Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I would never question why a person likes what they do. In my opinion, it is what it is. Your welcome to like whatever you want, that is the joy and freedom you should have.

What becomes odd, is the rationalization folks use in defending their likes and dislikes. Its odd because they absolutely do not have to, or need to, or are required, to defend their likes or dislikes.

As I mentioned below, Bill Garska traded me the nicist leonis king, for the uglist blairs. He also gave away his albino Ruthvens as he did not like pretty snakes(per. commun. with Bill). He was the first to hatch the albinos U know. I never questioned Bill, I simply took advantage of our differences in taste. So did that fella who got the first albino Ruthvens from him, I think he traded him a doughnut or something.

Again, what is interesting to me is HOW many of you defend(tooth and claw) your likes by aligning your likes to science or nature, or species purity. Particularly when your likes have nothing to do with snakes in nature or science or species purity(a highly questionable subject even amoung scientist).

Its very much common sense and not science, that once your into the range of non naturally occuring appearances, the terms purity or the like, is out of the question. Its simply your likes, which by the way is yours to have and enjoy.

Whats so funny is, you think it busts my chops, but whats more accurate, is you all are only busting eachothers chops as you move farther and farther away from whats natural. Whats even more entertaining is, your moving away from nature is a sorta natural way. So yes, it makes me laugh and become amused. As I sit in the field and see snakes, and then come here and see what is called those same snakes, I do wonder, WHAT HAPPENED along the way to the forum. Cheers

P.S. the pic is naturally occuring in situ, its a male defending his gravid mate.

..........it is interesting. that may be why we disclose and defend our likes and dislikes. rusty

Of course, these forums are to discuss whats interesting. The reality is, it does not matter to me what you guys keep, why would it?. As I mentioned below, its just something to think about.

The reality, everybody I know that keeps or studies herps in captivity or nature or both, has their own personal reasons. Cheers

I had some way back when and they went when I got rid of all my venomous snakes.

I miss em.

Chris

-----
"All the fancy names in the world will be of no help if you do not know the difference between chocolate pudding and pig poop." -Frank Retes

That's a beautiful copperhead!! Jeff

-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

Are those graybands Junos?
2nd guess would be Langtry area.
3rd guess Hwy. 277.

PS, I consider Pandale Dirt a part of the Langtry area, at least until the sheep sign.

>>Are those graybands Junos?

You got it. Lowers S curve on both
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

That's pretty cool.

Cool, here is my process.
The dark one could be Juno, 277, Langtry, Sanderson, Black Gap or Xmas.
The light one could be Juno, 277, Langtry or Sanderson. The even banding and lack of any trace of alternates reduces the possibility of Sanderson so I threw that out even though it's possible.
Since they were breeding and I know you are a locality guy I treated this as a small sample of two snakes from the same locale, which reduced the chances of Black Gap and Xmas.
What was left was the three localities in Eastern Val Verde county, which are Juno, 277 and Langtry.
Since light phases are less common at Langtry and dark phases are less common at 277, that left Juno as my first guess since dark and light phases seem to occur at about the same frequency.

Elementary, my dear Watson!
-----
Todd Hughes

And a little luck, lol.

Aaron, knowing Joe like you do, luck had nothing to do with it, but i liked the way you ran it down!
-----
Todd Hughes

.

"Its very much common sense and not science, that once your into the range of non naturally occuring appearances, the terms purity or the like, is out of the question."

Not true. It is out of the question via YOUR definition which equates purity to having to have an appearance like the forms that occur in the wild.

For argument's sake, let's say the naturally occurring coat color of donkeys in the wild is brown. If I cross two brown donkeys, the resulting offspring are all genetically pure donkeys no matter what their coat color. They could be albino, brown, black, grey, red, blue, yellow or pink...yet they would all still be genetically pure donkeys.

As soon as I cross the donkey with a horse (another species), I get mules. The resulting offspring are no longer genetically pure donkeys...even if they all had brown coats.

But I do agree with your assessment that everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes without having to defend them.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

>>"Its very much common sense and not science, that once your into the range of non naturally occuring appearances, the terms purity or the like, is out of the question."
>>
>>Not true. It is out of the question via YOUR definition which equates purity to having to have an appearance like the forms that occur in the wild.
>>
>>For argument's sake, let's say the naturally occurring coat color of donkeys in the wild is brown. If I cross two brown donkeys, the resulting offspring are all genetically pure donkeys no matter what their coat color. They could be albino, brown, black, grey, red, blue, yellow or pink...yet they would all still be genetically pure donkeys.
>>
>>As soon as I cross the donkey with a horse (another species), I get mules. The resulting offspring are no longer genetically pure donkeys...even if they all had brown coats.
>>
>>But I do agree with your assessment that everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes without having to defend them.
>>-----
>>It's not how you die, it's how you live.
>>It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

Beaker while I agree with your logic in the basic form, the problem with snakes kept in captivity is that with said snakes its the X factor (the unknown). The snake could be a cross, this could have happened in the wild or it could have happened when a breeder decided to cross snakes and not label it as such. Again that is a simple explanation but when you breed crosses with crosses and parents with sibling they may end up looking allot like a naturally occurring species but having what ever trait the breeder was trying to show or remove.
-----
Jason A.
"Long time Herper, first year Breeder `07."

I realize there can be unknown crosses further back in an animal's genetic lineage. My argument is working from the premise that there have been no previous unknown crosses.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

You agreed everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, without having to defend them. Yet, you go on an on, defending yours.

Their truth is, these are not mules, donkeys or horses. They are nothing like them. As, horses, mules and donkeys are non-naturally occurring. They are a product of man, just like your captive snakes.

If you want my opinion, oh heck, I will give it to you anyway. All your doing is handcuffing yourself. Your limiting yourself, with your own barriers. You made up your barriers and your restricting yourself. I suggest, its more fun to be free, then restricted by false barriers.

