# ID Tinctorius import



## Woodsman

A pair of this Tinctorius morph is currently being offered for sale on Kingsnake as a Suriname "cobalt" (from the 2009 importation of wc animals from Suriname). I'm just wondering what some of the other tinc keepers/breeders think of calling this a cobalt (I know there's a lot of variety, but this seems to be pushing the "idea" of a cobalt.

Thanks, Richard.


----------



## Marc

Looks like it could be a tafelberg (table mountain). Also resembles a Trois Piton but, that is a French Guiana dart.

Does not look like a cobalt to me though. Nice looking tinc though.


----------



## Leidig

It doesn't really look like a Cobalt. I agree it looks a bit like a Table Mountain, but with a lot more blue on its legs. I'm just basing that from images on Simply Natural Dart Frogs.


----------



## Julio

Table mountain Tinct.


----------



## Roadrunner

(I heard)There were 2 locales that the cobalts were collected from. Which means there are at least 2 locations/populations maybe of cobalt tincs in surinam. This means we either have a new collection spot or there have been frogs that came in over the years from 2 different populations. Since there were only a few individuals that were bred from each import means we probably don`t know the diversity that exists in each population or our frogs could be crosses from the 2 pops which means new wc frogs may not look like animals imported in the past.


----------



## brooklyndartfrogs

Table Mountain also!
Andy


----------



## JeremyHuff

Richard,

Whatever it is, you need to get some and breed them!!!

Jeremy


----------



## melissa68

I agree with Aaron. There were 2 locales collected in the most recent importation. Having seen both locales, the image posted could be a cobalt.

Just because a frog looks like another morph does not mean it is that morph. Of course the opposite can be true as well.

Keeping this in mind, it is important to purchase animals from vendors with a good reputation - so you know what you are buying is what they say it is.




frogfarm said:


> (I heard)There were 2 locales that the cobalts were collected from. Which means there are at least 2 locations/populations maybe of cobalt tincs in surinam. This means we either have a new collection spot or there have been frogs that came in over the years from 2 different populations. Since there were only a few individuals that were bred from each import means we probably don`t know the diversity that exists in each population or our frogs could be crosses from the 2 pops which means new wc frogs may not look like animals imported in the past.


----------



## Philsuma

JeremyHuff said:


> Richard,
> 
> Whatever it is, you need to get some and breed them!!!
> 
> Jeremy


Yikes .....


----------



## JeremyHuff

Philsuma said:


> Yikes .....


I'm just saying Richard is fantastic with tincs. Plus he is just down the road

J


----------



## Philsuma

JeremyHuff said:


> I'm just saying Richard is fantastic with tincs. Plus he is just down the road
> 
> J


No prob Jeremy.....I'm just saying "yikes" for fun cause I know Richard,

an that's just how I do.....


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Phil,

Yes, it's true, I won't be buying these wc animals. I don't judge anyone who is buying the new Suriname imports, but I think there is a lot of work to do with the tinctorius morphs that already exist in the hobby.

They are pretty frogs, though, and it would be good to see them go to someone that is tinc-knowledgeable who could breed them and disperse them in the hobby.


Take care, Richard.



Philsuma said:


> No prob Jeremy.....I'm just saying "yikes" for fun cause I know Richard,
> 
> an that's just how I do.....


----------



## Marc

Marc said:


> Looks like it could be a tafelberg (table mountain). Also resembles a Trois Piton but, that is a French Guiana dart.
> 
> Does not look like a cobalt to me though. Nice looking tinc though.


Looking closer at this animal I withdraw my comment that it could be a table-mountain. Table mountain have more black in their legs. Also this vender lists table-mountains separately with pictures. The markings look more like Trois Piton, though pictures of Trois Piton show all yellow back markings, not the white back markings like in the picture. (and it is from an adjoining country)

Looks like a different location and also could be new unidentified location?

Marc


----------



## Chris Miller

Marc said:


> Looking closer at this animal I withdraw my comment that it could be a table-mountain. Table mountain have more black in their legs. Also this vender lists table-mountains separately with pictures. The markings look more like Trois Piton, though pictures of Trois Piton show all yellow back markings, not the white back markings like in the picture. (and it is from an adjoining country)
> 
> Looks like a different location and also could be new unidentified location?
> 
> Marc


So the key to all of this is to establish and refer to them with their import year, like some pumilio? What are the chances of that being successful?


----------



## Philsuma

Aurotaenia said:


> So the key to all of this is to establish and refer to them with their import year, like some pumilio? What are the chances of that being successful?


It's all we have with this, unfortunately.

I would try to go a little further and add a seasonal descriptor, _Spring _2009 import.


----------



## dbabiak

For what it's worth I have purchased from this vendor before (Joakim) and he is extremely friendly and helpful with questions. Maybe if you contacted him he could help clear up some questions to help identify them.


