Excellent point Aaron and one I well understand but not exactly related to the point I was trying to make. In hind site I wish I hadn't tried this Diego's post. It was ill timed.



I do think however that rhetoric here against hybrids needs to be toned down. In my estimation there is a spectrum of desirability in the different types of stocks one might work with that, in order of preference, goes like this:



Local specific

Generics

Cross (adjacent sub-specifics)

Cross (sub-specifics)

Hydrids (Species level)

Hybrids (Genera level)



The thing is stocks from generics down have the capacity to be selected and back bred to look like pure examples of the parent stocks utilized in their production. In this sense if the existence of Hybrids threatens the future "purity" of Local Specific lines so do generics. The inconsistency I see is that obvious hybrids, even when clearly represented, get called out as threatening to the keeping of "pure" lines when generics do not. This is in spite of the fact that it's entirely possible to misrepresent a generic as "pure" when it's nearly impossible to misrepresent an obvious hybrid as anything other than what it is!



I'm not advocating calling hell fire down on anything that isn't local specific (there are enough that do that already) but I think it is a valid point that calling down hydrids alone doesn't address the problem of keeping lines "pure".



Two factors contribute to contaminating "pure" lines, misrepresentation, which isn't limited to the hybrid community and failure to establish clear pedigree when selecting breeders. If you want to keep pure lines you first establish pedigree, if that can't be done it doesn't matter if the animal is misrepresented or not, you pass. Nothing else matters to that end and calling down people who initiate hybrid lines or work with them is just posturing.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

[ Show Entire Thread ]