The truth about mexicana is, the barriers(mans naming of them being different(different subspecies/species, etc) is totally arbitrary and man made. As there is NO clear line between the the different types, and in fact is very much the opposite. The more we look at the whole group, the more we find the intermediates.

As Joe mentioned very early on, each locality of Thayeri has many local characteristics. Yet, no attention was made to that at all. In reality, the thayeri in the pet trade are very much crosses of different kings that occur in different mountain ranges.

They actually range from just north of Saltillo continiously to somewhere north of S. L. Potosi

Also you could argue that the animals from Quarto Cienigas, to Saltillo could be included in that group as they have many Thayeri characteristics.

So I ask, where does your thayeri fit in? What area do they represent, Do you have any idea if the parents from a single population or mountain range or were even Thayeri to start with.

So if you understand these last few paragraphs, you should understand why I have doubts about your accuracy. You attempt to call your animals something, but you have no idea what that something is.

So my earlier statements stand, my bet is, Ruthvens kings are more likely closer to natural thayeri, then what is being produced in captivity(the majority of) These days.

What makes this so funny is, your beliefs are based on heresay, that the snakes or lines you started with were pure, Only I know they are not. As I was part of the problem. The original stock was not pure. I know that for a fact.

Its about like breeding a Big hill alterna to a juno rd blairs, then calling the offspring pure. Cheers

>> They actually range from just north of Saltillo continiously to somewhere north of S. L. Potosi

>> Also you could argue that the animals from Quarto Cienigas, to Saltillo could be included in that group as they have many Thayeri characteristics.
>>

Just south and east. Los Lirios, Chorro Canyon and San Antonio de las Alanzas. You could damn near breed a Saltillo alterna from Chorro Canyon thayeri - not quite but you can sure see something right in that area.

Cuatro Cienagas I'd say to a lesser extent, at least the few animals I've seen from there. Take a line a little further due west towards Torreon in that Mountain range and there's some mexicana mish mash.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

"The original stock was not pure. I know that for a fact."

THANK YOU!!!

I'd expound but you'd find something wrong with it.

"You agreed everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, without having to defend them. Yet, you go on an on, defending yours."

Actually, I feel no need to defend any of my likes or dislikes. But I have felt the need to express my opinion of what I consider pure vs a hybrid. A respectful dialogue, with each person supporting their position is a good thing.

"Their truth is, these are not mules, donkeys or horses. They are nothing like them. As, horses, mules and donkeys are non-naturally occurring. They are a product of man, just like your captive snakes."

Obviously our snakes are not equine species. But the analogy was made for the purpose of illustration of my point, and was valid. The only non-naturally occuring of the three is the mule. Both horses and wild asses existed long before domestication.

"So if you understand these last few paragraphs, you should understand why I have doubts about your accuracy. You attempt to call your animals something, but you have no idea what that something is."

Frank, nowhere in our discussion have I been condescending to you. I have even said I respect and enjoy hearing your opinion on the subject. I would never claim to have the field knowledge you do, and feel I would be honored to sit and talk with you face to face. For you to imply that the natural history of the mexicana complex is above my head, is rudely presumptive on your part.

"What makes this so funny is, your beliefs are based on heresay, that the snakes or lines you started with were pure, Only I know they are not."

At the very beginning of our discussion, I made allowances that of course there likely are genes from unknown crosses in the current CB thayeri gene pool. My main point has been that if you had a clean gene pool from WC ancestery to now, that it would be adding genes from other species that would be the determining factor in whether or not the lines remained pure...and that outward phenotypic expression of those genes could not be the determining factor.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

I am not intentionally being condensending. I do not mean anything against you. In fact, all I ask is you reexamine what you think you know.

I ask these questions for my own learning. As I do not understand how you think like you do. So its my ignorance thats the problem here.

You see, I do not understand how you can be so firm in your convictions, without knowing much about the subject.

I questioned your understanding of selection and you do not respond to that, what so ever. So I have to assume you do not understand how that controls what these animals express and not all about genes. It appears to me, you simply want, heck, I don't know what you want. If a captive does not represent whats in nature, then it has nothing to do with nature. Cheers

"You see, I do not understand how you can be so firm in your convictions, without knowing much about the subject."

I am aware you know a great deal about herpetology, and not once have you heard me question the vast arsenal of first hand knowledge you have at your disposal. On the other hand, you make the assumption that I must not know much about the subject. I dont know whether this assumption stems from the fact that you arent familiar with me, or that you just assume that I can't know much about the subject since my view does not dovetail nicely with yours.

"I questioned your understanding of selection and you do not respond to that, what so ever. So I have to assume you do not understand how that controls what these animals express and not all about genes. It appears to me, you simply want, heck, I don't know what you want. If a captive does not represent whats in nature, then it has nothing to do with nature."

I have not responded to your points concerning selection because I don't disagree with them. I am a biology teacher and am well versed in evolution, selection, genetics and heredity. I dont disagree that environmental conditions are one of several factors to exert an influence on phenotype in combination with genes. Our point of separation was strictly on what we each considered pure...nothing more.

I believe that any organism is considered pure (for purposes of propogation) if its genes can be traced back to the wild form found in nature. I believe it is not pure once genes from another species have been introduced, whether intentionally by man, or via intergrade...no matter what the physical appearance may be.

I think many on here may be getting tired of us rehashing this at this point. So I will cordially thank you for the discussion, and be content with the fact that we simply have differing opinions on that one point. I tend to agree with most of what you post, and I have learned a great deal from reading things you have posted in the past. You have my respect as one of the pioneers of the hobby I enjoy so much.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

"I believe that any organism is considered pure (for purposes of propogation) if its genes can be traced back to the wild form found in nature. I believe it is not pure once genes from another species have been introduced, whether intentionally by man, or via intergrade...no matter what the physical appearance may be. "

No thayeri are "pure" anything.

I think he agrees with you, Frank.

