That sounds MUCH better than I what I was envisioning, Brent. I think you're right--it could be accomplished fairly easily.
Well you can pretend to be an outsider all you want but you are one of us. How's the dome? Itchy?Yeager said:I would now consider myself an outsider to the hobby, but my roots have come from it. I see the hobby giving more and more importance to locality specific animals in the future.
When Brock talks about quality he doesn't mean the same thing the AKC means he means the "authenticity" where authentic is a wild frog and the only truly key criteria is how much is know about the breeding history (where did its parents come from etc). Possibly one could quibble over wether quint-types raised by there parents as opposed to those removed and raised by "hand" were more "authentic." I dont think anyone wants to start having frog shows in the same sence as a dog show, where judges come out measure "girth" patterns etc. (Well maybe someone out there does).How do you establish breed standards, and what do you do if the breed doesn't fit the standard? Is it a pet quality frog and not eligable for championship status?
I was thinking about this as well, because we have a fawn pug (who is registered), but we don't show her.ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:In dog shows (I know frogs are not dogs so hold your fire) there are many colors of say....pug. But a black pug, an apricot pug, and a fawn pug is still a pug (great dogs too by the way). Apricot pugs are not recognized by the AKC.
On the other hand it is clear that the genetics of the Hawaiian frogs are a subset of those found on Taboga. I could see it played either way. You could either maintain the Hawaiians separate or mix the with Toboga since I don't think you are polluting the Toboga line with really anything new. Keeping them separate is probably the safest bet though. There is no way to unmix genes.Yeager said:I would treat them as WC if they ever came in again. I, as well as the gov't consider them endemic species now. I think they are now significantly different than the founder population, and that's where I base my decision on that. I don't consider them hybrids or any bit less worthy than any other population.
I mis-spoke on that. I meant to say native. My apologies.bbrock said:Interesting that Hawaii considers these "endemic species" since that requires a redefinition of the word endemic. Endemics are considered species or subspecies found in an area but nowhere else. At best these are a naturalized or feral introduced species. Unfortunately there are negative connotations with the word feral since many of the species we are most familiar with also cause ecological problems but many feral species settle in nicely to native communities without problems.
That's right. In fact, the guidelines would be designed specifically to AVOID developing appearance standards which is unfortunately the natural direction that breeding takes. We tend to look at our frogs and choose the most similar looking specimens to breed with each other. Hobbyists often see differences in color, pattern, or size and assume that these differences much represent different "morphs" so they separate according to these differences to produce new lines of completely invented morphs. This leads to the cloneification of lines in captivity while populations in the wild show a good deal of variability. The breeding guidelines would give guidance on things like optimum founding population size, degree of line breeding/outcrossing, number of breeding colonies to maintain stability in the hobby, and guidance for determining what population a frog really belongs to. The result should be frogs that exhibit variability more like what is found in the wild without destroying the unique characters of a particular population.ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:I do not want to see frogs broken down into lines of championships. The breeding lines would get too thin with people trying to establish the standard and repeating it. And that's not what it is about. Its about having good healthy frogs.
Few of us can trace our frogs back to the "promised land". But that's not necessary to maintain what I suggest as a hobbyist grade line. For example, the thin-lined vittatus that were once considered lugubris before I had their DNA sequenced can be traced to a breeder importer who sold frogs to Mike Shrom but not back to their location of origin. That's okay though because that's enough information to link all the frogs to a common origin and maintain them as a distinct line. These frogs are widely distributed in the hobby and at least several breeders have been maintaining them true to their line. A few IAD's back, Brian Kubicki looked at the frogs and even thought he knew approximately where they might have originated from as he had seen similar vittatus in CR smacked up against the mountains separating vittatus from lugubris if I remember right which is cool to think about in its own right. So despite not being able to trace the frogs all the way back to locality, I think there is a pretty convincing line of evidence that these frogs hail from a different genetic population than the more typical vittatus with wider stripes.ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:Following liniage is a good start. But I don't think I can go back that far. Maybe my F1's to the P1's parents but that is it. And although I do not have any, what about wild caughts?
Should we call you Samson? I knew you knew the difference, I just couldn't resist giving you a little more grief.Yeager said:My usage of the English language has dimishished since my locks where shorn...