THE DATABASE (as at 31.10.98)
John Skillcorn
Like them or loath them, databases are here to stay. They are far too useful and efficient to be disregarded. Since I put together the BDG database of members’ details (to assist me in sending out Newsletters – and nothing more) I have begun to realise how under-used it is. Bearing in mind the amount of work I have had to put into its creation, it gets very little use, which is a shame.
However, to some extent I am going to try and correct that now, and let you know some of the things about our membership that you may have wanted to know, but:
a) You were too afraid to ask; or
b) You couldn’t be bothered to ask; or
c) You are so insular that you couldn’t care less whoever else is a member and care even less where they are or what they are keeping!
You might be one or all of these, but aren’t you just a little curious?
In spite of that grimace, I’ll assume the answer is a bemoaned ‘I suppose so’, so here goes:
We have 87 names on the database.
66 of these are paid-up members.
23 of these 66 have no frogs registered.
The membership maintains 29 different species of frog (ignoring subspecies, with the exception of E. anthonyi).
The allocation of genera is as follows:
Colostethus: 4 members keeping 2 species;
Dendrobates: 34 members keeping 12 species;
Phyllobates: 11 members keeping 3 species;
Epipedobates: 14 members keeping 2 species;
Mantella: 19 members keeping 10 species.
Frog species are distributed among the membership as follows. I apologise if the genera are out of date, but I have no recent information to hand. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.
|
Species |
Total |
Kept in UK |
Kept in USA |
Other |
|
C. olmoni |
1 |
1 |
||
|
C. trinitatis |
4 |
4 |
||
|
D. auratus |
25 |
23 |
2 |
|
|
D. azureus |
9 |
7 |
2 |
|
|
D. fantasticus |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
D. histrionicus |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
D. imitator |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
D. lehmanni |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
D. leucomelas |
13 |
13 |
||
|
D. pumilio |
4 |
4 |
||
|
D. reticulatus |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
D. tinctorius |
20 |
17 |
2 |
Australia 1 |
|
D. truncatus |
16 |
14 |
2 |
|
|
D. ventrimaculatus |
10 |
8 |
2 |
|
|
E. anthonyi |
1 |
1 |
||
|
E. tricolor |
13 |
12 |
1 |
|
|
M. aurantiaca |
12 |
12 |
||
|
M. betsilio |
3 |
3 |
||
|
M. cowani |
6 |
6 |
||
|
M. crocea |
9 |
9 |
||
|
M. expectata |
2 |
2 |
||
|
M. laevigata |
3 |
3 |
||
|
M. madagascariensis |
7 |
7 |
||
|
M. marojezy |
1 |
1 |
||
|
M. pulchra |
4 |
4 |
||
|
M. viridis |
5 |
5 |
||
|
P. bicolor |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
P. trivittatus |
3 |
3 |
||
|
P. vittatus |
8 |
8 |
There are no doubt species listed here that you would like to keep and breed. What I have not told you is who is keeping them. That, I at least consider, is a private matter. I know there are people who would disagree with me. What I can do, however, is respond to any enquiries I receive by handing on names and telephone numbers to breeders. It will then be their choice whether or not they respond. This brings me on to the final matter I wish to discuss.
The database is useless unless it is kept up to date. Could I please urge you to respond by letting me have, via Mick Bajcar, the update form attached to the letter enclosed with your Newsletter. This is most important, as we can not be a viable group unless we know what species are abundant and which are in short supply. This information, I can guarantee you, will be kept in the strictest confidence.
