# hybrids vs. designer morphs



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

I'm having a hard time finding any read difference between hybrids and designer morphs of selected species. They are both selective breeding to produce desired results. But one is not tolerated while the other seems to be desirable, even encouraged. I believe much of the hobby's obsession with locality or shipment date will hurt the hobby. Selective breeding from a very small genetic pool will lead to all kinds of problems down the line, some of which have already shown up. Although it is difficult to tell if the problems are from genetics or just poor husbandry - shrinking adult size, shrinking clutch size, poor colors. 

Instead of worry so much about "lines" maybe we should start to tackle the real problems that will affect our hobby in the future - genetic inbreeding and poor husbandry. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## poimandres (Mar 28, 2009)

Morphs are geographically isolated sub-populations that share presumably true-breeding general characteristics(i.e. coloration, pattern, size, call, etc). These traits distinguish them from other sub-populations of a species. 

Designer Morphs = traits within a sub-population that are selectively bred for. 

Hybrid = the mix of two distinct sub-populations that would otherwise not be mixed if not for captive environments.


----------



## puckplaya32 (Jan 6, 2008)

poimandres said:


> Morphs are geographically isolated sub-populations that share presumably true-breeding general characteristics(i.e. coloration, pattern, size, call, etc). These traits distinguish them from other sub-populations of a species.
> 
> Designer Morphs = traits within a sub-population that are selectively bred for.
> 
> Hybrid = the mix of two distinct sub-populations that would otherwise not be mixed if not for captive environments.


Most of what poimandres says is correct, with the exception of morphs necessarily being geographically isolated. I dont know if its thats people encourage line breeding, besides the breeders doing so, but rather the hobby is turning a blind eye to it for profit. Just as many other topics on this board over the last few months. I think anyone serious about maintaining genetic integrity of their animals will frown of linebreeding just as much as producing hybrids. Buts theres many people here that dont do as they say, and only look at numbers.


----------



## afterdark (Jan 16, 2007)

puckplaya32 said:


> Buts theres many people here that dont do as they say, and only look at numbers.


There sure are.

It's pretty weak to see people hating on hybrids and then turning around to post their ads for sky blue azureus or fine spot leucs. 

IMO, it's all supply and demand. If someone is willing to pay more for an azureus that has smaller spots, there are always going to be people who will be willing to provide those line bred animals. If people stop buying them, they go away.

One of the biggest arguments I've seen FOR mixing/hybrids is the desire to have a more 'variable' visual display. In many wild populations, pattern/colour variation is naturally occurring, and in some cases is quite drastic (Yumbatos imis, for example).

I will finish this rambling post with this succinct summation of my feelings on the subject : Hybrids suck, line-breeding sucks.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Chuck,

have you seen this evaluation of the risks between outbreeding and inbreeding depression? http://www.montana.edu/~wwwbi/staff/creel/bio480/edmands 2007.pdf 

Selective breeding to increase the frequency of appearance of a color variation (I am seperating morph as morphs are often used to designate stable locality specific populations) from within a population is a problem as this can change the allele frequency of the originating population. It isn't a problem if the ratio of appearance of the pattern variation is the same as the original population. 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

What is wrong with selective breeding? I will tell you, Its not natural. While every now and then something morphs out that appears different than the standard people jump on the breeding banwagon to over produce it in hopes of making alot of money before they flood the market or lose popularity. While in the wild said frog is not forced to breed back to its offspring and more than not the trait disapears and its back to the original. What is wrong with natural beauty?
As far as being site specific or regional with this hobby, Why not keep to the natural order of things? Yes I know they are in captivity but this also keeps the different locals of these similar species true instead of turning every species into one genetic line.
As for the hybrid lovers you people are just plain stupid. What about the species that are almost gone in the wild? Do you also wish to mix thier locals, Look for new color traits or patterns, Or how about hybridize them? If you want to keep these frogs around forever you should start here because for the most part we have no control of the wild populations in other countries.


> Dont Be A Hybridiot


----------



## qiksilver5 (Jan 9, 2007)

And what about this hobby IS natural? 

I think Ed presents a much more relevant argument. But at the same time, I wonder, how do the small original imports and the lack of fresh bloodlines impact your opinion on captive breeding in certain forms/morphs/species, etc? In instances of set importation limits and small collections you'll see drift over time as would, would you not? How is that any different?



poison beauties said:


> What is wrong with selective breeding? I will tell you, Its not natural. While every now and then something morphs out that appears different than the standard people jump on the breeding banwagon to over produce it in hopes of making alot of money before they flood the market or lose popularity. While in the wild said frog is not forced to breed back to its offspring and more than not the trait disapears and its back to the original. What is wrong with natural beauty?
> As far as being site specific or regional with this hobby, Why not keep to the natural order of things? Yes I know they are in captivity but this also keeps the different locals of these similar species true instead of turning every species into one genetic line.
> As for the hybrid lovers you people are just plain stupid. What about the species that are almost gone in the wild? Do you also wish to mix thier locals, Look for new color traits or patterns, Or how about hybridize them? If you want to keep these frogs around forever you should start here because for the most part we have no control of the wild populations in other countries.


----------



## Spectre66 (Apr 27, 2009)

With SO many variations hybridization will only blur the lines between species/morphs. Personally I want my frogs to be pure and true to what is found in the wild. I think most would agree with me on that respect so a line has to be drawn. The OP questions one line we've drawn with another line that we've decided to ignore.

