Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Maybe I'm just starting to notice it, I know it has been a very big thing with Rosy Boas, Mountain Kings, and GBK's for some time - but it seems to me that locality "normals" (morphs too) of the various getula subspecies are becoming more popular in the trade.

Is that just my perception, or is it reallity?
-----
I decided my old sig was too big.

Is there any other way?

-----
Todd Hughes

Ohhh...speckled kings....*drools uncontrollably*
-----
Diego

Heheheh!

-----
Todd Hughes

Dude, no fair!! When are you coming to AZ? You might have to bring a nice yellow LOCALITY pair with you!
-----
Diego

I have asked myself that same question myself many times Todd!! What other way is there?

I absolutely love locality specific specimens, as that fact alone is special, but at the same time, I think non locale animals are just as important. I am far from one of those, " if it ain't locale, it sucks " guys.

-----
Genesis 1:1

I like locals that are distinct and much of my collection is local specific but I generally don't get the intense enthusiasm for the trend and think that some of its biggest proponents miss a few major points.

First is that this is simply way to differentiate your collection, and a relatively new, inexpensive one at that. There is nothing morally superior about the method and inclination for it is based on personal preferences. For instance I like Baird's rats from the more western portion of their range, as I believe they are most likely to develop the nice light bluish-gray color that I prefer. To this end I have two pairs from two locals in western Val Verde County. Not sure if anyone else can tell the difference but this makes me happy and it also makes my line somewhat different from Tim's whose line originates from the more eastern portion of the range.

Next is that this trend IS driving additional collection whether the new stock provides anything different or not. Certainly most of the collection of eastern kings is providing some very dubious differences. This isn't to say that NJ kings and south GA kings aren't distinctive but Chesapeake VA and Currituck NC kings are the same population folks! Depending on the species we are taking about this additional collection may or may not be required to support what is essentially a pet trade! I'm not sure how this reflects on us as a group who are supposed to have a conservation ethic but I'm equally not sure if that even matters because these populations can certainly sustain a limited "take" (rambling here). In any case I just don't like to see non-local or generic types get over looked or worse flamed, as is increasingly the case. The older generic stocks are hard won and I think it's important that they stay in the mix if long-term viability of captive populations is a consideration.

The last point that I think is frequently overlooked is that after two or three generations of selective breeding captive local specific lines start to phenotypically diverge from the founding population. Wild NJ pines certainly are not routinely high contrast black and white specimens as are some of the captive locality lines and I've never seen a wild Okeetee corn the likes of what is being bred in the hobby today. Again I'm not sure if this matters to locality enthusiasts but it's a given that with time the distinction between locality and generic stock greatly diminishes.

I'll end by saying that I think the reason that so much of my collection is locality and be summed up in two parts:

First, plain and simple for many species I simply like the classic wild type phenotype best. The concept of a hypo eastern king or northern pine just goes against everything that I like about both of those forms and I don't get the propagation of many morphs that I personally consider less attractive than the original.

Second is that locality guys are about the only guys doing anything about tracking lineages which is important to me. I really dislike the tendency to line breed to the nth degree and I think that the idea that lines can endure excessive inbreeding without ill effects is self-serving.

You make some excellent points.

Although it's nice to have some locality information, sometimes I think people try and use it in order to bump up the price a little bit, even when there are no obvious phenotypic differences in the animals.

I also agree with the fact that after breeding a few generations the captive "locality" stock is so far removed from the wild stock that the only purpose the name serves is for tracking lineages.

Again, great post!
-----
Diego

You see it A LOT with the eastern crowd. That is what got me into easterns. I wouldn't really want one that wasn't locale specific...JMO.....nothing wrong with non-locales.

The people that are willing to fork out over a $1000. for one snake don't want what everybody else can have for $40.

It is also harder to sell $40. snakes than it is high end ones (in the $600.-$2000. range).

Ya want something dirfferent and don't want to feed a lot of mouths..

-----
ÌÏËÙÍ ËÁÂE!

"I have high friends in places."-H.Sherman in some bar

Interesting phenomenon that you've noticed. It looks like, as with so many other hobbies or social trends, that things go in phases or cycles.

I'm particularly fond of Baja specimens. I love those black & silver, ghost-like Conjunctas.

I have a theory that the striped Nitidas may be an isolated colony of Nigritas, separated by the Sea of Cortez. Their jowls more closely resemble those of Nigritas, and they don't get as large as the Conjunctuas to the north, which are an obvious subspecies of Cal King.

1.0 Nigrita
1.0 Conjuncta

Yes, Funky Res has it right. I have seen this for a few years now.And yes it does go in cycles.I remember in the early 90's it was all about locale man.It was all about it.It was locale or it was generic and there was nothing in between.No grey area and I like that.
I breed allot of locale animals and allot of generics that are morphs.I am satisfied on all levels but my heart for sure is with the locale animals.When at all possible I would take a ugly pair if they were locale vs. a screamer pair that was generic.

L8r

Agreed, while I prefer locality snakes and the wild phenotype, there is a lot to be said for morphs, such as this beauty. She mesmerized me the moment I saw her and I could not be happier. While one worries a little more, argueably, about a snakes' health when they cost more, these have shown to be as bulletproof as a w.c. speck, for me. I love both locality and morphs, but locality wins because I get to actually experience them out in the wild. And I agree that you can't truly reproduce that indoors. While I rave about the picture perfect c.b. splendida, there is nothing like seeing them in their natural habitat, whether it's under some trash in a vacant lot or crossing a highway at night between prairies.

-----
Todd Hughes

I think Todd accurately sings the praises of both. I think w/ some snakes locality wouldn't matter to me, esp. if I just wanted one or a pair of that type of snake and w/ others it definitely would; ie. S. GA Easterns, Rosies, even my L.A. Co. deserticola --- animals w/ distinctive features present in that locale (if that makes any sense).

reako45

It should of course be noted that many locale animals are not really represent of the locale, even the F1, but rather of anomally at the locale that the founder happened to collect.

Example would be the Davis hypers.
If you go to Davis, you might find a hyper but most of what you find will be banded.

It also should be noted that features of a locale may not make the snake look different than run of the mill genetics unknown to just anybody, but they are particular to the locale.

The California Kingsnake in the Stebbins book - nothing special about it to most people, but I found many just like it in Walnut Creek, CA. The specimen Stebbins drew his plate from was Contra Costa County, which Walnut Creek is a part of (I suspect his specimen came from San Pablo Dam Rd as he herped that road extensively before it became too trafficed - but I don't know).

There may be other locales that produce "non special" kings of that particular phenotype, but I personally haven't seen them.

Even my current Contra Costa County male is a little different - he's from Antioch, I only found a few kings in Antioch but I can tell the difference between them and what I found in Walnut Creek as a kid - even though they are in fact very similar.

Were someone in WC or Orinda were to get an RA permit and start breeding Walnut Creek locality Cal Kings, I would buy some of the F1 offspring just because they are the first kings I ever encountered, even though many other locales are admittedly much more beautiful. I love the Clovis BB aberrants that were posted here last week (think last week), for example.
-----
I decided my old sig was too big.