Genus vs. Specie

[pyxieBob]

possible, I think that's just the nature of any Ceratophrys tho. because sky blue babies that fade to seafoam isn't very drastic, not drastic like a bright green baby into a fully brown adult. it's more like how much the albinos fade. maybe even less of a fade than albinos


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?5vdwfv

[GrifTheGreat]

possible, I think that's just the nature of any Ceratophrys tho. because sky blue babies that fade to seafoam isn't very drastic, not drastic like a bright green baby into a fully brown adult. it's more like how much the albinos fade. maybe even less of a fade than albinos


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?5vdwfv

Perhaps their DNA and genetics isn't to far from the way Albinos are. Maybe they lack a color that causes them to appear blue. Loki was Olive Green and is turning a mix or green/tan/brown/and almost a white in some of his highlites.

[IvoryReptiles]

Okay, we have been breeding for a few years now and have kept some holdbacks......we have greens that have remained green to adulthood. The coloring does change somewhat, but they are still green. I am talking about our cranwelli. I have seen fading & intensifying of all the colors we have gotten. Some dull out, some get brighter. Albeit, we have none that are as green as an Apple, but they are predominately green.

That does it......we are gonna try for an Orwell!! LOL

[GrifTheGreat]

Okay, we have been breeding for a few years now and have kept some holdbacks......we have greens that have remained green to adulthood. The coloring does change somewhat, but they are still green. I am talking about our cranwelli. I have seen fading & intensifying of all the colors we have gotten. Some dull out, some get brighter. Albeit, we have none that are as green as an Apple, but they are predominately green.

That does it......we are gonna try for an Orwell!! LOL

Lol! Do it Jess. I've seen a coupke pics of different ones and they look really colorful.

[pyxieBob]

hopefully we know the secret one day. he said he created this phase over 10 years ago. but the random mutants are the dead give away it's not totally natural


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?irmn4q

[GrifTheGreat]

hopefully we know the secret one day. he said he created this phase over 10 years ago. but the random mutants are the dead give away it's not totally natural


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?irmn4q

Hopefully the. Mutants don't have weakened imune system.

[pyxieBob]

I bet they do, those rainbow trout I spoke of have lots of weird quirks


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ci0blo

[GrifTheGreat]

I bet they do, those rainbow trout I spoke of have lots of weird quirks


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ci0blo

I'm not surprised. The mutants are probably a combination of all the rejected cells and recessive traits.

[SkeletalFrog]

Anybody in need of, or know an individual in need of a topic for their biology dissertation? (hey- possible paper-publication here...)

Pacman's seem to be a great candidate for reclassification (original Genus was described in 1824).

Ceratophrys Cranwelli (Genus/specie) by definition would only be able to breed with (and have viable young) other Ceratophrys Cranwelli (and sub-species of).
If, as I understand it, a "samurai blue" is a cross between Ceratophrys Cranwelli and Ceratophrys Ornata, then they should be grouped as sub-species in a new species category (Ornwelli ?)- whereas Ceratophrys Cornuta- wich is unable to produce viable offspring when crossed with another variant (resulting in "fantasys") would be correctly placed in it's current taxonomical position.

I always found this topic intriguing when I bred Lichanura Trivirgata and Labeotropheus Trewavasae/Fuelleborni.

Technically, it's always "species", both singular and plural, like "sheep" or "moose".

Also, the definition of "species" doesn't necessarily hinge on total incompatability. Generally speaking, species do not interbreed, but there are numerous exceptions, including species which do interbreed to form "hybrid zones" in certain areas. If they are isolated, this can be through numerous mechanisms, including incompatibilities that don't show up in captivity, such as slightly different breeding seasons, as well as infertile hybrids or even just hybrids that aren't as capable of survival in the wild as the parents.

An extreme example is actually a side-project I have with one of more genetics-oriented evolution faculty here, involving cross-genus hybrids (Lampropeltis getula californiae X Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) which not only do just fine in captivity, but are fertile as well. The two lineages have been separated for ~18 million years, yet still form fertile hybrids.

[GrifTheGreat]

Technically, it's always "species", both singular and plural, like "sheep" or "moose".

Also, the definition of "species" doesn't necessarily hinge on total incompatability. Generally speaking, species do not interbreed, but there are numerous exceptions, including species which do interbreed to form "hybrid zones" in certain areas. If they are isolated, this can be through numerous mechanisms, including incompatibilities that don't show up in captivity, such as slightly different breeding seasons, as well as infertile hybrids or even just hybrids that aren't as capable of survival in the wild as the parents.

An extreme example is actually a side-project I have with one of more genetics-oriented evolution faculty here, involving cross-genus hybrids (Lampropeltis getula californiae X Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) which not only do just fine in captivity, but are fertile as well. The two lineages have been separated for ~18 million years, yet still form fertile hybrids.

That's very interesting.

[cali]

Technically, it's always "species"...

Ya, that quip was hit-or-miss at work too.



The Pantherophis/ Lampropeltis/ Elaphe debate is an excellent example. They have been shuffled and re-shuffled since discovery- there are multiple arguments being played out as we speak to re-classify their current nomenclature.

Given that the native range of Ornates and Cranwells overlap- if young are viable, then they would be geographical subs.
DNA from local-specific specimens would be great, but I'm not trying to burn up a grant here- simply asking for a general consensus.

[SkeletalFrog]

Given that the native range of Ornates and Cranwells overlap- if young are viable, then they would be geographical subs.
DNA from local-specific specimens would be great, but I'm not trying to burn up a grant here- simply asking for a general consensus.

Not necessarily. The are plenty of clearly morphologically divergent species with overlapping ranges and intermittent hybridization, including the very icons of evolution, Darwin's finches. Hybridization is not a disqualifier for species status.