The two lines are:
Hybridization vs pure
selective breeding for trait vs natural genetic progression.

Hybridization is an easy line to decide not to cross. To cross it you must make a conscious choice to not only put viable frogs together in the same terrarium, but also to not cull offspring.

Selective breeding happens whether you make the conscious choice or not. When raising breeding stock you pick which frogs are most pleasing to you. Would you keep a frog born with one eye or missing toes for your breeding stock? Nope, and you wouldn't even think about it. This says nothing about unconsciously picking frogs with patterns pleasing to the eye. 

On to hybridization to increase genetic vitality... Honestly I can't say that this is a bad idea. What I can say is that as a hobbiest I am well under qualified to effectively use hybridization in this manner. I highly doubt that the majority of the professional breeders out there have the background to effectively pull this off either.

Bottom line, if we start supporting hybridization it has to be limited to those who know how to institute a proper program to reintroduce viability and not blur the lines between morphs. If we don't, we run the risk of contaminating the integrity and confidence in the captive population and go back to folks wanting Wild Caught specimens for their purity.


----------



## puckplaya32 (Jan 6, 2008)

chuckpowell said:


> I believe much of the hobby's obsession with locality or shipment date will hurt the hobby.


Maybe chuck can elaborate on where he was going with this statement, do you mean with limited founding stock? Isnt that point of the TMP's that ASN is trying to follow?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Spectre66 said:


> On to hybridization to increase genetic vitality... Honestly I can't say that this is a bad idea. What I can say is that as a hobbiest I am well under qualified to effectively use hybridization in this manner. I highly doubt that the majority of the professional breeders out there have the background to effectively pull this off either.


I would suggest starting with the article I referenced in my post above....



Spectre66 said:


> Bottom line, if we start supporting hybridization it has to be limited to those who know how to institute a proper program to reintroduce viability and not blur the lines between morphs. If we don't, we run the risk of contaminating the integrity and confidence in the captive population and go back to folks wanting Wild Caught specimens for their purity.


This is actually the famous last stand.. as the end result can be the same as the Alamo.... outcrossing to the same species from disparate localities can actually cause the population to fail, the differences between species are likely to have a much greater impact.. 

However from what I can tell, this also getting away from Chuck's points in the original post. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

qiksilver5 said:


> And what about this hobby IS natural?
> 
> I think Ed presents a much more relevant argument. But at the same time, I wonder, how do the small original imports and the lack of fresh bloodlines impact your opinion on captive breeding in certain forms/morphs/species, etc? In instances of set importation limits and small collections you'll see drift over time as would, would you not? How is that any different?


If the population is managed for the long-term then drift can be reduced or controlled.. keep in mind that these frogs can have a long lifespan so a generation can be every 8-10 (or longer) years as opposed to the every 1-2 years many hobbyists attempt to achieve... 

Ed


----------



## winstonamc (Mar 19, 2007)

I've been reading these hybrid debates for years and have been surprised by how adamant people are about this, people don't decry war with the vehemence that they do hybridization. I'm not saying I am a backer of hybridization, but the dialogue here is pretty striking.

One question I have wondered since day one of reading this forum. Isn't the whole premise of preserving locale and special integrity based on a noah's ark scenario of exporting frogs from the hobby TO the wild? It this the basic foundation of the argument if I understand it correctly?

Another thing that has struck me is that this is probably the most if not one of the most sophisticated animal hobbies out there. The amount of information available on this forum alone by sheer volume must overshadow all the scientific work on darts. I was reading, with goosebumps, people's plans of producing a sustainable hobby population of bumblebee toads the other day and it occurred to me that shouldn't those of us with the most experience (myself excluded) conscientiously, as a group intentionally cross bloodlines and perhaps species and trade exclusively amongst themselves in order to gather data. I mean, hybrids and genetically healthy populations are notorious for their robustness. And if there is a future scenario where we are exporting species back into the wild in some future time, what if it is not a delicately tuned nature that we have to return them to, what if there are concessions to make. With all the data that is exchanged here, isn't it a perfect opportunity? A 1000 frogs from a handful of imports some time ago can't have that much genetic diversity. Am I just misunderstanding the basis of the argument? That is, that it is based upon returning our animals to the wild at the behest of some group of scientists.

I hope I haven't offended anyone

Adam


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Adam



winstonamc said:


> One question I have wondered since day one of reading this forum. Isn't the whole premise of preserving locale and special integrity based on a noah's ark scenario of exporting frogs from the hobby TO the wild? It this the basic foundation of the argument if I understand it correctly.


At this time, there is not a single species kept by the hobby that meets the criteria for repatriation/release into the wild... and this does include if the species goes extinct in the wild. What is driving the attempt to keep the lines pure is that some species will no longer be available from the wild.. and many species are not collected in a sustainable manner. 




winstonamc said:


> Another thing that has struck me is that this is probably the most if not one of the most sophisticated animal hobbies out there. The amount of information available on this forum alone by sheer volume must overshadow all the scientific work on darts.


