# Nice vittatus



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Hi,
just wanted to share 3 pics of some very special vittatus which I recently got from my brother...

All 3 pics show the same frog, I have 3 which look like this one and a few more which also look unusual (same texture on the side and same colours, while they don't have such a speckled back).
So I really hope I can breed with the three and have some offspring of those.

Edit: From the pics I would say I took pics of two of them, not just one...

Do you like them?


----------



## timmygreener (Aug 22, 2011)

These are some good lookin frogs!


----------



## Dev30ils (May 1, 2012)

They are very pretty frogs, but I'd be curious to learn more about their origins. Were they oddballs thrown by normal vittatus? Seems unlikely since there's three of them that look almost the same.


----------



## CAPTAIN RON (Mar 29, 2010)

Looks like a vittatus/bicolor cross! I have never seen a vittatus look even close to these! Need more info on origin also.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

CAPTAIN RON said:


> Looks like a vittatus/bicolor cross! I have never seen a vittatus look even close to these! Need more info on origin also.


Origin is definately vittatus. They look similar to mine. Nonetheless out of 100 froglets just 25 - 30 look like mine. The other three-fourths have usual stripes, though look quite different to all other vittatus I've seen so far.

By the way: Of course cross breeds between different frogs (bicolor on the one hand and vittatus on the other) would not be able to produce fertile offspring. Since the parents look similar to their offspring I know for sure these aren't cross breeds...

FYI, Harald Divossen, a famous german pdf expert has taken a picture of a very similar vittatus morph in nature which can be seen in one of his magazines.
May be I can ask my brother if he can take a picture of the magazine picture (sounds strange) but I am not sure due to copyright.


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

This reassures us. Really beautiful frogs! Congratulations


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

Cutterfly said:


> Origin is definately vittatus. They look similar to mine. Nonetheless out of 100 froglets just 25 - 30 look like mine. The other three-fourths have usual stripes, though look quite different to all other vittatus I've seen so far.
> 
> By the way: Of course cross breeds between different frogs (bicolor on the one hand and vittatus on the other) would not be able to produce fertile offspring. Since the parents look similar to their offspring I know for sure these aren't cross breeds...
> 
> ...


Just so you know and to avoid any confusion, some hybrids ARE fertile. I don't know about bicolor and vittatus specifically, but its alway best to assume that offspring are able to reproduce...

John


----------



## Dev30ils (May 1, 2012)

FroggyKnight said:


> Just so you know and to avoid any confusion, some hybrids ARE fertile. I don't know about bicolor and vittatus specifically, but its alway best to assume that offspring are able to reproduce...


That's exactly what I was gonna say.


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

Also, is it possible that the vittatus morph photographed was actually a naturally occurring intergrade between species? I'm open to the idea of a morph that was previously unknown to the dart frog community, but I'm also not convinced its not a hybrid. 

Another thing, we shouldn't assume that (if it is a cross) its the result of vittatus/bicolor, genetics are weird and looks can be deceiving when trying to base off of appearance alone. This frog could be the result of terribilis, another phyllobates, or even a tinctorius species possibly. I try not limit myself to a single possibility, even if it does seem the most logical at the moment.

Very pretty frogs, by the way! I would be honored to own one of those if it truly is a vittatus morph. Great looking frogs...

John


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

Considering that vittatus are endemic to Costa Rica and the only species that is reproductively compatible with them (lugubris) that also occurs in this country occurs on the other coastline, I'm fairly confident this is a natural form of vittatus.

There are pictures of similar individuals posted elsewhere on here as well.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

I don't think this frog is a true Phyllobates vittatus. Its just wrong, vittatus doesn't not have color on its legs and sides, at least not the same color as on its back. I assume its a hybrid since Costa Rica is closed to collecting. A very pretty hybrid, but a hybrid and with another Phyllobates. Hybrids between species within a genus are well known and can be fertile, but hybrids between genera in the animal word are rare. Weather they would be fertile or not I don't know but I wouldn't think so. I've keep all the Phyllobates over the years and this one is not like anything I've ever seen. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## CAPTAIN RON (Mar 29, 2010)

Thanks Cutterfly for the info on this very unique frog! Maybe we will see them here one day!


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Err... To those of you who assume it could be a hybrid...
I don't really understand that. Is there something which I don't know about hybrids?

I know you can cross breed i.e. a tinctorius lorenzo and a tinctorius ensing and will have fertile offspring. Well okay, but both are tinctorius, just different morphs. 
But I never heard about the possibility to cross breed i.e. a Dendrobates leucomelas with a Dendrobates tinctorius AND have fertile offspring.

So why should this work with lugubris, aurotaenia, bicolor, terribilis and vittatus?

I keep frogs since 10+ years now and I didn't even know about this possibility since now.

Does someone have some good examples for me about "well known" and fertile hybrid offspring in the hobby please?  (don't want to sound cynical... just interested)

It's not that I myself didn't wonder about their look.

I thought:

1. okay, the parents look similar and I know in nature there definately exist vittatus with very bold stripes and speckles all over the back.

2. all froglets which I am aware of (~100) look similar to each other while I find those with the speckled back the most impressive and am willing to try to breed with them and hope there will be many more with speckled backs again.

3. as I already mentioned I have not been aware of fertile hybrid offspring and if this is possible, why should all the frogs look similar to each other and - a bit unsophisticated, I know - why then there are not froglets which look very similar to bicolor or terribilis or lugubris and others which look very similar to "pure" vittatus?


