Reptile & Amphibian Forums

i screwed up that post with underlining your quote and my reply. Sorry.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

I'll go with all of that, personally catch your own, followed by knowing whom YOU trust, and knowing that what you caught may not always be what you wish it were. You can't always take just anyone's word for what it is, but when you sell, be honest, when you buy, be aware. I'm pretty sure most of the people working in the hobby know what they are getting into, but for the up and comers, do your homework! damn, it's soooo easy these days to get tons of info on a possible purchase. Still, ya' gotta know some quality people to get the good stuff, lol! What cranks me the most is there are thousands of people who love morphs, hybrids, crosses, so if a seller would target them, they would have no problems, well, little problems selling them. When I look through the classifieds, I really blow off the ads that don't show a parent animal or great photos. That's my first step

-----
Todd Hughes

Yes, do your homework. If you know the people and know the history behind the line of snakes you have done all you can do and for the most part should be OK.
I would still whenever possible prefer to keep my own wild caught locality lines. But in the case with some species like those from Mexico and South and Central America we can only try to buy from those with high standards that we trust.
Yes, some people will try to pull one over but that doesn't mean everyone will. I know I don't miss represent anything because what goes around comes around. What I mean is what of I need some more of this locality back from someone and I gave them mixed crap? Then I screw myself right?
For those of us that do really want pure stuff we know this and this is why we would not do this. Not to mention it makes us kind of cringe a little to think of it in the first place.
I have nothing personal against those that want to keep hybrids. It is just not my cup of tea.
But, yes there really are trustable people out there with pure animals.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

"would think that trusting "certain" people is right up there with the 100%."

Its not the people you can't trust 100%, its the ability to pass information accurately and completely that is the problem. Check out my link. At the time this was written locality wasn't quite the rage it is today but I think its clearly obvious that the animals I was producing were not pure Okeetee corns but suspect animals of primarily okeetee origin. Still, to this day people move Dream corns as pure Okeetees.

-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

Again why I would not cross them with any I would collect there if I got the chance to collect any myself.
I have people I trust but keep all things from others with a grain of salt. As I said this keeps my collected snakes that I collected myself pure for sure.
It doesn't even matter if none believes me or not as I do this for myself.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

np
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

copy and paste

http://www.kingsnake.com/chesa/Dream Corns.htm

into browser
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

I like to keep pure blooded stock. That being said I have to agree with what you posted here, really what both of you posted here for the most part.
This is the very reason why in another post farther down in a very long threat about the white sided morph, that I keep some collected (by me) locality snakes. These groups will be kept separate from other stock and only bred among themselves. When and if I need new blood I will get it myself. They will also be bred on a rotation based system and not line bred to only the best looking ones. This maintains the genetic integrity of the line so as to produce all of the phenotypes that you would find in the wild including the so called ugly ones. Also so we do not breed any of the genes out.
If I want to work on a line bred line of the better looking ones then some of these offspring will be separated and places in a breeding group all there own.
I never get a snake from anyone and think of it as for sure pure. I have seen too many times over the years that even the most trusted people that are preaching that they only keep the highest standard of locality pure stock have passed on knowingly or unknowingly something that was not as locality or even as pure as they thought or said. It is in fact they that often times are under pressure to say they have locality stuff only and yet try to produce something people want. Now before someone jumps on me for this statement, I am not saying the people that keep locality all can't be trusted. I am just saying that over the years when I have seen a misrepresentation that is usually where it came from. After all people breeding mutts do not care and will usually tell you there snakes are hybrids.
I keep locality groups for myself so I do not care if people believe they are or not. I have no ego in this and do it because I enjoy it.
I don't keep locality expecting to ever make money off of it. For instance I am looking at going to MS to collect some corns and maybe getula and will have to buy an out of State hunting licence for around 300.00 or so. This is not to mention the trip cost and clean up and feed cost of the snakes to get them up to par. Also there is a bag limit of four per species. So you do the math.
On the other hand the experience of being there and collecting and learning about them first hand not to mention knowing they are as locality as they get, priceless!
I also keep morphs and other generic stuff so maybe I will recoup some of the money through them over time.

As far as worrying that people that hybridize stuff will mess up your pure stock, it is a simple rule do not buy from them or anyone that you do not know. Do not buy from a person that can't tell you the history of the snakes they sell. Also I have to add just because some people keep locality stuff and other stuff doesn't mean they will be any more tempted to breed the locality stuff with the mutts any more than you could be tempted to cross two of your pure species together. What I am saying is that if you keep more than one species you still have the same potential to create a hybrid as much as anyone else. Grant you I am not saying you would, just pointing out that if all are suspect then so are you as there is as much potential for you to do it.

