Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I've sure seen some killer examples of milks posted here recently and Thanks! to everyone who has posted their photos.
(I have a few to add but not many)
I was wondering however, just how many here think that the Hondurans now in the hobby are not pure L.t.hondurensis, but possibly intergrades of sorts from mixing years back??
I guess, more importantly, if you do think they are, do you care? Since all are in the hobby and don't really represent any wild population I guess, does it matter?? Why/why not?
I know very little about their history other than what I've been told by a few longtime breeders and they seem to disagree a bit on the "purity" of the albinos. Are there disputes as to the origins of any other morphs?
I assume the problems lie in the ability to accurately nail down the exact point of capture of the original w.c., huh?
BTW does anyone know the current status of the wild populations of L.t.hondurensis?
I also know there are many here who have searched and investigated these subjects and I'm hoping they might share some info with a relative newbie.
Thanks for any input!
:Mark

-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

A few hatched recently here..

:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

Whether "pure" or not, it hasn't stopped anything in the hobby. So it apparently doesn't matter too much to those who breed and sell them and do not know the history. That answers that part.

Of course we are all curious though to know what the truth is. They are mixed locality by now, that much is known for sure. They key out as what is defined as a Honduran (defined by academics, not the snakes.) So they are generic Honduran morphs produced in captivity mostly by those who do not know their history for certain.

As long as we don't use an extreme mega ghost het albino to seed wild populations, everything is OK the way it is.
-----
Mark

Hi!

I disagree, they do not key out as hondurans!

Many don't have the right number of red body rings nor the snout band or scale counts.

I once did a post about the origin of the amelanistics from Germany.

But whatever, you are right, nobody cares if they are pure or not.

Genetic tests will create a large group of tropical milks as one species anyway so no need to get rid of all your stuff, just stop calling it hondurensis !

Gerrit

-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

Great reply, I appreciate the info. Many don't key out, eh? Well good. Alot of purists who are notoriously against any mixes of any kind breed and sell Hondurans. Maybe these breeders will realize that snakes in sweater boxes do not represent wild populations "purely."

I prefer Central American milksnake anyway.

I must have missed that post re the origins of the albinos. In a nutshell, are the original albinos Hondurans (or what we call Hondurans now)?
-----
Mark

Hi Mark,

here is the link to the other post.
Link

Have fun,

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

...I appreciate the help. I remember some of your posts.
By the way, the mole kings are doing well.
email when you can.
:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

......short, sweet, and to the point. My fingers were already starting to ache from thinking about all the keyboard keys that were going to have to be used for a reply

Scott

Thanks Mr. Ballard.
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

Hi there, Scott!....

Yes,..to fully explain all the details, would be a rather lengthy subject, with many twists and turns to say the very least..LOL!.

Hope things are going well for you!

~Doug
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

I left you an email regarding this..LOL!

later, ~Doug
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

I think it is generally agreed that anery and hypo Hondurans are "pure." The controversial aspect is if the amels are "pure" are not. There's been at least one article printed that states that they are pure, but we'll never know for sure.

As far as them "keying out" I've seen a tremendous amount of variation in the colors and patterns of Hondurans, including some with no bands, striped, etc. The same goes for the snout band (though this seems less variable). Scale counts can also vary in "pure" snakes and I'd be interested to know what the scale count should be in a Hondo to make it not "pure."

At any rate, all milks are the same species and intergrades of milks (red x eastern, Nelson's x Sinaloan, etc.) occur natually.

Tim

Third Eye

Tim,

where have you ever seen locality hondurans?

Also, the first anery's show a deep V as a snout band and remind more to an intergrade with stuarti then to pure hondurans, so: no, I disagree, the only pure morph seems to be the hypo, but we never know.

Anything else isn't worth to be called hondurensis in the scientific way.

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

What does seeing locality Hondurans have to do with it? It doesn't indicate their purity, as milk snake intergrades can and do happen in nature. But to answer your question, I've seen plenty of wild caught, locality Hondurans in the warehouses of importers in the late 80s.