Chris

-----
"All the fancy names in the world will be of no help if you do not know the difference between chocolate pudding and pig poop." -Frank Retes

Are you speaking for every thayeri in the country?
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

I think the ones “in the country” are o.k.

It’s the ones in the deli cups we’re worried about...

>>I think the ones “in the country” are o.k.
>>
>>It’s the ones in the deli cups we’re worried about...

I was worried there for a second.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

I like it, though.

A lot of folks take all this too seriously.

I mean, I HAVE a day job.

Chris

-----
"All the fancy names in the world will be of no help if you do not know the difference between chocolate pudding and pig poop." -Frank Retes

Frank's point is well taken. Frank's literal point was many of the snakes may be thayeri, but they are not locality matched thayeri. We knew that already.

A Big Hill alterna to a Juno Road alterna is still an alterna. The same situation exists with most of thayeri being bred, AS WELL AS snakes that have been bred to albino ruthveni and various other things. We knew that too.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

I realize CB thayeri today cant be considered pure. That was not my contention. My point was strictly an answer to the original question several threads ago of what a good definition of "pure" is...regardless of what animal we're considering. And yes, I do agree with much of what Frank says.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

I am sorry if you feel I am being condensending. I am sure your now feeling that way because you are getting a strange feeling that you are not so clear on your understanding of biology. Please understand I have tried in very way I know how to explain this to you, but its you that resist even talking about any possibility that there is something you do not understand. So after a while, its going to get personal and condensending. A natural progression so to speak.

No offense again, but most biology teachers have no clue on what is actually going on in biology. They simply repeat terms and in most cases, out of context. Please understand, I am not accusing you of that. Its simple fact. So stating your a biology teacher means very little.

Your simply refusing to address whats important in the expression of a species and that is selection. Natural selection is the control factor for any species and what actually controls the genes(genotype) The genes are a memory card to make sure that species exsists in its enviornment.

The reality is, the expressed pattern and color in any area with any snake, is a very small part of its genetic potential. Once they are in captivity, they are selected for totally different traits, traits that would fail in nature. Keepers are selecting for those specific traits over generations, upon generations. Not only are you selecting for traits that please you. But without knowing it, your/all keepers, are selecting for traits such as pinky feeders, individuals that will live in a box(confined areas)(behavioral dudes) etc etc.

Many years ago, mid seventies, after many years of captive generations of many species, I published somewhere(I forget where) that after three generations in captivity, these snakes are not longer wild snakes in any way. This is due to the type of selection pressure keepers use, compared to the selection pressure that in omipresent in nature.

To clarify this a tad, even the offspring of exsisting wild animals have a 90% plus failure rate, due to this selection I speak of. So what percentage do you think these candycane thayeri have of fitting in nature? Or any of these captives for that matter?

When you consider, color and pattern are directly related to behavior and more specifically, predator avoidance behaviors. The combination of this adapts and lives in harmony with what exsists in each and every microhabitat that these animals occur in. So how is it biology that animals bred until they no longer resemble that, are pure? You see, exsistance is a razors edge and that edge is always changing.

And yes, our captives have changed until they are no longer pure, not even in a genetic sense. As the genes your captives carry, WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO SURVIVE IN NATURE. But will allow them to survive in boxes.

So the point I have hoped to make is, your use of pure, even your use of genetic pure, is very very misguided WHEN YOU APPLY IT TO WILD AND NATURAL ANIMALs. You can use it towards lines of captive animals if you chose. But doing so, only limits you. You see, there is no selection against crosses, pattern morphs, even hybrids in captivity. In fact, those traits are selected for.

You as a biology teacher, should understand this and be very careful what your teaching your charges. These long captive lines of snakes, no longer represent wild animals, but as you folks have clearly pointed out, they represent a keepers line. Henrys Earthtone thayeri, Franks wide orange lacking black thayeri. Joes, redheaded past milksnake, milksnake thayeri, etc. These are captive lines, not wild lines. Sadly, even if we kept the exact natural color and pattern, we still have lost their survival behaviors, such as predator avoidance and prey selection.

As I have mentioned all along, there is nothing wrong with what all of us are doing, its absolutely great. Whatever it takes to KEEP us interested and active in this hobby is great. The problem is, relating this to nature. Its not natural to select for unfit animals, at least not in nature.

You do understand that a snakes genes are like a onion, they are layers upon layers of that animals history. A genetic memory card, so to speak. Thats how DNA sequencing works, you go back into the genes and look for common traits. With that in mind, natural wild animals are constantly being educated and storing that information in their genes.

I again think of that quote about chocolate pudding and pig poop. Cheers and good luck

There has been a lot of talk on a few different forums lately about cross-breeding, purity, etc. For those of you who have not observed this specimen that was wild caught this year, although not very common, there is "eye candy" out there that is pure. This amel triangulum was collected in central Massachusetts where there are few species of snakes, and only one species of milksnake. Very interesting conversations going on, but I wanted to clarify that all non-natural looking snakes are not "mutts".

-----
Joe

Because its found in nature does not mean its not a mutt(as you put it) Natural snakes are always making mistakes. Those mistakes are mutts as they do not normally survive. Big mistakes like an albino are rare, little mistakes, which are slight differences from the norm, are common. And all manner of mistakes inbetween.

Mistakes like hybrids also occur on a regular basis. So are you guys saying that natural occuring hybrids are PURE. They come from nature.

Of course, the vast majority of recruits each year are within normal for that local and time period.

I imagine, what I am trying to get people with your opinion on this to understand is, nature makes mistakes, only those mistakes die.

While that albino is pure, its a genetic mutation that will surely disappear. And the reason is, that appearance is selected against.

On the otherhand, snakes that live in cities or the edge of cities, have an unnatural habitat and non normal predator pressure. So such things may survive and become established. Or it may just take longer to perish. Cheers

Webster defines mutt as follows:

"A mutt is a dog with parents from different breeds, possibly also mutts. The term is sometimes used informally to refer to mixed breeding of other species as well."

The term is not used to define genetic differences and what you call "natural mistakes".

