# Anyone else with USA Frogs?



## FrogTim (Oct 1, 2015)

My very first frogs were some auratus from USA frogs. The purchase was made before I found this community and knew any better. I have added to my collection since then(from other sources), but I still have my original 4 frogs.

Does anyone else have USA frogs? What do you do with yours? 

I am bad and keep my 2 green&bronze with my 2 blue&blacks. I don't have the space or will to build them separate tanks. I don't pull tadpoles but my green&bronze seem to be a pair. The male calls a lot and one of the blues tries to court him but he usually hops away. I've seen the suspected female green&bronze carrying a tadpole so I'm not 100%sure of the sexes. I also swear I saw a tiny frog in the back of their tank....

I don't plan on selling them due to their origin and the way I'm keeping them. I feel bad as if these are my "second hand" frogs and I feel a little stuck with them. Sad I know since they are beautiful creatures. But their questionable pedigree makes it hard since I can't let them breed, watch them metamorphosize, and then eventually re-home like I do with my other frogs. I really enjoy watching tadpoles grow up but with these USA frogs I can't do that.

Anyone else have these frogs? What are your thoughts? Am I in the wrong by treating them the way I do?

I wanted this to be a separate thread for those whom actually own these frogs.









Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## fishingnino (Dec 29, 2017)

I don't own any however I almost purchased from them. Luckily, being a trained ecologist, something felt fishy about their website so i looked up reviews. This led me to the (very) long discussion about them here. If only they learned basic biology instead of picking and choosing facts as fits their agenda (though that seems to be the current trend in DC right now, so why not in business?). 

I see it as with dogs. Within a species (like dogs), there are some relatively isolated breeding pools. By mixing those pure bred pools (except for those known mixes), you get mutts. My dog is a mutt and I love him even if he isn't from a pure line. However, I would never breed him (ignoring that the shelter we got him from already took care of that) because I wouldn't want to risk serious, unpredictable genetic defects. However, there are lots of home happy with mutts. 

All this to say, would you be able to find someone uninterested in breeding them? They would have to know that any resulting offspring should be ignored (fed to the adults, etc).


----------



## FrogTim (Oct 1, 2015)

I appreciate the response.

I think a better analogy would be mutt dogs being sold as purebreds. 

Amphibians don't seem to be as affected by inbreeding in regards to health problems (i.e. a very small accidental import of coqui frogs populating/proliferating in Hawaii). Our frogs are generally pretty inbred due to limited imports so new genes wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The term 'hybrid vigour' is around for a reason. I am not condoning hybrids by any means, I believe frogs should be kept true to morphs and locales, but fresh genes are not necessarily a bad thing.

The problem with 'not breeding' the frogs is they do it on their own. We can deny them tadpole deposition sites to prevent developed offspring, but the only way I'd see it possible to stop breeding 100% is to house them individually. Unfortunately I don't have the money or space for 4 separate USAFrog tanks. Only dart tadpoles cannabilize each other, not morphed froglets, so they wouldn't naturally 'self regulate' breeding.

I am very weary on rehoming since experienced hobbyists would not want them and inexperienced hobbyists I would not trust to be responsible with them. 

I do like your perspective. I definitely do enjoy them, but at the same time they are a burden that I don't have many options with. Especially with my space constraints I can't add any new tanks so they prevent me from getting proper pedigreed frogs that I can breed and re-home/trade/share with fellow hobbyists.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## fishingnino (Dec 29, 2017)

That's a good point. I was originally thinking a classroom pet but they are a little more effort than more teachers have time for. Especially if they are housed separately. But maybe if they were all male or all female colonies (even across species or within species across locales [assuming they can be reliably sexed]) They make tanks for bettas and guinea pig enclosures, etc that allow some interactions but not full contact (for fighting or breeding reasons). I'm not familiar enough with every product line but do those exist for frogs? I'm imagining a cage separated by large mesh dividers that allow some interactions (calling, seeing, maybe even territory displays) but don't allow them to fully interact. Mesh big enough for food to cross to make feeding easier.

I'm always fascinated by the inbreeding or lack of. Lot's a animals are severely affected (fish, dogs, etc) but some, like elephant seals, can start an entire hundreds of thousands of individuals population without many obvious issues. Of course, I'd always be worried about outbreeding depression. There's a reason why each locale is different.


