# Pumilio Import Location Data ("Bruno", "Almir



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

We now have some location data on the recent pumilio imports. These locations are where the foundation stock were collected. The data is not exact nor do we have geographic coordinates or anything like that. I am not going to make an attempt to name these as new or existing morphs. I will simply provide what I was given and hopefully we can get some discussion going as to where to go from here.

Almirante - basically we were incorrect as they were collected nowhere near Almirante. These were collected "on the road to Chirique Grande". For those that have been there, there is a road to Chririque Grande that ends at the coast. In the ditches along side the road you can (could) find the "Chirique Grande" morph (green with black markings) and in the hills next to the road you find a red pumilio with bluish to gray legs. Not sure if these are identical to the "Man Creek" morph or not. I have only seen one picture of "Man Creek" and that one picture looks very similar to what we have. The location for "Man Creek" is pretty close to Chirique Grande so again, it is possibly the same frog but I'm really not sure. If anyone knows of a site that has more pictures of "Man Creek" pumilio please post it.

Bruno - again, these were collected quite a distance from where "Bruno" are reported so they are most likely not Bruno. There is also a size difference that probably rules Bruno out anyway. These were collected by "Boca del Rio Chirique, where the Chirique River meets the Carribean". These frogs resemble the pictures I've seen of "Chirique Grande" morph but were collected pretty far from Chirique Grande. The spotted, no spotted, green, greenish yellow, etc. were all collected from the same location.

So, thoughts and comments...


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Great info, so is there any way to be sure?


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Pumilio Location*

Robb I understand most of the last 2 importations of the Pumilio have died, any info of any health testing being done on these animals, before or after export? Panama is now going through a chytrid crisis with entire geographic areas of amphibians being wiped out, I would hate to see anyone go through what we had to deal with after the Terribilis imports of '96. I know fecals have been run by some people, it would be great if anyone with any other test data would share that with us.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2005)

Specifically a skin test would be nice, especially on the bastimentos...although I've heard that even the almirante (or man creek, or whatever) have been coming in rough as well. 

Has anyone tried a skin culture? I think this will be my pet project for this semester, the only problem is that I will only be able to identify whether or not the infection is fungal or bacterial. Is there anyone, if I send pics of the culture, who would be able to ID?


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Kyle - I can't think of anything that would be gained from providing false location data. None of those morphs exist in the US anyway so I don't think there would be any benefit trying to "create" new ones.

Mark - I had one animal (red & blue) from the first shipment tested for Chytrid and it came back negative. I don't have exact numbers on losses from the last 2 shipments but there have been some number of losses in all of the shipments to date. I know one of the last 2 shipments came in very cold and I would attibute a lot of losses to that stress.

It would certainly be helpful to know what, if any, fungal tests have been done by others. We should start a different thread for that as I would like to know peoples thoughts on identification of these animals.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

What are we going to call these "almirante" then? "On the road to Chirique Grande" morph is sure is not practical to use.

SB


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Well, being that there is already an Almirante morph named because it is found near the "city" of Almirante I would prefer that we not confuse these two separate locations.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2005)

so what should we begin calling these morphs? I think a new name should begin being used fast, before any more confusion occurs.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

> Well, being that there is already an Almirante morph named because it is found near the "city" of Almirante I would prefer that we not confuse these two separate locations.


I agree... any city or village close by, that people can adopt the name?

SB


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

I'm thinking Chirique River or Rio Chirique (same thing really) for the greens.

Still not sure about the reds.


----------



## Derek Benson (Feb 19, 2004)

I was unable to find a better map, but for those of you, like me, who don't know where the different cities are of the area, I found this:


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2005)

Rob,


What are your thoughts regardiong the "red & blue" as" man creek?"....Like the Chiriqui River, there is a great deal of diversity in the morph...there are red with blue feet, red with off white feet, almost solid red, and then diferent variations on the red/blue combo.
I know the collection site issues with the morph. Should these even be labeled as such, or sshould they jsut be called "the panamanian red and blues"...thoughts?


----------



## Marcus (Apr 18, 2004)

Man Creek looks very similar to Almirante..see picture. About a few months ago I saw some pics from a German guy that was there begin 2004. He showed three different colourmorphs. Alle three were found around Chriqui Grande. Near the village, some where further besides the road and more inland. But no place in the neighbourhood to give names...so he called everything Chiriqui Grande while showing the slides. It's not easy to give names but something like Rio Chiriqui is not a bad plan i think. Then you have f.e: Chiriqui village, Chiriqui mountains, Rio Chiriqui.
I have doubts if the imported morphs are Bruno. For what I have understand from the first founder of the "bruno's" they were very small. Nothing to compare to Chriqui Grande...those ones are bigger. So if you see adult frogs of these morphs it should be 'easy' to see the difference I think. 


Chriqui Grande:








Chriqui Grande:










man Creek:








picture copyright by T. Ostrowski


Bruno:


----------



## TimStout (Feb 16, 2004)

Rob,
Was there any collection info on the auratus that came in along with the pumilo?


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

deleted


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Marcus - I think we can definitely say now that the greens are not Bruno. Based on, as you noted, size as well as the location that is about 30 miles south of where the Bruno morph was collected which is towards the top of the peninsula. The greens obviously look very similar to Chirique Grande but they were collected about 30-40 miles east of Chiriqui Grande. I guess it would be possible that this particular pumilio has a range from Chririqui Grande all the way over to Boca del Rio Chiriqui. I think calling these Chiriqui River kind of implies at the very least they are very similar to Chiriqui Grande. It only really matters if ever Chiriqui Grande gets imported then we have to make the decision if they should be kept separate.
The reds do look very much like your picture of Man Creek and the location seems to be in the general area of where the imported frogs are from. Do you have any other photos of these frogs that we can compare to? There is a lot of variation in the population that's been imported and it would be nice to have more than just one picture to make a comparison and decision on.

