Site-specific frogs: is it possible?

[skylsdale]

Originally Posted by frogparty

So, whats to be done? Discourage "grab and go" importation every chance you get. Support quality outfits that provide the info you want.

This sounds great, but the reason this thread was started is exactly because there currently isn't any outfit that functions out of Central America that provides the desired info, there isn't anyone TO support in this regard. UE is, for the most part, an anomoly in the Dendrobatid hobby and amphibian collection industry as a whole.

[stemcellular]

Originally Posted by skylsdale

This sounds great...but the reason this thread was started because there currently isn't any outfit that functions out of Central America that provides the desired info. In other words: there isn't anyone currently out there to support in this regard. UE is, for the most part, an anomoly in the Dendrobatid hobby and amphibian collection industry as a whole.

Not to get too into what SNDF does, but isn't this what Marcus and Valentina have essentially begun to do? I know that for a number of their frogs site data does exist (well, at least they know the locales).

[skylsdale]

Originally Posted by stemcellular

Not to get too into what SNDF does, but isn't this what Marcus and Valentina have essentially begun to do? I know that for a number of their frogs site data does exist (well, at least they know the locales).

I'm not sure their info is any more specific than "Bastimentos" or something like that. For instance, they offer frogs called "Capira"...which is in the Campana area, and that region has TONS of variation in its auratus populations, both within populations and between populations (some of which are only a few km apart). And, from what I understand, some of them probably mix and create intergrade frogs between populations. Camo, Kahlua and Cream, Capira...these are all found in general relation to one another. So Capira doesn't really help me, personally, any more than "Bastimentos" does. It's obviously better than a "Panama" label, but not what we should be aiming for, in my opinion.

There's also the issue of creating designer morphs and lines: a large importation of bronze auratus came in through SNDF a few years ago. Of the coupe hundred that came in, about a dozen or so looked a bit different, and were pulled out and bred together. The result is what we currently call "Super Blue" auratus. However, I know people who received frogs from this shipment and kept/bred them all together because they all came in together and it figured it was most likely natural variation within the population (this was based on the assumption that collectors only collected from a single population). Is either one of them a better option? We can really only guess as no one actually knows where the frogs were from, whether or not they existed together in the wild or not.

The case with "El Dorado" pumilio comes up a lot: it was originally stated that they did not give out the collection information on those frogs because they didn't want smugglers to come in and hit the population. The ironic thing is that pictures of these pumilio started hitting the internet, and people were able to say "Hey, I know where those frogs are from...they're the southern extant of BriBri pumilio." You could look at European websites and see images of this pumilio form labeled by locale. Now I'm not calling SNDF out (and to continue this thread, I think we need to proceed respectfully), but in discussing this issue with folks who have spent quite a bit of time in Panama, they have said that it is such a relatively small country and that there are so many people traveling there and looking for things, it's practically impossible to keep something like this secret. So in the end, I'm not sure I personally see the value in creating cryptic labels for frogs, other than for marketing purposes (like the Regina/Giant orange debate).

[stemcellular]

Originally Posted by skylsdale

I'm not sure their info is any more specific than "Bastimentos" or something like that. For instance, they offer frogs called "Capira"...which is in the Campana area, and that region has TONS of variation in its auratus populations, both within populations and between populations (some of which are only a few km apart). And, from what I understand, some of them probably mix and create intergrade frogs between populations. Camo, Kahlua and Cream, Capira...these are all found in general relation to one another. So Capira doesn't really help me, personally, any more than "Bastimentos" does. It's obviously better than a "Panama" label, but not what we should be aiming for, in my opinion.

There's also the issue of creating designer morphs and lines: a large importation of bronze auratus came in through SNDF a few years ago. Of the coupe hundred that came in, about a dozen or so looked a bit different, and were pulled out and bred together. The result is what we currently call "Super Blue" auratus. However, I know people who received frogs from this shipment and kept/bred them all together because they all came in together and it figured it was most likely natural variation within the population (this was based on the assumption that collectors only collected from a single population). Is either one of them a better option? We can really only guess as no one actually knows where the frogs were from, whether or not they existed together in the wild or not.

The case with "El Dorado" pumilio comes up a lot: it was originally stated that they did not give out the collection information on those frogs because they didn't want smugglers to come in and hit the population. The ironic thing is that pictures of these pumilio started hitting the internet, and people were able to say "Hey, I know where those frogs are from...they're the southern extant of BriBri pumilio." You could look at European websites and see images of this pumilio form labeled by locale. Now I'm not calling SNDF out (and to continue this thread, I think we need to proceed respectfully), but in discussing this issue with folks who have spent quite a bit of time in Panama, they have said that it is such a relatively small country and that there are so many people traveling there and looking for things, it's practically impossible to keep something like this secret. So in the end, I'm not sure I personally see the value in creating cryptic labels for frogs, other than for marketing purposes (like the Regina/Giant orange debate).