Your points are well taken, but the point to my post was that there is eye candy out there that is not the result of cross breeding different species or sub species, hence the term "mutt". I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.
-----
Joe

I use mutt to equal mutation, mut=mutt. Both are not a normal phenotypes.

There are many many great discussions that could be had, like phenotype plasticity. And more. In many animals, there is random variation with color a pattern. That along with plasticity, can explain out of normal variation in any genotype. Plastic means to mold(not a petroleum based product) a Phenotype is the expressed character after the effects of the enviornment, which includes selection thru predator load, ground color, plant cover, etc.

But hey, I have different theories. I do know from many decades of breeding snakes and lizards, that color and pattern has a degree of plasticity. That is, variations that are non genetic and non prejudices. That is, not selected for by the keeper.

of course there is more we can talk about that causes variation in normal populations. Cheers

I would agree that finding these animals that differ in the wild to the normal phenotype is the exception, but nature tries it over and over again. No one knows how many "morphs" are out there, I would suspect they happen in nature more frequently than we suspect, it is just they don't "make the cut", are predated on with ferocity. We have long looked for the albino alterna, and I would again speculate that they occur with frequency, but are picked off the second they emerge. Owls and ringtails come to mind. I know it happens all over, maybe more often in the hotter, drier parts of the world, but the milksnake posted here shows it happens everywhere. If I understand all this correctly, we thoughtwe were breeding what we considere "pure" thayeri, but as far as locality we are waaaaay off. And I think I caught the hint that we may have some "mishmash" in there from the get go. Not enough males and females from exact localities have us breeding the equivalent of splendida/holbrooki/nigrita, am I right? That being said, I can only convey that I have "eye candy" and locality, wild caught snakes of certain species to work with, and my snakes will be labeled to reflect that distinction. As a matter of fact, I will be selling my c.b. from w.c. for more than the eye candy, I suspect, to offset the cost of securing those animals. I know where my w.c. came from, but could never truly represent my eye candy as anything more than thayeri from so and so's line. I truly love the look of the mexicana complex, and want to see them in the field, to satisfy my own curiosity about these animals. But I will work with the eye candy here at home for the looks and the calmness of the species for pets. I will work with the w.c. lines of splendida and holbrooki because I cannot find a more beautiful looking and seriously adept predator in its' environment than these. Here's a w.c. rat snake from my neck of the "woods", along with a "normal" found under the same piece of plywood at the same time, the striper is a large successful male and the normal is a gravid female. These guys are a dime a dozen, and one of the most successful rat snakes I know of. Wheteher you call it emoryi or meahlmorrim, they are neat snakes with a wide range of behaviors, from terrestrial to arboreal, and subtle pattern differences from north to south, (clinal variation). I'm no biologist, just a nature observer interested in behaviors of lots of animals.

-----
Todd Hughes

I am trying to understand your point about how a captive hybrid could effectivly be more similar to a pure wild snake that a captive pure snake is.
Here's an example thayeri inhabit high elevation, moist mountains as well as more deserty foothills. Same is true of alterna. A high elevation alterna may have more similarities to a high elevation theyeri than it does to it's desert foothill counterpart. From a survival point of view a hybrid theyeriXalterna where both come from high elevations may be more fit to adapt to high elevations than would be a high elevation alterna bred to a low elevation alterna. Over thousands of years in the wild where intergradation takes place back and forth and elevations rise and fall certain genes are mixed between similar species and then either preserved or discarded as needed. Hence the genes necessary for high elevation survival are very similar between different species at high elevations.

Another point though Frank, you stated genes are like a memory card. We know that the color and pattern part of the memory card breaks down after just a few generations. We don't know though, how well the memory card for survival holds up. It may hold up for hundreds of years. Additionally we don't know that this memory card wouldn't quickly restore itself after a few generations back into the wild. What we do know is that the memory card of a 277 alterna hasn't contacted the memory card of a Galeana thayeri in probably thousands of years. It is still possible that the memory card of a pure captive alterna is more fit and more quikly able to restore itself than a captive hybrid. Of course the opposite could be true as well.

Out in nature, snakes take their place in the food chain of that region. They exist to limit the rodent population and feed the skunks, hawks and other snake eating critters. Albinos exist and thrive just as any other until spotted and eaten by something. A leucistic Texas rat climbs and behaves exactly like all the other ones. His survival is pure luck and has nothing at all to do with special abilities to avoid predators. He was born to provide food for something else someday.

Genetics is the reality of the animal, basically, animal fact. The outward appearance of the animal is a hint of it’s factual genetic content. Selective breeding for color is used to express more of those facts, not create new ones.

I would doubt the genetic content of snakes bred for color would be detectably different after many many generations and have no effect on natural survival ability, behaviors, predator avoidance or ability to survive in boxes.

Snakes can become domesticated when produced like white lab mice, but that just means free of parasites, disease, disorders, and afflictions that would doom them in nature. It doesn’t automatically translate into weakness or an inferior animal compared to many naturally occurring snakes that are unable to survive on the other side of a river or row of hills. No offense to your god or nature, but some of our domesticated snakes are far superior to weaker wild types. That’s some biological reality for you. Nature does quite often fail.

"Out in nature, snakes take their place in the food chain of that region. They exist to limit the rodent population and feed the skunks, hawks and other snake eating critters."

That's probably true but it is simply based on assumptions. You don't really know the mind of God or the reason they are there.

"Albinos exist and thrive just as any other until spotted and eaten by something. A leucistic Texas rat climbs and behaves exactly like all the other ones. His survival is pure luck and has nothing at all to do with special abilities to avoid predators. He was born to provide food for something else someday."

Again, probably true.

"Genetics is the reality of the animal, basically, animal fact. The outward appearance of the animal is a hint of it’s factual genetic content. Selective breeding for color is used to express more of those facts, not create new ones. "

Agreed again.

