there over 10 different morphs of E. Anthonyi? Im just wondering if we are actually crossing different morphs all the time in the hobby? It sounds like a legitimate concept that "hybrids" have been made since the hobby originated and continue to be made unknowingly.


as far as the pumilio go, some of them are on isolated islands so they obviously arent crossing. and with the mainland populations, some of them are also geographically isolated. for the most part, the reason why there are so many different colors and patterns is because these populations are isolated from eachother and have evolved differently and because they have a lot of variation. the different species of insects they eat could play a role as well. sometimes it might even be because certain females only want blue frogs, etc. we try and keep things pretty seperate when we dont know what it is. thats why we have "morphs" called Xcristobal06 and cauchero05 or what have you.

also, with the leucs, there is a difference between a hybrid and breeding for color traits. if we keep green foot leucs seperate and breed them without the other standards, they arent a hybrid, and could always be bred with standards and introduce those genes back into the captive population. whereas, a hybrid will always be a hybrid, the genes cant be bred back out. and most people keep them seperate because they think they are a different population. ive heard mixed results as to there origin, someone whose been around longer than me would have to answer that.


----------



## Alfy111

thedude said:


> as far as the pumilio go, some of them are on isolated islands so they obviously arent crossing. and with the mainland populations, some of them are also geographically isolated. for the most part, the reason why there are so many different colors and patterns is because these populations are isolated from eachother and have evolved differently and because they have a lot of variation. the different species of insects they eat could play a role as well. sometimes it might even be because certain females only want blue frogs, etc. we try and keep things pretty seperate when we dont know what it is. thats why we have "morphs" called Xcristobal06 and cauchero05 or what have you.
> 
> also, with the leucs, there is a difference between a hybrid and breeding for color traits. if we keep green foot leucs seperate and breed them without the other standards, they arent a hybrid, and could always be bred with standards and introduce those genes back into the captive population. whereas, a hybrid will always be a hybrid, the genes cant be bred back out. and most people keep them seperate because they think they are a different population. ive heard mixed results as to there origin, someone whose been around longer than me would have to answer that.


Eh.. all of this is extremely debatable. Greenfooted leucs are treated as an entirely different morph is some countries. On this board, crossing morphs is considered creating a hybrid. And a lot of geographic populations end up overlapping, like in the example i posted above your post. I also don't think that color variations come about just by isolation, i thnk there is probably something else behind it. The idea about the insects influencing the color would sound somewhat logical, but it definitely wouldnt influence patterns and is definitely a far stretch. I know a lot of animals get coloration from what they eat but I'm not sure if that can hold in this case.


----------



## ChrisK

Pumilio generally aren't sorted by color but by geographic location, people will keep orange bastis with yellow bastis etc, and check this thread out, these frogs are all uyama (I keep uyama also, and my pair definitely is nowhere near identical to each other): http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/me...pumilio-detail-pic-heavy.html?highlight=uyama


----------



## Ed

Alfy111 said:


> Thank you for pointing all of that out, and I appreciate all of the information you're able to provide. You clearly know your stuff. I also came across another study in which they crossed many color morphs of the pumilio and produced viable offspring. My question to you then is how do we know this isn't happening in the wild, and this isnt why we have so many different color variations and keep discovering more and more? .


There shouldn't be any surprise that the offspring were viable as this is not a hybrid (which is also why, they used the term crossbred (see Crossbreed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in the title). It depends on how the different populations are situated geographically. In most cases, the individual populations are isolated from one another and selection pressures from predation and female mate choice drove the developement of stable, population specific patterns and colors. If given enough time, this would eventually resulted in speciation. 





Alfy111 said:


> Also, why is it that some hobbyists consider green footed leucs a complete different morph and get upset when they are mixed with standard leucs? And why are there over 10 different morphs of E. Anthonyi? Im just wondering if we are actually crossing different morphs all the time in the hobby? It sounds like a legitimate concept that "hybrids" have been made since the hobby originated and continue to be made unknowingly.


If I remember correctly and there should be more than a few people to correct me if I get it wrong, the reason many hobbyists keep the two morphs seperate is because there have been a several importations of leucomelas that are probably from different localities and until the DNA work is done to show that they are or are not from seperate localities, then it is safer to keep them seperated. 

With respect to the tricolor/anthyoni complex, is because those are populations that not only differ in pattern geographically but may be from very different habitats. Basically the different morphs in captivity are from different localities that contain stable pattern variations. This is not uncommon and some of the most extreme examples are known in annual killifish... which the hobbyist who tend to keep them work to keep the populations pure as multiple populations of those interesting fish have gone extinct both in captivity and in the wild.. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Alfy111 said:


> and here is another perfect example of natural hybridization. In this case frog A crossed with frog B to produce frog C. frog C exists, is discovered to be less viable, so frog A breaks off from the entire population to evolve into a different species that will only breed with its own kind. but still at teh end of the day, frog A, frog B, frog C, and NOW frog D all exist. Thats 4 different "species" (i guess u can call them that) that started out as just 2.
> 
> Wildlife Extra News - Australian frogs create new species in record time


I think you should reread the article. The speciation event doesn't involve hybridization and the article did not make a claim for the hybrids to be thier own species. 

This effect is not unknown and can have an effect even within a current population. Some caudates can have difficulty in successfully courting females from populations that are too distant yet gene flow still occurs preventing them from total speciation... If the gene flow is ever disrupted, then speciation would probably occur... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Alfy111 said:


> Greenfooted leucs are treated as an entirely different morph is some countries. On this board, crossing morphs is considered creating a hybrid..