Will - the problem I see with labeling by color "Panamanian red & blues" is that there are other pumilio from Panama that are red & blue (almirante being one of them) which could be confusing. There are several red & blue/gray pumilio if you look at the two morph guides. 
I'm not sure if we can figure out definitively whether or not they are from the same population as the Man Creek. So maybe Chiriqui Reds or something to distinguish the location as Chiriqui Grande but avoids using the CG name that is obviously already in use. If we can get more pix of Man Creek or otherwise determine that they are probably the same population maybe we call them "Man Creek04" to distinguish these from existing "Man Creek"s in the hobby or if "Man Creek" is ever imported.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2005)

Marcus said:


> I have doubts if the imported morphs are Bruno. For what I have understand from the first founder of the "bruno's" they were very small. Nothing to compare to Chriqui Grande...those ones are bigger. So if you see adult frogs of these morphs it should be 'easy' to see the difference I think.


What kind of size difference? The pair I had were slightly smaller than the "almirante" imports, but pattern-wise looked every bit the bruno.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Regardless of size the Bruno were collected 30 or more miles north of where these were found.

To answer another question, I was not given any information on the auratus.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

Here's another little monkey wrench....I believe that we have at least two different morphs of the "Almirante/Man Creek/whattheheckever" imported into the US recently. This is confirmed since the adults of one of my groups are about half the size of the adults in the other groups. Both groups ("morphs") have now successfully bred and raised froglets, so neither group consists of juveniles. They exhibit quite different colorations as well. The truth is that you can almost never know exactly where a frog was collected unless you speak to the tribesman who personally picked the frog up. I believe it's still too early to tell exactly what we're getting in. Once we get several more importations, I think we'll be able to start putting the pieces together and figuring out where these guys are coming from since we'll have a much larger basis for comparison. It wouldn't hurt if someone who's planning a trip to Panama soon to do a little research and take some pics :wink:


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Two different morphs? Who did you get your animals from? I have seen a lot of these animals and talked with the importer who has seen all of them and there was no significant difference that would suggest two different morphs. The colors and patterns are variable just like bastis. The exporter has also confirmed that all of the recent imports are descendents from the same location. So unless your animals came from another supplier I can't see them being two different morphs. Has anyone else reported this?


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

I'm at work as I type this, so I can't upload any pics. I'll see what pics I can dig up to give a good comparison. The difference in size is remarkable, literally twice the size of the other group. I received the smaller morphs from Pete at incrediblepets. He isn't importing pumilio anymore, unless he's changed his mind in the past two weeks. The green pumilio that I received from Pete are also very different from the "bruno's" that I've received from other importers.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

I realize that this is extremely frustrating to those who hold themselves responsible for keeping the morphs straight in the hobby. But how is it absolutely impossible that frogs from locales other than what was mentioned made their way onto the farm?

And I also have spoken with a few dealers that may not be importing any more due to the recent high mortality rate.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Yes, please post pictures.


----------



## EverettC (Mar 9, 2004)

I don't want to throw a wrench into anything but do we know FOR SURE that the same person/people collected these certain frogs at the same time at the same location(s)? If this is not the case then it is entirely possible that we have a mix of almirante/man creek. One thing that I notice that is odd is some of the pumilio have fairly granulated backs while others are smooth, and it reoccurs too much to just be a coincidence. Although my thoughts could just be random but I thought I'd bring it up since nobody else has. I can't say anything for the Chiriqui because I don't have any, but we all know how different the pumilio color morphs of the same locality can be.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

These are pretty poor comparison shots, but I guess they'll have to suffice since they are the only ones I have at the moment. The first pic is of a proven female from the smaller-sized group. All of these frogs tend to have black spots running up the backs, eventually fading to an even red, and then returning to a more subdued red. White mottling is present on the undersides of all of these frogs. 


The second pic is of a proven female of the larger-sized group. These frogs exhibit a much more uniform dorsal coloration and no white mottling occurs on the ventral sides. All of these individuals lack any black spotting. The difference in size is comparable to that of a French Guiana tinctorius to a Surinam Cobalt.....a huge difference. 


Both groups are sexually mature (obviously, since they've been successfully bred). Because of this coupled with the huge differences in size and coloration patterns, I'm inclined to say that they are different morphs. 

As far as the farms are concerned, I believe that these are practically just holding facilities until the frogs are ready to be shipped off. Yes, there may be some breeding going on and the project may be legitimate to a point, but the sheer numbers and diversity of the pumilio that are coming in suggests to me that these frogs probably don't originate from the same locales. Thus, I don't believe that we can say that all of the frogs that have red backs and blue legs are from wherever. I wish we could, it would make identification a heck of alot easier.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Hi Randy,

Would it be possible that the smaller ones are actually original frogs that were collected directly from the wild that the farmer bred to build their number? 

It would be interesting to see if the offsprings from the smaller ones grow larger than the parents... ie: approaching the size of the big ones.

I've seen the difference what nutritious food, can make. I have seen small tumbnails produce huge (adult) offsprings. 

The first picture also looks like a frog collected from the wild. It has that "rough" look and brighter color. The second looks like a CB frog...

Steven


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

the only problem that I see with that theory (and randy will have to correct me if I'm wrong about this) is that the froglets that he posted in the classified section look like they were bred by the smaller, black spotted morph of "almirantes". If you go check they look like an exact replica of the first frog.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

I have one with black spotting and a mottled underside that is the same size as all the rest of my group. 










I also have individuals that are almost solid orange with just small tan patches on the legs. I have heard there are individuals selling these solid oranges (I have seen ones with almost no leg coloration) as Cayo Nancy.










We can doubt the exporters and the farm all we want. We will never be 100% sure of any of this. If we want to claim morphs based on slight color and size differences we've got probably 6 different morphs of these and 7 or 8 of the Chiriquis. You may be right, maybe you have a mini morph of almirante or man creek. Maybe other people that have these 1/2 size frogs will come forward. All of my frogs and all the frogs that I have seen come in from that farm look to be variations of the same frog.

If you get better comparison pictures please post them.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Lydia said:


> I realize that this is extremely frustrating to those who hold themselves responsible for keeping the morphs straight in the hobby...


