HYBRIDS? - Pics and Questions

[roxrgneiss]

I don't want to enter an argument or cyclical ethical debate, but I would like to say something, since a little release is good for the mind.

A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right? Isn't this approximately how the the orchid hobby became what it is today; full of hybrids? As I understand it, long ago orchid enthusiasts had similar disagreements over the fate of their captive specimens and eventually the hybridizers had their way, and were able to make flowers just as attractive or 'better' than the original parents to supply a growing demand. A hybridizing trend begins with misguided logic being applied to defend people, who want everyone to see and appreciate their creation. However, I don't want to equate our hobby to closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species.

I also think there is no real (meaningful) scientific basis for a hobbyist to cross morphs, ssp, or sp in their own homes - this is the realm of psuedo science. Plus, Darwin wouldn't be quite as famous without Wallace. And I dare say neither sat at home cross-breeding beetles or finches, field collection/observation was pivotal.

The innocently posted pictures leading to expressions of awe could eventually take this hobby down the road of D. tinctorius "Willie's Pride" hybrid dart frogs for sale in greater numbers than true morphs and species as we know them today. As has been mentioned in this thread already, the allure of money is very powerful.

My forecast: if hybrids become common in the hobby, concerned purists will only continue and potentially increase the importation of wild frogs, because being sure that one has a true morph/species will become increasingly difficult to determine with any certainty over time - putting greater pressure on wild populations. This possibility may not happen in our lifetime, but I would expect something along those lines - just imagine the confusion over lineages in a generation or two without hybrids in the equation. Of course, that is assuming there is still a dart frog hobby or wild frogs that far into the future. How many things can you list that make you think, 'hmm, I wish those [humans] who came before me had done this differently/more responsibly'?

No offense to you, Richard, but even though you feel you may be able to do some good with hybrids, have you thought about considering for whom or what you might be paving the way?

Mike

[Rich Conley]

Originally Posted by Toby_H

I completely agree... You have suggested a few times that anyone who gets paid for what they do is a bad guy… I don’t agree with that…

Having your own interest in mind does not make you a bad guy. Everything that everyone does serves their own interest in some manner or another. Whether its simply the pleasure of giving, or feeling like you're making a difference, its still acting in your own interest, because you are deriving pleasure from the activity.

[Rich Conley]

Originally Posted by roxrgneiss

A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right?

I don't see where anyone indicated that we should intentionally create more hybrids.

[flyangler18]

Originally Posted by Rich Conley

I don't see where anyone indicated that we should intentionally create more hybrids.

Nearly all of Richard's postings in this thread have had that impetus.

[steelheader]

Originally Posted by roxrgneiss

I don't want to enter an argument or cyclical ethical debate, but I would like to say something, since a little release is good for the mind.

A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right? Isn't this approximately how the the orchid hobby became what it is today; full of hybrids? As I understand it, long ago orchid enthusiasts had similar disagreements over the fate of their captive specimens and eventually the hybridizers had their way, and were able to make flowers just as attractive or 'better' than the original parents to supply a growing demand. A hybridizing trend begins with misguided logic being applied to defend people, who want everyone to see and appreciate their creation. However, I don't want to equate our hobby to closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species.

I also think there is no real (meaningful) scientific basis for a hobbyist to cross morphs, ssp, or sp in their own homes - this is the realm of psuedo science. Plus, Darwin wouldn't be quite as famous without Wallace. And I dare say neither sat at home cross-breeding beetles or finches, field collection/observation was pivotal.

The innocently posted pictures leading to expressions of awe could eventually take this hobby down the road of D. tinctorius "Willie's Pride" hybrid dart frogs for sale in greater numbers than true morphs and species as we know them today. As has been mentioned in this thread already, the allure of money is very powerful.

My forecast: if hybrids become common in the hobby, concerned purists will only continue and potentially increase the importation of wild frogs, because being sure that one has a true morph/species will become increasingly difficult to determine with any certainty over time - putting greater pressure on wild populations. This possibility may not happen in our lifetime, but I would expect something along those lines - just imagine the confusion over lineages in a generation or two without hybrids in the equation. Of course, that is assuming there is still a dart frog hobby or wild frogs that far into the future. How many things can you list that make you think, 'hmm, I wish those [humans] who came before me had done this differently/more responsibly'?

