# Cross breeding



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

I just saw a post asking about breeding two different lines of D. azureus together and it'd been closed. I don't understand the response here about this. Breeding two different species together is a hybrid and not something we want although they exist and will continue to exist and as a hobby we need to figure out how to deal with them. Breeding two different morphs of the same species together isn't a hybrid but is also fronded upon and I understand why. Breeding different importations of the same species and morph together is fronded upon and, I assume, its because they may not have been collected from the same site. Given the limited number of frogs imported and that survive to breed I don't agree with this, but that's not the point of this post. Breeding together two morphs of a common frogs that all lack locality data and come from a small area like Dendrobates tinctorius 'azureus' because they don't look similar is stupid in my opinion. As a hobby are we okay with selective breeding? Making sky blue or no dots, or whatever D. tinctorius 'azureus' is selective breeding; are we okay with this. From my reading here I assume its wrong. So tell me, why is it wrong to breed this different artificial division together wrong? Maybe I'm not up with current thinking in the hobby but I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we teach that these "morphs" shouldn't be breed together. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## Friggy_frogger (Aug 24, 2014)

chuckpowell said:


> I just saw a post asking about breeding two different lines of D. azureus together and it'd been closed. I don't understand the response here about this. Breeding two different species together is a hybrid and not something we want although they exist and will continue to exist and as a hobby we need to figure out how to deal with them. Breeding two different morphs of the same species together isn't a hybrid but is also fronded upon and I understand why. Breeding different importations of the same species and morph together is fronded upon and, I assume, its because they may not have been collected from the same site. Given the limited number of frogs imported and that survive to breed I don't agree with this, but that's not the point of this post. Breeding together two morphs of a common frogs that all lack locality data and come from a small area like Dendrobates tinctorius 'azureus' because they don't look similar is stupid in my opinion. As a hobby are we okay with selective breeding? Making sky blue or no dots, or whatever D. tinctorius 'azureus' is selective breeding; are we okay with this. From my reading here I assume its wrong. So tell me, why is it wrong to breed this different artificial division together wrong? Maybe I'm not up with current thinking in the hobby but I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we teach that these "morphs" shouldn't be breed together.
> EU
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


I've Heard Wattley Line Azureus Isnt A Line Bred Trait.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Friggy_frogger said:


> I've Heard Wattley Line Azureus Isnt A Line Bred Trait.


True, but Stewarts "sky blue" (or whatever they're called) is line bred.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

chuckpowell said:


> As a hobby are we okay with selective breeding? Making sky blue or no dots, or whatever D. tinctorius 'azureus' is selective breeding; are we okay with this. From my reading here I assume its wrong. So tell me, why is it wrong to breed this different artificial division together wrong? Maybe I'm not up with current thinking in the hobby but I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we teach that these "morphs" shouldn't be breed together.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


I've been in the hobby for MUCH less time than you Chuck, but from what I've seen, there is a general lack of will in the hobby to either come up with a species management plan, or actually carry it out, or both. There is also a general misunderstanding of the basic biology and genetics -- people are told that inbreeding is bad, and then they're told outbreeding is bad (you're basically one or the other), so basically everything is bad. People then assume that breeding frogs from the same location, or import, or that look the same is the best thing to do -- which leads to line-bred and inbred animals.

Also, I've seen that people get afraid to ask questions because they get yelled at on the forums, so they get pushed away and don't end up learning anything really.


----------



## s0082 (Jun 22, 2014)

This is one of the most honest posts I've seen on here and I appreciate it very very much. This is just like with German shepards pugs etc.. Bred and bred for specific look and single traits that they end up with health issues... Where a mutt puppy might not have the same issues....... Are we going to face the same issue years down the road???? I hope not! But do any of us know? I see pros on both sides and cons on both sides. But yes I feel sometimes the boards are just like political boards where if you don't agree with the "way "you are ridiculed or attacked. I myself have even been snapped at because I listed a place to get supplies thAt someone didn't like. Why can't people state their opinion one way or the other on any topic...back it up with the facts and be done. Not start teenage Facebook drama lol.


----------



## Gamble (Aug 1, 2010)

I've owned fine spots & "standard" Azureus.
My intention with those was to breed them together.

From what I understand, it IS acceptable to breed a line bred morph back to the original. 
(I think this is called Out-Crossing?)


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

Fine spot, Wattley... All are good to breed with "standard" azureus.

Chocolate leucomelas with standard leucomelas are fine too.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

In my opinion, sky blue, small spot, no spot, Wattley, whatever. Its okay to breed any or all together. And if you don't want to, you want to keep the different varieties separate that's okay too. I find this board is becoming very polarized - if you don't do something "my way" then its wrong. I've also heard that "old timers" never or rarely post here anymore. Well it might be for this very reason. I know many "old timers" and talking with them and we sometimes laugh at what is gospel in the hobby now. We've been doing it another way, maybe several other ways, for a long time and its worked fine. You can state your opinion about something, but as an opinion - this is what works for me, not as this the way it has to be done. What works for you may not work for someone else - we all need to find our own way, find what works for us without criticism. 

I know once again I've stepped up on a soap box, but I care about this hobby and I'm not crazy about some of the directions its taking. It seemed a more tolerant and helpful place when I started, but then we didn't know what we know today. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## eyadinuae (Apr 9, 2013)

I think there this no morphs in the wild !!!! for D. tincs. it is cross-breeding or hybrid in the nature done by accident ? 

Morphguide - die einzelnen Varianten


----------



## Ignimbrite (Jun 28, 2014)

Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion. 

I really like Joshs frogs stance on line breeding. They in essence say that they do not support or endorse line breeding because dart frogs are ready amazing! I also read on this forum that the frogs in the hobby today have less genetic diversity than the hillbillies in the backwoods of Kentucky (no offense to anyone from the backwoods of Kentucky lol). I think mixing different lines of frogs OF THE SAME MORPH is a good idea. Hybridization is another subject entirely and because I don't want to start WWIII I won't say anymore about it (although I think there is good evidence that it happens in the wild... And no I don't create or plan to create hybrids). These are my own wrong opinions however. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

I like Josh's Frogs stance as well.

But if someone who basically started this hobby, in this country (yes, in this country - we're talking 25+ years ago), speaks - you really should think long and hard before you label their opinion "wrong".

s


Ignimbrite said:


> Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion.


----------



## Ignimbrite (Jun 28, 2014)

Lol the only opinion I labeled as wrong was my own. 