Now on the other hand, what we keep as lines of pure bloods in captivity are what they are as we know them. Yes, we all know they all may be suspect and should maybe be called generic. But then if they are true locality then calling them generic may be misleading too right?
I think to refer to these as stock (stock is a flexible term to me meaning to take pure with a grain of salt) from said locality. I see no problem with it so long as we all know they have been passed around and yes, could be suspect as to how locality or even how pure they are.
I know there are credible people out there that I trust to get locality stuff from. I just still as a safety precaution would not breed it into my own collected locality stuff. If I do cross my stuff with theirs, those would become a separate group and my locality group will not all be mixed in but still will get maintained as a pure for sure group, as I would only add some of the offspring from mine to the other group and not mix the other group over to mine. It is nothing personal and not that I don't think highly of the other people I know. It is just because it is the only real way to insure your own collected stuff never gets made impure.

You know this post is so funny because I was thinking last night that out of meanness I was going to post a post with the heading "White Sided Gene" and then post only HA HA just kidding. I was feeling mean today! LOL!
But you spoiled my joke! LOL
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I think Joe is right in saying you don't 100% know what it is you have, even from wild caught, but you can be as sure as anyone can be if you do it that way. There are lots of things you can't do that with, and becoming less and less each day. But from w.c. animals I have a much better chance ( near 100%) of having locality animals in my group. That said, is it pure? It was, before I took it into my collection. What happens after that, anyone can fudge around and make it less. I only want to keep it locality, pure is a outdated term. Correct. Richard, I like the way you put your animals together. Got any white sided locality getula? LOL!
-----
Todd Hughes

Todd, well said.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

them books learned you real good.

pure, impure?, locality, geez my heads spinning...

TYPES! for the love of GOD they are types!

good luck in your snake breeding endevours.

,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Genetic testing has made a distinction between the rat snakes on the east and west side of the Mississippi River. I have seen them from both sides in the south portion and they look alike.
They show as the same phenotype but yet show a DNA difference. What do you think about that?
But then you would breed them anyway because they are types right. I suppose that a corn snake is just a type of kingsnake to you so me explaining it to you would be of no value.
I have done lots of collecting over the years and made it a point to see as many specimens from all over as I could and pics too. My line of thought is not just out of a book or books.
The lines are slight and not hard and fast ones in some cases but are there. In nature it is never just cut and dry. It is about the numbers and math really. DNA isn't just an opinion though.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

SO, ive caught kings on both sides of the mississippi river i dont need DNA, taxonomy, or anyone to tell me what they are ive SEEN what they are! and they are not hybrids!

>>>But then you would breed them anyway because they are types right. I suppose that a corn snake is just a type of kingsnake to you so me explaining it to you would be of no value.

>EXACTLY! LETS JUST END THIS HERE AND NOW AS IT ALL HAS NO VALUE!

,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

OK.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Man, I would love a site/forum/whatevah! based on the origin of morphs. I tracked down as much as I could about white-sided glades and put that up on my site.

But who's story do you believe? I loved the whole chain-gain yarn about how the white-washed jeans came to be--does FLA even have chain-gangs?--and loved Rainer's follow-up disputing it.

Maybe I'll do up a site like that! Get all the morphs of things and give whatever history I can uncover!

ALSO: How can we trust wild-caught? I personally know of some idiot who admits to releasing FLA kings in the wild--though he claims they are just normals. Same idiot told me he also released a Diamondback Water Snake in FLA. What happens if that watersnake ends up breeding with a FLA watersnake?!

I tracked down as much as I could about white-sided glades and put that up on my site.

I would like to read that. What is your site?
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Here's the link to that info: http://www.snakemosaic.com/wsr.html

Will you list the lavender Calorida kings.. oops, darn it. Sorry. I mean, they are pure. Yes, everyone of them..

(Of course there is a lavender Florida king line that originated from Florida kings. The others here will verify that. There were also lav Cal x Florida kings sold. I know, I bought what was advertised as lavender Florida kings from a reliable source when they were quite new on the market, and what arrived at my door was a het female as advertised and then a lav Florida male with a Cal king head and Cal king banding mixed in with the Florida speckling. Oh boy.)
-----
Mark

Wow, I have said the same in the past. And got flamed, hahahahahahahahahaha. But so and so said it was pure. Yea, what about the person before him etc.

Also, the farther you get away from natural phenotypes, the more questionable it is.

And, Even wild caught snakes do not have to be pure. Wild snakes do hybridize and most likely the more odd they are, the more likely that occurred.

Lastly even wild "pure" oddities, are not a pure phenotype, therefore, they are not pure. Unless they establish a natural population.