On the other side of the coin, just because something is a morph doesn't make it a hybrid, intergrade, or "impure." You really didn't offer much evidence (or any, for that matter) to illustrate that Hondurans being bred in the hobby are "impure." What you did do was try to cast doubt by making vague statements that in no way are proof that today's Hondurans have been crossed with other snakes.

You never answered my question about scale counts.

Tim

Hi Tim,

how came these snakes to the airports/importers? They were collected all over Central Amerika and have been shipped from Honduras, that made them honduransis.

I agree that there are large inetrgrade zones, especially with stuarti and hondurensis, but crossing such a snake with pure hondurans doesn't make the offspring pure hondurensis.

The first anery "hondurans" all show the deep V on the snout like stuarti does have.

Sorry, I did not get the question about scale counts?

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

Hello,

I am trying to figure out why you do not post here very often, but every time this topic shows up you are quick to reply. You have not provided anything other than speculation and conjecture. People that have earned respect, like Barczyk, Porras, Williams and Dunham do not share your opinions. Tim asked you for proof and you have none. I can't understand why you appear to be so involved in trying to discredit Hondurans. How many do you own? How many have you bred? Through selective breeding there are Hypos that have no snout band at all, but that does not have anything to do with the purity of the animal.
-----
Thanks!

Joe Exposito
Thoroughbred Exotics, LLC
www.thoroughbredexotics.com

Hi Joe,

it does not matter how many hondurans you or I do have or breed but it does matter to read WILLIAMS.

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

.
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

You stated:

"Many don't have the right number of red body rings nor the snout band or scale counts."

That's what I'm talking about when I asked you to answer the question about scale counts.

You also stated:

"They were collected all over Central Amerika (sic) and have been shipped from Honduras, that made them honduransis."

Yet you have no proof whatsover of this. You do not know where they were collected from or where they were shipped from.

You also stated:

"The first anery "hondurans" all show the deep V on the snout like stuarti does have."

So how come there's never been an anery Stuart's Milk? If that's how anery Hondurans originated (as you seem to be implying), there should be anery Stuarts. Anery was the first Honduran morph to be widely marketed. Anery Stuart's could have been marketed just as easily, as the Honduran market had yet to "take off."

You haven't offered any credible evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

Tim

""Many don't have the right number of red body rings nor the snout band or scale counts.""

That's what I'm talking about when I asked you to answer the question about scale counts."

I did scale counts on some ssp. and some of them do not fit, I don#t remember the exact animals nor did I write down the results, so all you have to take is my word. Maybe you did on yours the same?

""They were collected all over Central Amerika (sic) and have been shipped from Honduras, that made them honduransis."

Yet you have no proof whatsover of this. You do not know where they were collected from or where they were shipped from."

Exactly information was given to me by an importer/exporter, this has never been written down, but ask some of them, snake hunetrs don't care about borders or ssp.

""The first anery "hondurans" all show the deep V on the snout like stuarti does have."

So how come there's never been an anery Stuart's Milk? If that's how anery Hondurans originated (as you seem to be implying), there should be anery Stuarts. Anery was the first Honduran morph to be widely marketed. Anery Stuart's could have been marketed just as easily, as the Honduran market had yet to "take off.""

This shows me that you do not understand what I'm talking about. the first anerythristic tropical milk was a natural intergrade between hondurensis and stuarti. And that makes all anery and anery morphs have stuarti influence.

And agin, read WILLIAMS, compare pics of true locality animals and you will see the truth.

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

It's not written down.

I don't have a name.

Take my word for it.

I was told.

None of this is proof of anything.
-----
Thanks!

Joe Exposito
Thoroughbred Exotics, LLC
www.thoroughbredexotics.com

Joe, do you have a copy of Ken Williams' monograph on the milksnakes?

Scott

Reverse: can you proove yours out to be pure hondurensis?

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

"the first anerythristic tropical milk was a natural intergrade between hondurensis and stuarti. And that makes all anery and anery morphs have stuarti influence."