BTW - I don't hold myself responsible and I hope nobody else is holding me responsible. The only thing we are 100% sure of is that they are Dendrobates pumilio. The rest is a best guess based on the information we have been provided.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

I think it's just natural variation. They are definitely not Cayo Nancy. I have some pictures somewhere of those forms when I was there, and they are significantly different.
j


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

That's my point, even though these look different, they are the same frog. And they are definitely not Cayo Nancy.


----------



## Marcus (Apr 18, 2004)

so what is this?  











also "Almirante", copyrights T. Ostrowski

@ Lydia,
As far as i know the 'bruno' are max 15mm in size while the "Chriqui Grande" and "Almirante" are bigger. I have seen the cg/al in real and they are larger/bigger then 15 mm. With bigger i mean rounder. 
Look at the bruno pics..these animals are not very round.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

I just hope they don't get broke down into different "morphs" for their various appearance.
Mark W.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Exactly, without location information you wouldn't know what that frog was. The only reason I am saying the imports are not Almirante is because we were told the founding stock was collected on the road to Chiriqui Grande which is 40-50 miles southeast of Almirante. There are tons of variable red with blueish legged pumilio, so all we have to go on is location. You obviously cannot base a morph solely on looks.


----------



## TimStout (Feb 16, 2004)

Dont know if this was proposed or not but can a shared data base of pics of these imports be setup for all to see. Keeping each import separated by date and vendor purchased from etc. could be extremely helpful. I can't imagine pics of all animals would go here but representatives of the norm to the extreme would be great. 
Just a thought.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

Coloration is an extremely variable trait in darts, BUT size of adults is not. Rob, do the frogs in your collection vary this much as adults? As mentioned before, a Frenchy compared to a Cobalt is huge. I don't house the smaller individuals with the larger, hence I have no side-by-side pics. You're right, Rob, you can't base a frog's identification solely on looks alone. But you also can't expect to trust an importer's interpretation of where so-and-so was collected either. These frogs are wc, plain and simple. This means there are no boundaries from which they could have been collected. Our best identification tools are the ones in which we decifer what characteristics separate different morphs. We can get a good idea of where the frogs originate, but that location must be taken with a grain of salt, since the animals could have been collected 50 miles downstream. 

If we're not careful, we're going to start blending lines in the hobby and we'll end up with mutts. Pumilio, yes. But mutts all the same. There's a fine line between what is variation, and what is a significant morphological trait. We need to keep a keen eye out for these differences. 

On another note, Kinetic is exactly right, the froglets I posted in the classified section are F1's from the smaller group. F1's from the larger group are expected soon.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

This has been a great thread but I think a little logic 101 needs to be applied. Robb posted some excellent, and all too rare, location data for these imports which was followed by some great discussion with maps about how best to use this new information to classify these frogs. For the first time in my many years in this hobby, I saw froggers trying to group frogs based solely on population level data (location) rather than arguing over the minutia of morphological differences. But then conjecture set in and the morphology arguments emmerged. Basic logic tells us that you can't prove a negative so the question posed about whether the location data is incomplete cannot be proven. I would suggest going back to what reliable data are available, throwing out anything based on conjecture, and deciding how to treat these frogs based on the data rather on second guesses and morphological observations.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

Does anyone know if there is a frog farm on Bastimentos Isle?


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

Two years ago there wasn't when I was there.
j


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Randy said:


> Coloration is an extremely variable trait in darts, BUT size of adults is not. Rob, do the frogs in your collection vary this much as adults? ....


Yes, and the pictures posted are both adults.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

So is it beyond the scope of possibility that we have other locale-specific pumilio being collected? I mean, if collectors are scooping up frogs from the Bastimentos islands, wouldn't it be possible that they are also collecting from other locations? 

Let's even assume that the frog farms are completely legitimate. Why would the collectors only collect from just Bastimentos, Chiriqui Grande, and Man Creek/Almirante? There's alot of other locations between those places. Locations that contain populations of pumilio indigenous to that specific area. I think it would be Swiss-cheese logic to think that collectors would limit themselves to just these locations. 

Justin, did you ever happen upon a Bastimentos morph on the main land?
Oh, and Justin, next time you go to Bastimentos, please take me with you as carry-on luggage


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

I have never seen a Bastimentos morph on the mainland, but I wouldn't call my search effort there strong either. I hope to go back next summer, so I will make a strong effort to visit the farms and report back honestly with my opinion.
j


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

I for one can't wait to read your reports on this subject. I hope you have a good camera!


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

Regardless of the exact locations they are an awesome looking collection from the pictures posted.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Randy said:


> Our best identification tools are the ones in which we decifer what characteristics separate different morphs. We can get a good idea of where the frogs originate, but that location must be taken with a grain of salt, since the animals could have been collected 50 miles downstream.


I personally think this is backward. "Characteristics that separate different morphs" are arbitrary and done without knowing much, if anything, about the natural range of variability. Therefore, I have always thought that is is these "characteristics" that need to be taken with a grain of salt. Breeding two frogs collected 50 miles apart isn't a problem if those two locations are part of one large freely interbreeding population. I know there is a strong caution against breeding "mutts" and that is good. We don't want that. But at the same time we don't want to mistakenly create dozens of designer morphs based on nothing more than guesswork about how a morph "should look". I also don't agree that size is not variable. Nutrition and environment can have a huge impact on the growth rate and adult size of frogs.

The bottom line to me is that the people supplying these frogs seem to believe that the animals originated from two different locations which they have identified. Why would they lie? What would they gain from it? I'll admit that I don't know much about these imports at all but from reading this thread, it appears that there is reasonable evidence to suggest the collection sites of these animals and the rest has been guesswork.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

Well said Brent, well said.....


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

Well, that fact is that the legality of all the importations is set on the premise that these frogs are farm raised. Why would the collectors only collect frogs from just a few different places? I, nor anybody else, has heard of a Bastimentos morph taking root on the mainland. So where are those Basti's coming from? Also, would anyone here group a cobalt tinc with a F. G. tinc? I hope not...

