>> you are right technically speacking but you are still wrong where this conversation comes to play..

Wait a second, and lets laugh at ourselves. He used the technically correct definition, I understood what he meant (you didn't), and I am the one that is wrong for explaining that he WAS correct? Yeah, we do need to laugh at ourselves over this....lol. By comparison, most John Q. Public say snakes are poisonous, but we know they are actually venomous. because most people USE the term poisonous wrong, does that me poisonous is now the RIGHT word for it? Of course not. I don't care how many people use the term one way, that doesn't mean using it the other way is incorrect.

>>For one anyone here can pull out the dictionary and come up with any definition to fit there post since most words usually have multiple meaning and uses..technicallky speaking..or just to argue.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I took your post as just an attempt to argue with his original premise.....and your basis was to nitpick (incorrectly) on word usage. I just explained his definitions were correct. ...or were you explaining a little Devil's Advocate meaning behind your original post? If so, sorry I missed that I took your original words literally. I apologize if that is the case. Otherwise, I really am confused.

>>The term hybrid vigor was not used correctly and still isn't being used correctly in this discussion even if technically it can mean what the poster is trying to say. We can sit here all day long and come up with many different ways to mold these words to fit the arguments.

Yes, you can mold them any way you want and claim your definition is correct because many hobbyists use it that way, but that doesn't MAKE it correct (see poisonous reference). ...or are the thousands of researchers that use the term hybrid vigor to describe the result of crossing two inbred strains of mice incorrect? Do you really believe hobbyists know the definition better than the scientists that, as a group, coined and originally defined the term? I doubt it.

Come on and relax, Justin. Nobody is saying you don't know what you are talking about. Not even close. I'm just saying your definition of hybrid vigor may be correct for SLANG use, but that doesn't make the original definition used incorrect in the least little bit. It's like some yokel saying "That snake aint venomous - it's poisonous."

>>There are two biological definition for hybrid.

It's plagarism to quote without citing. LOL.

>> The second type of hybrid consists of crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species.

That's where he is correct.

>>So KJUN and David please point me out where people are regulary using the term HYBRID VIGOR IN OUR industry to decribe cultivers of a single species or sub instead of hybrids?? I

Why? Are you saying if most people use a term incorrectly, people that know better should not use the terms as they are intended? Are you saying that everyone should call snakes "poisonous" because it is the more common use of the word. I know this analogy isn't perfect because your definition isn't wrong (poisonous is), but it is the best I could come up with in short notice.

AGAIN, your use of hybrid vigor isn't wrong, but neither was the original use. To tell him that his use was wrong is ludicrous....as it would be for me to say YOUR use is wrong. The original posrter explained himself well and correctly. If anyone misunderstood, it was because THEY were the one lacking knowledge....and it was their chance to ask questions - not correct him for being RIGHT in a way they didn't understand.

>>think you both know exactly what I mean...and are missing the point. I am not confused on the science here.

As you should have known exactly what HE meant. I'm not attacking you or anyone, but your post DID look like an attack on him and/or his ideas. Why? If you knew what he meant (which you would have if you really did understand the science - and also know he was correct), why didn't you just say, "I believe in our hobby hybrid vigor should be reserved for crosses among separate taxa" instead of just calling him, erroneously, WRONG? Don't you see the difference there?

>>And yes we all know the very act of interbreeding doesn't by iteself cause genetic disorders..my point is it raises the chance and why do so??

But what you said was, "disorders caused by repeatitive inbreeding" implying the disorder was CAUSED by inbreeding when, technically, the expression was a result of it - not the creation of it. I only bring this up because the OP saids inbreeding wasn't the cause of the mutation, and then your post had the definite tone of say, "Yes, it is!" I'm sure you just mistyped based on your responses here, but I hope you can see why myself (and others) took your original post to be opposing his statement that inbreeding doesn't CAUSE the mutation. No biggie - we are all unclear in our posts at times.

KJ
-----
KJUN Snakehaven
Pituophis.net
KJUN.us
Snakemorphs.us

[ Show Entire Thread ]