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

*the "usual" ones*

Here are pics of the "usual" ones (which indeed have the orange arms and legs).

I don't know why, all I know is all of them look like that and if the person who keeps their parents didn't lie to me and my brother, I still assume they are no hybrids...
If these are hybrids the person who gave them to us would have to
1. lie
2. claim 2 hybrids of some unknown bicolor and vittatus to be the parents
3. give offspring of these bicolor and vittatus to us which would indicate that this person would have to breed with a vittatus and a bicolor since years ...

Of course I will tell you, if I successfully get them to breed and how the offspring will look like.
It's a bit to early right now (they are 2/3 grown and start calling a bit here and there)


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

I want to be argumentative and I do not mind being obnoxious, but if it is true that in Europe there is someone who breeds together in the same terrarium different frogs, it is also true that there are serious breeders and sellers who do not sell hybrids or other crap. 
Arguments put forward by our new member, they seem to me valid. He raises poison frogs for many more years than me, coming from a country that has a great culture and a prestigious tradition about Dendrobates. Why do not believe him? On the basis of which suspect?
Cutterfly, please, keep us updated about this frogs and thanks for sharing.


----------



## big_frog (Mar 16, 2010)

Cutterfly said:


> Err... To those of you who assume it could be a hybrid...
> I don't really understand that. Is there something which I don't know about hybrids?
> 
> I know you can cross breed i.e. a tinctorius lorenzo and a tinctorius ensing and will have fertile offspring. Well okay, but both are tinctorius, just different morphs.
> ...


Don't get too upset cutterfly.. Several people on the board just like to stir the pot so to speak. You could provide lineage papers and they'd still argue they weren't vittatus cause you forged papers. LOL.. very beautiful frogs and you should consider yourself lucky to have them. I know I would


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Thx...
I don't know how serious others in the hobby are, so I cannot be absolutely sure if these are hybrids.
Of course if you are particular about it, EVERYBODY who is not you yourself could lie and have a super secret huge vivarium with all kinds of Phyllobates spec. all together. 

As long as I have no reason to claim someone who is known to be a serious frog keeper to lie on me, I suppose these nice frogs to be what the person told me they are.

IF for a sad reason these frogs are hybrids (I will see that after they start to produce) I will be the first, who will tell you 

But let's hope, I insteadly will have a bunch of nice growing froglets which all will look similar to each other and will all have these beautiful leg colouring 

Have a nice day so far,
ctfl


----------



## L8apex (May 2, 2014)

Awesome frogs man. I hate to say it but there always seem to be people on here who will shoot down, one up and doubt. If you have something they don't they belittle or discredit it. These look a lot like ones I've seen from Tesoros and others, I think you just got lucky and got great frogs  also, I generally listen to Spaff on this stuff. Everybody always has an opinion, you'll learn to who to listen to on here and who just puffs their chest out a lot


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

All here we are serious fans of frogs, concerns are therefore legitimate in the case of hybrids, alarms are justified if you think that there are those who openly reproduces and sells hybrid frogs. 
But if the origin of frogs is certain, if they come from a reputable breeder, it is unnecessary to alarm. 
The first time I saw tinctorius Tumucumaque I was unsure if it was hybrid or not. 
But if the origin of the frog is safe, no doubt.
So we can enjoy our frogs!
Have a nice day


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

I cannot say for certain they are hybrids as I don't know their history, but I can say they aren't Phyllobates vittatus. Phyllobates vittatus is a conservative frogs as far as looks go. The width and color of the stripes may vary but they don't have color on their legs and sides - not like these. Compare a picture of P. vittatus and your frogs - their not the same animal. Also Phyllobates vittatus has not been imported for decades so why, all of a sudden, would a new morph appear - smuggled (doubtful in my opinion, doubtful - see below) or a hybrid (I'm going with this one). If it was smuggled its still not P. vittatus but would be a new species - its not similar enough to P. vittatus to be that species. 

As for people lying - we all lie. In their case I can't say - maybe your friends were also deceived. I have been keeping Dendrobatids for over 30 years without break and I've seen thousands of P. vittatus. I'm also a scientists and know how to read a description and the scientific literature and their not P. vittatus. 

I have to admit I'm not as rabid against hybrid and most everyone else on this forum. If these frogs were available here in the US I'd keep them - hybrid or not. I don't care. Hybrids between species (not morphs) have been made for over 20 years here and in Europe and some are known to be fertile. So their hybrid origin, if true, breeding or not, is not a surprise to me. 

Best,

Chuck



Cutterfly said:


> Thx...
> I don't know how serious others in the hobby are, so I cannot be absolutely sure if these are hybrids.
> Of course if you are particular about it, EVERYBODY who is not you yourself could lie and have a super secret huge vivarium with all kinds of Phyllobates spec. all together.
> 
> ...


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

If I have upset, belittle or shot down anyone I am sincerely sorry. It most certainly was not my intention and I apologize. 

I think your frogs are very pretty and they might actually be my favorite Phyllobates now! I just am hesitant to take someone's word at times, especially if it is someone who I do not know, I hope you understand that. I trust Spaff's knowledge on this species and his comment makes sense. The possibility that this is a man made hybrid still exists, but with photographic evidence of a natural population, I would discount that possibility and would gladly accept these frogs wholeheartedly as a new and wonderful vittatus morph. It would be great to see these frogs on the other side of the pond, here in the states, as I know I would buy a group.