Anyway, like you did, I am only offering some thoughts to bounce around in our heads. Cheers

"Even wild caught snakes do not have to be pure"

This is something I’ve tossed around in my head from time to time. Natural hybridization rates aside, is our level of habitat manipulation responsible for some of the variation we see? Have we broken down reproductive barriers that not long ago kept distinct populations apart? Does that road cut alter selection pressures enough to give rise to a phenotype that otherwise would not have been manifest? The questions could go on and on.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

Tony, hybridization has always existed. Rather if it is happening more due to man made stress or not is possible.
The idea of mans changing habitats making more hybrids is not a new one. It has beena theory among Botanist for a long time.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I have to add that past hybridizing has created a lot of the species and subspecies we see today.
This all is still no reason not to try to maintain and replicate what we find in nature in our locality breeding projects.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Think you missed the point. I am not trying to infer that anyone should or should not adopt any breeding strategy. Just do your own thing. The market success or failure of a project depends on it's merit, not the perceived lack of merit of competing projects.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

No problem. And yes I agree with you on that post. I do what I do for my own reason as I said.
I was not trying to miss your point but it seams we have people leaning way left and those leaning way right.
The point I was making is it could be true that really there are no pure species or subspecies if we want to pick it apart. But, the idea of keeping natural groups as best possible is still a good things for those that do it.
I have also said in other post farther down (maybe not word for word)that if you want to keep locality and not mess it up by breeding impure snakes into them then just don't mix your stock. It all boils down to choice and I am OK with people making that choice. But to try to even discredit the purity of the wild population (yes pure with a grain of salt here) to justify man made hybrid and or to discredit locality keeping is stretching a little too far. And regardless of any other points here this is sort of were some of these post (maybe npt you) are reaching for.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

“But to try to even discredit the purity of the wild population (yes pure with a grain of salt here) to justify man made hybrid and or to discredit locality keeping is stretching a little too far.”

Again I think you have to logically follow the discussion. Nobody is trying to discredit anything and I don’t think that one could reasonably infer it from the posts! Frank was merely making the point that even from wc stock, (especially those that are atypical) there is a chance that the stock could not be pure. The point here is the word pure is a terrible choice in describing what you work with and it sets up unreasonable expectations. That is all.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

OH! I get it now. The point was there may not be any way that locality would be pure so we can't use the term pure anymore because it would be politicaly incorrect. LOL
I am only saying that if you collect it from that locality as nature made it rather if nature hybridized it or not, it is locality pure.
Also to try to say anyone using the term locality pure is wrong or misusing the term because there really is no such a thing is kind of discrediting those that don't see it your way. That is all I am saying about that. I don't think I imagined that, that could be a point taken out of this discussion. It may not have been the point that was trying to made. But if someone list something as locality and you say there is no such a thing and this term should never be used then yess it would lend to one thinking you are discrediting them for it right?
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

What ever. Think what you wish.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

Hi Eric, I think you make a good point about how people normally go with extremes, and in this case, you are one of those people. No one said, all people, or all animals, etc.

Lets try using a realistic example that occurs all the time. A collector catchs an odd snake, albino, or with the wrong colors or patterns then normal. Then breeds that trait out and calls it pure. An extremely odd snake in nature is not pure, its a mutant and most likely will quickly disappear from the population.

Another example is snakes that no longer represent the wild ancestors. Like Thayeri, most in captivity now, at least the popular ones, are nothing like wild thayeri, Wild thayeri are mostly ugly, hahahahahahahahaha. Same with many locality corns, or kings, etc. We tend to keep and breed the oddities, not the normals. We look for the prettist and the wierdist patterns etc. Not the natural phenotype, but instead, the oddest extremes in the genotype.

For instance, a few years ago, I caught this goofy gophersnake not far from my house. I kept it. I don't even know what to call it. A hypo, dinimishing pattern, pretty weirdo. If I breed that out, I could call it a southwest Tucson gophersnake, as thats where it came from. Cheers

Hi Tony, Last year, there was an articule in Western Naturalist(not exactly sure thats the mag, I can find it if you want) About a Atrox/canebrake hybrid. It also listed all manner of Crot hybrids.

It used the altered habitat example for the possible increase of hybrids. Habitat change caused from farming and ranching. ALthought, I am not sure, that is the only reason, but it very well could be increasing our finding hybrids.

I also think because of the anti hybrid mentality, many if not most people refused to call a hybrid a hybrid, they felt better just calling those individual snakes, WEIRD.

Last year I posted a Blacktail/atrox hybrid on another forum and others quickly posted at least 8 or 10 other types of hybrids. While many want it not to occur, it sure does occur.

Here, we see hybrids where two species are overlaping in marginal habitat(natural).

In the past it was thought to be physical barriers, as in hemipene structure. Now we know its more about behavioral problems. So artificial habitats and fringe habitats can without question, change behavior. There is no question it can and will also effect phenotypes. Cheers

I found a prairie rattler X WDB south of Amarillo many years ago. I know they do cross sometimes in the wild. They do this in some places more than in others.
The idea of it being due to disturbed habitat is not new as I have said before it happens to plants too.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Interesting Frank. Thanks for sharing. I'm always making analogies, often time to my detriment, but much like many suffer during an economic recession while others see and exploit opportunities, during times of ecologic change some populations suffer and die off while others find additional breeding opportunities and over time change, exploit greater ranges and survive if not thrive. This could explain how the fossil record shows periods of time where speciation explodes followed by periods of relative stability.

Certainly we as a species have had a profound impact on the American landscape. It would almost be foolish to think that the continent's herpetofauna have not undergone an adaptive response. The magnitude of the response is the only real question.

