# Ethical qualms and practices of breeding frogs ie: crossbreeding, inbreeding. Effects on future and motives questions.



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

Hello DB,

I've been meaning to write this for some time now but haven't summoned myself to do so. I was in contact with a man and came upon an interesting question for me. While talking we discussed cross-breeding dart frogs (more specifically Ranitomeya). While certain species and locals of these frogs can be found literally across a hill or stream or right on top of each other there is bound to be breeding between species. This is supported by the sheer amount of locals we have observed in the hobby today. There are obvious similarities between many species which can lead to an obvious conclusion of frogs breeding amongst other locals. While this practice would be shunned in a captive scenario it clearly happens In Situ. While talking to this gentleman he showed me an interesting picture of a Ranitomeya Benedicta "yellowhead" (our discussion was mainly focused on the Benedicta species). What was so peculiar about this specimen was the fact that it had been bred close to its natural home under the parents of a Ranitomeya Summersi and a Ranitomeya Benedicta Shucushyacu. The result of which led to a remarkably indistinguishable Ranitomeya Benedicta Yellowhead. Another thing I was told was that all ranitomeya species and locals if crossed with a Ranitomeya Fantastica 'True Nominal" always come out as True Nominals leading to the fact that Ranitomeya Fantastica "True Nominals" as the "mother" local and species. With this being said, would it be a bad practice to try and recreate these species in a captive-bred scenario? I understand that there are logistical challenges with keeping track of cross-bred frogs and keeping gene pools pure but if there is already interbreeding within naturally occurring frogs why shouldn't we recreate it in a captive-bred scenario? I have a hunch that interbreeding same blood frogs mother-to-son scenarios only accentuates problems we find with captive populations and health issues we experience. Not to mention trade bans. Could interbreeding be something we could use to aid in keeping captive-bred populations? What would be the qualms and logistical challenges? Would it be wrong to sell these cross-bred frogs? I am genuinely intrigued by this issue and would love to hear ya'lls thoughts. Could we use captive breeding both pure and otherwise as a tool to reintroduce captive populations back into restored habitats?


----------



## Fahad (Aug 25, 2019)

Sooo...no captive populations from hobbyists will ever be reintroduced to the wild. No genetic tracing/no methodology for founder groups, risk of introducing novel pathogens to wild habitats, and I imagine questions arising as to the fitness for said habitat of frogs that have been captive bred for multiple generations without natural selection pressures from their actual habitat. Let's say 99.99% it'll never happen outside of some post-apocalyptic Mad Max-style future.

There's also not really a monolithic "we" in terms of hobbyists. No way to track information or maintain or enforce continuity in terms of methodology and records. A central records database of sorts has actually been tried before and I think there's been better success herding cats.

I don't know where it's gonna land in a couple of decades but I would hate for the relatively clear cut lines (at least in some species/localities) we do have to wind up muddied to the point of some other reptiles and amphibians in the herpetocultural hobby -- the state of some Colubrids comes to mind immediately.


----------



## JasonE (Feb 7, 2011)

This has been covered to death on this forum. Use the search function to dig further into the discussion but basically it doesn't matter. If it's not inbreeding depression, it's bottlenecking or some other issue that's going to arise. Simply put, care for and enjoy your frogs. Don't crossbreed locales and if you can avoid inbreeding, great.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

FangsAndGames said:


> all ranitomeya species and locals if crossed with a Ranitomeya Fantastica 'True Nominal" always come out as True Nominals


Sorry -- what? What wild understanding of genetics does this depend on? 



FangsAndGames said:


> There are obvious similarities between many species which can lead to an obvious conclusion of frogs breeding amongst other locals.


So it is obvious that similar looking species interbreed? Evidence?



FangsAndGames said:


> While certain species and locals of these frogs can be found literally across a hill or stream or right on top of each other there is bound to be breeding between species.


So sympatric species are "bound to" interbreed in virtue of this proximity? You do realize that animal species have mate choice criteria that is more sophisticated than "is opposite sex, is nearby"?



FangsAndGames said:


> While certain species and locals of these frogs can be found literally across a hill or stream or right on top of each other there is bound to be breeding between species. This is supported by the sheer amount of locals we have observed in the hobby today


So, interbreeding between species leads both to the preservation of only one of the parent species (as in the first quote), and also the proliferation of morphologically distinct locales? What?

@FangsAndGames , you were taken on a wild ride by that "gentleman". Beware of random people on the internet who claim knowledge while making outlandish claims.