There is another interesting post on this in the general section titled "preserving wild morphs". I like the thoughts presented in it. Basically people say that it is important to not create hybrids because of the risk of loosing the wild morphs (as has happened in other hobbies). They also talk about genetic limitations and inbreeding. 

I agree with the op that line breeding is not the correct way to preserve the future of this hobby. I also (despite the fact that different morphs may interbreed in the wild) think we should preserve wild morphs in the hobby. These are my own wrong opinions however (as everyone is entitled to them). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

It was pointed out to me that I misread the post that started me on this thread, but none-the-less I stand on my position. There need to be more civility here and in the hobby in general. I have done this hobby for a bit of time now and the people are more important than the frogs. Every one of them - even those that have ripped me off over the years (and there have been a few). I think I'll end this here. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Got it. 

Sorry for the misinterpretation.

s


Ignimbrite said:


> Lol the only opinion I labeled as wrong was my own.


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

chuckpowell said:


> \ I find this board is becoming very polarized - if you don't do something "my way" then its wrong. Chuck


I think a lot of the tension is defensive posturing due to the onslot of folks trying to mix and line breed more and more frogs to make a quick buck. Just because someone mixed kingsnakes from different sides of a highway, line breed ball pythons into dumb blind shells of animals, made hypo-watermelon-pyromaniac leopard geckos, or interprets Lotters et al to their own warped vision, and because those markets crashed, they are moving on to dart frogs to try to make a buck. 

Social media accounts allow free range to discuss the latest manipulation of nature, but I think this forum, although overbearing at times, is the only consistent moral compass around and is therefore essential to the hobby.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I think some of the newer people are getting confused or maybe somehow others were confused for awhile and its just now coming out because of recent drama putting the spotlight on the issue even more so then usual.

Here is how I think about it and approach different scenarios, (but you should research each case IMO if you have questions)...

If it is the same morph and/or locality it is generally fine. Where it starts getting confusing is when 2 frogs appear similar and one or both the origins are not clear. Like red vents/amys vs blackwater vents, todd kelly orange Amy's/vents etc..etc.. or whatever they call them now, and who ever else has their name attached to them. * If a persons name is attached that is often a clue that you should probably look into it, because it might get murky *]

Frogs that may or may not be the same frog, we aren't sure so we don't generally mix. All azureus are azureus... but they aren't cobalts, and we seem to know new river, blue sips, and koetari are different morphs so we don't mix those with azureus even though they look very similar.

Basically if you know it is the exact same species/ morph/locality as some other "line" that has someone's name attached to it you can generally mix. If the frog looks like others but we aren't sure of the origins then in general it seems it can only be mixed with other unknowns that are by community consensus deemed identical. Sometimes there isn't much consensus so you are on your own, but many error on the side of caution and still don't mix when there are unknown aspects to a frog. I think sometimes we are to strict.

I'm not sure if I covered all the scenarios, but that is my take on the situation. In the end, if you don't know... Ask  Any time I've wondered if a frog could be mixed with another frog by a combination of falling back on those guidelines, doing some digging or just asking I've eventually ended up with a good idea of what was best or at least what I could get away with 
........................................

Now where I think we should lighten up a bit...

If 2 frogs or populations of frogs within the hobby are pretty certain to be same species and look to be the same morph and they demonstrate basically the same variability then I say screw it... Put these orphan outcasts to work keeping a cool frog (whatever it is) alive in the hobby. Example...

The various imports of man creek or almirente that came in, or various frogs labeled by import year that we keep separate from pretty much identical frogs but from different import year or even just by vendor in some cases. With some sources it gets confusing which was which, or there was little to no info... just a cool lookin lil red/greyish blue/green legged frog. I think we should take all the lil red frogs with greyish legs or other ones that look identical (allowing for some minor variability) that have unknown origins and just toss them together and call them "unknown generic pumilo morph #5" or some other arbitrary/descriptive name and lets those continue in the hobby as that generic morph. Then all these people with a couple random frogs from 2009 that look pretty much like the ones coming in 2010 can breed them and we will have something that is representative of that whatever it was that came in 

However we IMO should discourage them being bred to frogs we do have good info on, but if that occurs the offspring and maybe even the pairing just to be safe should be expected to be lumped into the generic morph and loose its former status as a known morph/locality frog along with any offspring. Once we assign these oddball unknowns a name they can basically be managed like frogs that do have good origins and clear morph info. 

And any questionable pairings or screw ups get lumped into the generic morph. Like say newbie accidentally doesn't know he shouldn't breed salt creek to man creek, but does... OK those frogs get ostracized to the generic group. I still think we have to use the peer pressure tactics to minimize these mistakes or to keep people from using this as an excuse to go designer on us. Basically we do what we've been doing, but with a bit more flexibility breeding extremely similar frogs to extremely similar frogs, with generic morphs as a sorta safety net. 

If we see someone going rogue and trying to franken frog on purpose we crack the whip like always and ask that people end the breeding of those frogs. If more pop up we put out the word we are pissed and either lump the frogs into the closest generic morph, or if they are radically different create a new morph. But all this is community based and we don't end the peer pressure, we just have a more organized way of determining who to lynch and when/why, and dealing with screw ups while salvaging the frogs we can, as best we can.

Then we loosen up on stuff like a red triv that came in this year from Suriname being bred to last years orange triv from Suriname. I think it is silly to keep nearly identical frogs that are highly likely to have the same or close by origins seperate, and continue importing them and never getting a decent CB pop of Red/orange trivs because we break every little batch of them up into a new group by seller/importer and/or by year.... especially when they come in same year, but 2 different vendors and people are scared to breed em even when they are really close to the same... silly IMO.

I'm just using trivs as one example I'm somewhat familiar with, but applying the same principle to other captive frog populations that are like little useless islands in themselves that we just watch die out of the hobby because we sometimes want the impossible or at least improbable. This may be the only way to save some of the rarer old line frogs.

I think we need to keep most of the caution we have, but in some cases be more pragmatic and actually try to make a community decision through a thread/poll if we want some red/orange trivs or just waste most of em till a really large known info shipment comes in and some people get lucky..if that ever happens.

*So Im being all convoluted as usual a d I won't edit it down just in case it is useful to some, but really all I'm saying is basically do what we have been doing; but with a bit more pragmatism in the mix.*


----------



## Tricolor (Jun 12, 2009)

I have two Regular azureus that give me solid blue, or sky blue froglets. Im not going to destroy these froglets or sell them as pairs. It was not intentional. But I am going to sell these froglets at sometimes or I would overrun. I also have been in the hobby since the early nineties. Just my 2 cents


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Tricolor said:


> *I have two Regular azureus that give me solid blue, or sky blue froglets.* Im not going to destroy these froglets or sell them as pairs. It was not intentional. But I am going to sell these froglets at sometimes or I would overrun. I also have been in the hobby since the early nineties. Just my 2 cents


Same here and is pretty normal with Azureus. 