-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

flipflop, it would be a great idea to put up a web site like that. At least in one place we could get all of the BS, I mean story behind each morph
Anyway you said some things I will address here.

(Also, the farther you get away from natural phenotypes, the more questionable it is.)

This is why I breed locality in a rotation type plan and do not only breed the best looking ones. This type of breeding will produce offspring in the same way with the same genes as found in that locality.

(And, Even wild caught snakes do not have to be pure. Wild snakes do hybridize and most likely the more odd they are, the more likely that occurred.)

True they do hybridize in the wild but this is still rare for the most part. It is natures way of splicing in new genes to keep populations out bred. It is done so little that the hybrids get diluted and the new genes do not contribure enough to breed the population out. This is still a far cry from making man made hybrids. The merit in keeping locality is that it lends scientific validity to private keeping and breeding of snakes.
Rather put focus on it as pure blooded locality lets just say really it is keeping a group just as found in nature to preserve that peice of nature as is. And actualy a lot of strange morphs can be pure blood. Not all odd stuff is hybrid.

(Lastly even wild "pure" oddities, are not a pure phenotype, therefore, they are not pure. Unless they establish a natural population.)

I agree. And this is why I breed locality in a rotational way as to maintain all of the naturel phenotypes just as they would in the wild. If they are morphs they get bred in a seperate group and are not part of the locality group. They can still be locality pure blooded morphs though if they did not get any blood mixed in from any places else though. But, yes the genetic integrity is compromised.

FR, flipflop's posting does have a lot of truth to it. But the main thing I disagree with would be the attitued that since snakes hybridize sometimes in the wild that there is no valid reason to keep or say that some locality snakes are pure locality. If the locality has hybrids then that is what that locality naturaly is so it is still locality.
Also some people do let snakes go where they do not belong. So lets suppose you get some from a locality that has been compromised in this way? If you can't tell then I doubt in the long run it was enough to make much difference. Not to say it is OK. But wild caught is the best we can do to get locality pure stock. And most of all even if a few places in the wild have had some snakes let go and therefor been compromised, it never makes it OK to breed man made crap. It also doesn't take away from the credibility of those that try there best to maintain a natural breeding group of locality pure snakes.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I am definitely liking the use of "population" more and more over the term "pure" as these posts/discussions continue. Much more representative of what is actually in hand. Until genetic tests above and beyond what most academic institutions doing actual taxonomic studies are probably willing to spend are implemented, you cant go wrong representing an animal as "population" or "locality" specific IMO. But who knows, maybe one day we will see snakes advertised as "Genetically tested and proven to be 99.9 Percent L. getula getula for sale" LOL!!!

This actually happened to me several years ago. I resold a milk as a red milk from locality X. It keyed out as a red milk, it was maybe in the "intergrade zone", but the snake was honestly represented and the lineage back to the collector should have left little doubt. Well my nemisis on this forum argued that because it wasnt RED that it wasnt a syspila(Red milk). I think some time and space may have changed his opinion of this, he actually thought it was an "eastern" so he claimed I misrepresented.....A snake is alot more than it "looks like", we try to define it or catagorize it and we only catagorize ourselves. Science needs these catagories but we as captive breeders shouldnt. Its about honest representation.

Hi Eric, I posted above on this subject.

Your right here, if people kept and bred and selected for the average looking animal in a certain local, that would be absolutely as pure as your going to get. Exactly how thats done I am not sure of.

As an older snake breeder, I found that if you keep breeding the same stock, no matter how PURE it is, it will migrate away from the founder stock. We simply do not have the numbers and natural pressures. To start with, we alter behavior and prey type. Which are key in natural selection. We select for pinky feeders and mouse feeders, etc etc etc and individuals that can tolerate shoe/sweater boxes.

Nature kills off the non-fit, by the tens of thousands, in order to maintain a local phenotype. Of course color and pattern(what we recognize, is only a small but important part of natural selection.

Behavior being another biggie. In nature, a slight variance from normal behavior means your toast(food for others or flat on the road so to speak). Cheers

FR, I agree with all you said here actually. We can't replicate nature exactly. But that is not a reason to me not to try to do it the best I can. If you or anyone else doesn't want to give it a try then I am OK with that.
I have kept and bred reptiles for about 32 years so know a few things too.
Yes after several generations the locality stock will drift from the original. Thus new blood needs to be added from time to time. I know a gray band collector that will not keep his locality stock past a few generations for this reason. I don't think I am quite that extreme though.
The things is I have no problem keeping say a few Honduran milks even though I know they are really most likely more like mixed milks. I keep different snakes different ways for different reasons.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

"...Yes after several generations the locality stock will drift from the original. Thus new blood needs to be added from time to time...."

To what end is that new blood added, Eric? To restore the group to the appearance of the initially selected animals? I'd argue the resulting "drift" does represent the original locality stock. It would seem to me adding "new blood" might just be an effort to add more animals that look like the original ones (which focuses the phenotype but by the theory i'm using here, wouldn't focus the locality at all). What do you think?