Also, yes, search "hybrid" here and you'll learn quite a bit about your assumptions and questions.


----------



## Chris S (Apr 12, 2016)

Agreed with many others that have stated this has been addressed on the forums before, but I can't look past so many inaccuracies and fallacies presented as fact or accepted knowledge. This is especially dear to me as I am very much for keeping our captive Ranitomeya as close to a mirror of the wild populations as possible.

Whoever you are talking to is full of pseudo science and obviously has no interest in the actual research that is readily available regarding Ranitomeya.

I just want to make sure that some of the assumptions are not glossed over as fact/accepted.



FangsAndGames said:


> While certain species and locals of these frogs can be found literally across a hill or stream or right on top of each other there is bound to be breeding between species.


There is no evidence of this that I have ever seen presented from wild populations, nor do I think you could make assumptions to this degree based on locale location or the fact that species live close to each other or in the same areas. There is even evidence to suggest that not only do the species not interbreed, but different locales of the same species do not interbreed.




FangsAndGames said:


> This is supported by the sheer amount of locals we have observed in the hobby today.


The locales are not indicative of species interbreeding in any way, shape, or form.



FangsAndGames said:


> There are obvious similarities between many species which can lead to an obvious conclusion of frogs breeding amongst other locals.


This is not an obvious conclusion by any stretch of imagination. There may be transitional locales of the SAME species that breed together, but there is no evidence any interbreeding of species. There are well documented and researched conclusions based on mimicry and mimetic radiation that outline why many species look similar, and why locales have different variations within the same species. R. imitator has many well documented papers on these subjects.



FangsAndGames said:


> While this practice would be shunned in a captive scenario it clearly happens In Situ.


It is shunned in captivity because it doesn't happen In Situ. Even locales, as mentioned earlier, have been documented to adhere to morphs that are similar to themselves when given the choice.




FangsAndGames said:


> While talking to this gentleman he showed me an interesting picture of a Ranitomeya Benedicta "yellowhead" (our discussion was mainly focused on the Benedicta species). What was so peculiar about this specimen was the fact that it had been bred close to its natural home under the parents of a Ranitomeya Summersi and a Ranitomeya Benedicta Shucushyacu. The result of which led to a remarkably indistinguishable Ranitomeya Benedicta Yellowhead.


I can't follow what is being said here. Are you saying this person is breeding R.benedicta against R.summersi and the offspring look like R. Benedicta "Yellowhead"? There is no evidence of this happening in the wild, that I have read. There is no evidence of In Situ breeding between summersi and benedicta. The better assumption is that there is perhaps some mimetic radiation between summersi/fantastica/imitator/benedicta that has not been documented properly. R. imitator has been well studied, but the others have not been to the same extent. I think evidence would show that these species are not converging, they are diverging. Not only that, but the physical features/colouration of these frogs don't even line up with what you are saying. 



FangsAndGames said:


> Another thing I was told was that all ranitomeya species and locals if crossed with a Ranitomeya Fantastica 'True Nominal" always come out as True Nominals leading to the fact that Ranitomeya Fantastica "True Nominals" as the "mother" local and species.


There would need to be evidence provided for the above statement to be considered anything near to a "fact". I would suggest there is little to no evidence of this, and it would have to be presented based on genetics, not just a visualization of the look of an animal. Whatever you have been told is wildly inaccurate and has no scientific evidence to support it.




FangsAndGames said:


> With this being said, would it be a bad practice to try and recreate these species in a captive-bred scenario?


Why would you recreate them when they exist already? Yes, it would be bad practice. No longer would you have a locale specific animal, and as these invariably are leaked into the general hobby, the locality data gets lost and mixed up. Additionally, there is being made an assumption that the similarities or look of the animals are due to interbreeding of species, where this is no evidence that this is the case.




FangsAndGames said:


> I understand that there are logistical challenges with keeping track of cross-bred frogs and keeping gene pools pure but if there is already interbreeding within naturally occurring frogs why shouldn't we recreate it in a captive-bred scenario?


This is a slippery slope, and there is no evidence that this is naturally occurring. It invalidates the question itself, but to take it one step further: in the wild, even if there WAS cross breeding between species, it is happening for a reason and the frogs are making a choice to do so either based on mate availability or some other environmental cue. In captivity, this is being forced, and would not replicate any natural interbreeding that may take place. Therefore it would not replicate nature in any degree. I hesitate even going down that path of discussion though as it might suggest a validation of the idea there is interbreeding in the wild.




