Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Like to answer Polls and check out the results ?

Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Purposefully mixed - phenotype mixed.
4
14%
Managed 'how they come in' from U.E and are shipped out to us.
13
46%
Only paired up, 'like with like' phenotypically similar.
11
39%
 
Total votes: 28

heyduke
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Oxford Ohio

Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby heyduke » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:09 am

dynekevin wrote:Ive been reading all this stuff and honestly dont know nearly as much as the rest of you but IMO i dont even think they should be bred until there is hard evidence. Right now its clearly a guessing game IMO. My 2cents but if i had to choose.. i would go like to like.

-Kevin


Woo... Slow down... Let's not be rational about this. ;)


Sean
Sean Pennington

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:20 am

You need help Adam, I can only give so much...

At the exact time I wrote 13 votes with you being the ONLY ONE voting mix them all together there was your one lone single vote to mix all, 7 saying breed as they come in and 5, yes 5 saying like to like.
5+7+1 =13

If your wrongly pointing out that MY math is incorrect will make your day...sorry to ruin your day yet again.

The main point should be understood that there is STILL only one lone vote saying mix all, mix all...


thedude wrote:
RichFrye wrote:BTW, at the time I wrote the statement there were the exact amount of vote that I wrote :wink: :shock: :wink: . People have voted since then, just so you know I actually can add. :shock: :shock: :shock:
For example, right now, right now as I write this there are a total of 15 votes. Yet another small dig to attempt to make me look bad. But what it does is shows you don't practice what you preach...


That doesn't make any sense. Out of 13 votes as you say only one voted as I feel. And you say that's how it was till others voted? Then how exactly would the numbers change? It says now and did then that 6 people voted like with like. If it was 12 that were voting that before they would have had to retract their vote and re-vote for breeding as they were sent to us. But nice try, again :roll:

As it was: 1 for mixing, 7 for how they were sent, 6 for like like, with 13 votes total.
How you say it was: 1 for mixing, 0 for how they were sent, 12 for like like, with 13 votes total.

"Exact number of vote that I wrote" huh? Don't think so.
Last edited by RichFrye on Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:26 am

heyduke wrote:
dynekevin wrote:Ive been reading all this stuff and honestly dont know nearly as much as the rest of you but IMO i dont even think they should be bred until there is hard evidence. Right now its clearly a guessing game IMO. My 2cents but if i had to choose.. i would go like to like.

-Kevin


Woo... Slow down... Let's not be rational about this. ;)


Sean


I think there were a number of people hoping strong info would be back by now from WIKIRI and before sexing/breeding occured. This is why I have suggested breeding only like to like until we have hard info. Because you can't unmix.

But, I did get an email from WIKIRI and briefly read through it.
A few things;
I am of short extra time today to go through most of it in detail , but much is the same Dr. Coloma writing I have cited a few times before here. The same one MP posted here on DD. So that's not new.
They also say testing will take years and those involved do not wish to put out info before it's all complete...
There's more I'll add later. But I'm sure most who bought these guys are not wanting to wait years to breed them.
I have a number of questions I'll need to re-ask , as they were not answered or were simply dirrected to the write-up by Dr. Coloma, which we have all already read. Hopefully more details to come.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

thedude
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:49 pm
Location: washington

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby thedude » Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:31 pm

RichFrye wrote:You need help Adam, I can only give so much...

At the exact time I wrote 13 votes with you being the ONLY ONE voting mix them all together there was your one lone single vote to mix all, 7 saying breed as they come in and 5, yes 5 saying like to like.
5+7+1 =13

If your wrongly pointing out that MY math is incorrect will make your day...sorry to ruin your day yet again.

The main point should be understood that there is STILL only one lone vote saying mix all, mix all...


Ah you are correct about that my 6 was supposed to be a 5. But that doesn't change the fact of what you said before is false and makes no sense. But you ignored that part of the reply and continued on. So again, How was it that you say it was 1 for mixing and 12 not to mix? That's what you claim it was at the time you typed that other message. Not possible.

