Re: Giant Orange vs. Regina

[frogfarm]

I have a blue- blue sip pair female w/c and male blue from 2 wc blue parents and mine throw some greens also. I believe they are the same pop. yellows though I think are different or fringe pop though

[Marcus]

GO/Regina are all the same.

About the alanis/inferalanis thing....
All the same...just call them all 'Alanis' in my opinion.
Some animals are more intens coloured as other but to give them another name is not correct. Maybe while importing them these more intens coloured animals were selected out of the box, gave them the Inferalanis name so there's some extra money?
The Alanis & Inferalanis are living in the same area...same population. To create a difference just pick out the more intens coloured animals.

The blue / green Sipaliwini is much more complicated discussion.

[sports_doc]

[quote="Marcus"]GO/Regina are all the same.

quote]

I'll tell you what, they may have "been" the same in the wild population, but in captivity we've separated "them" out for so many generations that they certainly aren't the "same" any longer...

Is the hobby desiring we remix the gene pool?

S

[rmelancon]

Originally Posted by Marcus

GO/Regina are all the same.

About the alanis/inferalanis thing...
The Alanis & Inferalanis are living in the same area...same population...

Is this something you know to be certain? Were you there with the Indians who collected the animals? Not trying to be difficult but if you know this for certain I would like to know where the information is coming from as I have expended a lot of effort trying to keep these two separated based on information I was given and based on seeing the original imports side by side. If you know for a fact that these were collected from the exact same location please provide some insight as to where the information is coming from. Thanks, Robb.

[markpulawski]

Originally Posted by sports_doc

I agree that we may have created animals that reproduce a somewhat consistent and markedly different color pattern between the 2 named morphs. I had also heard years ago they are the same morph but what a can of worms eh? Too bad we can't hear from Volker Annenbach who provided many of the original specimens to the hobby but as for Mark Peppers sources and Marcus' first hand observations that would be good enough for me.
Now do we put up a poll to see what they are called? More importantly how many will continue to keep both seperate? Comments from SNDF's would be nice as well as they have extensive experience with this species.

[KeroKero]

The fact that blue sips do not breed true is a major part of the reasoning behind why many people think blue and green sips are the same, or possibly from different parts of the same population. Each of the three forms talked about in this thread could qualify as that... animals collected from different parts of the same continuous population... animals from one end of the population may look a bit different, differences enough that Americans have kept them seperate.

The sips particularly have another possibility... all the blue/green sips are the same, and we just sorted them by color and called them different things. We've done the same thing with the panama auratus... the "blacks" and "microspots" and "blue & bronze" and "super blues"... variations within populations that were seperated out hoping they were different and special when they really were just variations.

[sports_doc]

gah, not more Sip talk...uh. :-)

All,
So is the hobby more concerned with naming by population/species and perpetuating the misguided belief that we are actually keeping wild population genetics intact by breeding true to populations??

Or are we more interesting in "that bigger morph, or the bluer morph or the thin red line not the orange" ect, ect, ect..??

I dont have the answer, even for myself, but the topic does beg the question doesnt it?

Is there room in the hobby for both camps?

S

[rmelancon]

Originally Posted by sports_doc

...
So is the hobby more concerned with naming by population/species and perpetuating the misguided belief that we are actually keeping wild population genetics intact by breeding true to populations??

Or are we more interesting in "that bigger morph, or the bluer morph or the thin red line not the orange" ect, ect, ect..??
...
S

That is a good question... Here is my reasoning on keeping Alanis/Inferalanis separate: I saw a tank full of WC Alanis right next to a tank full of WC Inferalanis. The Inferalanis (particularly females) were ALL bigger, bolder and in my opinion (again focus on opinion) a more attractive frog than the Alanis. And this was not just a few animals, there were probably 40 or so of each. So 10 years from now when my original WC's are dead, I can replace them with the same bigger, bolder more attractive animal than Alanis. Over the years I've seen plenty of both and I like the Inferalanis over the Alanis I have seen. So for me, in the case of Alanis/Inferalanis, it is more "trait" oriented than population oriented though I do believe based on what I heard from the importer and exporter (though true I wasn't there either) they are from either separate poulations or at a minimum, separate ends of a possible "continuous" population.

I think we can all aggree that the likelihood of the hobby replacing WC populations is very small. The reason given for keeping hobby frogs true to their wild counterparts down to the individual population is that if they don't cross in the wild we don't cross them here. I think it is a reasonable hobby imposed "barrier" to minimize the probabilities of the opposite end of hybridizing (ie - crossing a brazilian yellow head with a citronella) which I think we all agree, no one wants to see happening.

On Regina/GO: if in fact they are from the same population, and GO was simply a name given by Uhern, I say we group them as one and call them by the location: Regina. Even if this is done, those that want to keep the GO designator can simply track them in FrogTracks so that they can line breed them with other frogs with the same GO traits. Just put GO somewhere in the description.

[a Vertigo Guy]

Dare I ask...but could someone breed a "Regina" to a "Giant Orange" and see what comes of a result? Perhaps the product of the two would yield an answer?

[Wetts11]

Im no expert but I feel strongly about the subject and from what proffessors have thought me along with the few trips I have made to various areas Im going to give my two cents...

As far as frogs varrying from "different ends" of a "continuous" population, I think this is a bunch of rubbish! All over the world in all walks of life "continuous" populations yield offspring that is so similar they cannot be seperated if you look at the "big" picture. Why should frogs be any different?

So seperation in my eyes is more or less amuzing. As previously stated we as hobbiests and dare I say consumers prefer certain colorations and sizes and strips. As mentioned with arautus we are so focused on not mixing blood lines that we infact seperate species! Are we not weeding out the variation in wild populations to fit them to our preferences? Much like we have done with dogs and various other forms of pets?

From what I have seen and what I have been tought I stick to the fact that we as humans do what we do, and we do it well. We insist on destroying natural walks of life and bending them to our needs or desires. So when you talk about seperating based on boldness or based on coloration or size, are you simply not trying to breed an entire "blond hair, blue eyes" population? The fact is you are merely selecting traits you desire and breeding them in hopes that they will remain true. Which in my OPINION is taking the "natural effect, survival or the fittest" out of the equation.