'Paru' Oophaga sylvatica - PICS !

[thedude]

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.

Rich I really don't see what you are saying here. Exactly what population of Dendrobatidae doesn't have AT LEAST 2 phenotypically distinct morphs occurring within the same geographic area?

What info would you like me to provide for you? The frogs are farmed in situ within the populations range. The frogs that are in the farm are all native to the area, and from what we have seen are extremely variable. Some of these frogs look like what hobbyists call "Litas", some look like what hobbyists call "San Lorenzos", and a lot look like a blend of the 2 morphs. The fact they look like a blend is a good indication that these 2 morphs have mixed alleles. I don't really know why that is being questioned by you.

As far as Oophaga populations being polymorphic, there are El Pangan (white foot, koi, narino) sylvatica, Chiriqui Grande pumilio, Loma Partida pumilio, Buena Esperanza pumilio, Anchicaya Valley histrionica, lehmanni, Quebrada Guangui sylvatica, Bilsa sylvatica, Uyama River pumilio, Rio Branco pumilio, and many more.

Mark sent me 3 sylvatica from the Paru population that are phenotypically different. They will be mixed together as they are in the wild.

[ChrisK]

As far as Oophaga populations being polymorphic, there are El Pangan (white foot, koi, narino) sylvatica, Chiriqui Grande pumilio, Loma Partida pumilio, Buena Esperanza pumilio, Anchicaya Valley histrionica, lehmanni, Quebrada Guangui sylvatica, Bilsa sylvatica, Uyama River pumilio, Rio Branco pumilio, and many more.

Yeah I forgot about the Uyamas - if we go back and look at JP's thread on DB (not sure if linking to it on here is still disabled), some look like Rich's Uyamas, some are mostly blue, some are mostly yellowish, etc.

[thedude]

Yeah I forgot about the Uyamas - if we go back and look at JP's thread on DB (not sure if linking to it on here is still disabled), some look like Rich's Uyamas, some are mostly blue, some are mostly yellowish, etc.

Ya exactly. I was thinking of his thread with the Lomas as well.

[RichFrye]

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.

Rich I really don't see what you are saying here. Exactly what population of Dendrobatidae doesn't have AT LEAST 2 phenotypically distinct morphs occurring within the same geographic area?


What info would you like me to provide for you? The frogs are farmed in situ within the populations range. The frogs that are in the farm are all native to the area, and from what we have seen are extremely variable. Some of these frogs look like what hobbyists call "Litas", some look like what hobbyists call "San Lorenzos", and a lot look like a blend of the 2 morphs. The fact they look like a blend is a good indication that these 2 morphs have mixed alleles. I don't really know why that is being questioned by you.

As far as Oophaga populations being polymorphic, there are El Pangan (white foot, koi, narino) sylvatica, Chiriqui Grande pumilio, Loma Partida pumilio, Buena Esperanza pumilio, Anchicaya Valley histrionica, lehmanni, Quebrada Guangui sylvatica, Bilsa sylvatica, Uyama River pumilio, Rio Branco pumilio, and many more.

Mark sent me 3 sylvatica from the Paru population that are phenotypically different. They will be mixed together as they are in the wild.

Let me explain one more time what polymorphic means.
Yes, there are a few different colors of Uyams, yes there are color variations of certain other frogs, but NO, there are not several very different phenotypes within one population.
If you look at an almost red escudo and and almost all blue escudo and you look at the mean , because there actually is a mean in the breeding population, you will be able to tell them as escudo by size, shape, patten (not just color) and call. If you are able to tell them as the same because there is just a bit of a color tweak, they are not truly polymorphic. Another example. The koi/whitefoot are yet another human name arbitrarily place on are huge population. Whether they all breed together as one group or not is yet to be proven. I say doubtful, but, I can look (distinct visual recognition) at a pic of several koi/whitefoot and say "oh, nice koi/whitefoot"...pretty much every time.
Many /most/all of the locales you mention are again without noted barriers or noted boundaries and may also in fact be in need of further division for proper breeding.

