Don't label any of the new imports "Christobals"..

[RichFrye]

Hi Dane,

Dr. Gerald Urquart from Michigan State University gets paperwork for frogs for studies, gets site locales from Dr. Kyle Summers and others, and collects them with his own two hands.

I am 100% sure of the exact site locales for all of the pumilio I am working with.

Rich

[froglet]

The Rios look like Christobals and so on. My personal name for these frogs will be "2006 imports". Maybe I'll call them 2006 import Rio look-alikes or what not, but there is too much confusion and way too many frogs have come in with absolutely no markings that resemble anything else already in the hobby.

[Dane]

I agree that there is no way to give them definite names, but it's really a shame that they all need to be grouped together. While there may be distinct morphs in these shipments, calling them all the same thing means that in time the "06 pumilio imports" will just be mutts. I picked my 3 by photo, and they all look like this:
I have also seen several that look A LOT like Christobals, but then there are those that I've seen more often that don't have distinctive patterns that could be called either. I think that in this instance, bottlenecking the gene pool based on specimens that display typical color/pattern for their respective morphs should be subcategorized as "06 import Christobal or Rio".

[froglet]

Dane, very well said. I do think that is one way to go as long as "2006" is submitted in the name.

I myself don't want to buy "Christobals" one day and come to find out that they might not be from that real locale. The problem is that a lot of the frogs we already have received have absolutely no pattern from RIO, CHRIS or what not. I know most of them look like "something" but I would say 5% of them don't, which in the hands of the wrong person - you are going to mix something that has patterns to a distinct morph to something that looks a bit like E.T. When SDNF came out with the first shipment, a lot of the frog pics you could right click on them and would give you the supposed names. Well it happens that those names were taken off since no one had any idea what the heck the frogs were, So of course now we have to give them names....

[Philsuma]

Good pumilio import information thread.

[RanaVenenosa]

Hind sight is often 20/20. Since this thread is 5 yrs old, how many people have had mult clutches from these 2006 imports and can confirm any degree of variability in morphs/patterns ? It would be interesting to gauge the possible number of animals that are still in circulation and post generation offspring/breeding pairs. Also wondering if more collecting has brought to light any patterns in local data... ie. new shipment from 20XX consistently has xxx morphs to further validate range or name conventions used on imported frogs. Ex. detecting subtle things like a hypothetical assumption that Isle Christobal generally have blue legs vs Mainland having green legs. Or confirming that a red solarte will generally never throw yellow except on rare occasions, but if one person had it happen once, it leaves the door open that its rare but frequent enough that if it occurs over a decade of captive breeding cycles then it could provide some data to appreciate the current state variety of solarte color morphs in the native habitat (or distinct Pum). I am not wanting to build this thread so that everyone should give their opinion, but if those who work with Pums were to share their own subsequent experience combined with leveraged "data mining" of old threads, we could begin to extrapolate some premises to build upon and document in the species care/info sheets.

[Philsuma]

Better question, IMO....how many adults are still ALIVE from the 2006 import year ?

50% ? Doubtful
35%.....ehh

less than 20%....that's my choice.