The rest???
First off, there is far more to the story then what you know, what happened before your story started. Was there a time from when they were collected and the first lite ones showed up?
Please do not get me wrong, I am only doing what many here do, playing devils advocate. To me, one individual looked a little odd, particularly the head markings. All we should ask is why? Not jump up and down and throw fits.
A little history, I was around at the time Greeri came in, I was at those areas they came from. I saw the original animals that did come in. Both the ones from the tucson group and the SoCal boys. of course later from the texas boys. So I have a tiny idea of what they started like. Notice, I said started like.
ALso, most of you have lost your minds(in my opinion) as all you think about is pure or crossing. To bad its not that simple. Not in the least.
This reminds me of some great early conversations with Steve O.. In the old days, I experiemented with crossing all the montane kings(mexicana, pyro, zonata) up to a point I had all in one. At the time Steve O. was highly against crossing, remember, these animals are or were or will be basically the same snake. The species names keep changing, but the snakes are very similar, and some very common characters, that make them the same.(you can ask about this)
Well, I also have and had at that time(a very long time ago) extensive experience with inbreeding(line breeding) So, if you look at it, line breeding is inbreeding, and crossing is outbreeding. Again, I had extensive experience with both.
So, in my conversations with Steve O, I mentioned if you inbreed any mexicana long enough, you will recieve individuals that would represent the other types of mexicana(pyros and zonata included). Of course, Steve O, disagreed, consider, at that time, he did not have extensive experience. Some years went by and Steve called me up and said, Frank your right, I have been line breeding greeri(from wild original stock) and low and behold, I recieved an individual that looked like a thayeri. He sent me a pic and it did appear like a thayeri.
The reality is, extensive inbreeding produced more "odd" individuals then outbreeding. Outbreeding(crossing different types) generally produced intermediates, most likely representing the "common ancestors) which were tri-colored, you know, red, white and black banded animals. Actually, they mostly represented "Querreterro"(sp) kings.
What I am getting at is, all these montane kings most likely had a recent common ancestor. Something like Querreterro kings.
So, if your trying to follow me, its not about whether they were crossed in captivity, its more about genotype. That is, most of these montanes have a wide genotype(why some are so polymorphic) And extensive captive inbreeding expresses some of these genotypic characters.
The problem is, we judge these animals by phenotypic characters, not genotypic characters. In a nutshell, genotype is the total genetic possibilities an individual pocesses. Phenotypic is the genotype filtered through natural selection(current enviornmental factors/controls)
So what we actually have is more then simply "it ain't a cross(hybrid), It "IS" more about phenotypic(current chararcters) That is, do these animals represent what is occurring in nature.
Sadly, in captivity, genotypic oddities are called morphs, or phases, or something of value. But they do not represent what occurs normally or naturally, in nature, They are indeed FREAKS, as would be any naturally occurring hybrid. And yes, hybrids commonly occur.
These morphs, are normally selected against and do not take hold. Just as hybrids are. They are filtered out in the phenotype.(natural selection)
Yes, captivity is not nature. Yet, many of you go on and on, about pure and nature and naturally occurring. Yet have animals that are FREAKS, that in nature are selected against.
For instance, the average captive thayeri does not resemble a wild thayeri. Those bright orange things and all manner of weird captives, are not seen in nature. I imagine they are selected against. They may occur from time to time, but, they are mostly called dinner for some predator.(they do not fit)
In very recent conversations with Dave Blody(some call me nuts, I am not even close to Dave in this area) He has been researching the lines of Thayeri. Well, its hard to make heads or tails of any conversation with Dave, but, he did find that they are all a mess. There are some very distinct local characters. But all the lines have been crossed out. That is, there are no pure thayeri, in captivity, at least widespead. There may be some unfortunate keeper(has ugly thayeri) that has some wildcaught thayeri from the same local. But that is such a small percentage, its not important.
So, yes, putting this to rest with a report of recent history, is not very restful. In fact, its very naive. As most of the original stock was OUTBRED, (crossed to unrelated animals)(some of which was other species, but at the time we did not know that). Which makes them not pure. Or they are converted into morphs, again not pure.
Back to this exact thread, if an individual does not look right, then its not right. At this time, looks are all we have. If it does not look like a poodle, then its not a poodle. End of that story. Which means, if you line breed a greeri until it no longer resembles a phenotypic greeri, then is no longer a greeri. The reason is, greeri were named for the phenotype.
Of course, my post is not for everyone, but please read it and consider it. Cheers