There's obviously a demand by the dart frog community to know the locale origins of the frogs we are getting in. The suppliers are merely supplying that demand. It gives the customer peace of mind, and it makes a sale go a little more smoothly. The fact is that the importers probably have no idea where Joe Schmoe picked up a frog in the Panamanian rainforest.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

> I, nor anybody else, has heard of a Bastimentos morph taking root on the mainland. So where are those Basti's coming from?


I am staying neutral on this as both sides have good and valid points... 

But here's my question regarding the bastimentos... correct me if I am wrong, I always thought that bastimetos have many varieties when it comes to their coloration... ie yellow, grey "dust" etc... however the ones that have been imported were only the oranges ones... 

Are they coming from a specific location in the island or they are more abundant everywhere ie: easier to collect... either for breeding purposes or straight import?? 


SB


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

Randy,

The data that Rob posted on the collection sites came from one of the importers who recieved it directly from the exporter. So yes, the importers have an idea of "where some joe shmoe" picked up a frog. 

As for the question of why only certain areas? In order to collect there had to be governmental approval, part of this approval process included site and population studies. Not every area where a morph is present could have been studied, approved, and collected. 

SC, as for the basti question. There have been several white and golddusts in the shipments. They just haven't been publicly available. There have been a large number of red bastis and a wide range of oranges with hugely differing degrees of color/ spots/ and size. Supposedly there will be other basti variants in future shipments (although that was hear in the past too), if there are future shipments. 


Will


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Randy said:


> Well, that fact is that the legality of all the importations is set on the premise that these frogs are farm raised. Why would the collectors only collect frogs from just a few different places?


Maybe because it is easier? If you set up greenhouse space that could accomodate 2 or 3 different groups, why would you waist time bopping all over the country collecting frogs when you could collect everything you can handle at 2 or 3 locations?



> I, nor anybody else, has heard of a Bastimentos morph taking root on the mainland. So where are those Basti's coming from? Also, would anyone here group a cobalt tinc with a F. G. tinc? I hope not...


I may have missed something but I interepreted Robb's orginal post on this thread to mean he had information about the locality of two specific morphs, Bruno and Almirante. I'm not sure how the Bastis would play into this. Did some Basti come in advertised as Bruno or something. As I said before, I don't know much about the specific history of these imports.

Of course I agree that keeping truly genetically distinct populations separate is important and yes, sometimes the morph can be used to distinguish these populations. But before a morph can be used as a classification tool, we need to know somthing about the range of variability of size, color, and pattern in the wild. When we have morphs from different populations that show little overlap in these areas, then we can use the morph as a guide to separating individual frogs into distinct groups. But without such information about natural variability within populations, it becomes purely guesswork.



> There's obviously a demand by the dart frog community to know the locale origins of the frogs we are getting in. The suppliers are merely supplying that demand. It gives the customer peace of mind, and it makes a sale go a little more smoothly. The fact is that the importers probably have no idea where Joe Schmoe picked up a frog in the Panamanian rainforest.


I'm not sure I buy this last part. I agree there is a demand for locality data by some people in the hobby but I don't think we've gotten to the point where frogs with locality data are worth more. This thread is a case in point. How many people knew anything about this locality data when they purchased their frogs? Who would have paid more had the frogs come with locality data? And how many people chose not to buy these frogs because they didn't have locality data? How many chose not to buy because the price was already too high? I just don't think the presence or absence of locality data is really playing into the economics of these frogs yet.

Really the only point I wanted to make is that I'm certain that the people running the greenhouses and who provided the locality information know a lot more about where these frogs came from than I do. I'm also pretty sure they know more about the origins of these frogs than the rest of us. I'm also confident that we don't have a good idea about the natural range of variability in size, color, and pattern of these frogs. We CAN'T know that if we don't even know where they came from. So I'm going to give more weight what the guys at the greenhouse say than to what we can dream up after staring at the frogs after they've been transported a couple thousand miles from their homes.

I'm on a roll so I'll keep going. It's also important to ask what is important to the hobby. Bless this hobby that most of us want to see these frogs remain like they are in the wild. We should also recognize that these frogs have already lost any sort of conservation value through breeding programs simply because there IS uncertainty regarding their origins. So there are going to be some mistakes about the classification of some animals in captivity but as long as those animals remain "wild type" and the population is closed, whatever mistakes were made are not going to be dire. The big problems occur when the genetic makeup of a group erodes over time either through mixing or selective breeding. My personal feeling is that when frogs like this come in, we need to build a fence around the captive population and define its boundaries so the group doesn't get hybridized and homogenized with other groups. But at the same time, that fence needs to be a large and generous as possible so that we can capture as much of the genetic variability of the natural population as possible. This is the best way to insure a long-term viable and "natural" population. I use to preach that when we were in doubt, we should breed narrowly because we can always remix subgroups later if better information comes along. I've somewhat reversed that position because my experience has been that better information about a group's origins never comes along. Instead, information about origins decays with time and we never know more about a group's origins than at the time it is first imported and that is the time to set up the fences according to the best available information.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

> I'm not sure how the Bastis would play into this. Did some Basti come in advertised as Bruno or something.


Actually, there have been hundreds of Bast's pouring into the U.S. in these very shipments. Where did these Basti's come from? I don't think they originated from Man Creek or Almirante. Maybe these greenhouses chose this particular frog for the "frog farm" breeding facilities, but if that's the case, why wouldn't they collect from other areas when setting up their original stock? 



> It's also important to ask what is important to the hobby. Bless this hobby that most of us want to see these frogs remain like they are in the wild.


Couldn't agree more  



> There have been a large number of red bastis and a wide range of oranges with hugely differing degrees of color/ spots/ and size. Supposedly there will be other basti variants in future shipments (although that was hear in the past too), if there are future shipments


These variant are coming in quite frequently. Which bring up another point (wonderful.....). There's been a handful of black/whites as well as blues shipped into the U.S. in the past 6 months. I'm not inclined to believe that these blues or black/whites just happen to pop up through natural variability. You're not going to see a red basti pair produce a blue frog. So where did they come from?

