Reptile & Amphibian Forums

First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.

As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.

It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

I'm definately not an expert on chameleons, let alone chameleon breeding, but here is my opinion anyway...
The problem that arisies when cross breeding is that if someone buys a cross and doens't know (inexperienced, or hard to tell the difference) and breeds and sells the offspring as pure, it could "taint" the bloodlines.
You clearly are not breeding them just to sell them off as either, and would make it clear that they are a hybrid animal to any buyers. SO... what is the problem with it? As long as it isn't something that will ruin other bloodlines, and as long as those bloodlines are allowed to continue... I think it could have positive results, as you mentioned.
It could even present a new breed, at some point in the future. Look at dog breeds. There are a lot that are just crosses, but are now recognized as an actual breed. The crosses were made several generations ago. For example, stafordshire bull terriers. These are a mix of a pitbull type breed (MANY years ago) and a terrier. They are now recognized as their own breed. Each of the bloodlines that this breed originated from are still able to be found in pure form. I know that it's a little different with chameleons, because the numbers being dealt with are on an entirely different scale.. but suppose that a new hybrid animal is started. Starting a few generations by crossbreeding won't hurt the lines... and in a few generations they could be only interspecies bred to like hybrids. I think this would be an interesting thing to see...
As far as it being natural, I am sure that this is possible in the wild. If it was a huge issue, they would not be able to have offspring together. Sure, there may be some faults with a "man made" breed (back to dogs, a lot have specific species - related illness/weakness - look at great danes for example) BUT there could also be great strengths! Also, in nature, things like this happen to develop the bloodlines in an evolution type of way (for lack of a better way to say it, i'm half asleep lol)
Well, I think it would be a neat thing to try, if someone responsible is the one doing it, and I think you are!
~Lindsay

>>I'm definately not an expert on chameleons, let alone chameleon breeding, but here is my opinion anyway...
>>The problem that arisies when cross breeding is that if someone buys a cross and doens't know (inexperienced, or hard to tell the difference) and breeds and sells the offspring as pure, it could "taint" the bloodlines.
>>You clearly are not breeding them just to sell them off as either, and would make it clear that they are a hybrid animal to any buyers. SO... what is the problem with it? As long as it isn't something that will ruin other bloodlines, and as long as those bloodlines are allowed to continue... I think it could have positive results, as you mentioned.
>>It could even present a new breed, at some point in the future. Look at dog breeds. There are a lot that are just crosses, but are now recognized as an actual breed. The crosses were made several generations ago. For example, stafordshire bull terriers. These are a mix of a pitbull type breed (MANY years ago) and a terrier. They are now recognized as their own breed. Each of the bloodlines that this breed originated from are still able to be found in pure form. I know that it's a little different with chameleons, because the numbers being dealt with are on an entirely different scale.. but suppose that a new hybrid animal is started. Starting a few generations by crossbreeding won't hurt the lines... and in a few generations they could be only interspecies bred to like hybrids. I think this would be an interesting thing to see...
>>As far as it being natural, I am sure that this is possible in the wild. If it was a huge issue, they would not be able to have offspring together. Sure, there may be some faults with a "man made" breed (back to dogs, a lot have specific species - related illness/weakness - look at great danes for example) BUT there could also be great strengths! Also, in nature, things like this happen to develop the bloodlines in an evolution type of way (for lack of a better way to say it, i'm half asleep lol)
>>Well, I think it would be a neat thing to try, if someone responsible is the one doing it, and I think you are!
>>~Lindsay

The example of dogs while it seems logical is unrelated to this debate. Dogs are all the same species, they are not even different subspecies. We are refering to different subspecies and is therefore a completely different topic. This cross could in no way aid the captive populations as a cross can never be a pure subspecies no matter how many generations of being bred back into the subspecies occur. Additionally, no this cross could not occur in the wild. The two subspecies are geographically isolated and would never hybridize. An issue is, even if the breeder makes it clear that it is a hybrid, if the offspring are not sterile, it would be very easy for this fact to be lost over a couple generations and then bred back into pure animals unknowingly.
Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>
>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>
>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>-----
>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny

I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>
>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>
>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>-----
>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>
>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>Chris
>>-----
>>Chris Anderson
>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