Now, until Mark answers how he would breed these frogs which have been noted to have been at least in part humanly manipulated, at least at some point in time, I'd wait to see how he suggests breeding all these different phenotypes before I placed them together in-viv.
And last, as I stated many times, I can't see the pics here , so I have no idea how they are being mixed, shipped or bred today.
I hope this is more clear than my last umpteen posts on the matter. My interest is that down the line I may be interested in trading for some CB offspring. But they will almost certainly not be of mixed phenotype if I go through with any future trades fro them.

[MPepper]

I guess that depends on how you view a morph – so your definination or designation of polymorphism attributed to any given population might be very different than Adam’s or Chris’s simply due to what “value” you place on the variations of colour or pattern within a certain population and how you perceive them. Nobody is necessarily correct or incorrect in these assessments.
We need to remember that we have no/or very little historical data that goes much beyond what Chuck mentioned he saw in his travels. Unfortunately, there were no broad, comprehensive surveys of the populations of sylvatica throughout the Ecuadorian Choco at a time in history which would have allowed us more or less an accurate insight. The only person(s) working in depth in the Ecuadorian Choco at a time when this might have been feasible was Duellman and his groups when they made their monutmental collections based out of Santa Cecilia. I imagine they were too busy documenting new species to worry about the colour variations of what was assuredly at the time a widespread common species of poison frog. What we are seeing in these frogs now, and in the populations that remain is just one snapshot in time – one page of an epic still being written. What phenotypes dominated these populations in the past we will never know, and what they will look like 100 or 1000 years from now remains to be seen.
What we know now is what the frogs at Otokiki look like today. They are all there together in the same patch of forest, breeding, thriving.
What will I do with my Paru frogs – I will do three things, I will group up some like with like, and some unlike with unlike – and I will see what happens. Most importantly I will enjoy the heck out of them, it is an opportunity I have waited a long time for. Whatever anyone else chooses to do with their Paru is completely at their discretion. Hopefully everyone enjoys them and appreciates the work on WIKIRI's end that made this possible.

kind regards to all,
mark

[RichFrye]

Mark,
is it possible to explain to us how these hectare plots were decided and how each group fits in to the plots. Are there plots with all one phenotype, or are they all a mixed bag? Have frogs been moved, or are there just plots which get more attention to added breeding helpers?
Seems that the popualtion is more attributed to human intervention than genetic drift.
Thanks,
Rich

[MPepper]

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.

[RichFrye]

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.

Mark,
so, are no frogs moved on purpose by humans for this project, just breeding aids are placed in certain plots?
I'm still trying to figure out if/how one single breeding population , which all interbreeds, and all produced greatly varying phenotypes is possible. Especially when I read and hear there are true pockets of certain single phenotypes isolated and breeding true in the 'paru' range.
If it is because of movement due to recent human intervention (being actual frog movement by the hands of humans or roads, buildings , damns or whatever being built and shifting populations by human activity) this makes sense, and is not a natural occurrence.
If the huge phenotypical difference known are due to genetic drift, it is the first occurrence in such huge magnitude as I've not seen anything remotely close to this. And others have yet to point out any true breeding populations which do the same and /or are remotely as varied.

Human intervention by removing frogs from the wild vs. human intervention to move genes around in the wild are two quite different matters, not related.

[MPepper]

Rich,
I am pretty sure the answers you seek about this population and how it came to be may only to be found in the Choco, and from your interpretations of what you may see there. I have explained that neither I, nor anyone else has an account of the historical phenotypical distribution through the Chocoan entirety therefore we have an extremely difficult if not impossible time determining or knowing precicely how or why populations come to express one phenotype or the other in any given area.

"Paru" is a name given to these Otokiki frogs by WIKIRI. I don't know that anyone has yet to define the range of these "Paru" enough to determine whether pockets are breeding within this range or not, and again the term range is highly subjective itself.

Like I said, the frogs in the plots, were already in the reserve. I do not know which frogs were moved from one side of the fence or another to complete the desired breeding population to comply with the management proposal upon which permits were granted. The humans in Ecuador and the humans at WIKIRI seek to produce frogs that represent the "population" at Otokiki. The frogs we have recieved, accurately represent what I have seen in the forest there.