Yes, no doubt in my mind whatsoever. I have several generations of the original strain of anerythristic animals produced By Brian Barczyk(BHB Enterprises), shortly after acquiring some from Dave Doherty(who originally imported the first one)that have NEVER been out-crossed to ANYTHING else whatsoever(something not many can say), and they ALL show definite heavy influence from stuarti, and are intermediate between the two. I have known this for MANY, MANY years. Brian is fully aware of this as well. As you already know, it is no big "secret", it's just the way it is. I don't know why this is so shocking to some though.

best regards, ~Doug
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

The more you ramble, the more you show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You tried to pass off scale counts (which you have no record of) as a way to differentiate Hondurans from Stuart's. Yet this is not a valid method, as there is overlap in the scale counts of these snakes.

I like how you don't remember the numbers of the scale counts and didn't write anything down - that sounds like some pretty convincing "evidence."

I also like how you never wrote down the "Exactly information was given to me by an importer/exporter, this has never been written down, but ask some of them, snake hunetrs don't care about borders or ssp. " when I was the one who saw the wild caught snakes here in America. How would you know anything about their origins?

Yet you state: ""They were collected all over Central Amerika (sic) and have been shipped from Honduras, that made them honduransis." like it's a fact, which it isn't.

As I stated before, you know nothing about the snakes I've seen at importer's facilities in the late 80s and you didn't keep records of the snakes you saw.

As I stated previously, you have provided no credible proof to back up your statements.

Tim

Hi Tim,

I do know what I see and was told and if you don't wanne believe me it is up to you. When will you open WILLIAMS and read it? It is easier for you to swim in the pond of mixes then to believe me.
You have given no proof that I am wrong and you can't. I gave proof with pics of the original bloodline from Hortenbach, I phoned with Hortenbach. But that is not fixed on a tape cause I never thought Tim needed a proof of this phonecall.
Who was the scientist that told you guys these are hondurensis?
Why didn't you answer Doug's post about the anery? Do you understand what a natural intergrade is or shall I explain?

It is so sad that you were not able to ID milksnakes correct in the 80's. You could have had a lot of different ssp..
Maybe you had just hondurans imported and seen those, but over here in Europe just mixed boxes of all ssp. arrived (fom honduras and all were called hondurensis).
The scale counts of honduran and stuarti are nearly equal, also polyzona, and abnorma which are all mixed in your hobby hondurans today.
I might have been wrong with the generalisation but you cannot deny numbers of red body rings, snout bands and crossovers.
Why don't you proof me wrong with scientific argues instead of claiming I have no proof, where are the facts from your end?

Thanks for this great conversation, I really enjoy it.

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

I don't need to prove you wrong. You've proved yourself wrong. You said that you used scale counts to differentiate Stuart's and Hondurans. This is not possible as they have an overlap in scale counts.

You said you knew where the imported snakes that I looked at in the late 80s came from. You did not know that.

You made no record of any of your findings.

You have provided no credible evidence to back up your claims and have proven that you don't know what you're talking about - you gave me all the proof I need of that.

Tim

I did a post with pics about the first albino "hondurans", you didn't say anything about that, but I prooved wrong.

Doug did a post about the anery hondurans, you didn#t say anything about and I prooved wrong?

You don't believe in WILLIAMS (which is todays scientific standard) and I prooved wrong?

What else can you bring to proove right?

i will not watse my time with this anymore, do you believe in evolution? Guess not.

Good bye,

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

.....all the "credible" evidence you need to determine the scientific/meristic differences between hondurensis and stuarti is on pages 145-151 of Ken Williams' second edition of the milksnake monograph.

As far as scale counts go, there is a lot of overlap between hondurensis and stuarti, but also there is the same kind of overlap between many of the other Latin American subspecies. These scale counts I'm referring to are dorsal scale rows, all the different head scale counts, ventrals, and subcaudals. But that is what you might expect from any species group as a whole.

What Gerrit is eluding to are the differences Williams pointed out in head and snout pattern, and red body ring (RBR) counts between the different subspecies.

I have also seen many of these "Honduran" morphs that are being called "true Hondurans". I have been able to see at least two different subspecies characters in many of some morphs, based on Williams' definitions of head/snout pattern and RBR counts. I have also seen many milks sold here on the classifieds advertised as "Hondurans" that are classic examples of stuarti.