It's taking those sky blue, breeding them for more sky blue, rinse and repeat over and over which is considered inbreeding. The purpose is to breed for zero dots and only sky blue. And, to jack up the price of said offspring.

That hurts the hobby and frogs, not random sky blues being bred with other random Azureus.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

With inbreeding for health you have enough offspring to pick the best and eventually you breed out all the deleterious alleles and have an inbred animal suited for the new environment it inhabits. You just have to do it right instead of breeding for money. Every animal does not make for a good breeding program.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

These animals are in captivity and they are staying there. It all depends on what you want out of the animals you breed. If you want frogs resistant to coccidiosis, healthwise, you unfortunately have to let some animals succomb to coccidiosis. If you want animals to care for their young you have to let some tads go. If you want animals to be resistant to hot and cold some animals have to go to hot and cold. 
In nature the conditions and predators pick the winners. In captivity you have to do that to keep a healthy population. Just randomly breeding animals let's all these animals pass without any criteria for the next generation. You breed randomly to capture alleles for reintroduction into the wild so that the conditions and predators can reshape the population. In captivity it's not so much how related they are as opposed to what you are trying to accomplish. And with frogs you have a tremendous amount of offspring each year to pick these offspring from. in the wild only one or none from a clutch may make it depending on how much they move to attract predators and a bunch of other criteria we have no clue how to mimic. 
That's just my view though.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Roadrunner: I think Ed has hashed out previously that any selection(which will happen inevitably) is going to reduce genetic diversity in captivity. I would argue as you that you want to breed vigorous frogs well adapted to terrarium life-if for nothing more than the sake of hobbyists coming after you. I do not believe inbreeding is the best method for either of these aims, however.

I agree that a lot of rather similar looking dart frogs with nonspecific locations can probably be lumped together. In the killifish hobby these are referred to as aquarium strains.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Tricolor said:


> I have two Regular azureus that give me solid blue, or sky blue froglets. Im not going to destroy these froglets or sell them as pairs. It was not intentional. But I am going to sell these froglets at sometimes or I would overrun. I also have been in the hobby since the early nineties. Just my 2 cents


In see no problem with that. If someone does I'd argue maybe they were one of the ones that got confused at some point.

I'll also add that while I think it is great some breeders make an effort to pair up say blue escudo with mostly red, and/or with a blue/red.. But on the other hand if I'm going to pay $350-500 for a pair or breeding group I don't think we should stop someone from saying "hey I want the red and red/blu one... not the nearly all blue one". 

If thats the deal then that's the deal... take it or leave it, but if you can get what you want and don't intentionally line breed it to eliminate the mostly blue then I think that is fine. Someone will take that blue frog and breed it so the genes aren't lost. But while I'd be disappointed I had to go else where to get my favorite escudo colors, I can totally respect a breeder standing firm to help ensure the diversity. Frankly the ideal would be a group with all 3 of the colors IMO, but I'm poor 

So OK to buy the frogs that look how you want them to IMO, but not OK to breed successive generations of hand selected offspring to produce only frogs like you originally bought or to purposefully create something new. That's the boogyman kinda line breeding. I don't really consider breeding two mostly red escudos and selling offsring to be "line breeding", but my perception is that some are starting to feel that way or have gotten confused, and are now thinking some guy breeding 2 mostly red escudos is line breeding... and I'd argue they are wrong, or that at least isn't the kinda like breeding we need to lynch people for.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I agree it may not be the best. I was just saying that it can be done well. It is not destined for failure from the start. It all depends on what you have and what you're trying to accomplish. Inbreeding for traits for a certain region is what it's used for.

I'd personally worry more about longevity and not breeding animals till they are older and not replacing them as breeders till the end of their life. You can either inbreed 2 gens a year or 2 gens in 15-20 years. Over 100 years you're animals would be better inbred for 5-7 gens then bred within a small group for 50-100 gens in the same time. All depends on goals and what you have.



Dendrobait said:


> Roadrunner: I think Ed has hashed out previously that any selection(which will happen inevitably) is going to reduce genetic diversity in captivity. I would argue as you that you want to breed vigorous frogs well adapted to terrarium life-if for nothing more than the sake of hobbyists coming after you. I do not believe inbreeding is the best method for either of these aims, however.
> 
> I agree that a lot of rather similar looking dart frogs with nonspecific locations can probably be lumped together. In the killifish hobby these are referred to as aquarium strains.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

So maybe we should work on a couple things as a hobby: What species regardless of form or morph is it okay to interbreed? I think most people think its acceptable to breed any D. azureus to any D. azureus. What other species is this okay with? I have a few in mind, but I'll let others speak up before I start listing. 

Also I think we need to develop a standard terminology. I'm a scientist and have spent over 30 years writing scientific papers so language is important and can be quite precise. So why don't we figure this out and resolve some of our problems. A hybrid is an interbreeding of two different species. So what do we call an interbreeding between two different morphs of the same species? Or two different importations of the same species and morph? Or two different line-breed animals (is this the same as a species?)? And what precisely is a morph? Is it a group of frogs from a separate locality that look a specific way? Or a group of animals breed to look a certain way? How much variability is allowed?

Best,

Chuck


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Part 1 
Inbreeding, Outcrossing, and Line Breeding and the Implications for Dart Frogs 

One of the topics that ends up being endlessly tossed around in the hobby are the potential effects (or lack thereof) inbreeding, line breeding and outbreeding/out crossing of frogs in the hobby. All of these have significant negative implications for the captive populations and the viability of the captive populations are at significant risk given the current policies in the hobby. 
Inbreeding and line breeding (which is a form of inbreeding) are known to be a significant problem for frogs and toads in the wild (Anderson et al, Hitchings et al). The reason is reductions in the genetic diversity of the populations are linked to decreased survival and resistance to disease (Hitchings et al). However it has to be noted that despite repeated statements by some individuals that inbreeding isn’t a problem in frogs as they have inbred X species for Y generations without any detection of deformations, reduction of fertility or other directly visible outward signs cannot be taken to mean that inbreeding is not a problem. The reason is because the deformations or other visible signs are rarely seen unless there are genes that cause the deformations already present in the parents (in other words, we shouldn’t expect all cases of severe inbreeding to be signaled by deformations or changes in size/color) Instead the greatest risk to the frogs is a loss of genetic diversity and resistance to stressors like disease or parasites. There is abundant evidence not only in frogs and other amphibians but multiple other taxa that a reduction in genetic diversity reduces fitness (Hitchings et al). 

