# Chocolate Leucomelas



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

I dont know if this has been cover yet in another thread but is it possible for a fine spotted "chocolate" or guayana banded "chocolate" to exist?Im just wondering if it is possible? Im not sure if "chocolates" lack the dominate trait which is the black coloring,therefore; carry the reccesive trait which is the brownish coloring or tan . There are many stories on how chocolates came about. 

Any Input would be great
Thx for looking


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

I felt bad or worried about mixing my nominants with my chocolates but according to this thread( http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/63215-chocolate-leucomelas-history.html ) im allowed to have them together.


----------



## mordoria (Jan 28, 2011)

I have heard from breeders that you SHOULD mix them to avoid line breeding them. The fine spotted and the guyana banded are different morphs. I have leucs that are "nominant" but at glance, you would think they are fine spotted.


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

mordoria said:


> I have heard from breeders that you SHOULD mix them to avoid line breeding them. The fine spotted and the guyana banded are different morphs. I have leucs that are "nominant" but at glance, you would think they are fine spotted.


Post Pics



SmackoftheGods said:


> My understanding is that while chocolate leucomelas may occasionally occur in the wild, they are not, in fact, a distinct morph. Many breeders frown upon separating chocolate leucs from the nominant morph and treating it as its own individual morph.
> 
> While no one will criticize you for owning a chocolate leuc, you may take some heat if people find you have a vivarium dedicated to chocolate leucs specifically, if you're breeding leucs for the chocolate trait, or if you're paying or charging more for the chocolate leuc morph. Many (although admittedly not all) treat line-bred frogs (as chocolate leucs are) just about the same as outsourced or hybridized frogs. I suspect this is why you're having trouble coming across information (particularly current information) about chocolate leucs specifically.
> 
> If you do end up with a chocolate leuc or two I recommend finding some non-chocolates to put in the tank with them.


So its alright to mix them. I still want to know if there are fine spotted chocolates leucs or Guyana Banded Chocolate Leucs.


----------



## saruchan (Jun 12, 2010)

They are neither fine spotted leucs or guyana banded they are just chocolate leucs. Very cool though! I checked out your 58 gallon tank you posted earlier, nice job.


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

saruchan said:


> They are neither fine spotted leucs or guyana banded they are just chocolate leucs. Very cool though! I checked out your 58 gallon tank you posted earlier, nice job.


Thank you very much.


----------



## PeanutbuttER (Jan 1, 2011)

You photoshopped your avatar right? I just noticed it looks like a bright red leuc.


----------



## boabab95 (Nov 5, 2009)

> They are neither fine spotted leucs or guyana banded they are just chocolate leucs.


umm... Fine spotted and chocolate aren't morphs, guyana banded is...


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

I don't know what makes chocolate leucs "chocolate" (in terms of genetics), but I'm guessing it's just a mutation that popped up from captive breeding- I don't think there have been chocolate leucs imported from the wild, but I could be wrong. In that case, theoretically there could be chocolate banded or fine spotted leucs, but to my knowledge they do not exist. Even if they did, they should be mixed with the normal phenotype of their population, not others (i.e. chocolate standard leucs with standard leucs, not chocolate standard leucs with "chocolate" banded leucs) because they should not be bred specifically for that trait. 
Hopefully that makes sense... all this talk of "chocolate" is making me confused and hungry 
Bryan


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

ConFuCiuZ said:


> So its alright to mix them. I still want to know if there are fine spotted chocolates leucs or Guyana Banded Chocolate Leucs.


Search function is a wonderful function, isn't it? Except when I apparently wrote the word "outsourced" when I meant "out-bred..." (and apparently from a thread in the ThunderDome I meant "crossbred"). Alas....

Chocolate leucs cand and should be bred with nominant leucs, unless you have British Gyuana leucs that are throwing out chocolate leucs in which case they're British Guyana leucs. Jeremy is right, you should ignore the term "chocolate" altogether. If they were bred from standard leucs then they're standard leucs and should be bred with standard leucs. The same is true from offspring from British Guyana.



boabab95 said:


> umm... Fine spotted(...) aren't morphs, guyana banded is...