>>>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>
>>>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>>>Chris
>>>>-----
>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>
>>How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
>> If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
>> I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
>> We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
>>-----
>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny

There are both Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus populations on Hawaii but that is not the wild, they are not native there. Additionally, those imported match the description of one of the other. Also, these populations of jax in Hawaii seem to be one species or the other for the most part.
Thousands of years of separation facilitated the speciation towards seperate subspecies in this case. The fact that they originated from a common ancestor is irrelevent, they no longer are that common ancestor and have evolved to distinction.
This cross has not occured to this point and doesn't have to now either. Why would you want to turn these animals into what kingsnakes and cornsnakes have become? The only reason is simply to play and act on your whims and that IMO is unprofessional and frankly irresponsible.
If breeders were not breeding partially to maintain taxon then this would be common practice. Jeofries cats for instance used to be bred without any consideration of subspecies or locality and now they are a mutt without any clear distinction in the captive populations. Selective breeding for exceptional animals is very different than hybridiztion.
Taking notes is not the point, IMO it doesn't matter if you are 10 or 80, if you have no prior breeding experience or decades of it, hybridization across subspecies or species barriers is not good for the state of our captive populations. If people act in disregard to this, these animals will not continue to exist as they do now in captivity and could very possibly cease to exist much like many other species do once a source of wild blood is baned from export.
Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

>>>>>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>>>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>
>>>>How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
>>>> If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
>>>> I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
>>>> We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
>>>>-----
>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>
>>There are both Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus populations on Hawaii but that is not the wild, they are not native there. Additionally, those imported match the description of one of the other. Also, these populations of jax in Hawaii seem to be one species or the other for the most part.
>>Thousands of years of separation facilitated the speciation towards seperate subspecies in this case. The fact that they originated from a common ancestor is irrelevent, they no longer are that common ancestor and have evolved to distinction.
>>This cross has not occured to this point and doesn't have to now either. Why would you want to turn these animals into what kingsnakes and cornsnakes have become? The only reason is simply to play and act on your whims and that IMO is unprofessional and frankly irresponsible.
>>If breeders were not breeding partially to maintain taxon then this would be common practice. Jeofries cats for instance used to be bred without any consideration of subspecies or locality and now they are a mutt without any clear distinction in the captive populations. Selective breeding for exceptional animals is very different than hybridiztion.
>>Taking notes is not the point, IMO it doesn't matter if you are 10 or 80, if you have no prior breeding experience or decades of it, hybridization across subspecies or species barriers is not good for the state of our captive populations. If people act in disregard to this, these animals will not continue to exist as they do now in captivity and could very possibly cease to exist much like many other species do once a source of wild blood is baned from export.
>>Chris
>>-----
>>Chris Anderson
>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

With all due respect, Viable "Mutts" are usually stronger genetically. Fewer matching recessive genes. There will be wild Jackson's, pure genes, for some time yet. Plenty of oportunities to begin a "pedigree" system, the sooner the better however. I agree with what you are saying, but I think you should focus your energies towards a checks and balances system for gene pools because SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god.
I know there has been an awefully recent consensis on the Jacksonii ssp. and it is probably in for a few turns yet, on the subject of African Jacksonii.
Theoretically, following your train of thought, all chameleons should be exterminated in Hawaii, to keep the gene pool safe. Or at least all but one ssp. Man has been crossbreeding animals for a very very long time and chameleons will be no exception, the time to start keeping legal records of breeding by at least some breeders is yesterday. Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility.
Your points are very well taken, and I have alot of respect for you, however, you must realize this will stop few people from trying these things, and in the meantime the genes are still being mixed and you are becoming perhaps bitter. Either way, the only REAL solution I can see is pedigree system. Could this not have saved the Geoffrey's cat lines? It boils down to whether or not the breeder feels free to be honest, therein lies the answer and the problem itself, I believe.
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