Depends on your standard for information.. outside of the recycling of information in the hobby every so often due to fads (for example tadpole foods..), there is a high proportion of voodoo and unsupported information that is established in the hobby... a not inconsiderable amount of what we do here is based on the literature produced by the scientific literature.... 



winstonamc said:


> I was reading, with goosebumps, people's plans of producing a sustainable hobby population of bumblebee toads the other day and it occurred to me that shouldn't those of us with the most experience (myself excluded) conscientiously, as a group intentionally cross bloodlines and perhaps species and trade exclusively amongst themselves in order to gather data. I mean, hybrids and genetically healthy populations are notorious for their robustness. And if there is a future scenario where we are exporting species back into the wild in some future time, what if it is not a delicately tuned nature that we have to return them to, what if there are concessions to make. With all the data that is exchanged here, isn't it a perfect opportunity? A 1000 frogs from a handful of imports some time ago can't have that much genetic diversity. Am I just misunderstanding the basis of the argument? That is, that it is based upon returning our animals to the wild at the behest of some group of scientists.
> 
> I hope I haven't offended anyone
> 
> Adam


Again, I strongly suggest reading the article link I posted in my first post in this thread... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

chuckpowell said:


> Although it is difficult to tell if the problems are from genetics or just poor husbandry - shrinking adult size, shrinking clutch size, poor colors.
> 
> Instead of worry so much about "lines" maybe we should start to tackle the real problems that will affect our hobby in the future - genetic inbreeding and poor husbandry.
> 
> ...


Hi Chuck,

forgot to address some of this earlier... 

with respect to colors.. if one looks at the diet of the average frog, then the primary source of non-pterin pigmentation is beta carotene.. this is one of the 6 commonly found carotenoid based pigments found in the chromaphores... a lot of people still attempt to use paprika as a source of red pigmentation however there is a large difference in the absorbability of the red carotenoids found in paprika versus other red carotenoids like astaxanthin (and yes astaxanthin is common in terrestrial enviroments due to different metabolic transformations by arthropods of other carotenoids) (and astaxanthin is one of the 6 commonly utilzed carotenoids noted earlier in the post..) 

clutch size tends to be a factor of several husbandry based factors, size at first reproduction, age, and nutrition. Older females tend to lay larger clutches, as do larger females.. availability of lipids for yolk formation also plays an important role in size of clutches. Keeping the frogs in a system where the conditions for reproduction are fairly constant with a high nutrient input (most frogs are fed to obesity) results in a constant ovulation situation which can result in smaller clutches.... 

Small frogs can be due to several factors (some of which are poorly understood) but nutrition is probably a primary factor. If the frogs are obese then reproduction may be stimulated to begin at a younger age/smaller size. This will cause smaller clutch sizes. 
People tend to attempt to maximize the activity cycle and the reproductive period which can change growth patterns. 

Once reproduction starts, energy gets diverted from growth to reproduction and growth greatly slows down resulting in small frogs..... if there are seasonal changes which remove the impetus for reproduction, then resources can be diverted back to growth but again, it will still be slower. 

Some of the potential issues that are poorly understood may be due to how the enclosures are handled... some of these issues may be due to enviromentally induced phenotypic expressions..... (but again, this is a poorly defined and understood area with respect to a lot of animals...) 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

poimandres said:


> Morphs are geographically isolated sub-populations that share presumably true-breeding general characteristics(i.e. coloration, pattern, size, call, etc). These traits distinguish them from other sub-populations of a species.
> 
> Designer Morphs = traits within a sub-population that are selectively bred for.
> 
> Hybrid = the mix of two distinct sub-populations that would otherwise not be mixed if not for captive environments.


Actuallly hybrids are the result of crosses between species 
outcrossing is the result of breeding within a species between two distinct populations. 

Ed


----------



## poimandres (Mar 28, 2009)

Ed said:


> Actuallly hybrids are the result of crosses between species
> outcrossing is the result of breeding within a species between two distinct populations.
> 
> Ed


Of course you are correct Ed, I should have been more specific. What I meant to define was what is often times referred to as hybrids in our hobby, that as you point out is actually outcrossing.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

> I would suggest starting with the article I referenced in my post above....


Ed having to continually reference a link numerous times within a page in response to the same question being asked highlights what I think is a concerning problem: the willingness of folks (or lack thereof) to put forth actual effort toward solving a problem, or even understanding it more fully/accurately. And this is a symptom of a larger problem: actual buy-in from hobbyists to participate in captive breeding and longterm management of animals. We can talk and scream until we're blue in the face about all the ways in which hybrids et al. are "the end of the hobby"...but as Chuck originally posted, if people aren't willing to focus harder on actual effective husbandry practices and actually participate in proper longterm captive management, then it's just an issue of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, because it's just as detrimental to the hobby.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

Now are you refrerring to breeding practices or husbandry when it comes to the downgraded frogs showing up here and there? Personally I can say that what I hope is twenty years will go by and I wont have even gotten to F2s with my retics. The ability to keep individual lines in this hobby without overbreeding or even inbreeding them is here. We all know that it is possible to track a line and keep it pure until new blood is availible. And if new blood is not ever going to make it here such as the standard Lamasi [ almost gone in the wild] then we have to do a better job at pairing up unrelated blood until we get back on track. I have heard of a line making it all the way to F5 with no ill effects so technically we good go half a century without even using another line. Do the work, Do the math, It is possible to keep what we have here without destroying its natural beauty. 
As far as husbandry goes, how people maintain their frogs can only be changed by one person, the buyer. If buyers stop buying on the whim and start asking more questions than before long that breeder of unsatisfactory frogs will change their ways or surely get pushed out of this hobby/buisness by the competition keeping better/healthier frogs. I personally think there needs to be more of a culling practice in this hobby so we can keep the genetic lines stronger which will also keep them around longer. If you end up with a runt, deformed froglet or just a weaker frog dont allow it to make it into the next breeding cycle as nature most certanly would not.. I hear everyone say we have to work harder to get the earth in better shape for our kids, Why cant we do the same with this hobby?