And although I do not have proof of fertile hybrids among dendrobatids as I know very about those, Canis species can interbreed freely and produce fetile young. Assuming that this could be true with dart frogs as well seems to be the safest option. 

John


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

chuckpowell said:


> I have to admit I'm not as rabid against hybrid and most everyone else on this forum. If these frogs were available here in the US I'd keep them - hybrid or not. I don't care.


Well okay... I do. Might be I would keep them in a nice setup in my living room for years. But I would not raise the tadpoles then. (I know, you won't either... I just wrote this for clarification)



chuckpowell said:


> Hybrids between species (not morphs) have been made for over 20 years here and in Europe and some are known to be fertile.


Which ones?
I don't know one single case...
Please enlighten me 

I know about tinctorius "morphs" which are cross breeds within tinctorius, yes.
I know about an earlier "Epipedobates Rio Saladillo" which might be a cross breed between 2 other anthonyi morphs.
I know about a tinctorius spec which most of you think to be an azureus x ?? (dark blue with *very* large spots) while it is a newer morph from British Guyana...

But I don't know of fertile hybrids between species in the hobby.  

I have to mention I'm not a scientist at all 

Edit: @FroggyKnight and others:
Absolutely okay for me. I think it's good to have people in the hobby who care if a frog is a hybrid or not.
I just don't understand why something which here over seems to be common knowledge (no fertile offspring between species) seems to be not that bullet proof as I always expected...?


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

chuckpowell said:


> I cannot say for certain they are hybrids as I don't know their history, but I can say they aren't Phyllobates vittatus. Phyllobates vittatus is a conservative frogs as far as looks go. The width and color of the stripes may vary but they don't have color on their legs and sides - not like these.


I don't think this is a fair assumption. Your basing this off of currently described individuals of P. vittatus, but who knows how many morphs there are? Dendrobatids are constantly being discovered, rediscovered and rediscribed so I see no reason to believe this could not be vittatus. However, it also could be a undescribed species and independent from vittatus, but we really can't know for certain at this point. 

Nothing we say about this frog can be 100% certain and that's a fact 

John


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Here, this one is from Josh's Frogs, and I think nobody of you would say, Josh keeps hybrids... right? 

http://www.joshsfrogs.com/catalog/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/vittatus-angle.jpg

As you obviously will notice, Josh's vittatus (at least those he used for the photo) have coloured legs too!

My brother sent me this link a few minutes ago, therefor I didn't through this into discussion earlier 

greets,
ctfl


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

John, 

There is lots you can say about these frogs that is 100% true, but that really doesn't matter here. 

New morphs generally come from new areas being explored for frogs. Where Phyllobates vittatus comes from has been known and explored for over a hundred years and vittatus is a very conservative frogs in regards to its look. These are not P. vittatus - 100% certain. If they are natural in the wilds of Costa Rica/Panama they aren't a hybrid either - their isn't anything close by that could breed together and result in frogs similar to these. Yes they could have been smuggled but I go back to Central America being an area well studied; its seems doubtful that something like these frogs would have been overlooked for so long. Going further if we assume their from Columbia then why are they being called vittatus? I could go further into the Columbian frogs but I'll leave that to the reader - suffice to say they could be a hybrid of Columbian frogs. But to me they look like a hybrid between vittatus and either bicolor (probably) or terribilis (less certain). So I would ask what size are these frogs - what is their snout to vent length? Both those hybrid should result in a frog larger than vittatus. The frogs are a mystery, but I assume they are a hybrid and like I said before I wouldn't mind keeping them myself. 

Best,

Chuck



FroggyKnight said:


> I don't think this is a fair assumption. Your basing this off of currently described individuals of P. vittatus, but who knows how many morphs there are? Dendrobatids are constantly being discovered, rediscovered and rediscribed so I see no reason to believe this could not be vittatus. However, it also could be a undescribed species and independent from vittatus, but we really can't know for certain at this point.
> 
> Nothing we say about this frog can be 100% certain and that's a fact
> 
> John


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Yes look closely at the both frogs. In particular with regards to the amount of blue in both frogs. Also you have to remember Josh's frogs are selectively breed; not hybrids, but bred to have color so their easier to sell. He's going to pick his best most colorful frog to illustrate and it still doesn't look like the ones in the original pictures. 

Think about how a species of anything is defined. How is it similar, how does it differ. Where is it from. That's another problem with this new morph. Since its quite unlikely it didn't come from the wild where did it come from. 

Best,

Chuck



Cutterfly said:


> Here, this one is from Josh's Frogs, and I think nobody of you would say, Josh keeps hybrids... right?
> 
> http://www.joshsfrogs.com/catalog/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/vittatus-angle.jpg
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

With the granulated skin, I would have thought Amereega, but they aren't my area at all. I have a male P. vittatus that started out normal red, now two years later is completely black.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Hey Chuck,
Typing from my phone before work right now without using tapatalk and all that stuff, so I apologize for not correctly quoting and eventually typos. 

Snout to vent length is yet hard to tell as they are not fully grown up. I keep bicolor, terribilis and lugubris Colon (the golden ones) and green aurotaenia as well, and I have kept another red morph of vittatus as one of my first frogs. My brother still keeps them as well as the usual lugubris. 

So I think I am able to tell you at least this:
The vittatus are yet a bit smaller than my brothers red striped morph, way larger than my lugubris colon while those are smaller than my brother's usual lugubris (if he still keeps them, can't ask for the moment), a little smaller than my bicolor and autotaenia and way smaller than my terribilis. 

