Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What constitutes a “locality specific” alterna?

Has this subject been hashed out on this forum before? If so then please pardon my ignorance. But I’m sitting in my room at the Outback waiting for sundown and had some time to kill so I thought I would throw this out and see what everyone thinks. Is there any standard for determining locality specific alterna yet? I was wondering because I’ve heard peoples opinions vary from general locality like saying “It’s a Langtry or River Road” if it’s found anywhere in the vicinity to exact locality like “It’s a 9 mile north Sanderson from the second cut on the right”. The reason I’m throwing this out there is I’m wondering if you breed a 3 mile west Sanderson to a 1 mile east Sanderson would you call it “generic” or “Sanderson” or “generic Sanderson” or Terrell County Generic? Or what? Another example is the River Road. It’s about 50 miles long so if you breed 2 River Road alterna found 20 miles apart are they River Road or “River Road generic”? If so then if you breed Sanderson’s or Langtry’s 5, 10 or 15 miles apart are they still Sanderson’s or Langtry’s? I would like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this.

To me it means from a specific area and from there you go either general locality or tight locality. Myself I prefer the snakes be close enough that their could realisticly be gene flow within a span of 3 or 4 generations. It is nice to be able to say the actual adults could have met in the wild but if only their offspring reasonably could have that's good enough for me.

I think your definition/ideas is the most reasonable - if the snakes are part of the same gene pool and they could reasonably have their offspring in contact within 3-4 generations makes a lot more sense to me than "same exact cut no matter what" . . .

Troy

I don't care about anyone else's definitions of 'locality' because they are as various as the number of people asked, but I can say that my Lampropeltis alterna are paired from the same road cut or they don't get bred until a suitable mate from the same cut comes along. My view is that if the two animals could naturally locate one another within a season of activity, then they are likely geographically matched as potential mates.

As adults, females advertise their reproductive condition and receptivity through scent deposition as they move about, and males consequently locate them by detecting and following this scent 'trail'. I seriously doubt that this extends more than a few hundred meters at best, depending on environmental conditions and species behavior, and would occur within the female's home range. If her home range overlaps with one or more males, then it is reasonable to expect that a male will locate the female in her territory and possibly copulate with her.

After spending years sampling lizards and snakes in mark/recapture studies, my experience tells me that most of these animals do not move far in linear distance in a temporal context. They do not just take off in a straight line and travel for miles in a single direction as though on a mission. Exceptions to this do occur with snakes that have been displaced through human intervention aka 'relocation' as evidenced by 'homing' behavior in rattlesnakes. Erika Nowak did a good study on displaced rattlesnake behavior in Arizona.

To summarize, captive breeding of individuals from miles apart, even within contiguous habitat, ignores the significant aspects of behavior affecting mate selection and thus would constitute nothing more than producing deli-cup snake show mutts. If your interest is what is reasonable to expect from geographically-matched matings, I would avoid breeding animals from discontinuous capture points. If not, then you have answered the question for youself.

Some people will get heartburn from these remarks I'm sure, but what occurs in the wild and what we as humans choose to do with captive animals is seldom parallel to nature.

That's my $.02 worth.

PS--As an example, I have a female L. alterna from 1 mi. E Sanderson who has no suitable mate. I will continue to wait until she does before attempting captive-breeding her.

Hey Bob,

Just curious, but where do you draw the line? For example, some figure its 9 mi Sanderson if its on that hill (any of the series of cuts from top to bottom, S to N). Is that locale tight enough for you?

Also, the 3 mi West cut is longer than several of the cuts east of town . . .

I'm not knocking you - to each his own - but just curious when you say "same cut" how tightly you define it.

Troy

Here is my opinion, From the minute we take the snakes out of the wild they are no longer really locality specific. That snakes genes are dead to the localities gene pool from that minute on. All we are doing is producing snakes in captivity that will accurately LOOK LIKE and be genetically related to specimens from the the locality they represent.

Because they are genetically related to those from that area, they probably look like something that roamed that area sometime in the past, that's about it.

As long as the snakes come from generally the same area (road) the offspring will represent to some of what Might be or have been in the past present in that area. They are genetically similar but getting down to the same cut specific on locality is good, but really pointless, the babies are not real wild caught examples anyway.

An exception is when a pair is found actually breeding in the wild, or wild bred eggs being hatched in captivity, those babies would be ones that truly could be produced in that locality.....

That being said, locality data and matched pairs are great, and when possible stick to them as close as possible. Also keep the best records possible so the offspring produced can be valuable (not financially ) to another persons project in the future.