----------



## bsr8129 (Sep 23, 2010)

fishingnino said:


> I don't own any however I almost purchased from them. Luckily, being a trained ecologist, something felt fishy about their website so i looked up reviews. This led me to the (very) long discussion about them here. If only they learned basic biology instead of picking and choosing facts as fits their agenda (though that seems to be the current trend in DC right now, so why not in business?).
> 
> I see it as with dogs. Within a species (like dogs), there are some relatively isolated breeding pools. By mixing those pure bred pools (except for those known mixes), you get mutts. My dog is a mutt and I love him even if he isn't from a pure line. However, I would never breed him (ignoring that the shelter we got him from already took care of that) because I wouldn't want to risk serious, unpredictable genetic defects. However, there are lots of home happy with mutts.
> 
> All this to say, would you be able to find someone uninterested in breeding them? They would have to know that any resulting offspring should be ignored (fed to the adults, etc).


say what now?? I hope you realize that most pure breed dogs have more genetic issues than mutts do. Mutts are considered to more healthy of a dog with less genetic issues then pure breeds


----------



## fishingnino (Dec 29, 2017)

Yes. I totally agree. However, (competent) breeders have a good handle on their lines and can reduce the potential issues associated with inbreeding. But, it's about managing for the traits you know while hiding undesirable traits or removing them from the line altogether. I don't know what unhealthy traits are hidden in my dog. Some natural or unnatural culling process has determined he should live, but I don't know about his ancestors or siblings and so procuring offspring from him would be irresponsible. 

And then there are incompatible traits between lines that may not be as cut and dry. For example, if one line/locale were well adapted to cold climates and the other to hot (though any phenotype would work and it could be genes tied to what we consider to be unrelated phenotypes) would their mixed offspring be well adapted to both extremes? Would they prefer somewhere in the middle? Would the physiological mechanisms required for each extreme be at odds? In the latter case, would one mechanism win out or would the individual be sickly due to trying to accommodate both sides of a trade off. I don't know. 

Within a well mixed population these things can work themselves out (though not always). But between multiple locally adapted populations (either naturally or artificially isolated via the environment or human selected breeding) we can't always expect that mixing will have the intended effect.


----------



## thumbnail (Sep 18, 2005)

With them coming from a known producer of crossed frogs I would either euthanize or keep all four separate to live out there days without the possibility of breeding.


----------



## wcarterh (Dec 25, 2017)

Honestly fishingnino, not really. That's a crap shoot. Unless you have a full genetics work-up (which no one has except possibly some universities), and knows what each line of the code means (no one does), there is no guarantee. Some recessive traits are exceedingly rare or a....stronger recessive gene. Unless you mix two together of the right mix, the issue will not show. What we do is go off of observed effects. Let me give an example. Someone walks into a doctor's office. They have coughing, chest congestion, and a fever. They could have a flu, a cold, pneumonia, upper respiratory infection, Legionnaires' disease, or many others. There is no solid way to guarantee by looking at something you know 100%. 

"but I don't know about his ancestors or siblings and so procuring offspring from him would be irresponsible." I've dealt with multiple cases helping out that were "AKC certified" for lineage. Genetic test proved it completely false. Lineage can give you an idea, such as family history. However many different factors can bring out genetic issues. Anything from stress to environmental factors. Having talked with numerous vets and with one of the better universities for veterinary medicine, almost no pure bred dog or cat breed does not have an associated genetic disfunction. Side note, that has been around for a higher amount of inbreeding. 

I actually posted a response the other day on such a subject. I've not seen a response on it. I'm actually curious, on a scientific issue, if frogs do have the same issue. If not, why. 

To answer your question, it's not clear cut to say the mix breed would be adapted to one or the other. That depends on dominant/recessive alleles. Think Gregor Mendel's "Mendel's Laws of Inheritance". Simply put, which of the genes are dominant or recessive? You could have one adaption that is dominant, while another is recessive. You can make assumptions by multiple times breeding numerous sets. But here we have to be careful. Do you know of how some "flightless" fruit flies can magically fly (assuming the sample didn't get contaminated)? The gene appears one way, but can mutate back by those external factors I previously mentioned. 

I will agree that with mixing, you will not necessarily have the intended effect. Yet...you can't guarantee that either with pure breeding. Much higher chance, yes. But without a genetics alleles analysis, and understanding, there is no 100% way to know. 

If you are not familiar with it, look up "population bottleneck, genetic bottleneck, or species bottleneck" and "popular sire effect". "Selective breeding for dog breeds caused constricting breed-specific bottlenecks. These bottlenecks have led to dogs having an average of 2-3% more genetic loading than gray wolves. The strict breeding programs and population bottlenecks have led to the prevalence of diseases such as heart disease, blindness, cancers, hip dysplasia, cataracts, and more.