Why there aren't anery stuarti available, I don't know. Maybe that line started with a hondurensis X stuarti intergrade and some of the stuarti characters stuck. But if you use Williams' monograph and look at the meristic characters of head/snout pattern and RBR counts, you can see the differences on some of these snakes that I'm talking about.

What I have seen in this hobby in the past several years is a more willing atmosphere to cross whatever one feels like crossing to produce a more lucrative morph of milk. The reason we have albino "Sinaloans" is because at some point someone took some of Doug Moody's albino nelsoni and began breeding them into sinaloae to produce a more attractive albino with longer red bands. Good luck trying to find pure examples of either nelsoni or sinaloae nowadays.

If you surf the ads long enough, you'll find "Andurans" (crosses between andesiana and "Hondurans", as well as crosses between Pueblans and "Hondurans". I have absolutely NO idea why someone would do that other than it is their snakes, they can do whatever they want to with them, and it MAY make them some money.

And while I personally feel that is irresponsible, it may certainly simplify things in the future when all you have to do is go to a herp show and peer into that deli cup to find some bubblegum albino baby snake that is simply listed "albino milk". And what a deal that will be, huh? With that one purchase you will be able to represent three to four (or more) subspecies in your collection.

Scott

What o you mean in the future you can find the albino milk and represent four subs. That was two weeks ago lol.

"I have also seen many of these "Honduran" morphs that are being called "true Hondurans"."

I've been breeding Hondurans for 20 years, and never heard of one being called a "true Honduran." Are they're "false Hondurans?"

"Why there aren't anery stuarti available, I don't know. Maybe that line started with a hondurensis X stuarti intergrade"

The key word here is "maybe." And maybe what you say is absolutely true. But assuming it is based on a snout band is hardly what I'd consider "scientific proof."

"What I have seen in this hobby in the past several years is a more willing atmosphere to cross whatever one feels like crossing to produce a more lucrative morph of milk. The reason we have albino "Sinaloans" is because at some point someone took some of Doug Moody's albino nelsoni and began breeding them into sinaloae to produce a more attractive albino with longer red bands. Good luck trying to find pure examples of either nelsoni or sinaloae nowadays."

Indeed. But I think there are several people out there breeding Cosala Sinaloans and I'm pretty sure Bob Applegate is still breeding Nelson's. Theses snakes naturally intergrade in nature, so I don't think many hobbyists feel it's a big deal.

Tim

Tim,
If these are labelled as "Hondurans", they either are or they aren't, right? And if they're not, shouldn't they be called intergrades or crosses or whatever they actually are?

If someone is advertising something as a "Honduran", and there is a definition (i.e. Williams' monograph) as to what defines L.t.hondurensis, shouldn't that animal fall within that range of meristic characters that define that subspecies? If not, then they aren't a "Honduran" as hondurensis has been defined. I don't know what you would call that animal then, maybe "false Honduran" is not that far off. Or maybe "Honduran mix".

Since I was not one of those who had the first anery, then I don't know what the lineage of that snake was. That's why I used the term "maybe". But since snout pattern is one of the things Williams used to distinguish some of those Central American subspecies, then that should be the standard we go by. And if you look in Williams' monograph, stuarti do have other pattern differences than do hondurensis, such as snout patterns and different RBR counts ranges.

I do agree that there are a few who are keeping some of the subspecies lines pure, such as the examples of the Cosalas and Nelsons you gave. However, I guess personal preferences vary as to if its a "big deal" to intentionally cross Sinaloans with Nelsons to produce the next morph for the pet trade merely because they naturally intergrade in the wild. I have tried to find good examples of both textbook sinaloae and textbook nelsoni, but most of the time you see characteristics of both in these animals. And if you know for sure that you have crosses of these, do you advertise them as crosses or as Sinaloans or as Nelsons?

Scott

"But since snout pattern is one of the things Williams used to distinguish some of those Central American subspecies, then that should be the standard we go by."

Really? So we're just going to take one guy's opinion and ignore everyone elses? I bet you'll ignore genetic DNA testing too. And any other opinon that counters this person's view of a snout band. You know, because Williams said so.