The snakes that are in any givin location inbreed more than maybe you think. How much genetic difference do myou think there is in one gene pool? It may depend on how big the pool is but it only takes a couple of genes to change a color or pattern.
No my method is not perfection and perfection even in nature doesn't exist.
The DNA in a captive locality group doesn't simply change into something that was never there. To ad new blood gives the balance of genetic drift thats all. This can and does keep the resesive genes recessive like nature was doing.
Let me ask you one? Is my idea of keeping a locality group closer to nature than making man made hybrids or breeding any snake together from just anywhere?
I get it is never perfect. But I think it is at least better and the best we could do.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

"... I found that if you keep breeding the same stock, no matter how PURE it is, it will migrate away from the founder stock. We simply do not have the numbers and natural pressures...."

Yep, and that's what we'd expect to happen. The locality group, the "same stock" you refer to, isn't a true random representation of the local population: it's an x/y sample, x being the number you caught (or kept for your breeding project) and y being the total local population.

the genetic composition of every specimen in that local population is unique. the phenotype of each individual specimen is an expression of a number of dominant characteristics, but there are innumerable hidden phenotypical traits too--some of which are represented visually on some of the local specimens you did NOT catch, or did NOT include in your initial breeding group.

so it's only logical some of those "hidden" looks would show up when the local group is bred together, thus the appearance "migrates away from the founder stock.." It's not really, of course: it's always migrating toward what was in those initial animals in the first place. You're just seeing phenotypical differences that would have been observed if you'd been able to view EVERY animal in the locality group in the first place. As you said, "we simply do not have the numbers."

The fact is we can only keep a small representation of any given location. So yes the wild population has more genes in that gene pool. But those snakes can't all breed to every snake there in one year anyway. So if we break it down it looks more like micro gene pools within a larger gene pool group.
The fact is you can say my locality group is not natural enough because it doesn't contain all of the genes found in the larger gene pool where they came from. But then if you randomly collect several groups of snakes from that larger gene pool none of those groups would either.
If you are interring new blood into your group from time to time it replicates the genetic drift and genetic exchange as best we can. I can't pick the snakes I find when I do so the collected specimens are random not really as much my choice. It is like scooping a dipper of water out of a pond and setting it aside. Sure it is not the pond anymore, but it is still pond water.
Nature is random and not really a plan. It would be impossible to try to keep captive groups and replicate every intricate thing that happens there. But captive breeding has saved some species from extinction.
I don't see why it would hurt to try to preserve as many of the natural genes from that pool as possible.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I like your cup-of-water from the pond example!

>>I don't see why it would hurt to try to preserve as many of the natural genes from that pool (we're back to talking about snakes now, not the pond!) as possible.

I agree. I've found this thread very thought-provoking. I'm just trying to winnow my thinking to the most rational & informed possible: taking what makes sense, and what others are able to justify, and rejecting the rest. (or, at least, not incorporating it into my thinking without further testing & examination).

I do get your points about captive breeding not being nature. I really do. I just think it never hurts for a person to at least try to do there best. What does my idea of keeping locality snakes hurt?
I mean if what you are saying is it makes no difference when they are in captiveity so you may as well make hybrids or breed them to whatever (at least this seams to me the point you and some others are making)is true. Then what does it hurt for me to keep locality as I do?
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

FR, the thing is it never hurts to raise a bar and try to keep locality stock as natural as possible.
Can we replicate nature exactly? No maybe not, but can we at least try to come close without deliberately messing the blood line up as much as possible? Yes, we can!

There is a plan mapped out between private collectors and Zoos that will keep the Aruba rattlesnake out bred for the next 200 years. I am sure without natural selection factors we will not replicate nature exactly but we will come about as close as possible.
Over time when you breed a locality group the phenotypes will drift after a few generations. This is why we have a need to inter new blood from that locality from time to time.
Also even when the phenotypical look changes you would be surprised at how many of the original genes are still in there so long as the snakes did not get hybridized to another species.
You are only seeing new phenotypical expression due to new types of stress being added and old types of stress being removed. There are genes being expressed and other that were expressed are there but not expressed.
Look at feral pigs. The first ones brought over that got loose in the wild were domestic short haired, spotted pigs. Now we are seeing way more wild type long haired brown wild boar looking feral pigs. So what happened? The domestic pigs still had all of the wild type genes in them. When the original natural stress factors came back into play natural selection reset the phenotype back to wild type. This is only one example of animals reverting back to wild type phenotypes. It only takes less than 2% DNA to change the look of an animal. Just because it has a different color or pattern doesn't mean it doesn't carry the normal genes. Also just because it is normal looking doesn't mean it doesn't carry the morph genes. Those other recessive genes are there as a bag of tricks that nature can use to change the animals when and if needed. They pop out once in a while and if they don't make it remain recessive.
Do you know how many of the phenotypical traits we see today and think are normal may have in the past been recessive? What we see as normal is only the phenotypes the currant natural stress has aloud to exist for now.
Some populations have amelanistics pretty frequently. I know some people say they are freaks even if they are found in nature. But if this is true then are we saying nature is breeding freaks? If so how would me keeping a locality group as natural as possible be any worse than nature then? So what I am saying it even the amelanistic gene is a natural gene that exist in nature and if the stress factors in nature say it works in that are better or at least well enough to make it then it is a natural phenotype there.
It is not a freak it is a natural gene. Freaks are deformities and man made hybrids. Those are not natural.

