I watched the latest thread on pedigrees with great interest. The idea is intriguing but there are some consequences of establishing pedigrees that are not altogether positive in the manner that I think the thread originator or some locality or purity enthusiasts would appreciate.
The first thing that must be understood about pedigrees is that they are simply registered documentation of lineage. Currently pedigrees only exist for other domesticated animals as a means to convey some assurance that an animal will bred true. True breeds or purebred animals are ones that will pass along a similar suite of characteristics to the next generation. Not all purebred animals are pedigreed but all pedigrees document purebred lines.
The biggest problem with acquiescing to third party organizations that maintain these registries is that you first have to define the bred or phenotype. Pungo Ridge eastern kings for example might be judged to posses white bands that are at least 3 scales wide on the average. Now these kings do exist and we might be able to eventually get them to reproduce as pure breeds according to this criteria but I personally like the ones with bands about two scales wide. IMHO animals with this level of banding are much cleaner looking and possess the high contrast look I expect from a classic eastern. The problem is that by allowing a third party to narrowly define the characteristics of a wild population you will eventually eliminate much of the natural genetic potential within pedigreed
lines. True to form many working dogs experience a dramatic decline after registry. This is just me but I think that this type of narrow definition and resultant decline runs counter to the preservationist ethic that is at the core of most local enthusiasts.
The other aspect that I think is missed is that pedigrees for domestic animals do not run all the way back to wild stock. In the snake world this would mean that a hybrid or cross could be worked such that it breeds true and can acquire a pedigree all its own. Not to wade in on any issue but if some of the albino Florida kings got the amel gene from a cross to a California king the evidence is long gone. Neonates look like albino Florida’s and they produce neonates that look the same. Pick a particular group of founders; demonstrate they breed true for a few generations and bam, you can petition for a pedigree.
I think my point is that this idea of registry and pedigree will not change much. Breeding morphs, localities, crosses or hybrids will all remain simple strategies that we either have a personal preference for or choose to differentiate ourselves, and our collections, from the mass of other breeders out there.
I was on Vivid Reptile’s site just the other day. Tim G. has recently updated his site and goes into his approach to reptile breeding. He likes to take founder stock and work with lines until they are the most esthetically pleasing to his (and most of our) eye as possible. In this regard he isn’t a wild type locality guy and he isn’t into crosses or hybrids but he hints at fascination for the almost infinite possibilities that domestication of reptiles is making possible. He doesn’t judge or moralize about what others do he just does his thing by putting his best foot forward. You can safely assume that a vivid animal will be beautiful, robust, well cared for and honestly represented. For these reasons alone he and a few others in my opinion establish themselves as class acts and set the standard. They don’t need a third party registry and neither do the rest of us.
, nice splendies
superspeckledsplendida haha gotta love marketing
you didnt road collect those did ya? J/K... are they all from a specific county? do all in that county exhibit the speckledy look? ive found several like that in bexar county and westward where holbrooki range. i love them but tend to not keep natives anymore w/all the bs laws,bills,etc, its nice to see them more in the hobby, nigra,holbrooki,splendida have always seemed to be the blacksheep of the getula,,,,,,,,thomas davis