I'm interested to see if you can even admit you're wrong. Even if it's something as small and insignificant as this. Not looking too good.
Adam Hess

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:37 pm

thedude wrote:
RichFrye wrote:You need help Adam, I can only give so much...

At the exact time I wrote 13 votes with you being the ONLY ONE voting mix them all together there was your one lone single vote to mix all, 7 saying breed as they come in and 5, yes 5 saying like to like.
5+7+1 =13

If your wrongly pointing out that MY math is incorrect will make your day...sorry to ruin your day yet again.

The main point should be understood that there is STILL only one lone vote saying mix all, mix all...


Ah you are correct about that my 6 was supposed to be a 5. But that doesn't change the fact of what you said before is false and makes no sense. But you ignored that part of the reply and continued on. So again, How was it that you say it was 1 for mixing and 12 not to mix? That's what you claim it was at the time you typed that other message. Not possible.

I'm interested to see if you can even admit you're wrong. Even if it's something as small and insignificant as this. Not looking too good.



thedude wrote:

Honestly, I'm just dropping out of this at this point.



Adam, you still are wrong, and I'm not spending any more time telling you that 1 (MIX ALL!, MIX ALL! ) +7 ( breed ONLY AS THEY CAME IN!!! AS THEY CAME TO THE BREEDER) +5 (Breed like to like) = 13 , and that was exactly how it was when I wrote the post, and that you are the only mix , mix all vote. We all understand but you.
Now, if you will be HONEST [sic] and drop out until we have more info, I'd really appreciate it. This is getting stupid.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

thedude
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:49 pm
Location: washington

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby thedude » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:23 pm

RichFrye wrote:
Adam, you still are wrong, and I'm not spending any more time telling you that 1 (MIX ALL!, MIX ALL! ) +7 ( breed ONLY AS THEY CAME IN!!! AS THEY CAME TO THE BREEDER) +5 (Breed like to like) = 13 , and that was exactly how it was when I wrote the post, and that you are the only mix , mix all vote. We all understand but you.
Now, if you will be HONEST [sic] and drop out until we have more info, I'd really appreciate it. This is getting stupid.


I actually wasn't the one that voted mix all. Well you kind of admitted you were wrong there, but it was hard to read through your frustration. Before you said it was 12 vs. 1 but now that you are correcting that kind of good on you :roll:

BTW, I've gotten several emails and messages backing me and wikiri. Most people don't want to post about it cause of you :lol: Not that it matters. Good luck finding your answers on this.
Adam Hess

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:40 pm

thedude wrote:
RichFrye wrote:
Adam, you still are wrong, and I'm not spending any more time telling you that 1 (MIX ALL!, MIX ALL! ) +7 ( breed ONLY AS THEY CAME IN!!! AS THEY CAME TO THE BREEDER) +5 (Breed like to like) = 13 , and that was exactly how it was when I wrote the post, and that you are the only mix , mix all vote. We all understand but you.
Now, if you will be HONEST [sic] and drop out until we have more info, I'd really appreciate it. This is getting stupid.


I actually wasn't the one that voted mix all. Well you kind of admitted you were wrong there, but it was hard to read through your frustration. Before you said it was 12 vs. 1 but now that you are correcting that kind of good on you :roll:

BTW, I've gotten several emails and messages backing me and wikiri. Most people don't want to post about it cause of you :lol: Not that it matters. Good luck finding your answers on this.



RichFrye wrote:
thedude wrote:
...I still don't get why people are arguing about this. It is completely obvious to me and others that they should all be bred together*** ...



If you took the poll Adam, then you are the only one out of the 13 polled who feels this way. Twelve others feel completely obviously different.


I'm glad that if you voted you have enough sense to understand that mixing any and all can not possbily be the right way. Good on ya.