The manner in which the hobby chooses potential mates for their frogs is a direct contributor towards the problems with inbreeding depression. The current dogma is that simply selecting frogs from the same import or line is able to ensure sufficient genetic diversity in the captive populations. This scenario does nothing to prevent inbreeding or line breeding from occurring unless the frogs are from recent imports. The reason that this doesn’t do anything to prevent inbreeding is because there isn’t any method for determining relatedness of the pair so it cannot be considered as a method for outcrossing/out breeding. Different people have different levels of success when acclimating frogs and rearing of the tadpoles/froglets. This in turn causes the genes of those frogs to be represented by a larger number of froglets which in turn grow into the breeders for the next generation. As each generation passes those genes become a greater and greater proportion of the population which means the population has become more and more inbred. 
The second problem with how the hobby chooses mates for their frogs is the practice of purchasing groups of froglets from a single breeder and rearing those frogs until pairs form and then breeding those frogs. Sibling to sibling pairs are a rapid method of reducing the genetic variety of a population. There is an understandable bias for the hobby to attempt to save money on the high costs of shipping which pushes the trend toward the sibling groups but the situation is still not ideal for the long-term presence of the frogs.

The third problem with the hobby is due to mate selection bias on the part of the owner. Pairs are set up and bred based on personal aesthetics of the breeder with little or no thought towards genetic diversity. This is a hard one to overcome as there can even be an unconscious bias towards the selection but it does drive down the genetic diversity of the population. Additionally it is a smaller factor in the risk of inbreeding/line breeding to captive populations. 
The fourth issue is that the hobby has significant swings in the population of the frogs where they go from uncommon/rare to common and back again. Each one of these swings is accompanied by replenishment of the population by only a few breeders and as a consequence is going to result in rapid loss of more and more genetic diversity with each one of these cycles

Outbreeding depression is not a new concept and has been around for a very long time (Edmands). It can and does play a significant risk towards problems with long term viability as well. One of the things that is tricky about outbreeding depression is that the problems are not always visible in the F1 cross. The reduced viability of the offspring may take until the F5 generation to become apparent. In this case, given the lifespan of the frogs, it could take as long as 10-50 years to become apparent (depending on the frequency the frogs are bred). 

Many people have misconceptions that outbreeding depression is only a risk when the animals are from different subspecies or species are bred together but populations that are even separated by a short distance can have significant implications on the viability of the offspring (Sagvik). Now expression of outbreeding depression in captivity may not be apparent as it could involve subtler clues like smaller tadpoles at hatching or smaller froglets at metamorphosis or changes in size at maturity. All of those problems can be easily overcome with a little extra effort on the part of the breeder but they should still be a warning that not all is good with the frog.

continued in next post


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Part 2

Outbreeding depression is a concern when there are multiple imports of the frogs that are selected and named based on color and patterns versus actual locality data. The reason is because many populations of dendrobatid (and other frogs) are not dispersed throughout the entire habitat so that there is even gene flow across the landscape. Instead many of the populations are actually located in small pockets that are surrounded by population sinks which prevents gene flow between populations (Ficetola et al, Noonan et al). As an example the populations of tinctorius have been isolated from each other for the last 10,000 years (Noonan et al). This means that breeding different populations of frogs together that have been named based on color is immediately at risk of outbreeding depression but the potential damage from it could take decades to become known. This however means that small import numbers in a year could be at risk of inbreeding depression fairly quickly due to a small number of survivors that are used for breeding. 

So what are the hobbyists to do to sustain the populations; inbreed, outcross or something else? In the absence of a method to consistently determine parentage and degree of relatedness, it really doesn’t matter as none of the efforts the hobby makes to select mates are sufficient to prevent inbreeding depression and/or outbreeding depression. Getting a frog from another person of the same line doesn’t tell you if that frog is a sib, cousin, or even a parent to the frog you are acquiring as the hobby has a fairly high turnover in collections of people selling frogs they have had for a while to make room for new breeders. Given that some of the frogs can live for more than 20 years it is possible to have them present for very long periods of time.

As a general blanket method, the literature suggests that outbreeding between different subspecies/species to be a measure of last resort as the damage cannot be undone after the fact (Edmands). It should only be done if the population is absolutely going to go extinct. Breeding between the same populations regardless of “line” should be encouraged as much as possible particularly if the relatedness of the frogs is able to be minimized. 

With respect to different variations of frogs that are line bred for patterns, these patterns such as fine spot, sky blue, chocolate, etc, should be bred back into the regular populations. Selectively breeding for them also reduces genetic diversity.

Now many people are probably going to point at this as my being overly cynical due to a failure of the hobby to work with programs to track genetic diversity but this is a real evaluation based on the literature around this topic. I used only a small amount of the relevant literature on this topic for my references and citations so I encourage those who want to read more to go ahead and do their own literature searches. I strongly suggest using google scholar as simple web searches are going to give you a lot of opinions that lack significant support. 


Works Cited 
Anderson, Lisolette W. Fog, Kare. Damgaard, Christian. 2004; “Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European treefrog (Hyla arborea)” Proc. R. Soc. Lond 271:1293-1302 Print

Edmands, Suzanne. 2007; “Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation management” Molecular Ecology 16: 463-475 Print

Ficetola, Gentile Francesco. De Bernardi, Fiorenza. 2005; “Supplementation or in situ conservation? Evidence of local adaptation in the Italian agile frog Rana latasteiand consequences for the management of populations” Animal Conservation 8: 33-40 Print

Fox, Charles W. Sheibly, Kristy L. Reed, David H. 2008; “Experimental evolution of the genetic load and its implications for the genetic basis of inbreeding depression” Evolution 62(2): 2236-2249 Print

Hitchings, Susan P. Beebee, Trevor J. C. 1997; “Genetic substructuring as a result of barriers to gene flow in urban Rana temporaria (common frog) populations: implications for biodiversity conservation” Heredity 79: 117-127 Print
Hitchings, S. P. Beebee, T. J. C. 1998; “Loss of genetic diversity and fitness in Common Toad (Bufo bufo) populations isolated by inimical habitat” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 11:269–283 Print

Noonan, Brice P. 2006; “Refugial isolation and secondary contact in the dyeing poison dart frog Dendrobates tinctorius” Molecular Ecology 15: 4425-4435 

Sagvik, Jörgen. Uller, Tobias. Olsson, Mats. 2005, “Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria” Conservation Genetics 6: 205-211 Print


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

Thank you for all of that Ed... 

