# D Auratus Panamanian



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

The topic of hybridization (I.e. mixing species, or crossing variations that do not commonly mix in wild conditions) is thoroughly covered elsewhere and I do not wish to rehash the pros / cons of it here… Please not though this is a similar topic, there is a distinct difference…


I am reading in some (apparently) reliable places that there are a few examples where more than one ‘morph’ interbreed very commonly within a breeding group in nature. For example, the D. Auratus Panamanian from the Atlantic side have both black/green and black/blue frogs that seem to coexist and interbreed within a single wild population.


So using the strict definition (bred from two distinct races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera) this may be considered ‘hybridization’ as black/green and black/blue may be considered ‘different races’… But viewing it from a ‘conservation’ perspective it seems segregating these two morphs/races is altering them from their natural type…


I bring this up as I have a desire to put together a breeding program of S Auratus Panamanian and am considering using both black/green and black/blue frogs. One of the foremost reasons I want to mix them is I feel this will be a way to give myself a wider range of genetic diversity. Since this approach does not seem any different than what the frogs do on their own in natural breeding populations, I do not see anything wrong with doing so… but I’m interested in the perspectives of the hobby…


References which site at some locations back/green & black/blue frogs interbreed within a single breeding population - 

Dendrobates.org - Dendrobates auratus

Dendrobates auratus Morphguide


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Keep in mind: what we classify into "morphs" in the hobby (often based on the presumption that all animals of a given population must have very uniform physical patterns and very little variation) isn't necessarily so in the wild. It sounds to me as though you are taking a hobby mindset (if one is blue and one is green, they must be from two completely different populations) and trying to apply it to wild populations...some of which may in fact include both green, blue, and everything in between as part of their natural variation within the population. However, without specific locale and collection information (which seems to be suprisingly impossible to obtain from Panamanian collectors/exporters/importers) we can't know for sure what sort of genetic material we're working with, what should be mixed, what should be seperated, etc.

The latest issue of Leaf Litter Magazine has a great article about just this issue (even about D. auratus) and I would highly recommend checking it out. For instance, two "blue and black" auratus can look basically identical...but be from populations more than 200 kilometers apart. Yet morphs from the Campana region (Capira, Khalua and Cream/Campana, Camoflage, etc.) can be found within the same 10 km of each other...and most likely naturally interbreed with one another (the "camo" morph might actually be an intergrade between some of these populations). [_Please don't use any of this information as an excuse to go ahead and mix captive specimens of these morphs/populations...I don't think we have enough information yet to definitively make those types of captive management decisions._]

My point being: just because some populations in the wild might have both blue and green specimens naturally occuring together, and just because we have specimens in the hobby that are blue and green...doesn't mean they originated from those variable populations and that we can breed them together. We can only consider it "segregation from the natural type" unless that is, in fact, their natural type. If it's not...well, then we're ironically "altering them from their natural type." Each morph has to be considered in light of its own specific collection info (if/when it exists), importation, etc. and we have to be careful not to make such broad strokes in management and breeding decisions. If we keep frogs seperate and realize down the road they belong together...we can always bring those captive lines together. But if we combine them and find out down the road that they don't belong together...we can't undo that.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

What do you know about the frogs, as in the lineage and what the people you got them from call the morph?

I suspect you may be speaking of color variation within a morph ...

If you're speaking of highland bronze, offspring withing the same clutch will range from greenish blue to blue.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 6, 2009)

I follow what you are saying Skylsdale… and it makes a lot of sense… But it does leave me in an awkward situation…


So while on one hand I do not want to unnaturally mix / hybridize… I also do not want to inbreed… So without accurate locale info… how does one satisfy both ‘needs’…


Shockingelk… The vendors I’ve been finding have not been offering true ‘locale information’, but instead refer to frogs by country only (e.g. D. Auratus Panamanian). With this limited detail my options seem to be risk crossing locales, or inbreed… neither of which are desirable in my eyes…


While I agree with the common view of avoiding hybridization, I don’t understand how it is achieved without compromising by inbreeding… it seems I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t…


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Toby,

One option is to acquire site specific auratus, such as Capira/speckled. Another is to focus on breeding from an import date. I'm presently working with a large group of the 2004 D. auratus Panamanian import. This group came in to a few folks and from what I understand became the original stock for a large number of the turq and bronze, blue and bronze, etc. auratus that are currently in the hobby. For example, I acquired F1 and F2 from the 2004 WC adults and also an original WC adult from 2004. You might want to read the following thread as its very informative. Good luck!