What you have to keep in mind here in Germany we have a pretty large amount of people who keep their frogs since decades without even using the internet and telling all around. So for example one of our distant relatives told us both, the red striped line and the speckled back orange legs vittatus are known in the hobby for years, they are just not often found in the "common" hobby. 

So I still hope to get them to breed and see what the offspring will turn out. I for example would not expect my lugubris colon not to be lugubris based on the fact that they are smaller and golden. 

And I still need an example for fertile interspecies offspring, please 

Edit: and sorry for seeming to be ignorant still calling them vittatus all the lines long. Of course I see they look different to others, but from what I know until now they are neither smuggled nor hybrids, so it would be odd to call them Phyllobates spec as long as others tell me there have been similar looking ones around once in a while.


----------



## herbivrus (May 28, 2014)

Not jumping in here to express an opinion on whether these frogs are vittatus or not, though I'll note that plenty of species express coloration/morphology that varies widely from the "type" specimens, and it wouldn't especially surprise me to see strange color morphs pop up in animals after years of breeding from fairly small initial populations. Look at what we see in other captive herps all the time . . . But I'll let you experts decide what's what -- in the absence of genetic results (or a vittatus expert biologist) it's going to be hard to pin down the truth.

But there are plenty of examples of fertile offspring resulting from interspecies hybrids. In some crosses, such as grizzly/polar bear hybrids ("grolar" bears), both male and female offspring are fertile. In other cases, offspring of one sex may be fertile while the other sex is infertile; this is the case in, for example, the dzo (or "yakow"), which is a hybrid between the yak and the domestic cow in which the female offspring are always fertile, whereas the male offspring are usually infertile. Even in those cases where most of us learn about hybrids, such as mules, there are occasional fertile animals (though I think there has never been a case of a fertile mule stallion, there are occasionally fertile mule mares, though they are not common). Even some crosses between fairly long-separated species produce fertile offspring; for example, the "cama", a cross between the dromedary camel and the llama, is a fertile animal, though it is produced by artificial insemination. Most interspecies hybrids that result in fertile offspring, though, are hybrids between two species that are not too far evolutionarily separated (that is, that branched from a common ancestor not too long ago). 

There are even cases where animals of different genera can produce fertile offspring: for example, "beefalo" is a fertile hybrid that results from crossing the domestic cow (Bos taurus) with the American bison (Bison bison). This cross has actually been problematic in bison conservation efforts in the US, and most current bison herds are now polluted with cow genes; there are only four known herds that are not, to some extent, cattle crosses (Beefalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). In the reptile trade, there are many popular colubrid hybrids between different species and different genera, the offspring of which prove fertile; for instance, crosses between California king snakes and corn snakes result in fertile offspring called "Jungle Corns". (The reptile folks seem less concerned with genetic purity than we frog-lovers, though maybe that's in part because most of their animals aren't as severely restricted in range and populations as many of our frogs are in the wild).

In general, though, _most_ interspecies hybrids result in either infertile or unhealthy offspring, so it's not surprising that not everyone knows of cases where fertile offspring can be produced.

I still have no opinion on whether these frogs are vittatus, though!


----------



## herbivrus (May 28, 2014)

Also found a thread which linked to a website which shows a photo of what is purported to be an interspecies dart frog hybrid of auratus with tinctorius (middle picture) Ed K. I have no idea of the provenance of the pics or the frogs.

(For the record, I do not mix species or support the practice of doing so.)


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

@herbivrus
Thx alot. That's one of the most useful information I ever read (in this topic).
I didn't know all this. All the species which you mentioned are interesting to know to be able to produce fertile offspring in some cases. I always thought this to be impossible until now.

However I still don't know if there are especially dartfrog hybrids which produce fertile offspring. Maybe someone will be able to tell me somedays.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

herbivrus said:


> Also found a thread which linked to a website which shows a photo of what is purported to be an interspecies dart frog hybrid of auratus with tinctorius (middle picture) Ed K. I have no idea of the provenance of the pics or the frogs.
> 
> (For the record, I do not mix species or support the practice of doing so.)


Thx again for the first post. This second one is common knowledge 
Of course you can cross one Dendrobates species with another... for example leucomelas x azureus.
But they aren't able to reproduce (that's what I "learned").
So if you have a few tads of leucomelas x azureus and some will grow up to male, some to female frogs, I thought (and am willing to still think this) you cannot reproduce with them. 

Don't misunderstand me, I am really happy for all your examples above, but there has to be something special why almost EVERYBODY will tell you, there are no fertile cross bred dart frogs out there.
If someone really knows of proven examples (and is willing to share) I will be the first rethinking all what I know. But until then... I don't think I am the very first person who suddenly picked up fertile hybrids with same looking parents and so on. So why if this would be a bit more usual there should not be many others who give a sh** on pure strains and cross breds all around?

Just my 5 cents, have to go to bed now.


----------



## herbivrus (May 28, 2014)

Cutterfly said:


> However I still don't know if there are especially dartfrog hybrids which produce fertile offspring. Maybe someone will be able to tell me somedays.


You're welcome; sharing info is why we're all here, right?