I have to say I have a particular level of frustration with this one sometimes:


Ed said:


> The second problem with how the hobby chooses mates for their frogs is the practice of purchasing groups of froglets from a single breeder and rearing those frogs until pairs form and then breeding those frogs. Sibling to sibling pairs are a rapid method of reducing the genetic variety of a population. There is an understandable bias for the hobby to attempt to save money on the high costs of shipping which pushes the trend toward the sibling groups but the situation is still not ideal for the long-term presence of the frogs.


I have actively tried to swap frogs with people and barely ever get a response. It can be almost infuriating. Say I purchase a group of frogs, raise them up... square away a pair... and then want to swap a male for another male from someone else so I'm not breeding siblings.

Most people (who are breeding their sibling groups) will basically just blow me off. They have the mentality of "why mess up a good thing?" because their frogs are breeding for them. 

You would think that this type of situation would be praised by the hobby... but it seems like people are more concerned with keeping their breeding going than improving their pair. They would rather keep getting clutches than have a slight break in their breeding to QT (and possibly treat) the new frog. I think the problem here is that the average buyer doesn't put value on genetics. They wouldn't pay any more for offspring from non-sibling parents, so then whats the incentive for someone to stop their group from breeding? That needs to change IMO. The hobby need to put an emphasis on it... and buyers will follow suit.

Also, I have a standard x chocolate pair of leucomelas. When I was trying to buy a chocolate leucomelas I remember looking back at old posts and advertisements for mixed offspring from groups like this and it seems like there is very little demand for some reason. Most of the time its met with a "wait, these are a cross? is that ok?" kind of response. For all the people out there that want to have "different looking" frogs in their vivs... and then there is low demand for frogs that give them that opportunity? It is odd. So I definitely agree with Chuck that we need to come up with some way of describing these in the hobby so that people understand when it is ok and when it is not.


----------



## jaybugg13 (Dec 9, 2013)

What's the difference between between a line and a morph? In other words without specifically knowing the locality data of a given specimen how would a hobbyist ever know that it was ok to mix (ex chocolate leuc to standard) or not ok because it represents an unacceptable form of outbreeding? Or is the answer that you must alway know the locality data? It seems like even in specimens that are imported from the same area may have slightly different traits and end up in the hobby as separate morphs. Sorry, but for a new hobbyist this seems like a difficult issue to come to terms with.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It's a wonder how they get it right in nature.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jaybugg13 said:


> What's the difference between between a line and a morph? In other words without specifically knowing the locality data of a given specimen how would a hobbyist ever know that it was ok to mix (ex chocolate leuc to standard) or not ok because it represents an unacceptable form of outbreeding? Or is the answer that you must alway know the locality data? It seems like even in specimens that are imported from the same area may have slightly different traits and end up in the hobby as separate morphs. Sorry, but for a new hobbyist this seems like a difficult issue to come to terms with.


It's not that difficult. In general a morph refers to a specific stable population in the wild. There are some exceptions such as the chocolate leucomela which are referred to as a morph in and of themselves. They should just be considered the same as the population from which they derived. 

Unlike a number of other reptile groups, subtle differences are generally counted as being part of the normal phenotypic variation of a population. In the past when multiple species were lumped under one name ended up with what eventually turned out to be multiple species imported under one name. For example talk to the old timers about the old imports of quinquevittatus and you'll be surprised about the number of different species that came into the country at that way (legal as the different species were at that time assigned to quinquevittatus as color varients). 

A line is a genetic lineage based on an import of a population. The specific population from which it derived may or may not be known. There can be multiple lines from a single import based on who got and bred the frogs from an import. There is also confusion with the whole lineage system due to animals being labled with the importer's name and year such as Strictly 2014 import "man creek" and other people purchasing cherry picked animals from that import with the name of the person who cherry picked the animals as the name of the line (example blue oophagus frog 2014 "man creek"). In the latter case, people should stick to the simplest method which would be to lable it with the importer and import year. 

One of the inherent problems of this who discussion is how the hobby used to try to use the filial generation system to describe how far from the wild a specific frog actually was.... See http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/89636-filial-generation-numbers.html for clarification. 

The problem with the idea of outcrossing is that you have to know the degree of relatedness between the frogs. If you cannot determine the degree of relatedness then you have no real idea of the risk.. 

This is different than in the wild as there are selection pressures to ensure that deleterious genes are minimized within a population and to ensure maximal genetic diversity. A mechanism that is lacking in the captive populations (see the references in my post above). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Well I'd define "morph" or "locality" as frogs that are representative of the wild phenotypes from a single species within a particular region that have a relatively free exchange of genetics, or a specific population of CB frogs like "super blue" auratus, "chocolate" luec, and/or frogs grouped by import year and/or source.

**Edit** 
Edited my version to account for made up morphs like super blue after seeing Ed's (Good to see ya Ed  )


Reasoning:
Because many morph names are actually based on place names near where the frogs are found, and even if another morph is found that is very similar it is generally a sesperate population in a different area, and morph names like "Patricia", "Vanessa", or "powder blue/grey" tinc still tends to represent a locality even though it is a person's name or descriptively based.

For guidelines relating to how we decide if it is time to relax on breeding restrictions I would suggest:

1. How imperiled is this CB pop? 

2. Age of line (older lines have likely suffered the most damage and some may be nearly extinct in captivity)

3. Do we have another line that seems nearly identical by phenotype and behavior?

4. How likely is it that 2 or more lines are actually the same locality or near by? (More likely if near they would have exchanged genes at some point in time)

5. Is this other line also imperiled? (Makes sense to mix the most endangered and similar frogs first then go from there)

6. How good is our source/locality info? (Makes sense to mix the most unknown but similar frogs first before we expose frogs with better history to the risk of that history getting lost or muddied in the shuffle.