No offense to you, Richard, but even though you feel you may be able to do some good with hybrids, have you thought about considering for whom or what you might be paving the way?

Mike

I completely agree. You express in words a lot better than I can

[Woodsman]

Hi Toby,

Maybe I could have been clearer. When I refer to smugglers, I am referring to smugglers (people who illegally take animals from the wild and transport them to other countries without a permit). I think projects such as the INIBICO have taken some pains to obtain permission from their host countries and CITIES, making their project a legal one (though, even here, I would like to see more scientific study performed and referenced that demonstrates that the work is having no long-term negative impacts on wild populations). When someone offers a "new bloodline" of D. galactonotus or other Brazilian dendrobatid, they are offering smuggled animals. I would hope that we all could agree that illegal smuggling is something we should oppose.

Also, I did need to address the fact that parts of this conversation involving me are being exerpted and personal attacks being made against me on Dart Den. While I feel very strongly that I shouldn't act in ways that cause any harm to other people, I feel just as strongly that I should respond to these folks that only wish to bully me. Please remember, I am from New York City, so I hope you'll acknowledge that I am using some amount of restraint in dealing with this issue!!

Again, thanks for the constructive comments, Richard.

Originally Posted by Toby_H

I completely agree... You have suggested a few times that anyone who gets paid for what they do is a bad guy… I don’t agree with that…

Comparing the work of those who have an inexplicable love/passion for tropical environments and tropical animals who have found a way to make a living in such a field… to smugglers… is rude and offensive to such people…

The comments about testosterone / hormone issues is also immature and offensive… Stick to the educational posts but drop the insults… they make your (often) otherwise valuable posts hard to read…

[roxrgneiss]

Originally Posted by Rich Conley

I don't see where anyone indicated that we should intentionally create more hybrids.

Oh, no?

Originally Posted by Woodsman

I had always intended to work on some aspect of tropical ecology in my career, but have been permanently side-lined with my botanical studies here in New York (not that I don't love it and feel I am making a difference to some very endangered native plants). So I find myself greatly frustrated in what I can never learn from my frogs (i.e. where they were collected, were they found in mixed populations that were segregated by greedy importers, etc.) The best plan of attack I have come up with is to look at the inheritence patterns that can be determined by these (albeit limited) studies involving inter-morph crosses. Not having the locality data is perhaps a fatal delimitation of the "study", but it at least gives me the chance of gaining some novel insight into these charasmatic creatures that have stolen my heart (I like to think the if D. tincotorius had been available for live study during Darwin's lifetime, that they certainly would have become a favorite study organism for him!)

Gregor Mendel had his peas. I have my PDFs. I hope I learn something useful!!

Take care, Richard.

That's close enough for me - this is just asking for more and possibly suggesting a scientific benefit the the production of more hybrids.


What I wasn't merely suggesting that the production of more hybrids is the open topic, but that the topic will generate more interest in hybrids - and my argument is that is a bad thing. Please, don't dissect every line typed, take the entire post for it's intended meaning. Glad to see someone's a good critical reader though.

Mike

[flyangler18]

When someone offers a "new bloodline" of D. galactonotus or other Brazilian dendrobatid, they are offering smuggled animals.

Can you elaborate on this statement for the edification of those involved in this conversation?

How are you substantiating this claim?

As a note: I am fully aware about the lack of export permits regarding galactonotus. There was a huge smuggling exportation in the late 90s that pushed some animals through Suriname and Europe.

[skylsdale]

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Your post goes right to the heart of the point I have been trying to make here, that we think we know more about these imported frogs than (in fact) we do. A number of writers have referred to the "ethical" importers, keeping records and not taking too many frogs from the wild. We would love to think this kind of guy exists, but it isn't true and he doesn't. If money is involved, no one should be surprised that the frogs ultimately take a back seat to the fast buck.

