Site-specific frogs: is it possible?

[skylsdale]

Originally Posted by stemcellular

But wouldn't folks be able to differentiate between SNDF Capira and say others being called by that moniker?

Sure they would, and traditionally that's how we've handled things: not knowing if the frogs from X importation were collected from the same place as the frogs from Y importation, they were kept seperate. However, inserting the counterpoint: what if the two Capira auratus were actually collected from the same population? This would be a great opportunity to increase the captive genetic pool of those frogs...but it doesn't happen because no one knows for sure where they came from and they are kept seperate.

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).

I don't think the locale name is made up at all on this frog...I just don't know where in relation to Capira they were collected. Let's take this in the case of fish: what if there are 3 isolated lakes in New Guinea, all of them around Town X. In each lake swims the same species of rainbowfish, but they are all seperate populations/morphs. People collect, on seperate occasions, fish from each lake. Since Town X was the closest locale marker, they are all imported and given the morph name "Town X"...but they aren't actually the same fish. I guess my point is, although something like Capira is good, unless they are collected within the city limits, so to speak, or that population of auratus is the ONLY obvious one surrounding that town within a reasonable distance, it keeps the door open to all sorts of captive management problems. I think we need a more specific system in place.

[MonarchzMan]

Originally Posted by stemcellular

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.

I don't think that folks would necessarily be able to tell the difference. Look at the Almirante pumilio versus Man Creek pumilio. Those populations are many miles away from one another, but they have been lumped together often.

It is important to keep in mind that these frogs can change significantly over very small distances in some instances and in others, they can be rather constant. My concern is that importers know this. And then you can have this situation with Super Blue Auratus where a select few frogs in the population can be picked out and sold as a different morph when, in reality, they're not.

[frogfarm]

Who`s to say these super blue auratus wouldn`t have bred together in the wild? How would you divide up a bunch of different looking auratus if you didn`t know where they were all collected from or how many different places they were collected from?

If you start subdividing a "population" of auratus into bunches of sub-populations, don`t you run the risk of having more dart frog sub-divisions than there are hobbyists?

Originally Posted by MonarchzMan

I don't think that folks would necessarily be able to tell the difference. Look at the Almirante pumilio versus Man Creek pumilio. Those populations are many miles away from one another, but they have been lumped together often.

It is important to keep in mind that these frogs can change significantly over very small distances in some instances and in others, they can be rather constant. My concern is that importers know this. And then you can have this situation with Super Blue Auratus where a select few frogs in the population can be picked out and sold as a different morph when, in reality, they're not.

[MonarchzMan]

Originally Posted by frogfarm

Who`s to say these super blue auratus wouldn`t have bred together in the wild? How would you divide up a bunch of different looking auratus if you didn`t know where they were all collected from or how many different places they were collected from?

That's precisely the problem we're talking about: irresponsible import of frogs leading to line bred animals. It's quite possible that the Super Blue auratus bred with each other just as it's quite possible that they bred with the bronze frogs they came in with.

And as long as hobbyists are okay with that, we're going to see "what pumilio morph is this" and "what auratus morph is this" threads happen for the foreseeable future. Simply, it takes letting importers know that that is not acceptable.

If you start subdividing a "population" of auratus into bunches of sub-populations, don`t you run the risk of having more dart frog sub-divisions than there are hobbyists?

Populations should only be divided if and where necessary. Since these Super Blues came in with Bronze frogs, that was an irresponsible division. Just like the Gold Dust, Green Dust, Orange, and Red divisions were irresponsible for Bastimentos frogs until we realized that they intermingled. However, if given enough space and divisions, then populations should be considered separate.

I highly doubt that we'd run out of hobbyists given that there are how many species and how many morphs already in the hobby? And how many folks specialize on one morph in one species? Very few, it would seem.

[frogparty]

quote stemcellular: 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.

Wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to mix UE and INIBICO lines if you know both are from Caranaichi valley? I think diversifying bloodlines is of upmost importance in perpetuating genetics, and if both lines have accurate locale info wouldn't it be good to combine? Is the area that large and diverse that these frogs are different enough to warrant seperation?

[skylsdale]

Originally Posted by frogparty

Wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to mix UE and INIBICO lines if you know both are from Caranaichi valley? I think diversifying bloodlines is of upmost importance in perpetuating genetics, and if both lines have accurate locale info wouldn't it be good to combine? Is the area that large and diverse that these frogs are different enough to warrant seperation?

It would come down to getting that information from these two outfits...or having the two communicate and verify where they collected their stock (and determining whether or not it was from the same population). If they were, then there shouldn't be any problem in combining frogs from both sources, and it would actually increase the genetic diversity in the captive population.

[stemcellular]

Originally Posted by skylsdale

It would come down to getting that information from these two outfits...or having the two communicate and verify where they collected their stock (and determining whether or not it was from the same population). If they were, then there shouldn't be any problem in combining frogs from both sources, and it would actually increase the genetic diversity in the captive population.

I vaguely recall reading that a few species (maybe variabilis?) that were introduced by both UE and INIBICO should be mixed since they represent the same contiguous population of frogs. However, in other circumstances such as with the 'Black' bassleri, UE's group of frogs were collected much further south than where the INIBICO black bassleri were collected. Hence, in this situation I think keeping both lines separate is justified.

[skylsdale]

I agree Ray: very rarely do blanket rules apply to these captive management issues, and each situation has to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

As far as the variabilis, I'm sure it's mentioned in the TMP if that is the case. If not, then it would be good to look into.

[edwardsatc]

Originally Posted by MonarchzMan

Just like the Gold Dust, Green Dust, Orange, and Red divisions were irresponsible for Bastimentos frogs until we realized that they intermingled.

The problem here is that we KNEW that these were intermingled well before the different color morphs began to come in. It wasn't until later that people chose to ACCEPT it. Yet, hobbyists still insisted on separating them (and still do).

Unfortunately, those of us who are interested in preserving wild type frogs are in the vast minority in this hobby (same goes for conservation). The best that we can do is to make sure that we follow best practices and only deal with others who follow the same ideology.

So is it possible? At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, I have to say I think the probability is low. While importers may show some interest, I highly doubt that exporters ever will. Even if they did, how reliable is the information they get from the 12 yo kid that just collected the frogs?

I'd say that many exporters (and perhaps importers), if pressured, will tell us what we want to hear and just slap some BS locality data on them. In my mind, this would be worse than what we currently have. My suspicion is that this is already happening. To say I'm dubious of current locality data on Panamanian imports would be an understatement ... I'll leave it at that.

INIBICO and UE are unique in the fact that they are not "exporters" just out to make a quick buck. The overarching agenda of both of these operations is based in science and conservation, not the pet trade. Until we see organizations such as these pop up in places such as Panama, I think we're stuck with the status quo.

Then again, maybe I'm just a pessimist after all.

[AlexRible]

Originally Posted by MonarchzMan

Populations should only be divided if and where necessary. Since these Super Blues came in with Bronze frogs, that was an irresponsible division. Just like the Gold Dust, Green Dust, Orange, and Red divisions were irresponsible for Bastimentos frogs until we realized that they intermingled. However, if given enough space and divisions, then populations should be considered separate.

Even if these are intermingled in the wild, does necessarily mean they are breeding in the wild? I seem to remember reading somewhere that pumilio prefer to mate with others of the same color. Who's to say the super blues where not the same way. If there was two morphs living in the same area.