"I would doubt the genetic content of snakes bred for color would be detectably different after many many generations and have no effect on natural survival ability, behaviors, predator avoidance or ability to survive in boxes."

The last part of this statement is the "rub". Captive breeding in other animals will sometimes create a weaker or more docile "domesticated" version if you will. It is dependant on many factors and so this cannot be stated so dogmatically. Wolves become dogs, etc....you contradict this later on in your post.

"Snakes can become domesticated when produced like white lab mice, but that just means free of parasites, disease, disorders, and afflictions that would doom them in nature."

Not quite. See above comment (or your next comment).

"It doesn’t automatically translate into weakness or an inferior animal compared to many naturally occurring snakes that are unable to survive on the other side of a river or row of hills."

That is correct.

"No offense to your god or nature, but some of our domesticated snakes are far superior to weaker wild types."

You are right there, as well. Natural Selection is no respector of persons. Any offense to God is between you and Him.

"That’s some biological reality for you. Nature does quite often fail."

Why would you say nature "failed" in some way? I would think that the "survival of the fittest" idea is consistant. Isn't it?

Why wouldn't it be?

Chris

-----
"All the fancy names in the world will be of no help if you do not know the difference between chocolate pudding and pig poop." -Frank Retes

My big steaming helping of Sus domesticus faeces for the day. Or was that Xocolâtl boudin??

....isn't blurry, either. She actually LOOKS like that.

Weird.

Puddin'.

Chris
-----
"All the fancy names in the world will be of no help if you do not know the difference between chocolate pudding and pig poop." -Frank Retes

I am not at all down with the luck factor, many snakes I have found sport battle scars such as missing eyes or missing tail tips, leading me to believe they had an advantage in that situation and lived to try again tomorrow. But you don't see skunks and ringtails much with battle scars, they are ruthless! I believe every time a snake has an encounter and comes up successful, it learns. Same could be said for the other predators. I guess I just don't believe in luck.
-----
Todd Hughes

"Please understand I have tried in very way I know how to explain this to you, but its you that resist even talking about any possibility that there is something you do not understand."

What you actually keep doing is trying to imply that I dont understand, when in fact I understand perfectly.

"No offense again, but most biology teachers have no clue on what is actually going on in biology."

Yet, most biology teachers would not have tried to make the absurd claim that horses and wild asses were not naturally occurring species.

"You as a biology teacher, should understand this and be very careful what your teaching your charges."

Its quotes like this that are quickly draining any remaining respect I had for you.

"I again think of that quote about chocolate pudding and pig poop."

And I think you must be looking in the mirror every time that quote comes to mind. Cheers.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

So where does selection fit it. I know you do not want to talk about that, so you change this thread to an attack by me, then you attack me. Its not about that.

I will never know what you understand, unless you explain it. WHERE DOES SELECTION COME IN? You have totally avoided that at all costs. Cheers

"So where does selection fit it. I know you do not want to talk about that, so you change this thread to an attack by me, then you attack me."

I didnt change this thread to anything. Lets just call it, as you said before, "the natural progression of things".

"I will never know what you understand, unless you explain it. WHERE DOES SELECTION COME IN? You have totally avoided that at all costs."

I did respond to the selection question...in the same post that compelled you to go after me saying that the fact that Im a biology teacher means nothing. I said I agreed with you that selection pressure is one of several factors that influences wild types along with genetics.

If you want to go back and read it again, its the post of mine three posts prior, just above where Joe replied with his "hey..." post. So once again your assessment of me is incorrect. Cheers
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

Sorry but you used your being a bio teacher as support that a bio teacher, knows about this subject. And in fact, being a bio teacher does not. I never said you were a poor teacher. I am only questioning your understanding of reptiles and the terms you used. In particular, wild reptiles vs. captive reptiles and more accurately, thayeri.

This sir is not the end of the world or something to deflate your manhood. Its a simple discussion. And you do not need to be a biology teacher to have this discussion. In fact, you do not have to mention it.

Its my new opinion, your Education in this area is very academic. That is, not to be applied in a actual use. (look up the word academic). For instance, a field worker, must use a working understanding of biology, not an academic version. And sir, there are many versions. A working knowledge produces results, an academic knowledge is for discussion/theory only.

You have not said you have any field experience with this animal. Yet, you claim to know what is pure and what is not. On the otherhand, I have both intimate knowledge of both, in the field and the starting and florishing of THIS species in captivity.

The actual truth is, selection pressure has everything to do with what this species is. Which also means, lack of selection pressure or worse, a prejudiced(captive) pressure, surely makes for a different animal. That sir, is not so hard to understand.

Again I never said it was the end of the world. In fact, it is what it is.

My thoughts are, you really WANT to be right, as you have justified your choices in this manner. The truth, it simply does'nt matter. As your animals are never going to be released, or published as something that represents Thayeri in nature. They will also never be verified as anything more then your pet snakes.

With Thayeri, there is a very murky past, both in locality of individuals and in the breeding with other species. Yet, you claim you know what characteristics are natural. Yes, I do question that.

And no need to respond, as I will not continue this thread. Thank you for your participation. Cheers

"Sorry but you used your being a bio teacher as support that a bio teacher, knows about this subject. And in fact, being a bio teacher does not."

The reason it was mentioned was in response to your assertion that I dont know what Im speaking of. Where I most certainly do have both academic and field knowledge of the topics in this discussion. I better clarify...no direct field knowledge of thayeri specifically (yet), but definitely with other species, both reptilian and mammal.

"Its my new opinion, your Education in this area is very academic."

And you know the saying about opinions...everybody has one.

"My thoughts are, you really WANT to be right, as you have justified your choices in this manner."

My thoughts are you refuse to allow for the possibility I may indeed be right. You have certainly spent much time and energy in this thread trying to discredit both my knowledge and my opinion.

"And no need to respond, as I will not continue this thread. Thank you for your participation."