Locality specific can mean anything,it is just for our own reference and enjoyment. If someone has a "277" it is fine as long as it is represented as such, and if they have a red bluff, I would hope it can be traced back to w.c. parents.

Jim

>>>>
>>As long as the snakes come from generally the same area (road) the offspring will represent to some of what Might be or have been in the past present in that area. They are genetically similar but getting down to the same cut specific on locality is good, but really pointless, the babies are not real wild caught examples anyway.
>>
>>An exception is when a pair is found actually breeding in the wild, or wild bred eggs being hatched in captivity, those babies would be ones that truly could be produced in that locality.....
>>
>>>>Jim

Correct. The general area is fine when stating a locality. Snakes do travel quite far at times. Traveling miles away is not uncommon. I agree with you that it's nice to say a pair of snakes came from the exact same spot but it's not necessary.
-----
Steve W.

Hey, you know what is great about "Locality Specific", there is no rule, you could be as close or as far apart as you want. as long as you keep a record, it's specific!

I think crossing localities to see what variability you would get would be cool too, so long as they make sense - say crossing a loma and a juno or a langtry and a sanderson, or a sanderson and a gap. It wouldn't make much sense to cross a river road and a loma, but it would make interesting "generics" too.

Does anyone have examples of locality specific to locality specific crosses to share?????

Jim,
Denny Miller bred his original wild caught knockout female Black gap alterna to a male wild caught Xmas mountain back in 84 or 85 because he didn't have a male gap. I didn't see all the offspring but I saw a female baby he kept for himself [I assume pick of the litter] To me it is the best looking captive born alterna of all time. I've got alot of photos of it but they're not digital so can't show you here. If anyone else has a digital photo of it maybe they could post it?
Troy, Norm or Joe? It would make you drool! BA

I remember seeing that animal in '88 or '89. It was stunning. I have never seen a photo of it. I would love to see one and refresh my memory.

Actually I saw a riverXloma and it was awesome, light powder gray with a high number of narrow bright orange slit primaries, alternates and a speckled neck. Not a snake I would want to own but it was definitly an awesome looking grayband. I have also seen some blair's I think they were gapXchristmas that were just phenominal neon orange and steel gray.

I threw my 20 mile south alpine male on a Langtry one time. Made some pretty neat mutts.

Same cut is preferable, same area is acceptable, knowing the locality of the genetics and telling the truth about it, priceless.
Later
Rick

Hey Rick,
How about some photos of the Xmas you 'observed" this year. Inquiring eyes want to see. Congrats on your observations. BA

Hey Brad,
Check out this link to my website. It has pics of some of my "Pre Law" captives. I think the only thing on there to date is the Luna Vista.
Later
Rick
Link

Went to the link. Great homepage! Love that Juno male from the 80's. That white is intense. North of Bakers I presume? Thanks for sharing. BA

Ok Stu,

I have read all the other posts. Jimd mentioned that once a snake is pulled from the wild it no longer retains that locality. I don't agree with this. The genes within that animals do not change when we remove it from the wild, therefore it is still that "locality" based on the genetic code. (Example, very few alterna morphs in Langtry) I understand Jim's point that once we remove it, it is physically no longer that locality.

What constitutes locality. I like the idea by someone else.
Same Cut/Cut across Road = Best, Within 1/2 mile = better, Within same Mtn Range = good. This is assuming that no geological barriers exist, large flat areas, rivers, etc...

When it comes to Sanderson, I think most folks keep the East side East, the West Side West and The 9 mile North Side North...

Best Wishes,

Steven Owens

Steve, That snake that someone took from the wild has pure genes from that locality, and represents what WAS in that locality at that period in time,not what IS in that locality now or 10 years from now.

If someone releases a snake from another area into that same locality, say they release a Langtry snake in Sanderson now that snake instantly becomes what IS in that locality.

Wild found snakes (Aor or Dor) from the 50's or 60's were relatively pure locality really based on natural selection, Today there is a direct influence by man, both in removing and adding snakes to local populations,that no one can prove or disprove. I'll also just mention car traffic, which doesn't descriminate.

From the standpoint of our hobby locality specific is important, but should be kept in perspective. Honesty in the hobby is as was said "priceless"

I know I am probably thinking too much, but I think it is true. Locality populations change, they are dynamic don't you agree? Be honest with your friends and customers, accept them for what they are, snapshots in history.

Jim

I know that some folks have released snakes that they should not have. Whether or not they "tainted" the locality of the animals I don't know.