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/32893-ms-turquoise-bronze-pn-green-bronze.html


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

stemcellular said:


> Toby,
> 
> One option is to acquire site specific auratus, such as Capira/speckled. Another is to focus on breeding from an import date. I'm presently working with a large group of the 2004 D. auratus Panamanian import. This group came in to a few folks and from what I understand became the original stock for a large number of the turq and bronze, blue and bronze, etc. auratus that are currently in the hobby. For example, I acquired F1 and F2 from the 2004 WC adults and also an original WC adult from 2004. You might want to read the following thread as its very informative. Good luck!
> 
> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/32893-ms-turquoise-bronze-pn-green-bronze.html


This is the proper perspecitve when it comes to a lot of species, there are so many morphs of Auratus from Panama, unless you stuck with the same import it would be difficult. Some morphs are able to be indentified but on several forget about it, blue morphs at least 3 distinct, green/teal & blue/bronze who knows? Great thread though, SNDF likely has the most site info when it comes to anything Panama related, it would be nice to have Marcus weigh in on this.
You are correct in looking for unrelated same morph frogs, that is the same strategy I would employ and I guess the best reason all frogs should be registered (which i am currently in the process of doing with my 2 WC Colon pair). Good luck in your search, enough diligence should pay off.
Mark


----------



## Frank St (Mar 20, 2005)

Following the above thread I want to consider that there seems to be more "care taking" nowadays when it comes to terms of conservational breeding of a species...well, what else might be the effective goal.
After the latest Leaflitter and the "auratus-article" Mr. Skylsdayle recommended above, I made an awkward observation: In Germany (where the article about auratus was published in a popular magazine too) and the US I observed a sudden change in the names of auratus morphs on popular and official dealers offers: Names of the presented morphs seemed to be "adapting" to the frogs presented in the articles, again just by judging them via their colorization and pattern as shown on photos in this article....
So here in Germany we now have the rare "Chorrera auratus" available and you guys are able to receive "San Felix" frogs....both morphs were offered under (the above mentioned) wrong names - neither one represented the actual morph advertised...a slight shame....I wonder if the guys selling these morphs did get the purpose out of the article...roughly something like "don´t judge a frog by its cover"...(well you get me if you read the article).
Anyways I thought about creating something like a miniature "auratus-ark": I work and breed with several authentic auratus morphs which are of highly genetic value to me and the ernest hobbyist... Of course distance seems to be a matter, but I am sure there are people "freaky" enough to travel to Germany (e.g. the Hamm show) in the aim of collecting diverse frogs....
An online database could be kept with the frogs´s spreading filed, offspring management etc...
I feel like this is the only way to avoid conflicts with inbreeding of differnet but similar-looking morphs. An international consent should be found about names, descriptions etc...
Anyway, might be a fiction but I feel like it´s about time to establish something serious that also raises the public (and scientific partly) value of our hobby.
Maybe I am over-motivated....but a it´s worth a thought.
Frank


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Frank St said:


> Following the above thread I want to consider that there seems to be more "care taking" nowadays when it comes to terms of conservational breeding of a species...well, what else might be the effective goal.
> After the latest Leaflitter and the "auratus-article" Mr. Skylsdayle recommended above, I made an awkward observation: In Germany (where the article about auratus was published in a popular magazine too) and the US I observed a sudden change in the names of auratus morphs on popular and official dealers offers: Names of the presented morphs seemed to be "adapting" to the frogs presented in the articles, again just by judging them via their colorization and pattern as shown on photos in this article....
> So here in Germany we now have the rare "Chorrera auratus" available and you guys are able to receive "San Felix" frogs....both morphs were offered under (the above mentioned) wrong names - neither one represented the actual morph advertised...a slight shame....I wonder if the guys selling these morphs did get the purpose out of the article...roughly something like "don´t judge a frog by its cover"...(well you get me if you read the article).
> Anyways I thought about creating something like a miniature "auratus-ark": I work and breed with several authentic auratus morphs which are of highly genetic value to me and the ernest hobbyist... Of course distance seems to be a matter, but I am sure there are people "freaky" enough to travel to Germany (e.g. the Hamm show) in the aim of collecting diverse frogs....
> ...


Wonderful idea, Frank. Sounds like its time that Treewalkers International/Amphibian Steward Network goes to Deutschland!


----------

