The problem with making this an ethical or "contamination" issue is that it is a result of circular reasoning. Not all "humans are anal" about taxonomy, and even taxonomists themselves don't agree. Just look at E. cenchria, now we are being told the Peruvian subspecies doesn't exist anymore. So is it "unethical" now to breed two snakes that are now taxonomically identical? Terms and phrases like "contamination", "polluting the gene pool", "purity" are thrown around constantly, but what do these terms really mean? They have to be defined to have a reasonable discussion.



Every individual snake is genetically different to some extent. So is it unethical to breed a yellow "brb" with thick head stripes to an orange "brb" with narrower heads stripes? Or is it just scale count that matters?



As far as the "sellers may be dishonest/ignorant down the line" argument, I see that as a non-issue. If I buy a snake from a seller, how can I be sure his animal is "pure" (whatever that means.) I trust you 100%, Cliff, but if I get a baby from you, how do I know the seller you got it's father or mother from didn't produce that snake from a "PRB" to a "BRB" cross to get a more brightly colored baby? How do I know original wild-caught great grandfather was not a "natural intergrade?"



My opinion is that you can't digitize evolution because by definition it is analog. And that's precisely the beauty of evolution. Compartmentalizing it with arbitrary classifications might be important to a lot of people, but I think it actually takes away from what evolution is really about.

[ Show Entire Thread ]