If a wild Honduran is found in a non-intergrade area with a funky snount band, does that make it not a Honduran?

If you want to use one guy's opinion on the shape of a snout band as your "holy grail," that's your prerogative. But don't tell me what the standard is that I should go by.

Tim

Even if DNA was tested on some animals to try to distinguish individuals from other Latin subspecies, you would STILL need many prime examples of these snakes to begin with, as well as many, many subjects.

To begin this grand task, you would have to start out with individuals within their known range that had "ideal" meristical characteristics first to begin with, or you would just be testing a generic milksnake that could have come from anywhere, or have any amount of other genetic influence(s). This would have to be done with MANY snakes from MANY different ranges.

These differences from many ranges with many different specimens are things Kenneth Williams already did. He also explains variation, and goes on in great detail describing suspected intergrades, and with WHAT subspecies of snakes, as well as WHY they are believed to be intergrades with what subspecies.

The main problem in the hobby is that not many people at all know what excellent examples of many of these different subspecies even look like, so when they have been mixed at different points over the course of many years by coutless people that couldn't tell a Sinaloan from an Andean Milksnake, it then becomes impossible to nail down with any certainty at all. For example, a tropical milksnake with 31 RBR(red body rings) that has extensive, heavily tipped scales and has a very broad, strait across snout band, that has heavily encroaching outer black rings(cross-overs) is NOT a hondurensis. Of course with all the morphs, much of this about the scale "tipping" wouldn't apply due to so many having greatly reduced, or no melanin at all.

One thing is certain,...all snakes with three colors and triads are not the same, nor are they all hondurensis. And when they're constantly mixed, they will tend to look somewhat similar as a whole, although some will certainly contain more or less of a percentage of any of these, and some will certainly look more "textbook" than others too and have extremely variable RBR counts, and any number of looks to their snout bands,.....does this make them ALL honurensis?......certainly it does not.

Please don't get me wrong, I love these snakes a great deal. and have owned and bred many of them, but for me to say they are absolutely 100% hondurensis would be a very far stretch knowing what I know about them.

best regards, ~Doug

-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

.....This "one guy" you talk about is the ONLY guy who has systematically, to this date, looked at variation within the entire Lampropeltis triangulum species group and published it as peer-reviewed. It is the only thing we have for now that encompasses the entire body of scientific knowledge we have on that group of snakes. Do you have a copy of Williams' monograph?

There indeed is some DNA testing being done on some of the triangulum, and when that is published, then we'll have that information as well. It will give us more information than is published scientifically now, and I'm sure it will change things around as to how we look at some of these subspecies......it will no doubt even create some more species group within what we currently are calling the Latin American triangulum. So when that comes out, I won't ignore it.

If you have photos of wild, locality specific hondurensis, I'd love to have you post them here, as I'm sure others would also.

This "holy grail" I'm going by, again, is currently the ONLY published, peer-reviewed scientific literature we have for the triangulum group. It is not solely based on snout pattern or snout band, but also RBR count ranges and some pattern differences. If it is your choice to ignore that science and then just call things as you see fit, that is up to you.

But if you are going to go by your own rules and ignore the science, then you may want to be consistent. On your website you have a section named: Honduran Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum hondurensis). Since you have listed those to the subspecies level, you must be considering your "Hondurans" to be pure hondurensis. You should know that those projects you list as "high white line of albinos" and "high black line of anerys" which is created by the black body rings that expand middorsally to pinch off the red rings in between them is actually from the stuarti influence in those snakes.

Scott

There have been several instances when an individual has attempted to reclassify snakes and these efforts were rejected after others presented their findings. Most recently this happened with North American Ratsnakes. I think it's dangerous to follow one person's findings blindly as if they're the Holy Gospel. That's my opinion and way of looking at things and I'm entitled to it.

I'm also entitled to not be told what to believe. What I believe is up to me. William's may be 100% right. I'd just like to see others independently come to the same conclusions. Presenting his findings is nice, but telling me that I have to believe them is not (see the difference?).