----------



## Catfur

Woodsman said:


> I know there's a lot of variety, but this seems to be pushing the "idea" of a cobalt.


What's pushing the idea of a cobalt here? This frog looks an awful lot like every cobalt hopping around in people's tanks out there right now as cobalts. They don't turn these things out on a printing press, you know.

I'm getting a little tired of the constant "OH NOES! This frog doesn't look like an absolute carbon copy of my mind's image of frog 'x.' It must be some nefarious vendor screwing things up."


----------



## jeeperrs

Catfur said:


> What's pushing the idea of a cobalt here? This frog looks an awful lot like every cobalt hopping around in people's tanks out there right now as cobalts. They don't turn these things out on a printing press, you know.
> 
> I'm getting a little tired of the constant "OH NOES! This frog doesn't look like an absolute carbon copy of my mind's image of frog 'x.' It must be some nefarious vendor screwing things up."


Thank god someone finally said it (and a mod at that)! Genetics only mean similar, not exact...unless you have an identical twin, then you are close to exact


----------



## Woodsman

I'm sorry to say that this comment completely misses the intention of the thread. The word "cobalt" has been used to describe different frogs from multiple locations in Suriname and French Guiana. It is very much the way the term "nominat" is used in tinctorius (or "Boulanger" or "French Guiana Dwarf Cobalt" or "Dwarf Nominat").

What I am suggesting is that, if we are going to make distinctions on the color morph level (which is not recoginsed scientifically and is, therefore, left open to these vague descriptions), it would be much better to stay away from terms that indicate anything other than locations from which the frogs were (putatively) collected. That's why terms such as "Monts Matecho, Regina, Sipaliwini" mean something more to me (as opposed to "Yellowback, Lemondrop", etc.). At least there is an idea of where the frog is from (whether or not it actually is is another matter entirely).

If new collectors go into the rainforest looking for frogs to collect, it is more likely that they will try to describe collected frogs by color morphs that are already known in the hobby, whether the are the same frog or not. It might be better to give the new frogs completely new names (or better still, a unique system of numbering, say GPS!), than refer to names that are ambiguous at best. An ethically-collected frog that has true locality data attached to it is something even I don't think I could resist! It would be the begining of some real effort at conservation in the hobby.

So I am not disparaging the frog, just the label. Richard.




Catfur said:


> What's pushing the idea of a cobalt here? This frog looks an awful lot like every cobalt hopping around in people's tanks out there right now as cobalts. They don't turn these things out on a printing press, you know.
> 
> I'm getting a little tired of the constant "OH NOES! This frog doesn't look like an absolute carbon copy of my mind's image of frog 'x.' It must be some nefarious vendor screwing things up."


----------



## Leidig

Woodsman said:


> I'm sorry to say that this comment completely misses the intention of the thread. The word "cobalt" has been used to describe different frogs from multiple locations in Suriname and French Guiana. It is very much the way the term "nominat" is used in tinctorius (or "Boulanger" or "French Guiana Dwarf Cobalt" or "Dwarf Nominat").
> 
> What I am suggesting is that, if we are going to make distinctions on the color morph level (which is not recoginsed scientifically and is, therefore, left open to these vague descriptions), it would be much better to stay away from terms that indicate anything other than locations from which the frogs were (putatively) collected. That's why terms such as "Monts Matecho, Regina, Sipaliwini" mean something more to me (as opposed to "Yellowback, Lemondrop", etc.). At least there is an idea of where the frog is from (whether or not it actually is is another matter entirely).
> 
> If new collectors go into the rainforest looking for frogs to collect, it is more likely that they will try to describe collected frogs by color morphs that are already known in the hobby, whether the are the same frog or not. It might be better to give the new frogs completely new names (or better still, a unique system of numbering, say GPS!), than refer to names that are ambiguous at best. An ethically-collected frog that has true locality data attached to it is something even I don't think I could resist! It would be the begining of some real effort at conservation in the hobby.
> 
> So I am not disparaging the frog, just the label. Richard.



Very well put.


----------



## Catfur

Woodsman said:


> I'm sorry to say that this comment completely misses the intention of the thread. The word "cobalt" has been used to describe different frogs from multiple locations in Suriname and French Guiana. It is very much the way the term "nominat" is used in tinctorius (or "Boulanger" or "French Guiana Dwarf Cobalt" or "Dwarf Nominat").
> 
> What I am suggesting is that, if we are going to make distinctions on the color morph level (which is not recoginsed scientifically and is, therefore, left open to these vague descriptions), it would be much better to stay away from terms that indicate anything other than locations from which the frogs were (putatively) collected. That's why terms such as "Monts Matecho, Regina, Sipaliwini" mean something more to me (as opposed to "Yellowback, Lemondrop", etc.). At least there is an idea of where the frog is from (whether or not it actually is is another matter entirely).
> 
> If new collectors go into the rainforest looking for frogs to collect, it is more likely that they will try to describe collected frogs by color morphs that are already known in the hobby, whether the are the same frog or not. It might be better to give the new frogs completely new names (or better still, a unique system of numbering, say GPS!), than refer to names that are ambiguous at best. An ethically-collected frog that has true locality data attached to it is something even I don't think I could resist! It would be the begining of some real effort at conservation in the hobby.
> 
> So I am not disparaging the frog, just the label. Richard.