7. Are the wild populations like islands of different colored frogs, or does the phenotype gradually change over a large continuous range for the most part? (I'd suggest it is slightly less risky when the frog has larger more continuous ranges and gradual phenotype changes)

Methods to come to consensus and implement management:

1. Starting threads and/or polls on specific species, morphs, localities, import years. 

2. Possibly combining those into the care sheets

3. Encouraging those who have the most experience and knowledge of general hobby history and/or relating to a specific frog or groups of frogs to take the lead or at least contribute their input/opinions on what if anything we should do now with that frog. Perhaps encouraging the trusted commercial breeders to get onboard as they may have the most resources to work with and produce/disseminate the most frogs over the widest area the fastest. As they are the major custodions if some lines this may give them more frogs to sell and help ensure they make enough money to stay in business.

4. I think it is reasonable give those working with those frogs and the ones most interested with the most knowledge, experience, success and vested interest the reins to that frogs future. Welcome all input but give a bit more weight to the words of someone who actually has worked with that and/or similar frogs or is a big fan and might someday.

5. Those who are in contact with the old timers that no longer frequent the forums or fit the general criteria for "vested interest" take it upon themselves to try and get those people involved here at least on this one issue, or act as their proxy and share with us their knowledge and opinions.

6. If consensus ie reached possibly ask or let specific people be the ones to begin to implement it. If you are trusted, knowledgable, experienced and also happen to have the frogs or willing to get them then you should probably be one of the first to start implementing the salvage/repair efforts.

7. Maintain communication and report progress, be as transparent as possible, or at least reasonable.

8. Welcome your new frog overlords with open arms; bow to the infinate power and wisdom of Zardoz 
----------------------------

OK I'm just spitballin and that's all I got for now so add to it, amend it, argue with it, etc...etc... But #8 is nonnegotiable


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

chuckpowell said:


> Also I think we need to develop a standard terminology. I'm a scientist and have spent over 30 years writing scientific papers so language is important and can be quite precise. So why don't we figure this out and resolve some of our problems. A hybrid is an interbreeding of two different species. So what do we call an interbreeding between two different morphs of the same species? Or two different importations of the same species and morph? Or two different line-breed animals (is this the same as a species?)? And what precisely is a morph? Is it a group of frogs from a separate locality that look a specific way? Or a group of animals breed to look a certain way? How much variability is allowed?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


Breeding two different things is always making a hybrid. The correct terminology would be interspecies and intraspecies hybrids.

Interspecific hybrids are formed between two different species like a cat and a dog.

Intraspecific hybrids are between two different morphs/breeds/races/varieties in one species, like a German Shepherd and a Husky


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

Ed said:


> ...
> Now many people are probably going to point at this as my being overly cynical due to a failure of the hobby to work with programs to track genetic diversity but this is a real evaluation based on the literature around this topic. I used only a small amount of the relevant literature on this topic for my references and citations so I encourage those who want to read more to go ahead and do their own literature searches. I strongly suggest using google scholar as simple web searches are going to give you a lot of opinions that lack significant support.
> ...


I still think those programs to tack genetic diversity are needed. They are the only way to keep good and useful data. 
Example: I've been trying to track information back to only 2007 and it has proven to be impossible due to people leaving the hobby and/or being unwilling to answer emails and phone calls. Without databases, information is simply "word of mouth," often incomplete, and sometimes incorrect.


----------



## zimmerj (Aug 20, 2014)

JPccusa said:


> I still think those programs to tack genetic diversity are needed. They are the only way to keep good and useful data.
> Example: I've been trying to track information back to only 2007 and it has proven to be impossible due to people leaving the hobby and/or being unwilling to answer emails and phone calls. Without databases, information is simply "word of mouth," often incomplete, and sometimes incorrect.


It sounds like a difficult task! These sort of databases exist in other hobbies?


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

I know they have existed in the past in some forms, such as FrogTracks. I don't know exactly why that seemed to die out, but I assume it was due to lack of interest on the hobby's part. I think Ed has also posted information/links to the types of programs that zoos use to track genetic data before. Unfortunately, I think that most people who keep frogs would find such a database to be too much work to keep up with, which limits the effectiveness of it. I know some people here are the exception, but I don't know about the interest of the hobby as a whole. So unfortunately, until people want to start working on a useful database, it's up to everyone individually to try to track their lineage (which is not always easy as some have noted).
Bryan


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

zimmerj said:


> It sounds like a difficult task! These sort of databases exist in other hobbies?


Not in the US to my knowledge. Some of the keepers of animals in the EU have run studbooks to track related animals but that is due to the work of a dedicated few to my knowledge.

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> I know they have existed in the past in some forms, such as FrogTracks. I don't know exactly why that seemed to die out, but I assume it was due to lack of interest on the hobby's part.


Ding ding ding... 

There was too little interest in using the programs and in addition to the lack of interest there were several people running around spreading rumors to help ensure that there was a lack of interest.... for example "as long as the frogs are from the same import, there isn't any need to worry about breeding them together"... and I can go on from there. 

One of the critical points that is consistently passed over i*s that even if there are a lot of frogs of a certain species or morph/population, it does not in any way mean that they are no inbred*. The reason is that the people who are more successful with a certain frog are going to end up with a disproportionately number of offspring in the population. Add a cycle of popularity or two and they could represent the entire captive population.
Simply breeding to the same population/line is not sufficient to avoid inbreeding issues in the captive population. This for what appears to be a number of reasons is totally ignored by most of the people in the hobby. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

carola1155 said:


> Thank you for all of that Ed...
> 
> I have to say I have a particular level of frustration with this one sometimes:
> 
> ...


Don't underestimate the whole level of status that is accrued based on the fact that they have bred one or more species. The more a person pumps out froglets, the more they can claim to be an expert even if all they are doing is following a recipe that was developed by people before them. 

I think you'll consistently see people unwilling to make the trade as long as the hobby puts a lot of status on breeding. They ignore the fact that breeding the vast majority of dendrobatids has moved from an art form to a simple rote application and also ignore that you can get the frogs to breed even if your husbandry techniques are substandard. 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

It's never too late to start a studbook, or multiple studbooks. I still think it's worthwhile, even if it's just a handful of hobbyists to start with. Might even make it easier to work out any kinks before it grows. With countries closing off imports and wildlife laws generally getting stricter though as the years go by, I think it's very valuable to know which animals come from where, and to be able to track them. Even if we can only track their starting points from this date onwards.


----------



## zimmerj (Aug 20, 2014)

Ok so this has been a concern of mine since I'm trying to acquire another bloodline of Cristobal's. I can't tell the difference between the 3 I currently own. The only way I can even ensure that all 3 are alive is when I see all 3 at the same time lol. So I'm looking to acquire 2 more from another bloodline. What if I can't tell the difference between them either and therefore lose track of which belong to which bloodline? I imagine the frogs won't take it upon themselves to ensure they aren't mating with their brother/sister... So is there any further action I can take to ensure that they aren't inbreeding despite my efforts to mix bloodlines?