As I stated earlier my main problem with the views expressed on this post is that some (regarding scale counts and knowing the locality of imported specimens) were absolutely false. I don't see how we can get a better understanding of the snakes we keep when we have people in the hobby spreading false information and trying to pass themselves off as an "expert."

Tim

The example you give of Elaphe going to Pantherophis with hesitance by some to accept that is fine. Some will accept it, some probably never will. I still see many folks refer to rat snakes as either Elaphe (Pantherophis) or Pantherophis (Elaphe) so that both names are included for clarity sake, in light of this very recent nomenclatural change.

Williams' monograph first came out in 1978 with a revised edition in 1988, so this thing has been around for thirty years. And I don't doubt that when DNA testing is done, we will probably see several different species come out of the Latin American triangulum with some nomenclatural changes. The more science we can have on ironing out systematics, the better. But until that happens, Williams' monograph is the current body of peer reviewed, scientific literature we have on that group's systematics.

That all being said, if you're going to use science to refer to or list something with that animal's scientific name (genus/species/subspecies), that animal should be within the range of meristic characters it was described to have. For you to question or doubt Williams' work on what constitutes something being hondurensis or not really has me scratching my head, especially since Williams is THE herpetologist who described and named BOTH L.t.hondurensis and L.t.stuarti in 1978.

And you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what it is. Everyone has that right. If you choose to not accept the current body of scientific literature we have on the triangulum group, that is your choice. And if, as you say, you are "open to the idea that ALL milksnakes are potentially crosses or maybe even the same subspecies", then why separate out Hondurans from Nelson's from Sinaloans using Williams' nomenclature? Just call them all the same thing !!

This forum has been a good exchange of ideas from time to time, some better than others. And we have contributors from other countries that participate in these forums as well. I don't think that you saying to Burnsy "It would be useful if you learned how to spell" was very appropriate. Especially since he is German and has been struggling with perfecting his use of the English language and its words.

Scott

Scott...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

-Riley

Tim said: "But assuming it is based on a snout band is hardly what I'd consider "scientific proof."

Tim, we are still waiting for the DNA analysis on those and as long as these do not show up we have to go with the actual systematics and their basics. And these basics are meristic data, SNOUT BAND and number of red body rings. WILLIAMS did the student's T test to make his researches significant.

Now you say that this doesn't count for you?

Gerrit
-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

starting to sound like a conversation/thread that went on in the kingsnake forum not long ago between JKruse/FR/Joe Forks. Strong opinions sometimes don't last long, but many good points being made however. Many things do seem to be blurred in this hobby (industry for some), and in some ways we have gone beyond the point of no return with regard to our responsibilities.

I have never seen locality hondurensis, but the bicolor morph is from a certain locality in Central America. So all bicolor/tricolor offspring are locality intergrades. I don't think that amelanistic hondurans were created by intentional interbreeding the way albino alternas were, though accidentals may have occurred in captivity due to the dificulty in visually identifying many tropical milksnakes.
However, the origonal WC Hondurans were probably at least slightly impure, as there are so many similar triangulum in that region. I agree that milksnakes easily interbreed in the wild, but now it really doesn't matter too much, as most traits from other subspecies have been minimized.

I am in no way an expert, but it is my understanding that the albino started from a snake the keyed out inbetween a Honduran and a Polyzona? The animal was sold as Honduran and reproduced from there. The two snakes share portions of the same range.

That is not quite the same as breeding Cal King to a Fl. king which have ranges a thousand miles away.

-----
"The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which ones pink?"

Actually, hondurensis and polyzona do not share portions of the same range as subspecies.

Scott

Correct-o-mundo!, Mr. Ballard,....separated by abnorma by at least a couple hundred miles.

best regards, ~Doug
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

Ah, this is I dont believe in (sub)species

Anyway, milks are a good example of a ring species (damn that word!). Its unlikely that an eastern could even mate in nature with a black, but given enough time genes can migrate between the two through intermediate species (that f#$%ing word again!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Cheers,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

Vinny, I guess I'll have to change my breeding plans. I thought this would have made a real interesting pair. (Just kidding of course!)

-----
Joe