# Super Blue,Turqouise n Bronze, Highland Auratus: same thing?



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

After talking w/ customers(seeing pics of adult frogs from turqnbrnze I sold as juvis looking very similar to my super blue pair) seeing the diversity in offspring from both pair and looking at pics of the highland auratus I think they may be all the same population. Although I get a higher percentage of blue offspring from my super blue pair and some individuals w/ more reticulated patterning. Basically My super blues throw offspring that could match up w/ 100% of my turq and bronz and about 50% of the super blues offspring look more blue and somewhat random patterning that none of my turq n brnz get. 
Let`s face it, how many (wc)lines of sb tb and highlands are in the country? 3 pair sb, 1 pr hiland and 4-5 tb maybe. It seems kinda stupid to continue line breeding when we don`t even have enough genetics to sustain either of the 3 "morphs". 
Should everyone w/ tb (which I think bill(elmoisfive) had turq and bronze at mwff that looked pretty identical to my super blue offspring) sb and hilands post pics of their pairs and offspring here to figure this out. the other problem is that people choose offspring to breed together visually sometimes, w/out a morph name if they are the same and throw the same offspring they are bound to get mixed down the line if they look that similar.


----------



## corbsclinton (Dec 4, 2005)

I think the only way to sustain the "morph" so to speak is to breed them visually *with our existing pairs* that are spitting out these color variations. Not reselling their offspring but growing them. Lets say you keep 9 offspring and select 4 hobbyists to give 4 offspring for a total of 25. Everyone grows their frogs to maturity. Pictures of the patterns and coloration are collected and then the frogs are paired off according to visual similarity and sex. Eventually the recessive color would be so minimal you wouldnt hardly see it, then you have a color "line" of distinct origin, unfortunately its captive bred origin. It is my theory, and just that, a theory, that thats how we obtained the Highland. I think its a cross breed and its offspring were mated until the originally dominant colors became recessive.


I would donate my time,money, and viv's and agree to pull all eggs to do a study to understand the science/genetics of the coloration of the auratus. 

I really think the key to understanding the color genetics would involve WC pairs that have never had offspring that didn't look like the parents.


----------



## corbsclinton (Dec 4, 2005)

*Food for thought*

edit:I took down the pics cause Kero is right. *this + that is not the point. The point is these morphs that no one knows where they came from have an obvious possibilty that no one wants to talk about.*

I am by no means offering the answer to what was crossed with what (edit) *or parading hybrids* . Just trying to illustrate that I dont think it takes many generations of 1 cross being bred and then breeding sibs that look alike to get "morphs" that one breeder explains:

"A small but robust morph of auratus. *Unfortunately we know very little of the natural origin of this morph*, other than it is from somewhere in Panama. Our group was acquired through ----------------, who produced these beautiful frogs from imported adults. *Froglets look initially like a dark green reticulated auratus*, however they mature into a more robust frog with small forest green spots liberally placed on a bronze body. An interesting and bold morph of auratus.

I think the last bold is interesting. I think a lot can be determined about their lineage from what they look like as froglets, before they take on these "natural" colors like bronze and grey later in life. 

Anyway, I think all Auratus rock. They may be common, but they are still my favorite! :lol:


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Parent, F1, from Micheal Shrom's stock:








Offspring:

























I saw some of the super blues at MWFF, and I'd say they look quite different from my t+b's, and also noticed mine seemed to carry a slightly different pattern than the other t+b's at the show...the others tending to have a certain band across the back, which I've only seen mine throw once or twice.
I started a thread about whether the g+b, t+b, b+b, and teal and bronze are all the same, or different, and the consensus was they are different, with offspring tending to be varied, but still weighing to one color or another.
It would make things easier if they were all the same, and save me some frustration...I have had several people buy them, and later start calling them blue and bronze or green and bronze...depending on what they look like.
I guess it's one of those cases where only the catcher/farmer could honestly know for sure.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I want to stop this dead in the water before the "well if you add this frog and this frog you get this frog" bit gets out of control.

The (frog) + (frog) = frog illustrations are incorrect assumptions of what happens, and you're completely disregarding the history behind these frogs.... I'm a little frustrated on this as I was hoping the auratus morph guide in the care sheet would clear some things up... evidently not...

super blues are a bloodline of the Turquoise... Turquoise throw everything from blue to green with backgrounds of black to super pale bronze. This is a highly variable form, and yes, super blues being a form of turquoise can be breed together. Super blues were just the bluest and bronzest of the animals brought in, separated, and bred together. They did not breed true. For that matter, blue and bronze are also Turquoise... its clearly stated that the blue and bronze come from GREEN and bronze ancestry, and likely will produce a range, much like the super blues have. We don't know if these all came from the same locality due to the panama FR confusion.