I think youre making a wise choice here Frank. Thank you for your participation also.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

You said,

The reason it was mentioned was in response to your assertion that I dont know what Im speaking of. Where I most certainly do have both academic and field knowledge of the topics in this discussion. I better clarify...no direct field knowledge of thayeri specifically (yet), but definitely with other species, both reptilian and mammal.

My responce; This a a typical paragragh, you state you know about this subject, but only offer your a biology teacher as support. You say you have experience yet offer nothing about the discussion or subject. With the one exception, you state you have no field experience with thayeri. You state you hope too, my guess is someday in the future. Which adds nothing to your responce or support in any way, just like being a biology does not add support. This field experience with thayeri would teach you that this animal comes from many many isolated locals in many many different ranges of mountains and hills. It would teach you that it also occurs in various habitats, from tropical oakwoodland, to arid hillsides, to flat open valleys, and more. Which is KEY and important to understand.

Again, all you do is talk about how much you know, without devulging what you know.

I am sincerely trying to understand your side of this discussion, but you refuse to devulge this sceret you hold.

You said;

And you know the saying about opinions...everybody has one.

Again your responce is very educational. What would you tell your students if they reponded with this from one of your questions?

You said,

My thoughts are you refuse to allow for the possibility I may indeed be right. You have certainly spent much time and energy in this thread trying to discredit both my knowledge and my opinion.

I have no idea if your right or wrong, you have never supported your view in any way, were merely state your right and knowledgeable because your a bio teacher.

The problem is, all you stated were words like, genotype, or phenotype, yet you never explained how those are used in this discussion. In this conversation, both those terms can be used or can be out of context. For instance, I asked how do you know what characteristics are natural. These CHARACTERISTICS are without question included in both geno and phenotypes. But you do not know what Characteristics are naturally occuring and which are not. Which is very important in my discussion, as its these characters that lead me to believe that most captive thayeri are not representative of wild natural thayeri. Sir, this is the base of our discussion, these natural genotypical and phenotypical characteristics, not captive ones.

Or we could have discussed the genotype - phenotype, relationship. Or clarified the relationship of genotypes and phenotypes. Such as, genotype plus enviornment=phenotype.(which I did in laymans language, you know the effects of selection. Then you could have used a more advanced version of that, genotype plus enviornment plus random variation=phenotype. But then I would argue what characters are you calling random variation, and how do you know they are indeed random.

YES, if you knew what you were talking about, you know, being a bio teacher, we could have had a decent conversation. And as such, no one would be offended. Its even possible you could have been right. That would have depended on what you were discussing. But you discussed nothing.

What really happened was, I asked you questions and you said, your mean, your a bully, your insulting me, bla bla bla. I don't respect you anymore. Dude, should I sent this to your students, they surely would lose respect for someone.

All I asked was for you to support your view and you could not. That does not make me mean, or insulting.

Sir, if you ever had respect for me, it had to be about my accomplishments. As I do not know you. I gained my accomplishments, with tenacity, followed by research and application. So why would you lose respect? because I did not give up? Cheers

Plenty on here have read, and understood my responses. You seem to be the only one intent on not understanding what I wrote. I cant help you with that. But keep trying to play the "you know nothing, I know all" card if you feel that furthers the discussion. (The same one you said already ended.) Cheers.
-----
It's not how you die, it's how you live.
It's not what you gain, it's what you give.

it doesn't bother you, that you say nothing about the subject. hahahahahahahahahahaha Not for a long time. hey we all understand now. Cheers

Frank, I think species concept is an attempt by man to recognize that at certain points in time, certain groups of animals experience, not a stasis, but rather a convergence of qualities and constitutions(or essence) in which they are more similar to each other than they are to any other other.
If that is what species are then I would have to say that it is not possible to reproduce any species in captivity because reproducion outside of the factors causing that convergence of essence are not reproducable in captivity. Then it is at best possible to produce only offshoots of that original essence. Those offshoots however can be pure in the sense that they were derived from and change from only how the original essence reacts to captive influence. In other words captive snakes can be a pure derivative of the original essence. Adding any other essence to it makes it an impure derivative.

Every reproductive event presents an opportunity for a pure derivative to become merged with another essence and become an impure derivative, but if only other pure derivatives are merged then all subsequent derivatives are still pure, or of the original essence.

In common language we usually refer to these pure derivatives as simply "pure". We usually refer to impure derivatives as "impure", but occasionally we call them California cuisine.

Sorry the last joke was derived from a Woody Allen piece and edited in after my essay was completed because I don't want to take myself too seriously.

I can only hope to take a pair of w.c. snakes into captivity, nourish them with my feeble attempt to recreate what I MIGHT have thought they would eat, choose to live in, and opportune to thermoregulate in, around,and under, in an attempt to have them procreate a reasonable facimile of themselves. That said, all the snakes I have raised thus far look cleaner than their parents. They are changing already in response to my biosphere, lol! I am undoing what I wanted to replicate! My Island splendida offspring are cleaner than the parents, maybe they will speckle up later.

-----
Todd Hughes

This is very much the point here, KINGSNAKES are polymorphic, that is, their genotype contains a billion possibilities. But local phenotypes express what made the cut. Once the selecting pressures are taken away, the results are different.

A great question is, how far can you let it go, before its not the same animal.

If you bred your kings to your kings, without selecting for anything. You would be fairly close to the original phenotype. But if you selected for blotching or banding, within a few generations, your results would be very dissimilar to the original stock.

This the case of thayeri or many kings here, like Fla. kings. The recessives and all such have made snakes nothing like any Wild Fla king, much less a locality type. And certainly that goes for Thayeri, the subject of this thread.

Something I would find very very interesting is, Could you take an pair orange flamed double het for anery and hypo, you know, a pair of advaned products of captive breeding and breed them back to normal??????????? I would fine that amazing if you could. My bet is, they have lost the genetic ability to return to normal. Cheers

Such a situation happens all the time. Look at goldfish, koi, feral dogs (all feral dogs tend to revert to a medium-coat, yellowish animal, not unlike the dingo, after a number of generations), or any number of highly inbred, "morphed-out" animals. It's a natural "regression" for populations to revert to a natural phenotype over time. It could be easily selected for in captivity, too.