Let's see exactly what YOU said above though...
"...I still don't get why people are arguing about this. It is completely obvious to me and others that they should all be bred together..."***ALL BE BRED TOGETHER!***

There is ONLY STILL ONE vote that agrees to your statement. NO OTHERS! If YOU did not vote saying to BREED ALL TOGETHER , the option with one lone vote, why write that it's so obvious they should all be bred together????

My math and my reasoning are correct. You, on the other hand, have to just be plain nuts. Stick with your HONEST [sic] leaving strategy, please. Most of us don't have the time to continually point out your nut-ness.


And, I have Santy Claus and the Ether Bunny talking to me too, congrats on your emails. If any were/are based in fact, use their logic and post here...
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
Philsuma
Site Owner
Posts: 10494
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:10 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby Philsuma » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:43 pm

.....let's reign it in here. We are getting diminishing returns now....

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:46 pm

Philsuma wrote:.....let's reign it in here. We are getting diminishing returns now....

Phil, do you understand my points and math?
I think almost everyone here does, and yes, I'm tired of attempting to explain what really is obvious.

Would you also not agree that if ANYONE has real info pertaining to this issue they should write it out here, as opposed to 'I've got people backing me in private, nya nya ...'
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

thedude
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:49 pm
Location: washington

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby thedude » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:38 pm

Considering that when we receive them they are mixed phenotypes, saying we should breed them as they come to us is the same as breeding them all together.

Keep up with the insults :roll:
Adam Hess

heyduke
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Oxford Ohio

Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby heyduke » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:55 pm

RichFrye wrote:
heyduke wrote:
dynekevin wrote:Ive been reading all this stuff and honestly dont know nearly as much as the rest of you but IMO i dont even think they should be bred until there is hard evidence. Right now its clearly a guessing game IMO. My 2cents but if i had to choose.. i would go like to like.

-Kevin


Woo... Slow down... Let's not be rational about this. ;)


Sean


I think there were a number of people hoping strong info would be back by now from WIKIRI and before sexing/breeding occured. This is why I have suggested breeding only like to like until we have hard info. Because you can't unmix.

But, I did get an email from WIKIRI and briefly read through it.
A few things;
I am of short extra time today to go through most of it in detail , but much is the same Dr. Coloma writing I have cited a few times before here. The same one MP posted here on DD. So that's not new.
They also say testing will take years and those involved do not wish to put out info before it's all complete...
There's more I'll add later. But I'm sure most who bought these guys are not wanting to wait years to breed them.
I have a number of questions I'll need to re-ask , as they were not answered or were simply dirrected to the write-up by Dr. Coloma, which we have all already read. Hopefully more details to come.


I'm looking forward to hearing what answers they supply. And I agree with you in the not mixing. But at the same time breeding by appearance also seems a bit premature. It's certainly not a guarantee that they are still not being mixed.

It really is an interesting topic.


Sean
Sean Pennington

Adven2er
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:48 pm
Location: Northeast PA

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby Adven2er » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Mine was the lone vote to mix them all.

I think we should trust, that the founders of this project, have a pretty good idea what the population of these frogs are like. If these frogs are captive bred, they probably have been mixed and bred like to like. If Rich is right about these frogs being from different populations and the muddy looking frogs are hybrids it cannot be undone. The only reasonable thing to do is manage these frogs like we have every other population of frogs that have come in. It would be impossible to breed like to like and guarantee that these frogs are pure.

I'd like to see TWI's take on this and I wonder if anyone is working on a TMP for these frogs.
Rick

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:54 pm

Adven2er wrote:Mine was the lone vote to mix them all.

I think we should trust, that the founders of this project, have a pretty good idea what the population of these frogs are like. If these frogs are captive bred, they probably have been mixed and bred like to like. If Rich is right about these frogs being from different populations and the muddy looking frogs are hybrids it cannot be undone. The only reasonable thing to do is manage these frogs like we have every other population of frogs that have come in. It would be impossible to breed like to like and guarantee that these frogs are pure.

I'd like to see TWI's take on this and I wonder if anyone is working on a TMP for these frogs.