FangsAndGames said:


> I have a hunch that interbreeding same blood frogs mother-to-son scenarios only accentuates problems we find with captive populations and health issues we experience.


Generally, I think if you can avoid inbreeding, please do, but I do not think it is as impactful as many may believe it to be. There is some evidence, albeit loosely related, that suggestions outbreeding may be just as harmful (if not more) than inbreeding. I think the reality is there has been no scientific research done on either of this in regards to the Genus Ranitomeya. There has not been any true evidence from hobbyists as of now that would indicate inbreeding is a massive issue at this stage.



FangsAndGames said:


> Could interbreeding be something we could use to aid in keeping captive-bred populations?


Not if you want these frogs to be representative of the wild populations.




FangsAndGames said:


> Would it be wrong to sell these cross-bred frogs?


Yes.




FangsAndGames said:


> Could we use captive breeding both pure and otherwise as a tool to reintroduce captive populations back into restored habitats?


Absolutely not.


----------



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Sorry -- what? What wild understanding of genetics does this depend on?


It’s just what he told me. He crossed different locals of raniomeya with true nominals and the offspring always came out as true nominals.


----------



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> So it is obvious that similar looking species interbreed? Evidence?


----------



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> So sympatric species are "bound to" interbreed in virtue of this proximity? You do realize that animal species have mate choice criteria that is more sophisticated than "is opposite sex, is nearby"?


Yes but I see no reason why it couldn’t happen. Many different locals share egg deposit sites which I’m not sure but also could be breeding areas where eggs become fertilized with a different local.


----------



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

Lol sorry people if I’m stepping on some toes and pissing off some of y’all. I came here more so for answers rather than be so bold as to the fact the my assumptions are correct. 😅


----------



## fishingguy12345 (Apr 7, 2019)

FangsAndGames said:


> Yes but I see no reason why it couldn’t happen. Many different locals share egg deposit sites which I’m not sure but also could be breeding areas where eggs become fertilized with a different local.


Documented evidence of this?


----------



## Fahad (Aug 25, 2019)

FangsAndGames said:


> Yes but *I see no reason why *it couldn’t happen.


See @Socratic Monologue 's post above wherein he points out it's not simply a matter of opposite sex and proximity.



FangsAndGames said:


> Many different locals share egg deposit sites *which I’m not sure but also could be* breeding areas where eggs become fertilized with a different local.


The Ranitomeya enthusiasts are covering this better than I can, but what I'm seeing is speculation and 'hunches' -- which you can't base actions with far-reaching consequences on. Not responsibly anyway.


----------



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

fishingguy12345 said:


> Documented evidence of this?


If my memory serves me correctly it was this documentary showing different locals with tads in the same deposition sites.


----------



## Fahad (Aug 25, 2019)

FangsAndGames said:


> *Lol sorry people if I’m stepping on some toes and pissing off some of y’all.* I came here more so for answers rather than be so bold as to the fact the my assumptions are correct. 😅


This is the second time in the past week someone has said something to that effect, when their idea has been challenged, refuted or disagreed with. 

I don't think anyone's "pissed off", looks like everyone's just being direct about facts and/or experience.


----------



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

Fahad said:


> This is the second time in the past week someone has said something to that effect, when their idea has been challenged, refuted or disagreed with.
> 
> I don't think anyone's "pissed off", looks like everyone's just being direct about facts and/or experience.


Thx, I’m here to learn.


----------



## Fahad (Aug 25, 2019)

FangsAndGames said:


> Thx, I’m here to learn.


All of us are. Never ends. 🍻


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

FangsAndGames said:


> Yes but I see no reason why it couldn’t happen. Many different locals share egg deposit sites which I’m not sure but also could be breeding areas where eggs become fertilized with a different local.


Second sentence first: this whole discussion starter is using 'species' and 'locale' (and 'local' [_sic_]_) _interchangeably in way too many places even to follow many of the points being made. Even when those terms are used consistently, the statements into which they figure indicate that those terms are very misunderstood.

Also on the second sentence: different locales cannot share the same egg deposit sites because different locales exist -- by definition -- in different places.

Also on the second sentence: dart frogs are not broadcast spawners, so what you're suggesting wouldn't happen.

First sentence: some reasons interspecific hybrids are (relatively) rare among wild animal species are: differing mate selection strategies that serve evolutionarily to maintain species differences; simple genetic incompatibility; selection pressures against hybrid characteristics, outcrossing depression generally.

