[Azurel]

In these pictures Gamble shared you can see how the locales/populations have been grouped based on genetics and how the hobby and market has seperated them to push them being more polymorphic....

 

[lookitsadam]

Where did you all purchase the book? Trying to find a copy myself

 

[Azurel]

Where did you all purchase the book? Trying to find a copy myself

http://www.chimaira.co.uk/gp/product_info.php/info/p104_The-complete-Oophaga-pumilio.html

Where Gamble and I got ours...contact Black Jungle they have them as well

 

[Gamble]

I have obtained Frank Steinmann's (the author) permission to post these photos.

 

[Spaff]

I'm afraid this may create major confusion when it comes to managing these imports. I do agree with some of what is written (Pastores, Cristobal, Solarte, and maybe even Colon). The Bastimentos recommendations really confuse me. The first table of Bastis sounds to me like the cemetery population, but they mention RFB and Salt Creeks as alternate names whereas RFB and then Salt Creek are touched individually on the next page...not sure what they're saying there. The description of "Rio Branco" in the book seems to better fit what the EU morph guides have always called it and not what we have. The closest thing to what we have as Branco seems to be the books description of Rambala. Our Rambala may be Guarumo?

The others that I haven't mentioned yet (Robalo, Aguacate, Punta Valiente) all present the same problem. I don't doubt that these morphs may be closely related and that there may be gene flow between populations, but do they all mix freely? Frogs on one end may interbreed with frogs in the middle but not spread all the way to the opposite end, but we really can't say whether they actually do or not.

I'll use another relatively recent example to illustrate this point. Most of us know the Paru sylvatica are intergrades between Lita and San Lorenzo with other populations dispersed along the way: Bilsa, Alto Tambo, Rio Durango...Lita and San Lorenzo are known as distinct ends of this population, and Paru are the known intergrade. We keep all of these separate because of this. If we follow the new book, it may turn out that we are combining the equivalent of Lita and San Lorenzo populations where direct interbreeding may not naturally occur.

I'd like to say that what I'm saying is only speculation and my opinion, and I encourage healthy discussion on the topic. I think this book will turn out to be a great resource, but we need to think long and hard before making hasty management decisions based on it. I'll be getting it shortly and will show it to a colleague who's doing Panama pumilio work to get her opinion. I know she's surveyed many of these populations, so I think that may be helpful.

 

[Azurel]

I'm afraid this may create major confusion when it comes to managing these imports. I do agree with some of what is written (Pastores, Cristobal, Solarte, and maybe even Colon). The Bastimentos recommendations really confuse me. The first table of Bastis sounds to me like the cemetery population, but they mention RFB and Salt Creeks as alternate names whereas RFB and then Salt Creek are touched individually on the next page...not sure what they're saying there. The description of "Rio Branco" in the book seems to better fit what the EU morph guides have always called it and not what we have. The closest thing to what we have as Branco seems to be the books description of Rambala. Our Rambala may be Guarumo?

The others that I haven't mentioned yet (Robalo, Aguacate, Punta Valiente) all present the same problem. I don't doubt that these morphs may be closely related and that there may be gene flow between populations, but do they all mix freely? Frogs on one end may interbreed with frogs in the middle but not spread all the way to the opposite end, but we really can't say whether they actually do or not.

I'll use another relatively recent example to illustrate this point. Most of us know the Paru sylvatica are intergrades between Lita and San Lorenzo with other populations dispersed along the way: Bilsa, Alto Tambo, Rio Durango...Lita and San Lorenzo are known as distinct ends of this population, and Paru are the known intergrade. We keep all of these separate because of this. If we follow the new book, it may turn out that we are combining the equivalent of Lita and San Lorenzo populations where direct interbreeding may not naturally occur.

I'd like to say that what I'm saying is only speculation and my opinion, and I encourage healthy discussion on the topic. I think this book will turn out to be a great resource, but we need to think long and hard before making hasty management decisions based on it. I'll be getting it shortly and will show it to a colleague who's doing Panama pumilio work to get her opinion. I know she's surveyed many of these populations, so I think that may be helpful.