I am not here to argue with you. In my opinion this is a wonderful endeavor and a unique opportunity for hobbysists. There are some world class herpetoligists involved, and I have no problem trusting their assesments.

WIKIRI has a website with lots of information, and a contact page. Fell free to contact them for any further clarifcations you desire. I have explained to you and everyone else the best I can, and I apologize if it is not satisfactory.

[RichFrye]

Thanks Mark.
And, I don't think either of us is arguing with each other. I'm stating other occurrences as I know and understand them and asking you questions because I am interested and hope the project succeeds in all aspects. Recent human movement of frogs within a breeding population or general range is very relevant discussion towards proper management for CB.
I've read the WIKIRI site in full regarding this project and may indeed need to make a few calls to answer my questions not found on the site.

Thanks again,
Rich

[Philsuma]

Thanks for personally attending to this thread Mark. I appreciate all the time you take and your dedication and follow through with these animals. Speaks volumes in my book.

Should we manage these "Paru" kind of like the eldorado pumilo, that have come in over the past couple years -with two very different body sizes and colouration....keeping similarly coloured and patterned individuals together ? There would be sufficiently differing genetics from specimens sent all over North America that should curtail any genetic bottleneck for at least many generations, I would think. There would be no need to try 'hard' to mix 'different looking individuals. It would be hard to say it was 'wrong' to do so,though...on the other hand.

[edwardsatc]

I'm still trying to figure out if/how one single breeding population , which all interbreeds, and all produced greatly varying phenotypes is possible. Especially when I read and hear there are true pockets of certain single phenotypes isolated and breeding true in the 'paru' range. .

I was under the impression that this was two overlapping populations, not one single interbreeding population. I'm not as up to date as others so perhaps my impression is wrong. If this is indeed two overlapping populations, then we are not really seeing polymorphism. What we are seeing is an intergradation between populations. The term polymorphism is reserved for variation within a single panmictic population.

If the huge phenotypical difference known are due to genetic drift, it is the first occurrence in such huge magnitude as I've not seen anything remotely close to this.

You lost me here. Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying, but genetic drift leads to reduced genetic diversity and consequently a reduction in variation, so we would not expect to see huge differences driven by drift.

If it is because of movement due to recent human intervention (being actual frog movement by the hands of humans or roads, buildings , damns or whatever being built and shifting populations by human activity) this makes sense, and is not a natural occurrence.

I do not know which frogs were moved from one side of the fence or another to complete the desired breeding population to comply with the management proposal upon which permits were granted. The humans in Ecuador and the humans at WIKIRI seek to produce frogs that represent the "population" at Otokiki.

Hmmm .... so there may be some manipulation? i fail to see how one would need to move frogs from one area to another in order to maintain an accurate "representation of the population", especially if the frogs are already in situ within that population. If this is the case, it certainly strengthens Rich's argument and a bit disappointing.

Human intervention by removing frogs from the wild vs. human intervention to move genes around in the wild are two quite different matters, not related.

An understatement. Not only not related, but with completely different outcomes.

[RichFrye]

If the huge phenotypical difference known are due to genetic drift, it is the first occurrence in such huge magnitude as I've not seen anything remotely close to this.

You lost me here. Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying, but genetic drift leads to reduced genetic diversity and consequently a reduction in variation, so we would not expect to see huge differences driven by drift.
.

You are not misreading at all. A combo of fuzzy head in the AM and improper wording on my part.

[RichFrye]

Whether to mix phenotypes or not.
Once mixing occurs you don't go back, right or wrong.
Same to same in one single generation from WC will almost undoubtedly not create a bottle neck effect , nor any other real issues I can think of. If it is eventually found that new blood should be introduced from another phenotype, it can be done .
I believe it was Dr. Summers who noted duller offspring as one of the effects of mixing known different breeding locales (different morphs) of pumilio.