Selective breeding to produce high-yielding crops has caused genetic bottlenecks in these crops and has led to genetic homogeneity. This reduced genetic diversity in many crops could lead to broader susceptibility to new diseases or pests, which threatens global food security." Banana's are a prime example with plants as cheetah's are with animals. Cavendish banana's They make up roughly 95% of global export, from a monoculture. Fusarium TR4, also known as Panama disease, can remain active for decades in soil. Fungicide does not fully control it. You add Black Sigatoka disease, and.... Both of which this strain is highly susceptible to. 

I'm not knocking your opinion. However, portions do not agree with the science out there. I'm not against breeding like that. We wouldn't have many food plants we have today if we didn't do that. But there are clear and present issues with pure breeding. It can have positive effects. But doing it too tightly, not allowing in some diversive genetic material is.... a very bad plan.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

But to get back on topic ...


----------



## fishingnino (Dec 29, 2017)

Yes, wcarterh. My apologies. I tried to stretch my "pets don't have to be pure bred" analogy father than I should have (dogs were the first thing i thought of where both distinct lineages and mixes occur). I agree that genetic diversity is very important for the overall health and resilience of a population. We, as humans do, often tend to ignore that in favor of certain traits that we want to exploit (like with bananas and dogs, gotta love mustard too).

My main point was that while pets don't have to be pure bred, there's a reason why each population looks the way it does (with all the underlying differences we can't visibly see, visual appearance being a proxy for that genetic packet). Every detail in its environment causes that and that genetic configuration happens to be the best at surviving and reproducing. In domesticated plants and animals, that dictating environment is human whim (Or need...) so when that environment changes (like the fungal disease) or there are phenotypes neither selected for or against (dog diseases you mentioned) only then do we realize that we haven't been looking at the whole picture. 

My understanding with frogs is that there are these locally adapted populations that are presumably well tailored to the conditions of their locale, including the recessives of their breeding pool (and in any combination/context of more than just recessive or dominant) and any detrimental genetic defects (at least when considering that natural selection grades on a curve; all they have to do is good enough). While mixing within a population can still bring out those defects, my mind goes more toward outbreeding depression especially in the case where your dealing with local adaptation. At least I'm assuming local adaption unless it's just phenotypic plasticity with highly selective mortality, but then each population would likely produce widely variable offspring (looking like the other populations) rather than very similar looking offspring (at least under common garden scenarios). Then mixing the underlying genes wouldn't matter as much, just the environment they're raised in (ignoring the possibility that a population is a dispersal supported sink population which doesn't seem likely). It doesn't sound like thus is the case though. How likely is it that it's all just drift? 

I've been reading a lot of the science and conservation threads here and it sounds like frog breeders try to keep true to the locale and will trade (Or buy/sell) with others effectively increasing the genetic pool (and hopefully genetic diversity within that pool). My take was that this supplies most of the pet frogs while they will incorporate wild caught genes occasionally so that "captive bred" doesn't become it's own locale and, again increase genetic diversity. I think this question of when is captive bred no longer representative (within acceptable limits of course) of the original population fascinating. While true to the stock captive breeding doesn't seem to be a likely conservation tool in itself (according to those threads) the potential outcomes of mixing populations meant for different conditions and genetic pools is more than I want to deal with. What if they turn out like spartina grass and produce super frogs (kinda cool). Of course out breeding depression would be kinda cool too (sad but interesting) because it could mean that the populations could eventually become separate species. 

I'm interested, too, in whether there are existing (however observable) genetic dysfunctions in frog populations. I'm going to go find that post next and wait with you for an answer. If elephant seals (the poster child of population bottleneck) can boom the way they did from a handful of individuals without severely detrimental inbreeding effects (there are reports of done congenital defects but not at rates that prevent recolonization of the West coast), maybe frogs too? At least they're not like panthers and having a tough time.


----------



## fishingnino (Dec 29, 2017)

Scott said:


> But to get back on topic ...


 oops. Sorry


----------



## jarteta97 (Jun 13, 2014)

FrogTim, have you tried to reach out to anyone who might have extra available space or who would be able to take care of them? At the very least separating the two locales would be beneficial, even if you can't entirely prevent breeding between the pairs once separated. I know you said you're wary of rehoming, but who knows, maybe someone in the area who's experienced might at least take one of the pairs.


----------

