If there are other people who are dedicated to a species, then you don't have to gather up as many of the bloodlines as possible, but you should hold back some offspring to make sure that in case something happens to your frogs, you have some backup.Three things i'll mention. First has been mentioned already. In order to maintain a species you have to reproduce them. You have to be prepared for the possibility that no one will want your frogs. That means having a huge space dedicated to tanks to keep your offspring in.
Second, in order to maintain a species you can't just work with a single pair or a single bloodline. You need to gather as many bloodlines as possible in an attempt to maintain genetic diversity.
I wouldn't even attempt to answer a post like this on my phone, your a braver man than I.Thanks, Ed. I wanted to be more specific, but I was on my phone and typing too much with the thumbs hurts....
I wouldn't leave them off as they were fairly scarce just a few years ago and very little interest. I can remember a certain IAD where a breeder had captive bred animals and sold none during the course of the show.. the recent imports are what put some life back into that species.Only M. aurantiaca was left out, mainly due to the high number of keepers (both vets and novices) having such success breeding them.
I would actually prefer to see people working with the frogs that do not have locality data as much as those that do since those frogs also represent a significant history for the hobby and to simple disregad them since they aren't locality specific would be to lose more than a little of what got the hobby going....One thing I've noticed that could use some work is having a longer-term commitment to the locales (in need of viable presence in the hobby). It seems like some people switch out their frogs for "cooler" ones too readily. And then there's folks like Ray who often pick their frogs based on trying to sustain them in the hobby.
If you're gonna sell off your frogs and they aren't, as a population, in great shape in the hobby, try to sell them as a group rather than scattering them to the wind.
Just my two cents.
The problem is that the frogs from the unknown localities not only have history attached to them but they could actually represent a snapshot before the changes occured to thier enviroment. Check out the discussion on panguana lamasi on frognet...I can understand that, but to me the site specific frogs are still more important. Mainly when it comes to frogs that are represented by both a known locality, and a non locality population. Like with Copperhead fants, I think keeping the INIBICO line going is more important than the old line. Just my opinion though.
Here we have a potential example of populations that due to habitat alterations potentially resulted in them intergrading.I have 6 groups of "panguana" that represent 6 distinct past
importations... I'm not talking about the "standard" yellow... I have
those too... but they are very different.
But off these 6 groups... they are different... it's the same
species... but not the same population... or at least they seem to
be distinct populations. I read the descriptions as there is an area
that once had distinct populations... these populations lay along a
path that had a road put in... that road created habitat that was
colonized by the frogs (we know dart frogs are trash frogs... that's
why they populated islands well... live in areas with people... )
these populations start to smear...
but what if you set back and collected the populations when the road
was going in? when they were still separated?
Not really.. It's kind of like assigning "locality" to farmed pumilio...I get that and others are free to keep what they like. But for me, I like the known local frogs better. The old line Copperheads have history in the hobby from before we had local data with frogs, but now we have ones that have data. It makes sense to me to go for the ones with data, especially if they look similar.
Sounds like those Panguanas have local data with them...
The first thing you have to do is to try and work out issues that are the result of the impacts of husbandry... as an example (not saying it fits here), if lack of survivial to the froglet stage is due to hypovitaminosis of A in the form of retinoids.. or insufficient D3 is causing them to feed inefficiently..... It is also possible that the frogs are adapted to a different husbandry regimen and what you are seeing is due to maladaption traits.Ok, I'm not a scientist or even a particularly knowledgeable frog person, but, couldn't we breed between our pairs to help out with that? I don't mean all of us who have Bill's offspring, but, maybe Bill's with UE? Theirs did not come from Bill and even look a little different than Bill's Lorenzos. Maybe they've been separated long enough.
But not if we don't even know who has them or is trying to breed them.
Which is perfectly acceptable. I'm just worried that this could become a trend.More or less, either way it's just my preference and opinion.
The problem is that unless the frogs and the offspring are tracked, within a generation or two, determining which are actually unrelated or distantly related will be a big problem. All it takesDid anyone with these locale or site specific frogs gain the info as to what generation theres have been bred to as well as find out exactly how many unrelated frogs were brought in? The common problem is people grab up 2-3 frogs and breed them and it continues to go this way further breeding down the lines. Very few actually seek out unrelated frogs fewer realize how limited they are to gaining unrelated blood. What I do like about the continued imports right now is that some people are realizing the long term benefits now of managing them and they are buying iin larger groups to establish unrelated wc breeding pairs sowe can start offering truely unrelated offspring.
Coloration in O. pumilio appears to be polygenic while pattern (spotting) appears to be single locus within the populations tested. This is different than what you are implying. See BioOne Online Journals - Cross-Breeding of Distinct Color Morphs of the Strawberry Poison Frog (Dendrobates pumilio) from the Bocas del Toro Archipelago, Panama (not free access)I know some have been crossed for study, like the strawberry dart frogs. They learned a few things. I know crossbreeding for collections is bad, but using data from such study should have followed the parent frogs. Because some of these were found to be simple recessive genes, you do start building some genotype knowledge without doing any gels.
Phenotype difference between locales must exist. Are they recorded?
In general there is little value in it for conservation programs unless you are looking for hybridization or outbreeding events that render an animal without value as a breeder for a conservation program. This for example was the case for virtually all of the Amur (Siberian) tigers held outside of zoological institutions since they had been outcrossed with Bengal tigers (different subspecies) to spread the white tiger phenotype. Typically what they do in cases of suspected hybridizations or outcrosses is to simply look for a marker gene that can distinguish between the two (or more) populations since it is just as effective for the purpose of conservation programs since you don't need the whole genome to determine if it is part of a targeted population or not. It is much more important to track degrees of kinship and how much a founder is represented in the captive population as that gives you degrees of inbreeding and risk to sustainability of the captive population (and why simply breeding like to like is a risk to the long-term stability of a population).There could be conservation value in it. It would be useful to be able to identify, for example, particular genes that may be linked with particular traits. Or identifying rare genes in a given population. However, if folks bred frogs like they do in zoos, knowing those things would be a nice quirk, but not necessary for conservation breeding programs.
Most of the studies I know of really inquire about regions of the genome that control particular things in frogs. My lab is involved with figuring out the locus of the gene that controls red color in Heliconius butterflies, for example. Understanding the genetics helps us understand the diversity seen in the organisms of interest. But, at this point, most times it's not feasible for hobbyists to do the studies because they require more advanced techniques than they have available to them.
There are several keepers and ex-keepers on here that are from major zoological institutions.. for example I spent almost 19 years working for the oldest Zoo in the United States, specifically with a specialization on amphibians including several different general of dendrobatids.....And some things that were never looked at are now lost.
My aunt is a zoologist works for a major zoo. I am going to get to talk to the dart frog keeper there now. I have been behind the scenes for other area (the poisonous snakes was a bit scary) but this will be the first time in this area. Hopefully this summer.
If there are two locales of the "same" frog, is anyone keeping any notes on the phenotype/ genotype differences between the populations?
Actually no you didn't. If you examine the start of your position on genotype, it is clear you are referring to the whole genotype and how it is expressed as the whole phenotype. You made that clear when you were implying that Monarchman doesn't care about knowledge... This is very different than what I pointed out... Either you actually don't understand the difference or you are simply acting as a troll by deliberately misunderstanding the information. I suggest reading the TOS since baiting and insulting people even in a backhanded manner are a violation of the TOS....Ed I said what you said, just without needing as big a breath..."It could tell me if something is a cross" is the same