'Paru' Oophaga sylvatica - PICS !

[RichFrye]

I would highly suggest to anyone in line for these to ask specifically for the most phenotypically similar frogs available. I'd personally pass if that were not an option.

Rich

[Philsuma]

^ Agree

[thedude]

I would highly suggest to anyone in line for these to ask specifically for the most phenotypically similar frogs available. I'd personally pass if that were not an option.

Rich

Phenotypically similar to each other? Why exactly? Variation is better in my mind, as well as for genetics.

[RichFrye]

I would highly suggest to anyone in line for these to ask specifically for the most phenotypically similar frogs available. I'd personally pass if that were not an option.

Rich

Phenotypically similar to each other? Why exactly? Variation is better in my mind, as well as for genetics.

Well, name one single *breeding group*, singular, of obligates (or darts for that matter) which are truly polyporphic . Truly being all sorts of colors, *patterns*, sizes , etc.
I would not include cemetary bastis as they only really differ in color , and most are orange.

None come to mind.

[RichFrye]

Also, I am still unable to view any pics here on DD, so I have no idea what your new beauties look like Adam, nor any other pics posted in the past few months or so.

[ChrisK]

I would highly suggest to anyone in line for these to ask specifically for the most phenotypically similar frogs available. I'd personally pass if that were not an option.

Rich

Phenotypically similar to each other? Why exactly? Variation is better in my mind, as well as for genetics.

Well, name one single *breeding group*, singular, of obligates (or darts for that matter) which are truly polyporphic . Truly being all sorts of colors, *patterns*, sizes , etc.
I would not include cemetary bastis as they only really differ in color , and most are orange.

None come to mind.

Blue Jeans? (Sarapiqui)

[RichFrye]

Blue Jeans? (Sarapiqui)

???

All red -orange bodies with blue legs. Spots or not are about the only major variable . No, BJs are not truly polymorphic. There are tons of pums which look similar to BJs though. Not the same thing or point.

Again though...all different patterns and colors and sizes= polymorphic. I've seen pics and heard of many different phenotypes of these 'paru' , WAY more so than ever found in a single breeding population, ever.

[Philsuma]

Blue Jeans? (Sarapiqui)

Not polymorphic. Is the Bastimentos the closest thing to polymorphic due to the that population being insular ?

[ChrisK]

Here's a pic of a pair, it doesn't really do the difference justice though, the female (on the left) is about half blue (DARK blue), especially if you could see her belly, and the "red" is really just about brown. The male is really that "fire engine orange" red with bright blue legs and much smaller than the female, if I wasn't into darts and saw these and was asked to guess, I would guess they were not the same frogs.
On the flip side I do see what you're saying, so far some of the Parus look EXACTLY like my San Lorenzos and some look EXACTLY like my Litas, and some all shades of in between, like I mentioned earlier in the thread.

[RichFrye]

No can see pics.

More blue, less blue, a bit more or less red, but not polymorphic.
Yes, my point is there seem to be more morphs (vastly polymorphic) in the group than ever seen in a single breeding group, ever.

[RichFrye]

...
so far some of the Parus look EXACTLY like my San Lorenzos and some look EXACTLY like my Litas, and some all shades of in between...

And, some (more than one other phenotype) that look absolutley nothing like either.

[manuran]

I was fortunate to have visited this area a few times back in the mid 90's. While I haven't been back since, and I have heard that the area continued to change rapidly, I'm hoping that I can add a little to the conversation. My information might be a little dated, so please take it for what it's worth
.
First off, I think the locality names that people are using may be the cause for some of the confusion. The town of Lita and the surrounding area isn't the home of the frogs, as it is a little higher in elevation. It is just the starting point on the road down through the Choco. Lita itself is at the very western edge of Imbabura province. Very soon after leaving Lita (traveling NW) you enter Esmeraldas province and more specifically (and I'm guessing more importantly) San Lorenzo Canton (I'm guessing that the locality name of San Lorenzo is after this canton and not the town itself).

So if you are on the road a little Northwest from Lita you come to a drop off where the road leads down into the Choco, from here you start coming across pockets of the orange sylvaticas (San Lorenzo) living among the Heliconia. I would guess that the populations weren't as patchy before the road went in and the clear cutting began. I've been told, these populations occur all the way west as far as San Francisco. If we go back to "the bluff", where we started seeing the orange frogs and start traveling down the same road, you soon come to a junction, this smaller road heads north to the town of Alto Tambo , this is where the spotted frogs, labeled in this thread as Lita's are actually from. The Paru's I've been told are from slightly north of Alto Tambo. So I don't have too much difficulty in believing that there is a interestingly variable population there.