I can't agree with you there, Brent. I'd much rather breed a little more narrow than a little too wide. Let me put it this way, I like yellow Basti's, and I know that their range overlaps the ranges of red/orange Bastimentos. Sure, you could mix 'n' match reds with yellows with oranges and so on and so forth. But after some time, you're going to lose that yellow line in the hobby. I we only had a small number of pumilio in the U.S., then I think that this would be just fine. Sometimes breeders must resort to the "breed what you can" method when importations are infrequent. BUT, if there are enough numbers of a species entering the county so that you CAN accuratly represent different "morph" populations, then why wouldn't you??? We've got enough frogs in the U.S. right now to do this. 

On another note, I believe this is a wonderful thread. Honestly, I could argue both sides to this discussion, and I believe some others that have been participating in it could probably do the same. Every Yin needs a Yang, and discussions like this can only help the hobby.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I don't think we can honestly say line breeding the basti colors is a good thing at this point, as most of the colors do share the same range and could interbreed. I have seen pics of bastis that show frogs that could be intermediates between some of the color lines we're talking about. Isn't this exactly what spurred our very own Justin into trying to work with the different basti color lines to see if they would interbreed given the oppurtunity, or would they be just as likely to breed, or would only want to breed, with a frog of similar color? No one knows at this point, no one has done the work, so until I see the results from the study, I wouldn't say color line breeding the bastis is the way to go, but then again forcing them into an odd colored pair might not be the way either.

The almerante and bruno names do need to be changed, even with what little data we have. Even 'red rio chiriqui' and 'green rio chiriqui' would make me happy, but they are not almerante and bruno, and that is mislabling. Similar looking frogs can occur in different populations, but they are still different populations. Variation in the population can be due to natural variation, or possible habitat pressure where a larger, widely variated population or multiple populations were forced into an area causing the variations you see.

Collecting from other areas is much harder than a lot of you are making it seem. It has to be approved by the government for one, and what if you tried to collect off someone's land? I found the coolest pumilio morph in Limon, Costa Rica. You think I'd go back an collect it if I had permits? Not likely unless I knew the person who owned the back yard I was pawing around in wasn't going to approve (and thats the only places they are found since the area is developed). Then you have land given to native peoples... they might not exactly be friendly either and just because you have the government saying ok doesn't mean they will let you on their land. Taking animals out of parks might very well be illegal, I dont' know how that would work. It might very well have come down to the person asking a couple of friends if he can collect off their land, and thats all he could get. It would not make sense for him to collect more than a couple frog populations if he only had a couple of greenhouses to use.


----------



## geckguy (Mar 8, 2004)

Although it may be illegal to catch the frogs without permits. How hard would it be to hike into the forest, catch pumilio put them in film canisters, and put them in a larger bag and hike back out? In a small bag you could easily fit 50 film canisters. Especially when pumilio seem to thrive in places so close to humans. If it is illegal, but it makes money, people will do it.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Randy said:


> Well, that fact is that the legality of all the importations is set on the premise that these frogs are farm raised. Why would the collectors only collect frogs from just a few different places? I, nor anybody else, has heard of a Bastimentos morph taking root on the mainland. So where are those Basti's coming from? Also, would anyone here group a cobalt tinc with a F. G. tinc? I hope not...
> 
> There's obviously a demand by the dart frog community to know the locale origins of the frogs we are getting in. The suppliers are merely supplying that demand. It gives the customer peace of mind, and it makes a sale go a little more smoothly. The fact is that the importers probably have no idea where Joe Schmoe picked up a frog in the Panamanian rainforest.


Here's how the importer knows were Joe Schmoe picked up a frog. The importer sat with the exporter (who runs the farm) over lunch in Miami with a map of Panama. The exporter took a pen and marked an X over the locations where the frogs were collected. These are the same locations where they had to do site and population studies in order to get CITES permits, which is why they (and anyone else) can't run all over Panama collecting whatever they want. The Bastis are coming from Bastimentos Isle, I didn't post that because I didn't think there would be a question about where these were collected. The information was given freely, and simply because we asked for it. So if you want to say the guy is lying that's fine, you're entitled, but I still say they are all the same frog and they are most likely from an area on the road to Chiriqui Grande. I have talked with enough people who have been there and said "Yeah, I've seen those".

I guess if you want to say that these are all WC and that the importers and exporters have been lying about everything, then you really can't make any argument about the morphs. Just take a dart and throw it at the morph guide. Because making those assumptions, you are right, you can't possibly know where any of these frogs came from and there are at least 7 or 8 (probably more) different morphs of pumilio that are some shade of red with some variation of blue/gray/tan/black legs. Heck they could even be from Costa Rica, it's not really that far from CG either. Judging by the looks, and the pictures we've all seen, no one will ever know what these frogs are.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

> The Bastis are coming from Bastimentos Isle, I didn't post that because I didn't think there would be a question about where these were collected.


If they collect frogs from an island such as Bastimentos, is it not conceivable that they could also collect frogs elsewhere? 



> Judging by the looks, and the pictures we've all seen, no one will ever know what these frogs are.


And because of this, I believe that we are better safe than sorry. I'd rather run the risk of having a few lines of pumilio displaying a certain characteristic than risking a hobby riddled with mutts. As I said before, I like having yellow Bastimentos in the hobby. I also like having red ones in the hobby as well. If all Bastimentos in the hobby were red/orange, I don't think that would represent wild populations well at all. Yes, there are overlaps, but there are many populations that don't. So why not represent those populations in the hobby?



Dear God I think I'm getting carpal tunnel....
:lol:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Randy said:


> Actually, there have been hundreds of Bast's pouring into the U.S. in these very shipments. Where did these Basti's come from? I don't think they originated from Man Creek or Almirante. Maybe these greenhouses chose this particular frog for the "frog farm" breeding facilities, but if that's the case, why wouldn't they collect from other areas when setting up their original stock?


