Shadylady,



I read your post and the replys for the most part on the kingsnake forum. I am sitting at home from work with a sick young one today, so decided to post a reply that although a bit long, would spur some activity and be enjoyable to join in with LOL! This post is based on personal OPINION. I am an average John Doe who likes snakes and has kept them on and off (mostly on) for about 35 years. I am not a guru, pioneer, or expert in the field of herpetology. Heck, I dont even play one on TV!!!



But anyway, hear goes my rant/opinion on the matter...



Around the late 1980s I got back/more into snakes. By the mid 1990s I joined a local herp society, and attended my first herp show. My education about locality animals and snakes in general really expanded, and I REALLY also became more aware of "morphs". Well, "herp gods be praised" I said to myself!! It wasnt until the late 1990s that I started forming PERSONAL OPINIONS on the origins of certain morphs. I started noticing that after a "new morph" of species was discovered, that morph expression showed up in another closely related species. However, looking back and reflecting on the situation, it appears to me that no one really cared about the purity or origin of these new fantastic snakes and everyone was just excited that they now existed. The snakes even looked PHENOTYPICALLY like a PLUG-IN-THE-MORPH version of what they were being represented as (albeit loosely in some cases). Were they pure? Some were not and were actually sold as being hybrids. The inventors shared their formula for the creation. But then again, some I dont recall as being sold as hybrids and the formula, if one existed, was not disclosed. Proprietary information and all that jazz!! If you wanted it, you paid the (usually ungodly) price at the time for the morph and then made your own. Hmm... Regardless, usually much kudos were given to the originators of these great new snakes and some were looked upon as pioneers and innovators in the hobby.



This situation goes even beyond morphs, and invades non-morph representations of certain species as well. How may pyro pyro kings were bred to pyro woodini kings and sold as "Arizona Mtn. Kings"? What about sinaloan and nelsons crosses? And certainly the mexicana complex has its share of criss crosses to deal with to some degree or another. This probably became even more prevalent when big brained taxonomists claimed various "subspecies" didnt exist and it truly was a matter of breeding "like to like" by us eager herpers.



Now, my PERSONAL OPINION is the hard core herpers look at morphs and kind of chuckle about purity of origins. But quite honestly it boils down to whether you like a morph or you don't regardless of species purity. Compound the fact that some of these morphs have been around for SO long that many forgot or even know when and how they originated. They are so ingrained now in the hobby and probably so PHENOTYPICALLY perfect when compared to the actual species it represents that most average herpers arent even aware of possible "hanky panky" that occurred way back in the herp dark ages LOL!! They have become just a "really cool" expression of that species for those who want to keep and enjoy it. I would further venture to suspect that many of the herpers striving to keep only pure and classical species would not consider incorporating them into their pure/classic breeding lines. I think skeptisism would prevent this and I know I wouldnt do it personally. The fight to find PURE examples of certain species is hard enough as it is and I wouldnt want to make it harder!!



Next time you look at a whitesided bullsnake, or albino honduran milk, ask yourself when did this particular morph show up after discovery/unveiling of this morph in a similar species. Then ask yourself after looking at the animal if it really matters to you because regardless, you will still have an animal that looks and acts JUST LIKE the species its being sold as, but with a cool and different paint job LOL!!



So, in an effort to answer your question, in my VERY HUMBLE OPINION, the likelyhood of "luckily" finding a genetic expression that is wildly popular in one species within a few years in another SIMILAR species is EXTREMELY guestionable and probably unlikely.



To end this rant, I once again want to state this is only ONE PERSONS OPINION, and I will be the first to admit I do not have knowledge of origins, taxonomy, or herptecultural experience to the degree many, many more folks who visit this forum and other forums have!!

[ Show Entire Thread ]