In addition to the photo above of a purported tinctorius/auratus hybrid dart frog, there's a photo in Jerry Walls' book "Jewels of the Rainforest" which says that the pictured frog is a hybrid between leucomelas and auratus. You can see the photo here: 








[/url]leuc-auratus cross by herbivore12, on Flickr[/IMG]

and this website shows what it names as a leucomelas x tinctorius "Azureus" hybrid, at the very bottom of the page. Again, these aren't my pics, but I have no reason offhand to doubt their veracity. As to whether they are fertile, I don't know. I've found lots of websites claiming that dart frog hybrids *are* fertile, but haven't seen any corroborating data or first-hand accounts of such, just the claims on the sites. May be the case, may not be. It would not be at all surprising if such hybrids were fertile, as dart frog species are not very far separated evolutionarily at all, and I think there are known naturally-occuring hybrids that are fertile (I think I've heard of natural hybrids between lehmanni and histos that can reproduce, but my memory is not a source I'd trust alone!) Anyone here know for sure whether dart frog hybrids can be fertile, for sure?


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

All _canis_ species can interbreed and produce fertile young as well like I mentioned earlier. Nice list herbivrus!

John


----------



## herbivrus (May 28, 2014)

FroggyKnight said:


> All _canis_ species can interbreed and produce fertile young as well like I mentioned earlier. Nice list herbivrus!
> 
> John


Yep, canids famously interbreed happily. In fact, I think all red wolves are known to have coyote genes, as well.

The list of fertile hybrids is huge, actually; I was just pulling out some obvious examples. There are so many species (and genera!) that can reproduce successfully and produce fertile offspring that I'm actually surprised that the "all hybrid animals are infertile" myth still survives. Never underestimate the staying power of even bad information, I guess . . . 

Again, I haven't seen any verifiable info that dendrobatid hybrids produce fertile offspring, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. That alone is enough to keep me from mixing my frogs.

EDITED TO ADD
I have found several sources indicating that dart frog hybrids can in fact be fertile; the naturally occuring hybrid between O. lehmanni and O. histrionicus is fertile, for example. In the hobby, this hybrid is called the "Anchicaya" -- they were found in the Anchicaya valley, and are apparently a cross between red-head histos and yellow lehmanni. There is even a published paper on O. lehmanni, O. histrionicus, and a putative natural hybrid population (the authors call it 'pHYB") and the preference of female frogs from each group for the male calls from the three groups.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Interesting find. Can't read through it right now, it's too late over here. For dogs I think it is important that these are resulting from human selection. If I have thousands of years give me two azureus and maybe I can produce one tiny black and one huge white one as well. 
And I think they will still be able to interbreed, yes.


----------



## herbivrus (May 28, 2014)

Cutterfly said:


> For dogs I think it is important that these are resulting from human selection. If I have thousands of years give me two azureus and maybe I can produce one tiny black and one huge white one as well.


For canids, I'm pretty sure FroggyKnight was referring not to human-made dog breeds (which are all the same species, Canis familiaris), but rather that different species in the genus Canis can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (with the exception of the side-striped jackal and the black-backed jackal, which can breed with each other but not with other members of the Canis genus, for some reason). That is, wolves can breed with coyotes, coyotes can breed with domestic dogs, Ethiopian wolves can breed with golden jackals, etc. These hybrids occur in the wild and are not the result of human selection. (Members of Canis cannot breed with all other canids, however, so you cannot breed a domestic dog with a fox or an African wild dog, despite rumors that this has been done -- no genetic testing has ever shown such hybrids exist.)

But your point about selective breeding is taken. It may well be that the vittatus you pictured here are the results of such selection, which is one of the reasons I find some of the posts on this thread that assert confidently that these _cannot be_ vittatus because they don't look like the standard morph to be a little weird. Lots of frogs exhibit pretty wide variability (look at all the tinctorius morphs, and R. imitator), and I've also seen perfectly normal-looking pairs produce pretty aberrant offspring -- examples abound on this forum, in fact, of strange froglets from normal parents -- so I just don't see that these vittatus are so unlikely. Again, I have no other data to work from, so I'm not judging their vittatus-ness. I peronally prefer the look of the "normal" vittatus, but that's all a matter of taste (I don't like most hybrids or weird morphs -- I think the normal phase corn snake is a prettier snake than an albino cornsnake or "snow" corn or all those other morphs. I'm weird that way...)


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

So I'm really curious what makes people thing these frogs are P. vittatus? I've made several arguments as to why these frogs shouldn't be called P. vittatus and no thoughtful reply except ... well there's lots of variation in pattern in another genus so I think its the same for these frogs. Even through there is almost no variability in pattern in the wild. Or, they were selectively breed although nothing remotely similar has ever been produced before. Or they just spontaneously appeared - well you can't argue with that, and why possible, maybe, it seems unlikely. Then there is the statement that they have granular skin (or did I misread that). Did that spontaneously occur also? So again why do people think these frogs are P. vittatus? 

Best,

Chuck



herbivrus said:


> But your point about selective breeding is taken. It may well be that the vittatus you pictured here are the results of such selection, which is one of the reasons I find some of the posts on this thread that assert confidently that these _cannot be_ vittatus because they don't look like the standard morph to be a little weird. Lots of frogs exhibit pretty wide variability (look at all the tinctorius morphs, and R. imitator), and I've also seen perfectly normal-looking pairs produce pretty aberrant offspring -- examples abound on this forum, in fact, of strange froglets from normal parents -- so I just don't see that these vittatus are so unlikely. Again, I have no other data to work from, so I'm not judging their vittatus-ness. I peronally prefer the look of the "normal" vittatus, but that's all a matter of taste (I don't like most hybrids or weird morphs -- I think the normal phase corn snake is a prettier snake than an albino cornsnake or "snow" corn or all those other morphs. I'm weird that way...)