Actually I was asking a different question than what you answered. What I was asking was whether bastis were coming being represented as these Bruno or Almirante. My understanding was that the bastis have always been represented as coming from Bastimentos as Robb clarified in his last post. To me, this makes the question of the bastis a completely seperate topic since they have not been represented by the exporters or importers as coming from either of these two new locations. 



> These variant are coming in quite frequently. Which bring up another point (wonderful.....). There's been a handful of black/whites as well as blues shipped into the U.S. in the past 6 months. I'm not inclined to believe that these blues or black/whites just happen to pop up through natural variability. You're not going to see a red basti pair produce a blue frog. So where did they come from?


I have no expertise on the full range of variability to be found in these wild populations which is a large basis for my caution about assuming genetics based on morphology. But I do think you are grossly underestimating the potential for natural variation. If you want a fine example, take an afternoon trip to Marysville, KS and sit in the city park for a picnic and observe the fox squirrels. They are all one species in a freely interbreeding population but you will quickly notice many jet black squirrels among the normally colored ones. A fluke of geography has created a population of squirrels that have an abnormally high frequency of genes for melanism. The point being that it is really not that uncommon to find individuals in a population that depart markedly from the majority of individuals in appearance. Based on what I know about genetics, population biology, and personal observations of oddball animals in the wild, I'm not bold enough to make predictions about what can or can't be found in the wild. But with that said, I agree that individuals that fall significantly outside the expected range should be scrutinized with caution.



> I can't agree with you there, Brent. I'd much rather breed a little more narrow than a little too wide. Let me put it this way, I like yellow Basti's, and I know that their range overlaps the ranges of red/orange Bastimentos. Sure, you could mix 'n' match reds with yellows with oranges and so on and so forth. But after some time, you're going to lose that yellow line in the hobby.


Yes, we are going to disagree strongly on this. First, if the animals came from a freely interbreeding and variable population, then there is know reason to assume that mixing them in captivity will lead to the loss of a particular morph. The variability no doubt comes from complex interactions of multiple allele traits. We aren't talking about simple dominant/recessive genes here. But what you would expect is that the frequencies of these different morphs would drift over time just as they do in the wild but the frequencies in captivity would not match those in the wild because the drift in frequencies is random. So if you started with a predominantly red population, after many years it may shift to even more red or it may shift toward yellow. But what really bugs me about breeding narrowly for morphs within these variable populations is that over time you will lose all of the wonderfully subtle variations and intergrades because of the artificial selection to breed only similar looking frogs. Anther thing that is lost is the suprise factor from the unpredictability of the resulting offspring. I think it's pretty cool to think you could breed two red hued frogs and get some percentage of offspring that tend toward orange or yellow. But I stress that I only condone such mixing within populations that we are confident are freely interbreeding in the wild.



> I we only had a small number of pumilio in the U.S., then I think that this would be just fine. Sometimes breeders must resort to the "breed what you can" method when importations are infrequent. BUT, if there are enough numbers of a species entering the county so that you CAN accuratly represent different "morph" populations, then why wouldn't you??? We've got enough frogs in the U.S. right now to do this.


I actually view this in the opposite direction. If we have only a few representatives to breed, then we are more likely to lose morphs with mixing because less of the natural genetic variability is captured in a small population. So with very limited breeding stock, it might make sense to try to breed to morph to safeguard those varieties until sufficient numbers are available to start mixing without risking losing the morphs. However, I think the argument is largely academic because in a variable population, frogs tend to carry a potpourri of genes that are not expressed. So breeding a red basti with a red basti does not guarantee all the froglets will be red bastis. The individual frogs are genetically more diverse than they appear.



> On another note, I believe this is a wonderful thread. Honestly, I could argue both sides to this discussion, and I believe some others that have been participating in it could probably do the same. Every Yin needs a Yang, and discussions like this can only help the hobby.


I agree and the truth is that there are no absolutely right answers in how we approach these things. But I do feel strongly that if we really want to maintain these frogs as they look and act in the wild, then we need to be informed about population genetics and approach breeding from a population biogeography perspective. To do this, we have to drop a lot of traditional ideas about classification by morphology.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

> Actually I was asking a different question than what you answered. What I was asking was whether bastis were coming being represented as these Bruno or Almirante. My understanding was that the bastis have always been represented as coming from Bastimentos as Robb clarified in his last post. To me, this makes the question of the bastis a completely seperate topic since they have not been represented by the exporters or importers as coming from either of these two new locations.


This isn't a separate question at all. It's an example of how these different morphs are being brought in from many different places. Not just from the mainland, but even from isolated islands. Sounds like they're collecting from several different places to me. Also, don't just pay attention to what is advertised on Kingsnake.com. There are several morphs of Basti's coming in with no papers, documentation, etc. etc. etc. right along with everything else. Have the collectors been confining themselves? Don't think so. Is it possible that they are collecting red frogs elsewhere? Yes. Are they? Who knows...



> First, if the animals came from a freely interbreeding and variable population, then there is know reason to assume that mixing them in captivity will lead to the loss of a particular morph.


Do you know for a fact that they come from this kind of biotope? You nor anybody else knows. So why would you want to possibly create hybrids in the hobby? I've never cared for hybrids, and I don't think many people do in this hobby. So why risk it?


> But I stress that I only condone such mixing within populations that we are confident are freely interbreeding in the wild


I couldn't agree more. But Brent, we're NOT confident. We don't know how it is down there yet. Hopefully Yeager will get a chance to shed some light on the situation when he goes down, but as of right now, we don't know what we have for sure, and we should treat them that way.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm not too big on having the last word so if anyone wants to have it, come get it!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Randy said:


> This isn't a separate question at all. It's an example of how these different morphs are being brought in from many different places. Not just from the mainland, but even from isolated islands. Sounds like they're collecting from several different places to me. Also, don't just pay attention to what is advertised on Kingsnake.com. There are several morphs of Basti's coming in with no papers, documentation, etc. etc. etc. right along with everything else. Have the collectors been confining themselves? Don't think so. Is it possible that they are collecting red frogs elsewhere? Yes. Are they? Who knows...


I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. If I have a store that sells apples and bananas and I tell you I grew the bananas in a greenhouse, does that tell you anything about where I got the apples? All I'm saying is that this locality data we are, for reasons still unclear to me, arguing about was for the Bruno and Almirante morphs. Nobody said anything about the bastis. I don't see how just because bastis are also being collected and exported sheds doubt on what the exporters are saying about where they collected the Bruno and Almirante. BTW, I never look at kingsnake.



> Do you know for a fact that they come from this kind of biotope? You nor anybody else knows.


That's my point. We don't know which is why we should base decisions on the facts at hand. So far the only facts I've seen are that the exporters have indicated where these morphs were collected at particular locations which suggests that all of the frogs of each of these two morphs (not talkin about bastis) came from a single population. Now we can believe this information or not but I'm suggesting that it is far better information than trying to guess at what the genetic relatedness of these frogs might be from counting bumps on their butts or whatever other arbitrary trait we may decide is important.



> So why would you want to possibly create hybrids in the hobby? I've never cared for hybrids, and I don't think many people do in this hobby. So why risk it?


This is interesting considering there probably isn't anyone in the hobby who has argued against hybrids as rabidly as me. But again, I must emphasize that if our objective is to maintain wild characteristics, then selective breeding is just as destructive as hybridization. Especially when we are talking about potential hybridization among closely related subpopulations of the same species vs. creating designer lines. Look at the poster child of genetic devilry, the corn snake. Designer breeding did far more to destroy the wild characteristics of the species than randomly breeding wild type snakes from different locales ever did. That doesn't mean that maintaining the local characteristics of a population isn't important. But what I'm worried about is that we have gotten so scared of "hybrids" that we are make big mistakes in the other direction.

I really didn't intend to participate in this thread. It started out as a great example of doing things right. Robb provided some much needed information about locality which led to a dialogue about how best to rename these groups to avoid confusion. But somewhere doubt was raised about the authenticity of the information but no real evidence was provided to back up the doubt. Then the same old second guessing about which physical traits could be used to divide up the frogs into groups when there is no evidence to suggest they should be divided at all. I'm just trying to understand where this drive to subdivide comes from because I don't understand it.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

It's the same doubt that makes people automatically assume that farm raised=WC. So far I've heard of only the one instance from Ecuador with Histos back 6-8 years ago where there was supposed to be a farm producing animals (which I believe it was) but they were also bringing in fresh WC animals. Evidently that has made people think that everyone from South America involved in any way with dart frogs and their importation/exportation is a liar and nothing they say can be trusted. Which is basically what started this whole thing, someone saying this is all BS and we can't believe anything they say.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

rmelancon said:


> It's the same doubt that makes people automatically assume that farm raised=WC. So far I've heard of only the one instance from Ecuador with Histos back 6-8 years ago where there was supposed to be a farm producing animals (which I believe it was) but they were also bringing in fresh WC animals. Evidently that has made people think that everyone from South America involved in any way with dart frogs and their importation/exportation is a liar and nothing they say can be trusted. Which is basically what started this whole thing, someone saying this is all BS and we can't believe anything they say.


The "Nicaraguan" blue jeans that came in around 1999 were sometimes advertised as farm raised but the importer I dealt with made it clear that all that meant was the guy who owned the land where they were collected had been "managing habitat" to help the frogs. Nobody ever indicated that these were anything other than wc animals. The "farm raised" label was intended to convince buyers the frogs were being collected in an ecologicalically sensitive way. I don't think there was really any false advertisement involved but it probably contributed to the notion that farm raised = wc.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I'm going to make one last post on this thread because I don't think I've been as clear as I could be about why I'm as concerned about splitting populations into morphs as I am with hybridizing. People who know me will be shocked to hear that I'm going to use wolves as an example. But they are a great example because they give us the most long term and extreme example of what captive breeding does. So lets just start with some nice wild North American gray wolves and hybridize them. Let's take a Mexican wolf and through it into a captive Alaskan population. So what are the results? Well, the resulting offspring may tend to be smaller and have thinner coats. They might not be quite as equipped as the pure Alaskans at hunting large game like moose but the offspring are still going to look and act like wild wolves. It's not an ideal situation but at least when we look at the animals, we still see wild characteristics. They have lost some of their local uniquness but overall are still very much wolf. Now look at dogs. Those are the product of many generations of breeding animals that have similar traits together. Even the nordic breeds that are genetically the closest to wild wolves are easily distinguished from wolves. People, including myself, have suggested that mistakenly split populations could be mixed back later so that suggests if we just randomly breed all of the morphs of dogs back together, we should get wolves, right? But we don't, what we get is like the "cur" dog, the stereotypical feral dog. That's because breeding too narrowly eliminates many alleles and redistributes the frequency of others so much that simply mixing them back together doesn't take you back to where you started. The remixing might be successful if it is done within a few generations of wc but it is not a long term solution for preserving the genetic integrity of a population.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2005)

This has been a very interesting thread. I can see both side and have really had to think about what is being said. I will say that I trust that the farms are producing the offspring being sold. I heard the farm was ready to sell frogs in 2003, and didn't get permits until 2004 so that makes a logical explanation of why adults are being sold. 
Now even if the "Almirante" were collected from 2 areas some captive breed has had to have taken place at the farm. So even some of the frogs could be mixed now. For this very reason I don't see a problem in keeping any "Almirante" together. The just need to be remembered as "Farm Raised from Farm A" if another farm starts up "Farm B" ect. 

Now with the basti I have no problem with having red, yellow, orange, rust white in the same tank. With the natural diversity of the basti pumilio, any pairing up with like color morphs is selective breeding. I have heard the argument of keep basti together that look alike because when people buy frogs, they are buying a frog that they have a mental picture of, ie, orange, yellow, large spot, small spots, ect ect. Not the problem with breeding like animals was posted above. Sure a maybe 3 genes cause color A, but what else are you limiting with a constant breeding of like animals (much like the dangers of inbreeding). This same problems goes to people breeding "Fine Spot" azureus. Both variations, fine spot and normal, come from the same line of frog. If it keeps up we may even see a "No Spot" morph pop up. :? 