For sure.....I personally don't think after reading it a few times come away with the thought that Bastimentos are specifically the same in the sense that they should be mixed....One of the few island populations that maybe genetically the same but have differentiated long enough that they are specific polymorphic locales while being genetically the same...atleast as far as my reading of it...


I do agree Zach that we as a hobby shouldn't make quick wholesale changes as the research continues and every step brings more clearity....I think it also important for discussion. I think every step and discussion brings some clearity....I plan to still read it again and start reading some of the research papers that it is based on.

 

[Gamble]

In speaking to Frank, he had only quickly skimmed this thread but did state that there are some misunderstandings but could not go into detail as it was late in Germany & he was going to bed. He did say a few things before saying good night tho & stated he would be watching the thread for any more clarification that may be needed.

His response was as follows:

"I will take a closer look these days, for I just flew over the thread.. I dont want to be too fast in my decisions...It´s 0.30 pm right now and my eyes are watering ;-) I will find some sleep now...

One thing:
The genetics and morphometric and vocal-related genetics on escudo were made a few years back already, but on samples (well you know the toe thing) that weren´t officially allowed to take out off Panama....(stupid export restrictions, no bribes, no frog leaves the country as it seems)...same with the frogs from Valiente eastwards...seems def. not to be pumilio! All that small populations like Melci and co....the small "Nicky" instead seems to be a "mixture" of Bastimentos eastern part and Popa and maybe some more...related to connections between the islands long ago....interesting stuff...keeping pumilio seperated in captivity just because of phenotypical thesis is of course not very clever....but as I said...I don´t want to be no guru, science is full of dynamics and I never would pronounce my book (it is not even my scientific work, but the work of great people in the field), I just collect together, fill and fit in and try to break all that DNA down for the non-scientist to understand....to be honest, I don´t even keep frogs at home anymore...I stopped for I have some moral problems after travelling and observing the frogs in nature...that is just my personal statement and I don´t judge folks that herp at home... I am glad for every keeper that I reach
somehow with my thoughts towards the hobby.. Over and out...I have to sleep...Thank you for your time!!"

Then he stated something else ...

"There is just one big thing: Don´t buy these "Farm frogs"..I reckon this is all wc frogs and besides the creation of new "morphs" by calling the after local points noone has the proof of the frogs being collected there anyhow, it is poison for the hobby and science as well...just google for farm bred pumilios from Panama and you will find a page showing a facility and a photo of hundreds of adult red Bastimentos or another reddish morph stuck together..if this is breeding stock, well I got something wrong about male aggression of frogs....Okay, so for the rest: Of course I will follow the thread, I got no critics about the book at all, so it is a good way to start over seas ;-) Good night..."

 

[oldlady25715]

I don't have the book, but it sounds like it's making distinctions based on genetics. The trade makes distinctions based on collection points and phenotypes. While the genotypes are useful to determine the species, hobbyist'sperspectives are generally based on phenotype. For hobby management it would be useful to do the genetic analysis to sort through what's what and then apply a layer of additional qualitative analysis based on collection points and phenotype.

I suppose what I'm saying is If all three boxes can be checked for genetic, geographic, and phenotype, then the hobby could confidently state the frogs appropriate locale.

 

[Frank St]

Please consider, that the statements in the book not just rely on genetics! Also morphometrical (incl. evolutionary settlements and migration), vocalization and behaviour of the frogs were considered to place a careful classification of the morphs and finally the three group model.

 

[Azurel]

Please consider, that the statements in the book not just rely on genetics! Also morphometrical (incl. evolutionary settlements and migration), vocalization and behaviour of the frogs were considered to place a careful classification of the morphs and finally the three group model.

Thanks for your input Frank.... All of those need to be discussed and considered in the discussion as well....