Highlands on the other hand are a locality specific frog from European stock, breed true and MUCH more consistently than the Turquoise. Yes, they are very similar, but that doesn't mean they came from the same population... Highlands need cooler temps that the Turquoise don't seem to need, thats a big clue. Colors and patterns repeat throughout the population, so I wouldn't get too excited over them looking similar. Man Creek and Blue Jeans looked similar... then you've got Almerante (different locality not in the hobby) to toss into the mix... and how many times does blue and green repeat itself in the pumilio range? Auratus have the same deal going on...

I doubt a $35 frog is going to get mixed with a $135 frog any time soon...

A tobago + green & bronze does not a camo kahlua and creme make. Tobagos are much smaller than the bronzes, and the camos are a locality specific frog that is not like the other two. Very, very different frogs. One thing to not tho is that tobagos may have reticulated patterns in their population as well, similar to kahlua & creme/campana, which is how the hawaiian population (original stock from tobago) got it in its gene pool... but the retics in the hobby are hawaiian in origin as its more prevelant in the hawaiian population and was line bred to produce them consistantly). The Kahlua & Crema/Campanas range from a light brown on dark brown, pale bronze (looks almost white) on chocolate brown, to darker bronze with gren to bluish markings... all reticulated patterns. Camo is simply a bloodline of this, like the super blues are of Turquoise. The difference, and main reason they are kept seperate, is that the camos have locality data, where the majority of the kahlua & creme/campana don't, and nowadays come from panama farmed stock for a good portion of the breeding population, which has unknown localities... so it might be the same, or it might not...

A tobago + blue auratus do not make a Turquoze (blue and bronze). As I mentioned before, the blue and bronze is a line of Turquoise auratus... a blue auratus next to a turquoise shows some differences in color... the blue is a deep grey blue where the bright blue and bronze has a slight green tinge, and may change from blue to green depending on variaous factors. Blue auratus do not change colors, and always have a flat black body color.

The frogs you are talking about ARE NOT CROSSES but results of a lot of mish mashed information that is getting confused.

The frogs from when you quoted from the breeder are a type of kahlua & creme/campana that are heavy on the green spotting. The lack of knowledge of where in panama they came from gives away their panama farm raised roots. The reticulated pattern is repeated in a couple populations... most well known in the hobby are the kahlua & creme/campana (such as the frogs in question) and the reticulated form of the hawaiian... original stock from tobago. Bronze morphs come out of the water black, and initially look like similar forms with black backgrounds which is why you need to label your tads carefully if you breed both. Most of the panama forms tend towards bronzes and dark browns with few morphs that breed true black consistently, where the mroe northern forms tend to be consistently black. There are a few isolated pockets of black in panama, but that also tells you how much the geologic history has affected both the auratus and the pumilio, which is why so much variation occurs in such little space.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Those look like classic turquoise to me... then again, Mike's stock is what I think of when I think of a classic turquoise LOL. The blue and bronze are from this same stock... the super blues tend to give you a bit of a loop because their pattern is a bit different, but I believe that may be a bit of line breeding... "microspots" were really popular when they came in... small spots of nice round bronze... never bred true... they tossed standard turquoise. The super blues look like the tend to have more bronze, but their basic pattern is the same. There is a good amount of line breeding going on here to produce consistent animals... do that for enough years and you get your lines producing consistently different looking animals.

There is a true breeding green and bronze... and the greenest of the turquoise can get mixed up in that, mostly because the labeling isn't consistent... if a pair of green and bronze produce blueish young, they are actually turquoise. There are green and bronze that always throw green and bronze and their young will throw green and bronze. I think people are making multiple morphs out of similar frogs. I really hate how blue and bronze have popped up after all these years, after being proven right after importation that they don't breed true.


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

KeroKero said:


> I really hate how blue and bronze have popped up after all these years, after being proven right after importation that they don't breed true.


I thought something similar when I heard them being called "teal" and bronze...cripes, how many people would actually know teal if they saw it :lol:


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I'm sure we could come up with a couple other names for "blue-green"... I think I heard aquamarine once? EEEEK.

I think turquoise works pretty well... longer than teal, but if you think about it turquoise can range from green to blue (the stone anyways) so I think it fits... and every time I hear "teal" I don't think the color, I think the bird.

Yes. I'm odd.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I personally am starting to look for TRUE auratus morphs as I see a very large problem with some of the ideas in this very topic and I have personaly hear of more than a few people crossing morphs when it comes to auratus.

