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.

[ Hide Replies ]

• Miscegenation -- - amazondoc, Wed Oct 27 12:09:47 2010
• RE: Miscegenation -- - Gorillaunit33, Wed Oct 27 12:55:19 2010
• RE: Miscegenation -- - amazondoc, Wed Oct 27 13:03:08 2010
• RE: Miscegenation -- - rainbowsrus, Wed Oct 27 13:18:36 2010
• RE: Miscegenation -- - natsamjosh, Wed Oct 27 13:48:03 2010
• A different way to look at this - Jeff Clark, Wed Oct 27 15:04:49 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - amazondoc, Wed Oct 27 15:12:53 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - rainbowsrus, Wed Oct 27 16:10:18 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - amazondoc, Wed Oct 27 16:32:28 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - rainbowsrus, Wed Oct 27 16:53:37 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - natsamjosh, Wed Oct 27 19:30:43 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - amazondoc, Wed Oct 27 23:01:20 2010
• Mixed bloodlines?? - Jeff Clark, Thu Oct 28 08:22:21 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - amazondoc, Thu Oct 28 16:17:18 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - amazondoc_, Thu Oct 28 22:53:14 2010
• RE: A different way to look at this - amazondoc_, Fri Oct 29 12:26:47 2010
• RE: Miscegenation -- - OGFSnakes, Thu Oct 28 11:11:55 2010
• RE: Miscegenation -- - amazondoc, Thu Oct 28 12:57:15 2010
• abstract -- - amazondoc, Thu Oct 28 13:37:47 2010
• RE: abstract -- - amazondoc_, Thu Oct 28 22:56:10 2010
• YOU ARE ALL WRONG!!!! - Jeff Clark, Thu Oct 28 22:30:25 2010
• QUESTION FOR EVERYONE-- - IkeLightner, Fri Oct 29 09:05:12 2010
• RE: QUESTION FOR EVERYONE-- - Jeff Clark, Fri Oct 29 09:47:09 2010
• RE: QUESTION FOR EVERYONE-- - Jeff Clark, Fri Oct 29 11:56:15 2010
• RE: QUESTION FOR EVERYONE-- - Jeff Clark, Fri Oct 29 15:04:05 2010
• RE: QUESTION FOR EVERYONE-- - IkeLightner, Fri Oct 29 16:40:35 2010
• RE: QUESTION FOR EVERYONE-- - Jeff Clark, Fri Oct 29 19:05:47 2010
• RE: Read the 'Paper' - No Help - OGFSnakes, Mon Nov 1 14:33:02 2010