[thedude]

Let me explain one more time what polymorphic means.
Yes, there are a few different colors of Uyams, yes there are color variations of certain other frogs, but NO, there are not several very different phenotypes within one population.
If you look at an almost red escudo and and almost all blue escudo and you look at the mean , because there actually is a mean in the breeding population, you will be able to tell them as escudo by size, shape, patten (not just color) and call. If you are able to tell them as the same because there is just a bit of a color tweak, they are not truly polymorphic. Another example. The koi/whitefoot are yet another human name arbitrarily place on are huge population. Whether they all breed together as one group or not is yet to be proven. I say doubtful, but, I can look (distinct visual recognition) at a pic of several koi/whitefoot and say "oh, nice koi/whitefoot"...pretty much every time.
Many /most/all of the locales you mention are again without noted barriers or noted boundaries and may also in fact be in need of further division for proper breeding.

I must be missing something here. Since when is color not a factor in polymorphism? And when exactly did size become an issue with the Paru? So far I haven't seen anyone say the ADULT sizes vary. The only thing we are talking about is color and pattern, BOTH of which have the mean you are talking about. None of mine look exactly like litas, or exactly like san lorenzos. They are obviously a mixing of both morphs. Some are expressing more color and patterns that represent one morph more than they other, but not completely.

A bit of color tweak? Like the green popas producing orange popas? That is polymorphism, as is all the other populations I mentioned. A morph doesn't have to be defined by an animal having a completely different color, pattern, and size. Polymorphism is found all throughout biology, it is very common. We even see things like sexualmorphism in Dendrobatidae, and that is a form of polymorphism.

Again I see no reason not to mix them. Even in respects to human intervention. If that did occur, it would have happened a while ago and at this point the population is what it is. Mark said they were there breeding and thriving before this project went underway.

[edwardsatc]

A bit of color tweak? Like the green popas producing orange popas? That is polymorphism, as is all the other populations I mentioned.

Not really. Most of your examples are examples of continuous variation rather than polymorphism. Let's use the Esperenzas for example. If there were just a blue or red color variant, we would consider this polymorphic. Instead we see a gradient ranging from all blue to all red, this is continuous variation.

We even see things like sexual morphism in Dendrobatidae, and that is a form of polymorphism.

You used the example of sexual dimorphism. This clearly illustrates a discrete variation and how it relates to polymorphism in that the organism is clearly either male or female and not any combination or mixture in between.

Discrete ---> polymorphic
Continuous ---> continuous variation

Donn

[thedude]

Not really. Most of your examples are examples of continuous variation rather than polymorphism. Let's use the Esperenzas for example. If there were just a blue or red color variant, we would consider this polymorphic. Instead we see a gradient ranging from all blue to all red, this is continuous variation.

Donn

Alright if we look at it that way then these frogs are not polymorphic either. As I already said, there are means -as Rich put it- to this population and a gradient can be seen.

[RichFrye]

Not really. Most of your examples are examples of continuous variation rather than polymorphism. Let's use the Esperenzas for example. If there were just a blue or red color variant, we would consider this polymorphic. Instead we see a gradient ranging from all blue to all red, this is continuous variation.

Donn

Alright if we look at it that way then these frogs are not polymorphic either. As I already said, there are means -as Rich put it- to this population and a gradient can be seen.

I think most all will disagree with you, especially if they have seen multiple pics ...and such. Time may tell. That and phone calls. I personally have time.
Show me (email) a pic of the mean please.

[SmackoftheGods]

Looks like I"m a little late to the conversation.

Not really. Most of your examples are examples of continuous variation rather than polymorphism. Let's use the Esperenzas for example. If there were just a blue or red color variant, we would consider this polymorphic. Instead we see a gradient ranging from all blue to all red, this is continuous variation.

I would say that there is a very strong "continuous variation" rather than polymorphism in these Paru. I had five sent out here. When we got them we had a few froggers look at all of the frogs. I had requested from Mark that he send out five of the most different "phenotypes" that he could. The few of us who saw all five frogs noted "these two frogs don't look at ALL like each other - however, if you throw this frog in the mix you can see how they all might be related." It's really hard to see the variation gradient when looking at two completely different animals, but when you look at these frogs on a broader scale you start seeing where the gradient comes in to play.