> Dont Be A Hybridiot!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

poison beauties said:


> . I personally think there needs to be more of a culling practice in this hobby so we can keep the genetic lines stronger which will also keep them around longer. If you end up with a runt, deformed froglet or just a weaker frog dont allow it to make it into the next breeding cycle as nature most certanly would not.. I hear everyone say we have to work harder to get the earth in better shape for our kids, Why cant we do the same with this hobby?


If you start culling then you are actively selecting the frogs which has the same effect as line breeding for select morphs. "Runt" and "weaker" are opinion based and will result in changes to the gene frequency. Deformation is another problem as most of the deformations we see in the hobby are husbandry based and not genetic.... 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

I agree that most deformities are husbandry based but the fact is these frogs more than likely would not make it in the wild which makes them culled by nature. Im not talking about selectively breeding traits. Deformities and other problems such as runts are not normally part of the breeding cycle in nature so why should they be here? In my opinion breeding runts, demormed or just plain weaker frogs does nothing but produce more of the frogs inwhich Chuck spoke of in the first place. If anyone is breeding these frogs it cant be for the good of the hobby but id bet its just in hopes of fattening that bank account. In nature the strong survive and produce the next generation so why shouldnt it be that way in this hobby. Example. Wild caught frogs are normally larger why? Because the line was not breed down by runts and weeker frogs.


> Dont Be A Hybridiot!


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

poison beauties said:


> I agree that most deformities are husbandry based but the fact is these frogs more than likely would not make it in the wild which makes them culled by nature. Im not talking about selectively breeding traits. Deformities and other problems such as runts are not normally part of the breeding cycle in nature so why should they be here? In my opinion breeding runts, demormed or just plain weaker frogs does nothing but produce more of the frogs inwhich Chuck spoke of in the first place. If anyone is breeding these frogs it cant be for the good of the hobby but id bet its just in hopes of fattening that bank account. In nature the strong survive and produce the next generation so why shouldnt it be that way in this hobby. Example. Wild caught frogs are normally larger why? Because the line was not breed down by runts and weeker frogs.


So you are in favor of selectively breeding for size, but not color?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

See my comments in the above post on husbandry effects on the size of the frogs etc. 

The problem is that you are making an assumption that those frogs are unfit without any natural selection pressures on them. As a result, you are selecting for frogs that are more adapted to captivity (in other words, you are directly selecting for and breeding for adaption). This is the same as linebreeding for a select morph just on a slightly larger scale... This is a lesson that conservation organizations working with species for release/repatriation learned the hard way..... If the goal is to maintain a frog that is as close as possible to the wild population then you have to select on relatedness and not on any percieved negative characteristics (particularly those that are likely to based on husbandry issues). 
The only culling that should be done is on frogs who would not survive in captive conditions.. as the quality of life would be poor for the frogs before they died (such as severe cases of SLS). 
There is a lot of literature on the effects of culling and captive management programs. Some literature searches would go a long way to explaining when and when not to cull... 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

I believe what I see, When you have a group of frogs and raise them to maturity what factors in the wild win a frog the right to mate? While size is an issue it also is the overall health of the frog. Weaker frogs do not win the little wrestling matches and fight in nature. Neither does the prettier colored frog. If a frog is just plain weaker, smaller, in need of extra attention than I would say it is not the pic of the litter and there for does not qualify to sire the next generation of frogs esspecially when some species are on the verge of disapearing, do you? We know our frogs no matter how genetically correct they are to nature will not be used to repopulate the wild. That said what if we did this. Say I take a group of frogs, place them all in a very large viv as close to the perfect setup as we can get. Does every male and female get to breed? I think not because the stronger frogs will win that right. Im just trying to keep the gene pool strong. Allowing weaker frogs that show signs of needing extra care to breed IMO detours from natures way. How do you get rid of a trait that in no way helps the frog prevail in nature? You cull the trait as nature would.
By culling I simply mean not to allow said frog to be apart of the future gene pool. Ending a frogs life is only for extreme circumstances.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

poison beauties said:


> I believe what I see, When you have a group of frogs and raise them to maturity what factors in the wild win a frog the right to mate? While size is an issue it also is the overall health of the frog. Weaker frogs do not win the little wrestling matches and fight in nature. Neither does the prettier colored frog. If a frog is just plain weaker, smaller, in need of extra attention than I would say it is not the pic of the litter and there for does not qualify to sire the next generation of frogs esspecially when some species are on the verge of disapearing, do you?