Thanks for the background, Ron. From speaking with Marcus my understanding was that 'Capira' auratus (which I am actually working with) are from a specific locale known by him. Same goes with some of the newer pumilio that he is bringing in. So yes, calling the locale Capira can be interpreted as misleading if it is a pseudonym for an actual site (gps coordinates, etc) however, I suppose I don't really see it that way. What is the difference between calling something 'Capira' from SNDF which has specific site locale behind it and calling something S-1234 which directly refers to the gps of the locale? For example, I assume that my INIBICO frogs are from specific locales which are known (by someone?) but it seems enough to know that being INIBICO they represent site based populations.

That said, this assumes that all these site specific names are actually backed up by real site data (whether or not we know the actual coordinates). For example, and I hope the mods are fine with this, but in the past SNDF advertised a few site specific pumilio morphs (bottom of ad). Is this not what we should be encouraging?

PERU,PANAMA,COLOMBIA and SURINAME

[Jellyman]

It's possible, it is just not probable. We are so far removed from where any of these frogs are being collected it is little more then faith that the frogs actually come from where they are said to come from. Unless I personnally catch the frog I find it hard to believe that the location of any frog I purchase has it lineage traced back to the exact location of capture. Yes, there are truthful collectors and importers but they are the rare breed.

[MonarchzMan]

Originally Posted by stemcellular

That said, this assumes that all these site specific names are actually backed up by real site data (whether or not we know the actual coordinates). For example, and I hope the mods are fine with this, but in the past SNDF advertised a few site specific pumilio morphs (bottom of ad). Is this not what we should be encouraging?

Saying it does not necessarily mean that it's true, but just a selling point. And it also goes to what you consider to be site specific; "Bastimentos" could be considered "site specific" even though, as we discussed, that is not enough. I guess, personally, I remain skeptical about it because of the whole "farm raised" stuff that Afemoralis had mentioned. The same claims have been made about full grown frogs coming in being farm raised.

But that's a different topic. I guess, for me, the point is that since validity of that claim remains unclear and potentially a point of untruth, the claim of "site specific" might also be the same. Especially given that that ad went up after a big discussion about site data.

[Philsuma]

Originally Posted by MonarchzMan

Especially given that that ad went up after a big discussion about site data.

What ad?.....

[MonarchzMan]

The link that Stem posted.

[skylsdale]

Originally Posted by stemcellular

So yes, calling the locale Capira can be interpreted as misleading if it is a pseudonym for an actual site (gps coordinates, etc) however, I suppose I don't really see it that way. What is the difference between calling something 'Capira' from SNDF which has specific site locale behind it and calling something S-1234 which directly refers to the gps of the locale?

I see what you're saying, and you make a good point, Ray. But where does "Capira" start and end? Were they on the edge of town? Within 2 km of it? Within 20 km of it? Are there valleys that seperate/isolate populations of auratus within 20 km of town? 50 km? Conceivably, another collector could come along, gather up animals from a different valley and isolated population from the group sold by SNDF, then name and sell those frogs "Capira" because that's the closest town. So those and the SNDF frogs could originate from completely isolated populations, but once they got to the states would be mixed by hobbyists because they're all "Capira." JP can probably comment to this, but I assume the likelihood of the above situation is pretty great when dealing with pumilio.

Even calling it "Capira 1A" might be better (i.e. they wouldn't need to give away the specific GPS coordinates), and if a new group of Capira-collected auratus came in, info from the that distributor could be gathered (or the two could communicate to see if the frogs were collected from the same place or not...if so, perhaps then call the new ones "Capira 2B" or something). But this is also assuming there would be some transparency in the process and that distributors would communicate with one another, but given that these are businesses and competition is involved, it might be nothing but wishful thinking.

[stemcellular]

Originally Posted by skylsdale

I see what you're saying, and you make a good point, Ray. But where does "Capira" start and end? Were they on the edge of town? Within 2 km of it? Within 20 km of it? Are there valleys that seperate/isolate populations of auratus within 20 km of town? 50 km? Conceivably, another collector could come along, gather up animals from a different valley and isolated population from the group sold by SNDF, then name and sell those frogs "Capira" because that's the closest town. So those and the SNDF frogs could originate from completely isolated populations, but once they got to the states would be mixed by hobbyists because they're all "Capira."

JP can probably comment to this, but I assume the likelihood of the above situation is pretty great when dealing with pumilio.

But wouldn't folks be able to differentiate between SNDF Capira and say others being called by that moniker? I suppose I just don't see the difference between that approach and the approach frequently taken with the UE frogs (ie. avoiding mixing UE frogs with INIBICO line, Tor line, etc) even though all are Caranaichi valley, etc.

But again, yes, that assumes that Capira is indeed site specific and that such designations aren't fabricated (I'm not saying that they are at all, just making the point).