Only because people do not understand that it isn't a hybrid... Which if you read through a number of posts I have pointed out repeatedly... 



Alfy111 said:


> And a lot of geographic populations end up overlapping, like in the example i posted above your post. I also don't think that color variations come about just by isolation, i thnk there is probably something else behind it. The idea about the insects influencing the color would sound somewhat logical, but it definitely wouldnt influence patterns and is definitely a far stretch. I know a lot of animals get coloration from what they eat but I'm not sure if that can hold in this case.


Overlapping ranges on a map do not necessarily mean that the populations are in contact. This is a common misconception when people work with range maps. The populations are usually restricted to areas where they conditions are appropriate to that species with the area inbetween being a population sink (individuals of that species move into that area but do not breed and/or suffer heavy losses due to predation, disease, and/or enviromental conditions). This results in isolation of the populations which then allows for predation and mate choice to drive optimal patterns for that locality (which is also one of the driving factors between the species that mimic one another)... This effect is well known in a number of vertebrate species such as the annual killifish noted above... 


Ed


----------



## samual989

lol still no pics and moderate or not still no pics destroy this thread ,still fascists for controling opinion but its your board lol stay cool!! i am going to only breed crosses & flood the market now lol thanks for your blessings guys lol because one person can control a market...


----------



## ChrisK

Mind repeating that in English?


----------



## thedude

samual989 said:


> lol still no pics and moderate or not still no pics destroy this thread ,still fascists for controling opinion but its your board lol stay cool!! i am going to only breed crosses & flood the market now lol thanks for your blessings guys lol because one person can control a market...


whatever happened to reviewing new posts? was a mod on break for this one


----------



## pl259

thedude said:


> whatever happened to reviewing new posts? was a mod on break for this one



We're still working out some kinks, but it's coming.


----------



## jubjub47

samual989 said:


> lol still no pics and moderate or not still no pics destroy this thread ,still fascists for controling opinion but its your board lol stay cool!! i am going to only breed crosses & flood the market now lol thanks for your blessings guys lol because one person can control a market...


What happened to actually reading a thread and posting appropriately? This is just another of several posts saying that there have been no pics posted yet there are several links on the first page to pics. Julio even posted a link as the first reply! Come on people!


----------



## sports_doc

edwardsatc said:


> Really?:
> 
> If I had a nickle for every post that has been shut down or thread that has been locked over the past few years, I'd be sipping from little umbrella drinks and enjoying the view from my new place in Costa Rica right now.


No, you would actually have a couple of dollars and a bad attitude...


----------



## Enlightened Rogue

samual989 said:


> lol still no pics and moderate or not still no pics destroy this thread ,still fascists for controling opinion but its your board lol stay cool!! i am going to only breed crosses & flood the market now lol thanks for your blessings guys lol because one person can control a market...


There are times I really miss the Rep. System.

John


----------



## Marty71

Don't think we need a rep system to gage the value of that post. Maybe someday he'll be able to contrinute once he makes it out of junior high.


----------



## Philsuma

sports_doc said:


> No, you would actually have a couple of dollars and a bad attitude...


Tsk Tsk Shawn......such a statement.... and from a _Mod_. 

Say after me...."be part of the solution, not the problem".


----------



## Enlightened Rogue

Marty71 said:


> Don't think we need a rep system to gage the value of that post. Maybe someday he'll be able to contrinute once he makes it out of junior high.


Yea, you`re right.
This crap happens every time with these threads.

John


----------



## Ed

Don't feed the troll.. In the future simply click on the little report post link in the top right of the post and report the troll. That way they will hopefully slowly accumulate enough infractions to get themselves a "time out" for being a bad little child.. 

Ed


----------



## frogparty

I was unaware I could do that...thanks Ed


----------



## sports_doc

Philsuma said:


> Tsk Tsk Shawn......such a statement.... and from a _Mod_.
> 
> Say after me...."be part of the solution, not the problem".


Well....honestly Phil we all know this thread is junk at this point, so the comment is really directed toward dismissing the notion that somehow _volunteer_ moderators on a frog site have the time and desire to _stifle freedom of speech_ by "culling or shutting down posts".

Truly in the past 2 years I've locked a mind boggling total of 3 threads...all deserving so. And the team generally talks these things over 'off public' before decisions are made.

No one is going to get rich collecting nickels off us , and fueling the incorrect assumption that we are banning online conversation or someones personal freedoms is BS. That kind of insinuation isnt needed on this frog forum either.....but I left the posts for all to see  anyways.

But you knew all that 

As for the fella above who continued to disrespect the forum, it's community and the moderator staff via PM....he has been reminded that there are still rules of engagement in this world, and 'we' also have a right to 'fight back' dont we...[being the fascists we are ]


----------



## Enlightened Rogue

In my opinion this thread was junk as soon as it was started.
Name me 1 person who didn`t figure it was going to end like this.... including the OP who apparently was done with the thread HE started about 15 pages back.

John


----------



## frogparty

has anyone ever seen an F2 or F3 generation hybrid? I know the possibility for viability is there, just wonderin if anyone whos been in the hobby longer than I has seen, say, a leuc/auratus hybrid past the 1st generation?


----------



## kyle1745

Ok I think we will let this thread die and fall into the archive. 

If the original poster is still interested in some pictures please search for "Hybrids" and then select "search titles only" and you will find a number of past threads on the topic.


----------