I realize that this was (posed as) an information-gathering step, but to contemplate hybridizing captive stocks -- some of which cannot be replaced since we have extirpated them from the wild (let that sink in: our hobby has eliminated some wild populations) -- on the basis of such egregious misinformation is, well, it looks pretty bad. Take a look at other captive exotic herp species to see how botched up that all is -- way too much taxonomically unidentifiable junk just so that a handful of people can get ego boosts out of creating something new, and then way too many of those animals just end up in rescues. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent of this, but that's where it will go.


----------



## Chris S (Apr 12, 2016)

FangsAndGames said:


> Lol sorry people if I’m stepping on some toes and pissing off some of y’all. I came here more so for answers rather than be so bold as to the fact the my assumptions are correct. 😅


It does sort of piss me off, because it is obvious you did not do a shred of research before posting outlandish claims on a highly controversial topic. There are certainly discussions to be had about these points, but not from a starting point like this, and certainly not for self serving purposes like claiming new "morphs".

One of the reasons I like this Genus so much is that is hasn't been, for the most part, polluted by all these hybrids and cross breeding. Generally, most people seem to keep the locales and species separated. There is so much NATURAL variation in these animals...why do we have to mess it up and pollute the genes before we even really understand the animals properly? One of the most interesting FACTS about these animals is their mimcry of each other...and when you come in and claim that this well documented fact is actually due to crossbreeding in the wild, it shows you haven't even attempted to research and learn about these animals. 

It comes across as very self serving to me when I see talk about crossing and interbreeding - even worse you are getting some of this third hand from someone who obviously hasn't taken the time to educate themselves either and then passing it along as fact and general consensus of knowledge.


----------



## Chris S (Apr 12, 2016)

fishingguy12345 said:


> Documented evidence of this?


None, because there isn't any.


----------



## Chris S (Apr 12, 2016)

FangsAndGames said:


> It’s just what he told me. He crossed different locals of raniomeya with true nominals and the offspring always came out as true nominals.


This is also not likely true, as there has been genome studies specifically done on wild R. fantastica where two morphs were crossed, one of which was the "True Nominal" and what looked to be a Tarapoto locale specific morph. In 8 replicate crossings all males were sterile, and when backcrossed for obvious fertility reasons, the offspring were just as variable as the parents, displaying a good cross of the phenotypes displayed by their parents. As an FYI, all of the offspring from these studies were culled.


----------



## Fahad (Aug 25, 2019)

FangsAndGames said:


> If my memory serves me correctly it was this documentary showing different locals with tads in the same deposition sites. [...]


If you're going to make a claim and cite a reference, it's best practice to be sure of your reference and to be precise, i.e. where in that video is your reference? 

I've seen this film at least twice and don't remember any such thing, by the way. I could of course be wrong but no time to watch it again right now.


----------



## Chris S (Apr 12, 2016)

Fahad said:


> If you're going to make a claim and cite a reference, it's best practice to be sure of your reference and to be precise, i.e. where in that video is your reference?
> 
> I've seen this film at least twice and don't remember any such thing, by the way. I could of course be wrong but no time to watch it again right now.


I believe it does mention that various species share the same, or similar area, disposition sites. That said, that has no bearing on the point trying to be made because:


Ranitomeya are not broadcast spawners
Eggs are not laid, nor fertilized, at the disposition sites - they are deposited in them once they hatch.
I think before we start talking about genomes, phenotypes, inbreeding, crossbreeding and the like, we should try to understand the basic biology and life cycle of the animals...


----------



## DPfarr (Nov 24, 2017)

Chris S said:


> This is also not likely true, as there has been genome studies specifically done on wild R. fantastica where two morphs were crossed, one of which was the "True Nominal" and what looked to be a Tarapoto locale specific morph. In 8 replicate crossings all males were sterile, and when backcrossed for obvious fertility reasons, the offspring were just as variable as the parents, displaying a good cross of the phenotypes displayed by their parents. As an FYI, all of the offspring from these studies were culled.


This is an important note for OP to note in the assumption that ecotypes make outcrosses. In the event one occurs, they usually aren’t reproductively successful.

In regards to inbreeding, doing backcrosses of parents x progeny is worse than sibling outcrosses in regards to increasing allele pools.


----------



## FangsAndGames (Sep 22, 2020)

Thanks everyone for sorting out my bs. Lol


----------



## DPfarr (Nov 24, 2017)

The good news is there are a great many localities of these species. Running out of interesting species to work with isn’t easy.


----------