The problem with this is that you are assuming that this is the case in the wild (and this totally ignores that a frog that would be fit in the wild may be rendered "unfit" in captivity due to poor husbandry on the part of the keeper (smaller size, color not quite right for example)..).. we do not know that this is true and the stronger etc male does not always get the chance to reproduce. See below for a further explination... 



poison beauties said:


> We know our frogs no matter how genetically correct they are to nature will not be used to repopulate the wild. That said what if we did this. Say I take a group of frogs, place them all in a very large viv as close to the perfect setup as we can get. Does every male and female get to breed? I think not because the stronger frogs will win that right. Im just trying to keep the gene pool strong. Allowing weaker frogs that show signs of needing extra care to breed IMO detours from natures way. How do you get rid of a trait that in no way helps the frog prevail in nature? You cull the trait as nature would.


You are assuming that only the strongest animal gets to breed and this has patently been shown to be untrue... if you only believe what you see then I suggest that you check out the very extensive body of literature on sneaker males, mate choices based on histocompatability complexes and other factors.... I have seen auratus males using the sneaker male tactics... Culling removes the ability of any of the frogs to perform these functions for better population genetics. 
Any assumption that a trait does not help an animal to survive in nature is an assumption and a culling selection to breed for a specific morph. There is basically the same as selective breeding sky blue or fine spot azureus or chocolate leucomelas.... 

I strongly suggest reviewing the pertinent literature... 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

Im going over it now, However I have heard and seen the sneaker qualities you speak and in that case is it proven that the offspring will be just as viable in nature than if they were from a dominate male. My only point is: I have two wc unrealated pair and I have not breed any offspring back to one another yet. Lets say that when they are at lifes end I take a pair of offspring and take a step into the line, Why do it with visably weaker frogs? I want to preserve this species, not risk breeding it into weakness. That is the main point I am coming from. Im currently working on looking for other lines within the same local but if not then F1,F2 and hopefully no less than 25-30 years later F3 and keeping the line strong guarentees they are alive and well then. What if a so called bad gene made it in by allowing a weaker/smaller frog to breed and an endangered species died off.? Doesnt that risk make my view ethically correct to this situation? With some species here we cant risk that. There aren't enough of them around.


----------



## evolvstll (Feb 17, 2007)

On the original point I have been wondering about the recent tinc imports. Are individuals mixing the wc with their cb tincs to add diversity to the pool. Are individuals going to keep the wc distinct and differentiate them as '09 imports. If the trend is to keep them as '09 import wc, then f1 and so on, bringing in the imports does nothing for the previous stock.
The resulting offspring I believe has a lot to do with husbandry both with the parents and the developing tads. Morphing froglet size and quality I have noticed a difference with food quality, water quality, and even morphing container size, as well as water temp.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

poison beauties said:


> Im going over it now, However I have heard and seen the sneaker qualities you speak and in that case is it proven that the offspring will be just as viable in nature than if they were from a dominate male. My only point is: I have two wc unrealated pair and I have not breed any offspring back to one another yet. Lets say that when they are at lifes end I take a pair of offspring and take a step into the line, Why do it with visably weaker frogs? I want to preserve this species, not risk breeding it into weakness. That is the main point I am coming from. Im currently working on looking for other lines within the same local but if not then F1,F2 and hopefully no less than 25-30 years later F3 and keeping the line strong guarentees they are alive and well then. What if a so called bad gene made it in by allowing a weaker/smaller frog to breed and an endangered species died off.? Doesnt that risk make my view ethically correct to this situation? With some species here we cant risk that. There aren't enough of them around.


You are making assumptions about the frogs that aren't valid, 

1) making a value judgement on physical characteristics that are probably due to husbandry problems (your supposed bad gene) does not place the proper value on the genetic value of the animal. This reduces the alllele frequency in the population affecting long range surviviability... 

2) by making value judgement you are selective breeding the frogs for the traits that you can see visibly and not on the genetic importance of the individual based on genetic relatedness of the group. (this is no different than breeding for fine spots or wider bands etc..) 

3) if the visible (a very big if) phenotype is due to genetics and not due to husbandry issues, then without hard data showing it is deleterious in the wild, one cannot make the assumption that it is a problem for the population as a whole. In fact, that gene may be linked to other genes that when expressed in the heterozygous form, actually increases surviviability in the wild (for example the genetic variation included via the actions of satellite males in many populations). 

One cannot simply look at a frog and decide that its genes are unfit without hard data on the combination. Otherwise one is actually artifically selecting the population for visual traits. This is exactly the same (both ethically as well as functionally) as breeding for fine spots, sky blue or albinism..

Ed


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

As for breeding imports into a current captive population the first thing I would suggest is a long quarentine with and treatments needed as well. During that time you need to make sure that the frogs you plan to breed are from the same locale. Same species, different locale, then keep them seperate. If they are from the some region then why not strengthen the line up. you could also collect multiple pair from said import breed those lines into one another if unsure of the captive lines original locale. While most research is not done by many on this subject it does benifit one to know where there frogs originally came from.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

With respect to the use of the imports for the older bloodlines (as noted in the article I linked earlier in this thread) to provide diversity, the frogs should ideally come from the exact same collection point as otherwise you are risking outbreeding depression. The problem with outbreeding depression is that you cannot be sure that it is a negative impact for as much as 3 generations. Even relatively close populations can have sufficient differences to cause significant impact. 
There are a number of interesting outbreeding articles on frogs...