With regard to hybridizing and the purity of captive animals... I've been biting my tongue on this subject since this thread began. Although my respect for FR is deep and won through his numerous contributions to both the acedemic and private herp worlds, I must disagree with the notion that line-breeding members of a species has the same effect as hybridizing. This is flawed in basic principle. When populations of an organism evolve mechanisms of reproductive isolation, they are said to have speciated. These isolating mechanisms may develope by any number of ways (including SELECTION and random genetic drift, among others). These mechanisms may be chemical, temporal, anatomical... you name it.

Species have a unique genetic identity seperate from all others. Line-breeding manipulates the genetic content already intact in a species. Hybridization introduces new genetic content. It's not my intent to start another pro/anti-hybrid debate, but the ideas of linebreeding and hybridizing are fundamentally different.

What has become apparent in this thread are the super-egos that I've witnessed in herp-people over and over for years. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but maybe everyone. Are we all so confident that we can't learn anything from one another, even those who haven't "been at it" as long?

Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject.

Take care,
-Cole Grover

Hi, Actually its worse then that. I think once a animals is removed from its habitat, it no longer contributes to, or is controlled(selection)by that habitat, in a natural manner. Hence the difference between genotype and phenotype.

And believe me, I am not pro or anti anything. Only that, once its out of nature, its out of nature. I love hybrids, crosses, morphs, locality indiviuduals. I see benefit in all of them. But not relating them back to natural occuring individuals.

As mentioned, albinos are included in a genotype, but are NOT a phenotype.

I do question the use of the word "pure" as I am not exactly sure what that means(to many different contexts). From the conversations here, it also does not have a common meaning.

I must be a purist, as my only use would be a pair in nature and the offspring they produce. After that, pure goes out the door.

As far as hybrids are concerned, I do not see a difference between hybrids and a superhypo, striped, het for 42 non normal mutations, from individuals from many many locals. I cannot believe taking recessive genes for dozens of locals and making a giant combination plate of recessives, can be called pure. I love them, but again, they ain't in nature, no matter how hard you look.

You do understand, there are geno and phenotypical traits for a species, a genus and a family. So inter-colubrid hybrids are all included the same genotype. I guess its were you build your fence.

It appears to me, its more about humans wanting to be in a club. They set rules to be "In" the club, then stretch the difinitions of words to support their club. Which by the way is normal human behavior. Anyway, Cheers

I see the splendida from out west being made over and over, getting more perfect circles on their backs and less "Mickey Mouse" heads if you know what I mean, less zipper backed effects, bred right into what certain people call "classic". What interests me more are animals like this getula from Arizona, not sure if it is the westernmost form of splendida or Cal king is in it. I think you posted a pic of one you found in town last year that looks similar. I like the variation, and I like those "classics" as well. Frank, what do you see in this animal?

-----
Todd Hughes

that Black and White Brewster you said you have. I want to see it.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

Why, you were there when we found it, LOL! okay, I'll bite....

-----
Todd Hughes

i enjoyed the back and forth at the start of this thread till the back and forth became a round and round and the round and round started to degenerate into taking turns defending each of your points. each has a point well taken, and i basically think you agree with everything excepting that new four letter word of the forums --"pure".as for selection, suppose that amel triangulum (many posts away)also possessed the ability to survive extremes in climate. that random mutation might be the one that will mean the survival of that species . unlikely , but ever possible. what it has to do with anything who knows, just wanted to throw that in there somewhere. so my selection is mutating into my "election" which is electing not to read the continuing volley as eventually it becomes vitriol and no longer a civil discussion. "Blessed are the cheesemakers"-Brian of Nazareth

And no need to respond, as I will not continue this thread. Thank you for your participation. Cheers

-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Until about beer-thirty...

I havn't read this whole rediculous post but I want to throw in that this post could not be more right on.

Anyone who has worked with snakes in the wild as well as worked with the same species for generations in captivity can tell you that the snake in the box and the snake in the field are not the same animal. When you put a snake in a box and you allow all its offspring to survive you think that you are preserving something but YOU ARE CHANGING IT. Genes have amazing variability to recombine and create amazing new things and natural selction is what maintains a species as "pure". Remove this natural selection and replace it with the herp keepers selection and I don't doubt that after three generations you are left with something in fact much different that of the founding stock.

What is even more amazing to me is that even people who claim to be interested in locality animals try, THEY PURPOSEFULLY TRY, to change the bloodline by selecting offspring that are different/nice/unusual/good feeders on lab mice...whatever. Instead of making conscious decisions to breed animals that resemble wild ones as closely as possible they purposefully change them and call them pure.

The only animals that are pure are wild caught...by you. Sorry.

HAHAHA

I love snakes. I have some LOCALITY, some "locality", some "generic", some rare and some common. I love them all and here is why...

Frank about all the current captive mexicana being hybrids or intergrades. I don't disput that at all but that is one of the reasons we(myself) argue the value of "pure" or locality pure stock. We can learn nothing once the natural history is lost. IF we have locality data we can learn something, even if it is only to learn that any so-called subspecies or species is capable of producing likes of the other so-called subspecies.
Also you continue to say we are not breeding them to look natural but rather breeding them to our preference. While this is generally true I think that this is not so for a small but growing segment of herpetoculture. I think breeding "pure" snakes that are as close to replicas of wild-types is becoming more popular, coupled with a desire to learn what those wild-types look like. I personally am glad to see this because I think soon laws will restrict wild collecting to the point that the common phases become rare.

Hi Aron, I am not saying all these captives are hybrids, or crosses. But I am saying theres some strong possibilities many are. And I am saying, some like thayeri are thought pure, until someone changes the names, then they will be hybrids. Which IS GOING TO happen. The names will change radically with DNA work. In a sense I am saying thayeri is a whole bunch of different animals, and many here not only think its one type. But defend that with all the science they can muster, without ever knowning the animal and where it came from.