I'm aware that the Suriname Cobalt morph is pretty much a garbage can morph at this time. I've read several descriptions that state, and spoken to people who've been to Suriname that agree, that frogs of this phenotype occur in multiple locations throughout Suriname. Until we get specific locality frogs, though, arguing over whether or not this frog or that looks exactly like this or that other frog is an exercise in futility (and even with specific locality frogs it's often an exercise in futility, I dare you to reliably separate some of the yellowback morphs from unlabled pictures).

Your original post contains nothing that you say you are suggesting, if you are trying to be coy, don't. All posts like these do is confuse people. We don't need people mixing together their cobalts and their Tafelburg tincs because they ran across a bunch of people on DB having hysterics about one photo that a kingsnake vendor threw up.


----------



## Woodsman

Please do not call me hysterical. Thank you.



Catfur said:


> I'm aware that the Suriname Cobalt morph is pretty much a garbage can morph at this time. I've read several descriptions that state, and spoken to people who've been to Suriname that agree, that frogs of this phenotype occur in multiple locations throughout Suriname. Until we get specific locality frogs, though, arguing over whether or not this frog or that looks exactly like this or that other frog is an exercise in futility (and even with specific locality frogs it's often an exercise in futility, I dare you to reliably separate some of the yellowback morphs from unlabled pictures).
> 
> Your original post contains nothing that you say you are suggesting, if you are trying to be coy, don't. All posts like these do is confuse people. We don't need people mixing together their cobalts and their Tafelburg tincs because they ran across a bunch of people on DB having hysterics about one photo that a kingsnake vendor threw up.


----------



## ChrisK

Woodsman said:


> Please do not call me hysterical. Thank you.


OK, you're hysterically coy 

Has anyone emailed the seller asking for info?


----------



## zBrinks

This is a pic of my 2.5 year old female Suriname cobalt. I have a male sibling that looks just like your 'typical' Suriname cobalt - he's a little camera shy and hid when I tried to get pics.


----------



## Woodsman

Thanks for posting this photo Zach,

I was hoping that others would post photos as well, just to show the variation that exists in the name cobalt (for example, Patrick Nabors has some stunning frogs that are called "high yellow" cobalts, that are very different from what is typical). Do all cobalts represent variation that exists within one population (which we know exists for many morphs), or are all the varieties from different localities (and should, therefore, not be bred together to maintain locality homogeneity)?

Given that D. Tinctorius are apparently going to continued to be collected from the wild, shouldn't we perhaps insist on getting locality data or place names for morphs, instead of the ambiguous designation of colors, importers daughter's names, etc.? This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to generate with the thread. I apologise if that wasn't clear to some members.

Richard.



zBrinks said:


> This is a pic of my 2.5 year old female Suriname cobalt. I have a male sibling that looks just like your 'typical' Suriname cobalt - he's a little camera shy and hid when I tried to get pics.


----------



## zBrinks

Until locality-specific 'cobalts' are available, I think our best bet is to refer to their importation (ie Suriname cobalt March 2009). Unless importers start providing the specific information we're looking for, I think that's going to be the best we can do.

If it ends up that the 'cobalts' are all from one contiguous population, they can always be mixed later.


----------



## JeremyHuff

My experience in seeing how animals are collected in French Guiana and elsewhere, shows me that even an import date means nothing. When hundreds of animals are imported in a single shipment, you can pretty much guarantee they are from multiple localities.

Jeremy


----------



## bricespice

I've seen some that look exactally like this that are a hybrid of Azureus x Cobalt...
who knows, just an idea.


----------



## Woodsman

The same dealer has listed more cobalts on Kingsnake.com classifieds that are completely different from the other Suriname frogs that were pictured last week.

The thing that concerns me specifically with the use of the name "cobalt" is that it seems to refer to so many different frogs that it is really meaningless. It would be great if those of us here who really care about tinctorius look into perhaps giving different names to the different frogs, just so that folks don't end-up crossing frogs that really shouldn't be.

It's just a thought. Richard.


----------



## skylsdale

Also, just because frogs were collected from two seperate locales doesn't automatically mean they were collected from two completely different/isolated populations. They could be from two different areas in the same valley, but still within the range of a single contiguous population.


----------