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

I'll cast my vote. I've observed these in situ and owned and bred them in my personal collection for many years. I've also been able to see at least five other examples of this species in private east coast collections.

The pattern is unlike any vittatus I've ever seen. I would say that is not a P. vittatus.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Woodsman said:


> With the granulated skin, I would have thought Amereega, but they aren't my area at all. I have a male P. vittatus that started out normal red, now two years later is completely black.


Got any pics of it? I would love to see them.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

chuckpowell said:


> So I'm really curious what makes people thing these frogs are P. vittatus? I've made several arguments as to why these frogs shouldn't be called P. vittatus and no thoughtful reply except ... well there's lots of variation in pattern in another genus so I think its the same for these frogs. Even through there is almost no variability in pattern in the wild. Or, they were selectively breed although nothing remotely similar has ever been produced before. Or they just spontaneously appeared - well you can't argue with that, and why possible, maybe, it seems unlikely. Then there is the statement that they have granular skin (or did I misread that). Did that spontaneously occur also? So again why do people think these frogs are P. vittatus?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


This isn't really an arguement, but the difference between these and normal vittatus reminds me of wide banded aurotaenia vs typical greens...


My normal green...











VS.

Gturmindright's Wide banded...










And Mrbiggs's...










There are also some very interesting examples in this thread, which coincidently you started in 2009 Chuck ...
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/45476-phyllobates-aurotaenia-wide-banded.html


I don't know if they are a new species, morph, hybrid, or abberent genetic misfits as sometimes occur. With new species/morphs being discovered and strange frogs occasionally showing up in shipments, it wouldn't surprise me if they turned out to be something new, but I defer to Chuck and others better informed then I... 

I am curious that if a hybrid, what if any percentage of offspring should we expect to look normal?

Anyways, about the only arguement I can make, is if these frogs aren't throwing any normal looking offspring then they should probably be treated as a sesperate morph or species and not bred back to any other frogs in the hobby. I wouldn't have an issue with someone continuing to breed these to ones of the same line though.

P.S. I thought that jewels of the rainforest book had a blurb and a few pics of hybrid darts and mentioned which were fertile or not. I swear I saw that in some dart book I used to have... Maybe the professional breeders series (red cover) if not jewels of rainforest?


----------



## herbivrus (May 28, 2014)

If you read closely, you'll note that I have no opinion on whether these are vittatus or not. I don't think I -- or you -- have enough info to make the call. Short of genetic analysis or the weighing-in of a scientific vittatus expert, I doubt that anyone with a firm opinion would be swayed one way or another, anyway. I know you're a paleontologist, so have some training in the area; I'm a biologist who's worked for over 20 years on developing various genetic markers (in humans, not frogs). I just wouldn't drop my jaw if these turned out to be vittatus; they don't look completely outlandish to me (and that's all I, or you, have to go on, along with what the OP has written). Maybe it's vittatus. Maybe it's a hybrid. Maybe it's a new species. A picture ain't going to settle the matter. (Well, if he said "Look at my vittatus!" and there was a pic of a leuc, we could probably assume the poster was in error . . .)

The OP says that there's a German vittatus expert who has published an article on vittatus including pics of a naturally occurring frog that resembles this one. If he could put up a link to that article, or a pic or something, it would be interesting (hello, Cutterfly?).

You want a thoughtful reply to your arguments, which boil down to "It doesn't look like any vittatus I've ever seen" and "It seems unlikely that such a spontaneous morph would appear with those traits". No one can argue against the first -- you've seen what you've seen, and I'm sure there have been plenty of vittatus in your past -- and the second is just a matter of opinion (even if informed). I've seen weirder animals come out of normal parents; I'm just not as certain as you seem to be. But I don't think _anyone_ can be certain based on just the photos posted here.

For my part, if I had just seen the pics, I wouldn't have thought "vittatus". I might have thought "aurotaenia", maybe, based on the photos of some I've seen (another Phyllobates that happens to show some pretty wide variation, so I'm not sure why you think such variability occurs only in other genera). But I wouldn't have been sure in either case, and still am not, so I have to take the OP's information re: the lineage of his frogs, as well. But without other info, I'm not of any opinion except this: I would keep those frogs separate from other lines, and would not breed them with frogs from other known lines, just in case.





chuckpowell said:


> So I'm really curious what makes people thing these frogs are P. vittatus? I've made several arguments as to why these frogs shouldn't be called P. vittatus and no thoughtful reply except ... well there's lots of variation in pattern in another genus so I think its the same for these frogs. Even through there is almost no variability in pattern in the wild. Or, they were selectively breed although nothing remotely similar has ever been produced before. Or they just spontaneously appeared - well you can't argue with that, and why possible, maybe, it seems unlikely.  Then there is the statement that they have granular skin (or did I misread that). Did that spontaneously occur also? So again why do people think these frogs are P. vittatus?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

Could this be the solution of the case? An initial confusion between vittatus and aurotenia by seller / breeder / buyer? 
However, this thread is very interesting: these are the threads that I like the most.