I would direct you to this statement by Dr. Coloma, then I would direct you to the statement by Mark Pepper saying he will both mix and keep like to like.
I'd then ask you where anyone has told us how to breed them in one single manner.
I sent out another email today with more pointed questions. I have confidence it should be answered, judging by the speedy first reply. Should be informative.
There is now, at this moment 15% (3 votes) who feel all should be mixed together.



RichFrye wrote:


By Luis A. Coloma.
...


Underlying causes of this intrapopulation variation are largely unknown and currently are a matter of speculation. For now, I am reluctant to interpret this variation as the result of hybridization, a phenomenon that can occur between species as a result of primary or secondary contact (after a period of isolation). Underlying factors behind the observed variation probably are in the evolutionary history of this population (somehow the historical human intervention in the area could have played a role as well) (not Wikiri manipulation).
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

thedude
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:49 pm
Location: washington

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby thedude » Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:29 pm

Hey Rich,

So what exactly do you think is happening with the Paru? You have stated many times you think they are too polymorphic and should be only bred like to like but you haven't exactly stated why you think they are this way. Originally you said:
RichFrye wrote:It is impossible to say that any frog should or can be properly managed by breeding it to any other from within the HUGE reserve...without the testing mentioned.


But as has been mentioned the reserve is quite small. It has also been mentioned that there are no physical barriers in the reserve. Before I said it is impossible for there to be more than one distinct population on such a small reserve and you agreed here:
RichFrye wrote:But , I totally agree with your last statement...so many different distinct populations existing in such a small area absolutely has never happened.


The amount of polymorphism being displayed makes perfect sense if you accept the original description of this population, which is a natural integration between the lita and san lorenzo populations. This would mean we would see all the various colors and patterns, including the "muddy" frogs. I can go more into how the genetics would work if others need. This possibility would mean we should be breeding unlike to unlike, as well as like to like as it is in nature. We know it would be like this in nature on the reserve for many reasons, one being that the frogs were farmed in the field with all the phenotypes mixed. Another reason is we have intermediates and "muddy" frogs straight from these 1 hectare plots. Lastly, it would not make sense for say the orange frogs to look at other orange frogs and not breed because they always have to be unlike to unlike (this is obvious but as has been mentioned this concept confuses some because they think it has to be one or the other). Now, of course sexual selection could play a role in oranges desiring to only breed with oranges, but this also would not occur all of the time. As with bastis, the red females may be more attracted to red males, but this doesn't occur EVERY time. And we know it doesn't occur every time with the Paru because there are once again, intermediates and "muddy" frogs. This is what Mark originally had to say about how the plots were set up:
MPepper wrote:This project has been underway only a short period of time. The population naturally inhabited Otokiki long before the project started. The plots are a "mixed bag" - to use your tem - of what was naturally already historically present at the site, as accurate a representation of the naturally occurring population and its variance which still lives and breeds in the reserve outside of the managed plots. The goal with the frogs produced is to simply produce an accurate representation of the natural population at Otokiki without a bias towards one pattern or another. There is as little human intervention as possible - that being said none of these frogs (of any species, from any source) would end in captivity if it were not for human intervention.


But as you have said, you don't believe the above. So, this brings us to the next possibility of the 2 populations integrating in an unnatural way. This would involve "historical human intervention" as Luis Coloma put it. This could be stream diversion or habitat degradation allowing the 2 populations to merge together somewhere. But, lets think about what this means exactly. Mark stated above that "The population naturally inhabited Otokiki long before the project started" and Luis Coloma stated above that the human intervention (IF there was any) was historical. So, this would mean (again IF) that these 2 populations were mixed unnaturally long ago and have since been interbreeding. What does that mean for us? It wouldn't change anything because at this reserve these 2 populations have now formed one, and there is nothing we can do about it. it would only make sense to breed them the same as if it was natural. Rich, is this what you think happened?