I would somewhat agree with this. I don't think you can lump all importers and their mindsets and practices any more than you can lump all hobbyists and their mindsets and practices. I think the Understory model is about the best we currently have which, yes, is about some sort of profit margin...but some of that profit does actually go back into the purchase of actual, tangible rainforest in the natural range of many of these Peruvian species. Also, Mark is on the ground scouting out locations, documenting the species and where they come from, what their distribution is and how variable the populations are. His animals are classified by location codes (much like the killifish hobby)...not nicknames that are deemed to make the animal more marketable. Is the model perfect? Probably not...but I would by no means place it in the same category as a hack-n-slash collector indiscriminantly grabbing whatever frogs he finds, collecting animals over stretches of hundreds of miles and from among different isolated populations, then throwing them all into the same box together and shipping them off to an importer.

Personally, I would be greatly in favor of the board trying to develop a code of ethics for the hobby that includes discouraging froggers from producing inter-morph crosses. More importantly, a code that also discourages hobbyists from purchasing wild stolen animals or their F1 progeny.

A code of ethics or best practices would be nice (and I will say that something similar is in development), but it's only as useful to the extent that it's put into practice. I'm not sure the hobby really understands how much actual change depends on their actions, buying practices, etc.

If "new blood" is desired for the hobby, perhaps TWI/ASN could work with zoos and other researchers to secure animals from the wild that are carefully studied and managed (to gaurd against catastrophic loss of wild populations). If collections were made through a scientific institution, better records could be kept as to the localities involved and the population dynamics within those population (whether there is endemic diversity of color morphs within a single population, etc.) Then we could establish bloodlines within the hobby that really are locality driven and not just color driven.

The possibility of our (TWI) actually being able to work with zoos in this sort of capacity (e.g. for this reason) is very slim...for reasons that have been discussed in another recent thread (don't have the time to find and link it at the moment). However, the records and archived information and management of animals that you mention is exactly the purpose behind the ASN: we manage animals just as the zoos do, with the exact same ISIS software, in the same studbook fasion. If a zoo is looking for O. pumilio to stock in one of their displays, and they search the database...they will see any pumilio registered via the ASN right along with any pumilio currently being kept in zoos.

The purpose of the TMPs (Taxon Management Plans) is to coordinate information, husbandry, and proper captive management of each respective species. With a handful of TMPs now under our belt, we are preparing to begin actively managing populations for longterm genetic diversity and to maintain wild type animals in captivity. If for some reason hybridization does become a more common trend/fad in the hobby, the actively managed populations of animals within the ASN will serve as protected populations as animals with dubious or unclear histories will not be allowed into the official tracking/monitoring/breeding of these populations. This will hopefully help safeguard the PDF hobby, to some degree, against the pitfalls of hybridization and selective breeding that has befallen most of the other herp hobbies (there have been times in the snake hobby where you couldn't find wild type specimens of certain species because so many had been selectively bred into designer morphs). Through the actively managed populations, there will still be a source of wild type and genetically diverse animals within the captive hobby, which will hopefully curb the need for further collection of wild animals to bring them back into the hobby (although I understand the collection/importation model is much more complicated than just that).

Also, on the basis of science, I have to disagree with what I glean to be the opinion that any frog collected from the wild is damaging the wild population of that species. I don't think we can accurately or definitively conclude that until studies are done on that specific population to determine the impact of collection (and size/rate of collection) would have on a population. For example, if I were to go out and annually collect 1,000 Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla) from the valley I live in, I doubt I would have much of an impact on the population, let alone the species as a whole. However, if I were to go and collect 1,000 O. pumilio from Escudo de Veraguas...the impact could be quite different. Some species may be able to handle appropriate collection fine, others may not. The unfortunate thing for us is that there hasn't been much in the way of actual scientific studies and assessments done on Dendrobatid populations, probably because, in the herp hobby at large, the PDF hobby makes up a relatively small sliver. All that to say, I don't think we can make a blanket statement that all collection of wild animals is evil when it, in fact, may not have much, if any, of an impact on a population if done properly and sustainably

Originally Posted by IN2DEEP

The curious side of me would like to an encyclopedia of hybrid frogs, pics, and descriptions. The more logical side of me would use that as a guide of what to be aware of when buying new additions. Last year when I bought a pair of El Dorado I was choosing from 5 different color variations of orange, some with spots, some with colored feet/legs...