This was actually the topic of some debate around the board a year or two ago. There were those insisting that micro-spots are true morphs and others insisting that they're line-bred. Then there were many more people who admitted they had no idea. There were two factions of these individuals, those who said we should keep micro-spots separate "just in case," and those who said we should breed micro-spots with standards because there was no proof that they were distinct morphs. To date I have yet to see any empirical evidence that proves fine spot leucs are not their own natural morph....


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

PeanutbuttER said:


> You photoshopped your avatar right? I just noticed it looks like a bright red leuc.


Yeaa lol, that would be awesome to have a bright red leuc. But i read on other threads that ther is a rumor on a red leuc.:


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

ConFuCiuZ said:


> Yeaa lol, that would be awesome to have a bright red leuc. But i read on other threads that ther is a rumor on a red leuc.:


The rumor was spawned from the photoshopped photo you're using. I believe there was a series of them run which included red, purple, and blue (maybe others). They don't exist, though.


----------



## PeanutbuttER (Jan 1, 2011)

yeah, I was thinking it must be photoshopped because the background doesn't look abnormally colored. I guess I missed those pictures when they first came around, so I assumed his camera was acting bizarrely.


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

I would want some Guyana Banded chocolate Leucs. I only saw them once and they look awesome


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> I don't know what makes chocolate leucs "chocolate" (in terms of genetics), but I'm guessing it's just a mutation that popped up from captive breeding- I don't think there have been chocolate leucs imported from the wild, but I could be wrong. In that case, theoretically there could be chocolate banded or fine spotted leucs, but to my knowledge they do not exist. Even if they did, they should be mixed with the normal phenotype of their population, not others (i.e. chocolate standard leucs with standard leucs, not chocolate standard leucs with "chocolate" banded leucs) because they should not be bred specifically for that trait.
> Hopefully that makes sense... all this talk of "chocolate" is making me confused and hungry
> Bryan


From what I understand chocolate Leucs are Amelanistic or in laymans terms Albino. I understand their tadpoles are white.


----------



## randommind (Sep 14, 2010)

ConFuCiuZ said:


> I still want to know if there are Guyana Banded Chocolate Leucs.






ConFuCiuZ said:


> I would want some Guyana Banded chocolate Leucs. I only saw them once and they look awesome


So....I am confused. You first asked if they exist, yet claim to have seen them. What am I missing here?


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

randommind said:


> So....I am confused. You first asked if they exist, yet claim to have seen them. What am I missing here?


The person that showed me claim that it was a nominant chocolate leuc, but had no spots like one. It was a froglet and as it grows it starts to develop spots. I want to know if guyana banded chocolates actually exist in the hobby and theres concrete proof.


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

Found them


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

ConFuCiuZ said:


> The person that showed me claim that it was a nominant chocolate leuc, but had no spots like one. It was a froglet and as it grows it starts to develop spots. I want to know if guyana banded chocolates actually exist in the hobby and theres concrete proof.


In that case, no, guyana banded "chocolate" leucs do not exist in the hobby.
Bryan


----------



## ConFuCiuZ (Jul 13, 2011)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> In that case, no, guyana banded "chocolate" leucs do not exist in the hobby.
> Bryan


Thank you very much


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Baltimore Bryan said:


> In that case, no, guyana banded "chocolate" leucs do not exist in the hobby.
> Bryan


If the "chocolate" phenotype occurs simply from an amelanistic allele then I'd assume it's entirely possible that there is such thing as a Banded "chocolate." Chances are that when older hobbyists were line-breeding for the trait they were simply focusing on the standard version, which would mean that the chocolate trait is simply far more prevalent in the standard version.


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

SmackoftheGods said:


> If the "chocolate" phenotype occurs simply from an amelanistic allele then I'd assume it's entirely possible that there is such thing as a Banded "chocolate." Chances are that when older hobbyists were line-breeding for the trait they were simply focusing on the standard version, which would mean that the chocolate trait is simply far more prevalent in the standard version.


Sure, I agree that if it is just that mutation, it is entirely possible for them to occur. Maybe I should have worded it a little better, but I was just trying to say that I have never seen or heard of this happening with banded leucs, just the standards.
Bryan


----------