Now there is a third possibility, but it is a borderline conspiracy theory and there is no evidence for it (conspiracy hypothesis then). So unless Rich disagrees with both of the above possibilities, or doesn't have another, there is no point in mentioning it. Hopefully Rich can enlighten us as to what he believes is happening on the reserve. People who are agreeing with him should know exactly what big picture they are agreeing to. And to the other people that said like with like, what do you think is happening? Historic human intervention? or a third possibility?

I would also like to add that as far as DNA testing goes it is to understand what is going on in the genotype of the frogs, and why they are so polymorphic. This should not be confused with IF this population is actually this polymorphic.
Adam Hess

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:31 pm

What I am going to do now is show a theoretical happening or possibility of how several distinctly different phenotypes could potentially be found in a 140 acre jungle.
140 acres is far from a small plot of land and I have personally never once been in dart frog jungle habitat and NOT found some sort of barrier, be it river, foothill, beach, etc.

The theoretical map I whipped out key is as follows;
Black is known human intervention into natural dart habitat. A road, a dam, and pens used for breeding. It should be noted that any time frogs are picked up from one locale and place into another locale it is by definition human intervention.
Deep Blue is water.
Green are natural barriers such as foothills and sand .
Red is the legal boundary of our theoretical reserve.
A/yellow, B/red, C/brown , D/agua and E/purple represent natural and distinct ancient dart phenotypes.

A and B used to be separated by a very large river, they now only have a trickle of a river going down a small section of shared habitat...

D and E used to be separated by large foothills , they now have a road going down the edges of where the used to be said foothills.

C is in the reserve , but is still isolated by foothills.


You will notice that in overlapping areas of both A-B and D-E we have orange and yellow dots, and we have agua and purple dots, but the main, pure and ancient concentration is not near the overlapping areas.

You will notice that C/brown is still isolated and has zero dots but brown.

I could theoretically collect Yellow, Orange, Aqua , Purple , Brown, the mixing of Orange and Yellow, and the mixing of Purple and Aqua. But in actuality only A with B , and D with E have been mixing , and this was caused by human intervention. C is all alone , but still in the 140 acres. While they all have representation (but possibly not the larger extent of the natural population within our reserve) within the boundaries of our reserve, they don't all interbreed. And none of them interbred before human intervention.

1,2,3 and 4 represent pens I am conducting breeding. It would be best to collect frogs only from areas where you notice only a single colored dot...and keep the pens segregated with only single phenotypes. I know I'd need more pens to breed all single colors I drew, but a square is easy to draw. :wink:

I have no idea how the animals breeding now were collected. I have no idea how they ended up vastly , hugely polymorphic.
I do know there are several ways this could have happened and drew out only one theoretical possibility.

I do have a second email with very pointed questions out to WIKIRI and hope to hear back from them soon. A few questions answered may go a loooong way...


I will answer Adam's post previous to mine , in detail, when I wake up and have had cup #2 of tea this morn.


Image
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:41 pm

thedude wrote:Hey Rich,

So what exactly do you think is happening with the Paru? You have stated many times you think they are too polymorphic and should be only bred like to like but you haven't exactly stated why you think they are this way. Originally you said:
RichFrye wrote:It is impossible to say that any frog should or can be properly managed by breeding it to any other from within the HUGE reserve...without the testing mentioned.


I believe it is safer to er on the side of not mixing , or further mixing than to mix all willy-nilly. Very simple.
I am waiting for hard info from WIKIRI to hopefully end at least some speculation. In the absence of fact there is only speculation.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:48 pm

thedude wrote:
But as has been mentioned the reserve is quite small. It has also been mentioned that there are no physical barriers in the reserve. Before I said it is impossible for there to be more than one distinct population on such a small reserve and you agreed here:
RichFrye wrote:But , I totally agree with your last statement...so many different distinct populations existing in such a small area absolutely has never happened.



