"Hybridizing”,Cross-breeding and Mixing Dart Frogs

[RichFrye]

?..The wild and imported wild caught ones are poison...

I just want to leave this thread pointing out the thought and sales pitch above.
It is a comical statement to say the least.

[edwardsatc]

Wrong again Ed!

Dillon is DartFrogWarehouse, and does not pay for the sins of the dad!

Be a mench and go after me, not my kids!

Okay then.

Hey Rich ...correction ...It's Dillons dad!

BTW are you the same Ed that wrote the article on how to kill frogs and throw away Repashy supplement?

No and my name is not Ed. So, look for another angle of attack ...

[edwardsatc]

?..The wild and imported wild caught ones are poison...

I just want to leave this thread pointing out the thought and sales pitch above.
It is a comical statement to say the least.

Lol. Yeah, they're not "SAFE" hock:

[TheLordsPorter]

No Ed, I don't do what you wrote. I am a child of God and resist untruth. I HAD to respond to you and show where you erred. I found out I had you confused with another Ed when I asked about the article, sorry about that.

I wish you and everyone all the best, no malice or harm.

I simply responded to what you wrote.

I can say the hobby has two schools of thought. One seems to be "bring the wild to the people and keep it intact," and the other is remove the wild and advance the pet side of these super cool frogs. I am clearly the latter, and choose to do the responsible thing and study the moves before we make them. We all agree on safety, no poison and no diseases. I hope you don't find fault in that.

Personally, these frogs have done a lot more for me than you can imagine. The joy they give me is priceless and not for sale. I want everyone to have them, and that joy!!!

To me, I think we should should leave the frogs in the wild alone and undisturbed forevermore. We have enough stock to breed in captivity anyway!

^^^ I don't know about anyone else but what I see here is someone flipping the big middle finger to all of us ...

[edwardsatc]

Holy crap, it's obvious that you're a lawyer (and not a biologist). Nearly everything in your post clearly demonstrates that you are not literate enough in evolutionary biology and population genetics to understand the literature. There is really no point in making a point by point response, because you clearly don't understand the science or the context in which Lotters et al. are speaking. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the topic can see that you're way off base.

Wow! Thank you all! I am happy to see there is supervision and decorum over here.

EdwardSATC,
you are right, polymorphism is the result in the wild which means the species varieties do intermix, and Lotters et al., who spent years in the jungle observed this too as fact! You are absolutely wrong when you say Lotters said or intended "Polymorphism is a term that is applied to the phenotypic variation within a panmictic population, not between one or more distinct populations." Lotters et al. never said or intended that. They said the species is prone to variation because of the intermingling of the isolated populations with polymorphism being the result ...................................................

On your Summer reference, please give me the full citation, or tell me where I can get it. I may need to cite it as bogus or something disproved. We do hope to publish some papers on what we learn and thought the hobby (this board) might like a sneak peak, and credibility for peer review.The RESEARCH proves a much larger than statistical variation prefers a non-like variety as a mate. We know not everybody has done it, that is my point.

Summers, K., Symula, R., Clough, M., Cronin, T., 1999. Visual mate choice in poison frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 266, 2141-2145.

Cite it as bogus? Clearly you don't even understand the basics. Something tells me you're not qualified and no legitimate peer reviewed journal would accept a manuscript.

People spout facts, sling references, and have no actual knowledge and it is difficult at times to parse it out, just reread your rebuke of me.

Yes, I thinks it's quite clear who these people are ...

[frogface]

I ask, not as a scientist (because I'm not one), but, as a consumer, which diseases will your frogs be free of? Do you guarantee disease free frogs? If so, does this include disease that can only be found on necropsy?

[Jeremy Huff]

If you are a child of God, why are you pretending to be God and 'create' new morphs? I suppose you think the world is only 7000 yrs old too? Tinctorius were one population originally and over time with mountain and river barriers which divided the original population these new phenotypes developed. Not the other way around.
Also, true sips have never been questioned to my knowledge. They were collected by the national aquarium in a forest island near the island that has azureus. They are a separate and distinct population.

[Philsuma]

No Ed, I don't do what you wrote. I am a child of God and resist untruth. I HAD to respond to you and show where you erred. I found out I had you confused with another Ed when I asked about the article, sorry about that.

I wish you and everyone all the best, no malice or harm.

I simply responded to what you wrote.

I can say the hobby has two schools of thought. One seems to be "bring the wild to the people and keep it intact," and the other is remove the wild and advance the pet side of these super cool frogs. I am clearly the latter, and choose to do the responsible thing and study the moves before we make them. We all agree on safety, no poison and no diseases. I hope you don't find fault in that.

Personally, these frogs have done a lot more for me than you can imagine. The joy they give me is priceless and not for sale. I want everyone to have them, and that joy!!!

To me, I think we should should leave the frogs in the wild alone and undisturbed forevermore. We have enough stock to breed in captivity anyway!

The U.S hobby is producing 'enough' frogs for the hobby and quite possibly 'extra' - I'm with you on that. One can chart this fact by observing how some species don't sell and people almost can't give them away.

On importing....I'm fairly sure the the U.S hobby is importing a LOT less dart frogs (total species) than in the late 90's to early 2000's. Thats another way we can tell that the hobby is doing a good job providing for itself.

So the bugbear in the room- that we are raping the wilderness with import just isn't true IMO - at least in the U.S. We have also discovered that the 'Red' morph /population of lehmani has been extirpated to Europe and countries Other than the U.S, so if there is a bone to pick, perhaps the German and European dart frog sites may be more relevant places for conservation displeasure.