I remember it being a surprise when I first saw the spotted Alto Tambos all those years ago. The biggest surprise being how their location was closely nestled among the orange ones. I always wondered what occurs in the expanse of forest to the far north and south of the road. Now we have a partial answer. While it still might not make complete sense to us, I hope we can value the unique variability of this population and do our best with them. I was not able to get any, but I'll live vicariously through those of you that did. So thanks for all the photos!

Of course Mark has seen this population first hand as well as Luis Coloma, who probably knows the area and the frogs in it better than anyone. My humble opinion is that I would feel comfortable accepting that all the animals are coming from one unique and natural population.

I hope I was clear enough and that I didn't muddy the situation even more.
If you do searches for maps of Imbabura, Ecuador and Esmeraldas, Ecuador it might make my rambling a little clearer. lol

[RichFrye]

Thanks, whoever you are,
When I hear the term "pockets" I ask how big, and why there are groups (breeding groups?) which stand out from other groups, supposedly within the same exact breeding population.
I am interested in knowing how it was decided/determined that all these phenotypes were known to breed with each other in one single group.
Once again, if this is in fact one single contiguous breeding population, which means they can all interbreed, and do, then it is by far the most polymorphic one known to anyone today.
"Pockets" and "islands" do not convey one single interbreeding population to mix reds with blues with yellows with spots and stripes...

[thedude]

Hey Rich,

Perhaps you should wait till you can see the pictures, before insinuating the frogs are from different populations. You can tell quite obviously that some frogs have alleles from both populations.

Can you see pictures on other sites?
http://www.understoryenterprises.com/fr ... -sylvatica
http://www.wikiri.com.ec/productos/ecua ... ticus.html

On Wikiri's site, the first frog that looks like a Puerto Quito, isn't a Paru.

[manuran]

I'm not sure if this will clarify what I mean by pockets, but I'll try. In regards to the San Lorenzo types, the frogs could regularly be found associated with patches (pockets) of large Heliconia which seemed to be their phytotelmata of choice. Maybe at times not in values that we normally deal in, but I'm sure there is migration going on sometimes quickly and other times slowly as new stands of Heliconias sprout and as old stands "move" through vegetative growth, or even disappear through death. The San Lorenzo are very similar looking over a very large range. As for the Paru, I have never seen them in the wild myself, but have been told that the multiple phenotypes all live in the same relatively small area and are seen to interact with one another. I would be quite surprised to hear that a variety of different phenotypes of the same species occur together without breeding. I would think that the range of the diversity would lead one to believe the opposite is happening. Anyway, I'm not an expert concerning the distribution of this frog, and certainly not concerning the Paru. I just wanted to contribute what I know of the area and to also say that I have faith in Mark and Luis that they understand the situation in Paru better than I.
By the way, my name is Chuck

[RichFrye]

Hey Rich,

Perhaps you should wait till you can see the pictures, before insinuating the frogs are from different populations. You can tell quite obviously that some frogs have alleles from both populations.

Can you see pictures on other sites?
http://www.understoryenterprises.com/fr ... -sylvatica
http://www.wikiri.com.ec/productos/ecua ... ticus.html

On Wikiri's site, the first frog that looks like a Puerto Quito, isn't a Paru.

I've seen plenty of the pics Adam. How many pics have you seen from this Paru area? And how many would you guess to be quite different phenotypes? I'm insinuating nothing. I'm saying exactly what I mean and how I feel. You say to mix because it's a good thing. But, you are not exactly sure how to mix what. Or are you saying each and every frog from this project interbreeds in the wild and they should all be bred as such . If this is your stance I'd really like to see some info to back that up. I've seen none so far.
I asked already Adam. How many other single populations have ever been found to be this polymorphic? Because if you look at all the pics , they are nothing if not polymorphic pictures.

[RichFrye]

Hey Rich,

Perhaps you should wait till you can see the pictures, before insinuating the frogs are from different populations. You can tell quite obviously that some frogs have alleles from both populations.

Can you see pictures on other sites?
http://www.understoryenterprises.com/fr ... -sylvatica
http://www.wikiri.com.ec/productos/ecua ... ticus.html

On Wikiri's site, the first frog that looks like a Puerto Quito, isn't a Paru.

I've seen plenty of the pics Adam. How many pics have you seen from this Paru area? And how many would you guess to be quite different phenotypes? I'm insinuating nothing. I'm saying exactly what I mean and how I feel. You say to mix because it's a good thing. But, you are not exactly sure how to mix what. Or are you saying each and every frog from this project interbreeds in the wild and they should all be bred as such . If this is your stance I'd really like to see some info to back that up. I've seen none so far.
I asked already Adam. How many other single populations have ever been found to be this polymorphic? Because if you look at all the pics , they are nothing if not polymorphic pictures.

