Paul,
Yeah, I've seen some nasty discussions about this subject, hopefully this forum will be different. I have no problem politely discussing the issue, and I like to hear others' opinions. If you care to, please elaborate on why you feel so strongly.
Anyway, I don't agree these two things are "entirely dfferent". Genetic mutation is one of the devices used to create subspecies in the first place. We just "artificially" propogate mutations in our pets for our own enjoyment and/or profit. Nature does it, err, "naturally."
Somehow,
it makes little sense to me that taxonomists consider a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard to NOT be separate subspecies,
yet Brazilian and Peruvian RB's to be different sub-species. Now one can base subspecies on geography, I suppose, but that leads down the slippery slope of where does one draw the geographic boundaries. For example, should every valley in the US Southwest have it's own sub-species of Rosy Boa? Where does one draw the line? And even using geography, there also has to be some sort of physical difference, and again, where does one
draw the line? Taxonomy, and especially definitions of subspecies, is far from being exact science, and it can change at any time.
Given the above, I don't quite understand why many seem to think it's desireable to try to propogate mutations, many of which a) create offspring that are dramatically different from "normal", b) would cause the animal to quickly die in the wild and c) carry along with them other health problems;
yet at the same time find it taboo to mate two animals (which are labeled somewhat arbitrarily using the nebulous definition of "subspecies" ) that can and do mate in the wild.
Just my $.02. Personally, I like any/all snakes, and as long as anyone selling the snake fully discloses it's known heritage, it's no skin off my back. 
Thanks,
Ed
>>That's not at all the same. Canis familiaris x Canis familiaris is still Canis familairis... Regardless if it's even a Yorkie and a Great Dane... OUCH!
>>
>>Crossing Sub-species is something entirely different and the discussion of this has proven to be a MOST SLIPPERY SLOPE on just about ANY forums I have been on.
>>
>>I am personally very strongly against it, but that's all I will say about it.
>>-----
>>Later,
>>Paul E. Turley