I personally have no problems with it. In fact, I had a jungle corn for a short time myself. I think they just go to show that the taxonomy of snakes hasn't been properly implemented. I don't even tell professors about jungle corns anymore when they say a species can't breed with another species and produce fertile offspring. Either they need to change that, or they need to put kings and rats in the same genus (which I think we can agree isn't too sensible). Anyway, back to the point, intergrades happen all the time in nature and you can never know the lineage of wc animals, so some of the "purest" founder stock have probably had some influences from other local rats. No one segregates snakes in the wild, it's just not very commonplace for them to breed with other species/subspecies as compared to their own. Therefore, I would consider the hardcore purist breeders (for example, someone who only breeds corns collected from a certain side of a certain road) to be doing something no more unnatural than those who breed intergrades that occur geographically. I mean, if all wild breedings were so pure, we'd see a lot more inbreeding in the wild and probably more defects/disorders. Besides that, intergrades probably add some hybrid vigor and after a few generations of consistent breeding back to one type, pretty much all visible traces of the crossed ancestor will be gone. At what point is it misrepresenting a snake to say that it is pure? You can't even say that with certainty about wild snakes, but what if my black rat's great grandpa was half gray rat? Would the breeder be obligated to tell me about that even if all traces of its influence were long gone? Well I hope I've made some valid points. I just got back from class and it's still a little too early for me, so excuse any mistakes or erroneous claims I may have made.

[ Show Entire Thread ]