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Ed, would you expand on this a bit more? I've always been of the opinion that if the frogs are kept properly (or nearly so) they will breed - its not all that difficult. The hobbyist really has little to do their frogs breeding - the frogs are doing all the work. So your saying some people are taking credit for their frogs breeding? I guess I don't understand the whole status thing. I feel the more I learn about these wonderful animals the more I know I don't know. I understand there is status for keeping rare species, but that's almost always said to me someone has more money than brains. I guess its like the large penis thing. But if it works and you have someone to work it with, what does it matter. 

Best,

Chuck
If I'm out of line with the penis comment please remove this post. 



Ed said:


> Don't underestimate the whole level of status that is accrued based on the fact that they have bred one or more species. The more a person pumps out froglets, the more they can claim to be an expert even if all they are doing is following a recipe that was developed by people before them.
> 
> I think you'll consistently see people unwilling to make the trade as long as the hobby puts a lot of status on breeding. They ignore the fact that breeding the vast majority of dendrobatids has moved from an art form to a simple rote application and also ignore that you can get the frogs to breed even if your husbandry techniques are substandard.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

chuckpowell said:


> Ed, would you expand on this a bit more? I've always been of the opinion that if the frogs are kept properly (or nearly so) they will breed - its not all that difficult. The hobbyist really has little to do their frogs breeding - the frogs are doing all the work. So your saying some people are taking credit for their frogs breeding? I guess I don't understand the whole status thing. I feel the more I learn about these wonderful animals the more I know I don't know. I understand there is status for keeping rare species, but that's almost always said to me someone has more money than brains..


Hi Chuck,

I tend to phrase the reproduction part a little differently. To many people if the frogs are breeding then the husbandry must be right as opposed to the fact that the frogs will breed in subpar conditions. 

This is my impression from watching the forums as well as listening to conversations when I was getting to the shows more frequently. 

If one watches the classifieds, there is a demand for proven pairs or sexed adult frogs and these can command top dollar as opposed for the prices for froglets. In some cases these are the same people who are discussing husbandry with others... 

If there wasn't status in breeding frogs as fast as possible why do people want to spend top dollar for adult proven frogs as opposed to getting some well started froglets for much less cash and then breeding once they are sexually mature? 

The more species you can list in your signature the better a standing a person can expect with newer individuals. 

As I noted it is an observational opinion built over a few years.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Can some of you discuss methods of tracking and management that anyone can apply right now, even with no "official" system in place? 

I'm wondering if there isn't the perception that until it is official it isn't worth trying on your own, and maybe people are underestimating the benefits that some minimal "after the fact" management could have.

Just encouraging some to start tracking after they get a proven pair/group, or getting them to do any basic management would be a step in the right direction. Some may feel this is an all or nothing game, and if they aren't willing to learn some complicated system, or software or jump in 100% from the go... then they might as well stay out of it. 

Basically I'm wondering if there isn't a more pragmatic "baby steps" or bootstrap approach here, to at least get more people actually doing something now. 

Maybe if they dip a toe in and we don't bite it off, they will eventually dive in.

I think now I'm a bit more enlightened and willing to try some management beyond just knowing where my frogs cam from, but honestly years back when frogtracks and whatever else they were trying to get off the ground was happening, I read all about it and I saw the usefulness of it...

But the level of complexity, and an "all or nothing" mentality: like if I didn't do something perfect or just a bit different I'd get kicked out of the club, basically caused me to say to myself: "Screw that, way to much of a hassle. I'll label my frogs and pass the info along but I'm not spending that much free time with a spread sheet and doing data entry!"


I'd wager frogs to fruit flies a similar attitude is common in most, especially in their first few years in the hobby. Until we have a pragmatic approach with realistic goals and expectations that accounts for people being less informed or less invested in the hobby then some of us, I fear this will remain a pipe dream, or only exist within a very small % of the hobby.

Also what do you guys think about the idea or need for a few trusted/respected people who are most invested, especially in certain groups of frogs (like ameerega, or pumilio), after consulting the community and researching the consensus; taking some initiative in things like deciding which frogs previously kept separate might better off together hobby and actually openly to it? 

(I'm talking about a very conservative approach with community involment, not someone declaring themselves the Ameerega messiah, and laying down the law. And for anyone wondering, no I probably don't mean me, at least anytime soon. Not until I have way more frogs, have done more breeding, and only if people seem to want it to be me. I'm more of an idea man anyways  )


----------



## Dev30ils (May 1, 2012)

Dave,

I currently track my frogs in a very rudimentary spreadsheet system. You should obviously continue to track who you got your frogs from, as most of the time we're relying on the word of others to have the correct information available. "Know your breeder!"

Some other important information to consider keeping on your frogs:

*1. An individual ID:* This separates each individual frog in your collection. It can be something as simple as "Patricia 1" or as complex as a numbering system. The key to making this work is to attach some sort of identifying mark to it. For instance my patricias have two different shades of yellow. The adult male has a darker shade and the juvenile has a much lighter shade. I make note of this in my spreadsheet so the two frogs can be differentiated by _anyone_. Your identifying marks may have to change as your frogs mature. If we were to develop a global tracking system, each individual frog in the system would need its own ID# and identifying marks.

*2. Out of the water date:* Keeping track of your frogs age is important. An estimation may be needed if your breeder can't supply that information for you. This is one reason I like to buy froglets, you can usually guess within a month or two how old the froglet is. If I buy a "proven breeder" from someone they can make up just about any age. 

*3. Date Acquired:* For your records, it may benefit you to have this date especially if you need to look up a transaction with someone. If it's a tadpole you bred in your own collection you can use a hatch date. 

*4. Stage Acquired:* Did I buy that frog as a froglet or an adult? Again good for your records. 

*5. Sex:* Once you figure it out, it's good to have that written down.

*6. Line:* Here I'm talking about the official line. This is where you might have to do some research. If you placed an order from UE then it's going to be easy. But in the case of some frogs you might have to go back and talk to who you acquired yours from who can go back and talk to who they got theirs from and so on. Ask Chris Luce if it's possible to go back all the way to a 1980s? import and he will tell you that it is. 

I'm sure there's many other things that can be added to this list. Unfortunately since the general public no longer has access to ISIS (the old AZA tracking system, not the terrorist organization) it's hard to see what the professionals are keeping track of. 

If we all keep good records of our frogs it will be possible to build a larger system going forward. 