You may have not been in the hobby as long as I, so I will give you this bit of information which is just my opinion of course: Dart Frogs absolutely outlast their original owners. They can be found changing hands 4 or more times, on average. This is arguably the biggest reason we do not want hybrid or mixed population frogs in the hobby. They get passed on...and on.

The other bit of fallout from the frogs changing hands is that less and less people want them, they become unwanted orphans and as a result, people DEMAND imported frogs under the guise of 'new blood' and because they are unsure or unwilling to accept or believe the engineered morph frogs are what they are being billed as.

Can you not see the slippery slope here ?

[Aarono Engstromo]

I don't think breeding for phenotype traits such as blue legs etc makes the genotype stronger. The argument that by crossing locales for genetic strength is weak, when the crossings are done to pull out phenotypes for blue legs or orange eyes. If you were crossing for disease resistance, or the ability to survive at higher temperature that would be one thing, but to get the colors that will sell, and claim your strengthening the species is a poorly made argument.

[Ghostvivs]

Well it seems you brought your son into this once you funded his business venture.

So whose idea was it to ™safe?

Whose idea was it to change names of frogs to make it sound more flashy?

Whose idea was it to go against the hobby you wish to sell to? (If you have the man grapes to say "we are not going against the hobby" I am calling bullshit, anybody that has been on a PDF forum for more than a month would know crossing and hybrids will get you crucified in point five seconds flat)

Whose idea was it to create crosses and hybrids?

Whose idea was it to ™said crosses and hybrids and label it scientific research?

Now the reason I asked all of this is simple. I just really want to know who the genius was that came up with this business plan...I want to give credit where credit is due...

Wrong again Ed!

Dillon is DartFrogWarehouse, and does not pay for the sins of the dad!

Be a mench and go after me, not my kids!

BTW are you the same Ed that wrote the article on how to kill frogs and throw away Repashy supplement?

Who do "we" think "he" is?

DartFrogWarehouse

[pafrogguy]

I am so glad they finally posted here where no one will be edited. Its great that only two years ago you morphed out your first froglets and now you have thousands for sale. Its also great that you think you will teach us guys that have been involved breed darts for 10, 15, or 20+ years that all morphs of tincs are the same and can be and should be mixed. I don't know everything there is to know about dart frogs and never claimed to. What I do know is folks like you come and go. People that throw a bunch of money into it thinking they will be the next big thing. The truth of the matter is, with the way you came into the hobby and your disregard to what us real hobbyists have done and will continue to do... in another year or so ol buydartfrogs.com will be a distant memory. Cheap frogs are just that... cheap frogs.

[Ghostvivs]

Also please keep god out of this conversion as it has no correlation to nature. One is studied, one is a belief.


Hell a religious man should say "what god created is good enough" not "let's create something out of greed" otherwise you become a hypocrite to the very thing you hold closest, your beliefs...

[Aarono Engstromo]

I think the bible has something in it about god created the earth for man to use, which has been cited as justification to exploit nature for centuries.

[frogface]

Also please keep god out of this conversion as it has no correlation to nature. One is studied, one is a belief.


Hell a religious man should say "what god created is good enough" not "let's create something out of greed" otherwise you become a hypocrite to the very thing you hold closest, your beliefs...

I think there are a number of things going on that are not what one would expect from a religious man. Perhaps the God angle is part of the facade?

[Philsuma]

I HAVE DOMINION OVER ALL BEASTS !

No, but seriously....the hobby has spoken on this issue. There may be 1-2 people that I could think of that would say 'others' are afraid to post and 'others' hold secret pro mixing meetings, but I know better. The vast majority of the dart frog hobby does not want this.

[frogface]

I will give them this; they are bringing the community together :lol:

[Jacobi]

Not to detract from the DFW bashing, but I think the bible has something in it about god created the earth for man to use, which has been cited as justification to exploit nature for centuries.

Actually, the passage in the Bible does not give "man control over all beasts to use at will", but rather indicates that they are now Man's responsibility. Just thought I'd share that, as it pisses me off when religious people use it as justification.

[Followgravity]

Hate to say it but once you start pushing god all claims to doing "research" go out the window in my opinion.

[edwardsatc]

Tinctorius were one population originally and over time with mountain and river barriers which divided the original population these new phenotypes developed. Not the other way around.

That was the part of his reply that totally drove home the fact that he had no clue and made me totally give up on any discussion with him. You can't reason with someone who is either ignorant of the facts and/or refuses to believe them when they are presented.

And then there was the request for the Summers citation. As you well know, the first step in research is a complete review of the existing literature. I can't believe someone could do a literature review on dart frog mate choice and not have seen the Summers paper ... it pops up near the top of all database searches on the topic and is the first in a google scholar search.

[Aarono Engstromo]

Not to detract from the DFW bashing, but I think the bible has something in it about god created the earth for man to use, which has been cited as justification to exploit nature for centuries.

Actually, the passage in the Bible does not give "man control over all beasts to use at will", but rather indicates that they are now Man's responsibility. Just thought I'd share that, as it pisses me off when religious people use it as justification.

I agree that it has been dramatically overused for false justification and raping of the environment.

Your post suggests your interpretation is correct and the one I noted is wrong. but your interpretation is merely an opinion out of many on this complex topic. Since this seems to keep being quoted, lol, here is the actual verse to which I referred:

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, over all the creatures that move along the ground, and let different dart frog locales be mixed and sold for profit.'

...Ok I added the last part. In practice I tend to read the real verse as "responsibility" too, but lets face it, its a little more strongly worded than that. Sorry to derail the thread.