It is funny. And it is also apparent that you are unable to see my point. Firstly, you have made a telling statement here...'as far as I know.' Do you at least allow for the possibility that you don't know about all of the Hueco alterna that have been captured? Secondly, with your attitude/opinion, were I to produce a photograph (or anyone for that matter) would it be accepted? Lastly, since you have not collected any Hueco's yourself, how do you know that all of the photos of Hueco's that exist now of 'wild' ones are actual and true? If you produce a photograph, that makes it the truth? I am BEGGING you to try to accept the following point....I can go out into my snake room right now and take photos of 100 alterna that have never been photographed and no one but me and close friends have ever seen and disseminate the pictures with locality collection data. Just because I do that does not make it the truth and conversely just because I don't do that does not mean that it is a lie or the animals do or do not exist. Any number of a hundred people could do the same thing. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT SOMEONE CLAIMS IS A WILD HUECO DOES NOT MEAN IT IS WHAT THEY CLAIM!!!



> Doesn’t some of this also apply to Dan Johnson?



To repeat:



Granted - it is a profoundly bad situation to be in...producing offspring that is atypical of known collected specimens. FOR ME to believe that the line is pure I’ll have to see the expression of speckling and triple alternates in other wc Hueco alterna. So far, none have exhibited these traits other than the alterna produced from the collection of Dan Johnson.



Right? Wrong? Yes? No? Maybe so? I know of no other. Joe knows of no other. All you need to do is to provide/cite ONE other wc Hueco with these traits. Then we can document and validate it, because it will be of interest to EVERYONE.



Robert

[ Show Entire Thread ]