Dendroboard banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
There is a lot of debate on if Bill actually has them, and if they are actually biolat or a random imitator morph/hybrid/mix. Some people have mentioned they were on his list for a looooooong time for those frogs, like years. I've asked about them before, he's never responded (but has contacted me on other stuff, it seems to be selective and spotty). The pic's pattern on the legs and colors don't match those of pics I have of true biolat.

I don't know of anyone working with true biolat. I've heard rumors there were some in europe but not sure.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Yeah, as soon as i saw the pic i was a littel speculative of the frog as it does not look like a tru Biolat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
I've actually seen true biolat in Germany two years ago going for € 115 (don't know how much $ that is, sorry) but I think it's pretty expensive, almost as expensive as D. mysteriosus allthough biolat are more rare.
I haven't seen them since, but people probably still breed them

Remco
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Biolot

Dick Bartlett published a book Reptiles and Amphibians of Amazon Basin, in it were photos of some frogs Larry Marshall got from Bill several years ago, they look like Biolot. Bill brought these frogs in from Europe as Biolot and from what I saw of them that's what they were. Unfortunately Larry is now out of frogs and the Biolot were not passed on, I seem to remember that Bill only had 1 of these animals left a few years ago. It appears Biolot will only be available when imported from Europe again or as part of a Peruvian shipment.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,787 Posts
From perusing Volume II of the new Dendrobatidae books by Christmann - I noticed that there is an Imitator (Some morphs of Yurimagensis?) that looks suspiciously like Biolat. What is strange is that it is not in the same area as Biolat (and therefore that is not what it is imitating).

Without looking at the pics (and they probably wouldn't help much anyhow), I'm wondering if some of what is thought of as Biolat is actually this Imitator.

I'm also struck by how similar some of the Panguani Lamasi's look to Biolat.

s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
Thats a bit of what I was implying about the whole possibly imitator thing. They do look like other frogs.... unless we looked at egg/tad color, where they are collected from, and their calls there'd be no real way to rule out if they are imitators, lamasi, or biolats. I honestly wouldn't say they are biolats unless I had collection data that matched the description of biolat or genetically tested them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
When it comes to thumbnails collection data is incredibly useful in determining the species, but often times this info is not available or more often incorrect. This leaves us the hobbyist with the mystery of assigning a species to our frogs.

This is one of the most satisfying and fun parts of the hobby for me personally, just figuring out what these frogs do in the vivarium, how they interact with each other and how they utilize the environment supplied for life activities such as sleeping, eating, courting, and breeding.

This being said, I purchased 3 lines of a fantasticus morph, all from experienced breeders overseas. As it turns out one of them is an intermedius and not a fantasticus. This line, which looks exactly the same as the others has a differant call, differant male/female interaction behaviors maybe courting; and they lay eggs in differant sites.

Just goes to show you appearance doesn't guarantee what the frog is.

There is a picture in the Christman book where there is 4 or 5 frogs in a group and they all look very similar, I think in the panguana section. It would be incredibly difficult to look at one specimen and attempt to determine what species.

imitator yurimaguensis is a good example where this is opposite. They behave and go about things just like the nominant imitator we are enjoying here in the US, but they look differant in pattern because of the striping feature, but there is also incredible variation in pattern with this frog. Some individuals look more like the nominant form than the subspecies.

Just some thoughts
ERic
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Never mind the fact that taxonomy is just semantics. Its highly possibly that two genetically similiar (similiar enough to be considered the same species) could have been labelled two different things.

I had always been taught speciation was when 2 animals couldnt produce fertile offspring (or any offspring) the two animals were said to be different species.

However its much more political than that I guess....

-Tad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,961 Posts
tad604 said:
I had always been taught speciation was when 2 animals couldnt produce fertile offspring (or any offspring) the two animals were said to be different species.

However its much more political than that I guess....

-Tad
That is the general criteria for being considered another species, but not the only one. There are many different animals that can breed and produce offspring that are not considered the same species. Horses and mules are the most common example, but one only has to look at the snake part of the reptile hobby to find many different species crosses. Corn snakes crossed with rat snakes, kingsnakes crossed with ratsnakes, kingsnakes crossed with corn snakes, jungle carpet pythons crossed with green tree pythons or diamond pythons. The list goes on. Even Dendrobates hybridize readily. You could have a leuc x azureus or many other combinations, if you wanted. Not that I'm endorsing that, of course. So just because two different types of frogs are called the same thing and can possibly breed together doesn't make them the same species.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Horses and mules are the most common
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought a mule wasn't a species at all but the sterile cross of a horse and a donkey (thus horses and donkeys are two separate "species").


-Tad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Tad,

I wouldn't say more politicol.... just more involved. Populations can be separated by mountains, rivers, streams, etc.... so technically they are not interbreeding, but if the barrier were to be taken down they could. However, it is this barrier (among other things) that can drive speciation or at least set them up for it.

Justin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,961 Posts
tad604 said:
Horses and mules are the most common
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought a mule wasn't a species at all but the sterile cross of a horse and a donkey (thus horses and donkeys are two separate "species").


-Tad
Your right, meant donkies. But they are still considered a seperate species, even though they can produce mules.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Yeah, but the mules are sterile, if they weren't one could "argue" that they weren't separate species or so I was taught long ago, but now it seems species are based upon whatever people agree on often it seems rather "political" and involves rewarding people with having their names immortalized in the taxonomy *shrug*

-Tad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Tad,

Under taxonomical regulations you are not allowed to name a species after yourself. This has to be done by someone else- as a result, it is often an honor and not glorious self recognition.

Having offspring that is sterile (I.E. mule)is an evolutionary dead end. Generally, species are regarded as a group of individuals that can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Lions and tigers can produce viable offspring (what is commonly called a "Liger"), but only through backcrossing and other tactics; however, lions and tigers occupy different geographic ranges. Therefore, they would never come into contact with each other = separate species.

Hopefully, I cleared up some ideas for you here.

Justin


Justin
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
nder taxonomical regulations you are not allowed to name a species after yourself. This has to be done by someone else- as a result, it is often an honor and not glorious self recognition.
I guess thats another way of saying politics. ;)

I didn't think the liger was produced in any sort of natural way, and I thought the offspring were sterile.


-Tad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Tad,

I guess I just don't like the term "politics" as it has a negative connotation to it- to me at least. I like to use the word beauracratic. In reality these are just definitions we use to make things easier to categorize, but keep in mind that these are not stagnant terms- they can change definition depending on how one uses them and who uses them.

I don't recall the exact method used, but researchers were able to obtain non-sterile offspring from a lion/tiger cross. Weird stuff.

Justin
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top