>>>>>>>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>>>>>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
>>>>>> If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
>>>>>> I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
>>>>>> We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>
>>>>There are both Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus populations on Hawaii but that is not the wild, they are not native there. Additionally, those imported match the description of one of the other. Also, these populations of jax in Hawaii seem to be one species or the other for the most part.
>>>>Thousands of years of separation facilitated the speciation towards seperate subspecies in this case. The fact that they originated from a common ancestor is irrelevent, they no longer are that common ancestor and have evolved to distinction.
>>>>This cross has not occured to this point and doesn't have to now either. Why would you want to turn these animals into what kingsnakes and cornsnakes have become? The only reason is simply to play and act on your whims and that IMO is unprofessional and frankly irresponsible.
>>>>If breeders were not breeding partially to maintain taxon then this would be common practice. Jeofries cats for instance used to be bred without any consideration of subspecies or locality and now they are a mutt without any clear distinction in the captive populations. Selective breeding for exceptional animals is very different than hybridiztion.
>>>>Taking notes is not the point, IMO it doesn't matter if you are 10 or 80, if you have no prior breeding experience or decades of it, hybridization across subspecies or species barriers is not good for the state of our captive populations. If people act in disregard to this, these animals will not continue to exist as they do now in captivity and could very possibly cease to exist much like many other species do once a source of wild blood is baned from export.
>>>>Chris
>>>>-----
>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>
>> With all due respect, Viable "Mutts" are usually stronger genetically. Fewer matching recessive genes. There will be wild Jackson's, pure genes, for some time yet. Plenty of oportunities to begin a "pedigree" system, the sooner the better however. I agree with what you are saying, but I think you should focus your energies towards a checks and balances system for gene pools because SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god.
>> I know there has been an awefully recent consensis on the Jacksonii ssp. and it is probably in for a few turns yet, on the subject of African Jacksonii.
>> Theoretically, following your train of thought, all chameleons should be exterminated in Hawaii, to keep the gene pool safe. Or at least all but one ssp. Man has been crossbreeding animals for a very very long time and chameleons will be no exception, the time to start keeping legal records of breeding by at least some breeders is yesterday. Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility.
>> Your points are very well taken, and I have alot of respect for you, however, you must realize this will stop few people from trying these things, and in the meantime the genes are still being mixed and you are becoming perhaps bitter. Either way, the only REAL solution I can see is pedigree system. Could this not have saved the Geoffrey's cat lines? It boils down to whether or not the breeder feels free to be honest, therein lies the answer and the problem itself, I believe.
>>-----
>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny

First of all, Hawaii no longer exports the jax commercially so there is not a source to restart up this pedegree as you say after people have screwed up the one we have.
Secondly, I am in no way saying we should kill off the jax on Hawaii! Where are you getting that? The Jax on Hawaii are not in the wild and are not altering them at all. Additionally, since they are not being exported into captivity, they are not doing anything to the current captive stock. As i stated, it appears that each population on Hawaii sticks to one subspecies or the other and those that were exported matched a description of one subspecies or the other so where are you getting that with my train of thought we should kill them off?!?!
We are talking about hybrids of subspecies and species, not mutts. We are talking about different genetic make-ups, not the same species so this use of recesive genes is not an issue.
Here is what I'm getting from your post now. You are insisting that you are going to do this and that you want to. At the same time you say things like "SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god" and "Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility." Basically you are saying that you don't see past the dollar sign, you want to play god and you are not being stopped on the basis of moral or scientific grounds. I hope i'm not the only one that sees the absurdity of your posts and what you are trying to promote.
Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