So if I am keeping a group of locality snakes and every so often inter new blood in and do not just breed for one pretty trait, I am keeping them pretty genetically sound. This is important for conservation reasons to do this and explore this type of keeping practice more.
There is just no reason why we can't or should not at least try to put our best foot forward.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

>>>Lastly even wild "pure" oddities, are not a pure phenotype, therefore, they are not pure. Unless they establish a natural population.

sums it up well FR.

,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Wild oddities can be pure. If you find an amelanistic snake it may not be normal but it is not amelanistic due to being a hybrid. Also it would be a naturally occurring morph (phenotype). Just not one that occurs often or has much success when it does occur.
Now on the other hand line breeding them as opposed to keeping hybrids or anything else? Well not really much difference as for the natural value of this. So to each his own.
The amelanistic gene is actually pretty common in some places. It just doesn't always show due to it being recessive. And when it does they tend to get eaten more often.
But it is a natural phenotype. Just a more rare one that gets milked out and maintained with line breeding.
Just wondering, If you find two amelanistic snakes in the same locality and breed them together and get amel offspring are these offspring not locality? If not why not?
Come on David I can't roll this Sh** by myself anymore. LOL
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

ok i will try...

>>>Wild oddities can be pure. If you find an amelanistic snake it may not be normal but it is not amelanistic due to being a hybrid. Also it would be a naturally occurring morph (phenotype). Just not one that occurs often or has much success when it does occur.

>uh no your missing the point, unless they have established themselves as a dominant phenotype it would be a tweener or outright freek neither of which could be classified as pure.

>>>Now on the other hand line breeding them as opposed to keeping hybrids or anything else? Well not really much difference as for the natural value of this. So to each his own.

>natural value!?!?!? WTF??? there is absolutely NOTHING natural about keeping a snake in a box.

>>>The amelanistic gene is actually pretty common in some places. It just doesn't always show due to it being recessive. And when it does they tend to get eaten more often.
But it is a natural phenotype. Just a more rare one that gets milked out and maintained with line breeding.

>i have true albino northern pines that originate from the jersey barrens where there are documented pops of wild amels it suits them for that area, but make no mistake amelanism is a MUTANT recessive gene.

>>>Just wondering, If you find two amelanistic snakes in the same locality and breed them together and get amel offspring are these offspring not locality? If not why not?
Come on David I can't roll this Sh** by myself anymore. LOL

>not sure who david is but, yes they would not be impure hybrids but rather pure locality mutant phenotypes, man this pure thing really sux, its very nazi like in thinking imho

,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Actually Thomas that was well put.....
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

I think most of what you said is good enough for me. Yes it is not natural to keep a snake in a box. What I meant by natural value was to make the point that there ws none in keeping amelanistics. So really you would just be making the same point there.
You can keep a snake in an artificial envoronment and this alone doesn't do anything to its DNA. So is there natural value in it if it is locality? I think so but I know some do not.
It just sounds like you are an all or nothing guy. You think if they are in nature they are natural (except if it is a morph)and if it is in captivity it may as well be a hybrid.
The thing is a locality bred morph is in fact just that a morph so maybe it makes little difference if it is kept locality or not. But if you want to keep it like this then what is the big deal? It doesn't hurt to breed it to anything from another location so why would it hurt to keep it bred only to that location. Either way it is up to the keeper.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

>>>It just sounds like you are an all or nothing guy. You think if they are in nature they are natural (except if it is a morph)and if it is in captivity it may as well be a hybrid.

>all or nothing huh? ok if they are in nature they ARE natural! morphs included.
and yes captive snakes are DEAD to nature so whether hybrid or locality it doesnt matter imho

,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Just something to ponder......

My thinking in a nutshell.....
Imagine that all snakes evolved from a single relic species a long time ago.....Throughout the centuries geneflow was cut off and line breeding in the wild took place.
Certain traits (ones that made them thrive in the wild) were favorable and overtook undesireable traits.
This happened many times as geneflow occured and stopped many times in different eras......

We are in a microscopic spec of time right now compared to the Millions of years this took place up til now.......

Then came us snake breeders/collectors.....
We find snakes in the wild we line breed them for a certain look or trait.......

Here's what I am getting at....
Relic genes will eventually pair up and certain alleles will align and something new will be created in our snake rooms......
Natural selection is thrown out the window as soon as we take a snake out of the wild and decide which mate to pair it with.

What we do is Selective Propagation.....Even if we found a sexual pair of snakes 3 feet from each other at the same time.....That does not mean they were going to breed.....

