Oh, I have nothing against them. That's just my outlook on how I classify/refer to things.

Most of the locality animals do have geographic barriers that separate groups and result in unique phenotypes.

While I think it is important to keep some pure stock, even in morphs, I do not totally have a problem with cross locales and cross subspecies. As long as they are properly represented, and there was some specific reason for the breeding.

Someone that had say an Amarali for a pet and an Occidentalis for a pet and just kept them together and they had babies, I'd have a problem with that. Maybe it is hypocritical, but unless there is some reason I don't see the point. Generally this leaves me accepting crosses for morphs, but nothing else.

Since morphs are allready separate from natural lineage, crossing say a Leopard and a Blood I could see. Why? Because there are no Leopards and Bloods of the same locale.

I happen to like Bateaters, Carpondros, the Wall, Coma, Carplots etc. LOL

[ Hide Replies ]

• dorsal count - mack1time, Wed Dec 6 22:26:37 2006
• RE: dorsal count - boapaul, Wed Dec 6 23:33:24 2006
• RE: dorsal count - mack1time, Thu Dec 7 00:02:27 2006
• RE: dorsal count - boapaul, Thu Dec 7 00:24:30 2006
• RE: dorsal count - mack1time, Thu Dec 7 00:41:17 2006
• RE: dorsal count - boapaul, Thu Dec 7 00:50:33 2006
• Mutts can be very pretty. - slithering_serpents, Thu Dec 7 11:39:54 2006
• RE: dorsal count - Morgans Boas, Thu Dec 7 07:32:49 2006
• Yours is... - ChrisGilbert, Thu Dec 7 11:09:16 2006
• Correction... - ChrisGilbert, Thu Dec 7 11:14:49 2006
• RE: Correction... - Ophidia_Junkie, Thu Dec 7 17:29:43 2006
• RE: Correction... - ChrisGilbert, Thu Dec 7 17:36:33 2006
• RE: Correction... - Ophidia_Junkie, Thu Dec 7 18:02:02 2006
• RE: Correction... - ChrisGilbert, Thu Dec 7 18:45:59 2006
• RE: Correction... - Ophidia_Junkie, Thu Dec 7 19:21:42 2006