>>>>>>>>>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
>>>>>>>> If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
>>>>>>>> I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
>>>>>>>> We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are both Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus populations on Hawaii but that is not the wild, they are not native there. Additionally, those imported match the description of one of the other. Also, these populations of jax in Hawaii seem to be one species or the other for the most part.
>>>>>>Thousands of years of separation facilitated the speciation towards seperate subspecies in this case. The fact that they originated from a common ancestor is irrelevent, they no longer are that common ancestor and have evolved to distinction.
>>>>>>This cross has not occured to this point and doesn't have to now either. Why would you want to turn these animals into what kingsnakes and cornsnakes have become? The only reason is simply to play and act on your whims and that IMO is unprofessional and frankly irresponsible.
>>>>>>If breeders were not breeding partially to maintain taxon then this would be common practice. Jeofries cats for instance used to be bred without any consideration of subspecies or locality and now they are a mutt without any clear distinction in the captive populations. Selective breeding for exceptional animals is very different than hybridiztion.
>>>>>>Taking notes is not the point, IMO it doesn't matter if you are 10 or 80, if you have no prior breeding experience or decades of it, hybridization across subspecies or species barriers is not good for the state of our captive populations. If people act in disregard to this, these animals will not continue to exist as they do now in captivity and could very possibly cease to exist much like many other species do once a source of wild blood is baned from export.
>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>
>>>> With all due respect, Viable "Mutts" are usually stronger genetically. Fewer matching recessive genes. There will be wild Jackson's, pure genes, for some time yet. Plenty of oportunities to begin a "pedigree" system, the sooner the better however. I agree with what you are saying, but I think you should focus your energies towards a checks and balances system for gene pools because SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god.
>>>> I know there has been an awefully recent consensis on the Jacksonii ssp. and it is probably in for a few turns yet, on the subject of African Jacksonii.
>>>> Theoretically, following your train of thought, all chameleons should be exterminated in Hawaii, to keep the gene pool safe. Or at least all but one ssp. Man has been crossbreeding animals for a very very long time and chameleons will be no exception, the time to start keeping legal records of breeding by at least some breeders is yesterday. Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility.
>>>> Your points are very well taken, and I have alot of respect for you, however, you must realize this will stop few people from trying these things, and in the meantime the genes are still being mixed and you are becoming perhaps bitter. Either way, the only REAL solution I can see is pedigree system. Could this not have saved the Geoffrey's cat lines? It boils down to whether or not the breeder feels free to be honest, therein lies the answer and the problem itself, I believe.
>>>>-----
>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>
>>First of all, Hawaii no longer exports the jax commercially so there is not a source to restart up this pedegree as you say after people have screwed up the one we have.
>>Secondly, I am in no way saying we should kill off the jax on Hawaii! Where are you getting that? The Jax on Hawaii are not in the wild and are not altering them at all. Additionally, since they are not being exported into captivity, they are not doing anything to the current captive stock. As i stated, it appears that each population on Hawaii sticks to one subspecies or the other and those that were exported matched a description of one subspecies or the other so where are you getting that with my train of thought we should kill them off?!?!
>>We are talking about hybrids of subspecies and species, not mutts. We are talking about different genetic make-ups, not the same species so this use of recesive genes is not an issue.
>>Here is what I'm getting from your post now. You are insisting that you are going to do this and that you want to. At the same time you say things like "SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god" and "Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility." Basically you are saying that you don't see past the dollar sign, you want to play god and you are not being stopped on the basis of moral or scientific grounds. I hope i'm not the only one that sees the absurdity of your posts and what you are trying to promote.
>>Chris
>>-----
>>Chris Anderson
>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

