So I may just be over thinking this, but if you have a breeding group of frogs from location "X", you really, in all intents and purposes, have the smallest possible representation of said local. So if I have a pair of R. imitator "chazuta's" does that mean that I loose its "incredible degree of intrapopulation variance" (from UE website) in subsequent generations? Wont subsequent generations be limited to the available gene pool available within this breeding population? Wouldn't offspring sold to other hobbyists (if sold in groups coming from the same set of parents), which might later become breeding pairs, no longer be R. imitator "chazuta's" but R. imitator "Orlando"?
If I am not mistaken isn't this a perfect example of genetic drift? By limiting the allele frequency in our breeding pairs haven't we created a new population? Is there enough variability within a single pair's DNA for their offspring to interbreed and still contain "incredible degree of intrapopulation variance" within their own subsequent generations to justify keeping their local tag? Do we as hobbyist's have guidelines for the need to mix offspring before being sold, as to keep this "local" tag or do they become intermedius without local data at that point? Or when to infuse new genes so as to keep these local tags and the variability that comes with them true to nature?
If these are questions that have been answered already in another area of the forum, could someone link it to me. Likewise if someone with a higher understanding of genetics and heritable traits wants to chyme in and clarify this for me as I am new to this hobby and have not taken genetics in school yet, I would be very grateful seriously even if you dont want to explain it to me but tell me what book/s to read so that I do understand these questions, that would be even better
ps: I am just curious, I am not even sure if what I just wrote is correct and I dont even have frogs yet... but when I do get mine I want to breed them, so these are all questions that ran through my mind.
After skimming through, there is only a few mentions of this in the "Poision Fogs Biology, Species & Captive Care by Stefan Lotters, Karl-Heinz Jungler, Fredrich Wilhelm Henkel and Wolfgang Schmidt,"
Unfortunately, this book was printed in 2007 but is worth a read. Check it out at your public library and see what you think before buying it.
Much of what we see as "an incredible degree of intrapopulation variance" is an individual phenotypical display of the individual frogs genes. These frogs still maintain a genotype with the alleles for the variation in color/pattern that can vary greatly from one froglet to another from their offspring. The best example I have of this would be the "standard" population of Oophaga pumilio 'Bastimentos'. While you may have a pair of the "Gold Dust" color Basti's, they still carry the genes for the entire color/pattern range of their morph--and will frequently produce offspring that are orange, red, green, etc.
Now, if we took those same Oophaga pumilio 'Bastimentos' (gold dust color), bred them, and then kept only the "gold dust" color offspring--and continued to line breed them (or bred them with othe successive generations of the same phenotypical display) eventually you would breed out the genetic diversity. This is why a number of breeders and hobbyists lobby so hard against breeding for a specific trait (micro-spot Azureus, or "lemon drop" Tincs are good examples of breeding a specific trait within a locale).
The best way to prevent this type of genetic bottleneck is to try and produce offspring from as many of the wild-caugtht individuals as possible, and even "change partners" within this WC group in order to produce as diverse of an F1 population as possible. The next step is to set up breeding pairs of F1 frogs from different WC parents, and also vary the breeding group of the F1's to produce a different genotype within the F2 generation. Using these methods, you won't eliminate the restrictions in your genetic pool--but will at least reduce the restrictions as much as possible.
RarePlantBroker: Thank you for the quick response! That clarifies a lot for me.
I was pretty sure that within an individuals genetic makeup, they carried more than their phenotypicly displayed allele sets, but what I wasn't sure of was just how much variation within that individuals genome would still account for and represent the natural populations. So thank you for clearing that up.
I guess one of the easiest ways to limit this genetic bottleneck and subsequent genetic drift from the original populations, would be to establish breeding trio's (1.2.0), when possible I know not all species like menages , and swap males periodically. As the offspring would hopefully come from 2 sets of mothers, allowing for a little more variation in their gene pool. Also trying to establish breeding groups of dissimilar looking individuals just to aid in the variability would also help I'd assume.
Now what I still am having slight issues with is the local data associated with a frog. I do not know how detailed most breeders keep their bloodline info's, partially because I haven't arrived at that stage of the hobby yet (so if this is something that is widely practiced please let me know), but without the infusion of new genetic material, or without "anal" record keeping, at what F(x) generation would frogs cease to be local specific and become nominant? There has to be a limit, where frogs so distantly removed from their local, cease to be representative of their wild/local counterparts, at least genetically.
For example I have cherry red shrimp, and they just do their thing, I dont select for color, I dont add pigment enhancing foods, I just watch them. But I have noticed that every generation seems to be getting more vibrant and red. Now I could easily line breed for sakura reds (larger more vibrantly colored variation), but it almost seems to me that they are doing this on their own. So at what stage do my new cherry red shrimp become sakura reds?
Beth: thank you for moving this to the advanced thread so as to get (hopefully) a good advanced discussion going with some of the more experienced hobbyists. I have thumbed through "Poision Frogs Biology, Species & Captive Care by Stefan Lotters, Karl-Heinz Jungler, Fredrich Wilhelm Henkel and Wolfgang Schmidt," but have not yet sat down and read it, it does look like a good foundation for anyone interested in more scientific info about these frogs. I will see if I can borrow dom's copy or check the UCF library for it. At the moment I am rereading my biology book to see if it might shed more light, and plan on taking genetics to see if that will also spark ideas (i mean there is no point in going to school if one cant apply it to what they are passionate about, while at the same time getting prepared for the MCATs xD).
Hopefully more people will chyme in so that we can pool our scientific/experience knowledge
This is a great topic and one I was just trying to figure out today via p.m. with breeders. There seems to be a lot inconsistencies in the hobby about what is appropriate to breed with what due to imbreeding, population geography, and line breeding for color. I will be watching this topic.
This is really an easy/beginner topic. But a very good topic to discuss, and one which should be easily digested.
Without over thinking what does , has, and will happen within our U.S. hobby ( and with my mantra of "all things equal"), it is ideal to have a founding group (founding group being one that with proper management and husbandry practices can continue to be a viable line within our hobby for the long haul. Long haul being longer than the average human lifespan. ) ...It takes 'x' amount of unrelated stock to long term establish a line survivable for the long haul. Exactly what 'x' = is determined by the relatedness of founding stock, and ability to inbreed 'x' generations without showing effects to the neggative (and possible positive) from said inbreeding .
If we assume that there will be a small percentage of related stock with founding members and we 'build in' for those percentages we will get a decent idea of essential founding stock numbers. In other words, if we know it will take 15 unrelated breeding pairs to absolutely establish foundation stock to last until Jeebus comes home, and we know there may be (for argument's sake) a possible 10% related factor, thenn we need to at the very least build in that 10% plus the possible death related subtractions.
Beyond that it is simpl;e tracking of breeding and breeding the least related amoungst a known breeding locale . The HUGE bolded factor being the very most importan tthige here. If, if you know the exact locale, and you can eventually go back or better yet, start with the right info and numbers, then you can properly manage and breed whatever stock you have until the cows come home.
It's not easy, cheap, or common place, ...but it's 100% doable, being done now, and the only real roadblocks are the mass of people ( most of the hobby as it sits now...unfortunately) who constantly want the cheapest the quickest the easiest flash 'solution/s'.
2Likes
Genetic drift and local data within the hobby?
seriously even if you dont want to explain it to me but tell me what book/s to read so that I do understand these questions, that would be even better 
, and swap males periodically. As the offspring would hopefully come from 2 sets of mothers, allowing for a little more variation in their gene pool. Also trying to establish breeding groups of dissimilar looking individuals just to aid in the variability would also help I'd assume.
Linear Mode