140 acres is far from "quite small", far from it. I have personally seen absolute different breeding populations in many areas that size.
I agreed that so many distinct populations existing in such a small area has never happened. That means it's never been seen before, it's an anomaly, there needs to be an explanation. It's not natural**.
If it is natural it is the first and only population in the dart world.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:55 pm

thedude wrote:
The amount of polymorphism being displayed makes perfect sense if you accept the original description of this population, which is a natural integration between the lita and san lorenzo populations. This would mean we would see all the various colors and patterns, including the "muddy" frogs. I can go more into how the genetics would work if others need. This possibility would mean we should be breeding unlike to unlike, as well as like to like as it is in nature. We know it would be like this in nature on the reserve for many reasons, one being that the frogs were farmed in the field with all the phenotypes mixed. Another reason is we have intermediates and "muddy" frogs straight from these 1 hectare plots. Lastly, it would not make sense for say the orange frogs to look at other orange frogs and not breed because they always have to be unlike to unlike (this is obvious but as has been mentioned this concept confuses some because they think it has to be one or the other). Now, of course sexual selection could play a role in oranges desiring to only breed with oranges, but this also would not occur all of the time. As with bastis, the red females may be more attracted to red males, but this doesn't occur EVERY time. And we know it doesn't occur every time with the Paru because there are once again, intermediates and "muddy" frogs. This is what Mark originally had to say about how the plots were set up:
MPepper wrote:This project has been underway only a short period of time. The population naturally inhabited Otokiki long before the project started. The plots are a "mixed bag" - to use your tem - of what was naturally already historically present at the site, as accurate a representation of the naturally occurring population and its variance which still lives and breeds in the reserve outside of the managed plots. The goal with the frogs produced is to simply produce an accurate representation of the natural population at Otokiki without a bias towards one pattern or another. There is as little human intervention as possible - that being said none of these frogs (of any species, from any source) would end in captivity if it were not for human intervention.


Again, no it does not make perfect sense that this is some how the only vastly polymorphic dart population in the wild.
This is why WIKIRI (Dr. Coloma) and others have stated the need for testing to see what is really going on.
In the mean time, we have no hard data to tell us how to breed, which is why I keep drumming ...like to (mixable if needed down the road) like.
I'd like to know how genetic drift does not work in that reserve...
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby RichFrye » Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:57 pm

thedude wrote:Hey Rich,


But as you have said, you don't believe the above. So, this brings us to the next possibility of the 2 populations integrating in an unnatural way. This would involve "historical human intervention" as Luis Coloma put it. This could be stream diversion or habitat degradation allowing the 2 populations to merge together somewhere. But, lets think about what this means exactly. Mark stated above that "The population naturally inhabited Otokiki long before the project started" and Luis Coloma stated above that the human intervention (IF there was any) was historical. So, this would mean (again IF) that these 2 populations were mixed unnaturally long ago and have since been interbreeding. What does that mean for us? It wouldn't change anything because at this reserve these 2 populations have now formed one, and there is nothing we can do about it. it would only make sense to breed them the same as if it was natural. Rich, is this what you think happened?

Now there is a third possibility, but it is a borderline conspiracy theory and there is no evidence for it (conspiracy hypothesis then). So unless Rich disagrees with both of the above possibilities, or doesn't have another, there is no point in mentioning it. Hopefully Rich can enlighten us as to what he believes is happening on the reserve. People who are agreeing with him should know exactly what big picture they are agreeing to. And to the other people that said like with like, what do you think is happening? Historic human intervention? or a third possibility?

I would also like to add that as far as DNA testing goes it is to understand what is going on in the genotype of the frogs, and why they are so polymorphic. This should not be confused with IF this population is actually this polymorphic.


See my drawing above.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

edwardsatc
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:24 pm
Location: Junction, Texas / Bassett, Wisconsin

Re: Poll - How should 'Paru' oophaga sylvatica be managed ?

Postby edwardsatc » Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:18 pm

RichFrye wrote:140 acres is far from "quite small", far from it.


About 0.46 mi x 0.46 mi or .21 square miles.

Or ... about 120 football fields for you sports fans :)


Return to “Polls”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests