To answer a thread question/s on DB about Pulowski pairing his gold dust bastis to gold dust bastis and Derek Benson's posting of my email response to him;
It is fairly simple to understand that if it is known that approximately 80-90%+ of any one given population of frogs is producing an orange colored frog (cemetery Bastis) it is best for the frogs' health down the line especially to not breed recessive traits to color recessive traits. It may not only be healthier for the frogs but also will continue to breed for a natural color morph as opposed to what's the rarest, bluest , blackest, most UNNATUARL trait in the wild.
Mark has always tended to cherry pick through the latest Panama imports, attracted to and meaning to pull the farthest from the mean of any one population. And well, it's not the way to keep things natural looking or acting.
If someone can tell me how a 1-5% color morph per population is not recessive , please explain. And , if someone does not think there are other potentially singled out traits being passed along (allele) with the gold dust trait when selected gold dust recessive trait to recessive, I'm sure I can dig out citations showing exactly how it has happened and will continue to whenever people just gotta breed rarer aesthetic trait to rarer aesthetic trait.
It's really not that mind blowingly hard to digest.
Also, if someone would like to remind Mark that I quit DB long ago so he'd have to come here to get my input he asks for 'over there' I have seen him come back here to post after swearing never to return ( GREAT RANA STRICTLY APOLOGY CONSPIRACY OVERTURN 2012) so I'm sure he can come over if there is any true and honest intention to understand why breeding for recessive traits is bad ,... mmmK?
Almost reminds me of when I bred my yellow lab with a black lab fem.....all pups came out chocolate! Then my gfs dad later on bred one of these chocolates with his own chocs a few yrs later and Ill be damned....not one chocolate. Cemetery bastis similar to Labradors?
Labrador genetics has been pretty widely studied and is fairly well understood. There colors are the result of a phenomenon called epistasis. I guess you could say that Basti genetics could be similar to labs, but I doubt it. I hesitate to say anything definite, though, because I don’t have any specific knowledge on Basti skin color genetics.
Put simply, labs can be black, chocolate, or yellow. Black labs are the result of Mendelian dominance (BB or Bb). Chocolate labs are the result of Mendelian recessiveness (bb). A second gene that codes for a molecule that governs the production of melanin determines whether labs follow simple Mendelian genetics or if they’ll be yellow. If they contain a dominant allele for this second gene they’ll be either black or chocolate. If they’re homozygous recessive (ee) for this gene, then they’ll be yellow.
Though I think it is always important to maximize the genetics with any frogs, I would hesitate to call gold dust simply recessive. Gold dust males bred with gold dust females can produce non-gold dust offspring. If they were simply recessive, this would be impossible (rr x rr can only produce r allles, so only like colored offspring). There is definitely a more complex phenomenon going on. Also, simple Mendelian genetics doesn’t explain the multitude of colors (red, orange, yellow, “gold dust”, green, etc.) found in the Basti population.
It has also been shown in other PDFs that color is not necessarily totally genetically controlled. Environmental factors would be an unlikely answer here since they all come from the same population, but there could be other unknown factors besides the main inherited genome.
goods Wrote:Labrador genetics has been pretty widely studied and is fairly well understood. There colors are the result of a phenomenon called epistasis. I guess you could say that Basti genetics could be similar to labs, but I doubt it. I hesitate to say anything definite, though, because I don’t have any specific knowledge on Basti skin color genetics.
Put simply, labs can be black, chocolate, or yellow. Black labs are the result of Mendelian dominance (BB or Bb). Chocolate labs are the result of Mendelian recessiveness (bb). A second gene that codes for a molecule that governs the production of melanin determines whether labs follow simple Mendelian genetics or if they’ll be yellow. If they contain a dominant allele for this second gene they’ll be either black or chocolate. If they’re homozygous recessive (ee) for this gene, then they’ll be yellow.
Though I think it is always important to maximize the genetics with any frogs, I would hesitate to call gold dust simply recessive. Gold dust males bred with gold dust females can produce non-gold dust offspring. If they were simply recessive, this would be impossible (rr x rr can only produce r allles, so only like colored offspring). There is definitely a more complex phenomenon going on. Also, simple Mendelian genetics doesn’t explain the multitude of colors (red, orange, yellow, “gold dust”, green, etc.) found in the Basti population.
It has also been shown in other PDFs that color is not necessarily totally genetically controlled. Environmental factors would be an unlikely answer here since they all come from the same population, but there could be other unknown factors besides the main inherited genome.
So, when there is doubt about what is causing the consistent vastly minority frogs due to a number of genetic possibilities and/or other-wise, is it safer to er on the side of most natural breeding or unnatural breeding?
There are traits other than color on those color alleles...
Dogs have been humanly manipulated by us from wolves and their genetic issues from line breeding are a wholly different subject with wholly different issues. And as you mentioned a simple recessive is not the genetic answer here. But I'm fairly sure genetics are the answer to why year after year this one population happens to kick out 1-5% (5% being high most likely) one rare color. A color we can replicate in-viv with absolute different conditions inculding diet.
Pulowski's adult answer to the question;
markpulawski
Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 2,525
Thanks: 19
Thanked 103 Times in 57 Posts
Re: Gold Dust Basti's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek I assume Mr Fried said that to enhance his business, since he is in this to make $$ as purely a business as opposed to you and I being hobbyists he has a different perspective. No problem on the comments, the good news the eggs are developing.
Share
Share this post on Twitter
Facebook
I refuse to sell a frog (give up a business deal that's done deal if I want it to be so) if it is bred in an unnatural way and I am the one who is all business...
It must be yet another conspiracy Mark. I suggest stop watching H2.
RichFrye Wrote:So, when there is doubt about what is causing the consistent vastly minority frogs due to a number of genetic possibilities and/or other-wise, is it safer to er on the side of most natural breeding or unnatural breeding?
There are traits other than color on those color alleles...
Dogs have been humanly manipulated by us from wolves and their genetic issues from line breeding are a wholly different subject with wholly different issues. And as you mentioned a simple recessive is not the genetic answer here. But I'm fairly sure genetics are the answer to why year after year this one population happens to kick out 1-5% (5% being high most likely) one rare color. A color we can replicate in-viv with absolute different conditions inculding diet.
As I mentioned previously, it is always important to breed to maximize the genetic variability within a breeding pair or group, but we should minimize the human selection pressures, conscious or unconscious, put into choosing what to breed with what. The best way to choose is through some randomization.
You mention a population consistently producing the rare color, is this your breeding population or the natural one? Just curious...
goods Wrote:RichFrye Wrote:So, when there is doubt about what is causing the consistent vastly minority frogs due to a number of genetic possibilities and/or other-wise, is it safer to er on the side of most natural breeding or unnatural breeding?
There are traits other than color on those color alleles...
Dogs have been humanly manipulated by us from wolves and their genetic issues from line breeding are a wholly different subject with wholly different issues. And as you mentioned a simple recessive is not the genetic answer here. But I'm fairly sure genetics are the answer to why year after year this one population happens to kick out 1-5% (5% being high most likely) one rare color. A color we can replicate in-viv with absolute different conditions inculding diet.
As I mentioned previously, it is always important to breed to maximize the genetic variability within a breeding pair or group, but we should minimize the human selection pressures, conscious or unconscious, put into choosing what to breed with what. The best way to choose is through some randomization.
You mention a population consistently producing the rare color, is this your breeding population or the natural one? Just curious...
Absolutely agree to randomize. It's part of my main point actually.
The wild population is around 85% orange. Therefore when one goldust (about 2% population in the wild) is to breed, what are the chances it will be with another goldust in the wild?
...goldust being less aposematic than say orange or red.
I replied to this, but it's not here anymore...
Though it's not a very good chance that a gold dust won't breed with another in the wild, there is still a possibility of two breeding. Because of this, I see no issue with breeding two randomly selected, unrelated gold dusts together. I'm not recommending this as the norm, but if two gold dusts were randomly selected from my hypothetical breeding colony to be paired, it would be ok and "natural" in my book.
goods Wrote:I replied to this, but it's not here anymore...
Though it's not a very good chance that a gold dust won't breed with another in the wild, there is still a possibility of two breeding. Because of this, I see no issue with breeding two randomly selected, unrelated gold dusts together. I'm not recommending this as the norm, but if two gold dusts were randomly selected from my hypothetical breeding colony to be paired, it would be ok and "natural" in my book.
Well,
theoretically OK and
natural are two quite different things.
I'm not saying it may not be an OK thing to breed two unrelated golddust together. But in no way is it a natural occurrence. Again, we only have to crunch the numbers (2%) , and understand less or more aposematic
and that there are studies showing the brighter frogs draw the females more often to understand this.
We know that line breeding humans can also be 'OK'...been done for millennia across the waters.
If there are 2% of these and thousands in the wild, then I would imagine they would be breeding in the wild.
Unless maybe the other frogs looked down on the whole thing.
outofreach Wrote:If there are 2% of these and thousands in the wild, then I would imagine they would be breeding in the wild.
Unless maybe the other frogs looked down on the whole thing.
I am missing your point or question.
There are thousands of Cemetary bastis breeding in the wild.
2%-ish of them happen to be 'gold dust'.
That means that if in a single interbreeding group of 100, theoretically two are gold dust. One male and one female (or two males or two females) . It also means that the chances of that one male finding and getting the one gold dust female to breed with him is very, very slim.
The
factual point I am making is that we would be hard pressed to find a dust breeding to another dust in the wild. And certainly not generation after generation and not dust offspring breeding only gold dust to dust. It's not natural.
Facts aside, it is an
ethical and a husbandry issue as to whether someone will breed minority to minority in an unnatural manner. The "OK" we mentioned earlier.
As strange as it may sound , breeding for certain minority traits is on the far right (or left) of hybridizing, but
both are still 'wrong' or not "OK" with many froggers today. Especially when it
should be (subjective, ethics, don't tell me how to breed my frogs...) our goal to keep and breed our darts as
natural as possible.
I don't really have a concrete view on the whole issue. It does happen in the wild I would think. I understand that breeding these generation after generation probably wouldn't happen naturally, but it would be possible. I also think trying to control this in the hobby is a lost cause. It probably just puts the people breeding for certain traits underground. In a perfect world there would be institutions or groups breeding naturally to preserve the specie and registering these offspring. While that may or may not be happening effectively it would something to strive for.
Also I have no malice or ill intent or desire to make another enemy here, just trying to understand.
outofreach Wrote:... In a perfect world there would be institutions or groups breeding naturally to preserve the specie and registering these offspring. While that may or may not be happening effectively it would something to strive for.
...
Natural breeding is something we can all strive for. But not if we aim low.
Understanding what is happening in the wild is a good start. I've explained my take on the facts as they are pertaining to this Cemetery locale.
'Gold Dust' bred to 'Gold Dust' = Line breeding. Call it what it is.
In the grande scheme of 'all things Dart Frog Hobby related' ...Gold dusting is certainly not 'as bad' as creating tinc hybrids/crosses, but as Rich says....let's aim a little higher here folks. Let's do more research into these populations and their phenotypic composition, learn from it, and move forward with better practices and husbandry/animal management.
There will always be people looking HARD for excuses to do exactly what they want with their animals because after all, they ARE their animals to do with what they please. And that is their business, their time and their money, but I'll always be impressed and influenced by those hobbyists that go above and beyond. That do more. That put the time and effort in and are not swayed by the lure of instant morph creation, made up animals ect.
Philsuma Wrote:'Gold Dust' bred to 'Gold Dust' = Line breeding. Call it what it is.
...
It
can be line breeding , which compounds the issues even more, but it is
always selective breeding for a minority or recessive trait.
If two absolutely non-related dusts are bred together it is not line breeding. Simply selective trait breeding.
Well, it seems Mark is providing wrong/bad/twisted info , yet again...
markpulawski
Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 2,543
Thanks: 19
Thanked 106 Times in 60 Posts
Re: Gold Dust Basti's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I was told that collecting the numbers that have come in have very likely had little to no impact on the overall population of this locale, so 20% of the population being GD is a pretty accurate estimate. So 1 in 5 being a GD would make me think there is a good chance these could and do pair up in the wild on a regular basis, so much for assumption and conjecture.
This info came from JP (MonarchMan) who has a pretty good handle on Pumilio info, thanks for the input JP.
Share
Share this post on Twitter
Facebook
An email from JP today to me;
I think Mark mistook what I said. I think that around 80% are red/orange and 20% are everything else (gold dust maybe being between 5% and 10%), but it's hard to determine what qualifies as "orange," "red," "gold dust," etc.
So, GD represent maybe 5-10% and somewhat hard to quantify what is exactly orange-ish red, or gold dusty, but it's pretty plain to see that the GD do not represent 20% of the Cemetery population, and as I pointed out, and should be the main point of interest... they are a minority being bred GD to GD unnaturally and should not be bred as such if you care about a natural breeding project. We also have tones of science pointing out the downfalls of line breeding for certain traits. The Ed has cited a number 'over there'...
And, even if there were 20% , which there's not , as now proven by the one guy Mark seems to trust...then Mark and anyone breeding GD to GD is STILL breeding purposely for a selected minority trait.
It's unnatural no matter who's numbers you trust . Mine at 1-5% , JP's at maybe 5- 10% or Mark's who pulled the 20% out of his tookus.
Seems like an 'average' of @ 10% is what I would consider at this point.
Still...the Cemetery population with it's phenotypic variation is the 'ultimate' dart frog to keep in a colour-variation hobby setting. That alone is a victory for people that want a mixture of 'tropical fish tank-like colours'.
Philsuma Wrote:Seems like an 'average' of @ 10% is what I would consider at this point.
Still...the Cemetery population with it's phenotypic variation is the 'ultimate' dart frog to keep in a colour-variation hobby setting. That alone is a victory for people that want a mixture of 'tropical fish tank-like colours'.
Well, JP puts a rough average of 7.5% as his educated guess. I put mine at around 3.5% . And Mark somehow again misunderstood what the actual person involved had said (
GREAT RANA CONSPIRACY PUT STRICKLY OUT OF BUSINESS SCHEME 2012 ) and put his guess at 20% , or rather said that's what JP guessed, which we now know is flat our wrong.
It would seem
the rough in-situ average is about 5.5% , which is quite lower than 10% and not even close to the 20% Mark posted.
While some look to the Cemetery population as their chance to
mix a bunch of colors together ( actually in most cases better than putting two known recessive trait minority frogs together to purposely breed) it would best suite the hobby for those who don't know the percentages to either find them out or not purposely mix recessive traits simply because there are less of them in the wild and simply because they can't help but be drawn to the shiniest penny , the floppiest eared bunny or the newest best guess cherry picked whatevers from Strictly.
It's
sort of like the old adage "if you have to ask how" to mix (and those who don't know the wild in-situ percentages don't know how to pair naturally)
you are not ready. Actually , it's
exactly like that.