I meant to say that this use of recesive genes is not the issue, it isn't that it isn't an issue but I personally don't think that eliminating a subspecies on this basis is moral or scientific.
Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
>>>>>>>>>> If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
>>>>>>>>>> I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
>>>>>>>>>> We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are both Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus populations on Hawaii but that is not the wild, they are not native there. Additionally, those imported match the description of one of the other. Also, these populations of jax in Hawaii seem to be one species or the other for the most part.
>>>>>>>>Thousands of years of separation facilitated the speciation towards seperate subspecies in this case. The fact that they originated from a common ancestor is irrelevent, they no longer are that common ancestor and have evolved to distinction.
>>>>>>>>This cross has not occured to this point and doesn't have to now either. Why would you want to turn these animals into what kingsnakes and cornsnakes have become? The only reason is simply to play and act on your whims and that IMO is unprofessional and frankly irresponsible.
>>>>>>>>If breeders were not breeding partially to maintain taxon then this would be common practice. Jeofries cats for instance used to be bred without any consideration of subspecies or locality and now they are a mutt without any clear distinction in the captive populations. Selective breeding for exceptional animals is very different than hybridiztion.
>>>>>>>>Taking notes is not the point, IMO it doesn't matter if you are 10 or 80, if you have no prior breeding experience or decades of it, hybridization across subspecies or species barriers is not good for the state of our captive populations. If people act in disregard to this, these animals will not continue to exist as they do now in captivity and could very possibly cease to exist much like many other species do once a source of wild blood is baned from export.
>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With all due respect, Viable "Mutts" are usually stronger genetically. Fewer matching recessive genes. There will be wild Jackson's, pure genes, for some time yet. Plenty of oportunities to begin a "pedigree" system, the sooner the better however. I agree with what you are saying, but I think you should focus your energies towards a checks and balances system for gene pools because SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god.
>>>>>> I know there has been an awefully recent consensis on the Jacksonii ssp. and it is probably in for a few turns yet, on the subject of African Jacksonii.
>>>>>> Theoretically, following your train of thought, all chameleons should be exterminated in Hawaii, to keep the gene pool safe. Or at least all but one ssp. Man has been crossbreeding animals for a very very long time and chameleons will be no exception, the time to start keeping legal records of breeding by at least some breeders is yesterday. Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility.
>>>>>> Your points are very well taken, and I have alot of respect for you, however, you must realize this will stop few people from trying these things, and in the meantime the genes are still being mixed and you are becoming perhaps bitter. Either way, the only REAL solution I can see is pedigree system. Could this not have saved the Geoffrey's cat lines? It boils down to whether or not the breeder feels free to be honest, therein lies the answer and the problem itself, I believe.
>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>
>>>>First of all, Hawaii no longer exports the jax commercially so there is not a source to restart up this pedegree as you say after people have screwed up the one we have.
>>>>Secondly, I am in no way saying we should kill off the jax on Hawaii! Where are you getting that? The Jax on Hawaii are not in the wild and are not altering them at all. Additionally, since they are not being exported into captivity, they are not doing anything to the current captive stock. As i stated, it appears that each population on Hawaii sticks to one subspecies or the other and those that were exported matched a description of one subspecies or the other so where are you getting that with my train of thought we should kill them off?!?!
>>>>We are talking about hybrids of subspecies and species, not mutts. We are talking about different genetic make-ups, not the same species so this use of recesive genes is not an issue.
>>>>Here is what I'm getting from your post now. You are insisting that you are going to do this and that you want to. At the same time you say things like "SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god" and "Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility." Basically you are saying that you don't see past the dollar sign, you want to play god and you are not being stopped on the basis of moral or scientific grounds. I hope i'm not the only one that sees the absurdity of your posts and what you are trying to promote.
>>>>Chris
>>>>-----
>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>
>>I meant to say that this use of recesive genes is not the issue, it isn't that it isn't an issue but I personally don't think that eliminating a subspecies on this basis is moral or scientific.
>>Chris
>>-----
>>Chris Anderson
>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

No one is even remotely suggesting that we stop breeding chams true to their roots all together, that would truly be a shame. It has happened far too often in the past with other animals and plants. I am just suggesting that it will be done, and we should have checks and balances NOW. I am also saying I will probably attempt it, if I dont get shot trying, and it is for money and for "playing god" and for the science of it, yes, for the experimental SCIENCE of it. I will also tell you that you couldnt find a more honest person to do it, and that is the real point, the others who do try might not be as honest.
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