We as snake keepers try to give our snakes all the choices/options needed to thrive. We try to emulate the wild as best we can or as much as we can, but WE are the ones making all the choices....The snake will make a few choices too given the limited choices/options we provide......But they will NEVER have the same choices/options as they did in the wild.....

I don't know if I added anything to this thread, but I thought it would be nice to share my thoughts.
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

I don't believ it took millions of years but only thousands.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

>>I don't believ it took millions of years but only thousands.
>>-----
Rainer, for clarification: the post you responded to was talking about a time when there was a single relict snake species from which all subsequent ones descended. Are you saying that occurred in only the past thousands of years (i'm reading, "less than tens of thousands, so nine thousand or fewer"?

Rainer, for clarification: the post you responded to was talking about a time when there was a single relict snake species from which all subsequent ones descended. Are you saying that occurred in only the past thousands of years (i'm reading, "less than tens of thousands, so nine thousand or fewer"?

Before the flood or after the flood?
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Good answer....
Rainer's going to be saved!!!
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

I do, over time populations certainly merge and diverge as conditions permit all the while allowing opportunity for new forms to reach species status. I think it quite an intricate and beautiful process. The static picture we “see” today may be the evolutionary equivalent of hearing a single note in a master symphony.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

Now that is something I can agree with.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

>>>I do, over time populations certainly merge and diverge as conditions permit all the while allowing opportunity for new forms to reach species status. I think it quite an intricate and beautiful process. The static picture we “see” today may be the evolutionary equivalent of hearing a single note in a master symphony.

you POET you, im impressed!

,,,,,,,,,thomas
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Comparing wc animals to music may be a good analogy. Captive breeding we can say is the cover band. To compare morphs or mixed localities to music.....is just wrong.

John, everything you said here is pretty well true. But is you breed some locality animals in a way as to rotate them and not select or line breed them then all of the genes represented here in this group are locality genes and true to what would be found in this spot. It is true these pairs may or may not have actually bred to one another, but there would be no DNA difference in the F1 offspring than what you would find there in the wild. A DNA test would show no difference at all.
For this reason calling them locality stock is to me OK. It is a given that after many generations without new blood being added they could become different but they are still not going to have different genes that what was collected from the wild in that location in the first place. I think it just needs to be understood that locality doesn't really mean exactly like wild caught.
On the other hand can you maintain locality in captivity that does emulate the wild population? I think you can as it gets done by Zoos. It gets done by restocking programs for endangered animals. They use DNA testing in these programs. Even though I do not use DNA testing I use the same breeding methods.

In the end we can't say that a wild population will not have some genetic drift that over time makes it different from the captive stock. So the locality stock is in fact a sort of freeze frame of what was there at the time of collection.
I think we have to sum it up to say it would take DNA testing to be sure it is the same at any given point.
I still don't see the point of splitting hairs and saying nothing is locality and trying to coin another term. Another term that in time will get criticized and argued as well as miss used.
I think we need to try to understand what the person we buy from is calling locality. To do that once again it goes back to doping homework.
This could be argued into infinity. But to me if it gets collected at a locality and is not bred out to another locality, it is by all intent and purpose locality even if it is not still a perfect replica of the DNA there.
After what else is it? If it is a known fact that it is captive bred and may be somewhat or even a lot different than what you would find there, the DNA still came from there.
The only way to get more locality DNA specific if that is what you want is to go there and collect your own.
But wait! Someone may have let that snake go there! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on guys.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I never mentioned that DNA would change or be challenged.....

And...
Zoos cannot emulate the wild concerning snakes.......
Do zoo kept snakes have natural predators? Where are the Road Runners and Road Ways that constantly kill snakes?
Do zoos allow snakes that are weaker die for the sake of trying to make them more pure and wild like? Is survival of the fittest actually occurring in zoos?
Do the males combat amongst themselves for potential mates?

The answer to the questions is NO.....

All anyone can do is give them choices/options......
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Yes those are good points. Still locality is locality because it is. The problem I think we are having here is really more about the definition of this term. Also about people thinking it even has to mean exact natural copy.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

John, that's exactly how I think it all went down too. I think about that sort of stuff quite often. The things that have "ACTUALLY" went on during all the years animals have been changing on this planet is really incomprehendable to most people, ANY people really, but some people can imagine these things far better than others can. Even just 50,000 years ago to a human is really incomprehendable, much less many countless thousands, or many MILLIONS.

Weird things DID indeed happen many, many, many, many times before, and then stop or change for whatever reason, and start something totally different scores and scores of times.

Like you just mentioned, all of what man has EVER DONE even long before he whittled his first sharpened stone for a weapon, up to the present time is just a small nano-instant "blink" of an eye in the extremely large scale of time and what has gone on countless aeons before we were ever even a thought here.

I would venture to guess that many(certainly not all) of the wild-type snakes on this planet have probably changed very little since man has been around actually.