Like I said I can see both sides. Why mix until we know for sure, but considering this is some of the best local data for most our frogs, what make us think it is going to get anymore clear in 2 years.

Good thread guys, makes you think.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2005)

Thinking more about this, what would it hurt if we kept pairs divided into groups by size. Wouldn't the first few rounds of froglets tell us how variable the size could be once they reach adults? Say keep 4 pair: (s=small, L=large): s.s , s.L , L.s , L.L as pairs. I know size, in the orginal pairs, could be do to if they were stunted as froglets, but that wouldn't be genetic. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Bgreen said:


> Thinking more about this, what would it hurt if we kept pairs divided into groups by size. Wouldn't the first few rounds of froglets tell us how variable the size could be once they reach adults? Say keep 4 pair: (s=small, L=large): s.s , s.L , L.s , L.L as pairs. I know size, in the orginal pairs, could be do to if they were stunted as froglets, but that wouldn't be genetic. Any thoughts on this?


I think you've already answered your own question. Drastic diffrences in size can be caused by environment and be completely independent of genetics. So if all the cb were reared using similar husbandry, it's possible to get less variation in size compared to in the wild. If there is truly genetically based variability in size, then you might be able to do as you suggest but even then I doubt you would get any diagnostic results.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

I have one question that hasn't really been answered yet; given the incomplete information that we have on collection locations, is it wise to allow these animals to breed now? Supposing somewhere along the road we find that we were grossly misinformed, and we've been interbreeding frogs from two very separate and diverse populations? Will the F2 etc. generations that have been raised and perhaps sold all over the country be considered mutts or worse? I'm also hearing very incongruous opinions as to the current situation, but not many courses of action to rectify the predicament. What needs to happen now?


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

bbrock said:


> People, including myself, have suggested that mistakenly split populations could be mixed back later so that suggests if we just randomly breed all of the morphs of dogs back together, we should get wolves, right? But we don't, what we get is like the "cur" dog, the stereotypical feral dog.


Brent, 

I do not want to continue this here... as this could get long and winded  :shock: :lol: 
and it has nothing to do with the topic. So... just wanna let you know some missing elements: 

You forgot about foxes, dingos, african wild dogs and coyotes.


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

Good questions Dane... I have to let others answer those.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Dane said:


> I have one question that hasn't really been answered yet; given the incomplete information that we have on collection locations, is it wise to allow these animals to breed now? Supposing somewhere along the road we find that we were grossly misinformed, and we've been interbreeding frogs from two very separate and diverse populations? Will the F2 etc. generations that have been raised and perhaps sold all over the country be considered mutts or worse? I'm also hearing very incongruous opinions as to the current situation, but not many courses of action to rectify the predicament. What needs to happen now?


Yes, these are the important questions and what I hoped this debate was providing answers for. Here's my opinion (and it is just opinion as there is no absolutely right answer here). My feeling is that holding out for better information in the future is a mistake. I've been in the PDF hobby for about 7 years now and involved in other herp hobbies for about 30 years before that. I can't think of a single time when truly better information came along as time passed. Instead, the information about animal's origins become more hazy. That's why in this particular case, if you believe that your animals came from these farm raised groups, then they should be bred as one of those groups. Like Ben already mentioned, we all seen the photographs of the greenhouses. The exact location of their origin is already a moot point because what you are getting are the offspring of whatever frogs are in those greenhouses. If the founders are from mixed locales, then so are your frogs. I still thing the best information we have (and will ever have) about locales is what the exporters are telling us.

I think we need to be realistic that none of these frogs are suitable for conservation breeding where you are safeguarding a population for possible reintroduction to the wild. To do that you need certifiable locality data AND you need to now the exact pedigree of the frogs. Realistically, such animals are only obtained through a professional expedition with the specific purpose of collecting animals for a conservation program. This means we need to relax our sphincters just a little regarding the locality of these frogs. I think a lot of the problem people are having is that we are trying to hold a conservation standard to these frogs which will never be up to that standard. The next standard to uphold would be for maintaining wild type frogs. These are great frogs for that purpose so that's what we should be striving for, a group of frogs that will look and act like wild frogs over the long term but we aren't preserving the genetics of precisely known wild populations.

But I stress that I'm only talking about animals that we feel we can trace to a specific source. In this case we have animals that we believe all came from one of these greenhouses. So any animal that came out of a greenhouse, should be considered part of the same population as all other animals coming out of that greenhouse. I don't really see any other reasonable way to do it. Bastis are another good candidate because with a possible exception, it appears that bastis are all varieties from a single population and we don't see those morphs from the mainland. Now if you got a box of auratus that were collected from unknown locations in Panama and they look markedly different, you have a whole different situation on your hands. And you might need to subdivide dependending on what information you might be able to dig up.

A small group is working on draft breeding guidelines for PDF and one thing I would like to see is some kind of flow chart that could be worked through to plug in the information availabie and come up with a consistent way to determine breeding groups or lines. But after this thread I'm not sure it would work.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2005)

*bruno pumilio*

As the discoverer of the bruno pumilio i can say that it is almost impossible that there are farm raised bruno pumilio's.
First they are on a place thats very dificult to go and find.
The biotop is very different than all the other places on the bocas.

I think the confusion is that the colors are like the chiriqui grande.
But there are 2 big differents, the adult bruno is max. 15 mm. and almost all frogs are skinny.
photo's to see on my site http://www.dendrobatesworld.com

in a few months my film " pumilio's from the bocas" comes out on DVD with english comments.
This summer i hope to get ready with my new film "(poison)frogs from central america" in this film are shots from the bruno and also escudo.

Best regards
Chris van der Lingen
:idea:


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

We have already established that the green frogs we have are NOT bruno.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

I also have a pair of Almirante that look just like the pics of Randys pair a couple pages back. My male the smaller of the two is a brighter red with black peppering up its back with brighter blues on its legs.But there isnt any white on its underside that some are reporting. The female that is larger has a more rusty color and the legs are more greenish greyish brown.


----------