This also shows the lack of a true coding system which we are in desperate need of.


----------



## corbsclinton (Dec 4, 2005)

Kyle I started building an identification website yesterday just for auratus. I am building functionality where you can do side by side comparisons, a map with the locations of where the populations were caught (if known). I think this is a start. I agree with you, if a new hobbyist goes to the pet store and gets a green and black, he or she should be able to jump on the internet and find a site that has each morph labled with pics and history (what we know). 

I saw a lot of "these should not be interbred" or these populations should stay seperate(refering to panama farm raised). Well, if there is nowhere that clearly identifies the differences-I see this as impossible. I think if you match caresheets descriptions with pics. One thing I found frustrating was that there is no breeder site with all of them, just with the ones they sell. The caresheets ya'll provided are awesome and will be referenced, but without easy to see examples and side by sides to go along with them. A new hobbyist could get easily confused when making a purchase in the classifieds.

One thing that I would also like is copies of any CITES papaers on auratus. I tried to search their database and I got DB errrors. I'm hoping there is some doc's out there that folks will submit. What would also be great are pictures of wild caught pairs and what they know about their origins. Anyway, I've got a couple of guys helping me with the functionality and hope to have something up in the next week.


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

http://www.tropical-experience.nl//inde ... &Itemid=49

This morph guide backs up the thoughts that they are pretty much all the same...though there is still no rock solid proof...again, only the catcher/farmer knows for sure.


----------



## corbsclinton (Dec 4, 2005)

That link is also a great resource. I still see think we could improve it. I have seen at least 3 that aren't on it. I think it would also be benefitial to show what the morph or line looks like as froglets vs adults so when you get one you aren't comparing a froglet to an adult. I'd also like to see the caresheet/breeders description page info paired with this.

Would most consider the link to be the best visual resource out there?

One other thought:

I think it would be beneifial if anyone that is serious about breeding and selling on a site like this, to provide high quality pics of the parents and the froglets in their gallery everytime they post them for sale.

Example: say new dart frogger trying to pair a couple of hawaiians with the ones they already have. From the caresheets there seems to be 2 types. Someone new to the hobby that doesn't know this might get some reticulated when they weren't expecting it. Do you think they are going to try and breed or seperate them? The 2 breeders they bought them from both said they were from hawaii, imported in the 30's.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Im fine with your overall idea, but would like to note some things...

1. Some of the more odd morphs maybe nothing but hybrids, thus the lack of importation data, and etc. If they are not on some of the sites already out there they may not be true examples of wild populations.

2. I have personally seen green and bronze produce Turquoise & bronze, Blue & Bronze, and Green & Bronze even out of the same clutch. So are these all different morphs? Id argue no.

Number 2 I think helps emphasize my problem with allowing people to match frogs to a name based solely on looks alone. I think more importantly we need a coding system to denote true populations, and then we must stick to it. Many of the species already in the hobby and specifically with auratus are already ruined due to practices such as matching based on looks alone.


----------



## corbsclinton (Dec 4, 2005)

kyle1745 said:


> Number 2 I think helps emphasize my problem with allowing people to match frogs to a name based solely on looks alone. I think more importantly we need a coding system to denote true populations, and then we must stick to it. Many of the species already in the hobby and specifically with auratus are already ruined due to practices such as matching based on looks alone.


Kyle,

I believe almost everyone in this forum are both are in search of conservation and a great life and longevity for these kickass frogs. I completely understand why the best way to code these guys is by specific population. This would be the best way to scientifically do it. But you said it yourself. Since it wasn’t done from the beginning and the importation was so poorly documented, its damn near impossible to do now. And one of the causes was because they were matched by looks alone. From all the posts I've read this is the consensus.



We are all in agreement of these facts:

a)That separating by population origin would have been the preferred method but is now almost impossible to start now.

b)One of the reasons why is b/c we didn't identify the separate populations and keep them separate.

c)We now have beautiful animals in the hobby breeding these mixed populations

d)That we need to distinguish morphs and lines for the hobby before it becomes more mainstream and even becomes more unmanageable.

So where to go now? Do we throw our hands in the air and say just let the hobby take it where it will? I'm not putting words in your or anyone else’s mouth. I am legitimately asking you guys and gals, that have made this hobby what it is, the question.


If we don’t do it by appearance and we don’t start from scratch, what is another possible solution?


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I believe many of the main auratus morphs can be traced back to imports, maybe not direct populations, but at least to shipments. The rest I say we leave in question. The worry I have is that morphs with true links back to populations or shipments will be improperly named based on looks alone and thus lost. Just because something can not be explained does not mean we should design a system around the unknown. The system should favor the known in my opinion.