Ed


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

As for the bad gene, Any gene or trait that not only causes one frog of the same species to be physically smaller, weaker, more prone to sickness or disease and most of all less likely to survive in the wild is in my opinion a bad gene. Personally I would like to keep those out of my line but I did read and see where you are coming from but I would think and possibly even bet on the line lasting longer and being healther by simplely keeping the weaker genes out of the line.
If these bad genes are usefull, Than why cull the sls and sts and other deformities? As you say if noones sure how exactly it plays out in the wild aren't you also contributing to selective breeding by culling them?


> Dont Be A Hybridiot!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The problem is that you are assuming that it is genetically based without any supporting proof that it is genetic. 
Lets look at the short-tongue syndrome (sts) for a starter.. this is 100% caused by husbandry issues (in this case nutritional) in the form of insufficient vitamin A in the frog/toad. So if you cull based on sts, then you are actually culling based on poor husbandry. 

While spindly-leg syndrome (sls) is suspected in some cases to be due to genetic causes, this has not been shown to be the case yet, instead the majority of the problems are due to nutritional issues with the adults, to a lesser extent with the tadpoles, and a even smaller extent enviromental.. (so again bet on husbandry causing the problem).. In this case, if severely affected the frog is going to starve to death as it cannot elevate its body sufficiently to feed and euthenasia is appropriate. If the frog is minimally affected then excluding these frogs from breeding is again culling on the basis of poor husbandry. 

In both of these cases, by excluding those frogs from breeding, you are selectively breeding for frogs that are more tolerant of poor husbandry conditions and the resulting frogs are going to be no different than the line bred fine spot azureus or any line bred albino.... with all of the potential problems of a reduced genetic variation (which is going to continue to be reduced..) Basically those frogs would be the equivalent of the fancy guppy..

Can you explain how you are determining which are genetic and which are due to husbandry based on visual appearance? Husbandry can affect only one of a clutch to all of multiple clutches (as shown by sls)... 

Ed


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Well said Ed. Many of the problems with our frogs are likely due to husbandry. I know of only a very people in the US who continually produce large, beautiful frogs, similar to wild caught specimens. Its not that they start with large, beautiful frogs, but because their husbandry is good. We need to learn from these people, write up what they do and distribute it. Much of the information passed around here is based on hear-say. I've done it this way so you should also, or I heard this was the way to do it. 

One thing we should realize. None of our animals are going back to wild. To think so is just fooling yourself. The minute we introduce frogs into our tanks and they breed we are selectively breeding. We are producing animals that will live better in our tanks than in the wild. Its just the way it is. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

chuckpowell said:


> Well said Ed. Many of the problems with our frogs are likely due to husbandry. I know of only a very people in the US who continually produce large, beautiful frogs, similar to wild caught specimens. Its not that they start with large, beautiful frogs, but because their husbandry is good. We need to learn from these people, write up what they do and distribute it. Much of the information passed around here is based on hear-say. I've done it this way so you should also, or I heard this was the way to do it.
> ,
> 
> Chuck


Hi Chuck,

I agree, I think the vast majority of the problems are due to husbandry issues and we are getting closer and closer to correcting a lot of them.. astaxanthin was the a major step forward in dealing with some of the pigmentation issues... and we are getting closer with other items. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So your talking exponential growth? How many frogs does it take to contain all those genes by the 5th generation? Seeming that no frogs produced can be culled or lost i seriously question if there will ever be enough people in the hobby to contain even one species by generation 3-4.



Ed said:


> The problem is that you are assuming that it is genetically based without any supporting proof that it is genetic.
> Lets look at the short-tongue syndrome (sts) for a starter.. this is 100% caused by husbandry issues (in this case nutritional) in the form of insufficient vitamin A in the frog/toad. So if you cull based on sts, then you are actually culling based on poor husbandry.
> 
> While spindly-leg syndrome (sls) is suspected in some cases to be due to genetic causes, this has not been shown to be the case yet, instead the majority of the problems are due to nutritional issues with the adults, to a lesser extent with the tadpoles, and a even smaller extent enviromental.. (so again bet on husbandry causing the problem).. In this case, if severely affected the frog is going to starve to death as it cannot elevate its body sufficiently to feed and euthenasia is appropriate. If the frog is minimally affected then excluding these frogs from breeding is again culling on the basis of poor husbandry.
> ...


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

Ed said:


> The problem is that you are assuming that it is genetically based without any supporting proof that it is genetic.
> Lets look at the short-tongue syndrome (sts) for a starter.. this is 100% caused by husbandry issues (in this case nutritional) in the form of insufficient vitamin A in the frog/toad. *So if you cull based on sts, then you are actually culling based on poor husbandry. *
> [/B]
> 
> Ed



One thing I have noticed through my experience with breeding fish (this topic especially relates to Electric Blue Jack Dempseys) is that while many issues are indeed caused by husbandry issues, often selective breeding makes these individuals genetically weaker, and so more susceptible to such problems. The issue with EBJD's is typically that they contract parasites more easily than the regular variety of cichlid... and while with pristine water and a UV sterilizer the fish will do fine (aka excellent husbandry), the selective breeding does weaken their immune systems and makes them less genetically strong. 

These fish are more likely than the W/C varieties to catch parasites, which does point to genetic weakness.. even though a parasite is clearly not by itself a genetic disease. Correct me if I'm wrong by drawing a parallel, but it would seem to me that nutritional deficiencies could be the same way. 