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Cutterfly,

I don't want to imply that either you or your brother are lying, or even the guy you got them from is lying. But, I've seen thousands of P. vittatus over the years and never seen anything with orange legs and going back to Silverstone (1976, A revision of the poison-arrow frog of the genus Phyllobartes Bibron in Sagra (Family Dendrobtidae. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Bulletin 27) apparently neither had he. So that makes one wonder about the origin of the frogs. How did they get orange legs? Yes they could be a new population smuggled into your country. But why then has their been no notice of such a thing. New frog morphs aren't kept secret. They could have been selectively breed but I would think that would take a while, a long while to produce something never seen and so different from typical populations in captivity and in the wild. Then they could be hybrids - I would think there would be several ways to tell after they mature (ultimate size, call, possibly hands). And I know that hybrids within a genus are commonly fertile so it doesn't surprise me that these frogs are producing. You got these frogs as P. vittatus - fine, their beautiful frogs and I'd like some, please. But I also wonder where these frogs came from - their origin. Not that it would effect my opinion of them, more that I'm a scientists and these things interest me - quite a bit. 

As I said previously I'm not rabid regarding hybrid. I would not produce any myself, but these things have been happening for probably 30 years and will continue to happen, and some of the results are truly beautiful. But thats for another time. 

Best,

Chuck


----------



## chuckpowell (May 12, 2004)

Herbivrus,

I know most people don't care. But I'm very interested in taxonomy. I do taxonomy, I know about inter- and extra-specific variability. I also like putting names to things - its what I do. I'm also interested in why people think what they think and I would like a reasoned argument like yours below. It rare that I see something new here, something I've never seen before and that interest me. So I find it I persue it. I won't get a completely answer here but maybe I can get closer. A new species of Phyllobates would be outstanding. Even if its just a new morph produced in someones terrarium - that great. I'd like to know how they did it. If its a hybrid then I don't want it called P. vittatus because its not and it will cause problems with people breeding it to typical P. vittatus down the line. Names matter, at least to me. 

And I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm direct (which sometime/most times(?) comes off elitist maybe) and I want information. Hopefully I can get it. If not ... well that's the way it is. But I keep looking till I have all the information I either want, or there is, to make my decision. If there isn't enough information - then I know that and have to be patient and wait (things change). 

Best,

Chuck



herbivrus said:


> If you read closely, you'll note that I have no opinion on whether these are vittatus or not. I don't think I -- or you -- have enough info to make the call. Short of genetic analysis or the weighing-in of a scientific vittatus expert, I doubt that anyone with a firm opinion would be swayed one way or another, anyway. I know you're a paleontologist, so have some training in the area; I'm a biologist who's worked for over 20 years on developing various genetic markers (in humans, not frogs). I just wouldn't drop my jaw if these turned out to be vittatus; they don't look completely outlandish to me (and that's all I, or you, have to go on, along with what the OP has written). Maybe it's vittatus. Maybe it's a hybrid. Maybe it's a new species. A picture ain't going to settle the matter. (Well, if he said "Look at my vittatus!" and there was a pic of a leuc, we could probably assume the poster was in error . . .)
> 
> The OP says that there's a German vittatus expert who has published an article on vittatus including pics of a naturally occurring frog that resembles this one. If he could put up a link to that article, or a pic or something, it would be interesting (hello, Cutterfly?).
> 
> ...


----------



## Frog Town (Oct 8, 2013)

I am no expert but when I first started these frogs were on the top of my list as first frogs. I spent a lot of hours looking at pictures of them. Below is what I've always pictured as being a P. vittatus.

Here is a link from this website -

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/89321-crarc-vittata.html

Further down at Post #21 there is a picture of another Vittatus that is similar to this OP's frogs. In the reply it is mentioned that there are different locales that should not be mixed.

In the OP's original picture isn't this what P. terribillis looks like when it is young, before it gets it's solid color?


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Hey everybody...
I'm sorry, I have had (and still have) a very high workload during the last days, so I am definately unable to read through all the posts right now.

Just a "short" explanation why I cannot answer your explicite questions referring to the "strain", "bloodline"... however you call this:

This is a... well, let's say... very "american" tradition which is absolutely unusual here in Germany. We trade, sell and buy our frogs not as "Sean Steward Line", "Understory Line" and so on. We just simply buy and sell the frogs 

So if I would try to reversely lookup the "line" it would take me much more time than you over there might expect what it should.
I just lookup lines, origin and so on for frogs from which I know it would be illegal to keep them if usually supposed to be wild caught.
But I never looked up these things for frogs which are well established in the hobby since decades.
(i.e. I never took care about my azureus' origin...)
I've had all my frogs together with my two brother's until I moved home and now I live hundrets of kilometres away 5 minutes to poland and I am not connected to any serious frog "scene" here from where I could start some deeper "ressearch" into the origin of these frogs.

I can ask my brother if he can manage to take a picture of the frog from the magazine (not that cool due to copyright... but maybe it will be okay if I explicitely refer to the magazine as source) and may be he can ask the person who initially gave the frogs to him for some further details of the parents but it really isn't that easy for me/us to find out. 

Nonetheless interesting discussion!
I think I like the look of these frogs that much, I will definately keep them somewhere in my living room. If I will find the time I can update this thread with some pictures of the setup in a few weeks. They stand beneath terribilis, bicolor and lugubris and are calling a little bit here and there while all the other mentioned Phyllobates are extremely loud, so I cannot tell if the call is uncommon to vittatus right now. I will tell you after I can be sure which Phyllobates is calling.
And may be if the offspring will look all similar (all with these coloured legs) I will give the offspring to people who will be informed by me that I cannot tell them for sure if this is a naturally occuring frog or not.
I'm not sure about that right now.

Oh and btw I myself didn't tell someone they would have granulated legs. Do you really mean granulated that coarse like Ameerega? Or do you mean slightly granulated like terribilis hind legs?
I will check this another day, cannot tell from the photo, will have to exposure the temp setup to daylight first.