Another thing that may be possible is genetic testing. Im not sure how much this can be used to identify morphs or populations, but im sure someones else can speak up to on that topic.

On a side note you may want to have a talk with Robb about some of the data in frog tracks to see if any of the auratus morphs are traceable.


----------



## Frog10 (Oct 18, 2006)

I just looked at that website Brian posted and it had a black auratus on it. Does anyone keep any of these? I think they are pretty cool


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

While I really like the morph guides done at tropical-experience, I recommend not using them to ID and classify frogs... it just does not correlate to the frogs in our hobby well. The same problems occur with the tinc guide (which is mainly wild frogs).

What is needed is a guide for frogs in the US hobby... which is in the works. Mainly not getting far due to lack of good quality photos to use... which hopefully will be remedied by access to some breeders' collections to photograph...

The main problem with auratus is the Panama Farm Raised frogs... all the other morphs are well and clearly documented. I have perfectly good information for the majority of the frogs in the hobby before the panama imports. All frogs in the panama imports (PFRs) are at best put into loose groups going by what they tend to produce consistently. Turquoise consistently produce green to blue on black to bronze frogs... greens consistently produce (reduced) green on black to bronze frogs... green and bronze consistently produce green animals with dark brown to bronze... campanas consistently produce reticulated dark green/dark brown on bronze... etc., etc. Anything more specific than that (blacks, super blues, blue & bronze) tend to just be bloodlines usually started by breeding animals of a variation within the group (super blues were the bluest turquoise animals) to try and produce those animals consistently.

Also, photo comparison of animals in separate photos doesn't really mean much, as a single animal can look very different depending on how the photo was taken, much less when different cameras and lighting are used... if you are doing a comparison, it only really is valid when doing pattern (as color won't hold true, but patterns vary widely even within morph, so this doesn't help all that much) or when the two compared animals are in the same photo.


----------



## Galloway (Dec 27, 2006)

Though not American, http://www.dendrobatenwelt.de/Unterseiten/aura.htm this site contains a thorough picture gallery with an attempt at identifying as many coloration/forms of auratus as possible. The Kuna Yala and gold are beautiful.

I have also spent many hours trying to find similar patterns and colorations that I feel match my auratus at the same time looking for a different bloodline. I have come to the basic assumptions many of you have in this post. 

Galloway


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Wow that's a nice gallery of auratus, lol. I wish they had some information on them, not just the photos.

As for the original frogs in question... the "highland" bronze auratus available thru Herpetologic are european imports of what I believe are the Birkan bronzes... I don't think they are 100% certain, but having seen a good number of Birkan photos (including the bronze on the link by Galloway which are the frogs I'm talking about), and having seen the original pair of highland bronzes, I believe they are likely the line of bronzes that those animals came from. This is the bloodline that just gets better as they age, turning almost silver...

In contrast, the bronzes available thru the panama farm raised import stock are LOWLAND bronzes. A few of these animals have proven to have matured into some really nice (aka pale bronze rather than brown) stock, but I see it most typically with the true green & bronze and the super blue line of turquoise... and I'm still not sure they get as light as the highlands as consistantly.


----------



## Onagro (Jun 9, 2006)

Frog10 said:


> I just looked at that website Brian posted and it had a black auratus on it. Does anyone keep any of these? I think they are pretty cool


If you look for Joshua Delancey here, he has some. From what he's said about them they are very prolific frogs.


----------



## melissa68 (Feb 16, 2004)

Not to throw a wrench into all this, but my Panamaian (farm raised) green and bronze auratus directly throw 'super blues', normal green & bronze & turquoise & bronze. Plus, they throw ones with all dots of a combo of regular auratus marking or a combo of the two. 

I think superblues are nothing more than a distinction like the dot and no dot citronellas. 

The original 'super blue' or blue and bronze auratus were hand picked from the original imports and bred for that color. It makes perfect sense for people who have the green & bronze to occasionally get the 'super blues' and then to be able to line breed those as well. 

We actually have two breeding groups. One of the groups has more of the 'turquoise' coloring than the other. They throw a higher percentage of the 3 different color combos than the 'greener' group.

Melis


----------



## markc019 (Apr 12, 2005)

this is my 1.1 of the super blue auratus. Notice the different coloration than the turquoise auratus of Micheal shroms stock. I have had some breed true but look much simalar to the bluish faze of the green&bronze auratus.









~Mark


Here is apic of my green&bronze auratus male


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Nice pics Marc...
What generation are those, or are they direct imports?


----------



## markc019 (Apr 12, 2005)

thanks :lol: my pair came from germany.


----------