>>>>>>>>>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
>>>>>>>> If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
>>>>>>>> I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
>>>>>>>> We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are both Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus populations on Hawaii but that is not the wild, they are not native there. Additionally, those imported match the description of one of the other. Also, these populations of jax in Hawaii seem to be one species or the other for the most part.
>>>>>>Thousands of years of separation facilitated the speciation towards seperate subspecies in this case. The fact that they originated from a common ancestor is irrelevent, they no longer are that common ancestor and have evolved to distinction.
>>>>>>This cross has not occured to this point and doesn't have to now either. Why would you want to turn these animals into what kingsnakes and cornsnakes have become? The only reason is simply to play and act on your whims and that IMO is unprofessional and frankly irresponsible.
>>>>>>If breeders were not breeding partially to maintain taxon then this would be common practice. Jeofries cats for instance used to be bred without any consideration of subspecies or locality and now they are a mutt without any clear distinction in the captive populations. Selective breeding for exceptional animals is very different than hybridiztion.
>>>>>>Taking notes is not the point, IMO it doesn't matter if you are 10 or 80, if you have no prior breeding experience or decades of it, hybridization across subspecies or species barriers is not good for the state of our captive populations. If people act in disregard to this, these animals will not continue to exist as they do now in captivity and could very possibly cease to exist much like many other species do once a source of wild blood is baned from export.
>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>
>>>> With all due respect, Viable "Mutts" are usually stronger genetically. Fewer matching recessive genes. There will be wild Jackson's, pure genes, for some time yet. Plenty of oportunities to begin a "pedigree" system, the sooner the better however. I agree with what you are saying, but I think you should focus your energies towards a checks and balances system for gene pools because SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god.
>>>> I know there has been an awefully recent consensis on the Jacksonii ssp. and it is probably in for a few turns yet, on the subject of African Jacksonii.
>>>> Theoretically, following your train of thought, all chameleons should be exterminated in Hawaii, to keep the gene pool safe. Or at least all but one ssp. Man has been crossbreeding animals for a very very long time and chameleons will be no exception, the time to start keeping legal records of breeding by at least some breeders is yesterday. Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility.
>>>> Your points are very well taken, and I have alot of respect for you, however, you must realize this will stop few people from trying these things, and in the meantime the genes are still being mixed and you are becoming perhaps bitter. Either way, the only REAL solution I can see is pedigree system. Could this not have saved the Geoffrey's cat lines? It boils down to whether or not the breeder feels free to be honest, therein lies the answer and the problem itself, I believe.
>>>>-----
>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>
>>First of all, Hawaii no longer exports the jax commercially so there is not a source to restart up this pedegree as you say after people have screwed up the one we have.
>>Secondly, I am in no way saying we should kill off the jax on Hawaii! Where are you getting that? The Jax on Hawaii are not in the wild and are not altering them at all. Additionally, since they are not being exported into captivity, they are not doing anything to the current captive stock. As i stated, it appears that each population on Hawaii sticks to one subspecies or the other and those that were exported matched a description of one subspecies or the other so where are you getting that with my train of thought we should kill them off?!?!
>>We are talking about hybrids of subspecies and species, not mutts. We are talking about different genetic make-ups, not the same species so this use of recesive genes is not an issue.
>>Here is what I'm getting from your post now. You are insisting that you are going to do this and that you want to. At the same time you say things like "SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god" and "Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility." Basically you are saying that you don't see past the dollar sign, you want to play god and you are not being stopped on the basis of moral or scientific grounds. I hope i'm not the only one that sees the absurdity of your posts and what you are trying to promote.
>>Chris
>>-----
>>Chris Anderson
>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