A weakened immune system caused by generations of selective breeding could cause these deficiencies to be more of a problem.... and while those frogs in the right hands will not have these deficiencies, that would not change the fact that they are indeed genetically weaker than their W/C relatives. 

Again, I am definitely drawing some conclusions here based on little knowledge... but *my question would be this: in identical environments, assuming these nutrients are not being given, would the selectively bred frogs develop STS faster than wild caught frogs? *

If this is the case, husbandry would still be the trigger for STS, but the increased susceptibility in line-bred frogs would be directly related to their genetic strength.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> So your talking exponential growth? How many frogs does it take to contain all those genes by the 5th generation? Seeming that no frogs produced can be culled or lost i seriously question if there will ever be enough people in the hobby to contain even one species by generation 3-4.


No, what I am talking about is that you cannot make mate choices for your frogs based on what you personally think is a strong frog. Mate choice should be (needs to) be made on the basis of how related two frogs actually are... 

I'm not going to bother digging it out as you have stated in other threads that included a similar topic that it doesn't matter how many papers I reference and provide as a citation.... but one (if they were inclined) could look up the literature for themselves and get the formula that tells them the estimated minimal number of animals based on the founder population to capture as much of the genetic variation in a population as possible... all I am going to say is that it isn't exponential or even infinite. 

If a person is concerned about exponential growth as a threat to thier business model, then they can practice culling as long as they cull randomly and do not make mate choices based on perceptions of "better" versus "weaker" frogs..... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

gtclipse01 said:


> One thing I have noticed through my experience with breeding fish (this topic especially relates to Electric Blue Jack Dempseys) is that while many issues are indeed caused by husbandry issues, often selective breeding makes these individuals genetically weaker, and so more susceptible to such problems. The issue with EBJD's is typically that they contract parasites more easily than the regular variety of cichlid... and while with pristine water and a UV sterilizer the fish will do fine (aka excellent husbandry), the selective breeding does weaken their immune systems and makes them less genetically strong.
> 
> These fish are more likely than the W/C varieties to catch parasites, which does point to genetic weakness.. even though a parasite is clearly not by itself a genetic disease. Correct me if I'm wrong by drawing a parallel, but it would seem to me that nutritional deficiencies could be the same way.
> 
> ...


There are some problems with attempting to make the comparision here... 

If the online origin was correct, this variation appeared to have problems with growth in the original spawnings which when coupled with the differences in the coloration (which visually appears to be a loss of melanopores, and xanthopores (or replacement by iridopores as shown by the blue coloration) indicates that there are potential issues with the fish from the beginning. Depending on how these are disrupted in the fish, these could signal problems with melanin which has been more recently been shown to linked as a important immune modulator... 

There are multiple things that can cause a weakened immune system.. for example decreased variaton in the histocompatiability complex due to decreased founder population and/or problems with melatonin production and/or so forth.. 

We know that frogs collected from the wild as well as lines that are not heavily inbred (F1 and F2) show signs of insufficient vitamin A in captivity, we also know that most of the supplements only provide one source of vitamin A which appears to be insufficient... 

While it is possible that heavily inbred frogs could have a genetic linked problem with vitamin A deficiency, I have strong doubts based on the fact that given the prevalence even in long-term captive wild collected anurans, and further decrease in the ability to synthesize and produce vitamin A would simply prevent the frogs from surviving the egg stage (as vitamin A is very important in embryo development). 

Ed


----------



## NDokai (Nov 13, 2009)

poison beauties said:


> As for the bad gene, Any gene or trait that not only causes one frog of the same species to be physically smaller, weaker, more prone to sickness or disease and most of all less likely to survive in the wild is in my opinion a bad gene. Personally I would like to keep those out of my line but I did read and see where you are coming from but I would think and possibly even bet on the line lasting longer and being healther by simplely keeping the weaker genes out of the line.
> If these bad genes are usefull, Than why cull the sls and sts and other deformities? As you say if noones sure how exactly it plays out in the wild aren't you also contributing to selective breeding by culling them?


The problem is, these "bad genes" that express themselves in a captive environment, can't accurately depict problems or advantages for wild frogs. 
I can use my experience with lizards, to make an example. 
I used to keep a lot of collared lizards (Crotaphytus sp.). I would catch a lot of my own stock, as that was the only way to obtain certain locales, or species. Out of a sample group, certain individuals would adjust to the captive environment better than others. If a lizard was nervous, it would not come out to eat as much as it should, it may spend a large portion of its day trying to escape, etc. This type of behavior is a huge advantage in the wild, yet a dissadvantage in captivity. A nervous lizard is much harder for a predator to approach. This was not limmited to wild caught animals. Even captive bred ones can exibit this nervousness, and fail to thrive in captivity. Bearded dragons are also a good example. Most of them now have been selectively bred in one way or another. Most are big, robust, and stupid. They would not survive in the wild. 

Of course, it is completely your choice. Nobody can force you to manage your captives one way or another. 

Just my 2 cents.

