Posted by:
Jeff Schofield
at Tue Jan 15 11:08:02 2008 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Jeff Schofield ]
I think we really have to realize how flexible the genes are that we are playing with. There is a reason that we widely view ssp not determining sp. based on pattern or anomalies. For this reference I will add Milksnakes into the discussion...Milks are one of the most widest ranging as well as the most variable sp. of vertebrate in the world. We as breeders have been working with animals which are still in current flux. Let me state the example of the coastal plains milk....
This ssp. has been defined and sunk yet we as keepers maintain its individuality. Before the internet most of us bred for locality because it increased the chances of getting like individuals, which was most beneficial sight unseen. Some of us who were trying to reprove ssp. status through crosses to test gene flow then wondered out loud not if but how quickly pattern variation could redefine ssp.. Isolation and fragmentation, naturally occuring or manmade, has changed this animal as much as any other. It has always been my belief that there has to be a constant supply of new bloodlines within such CB lines regardless of breeding for locality or not. It is more obvious that we are selectively breeding for what we want, not what science or mother nature refers to as "pure". I have anecdotally compared these coastal milks as well as AZ MT kings, noting that with each generation there is a significant reduction in the black pigment despite parent lines. We as keepers alone are impacting the very color and pattern of the animals we intend to reproduce. I take this into account now every time I do any captive breeding because the IDEA of purity is nothing but a subjective spin of the genetic wheel. Those who claim to hold the high ground find themselves defending what cant be defended. For years I have based my idea of purity or locality only to f2, beyond that its completely useless. Just my 2cents,Jeff
[ Hide Replies ]
|