Have a nice day so far


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

By the way the thread mentioned by Frog Town does show the "red stripes"-line which I am talking about (the ones, which my brother is breeding since quite a few years)
I remember we picked up those years ago from a belgian guy at an amphibian show and years ago my brother kept a line similar to those shown in #21.

BTW/off topic: Do you see the ocassionally appearing white parts of the stripes in the last picture of the OP of the thread mentioned by Frog Town? This is what I was trying to describe as "pigmentation errors" in my silverstonei thread. However with my silverstonei this happens on the *black* part of the body, not on the red part, and therefor people might think they suffer from some kind of mycosis.

I every now and then have this with all my frogs with red or orange pattern (terribilis, red suriname trivittata and so on) since I use Allen's supplements which are rich in xanthines, so I think there still is something different in nature.
Just wanted to mention this...


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

*different lines*

saurian.net: (looks granulated)









Greenville Zoo, Greenville, SC, USA: (look at the front legs, same kind of orange than mine)









CRARC/UE: (front legs slightly coloured)









This is one of the most interesting pictures for me because it isn't captive bred
and looking similar to the one I remember from the magazine:









Btw the picture from the magazine which I remember was taken at peninsula Osa.

From dendrobase.de: (look at the granulated appeal and the colours of the legs of the right frog versus the left one)









From Pfeilgiftfrosch.info 








this one i.e. looks absolutely different to i.e. this one from 
www.reinshagen-terraristik.com









I think comparing the look of individual frogs from a species which is established in the hobby for such a long time isn't a valid criterion at all.

I still admit: Mine are looking different to all the others.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Okay...
My brother meanwhile asked the previous owner for their origin and as I suspected, since it isn't usual here in Germany to reverse determine a bloodline of the frogs which we keep, it turned out nobody here in Germany does know for sure where these frogs originally came from.

I videotaped the frogs calling and sent this to a few ppl, all of them expect the call to be absolutely characteristic of vittatus...

I don't want to share this video here because I don't want everyone to know who I am 
I'm sorry, I'm very idiosyncratic when something touches my privacy 

Nonetheless I will keep you updated regarding the tank which I will setup for them. 

I know by now, interbreeding indeed is possible so I have to thank all participants of this discussion for helping me to broaden my horizons. 

greets,
ctfl


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

So how are these guys doing?


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

Cutterfly said:


> Okay...
> My brother meanwhile asked the previous owner for their origin and as I suspected, since it isn't usual here in Germany to reverse determine a bloodline of the frogs which we keep, it turned out nobody here in Germany does know for sure where these frogs originally came from.
> 
> I videotaped the frogs calling and sent this to a few ppl, all of them expect the call to be absolutely characteristic of vittatus...
> ...


Why don't you make a quick Youtube account? You don't have to add a bunch of personal info (I'm the same way as you, BTW ).

I would love an update!

John


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Yeah may be I will make an youtube account in a while.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread I have to move home in a few month and therefor I rebuild my whole racks and tanks in the hope to move them without running into serious problems.

I can update some pics and / or videos of the whole newest rack in my current home in a while and this will contain a setup of the vittatus (?) as well, but up to now I didn't select potential breeding pairs out of the 7 similar looking ones.

Reason is, I have to use all new "major" tanks for all of my silverstonei and mysteriosus groups atm, because I cannot use all of the previous larger tanks and larger temporary setups at my new home and the silverstonei are too large and mysteriosus to difficult to keep them in smaller setups, while the vittatus, bicolor and some other frogs of my collection are okay in those.

I hope everything will work okay for me, most pain in the ass will be moving all the tadpoles....


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Okay, it is sunday and inspired by your interest in this strange morph/crossbreed/whatever I decided to finish my Phyllobates tanks.

So here are updated pics of 3 out of 7 "vittatus" which I selected and their new home.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

They seem to like their new neighbors... all are Phyllobates (several groups of orange bicolor and a group of golden lugubis Colon next to them)
All are calling, so I hope to trigger some calling and courting activity with the "vittatus" as well.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Yep, I heard one calling and they start to stare at their neighbors...

Of course after a few month there will be lots of algae, moss and so on on the glass so they don't get stressed by permanently staring at each other, but for now this will be absolutely okay.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Plus I've finnished my new orange terribilis viv right below the top row. Boy are all of them loud... it's hardly possible to talk to each other near this rack...


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

I'm absolutely fascinated by both the "vittatus" and those Colon lugubris. Man, if I could only get some over here.


----------



## Cutterfly (Apr 9, 2009)

Yeah I think the golden lugubris aren't found often in the hobby. From what I know, they don't exist in nature any longer. I hope I will have luck with them. I just have one single froglet ootw a few month ago.
I never find any clutches but since I keep them in this smaller tank one of the males transported two well developing tads into a dish inside the tank.
I will be happy even if I just get 2 or 3 froglets every once in a while. 

Edit: Mh... I don't remember the page where I read they won't exist no longer in nature. I thought there has been something with a forest fire. Now that I think about it, it seems unlikely, if they live among pumilio... nonetheless I like them and hope they will start breeding more frequently.


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

epiphytes etc. said:


> I'm absolutely fascinated by both the "vittatus" and those Colon lugubris. Man, if I could only get some over here.


If their populations are stable, it would be nice to see something like those Colon lugubris come in from the mass frog exporters instead of another red/gray pumilio morph.


----------