[MPepper]

There are some over-complications at work here. Nobody, as in no human decided that these frogs go together in this group or that. Millions of years of evolution and pressures of one form or another resulted in a unique population of frogs populating the Chocoan forests where the Otokiki reserve owned and managed by WIKIRI is situated. There are no breeding groups in the traditional sense rather managed plots of about 1 hectare where many bromeliads and artificial sites are added, and frogs are then left to breed in situ. The plots are carefully monitored by WIKIRI biologists and metamorphs are collected and reared further in Quito prior to export. This is frog ranching in situ.

To add some more to what Chuck (Manuran) was detailing, I will post part of a pm I sent to CBreon explaining this. Hopefully this will add further clarity.

“I still think you are interpreting what I am saying somewhat incorrectly. I feel the limited access the hobby has had to these frogs coupled with even less actual field experience (with sylvatica) has resulted in a very skewed understanding of their natural biogeography and distribution. There are no "4" populations that directly contribute to these “Paru” frogs, rather certain animals displays traits commonly attributed by hobbyists generally to other populations. But you need to understand that our understanding of current "populations" is in part an artifact of human interference. "Populations" are now restricted/isolated largely due to generations of habitat destruction and resource extraction. We have no way of knowing where the historical transition points would have been where the dominant phenotypes shift from one to another. What you see at the Otokiki reserve is a naturally variable population that may well have been one of these transitional points.

If you want a visual, just pull up a map of Ecuador, and Look for Alto Tambo (nearest villiage to Otokiki, and then look for names familiar in the hobby such as Lita and San Lorenzo and then consider their relation to Alto Tambo.”

Hopefully that helps clarify further.

mark

[RichFrye]

I'm not sure if this will clarify what I mean by pockets, but I'll try. In regards to the San Lorenzo types, the frogs could regularly be found associated with patches (pockets) of large Heliconia which seemed to be their phytotelmata of choice. Maybe at times not in values that we normally deal in, but I'm sure there is migration going on sometimes quickly and other times slowly as new stands of Heliconias sprout and as old stands "move" through vegetative growth, or even disappear through death. The San Lorenzo are very similar looking over a very large range. As for the Paru, I have never seen them in the wild myself, but have been told that the multiple phenotypes all live in the same relatively small area and are seen to interact with one another. I would be quite surprised to hear that a variety of different phenotypes of the same species occur together without breeding. I would think that the range of the diversity would lead one to believe the opposite is happening. Anyway, I'm not an expert concerning the distribution of this frog, and certainly not concerning the Paru. I just wanted to contribute what I know of the area and to also say that I have faith in Mark and Luis that they understand the situation in Paru better than I.
By the way, my name is Chuck

Thanks Chuck.
As I understand it, interbreeding polymorphic dart populations are almost unheard of. It is not yet set in stone what constitutes a single , loan dart breeding population in many cases. But generally when I hear of several very distinct phenotypes in one general area I am looking for barriers that are separating them to an extent they produce different phenotypes. Not expecting them to all be interbreeding .

[RichFrye]

There are some over-complications at work here. Nobody, as in no human decided that these frogs go together in this group or that. Millions of years of evolution and pressures of one form or another resulted in a unique population of frogs populating the Chocoan forests where the Otokiki reserve owned and managed by WIKIRI is situated. There are no breeding groups in the traditional sense rather managed plots of about 1 hectare where many bromeliads and artificial sites are added, and frogs are then left to breed in situ. The plots are carefully monitored by WIKIRI biologists and metamorphs are collected and reared further in Quito prior to export. This is frog ranching in situ.

To add some more to what Chuck (Manuran) was detailing, I will post part of a pm I sent to CBreon explaining this. Hopefully this will add further clarity.

“I still think you are interpreting what I am saying somewhat incorrectly. I feel the limited access the hobby has had to these frogs coupled with even less actual field experience (with sylvatica) has resulted in a very skewed understanding of their natural biogeography and distribution. There are no "4" populations that directly contribute to these “Paru” frogs, rather certain animals displays traits commonly attributed by hobbyists generally to other populations. But you need to understand that our understanding of current "populations" is in part an artifact of human interference. "Populations" are now restricted/isolated largely due to generations of habitat destruction and resource extraction. We have no way of knowing where the historical transition points would have been where the dominant phenotypes shift from one to another. What you see at the Otokiki reserve is a naturally variable population that may well have been one of these transitional points.

If you want a visual, just pull up a map of Ecuador, and Look for Alto Tambo (nearest villiage to Otokiki, and then look for names familiar in the hobby such as Lita and San Lorenzo and then consider their relation to Alto Tambo.”

Hopefully that helps clarify further.

mark

Thanks Mark,

I think the question for all interested should be, would you say without any doubt you would breed any frog produced with any other regardless of phenotype?
Would you breed like to like or think that these are all interbreeding to the extent they need to be mixed phenotypically for the good of the gene pool?
It sounds as if human intervention (not natural) may be one major issue causing the polymorphism seen. With that, I'd stick with my suggestion of same to same.

Thanks,
Rich