Dendro Dave said:


> Also what do you guys think about the idea or need for a few trusted/respected people who are most invested, especially in certain groups of frogs (like ameerega, or pumilio), after consulting the community and researching the consensus; taking some initiative in things like deciding which frogs previously kept separate might better off together hobby and actually openly to it?
> 
> (I'm talking about a very conservative approach with community involment, not someone declaring themselves the Ameerega messiah, and laying down the law. And for anyone wondering, no I probably don't mean me, at least anytime soon. Not until I have way more frogs, have done more breeding, and only if people seem to want it to be me. I'm more of an idea man anyways  )


Oh and I'm definitely all for this idea. I'm in agreement with many others on this thread that separating out certain "lines" by appearance is basically line breeding. Chocolate leucs are definitely just a naturally occurring color variant folks!


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I guess where I'm most uncertain how to go about things is with breeding groups where I may not be able to tell one frog from another, sex and.or appearance wise. And how to deal with tubs of froglets growing out possibly from different groups. Basically if I ever have tubs of frogs I'll probably figure something out but interested to know what others are doing.


Also disappointed that many breeders do not just include the info when shipping, unless.prompted to. Or post their plan online. Like you could make a thread about all the frogs you have or had, list line and things like pair B and pair A and how closely related they might be with pics so buyers could later look it up. Like...

"oh OK I got froglets from pair b, so I'll ask for pair A froglets to breed them with."

And if people forget to pass info there is always that breeders records for their buyers to reference later.

As for the reintegration of lines, orange/red trivs seem like a decent candidate to me. From what I understand (was told), the pop just gradually shifts color across its range. So many have been imported for years and only now are seeing enough success that maybe most orange/ red tribe will someday be CB

If they look the same, show roughly the same type and amount of varability, act the same, and the populations are mostly connected or at least fairly close by or to be the same: I just don't know if breaking them all up by vendors, import years, etc makes much sense when they bare so similar if we really want to get a well established CB population going and lessen the need for imports (maybe).

Unknown frogs that are basically identical to other unknowns seem worth combining so we can at least have a cool frog stay in the hobby. We could manage it then as "unknown pumilio 6", or something.

Little more hesitant about breeding an unknown to a like known, but we could say that all ofspring should be categorized as "unknown pumilio 6" even if we happen to know one of the parents is strictly Feb '12, or SNDF. The parent maintains it's status but the froglets don't... but at least we have a safety net if the known line gets into trouble. 

And then what about the possibility of using some Half known and unknown offspring being bred together (ideally originating from different half and half pairings), to breed a frog that is genetically closer to the known line to increase breeding stock of the known frogs.

Possible? 

Wise? 

For the most part I agree with what the hobby wants to keep separate, but sometimes it just seems like we are being so picky, we prevent that frog from likely becoming established or remaining that way based on maybes rather facts especially when 2 or more unknown but seemingly identical populations exist within the hobby. At what point does it cease to serve a practical purpose?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

So I thought I'd share an experience with you guys that I had a little while back.

I was at the last NYC Frog Day, and I ventured over to Josh's Frogs table and I saw that there were these HUGE tincs for sale. I commented to them that I've heard that they are supposed to get this big in the wild, but I've never really seen them this big CB (but then again I don't get out much). 

Josh's response? It's all about how they breed their frogs. They mentioned that they go through lengths to get frogs from different sources, so that they're never inbreeding their frogs. From what I recall, they mentioned that you'll often see smaller frogs in the hobby because they are really inbred -- they'll be frogs that have been bred from siblings for several generations, and that's why they're not as big as their outcrossed individuals.

Since several have posted about Josh's in this thread, I thought I'd share my experience.

I guess where I'm getting at is that you should try to know/keep track of the pedigree of your frogs. People do this for dogs, are your frogs any less worthy?

And another thing I'm getting at is that anyone who is serious about breeding and staying in the hobby should go through the trouble of acquiring frogs from different sources so that they don't produce any inbred offspring. It's extremely common practice to buy a group of froglets that are siblings, grow them to adulthood, and then breed them together. Why not trade one sex with local froggers when they get to breeding age?


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Ed, your quite right that frogs will breed in subpar conditions and commonly do. That's part of the problem in our hobby of smaller frogs that produce fewer offspring than their wild caught counterparts. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I've seen very few people consistently produce frogs on a pair with their wild counterparts. The color seems to hold up, but size and size and the quantity and quality of eggs doesn't. My observations also are build on years of observation and little else. 

I don't understand the lust after the new and (or) unusual. But maybe I'm jaded, but why keep a frog that probably won't breed for you, for instance silverstoni or lehmanni. Personally I'm back to a few frogs that I've liked forever - DD. auratus and tinctorius. I also keep D. truncatus and have also had those in the past also. 

Best,

Chuck



Ed said:


> I tend to phrase the reproduction part a little differently. To many people if the frogs are breeding then the husbandry must be right as opposed to the fact that the frogs will breed in subpar conditions.
> 
> This is my impression from watching the forums as well as listening to conversations when I was getting to the shows more frequently.
> 
> ...


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Ignimbrite said:


> ... less genetic diversity than the hillbillies in the backwoods of Kentucky (no offense to anyone from the backwoods of Kentucky lol).


Only very indirectly relevant, but this hit my funnybone because of my family from deep backwoods KY. They were basically run out for mixing whites and natives in our breeding line (That was early last century though).


----------



## lincolnerickson (Oct 7, 2011)

*Website with info for each frog*

If this has be suggested before, I apologize. Also, I am not necessarily volunteering to take on this project. 

What about a website that has all of this breeding info available in one place. I did a quick mockup Frog Test. Type in Ameerega or Dendrobates on the search bar to the left to try it out. Also, the info I put in there is in no way correct. The idea is that this information can be gathered all in one place and a post on each type of frog can be made. On that post, there will be info about known import years, what stuff can be bred with what, etc. Perhaps on the site could be a few info pages written about line breeding, out-crossing, morphs etc as specifically relates to the dart frog hobby.

Problems I see. 
1. Deciding who gets to decide could be a problem. People might feel bad if left out.
2. A lot of info on the species is not really settled. Can x be bred with y?
3. Keeping it up to date. New imports are coming in all the time. It would be an ongoing process to keep it useful for new imports
4. Data input. There are hundreds if not thousands of entries that would need to be made if EVERY single morph was to be included. 

So, is this something that would even be helpful? Would it be harmful if it only got partially finished? How many people would be willing to help?


----------