If you transplant a snake from one local to another then yes, it retains the genetics of the 'original' location. All "tainting" aside, I still believe that Sandersons are Sandersons, Rivers are Rivers and Gaps are Gaps. Honesty is and has always has been key. As I have said before, reputation is everything in our small community.

I understand where you are coming from though. Good points.

Best Wishes,

Steven Owens

>>I know that some folks have released snakes that they should not have. Whether or not they "tainted" the locality of the animals I don't know.
>>
>>If you transplant a snake from one local to another then yes, it retains the genetics of the 'original' location. As I have said before, reputation is everything in our small community.
>>
>>>>Best Wishes,
>>
>>Steven Owens

From what I hear, that persons reputation will never be the same.

-----
Steve W.

I try not to get involved in the rumors and so forth. All I can say is that everyone should act responsibly when it comes to removing or adding animals to the wild. I have heard that law enforcement returned animals to the wild that were not the valid locations after busts. It sounds cliche but the future of Alterna is really what we make it. The animals will be around long after we are all gone. It is my goal to make sure our locations stay valid and our name convention true.

Best Wishes,

Steven Owens

>> All I can say is that everyone should act responsibly when it comes to removing or adding animals to the wild.
>>
>>Best Wishes,
>>
>>Steven Owens

I agree 100%.

-----
Steve W.

To me the term locality is a reference only to the founding stock. I do not plan to "put them back" by releasing captive offspring or anything.

And based on that honest is a factor....

If you call it Juno, River Road, 277 or Black Gap, then that is a broad or general locality. If you call it Lower S Curve, East slope of the Big Hill, Red Bluff or La Linda crossing then you have a more specific or refined locality. I am comfortable with anything that may see gene flow in a few generations as a "locality" myself, and I completely understand that once we (humans) have our hands on them for a captive breeding program we are now selecting them for a trait we like (usually looks) and not what "natural luck" or "natural selection" would do for the species.

With that said I see "locality animals" as what we are producing in captivity based on the founding stock being from a geographically reasonable area as opposed to "wild animals" that you can go find in habitat. I think of "locality animals" as the domestic alterna for people that on some level respect the natural variation across their range.

Lance

I also think it's very possible to produce captive babies that lookswise at least, truly do represent the natural locality variation. All you have to do is educate yourself on what the natural looks are of that locality and select babies that are within those parameters.
I think it is also true that even if you select for extreme looks in the babies you still have good reason to call them by the locality. I used to not feel this way. I used to think once you departed from the wild look there was no point in maintaining the locality name. What changed my mind was the realization that each locality tends to depart along different lines. For example a 10th generation selectivly bred River Road is still likely to be very different looking than a 10th generation 277. Neither may typify their respective localities but the Rivers are probably going to go towards a busy speckled appearance and the 277's are likely to go towards a clean reduced banded appearance. Some people tend to overlook or be unaware of that when they negate locality in captive stocks.

For me, locality is a designator of genetic geography. It’s a label for the morphology to indicate a relationship with the geography that was responsible for creating it. In an extraordinarily variable species like alterna, small changes in geography mean worlds of difference in phenotype trends (no doubt part of the reason the species has such a large following). Because the forces that drive variation are tied to that geography it makes sense to segregate unique populations in captive collections in order to preserve the traits that distinguish each population. What's a suitable distance to be considered locality? It's a guess on my part, but I'd bet that female alterna don't displace much from the area in which they hatch. I have a feeling that males however can travel quite far. A friend and I once found, photographed, and released a young male alterna near Sanderson. We encountered the snake again on two occasions over the course of several days. Between the time we first saw it and the time we last saw it, it had traveled .5 miles (in 5 nights). It crawled roughly in a straight line (but it was crawling the face of a road cut so there was probably a drift fence effect). I’d guess that small males, displaced by their more mature, dominant resident counterparts, can travel quite a distance in search of adequate domain. Have you ever noticed that when someone finds an alterna in an out-of-the way place with marginal habitat, that it’s almost always a young male? All things considered, I strive to pair animals from as near together as possible but have paired animals I would have represented offspring from as "locality" from as far apart as one mile.

WOW !! Thanks for all the great responses! There seems to be as much variation in ideas and opinions about this as color and pattern morphs exist in alterna!! Lol

Seriously though, the common thread I'm reading is honesty, integrity and respresentation. As long as we know what we have and represent it as such we should be okay.

Thanks again!!

Stu Tennyson

HONESTY, INTEGRITY, and REPRESENTATION!!!