Also, I want the keepers that are interested, to understand that its the habitat that controls these snakes. And that seems to be lost here. All these snakes have a wide range of genes and they express them so that a very small part of their genes will work.

With most mexicana, you have two basic pattern morphs that survive in nature, one is the alterna type(narrow red) and the other is the blairs type(wide red) This occurs through out the range and includes greeri, ruthvens, and mex mex and thayeri. Couple this with a range of ground color, lite to dark, and sometimes earth tones. Ask yourself, why are they grey, or brown, Its not that hard of a question.

Sometimes one is more common then the other, then visa versa. Sometimes, mostly one dominates. The point is, its selection that determines what survives.

By saying its all genetics, is saying selection and the enviornment has nothing to do with it.

The truth is, selection takes place in captivity. Just look at these snakes.

When many of these snakes were first brought into captivity, they have lots of problems. Some were health issues, some were behavioral issues. Of course, those with behavioral issues, died off and are cleansed from the population.

As an older fella, and one with a long history of field work. I have been fortunate to see, nature RE-educate snakes. For instance, these type snakes are saxocolis, that is, they use rock cracks and tree hollows and under bark. As years go by, they will move into dead trees and all manner of rock outcroppings. But, as soon as a forest fire moves thru, that part of the population is erased(cooked) and it returns to a snake living in safe places in the ground. And deep solid rock masses. Hmmmmmmmm not the edges(exposed to the heat of fires).

This education is also true with floods and droughts. They genetically remember(so to speak) where to saftely place their colonies and eggs, and where to acheive needed heat, and moisture, 24/7 365. These are taught by the enviornment, and remembered in their genes.

Once you understand this, you then appreciate the snakes and their controls(enviornment) as one. Cheers

Thank you for that reply. I would say it makes sense and I agree with it.
I do think captive cannot fully replicate wild stock ever but I do think it is possible to examine wild stock and perpetuate the natural look to the point where we could say, if we were giving a lecture holding up a captive born snake, "this snake is a Langtry grayband." Of course on a deeper level it is not a Langtry grayband but on the surface it can teach us alot about the wild speciemens. That is my primary intrest and it relates to hobbyists having the ability to do that or assist scientists in doing that. I think we actually agree on that.

But this discussion is not with the common uneducated laymen. Its with folks claiming to have an intimate knowledge of the subject. Its with folks here on a specialized forum.

You see, the layman could care less about a sanderson, from a blairs hill, to a big hill. They just want to see pretty. Cheers

...As, horses, mules and donkeys are non-naturally occurring. They are a product of man, just like your captive snakes...

Say what???
-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat "Roberta" RELEASED!!!

Please research the modern horse. Its a product of selective breeding to bring out many useful characters.

How about you posting what horse was bred to what donkey. And were they naturally occuring or not. And how long they had been line bred in captivity. Including the possibility that the horse and the donkey do not have the same captive linage.

Althought, this is great subject as there are all manner of horses, with all manner of different characters. Where did they come from? Cheers

Haha, she doesn't look like she needs protection, just look at that scowl!
-----
Todd Hughes

are we talking people or snakes?

what are the behavioral keys that this guy is defending his mate and not just sitting there

Indeed the biggest clue to the person is not what they like, but why they like it. You’ll see the locality militant types whose not so secret dream is the reintroduction of these types like Johnny Appleseed. That’s the one that gets me the most. The other extreme I guess are the ones fascinated by eye candy. More like the little beauty pagent mom trolling for compliments for producing such a beauty. I personally have never seen a tri color that looked as good as the best Everglades rat I ever saw, or a Ball python as beautiful as a plain old Guyana Emerald Tree Boa, or for that matter, not many Brooks as nice as that plain yellow rescue Brooks pictured a few days ago found in a pet shop. But who can live with just three snakes, ya know? Thank ____ it’s a big world and enough people to fill every little whim out there. Keep posting! I’ll definitely, at least, have a look.
One thing I have always considered is that it is completely nature at it’s best that these snakes morph into exactly what we are looking for and find desirable. This is how these snakes will survive beyond their ability to co-exist with man as they have previously. Now they make themselves welcome in our homes and we will provide for them. They will be fed, sheltered, introduced to mates, their offspring will be protected and nurtured. The snakes are playing us! I think this is a part of natures way too. A hundred years from now most present natural areas will be unsuitable for wild animals of any kind to survive. Can you imagine the variety you can expect to see on that imaginary future price list? There will be a hundred varieties of “Brooks” alone, readily available. I think there will be more kinds of snakes a hundred years from now than there was a hundred years ago. That too is part of nature’s way. We are all knee deep in the adaptation and evolution occurring all around us.

"You’ll see the locality militant types whose not so secret dream is the reintroduction of these types like Johnny Appleseed."

Actually I think most locality nuts are vehemently against the release of any captive snake. I think mostly they want people to see their snakes and be wowed, thinking "I did not know nature could be that beautiful and complex." Hence inspiring them to preserve habitat.

And yes I agree with you that morphs, hybrids, etc. can accomplish the same thing because people can look at them and say "Wow that's fascinating what lies hidden underneath."

So yes I think they are both good in their own way, pure and hybrid.

I think people keep reptiles not to wow their friends, but rather to satisfy a need or urge to collect. I'm sure we all have friends or know people that collect nothing. some people do not have the desire or the need. but us, as collectors want/need to continuously add to our collections. and what do we want to add? things that are new, different, better. sometimes we deem a new morph as better, only because it is different. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but being a collector myself (reptiles and art) i can not understand those who do not have the desire to collect anything. i always said that i don't care what a person collects as long as they collect something. that i can understand. rusty

"I do wonder, WHAT HAPPENED along the way to the forum. "

Great line, I must steal it someday. All the readers over 50 just chuckled out loud.

A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum.

-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat "Roberta" RELEASED!!!