On one hand I see your point...but on the flipside there is a danger to these morphguides and the use of a couple photos (if you're lucky...usually it's just a single image) to make a determination on the origin of a single animal. For instance, from what I understand, the pumilio known as El Dorado (at least in the states) is from the southern extant of the Bri Bri population (so much for the theory that pseudonyms keep collection locales secret...). From what I've seen, there is some amount of natural variation in Bri Bri pumilio...heck, with ANY pumilio population. So we have to be open to the fact that animals that don't seem to fit the stereotypical image of what a population/morph is "supposed" to look like aren't necessarily a hybrid...but we still need to be open to the fact that something that looks different from our preconceived notions could very well be something of mixed origins. It's a fine line we need to walk, and it's well within the bounds of the hobbyiest (and the hobby at large) to expect more information regarding the animals they are purchasing and are being imported.

Also, I feel I need to mention that animals currently in the hobby that don't actually have source/locale informations aren't worthless, either. A "green and black" Panamanian auratus may not have a role to play in a controlled breeding group (is it from Colon? David? Taboga?), HOWEVER, it still satisifies the desire a person may have to simply have a few frogs in their living room that represent a certain type of frog that live in Panama. They don't need to know the specific river bank or hilltop these frogs were from...and that's perfectly okay. It's important that we understand the distinct value and importance of each that we currently have in the hobby.

[Woodsman]

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your comments about the "hybrid theory", but (as a collector of species orchids) I don't spend my days being angry with orchid hybridizers. There is currently a large communtiy of species orchid enthusiasts, so the community was not over-thrown by the hybridists. Even within the species only communtiy, it is inevitable that growers will make selections from their seedlings for larger bloom size, longevity of flowers, etc. I feel quite certain that such selections are occuring in frog breeding all the time (breeding for brighter colors, etc.) It seems this is a fundamental part of human husbandry, to "improve" the positive qualities of the animals or plants in our care.

That said, I have never advocated the general distribution or sale of inter-morph tinctorius within the hobby. I know that many believe that, simply by producing a small number of these frogs, they will invariably make their way into the wrong hands. I make to you a personal promise that, should any of my frogs out live me, I will have my family include all of them in my casket before being sent off to the crematorium!! (Well, I may have to work on that promise and get back to you!)

Very appreciative of your comments, Richard.

Originally Posted by roxrgneiss

I don't want to enter an argument or cyclical ethical debate, but I would like to say something, since a little release is good for the mind.

A few hybrids may seem fairly innocent at the moment, so it's ok to defend personal positions about why we should 'study' them and continue creating more, right? Isn't this approximately how the the orchid hobby became what it is today; full of hybrids? As I understand it, long ago orchid enthusiasts had similar disagreements over the fate of their captive specimens and eventually the hybridizers had their way, and were able to make flowers just as attractive or 'better' than the original parents to supply a growing demand. A hybridizing trend begins with misguided logic being applied to defend people, who want everyone to see and appreciate their creation. However, I don't want to equate our hobby to closely with the orchid hobby, because gardening is one of the biggest hobbies, if not the largest, in the US and this means that there is more interest in acquiring plants of any kind, whether hybrid or species.

I also think there is no real (meaningful) scientific basis for a hobbyist to cross morphs, ssp, or sp in their own homes - this is the realm of psuedo science. Plus, Darwin wouldn't be quite as famous without Wallace. And I dare say neither sat at home cross-breeding beetles or finches, field collection/observation was pivotal.

The innocently posted pictures leading to expressions of awe could eventually take this hobby down the road of D. tinctorius "Willie's Pride" hybrid dart frogs for sale in greater numbers than true morphs and species as we know them today. As has been mentioned in this thread already, the allure of money is very powerful.

My forecast: if hybrids become common in the hobby, concerned purists will only continue and potentially increase the importation of wild frogs, because being sure that one has a true morph/species will become increasingly difficult to determine with any certainty over time - putting greater pressure on wild populations. This possibility may not happen in our lifetime, but I would expect something along those lines - just imagine the confusion over lineages in a generation or two without hybrids in the equation. Of course, that is assuming there is still a dart frog hobby or wild frogs that far into the future. How many things can you list that make you think, 'hmm, I wish those [humans] who came before me had done this differently/more responsibly'?

No offense to you, Richard, but even though you feel you may be able to do some good with hybrids, have you thought about considering for whom or what you might be paving the way?

Mike