Jackson's chameleons come onto the continent each and every day from Hawaii my kind sir. I am not promoting anything but open dialect and honesty. I hope I'm not the only one that sees the absurdity of YOUR posts, and the fact that you are not adressing all the important BOLD LETTERED points of mine. When you have other points to make and are ready to not be angry with me and can stop dwelling on your irrational dogma, I will converse with you again. The dialect is now over since we have been reduced to name calling, thank you for your intelligent fascinating input sir.
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>First of all, as far as taxonomy (which appears to me very sketchy to begin with)for Jacksonii ssp. go, why couldn't the "hybrid" xanth. meru. be kept seperate using simple record keeping. I would still breed the rarer dwarf form seperately, and xantholophus are dead common at the moment, so I dont really see damaging the captive breeding quantity by much by using one as a "guinea pig". Cross breeding the subspecies could actually save an ailing inbred captive population (or hawaiian wild for that matter)in the future by the same token as Hawaiian Jacksonii xantholophus could become hard to get in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as morphology, I would use (in theory of course) a male meru and female xanth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems you are saying your reasoning is simply to keep the taxonomy easier, and taxonomy is always a complicated and often bleary science anyway. My feeling is that if two subspecies or two species for that matter are capable of bearing viable offspring then it is possible, given enough time, and likely that it will occur or has at some point, especially given the RELATIVELY close proximity of mt. meru and mt. kenya and surrounding biotope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any more reasons I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always open to other points of view, and have already learned alot from this exchange guys, thank you both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I couldn't disagree more with your statement that crossing could save the inbred captive population, it would ruin it. If you crossed them, you no longer have Ch. j. merumontanus or Ch. j. xantholophus and therefore, it isn't doing a damn thing to save the captive population. Unless the cross is naturally occuring, the animals resulting from a cross are not a species or a subspecies, they are effectivly worthless trash animals that have no place. Once an animal has been crossed, those babies can never have a pure subspecies or species again, no matter how many generations of breeding into one subspecies occurs. Additionally, you are talking about viable babies resulting from this cross. You don't know that they wouldn't be sterile. Additionally, if they weren't sterile, you'd taint the captive population. You say its just one "guinea pig" but it sets a terrible example and how many "guinea pig" crosses would it take before the captive populations have been tainted enough to cause problems. Finally, you will have no way of telling if the babies are the result of the cross or not. Many ovoviviparous species, including Ch. jacksonii store sperm and therefore, unless the female was a CB animal that has never been with a mature male, you wouldn't know and you run a serious risk of mixing these crosses with the pure subspecies, thereby slowly eliminating the captive population of the subspecies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How do you know Hawaii jacksonii populations do not mix? Odds are there are other subspecies introduced there. I understand your points, and I understand the "bad example" statement, however it will be done at some point by someone, can't stop "whims". Perhaps there should be certified breeders like with dogs and horses, held to a higher standard than the typical keeper. A pedigree so to speak. I still dont see any harm in attempting this, as long as the chameleon could survive in the wild. As far as "imposible for meru and xanth to mix in the wild" geography can and does change given a thousand years plus, also since they are still both Jacksonii, obviously they used to be connected or a few brave chams made the trek somehow. My point, i guess, is that I dont think most breeders are breeding in order to maintain a taxonomy or are thinking about having to help a deminishing wild population, they are breeding for exceptional animals.
>>>>>>>>>> If I did this I would of course use a virgin xanth and keep seperate, of course.
>>>>>>>>>> I think shying away from crossbreeding because it will cause problems with classification is a pretty lame reason, you will have to do better than that, lol.
>>>>>>>>>> We really don't know what would happen with this cross, perhaps it isn't even possible, and the whole point is moot. I do sincerely respect your opinion, you obviously have given this alot of thought and feel strongly about it. But it will be done by someone. would it be better for a 12 year old to do it or someone who might actually keep records and be responsible?
>>>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are both Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus populations on Hawaii but that is not the wild, they are not native there. Additionally, those imported match the description of one of the other. Also, these populations of jax in Hawaii seem to be one species or the other for the most part.
>>>>>>>>Thousands of years of separation facilitated the speciation towards seperate subspecies in this case. The fact that they originated from a common ancestor is irrelevent, they no longer are that common ancestor and have evolved to distinction.
>>>>>>>>This cross has not occured to this point and doesn't have to now either. Why would you want to turn these animals into what kingsnakes and cornsnakes have become? The only reason is simply to play and act on your whims and that IMO is unprofessional and frankly irresponsible.
>>>>>>>>If breeders were not breeding partially to maintain taxon then this would be common practice. Jeofries cats for instance used to be bred without any consideration of subspecies or locality and now they are a mutt without any clear distinction in the captive populations. Selective breeding for exceptional animals is very different than hybridiztion.
>>>>>>>>Taking notes is not the point, IMO it doesn't matter if you are 10 or 80, if you have no prior breeding experience or decades of it, hybridization across subspecies or species barriers is not good for the state of our captive populations. If people act in disregard to this, these animals will not continue to exist as they do now in captivity and could very possibly cease to exist much like many other species do once a source of wild blood is baned from export.
>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With all due respect, Viable "Mutts" are usually stronger genetically. Fewer matching recessive genes. There will be wild Jackson's, pure genes, for some time yet. Plenty of oportunities to begin a "pedigree" system, the sooner the better however. I agree with what you are saying, but I think you should focus your energies towards a checks and balances system for gene pools because SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god.
>>>>>> I know there has been an awefully recent consensis on the Jacksonii ssp. and it is probably in for a few turns yet, on the subject of African Jacksonii.
>>>>>> Theoretically, following your train of thought, all chameleons should be exterminated in Hawaii, to keep the gene pool safe. Or at least all but one ssp. Man has been crossbreeding animals for a very very long time and chameleons will be no exception, the time to start keeping legal records of breeding by at least some breeders is yesterday. Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility.
>>>>>> Your points are very well taken, and I have alot of respect for you, however, you must realize this will stop few people from trying these things, and in the meantime the genes are still being mixed and you are becoming perhaps bitter. Either way, the only REAL solution I can see is pedigree system. Could this not have saved the Geoffrey's cat lines? It boils down to whether or not the breeder feels free to be honest, therein lies the answer and the problem itself, I believe.
>>>>>>-----
>>>>>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>>>>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>>>>>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>>>>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>>>>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>>>>>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
>>>>
>>>>First of all, Hawaii no longer exports the jax commercially so there is not a source to restart up this pedegree as you say after people have screwed up the one we have.
>>>>Secondly, I am in no way saying we should kill off the jax on Hawaii! Where are you getting that? The Jax on Hawaii are not in the wild and are not altering them at all. Additionally, since they are not being exported into captivity, they are not doing anything to the current captive stock. As i stated, it appears that each population on Hawaii sticks to one subspecies or the other and those that were exported matched a description of one subspecies or the other so where are you getting that with my train of thought we should kill them off?!?!
>>>>We are talking about hybrids of subspecies and species, not mutts. We are talking about different genetic make-ups, not the same species so this use of recesive genes is not an issue.
>>>>Here is what I'm getting from your post now. You are insisting that you are going to do this and that you want to. At the same time you say things like "SOMEONE WILL DO THIS, most people don't see past the dollar sign and some people love to play god" and "Trying to stop this crossbreeding on moral or scientific grounds is an excercise in futility." Basically you are saying that you don't see past the dollar sign, you want to play god and you are not being stopped on the basis of moral or scientific grounds. I hope i'm not the only one that sees the absurdity of your posts and what you are trying to promote.
>>>>Chris
>>>>-----
>>>>Chris Anderson
>>>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
>>
>>
>>Jackson's chameleons come onto the continent each and every day from Hawaii my kind sir. I am not promoting anything but open dialect and honesty. I hope I'm not the only one that sees the absurdity of YOUR posts, and the fact that you are not adressing all the important BOLD LETTERED points of mine. When you have other points to make and are ready to not be angry with me and can stop dwelling on your irrational dogma, I will converse with you again. The dialect is now over since we have been reduced to name calling, thank you for your intelligent fascinating input sir.
>>-----
>>http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
>>2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
>> 35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
>>0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
>>2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
>> 1 neonate texas blue spiny
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