 

[cbreon]

I'm afraid this may create major confusion when it comes to managing these imports. I do agree with some of what is written (Pastores, Cristobal, Solarte, and maybe even Colon). The Bastimentos recommendations really confuse me. The first table of Bastis sounds to me like the cemetery population, but they mention RFB and Salt Creeks as alternate names whereas RFB and then Salt Creek are touched individually on the next page...not sure what they're saying there. The description of "Rio Branco" in the book seems to better fit what the EU morph guides have always called it and not what we have. The closest thing to what we have as Branco seems to be the books description of Rambala. Our Rambala may be Guarumo?

The others that I haven't mentioned yet (Robalo, Aguacate, Punta Valiente) all present the same problem. I don't doubt that these morphs may be closely related and that there may be gene flow between populations, but do they all mix freely? Frogs on one end may interbreed with frogs in the middle but not spread all the way to the opposite end, but we really can't say whether they actually do or not.

I'll use another relatively recent example to illustrate this point. Most of us know the Paru sylvatica are intergrades between Lita and San Lorenzo with other populations dispersed along the way: Bilsa, Alto Tambo, Rio Durango...Lita and San Lorenzo are known as distinct ends of this population, and Paru are the known intergrade. We keep all of these separate because of this. If we follow the new book, it may turn out that we are combining the equivalent of Lita and San Lorenzo populations where direct interbreeding may not naturally occur.

I'd like to say that what I'm saying is only speculation and my opinion, and I encourage healthy discussion on the topic. I think this book will turn out to be a great resource, but we need to think long and hard before making hasty management decisions based on it. I'll be getting it shortly and will show it to a colleague who's doing Panama pumilio work to get her opinion. I know she's surveyed many of these populations, so I think that may be helpful.

To add to your point, there are quite a few differences between these types of intergrades occurring in a natural setting among a vibrant population as opposed to happening in a controlled setting with a potentially limited gene pool.

 

[PumilioTurkey]

Totally off-topic...but I just realized there is a picture of me in the book

 

[Gamble]

I'm really surprised that there isn't more of a discussion taking place here considering how many people actually bought this book.

Even more so that the author is willing to participate.
How often do we have access to that kind of information?

Like Smokey told Craig ... "Take Advantage man, Take advantage".

 

[Azurel]

I'm really surprised that there isn't more of a discussion taking place here considering how many people actually bought this book.

Even more so that the author is willing to participate.
How often do we have access to that kind of information?

Like Smokey told Craig ... "Take Advantage man, Take advantage".

No doubt.....Lets get this going...

 

[lookitsadam]

I'm really surprised that there isn't more of a discussion taking place here considering how many people actually bought this book.

Even more so that the author is willing to participate.
How often do we have access to that kind of information?

Like Smokey told Craig ... "Take Advantage man, Take advantage".

I haven't been able to purchase the book yet but I'd love to read discussions about it's content by people who have!

 

[FroggyKnight]

Agreed! I am quite eager to learn about what this book has to offer, but I haven't purchased it as of yet. It is definitely on my wish list of good reads.

I will be following this thread ALL THE WAY! You just might not see me posting much

John

EDIT: I just purchased my first pumilio mere days ago and I find it fascinating how the species is divided morph/locale wise. The more information I have on my little guys the better!

 

[pumiliochaser]

I just received my copy today and on first glance, I am quite impressed. These are just my first impressions: I think the discussions about O. pumilio biology and natural history look interesting, but what makes this book stand out to me are the chapters on captive husbandry. To illustrate the varied captive husbandry chapters, there are multiple detailed images of perhaps the most amazing frogroom I have ever seen (Andreas Maxion's "Frog Chamber"?). Some detailed plans for a German style glass front-opening, "Euro-vent" vivarium. The vivariums are stunning and the frogroom is an absolute inspiration. I would say this might be the best book ever published on poison frog husbandry just for its pure photographic inspiration and I would love to see it expanded to cover other species in detail. An excellent book, wonderful photography, don't hesitate to buy it.

