Posted by:
chondro776
at Wed Mar 9 14:21:30 2005 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by chondro776 ]
I couldn't agree more that even a cheynei straight out of the rainforest isn't neccesarily a "pure" jungle. And I am also mindful of the fact that in the greater scheme of things, a species (or subspecies, or whatever) is not a "real" thing. It is a grouping humans use to understand them better.
I am not saying that the "mixed" ancestory is neccesarily from diamonds or diamond x jungles. I was also refering to coastals being crossed with jungles. I can't tell you how many times I have been at a show or seen a classified with an animal that CLEARLY was misidentified (according to Barker and Barker's diagnostic). My point is that many people may think that they have jungles which are in fact coastals, or vice versa or whatever. So these are then bred, labeled or sold as whatever, and so on.
Be clear about one thing- I am not "judging" or advancing the opinion that these potentially "mixed" lines are any better or worse than "pure" jungles. I have never really cared. Looking like a cheynei is good enough for me usually. Who cares if a coastal was it's great grandfather or whatever.
BUT- if someone has documented animals I would be interested (alright so I am interested in EVERY jungle I see....)
One more thing- I don't disagree that some of the more established breeders who have been around for a minute may have lineages that trace back to founding stock. But I don't think many of them (if any) still work with them. Maybe I am wrong, but I think Casey Lazik got out of Jungles a while ago, and last I heard the Barkers weren't working with Jungles any more either.
Again- if I am wrong please correct me.
Ben
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Just Curious.... - chondro776, Wed Mar 9 14:21:30 2005