I agree with alan... it will be done eventually. Even if it is by some kid who just wants to see what happens.
If they are sterile, than what's the problem??? Your fears are for nothing... yet, the idea of being sterile seems a reason to you not to do it.
Also, you said about it not being natural. There are cham species in places that are not natural, and man brought them there, are there not?
Also, you one of your main points seems to be that if the two are hybrid than neither will exist in pure blood again. I don't recall alan saying that every animal of the two species may only breed the other....
Where there becomes a problem with hybrid species that may not be distinguishable from one or the other of the pure lines is if there is someone who gets one unknowingly. This could be a problem in pet stores... I know that many of them rarely know what they are selling. I bought a panther I was told was a male ambanja, only to find out she's a female of unknown locale. If the issue is dealt with NOW rather than pretending it never will happen, then the "pedigree" system alan was talking of could come into effect. This will have to be made possible by people just like the two of you. Not only will it help in keeping the new hybrid animal apart from the other, but it would help in all of the other species of chams. THAT would be something that would help the gene pool in the future. Having animals registered on some kind of pedigree system would make a huge difference in the gene pool because breeders would have a HUGE benifit in knowing the origins of the bloodlines, and avoid inbreeding as much as possible. And, as you have mentioned, that is something that needs to be thought about when the wild caught stock ceases. It is something that should be thought of now, rather than later when there is no more wild stock, and all of the captive animals have unknown ancestry. THAT is something that both of you should put your energy into. You both are obviously smart and have stong views, even if they are different. Working towards some kind of a pedigree system would help the bloodlines more than fighting people who want to experiment. That way when/if it does happen it will be known, and not taint the other bloodlines meant to stay pure.
~lindsay
PS, I know NOTHING about pedigree systems, breeding (well close to nothing besides basic biology) but I do know that avoiding what you are worried about needs more than just worrying about one or two people. If you are worried about the bloodlines once the entire population becomes captive bred, there are measures you should be looking into taking now, rather than later. It will make a huge difference when that time comes...