 

[pumiliochaser]

I did some more in-depth reading of the book tonight after dinner. I can see where some of the information on morph variation would be seen as controversial (i.e. lumping of trade names into fewer morph designations). This is the downside of a popular interpretation of the scientific literature. The categories he suggests (e.g. Darklands, Esperanza, Cauchero lumped together as "Aguacate") seem to come from a paper that did some refined genetic analyses and determined these were very closely-related, in fact, genetically "identical" taxonomic units. I have not read this paper but if this sort of information is important to you, my advice is to go straight to the primary literature and base your opinions on that. I have not read these papers..but from my reading of this book…I get the impression that according to these studies, these populations are genetically identical according to this *particular analysis*, which could change as more refined analyses take place in the future. Though they are clearly closely related and may represent the same evolutionary lineage, for our purposes they are unique and should be treated as such. I think it is a mistake to think of them lumped in this way without some greater field experience and insight into their natural variation. I can't speak to the entire range of variation found in all of these populations but I can tell you some of these variants that Mr. Steinmann suggests should be lumped together show very real biogeographic separation, distinct grades of colors and patterning and mixing them in captivity according to the categories he represents is not consistent with any fine-scale natural patterns…and I don't even think that is what he is suggesting be done. There is likely something lost in translation here. My opinion of the book remains unchanged-- it is awesome and will advance our understanding of O. pumilio-- but the book is not without its controversies.

 

[Azurel]

I agree it would be a mistake especially with main land morphs/ locales to make wholesale changes to how we keep them in the hobby right now off the insights in the book. Each step makes a muddier picture clearer although it might be many years till we get more insight.

What did you think of the thoughts on Isla Cristobal and Colon? Those two impeticular I had interest in not only because I keep those but from what I have read in past and now this book, I have always wondered if these populations were infact whole and showed gene flow across the population.
These locales are all basically the same frog all populations on these two island locale/morphs show the same variations(genetics) with in the specific local populations as well as according to the research all show the same vocalization patterens....It appears that these two island populations should be mixed and not seperated in the same respect as Isla Escudo morph.

What was your thoughts on those?


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[pumiliochaser]

I don't think it would do much harm to mix the various locales of Isla Colon and Isla Cristobal that are in the hobby. Ultimately, our frogs are hobby frogs, once removed from nature, their evolutionary significance is reduced to zero and we should be managing them for their suitability to be good captive frogs…and bred for attributes that make them good pets. The subtle natural variations that might make the difference between say a Boca del Drago and La Gruta in the wild probably aren't too important to preserve in captivity when faced with more important qualities like good color, vigor, genetic variability, adaptability to the vivarium, etc. The problem is that you will face some difficulties marketing your offspring as the hobby seems to frown on mixing "locales", even if this genetic mixing occurs in nature.

However, I do believe there is subtle but real morphological variation between localized subsets of each island population. For example, Frank recognizes three populations on Isla Bastimentos-- "Bastimentos", "Red Frog Beach" and "Punta Vieja". From my own field observations, I can tell you the frogs from Salt Creek and Punta Vieja are different enough that I would not feel comfortable mixing them in captivity-- the Salt Creek frogs show lots of variation and irregular amounts of red on the limbs where the Punta Vieja frogs are almost always brown-limbed. However, Frank is right to suggest that they are very closely related and gene flow between Punta Vieja and Salt Creek is apparent. If I didn't have the field experience with these frogs, I would not know that this real variation exists and probably just recommend that Punta Vieja and Salt Creek could be mixed…and would that really be the end of the world?

You would have to have lots of field experience throughout the islands and mainland to notice these subtle variations like I have noticed between Salt Creek and Punta Vieja…it's possible that Mr. van der Lingen had this knowledge but his legacy has now been interpreted through Frank Steinmann and so the picture of pumilio variation has been painted with those broad brush strokes of someone interpreting another's field work. Just reading this book has got me itching to go back to the pumilio lands and do more exploring. I hope it does the same for you guys and you get out there and reveal the subtle textures in this amazing story of frog evolution.