Nick


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

NDokai said:


> The problem is, these "bad genes" that express themselves in a captive environment, can't accurately depict problems or advantages for wild frogs.
> I can use my experience with lizards, to make an example.
> I used to keep a lot of collared lizards (Crotaphytus sp.). I would catch a lot of my own stock, as that was the only way to obtain certain locales, or species. Out of a sample group, certain individuals would adjust to the captive environment better than others. If a lizard was nervous, it would not come out to eat as much as it should, it may spend a large portion of its day trying to escape, etc. This type of behavior is a huge advantage in the wild, yet a dissadvantage in captivity. A nervous lizard is much harder for a predator to approach. This was not limmited to wild caught animals. Even captive bred ones can exibit this nervousness, and fail to thrive in captivity. Bearded dragons are also a good example. Most of them now have been selectively bred in one way or another. Most are big, robust, and stupid. They would not survive in the wild.
> 
> ...


This is a description on the effect of acclimation-maladaption syndrome can play out. In this sort of problem more nervous animals tend to either not reproduce readily or produce a smaller number of offspring when compared to animals that acclimate to readily. This results in a artificial selection for calmness in captivity and depending on the number of offspring, the generation time for this appear can be as short as 1 generation (as seen in hatchery raised salmon..) 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

No, I`m saying 1 pair produces lots of offspring. How do you decide which male out of the bunches of offspring produced to breed to the female produced from another unrelated pair? If individuals look weak and you have 50 to choose from which all differ in size color and pattern, does it matter which one you choose? Ahh, just re read the last statement. Well it seems stupid to choose a weaker mate out of your choices since they`re never going back to the wild. I still don`t see how , ahh forget it. I`m only going to be working w/ terribilis and since there isn`t any other blood I guess it doesn`t matter.
And what your referring to is a bad day when you told me that terribilis are doomed(actually I think you said no better than an albino parakeet?) because there is only one bloodline each for all 3 colors in the US. How do you expect a kid to react when you tell them there is no Santa Claus? Esp when I`m hearing some locales may be extinct in the wild. 



Ed said:


> No, what I am talking about is that you cannot make mate choices for your frogs based on what you personally think is a strong frog. Mate choice should be (needs to) be made on the basis of how related two frogs actually are...
> 
> I'm not going to bother digging it out as you have stated in other threads that included a similar topic that it doesn't matter how many papers I reference and provide as a citation.... but one (if they were inclined) could look up the literature for themselves and get the formula that tells them the estimated minimal number of animals based on the founder population to capture as much of the genetic variation in a population as possible... all I am going to say is that it isn't exponential or even infinite.
> 
> ...


----------



## DKOOISTRA (May 28, 2009)

After reading thru this thread, how then does one select a mate for your frog.
What is the correct "protocal"? I've been thinking about this for weeks now.
Were I to buy a sexed pair of frogs from a particular breeder, that breeder may have 4 different breeding pairs, so if i buy a sexed pair, i may get a male and female from different pairs, or from the same pair. I may get a pair that is somewhat genetically diverse(?), or brothers and sisters. So going by local and breeder really isnt a reliable method as in the end, i really truly dont know what i have. 
It would seem, to me, the only 100% reliable method available to get frogs that are guaranteed to be as genetically diverse as possible is to buy a male from 1 breeder, a female from another breeder whose parents are both wild caught?
It really is confusing to the beginner, please set me straight
i hope this rambling makes sense.
derek


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

DKOOISTRA said:


> After reading thru this thread, how then does one select a mate for your frog.
> What is the correct "protocal"? I've been thinking about this for weeks now.


Go ahead and purchase the frogs you want to get. Learn about that species and its history in the hobby...ask other hobbyists questions about them, ask the person/vendor you obtain them from for proper lineage information (who they received their frogs from...then who THAT person received them from, etc.). Then find others who are keeping that species or morph and ask about the history of their frogs to see how closely related (or not) they are to yours. Ideally, you just want to match up frogs that aren't related (e.g. sibling, parent/direct juvenile, etc.).


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

chuckpowell said:


> Well said Ed. Many of the problems with our frogs are likely due to husbandry. I know of only a very people in the US who continually produce large, beautiful frogs, similar to wild caught specimens. Its not that they start with large, beautiful frogs, but because their husbandry is good. We need to learn from these people, write up what they do and distribute it.
> 
> Chuck


I think this thread got off track a bit...

*I would very much like to hear how we can improve our husbandry skills.*

Thanks Chuck


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Part of the problem is we don't really know what's best for our frogs. We have hints and clues but we don't know and I'm really not one of the best breeders I know. But there's a number of things we can do to produce good frogs: 1) Use a wide variety of foods. Consider getting a sweep net and use. 2) Large terrariums and few frogs (think 10 gal/frog or more). 3) Be selective with your founding stock - see the frogs before you buy them. If possible see their parents. At least ask for pictures of the frogs and if they don't look really good don't buy them - they sound be plump, large, and with good color -I see lots of frogs with poor color. 4) Lastly, learn as much as you can about the frogs and then a big portion of common sense. 

Its not the answer, but it should help get us there.

Best,

Chuck


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

In one or more of the upcoming issues of Leaf Litter, there may be an article or two that touches on these subjects... 

For example if it gets accepted, I pulled together a bunch of what is known on vitamin A formation in anurans and I hope that gives some clues along that line.. 

Ed


----------



## Arrynia (Dec 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> In one or more of the upcoming issues of Leaf Litter, there may be an article or two that touches on these subjects...
> 
> For example if it gets accepted, I pulled together a bunch of what is known on vitamin A formation in anurans and I hope that gives some clues along that line..
> 
> Ed


Hooray! I can't wait to read that.


----------