So far, we only have evidence that they can sometimes hybridize under captive conditions (potentially with mixed success). They may not hybridize in the wild at all due to slightly different breeding times or preferred congregation areas or call preferences, etc. Even if they do, if the hybrids are strongly weeded out of the gene pool, gene flow will be minimal. Heck, even if the hybrids are just as strong, they could be infertile or just never manage to mate because their call has the wrong frequency for either parent (frog mating responses are *strongly* tuned to specific call frequencies).


However, a bit of googling turned up a conclusive answer, in this paper: 1320 Cranial morphology and karyotypic analysis of Ceratophrys joazeirensis (Anura: Ceratophryidae, Ceratophrynae): taxonomic considerations | Mendeley (full version here: http://ecoevo.com.br/alunos/ana_paul...otaxa_2006.pdf)

Basically, ornata is octoploid, while cranwelli is diploid. Any hybrid's cells would therefore have unpaired chromosomes, preventing meiosis and rendering the hybrids totally infertile.

[GrifTheGreat]

Not necessarily. The are plenty of clearly morphologically divergent species with overlapping ranges and intermittent hybridization, including the very icons of evolution, Darwin's finches. Hybridization is not a disqualifier for species status.

So far, we only have evidence that they can sometimes hybridize under captive conditions (potentially with mixed success). They may not hybridize in the wild at all due to slightly different breeding times or preferred congregation areas or call preferences, etc. Even if they do, if the hybrids are strongly weeded out of the gene pool, gene flow will be minimal. Heck, even if the hybrids are just as strong, they could be infertile or just never manage to mate because their call has the wrong frequency for either parent (frog mating responses are *strongly* tuned to specific call frequencies).


However, a bit of googling turned up a conclusive answer, in this paper: 1320 Cranial morphology and karyotypic analysis of Ceratophrys joazeirensis (Anura: Ceratophryidae, Ceratophrynae): taxonomic considerations | Mendeley (full version here: http://ecoevo.com.br/alunos/ana_paul...otaxa_2006.pdf)

Basically, ornata is octoploid, while cranwelli is diploid. Any hybrid's cells would therefore have unpaired chromosomes, preventing meiosis and rendering the hybrids totally infertile.

So basically its saying that Cranwells can only breed with their own kind to produce offspring that are fertile and if they breed with a any other Ceratophrys. The young are to be infertile? So that would conclued that all Fantacy Frogs are mules? Ornates can reproduce with othe Ceratophrys and still produce fertile young?

[SkeletalFrog]

I don't know about *any* other Ceratophrys - they don't mention the chromosome numbers for cornuta, testudo or calcarata. But they at least have the same chromosome numbers as aurita and joazeirensis.

But there's a lot more to hybridization than fertility, and there could be other genetic incompatabilities even between species with the same number of chromosomes.

[Namio]

Technically, it's always "species", both singular and plural, like "sheep" or "moose".

Also, the definition of "species" doesn't necessarily hinge on total incompatability. Generally speaking, species do not interbreed, but there are numerous exceptions, including species which do interbreed to form "hybrid zones" in certain areas. If they are isolated, this can be through numerous mechanisms, including incompatibilities that don't show up in captivity, such as slightly different breeding seasons, as well as infertile hybrids or even just hybrids that aren't as capable of survival in the wild as the parents.

An extreme example is actually a side-project I have with one of more genetics-oriented evolution faculty here, involving cross-genus hybrids (Lampropeltis getula californiae X Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) which not only do just fine in captivity, but are fertile as well. The two lineages have been separated for ~18 million years, yet still form fertile hybrids.

Just because two species are capable of interbreeding does not make them the same species. Reproduction compatibility or capability are not the only deciding factors in terms of species definition. There are 500 species of cichlid fishes living in the (same) African Great Lake, all of which are capable of producing viable offspring and yet they don't do it in nature. In coastal northern California (where I live), we have northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora) and California red-legged frog (Rana aurora) who were once considered as one single species but two subspecies until 2004 when Shaffer et al. did a phylogenetic study to show that they are in fact of separate lineages, despite in the overlap zone in Medocino County where the two species meet they do hybridize.

There are many definitions of "species" in the science world and most scientists cannot agree upon on one. That is because evolution is a continuous and dynamic process. What we call a "species" is quite arbitrary.

[pyxieBob]

100% correct any the species spelling lol


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?mdp2zo

[pyxieBob]

About * not Any* stupid brown frog auto text!


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?hw5toh

[GrifTheGreat]

About * not Any* stupid brown frog auto text!


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?hw5toh

Hey the Brown frog isn't to blame here. You have too many green frogs and the lack of a brown is affecting you and your equipment. Come on Bobby, even out the collection with a nice Chocolate Chacoan. You'll feel better and you'll spell better. Your phone will work for you too.

[pyxieBob]

yes exactly. In readable terms that aren't boring and total conjecture... Samurai blues are not mixed with anything. Doesn't mean at all the something fishy wasn't done to make them blue but they are pure 100% Crans. Griff is exactly right abt the fact of it not being possible to never show traits of the other half of its genealogy.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?peqh4r

[pyxieBob]

Ya Rotts were wolves just as poodles were ,correct. this was 1,000s and 1,000's of years ago. blue pacmans were produced TEN YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! your dog theory does not apply here. not even close. they are not crossed w Ornates or any other type. The blue seafoam color was maintained through HEREDITARY FIXATION. Yusuke is easy going and easy to find. ask him all abt it. He may not be willing to give up the secret that made them and I don't blame him. but he's not lying abt them being Cranwellis.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?cb2osh