Ultimately what makes a species, subspecies, or locality is subjective. Without genetic analysis there are often no clear answers. However, it goes without saying that within a species or a subspecies, there are locality differences in phenotypes. These differences are not regarded as important by traditional regulatory and conservation organizations, and these locality differences are considered worth preserving to a sector of herpetologists.



To me, there is no one definition of locality that can be applied to all species. For each species you have to consider how much gene flow occurs between populations. For example some snakes, like racers, cover large areas (miles) allowing dispersal of genes quickly over wide areas. Where as other species of snake never venture more than a few yards from their crack or hole. Some species are found widely dispersed over large areas of good habitat, while other species are found in isolated islands of habitat, with miles of unsuitable habitat between colonies. Things like a body of water, a mountain range, or even just a ridge line may provide a barrier to gene flow.



When we take these animals into captivity, we exert our own selective pressure that are different from the selective forces that created those species. There are however things we can do to mitigate this. First, when selecting holdbacks, don't pick out the "prettiest" ones!!! Select animals that most closely resemble the wild animals from that area. Another way is to select animals randomly. Many keepers unconsciously select for other traits such as feeding on mice. If your species of interest has a specialist diet, make sure to feed them what they are supposed to eat.



No matter what, after many generations (who knows how many) you will have caused inadvertent changes. This is why in situ conservation is paramount to captive breeding. Luckily studies have shown that wild fitness returns quickly in successive generations of released animals.

[ Show Entire Thread ]