Rich, I wouldn't really say that these frogs have multiple distinct phenotypes. These frogs are not like some of the other frogs that have two different phenotypes (you can take bastis, with distinct phenotypes - golddust, cemetary, etc). These frogs are so variable that I think it would end up being very difficult to group these frogs into different "morphs." What can't be denied (at least in terms of what I've seen (in person)) is that there IS a gradient from one frog to another.

My choice is to mix what some are calling "phenotypes." I choose not to visually artifically select breeding groups of frogs that are interbreeding in the wild (whether they are breeding in the wild due to a natural overlapping of populations or because of human interference). And from all that I've heard from those involved in the project they ARE interbreeding in the wild. The frogs are raised in situ and a hectare isn't exactly a big plot of land for a frog population.

Furthermore, my choice comes from one piece of information above all others (one that seems to have been overlooked in this thread) - those involved in the project. The people involved aren't arbitrary importers importing frogs into the hobby for the money of it. This project is being hosted be conservation groups and hobbyists (Mark Pepper happens to be both). I can see an importer who's in it for the money finding whatever way he can to present the hobby with a a highly variable frog even if it means lying about their origin. I can't see conservationists who care about the frogs and care about the hobby contributing to practices or even blindly ignoring indicators that may result in out-breeding depression.

Were there any reason to doubt the sources of the frogs or doubt the frogs' origins you'd better believe I would be the first to suggest keeping phenotypes separate. However, all the evidence that I've seen has suggested that these frogs naturally interbreed with each other, and I trust the people involved in the project. But that's just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't have a negative opinion of anyone who chose to take what they consider the safer road and keep different looking frogs separate.

[RichFrye]

I'm sorry Jake, but with an exit of ' call Ecuador for more info' ...I'm standing by my pragmatic stance.
Sometime next week I can once again break down the facts as presented, both here and on websites.

Looks like I"m a little late to the conversation.

Not really. Most of your examples are examples of continuous variation rather than polymorphism. Let's use the Esperenzas for example. If there were just a blue or red color variant, we would consider this polymorphic. Instead we see a gradient ranging from all blue to all red, this is continuous variation.

I would say that there is a very strong "continuous variation" rather than polymorphism in these Paru. I had five sent out here. When we got them we had a few froggers look at all of the frogs. I had requested from Mark that he send out five of the most different "phenotypes" that he could. The few of us who saw all five frogs noted "these two frogs don't look at ALL like each other - however, if you throw this frog in the mix you can see how they all might be related." It's really hard to see the variation gradient when looking at two completely different animals, but when you look at these frogs on a broader scale you start seeing where the gradient comes in to play.

Rich, I wouldn't really say that these frogs have multiple distinct phenotypes. These frogs are not like some of the other frogs that have two different phenotypes (you can take bastis, with distinct phenotypes - golddust, cemetary, etc). These frogs are so variable that I think it would end up being very difficult to group these frogs into different "morphs." What can't be denied (at least in terms of what I've seen (in person)) is that there IS a gradient from one frog to another.

My choice is to mix what some are calling "phenotypes." I choose not to visually artifically select breeding groups of frogs that are interbreeding in the wild (whether they are breeding in the wild due to a natural overlapping of populations or because of human interference). And from all that I've heard from those involved in the project they ARE interbreeding in the wild. The frogs are raised in situ and a hectare isn't exactly a big plot of land for a frog population.

Furthermore, my choice comes from one piece of information above all others (one that seems to have been overlooked in this thread) - those involved in the project. The people involved aren't arbitrary importers importing frogs into the hobby for the money of it. This project is being hosted be conservation groups and hobbyists (Mark Pepper happens to be both). I can see an importer who's in it for the money finding whatever way he can to present the hobby with a a highly variable frog even if it means lying about their origin. I can't see conservationists who care about the frogs and care about the hobby contributing to practices or even blindly ignoring indicators that may result in out-breeding depression.

Were there any reason to doubt the sources of the frogs or doubt the frogs' origins you'd better believe I would be the first to suggest keeping phenotypes separate. However, all the evidence that I've seen has suggested that these frogs naturally interbreed with each other, and I trust the people involved in the project. But that's just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't have a negative opinion of anyone who chose to take what they consider the safer road and keep different looking frogs separate.