Just my personal "opinion" about things, so nobody come-a-bashin' to me about it either!..LOL!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

Doug, I agree with you on what you said as well. The only thing I really want to get across here is that we do not need to stop using the term locality. I feel this would open a door and make it more OK to mix the different types of snakes or at the very least make it invalid to keep snakes from one location as pure from that location as possible. Even if a group collected at a certain locality are line bred or otherwise not bred to maintain the genetics to exactly mimic nature, the founding stock still came from this location and so did the genes. I think really the problem here is the idea that locality is a term to be defined as a snake that is genetically identical to the natural population it came from. No one ever said it would have to mean exact natural copy. So if you want as close to a natural copy as possible get one from someone that breeds them as close to a natural free breeding group as possible. If it looks like a duck, well you know the rest.
Generic is a term that has been used to describe snakes that are pure species but may include many different localities bred into them. I do not see using the tern generic to describe a snake from locality stock even if it is not an exact natural replica. This too would be misleading and confusing. It also lower the bar so generic is as good as locality. Bullsnake!
I do a little of it all except man made hybrids. But we call locality, locality for a reason, and yes there may be different levels of locality, but knowing the breeding history and doing homework is how you determine this.
The thing is I have no problem keeping generics too. I just think it would be going in the wrong direction to try to do away with the term locality regardless.

As for the snakes changing over time you would be surprised at how little time it takes. The Florida box turtle and the three toed box turtle only came about at around the end of the last interglacial period. This is well documented in the fossil record. Both are thought to be possible hybrids. It is known for sure the Florida box was created due to hybridization. This is only a few thousand years of time. And was done during mans time here on this planet.

Doug, I also want to say I am not saying all of this directed at you. I am just throwing my opinions out there. I feel it is important to keep locality even though it may be argued as a flawed idea period.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Yeah, I agree with virtually all of that as well, and please remember, I said "many", not "all" snakes have probably been very similar to what they are now since man has been around. I am fully aware certain animals have changed to better thrive in their environment in fairly recent times too. There are many, many reasons for this to have occurred, and lots of it we no absolutely nothing about, and some we very well might. I agree the last ice-age(just over 10,000 years ago) had a major impact on how animals evolved, and quite frankly, probably many did not evolve at all because they perished. This must have certainly been the case with a good number of things if they were not able to move away at a greater rate from the progress of the cold cimate(let alone the ice itself).

The dynamics of the earth and universe are ALWAYS at work, and it is only a matter of time in my opinion until another catastrophic event takes place as it has over and over to start an entire vew level, just as it has been repeated many countless times. Man just hasn't been around to see any of this in his tiny little existence so far.

A good example of this just might be when Yellow Stone Park explodes in an epic disaster as it has countless times before, only it "looks" like it has happened in different places on earth in a path. But this is because the continental plate has been constantly moving westward and the huge lava reservoir has always been stationary, so when it has erupted through the earth crust, it "seems" to be in different linear locations. This major "super volcano" event is said to have erupted about every few hundred thousand years or so(I can't remember the exact figure now though). Man hasn't even seen a mere twinkle of anything like this since he has been on earth, but the earth has been bulging up big-time directly over Yellow Stone for countless years now. There is a gargantuan main lava reservoir hundreds of miles directly below it, with a MUCH thinner tube of lava that reaches the surface, this is what constantly heats all the water there in the area, and causes all the many different steam and geyser sites. And when it goes, it is said it will be thousands of times the size of Mt. St. Helen....YIKES!!! I strongly suspect this will black-out the sun with ash, and we won't be going to Daytona anymore to look at snakes if this happens, or likely anything else for that matter..LOL!

BTW, I will NEVER stop using the term "locality" to describe where certain animal's have come from, as this IS where they came from, regardless of if the offspring was beyond an F-1 breeding, etc... Even though the later offspring might later look different phenotypically from the founding stock if it were many generations later, because this is STILL the locality the animals "came" from, and that will never change for any reason, no matter how hard some might want it too.

Anyway, so far, I am probably on the very same "page" with you on this. Sorry about all the geological stuff here, but actually all this stuff actually does directly, and indirectly involve many of the animals on our planet, including snakes, AND US one day, I just hope it ain't real soon..LOL!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

Doug good post. It got me to thinking about BBQ bison though. LOL
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

.
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

Just my personal "opinion" about things, so nobody come-a-bashin' to me about it either!..LOL!

your personal opinon is retarded.

Where the hell is Thomas when you need him?

-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Bluerosy, that was the most mature thing you have said. Thanks
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

WHO IS JACK SCHITT ?

For some time many of us have wondered just who is Jack Schitt? We find ourselves at a loss when someone says, 'You don't know Jack Schitt!' Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an intellectual way.

Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt. Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, married O. Schitt, the owner of Needeep N. Schitt, Inc. They had one son, Jack.

In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple
produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull Schitt, and the twins Deep Schitt and Dip Schitt.

Against her parents' objections, Deep Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout. After being married 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced. Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and because her kids were living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then known as Noe Schitt Sherlock.

Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, and they produced a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt. Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony. The wedding announcement in the newspaper announced the Schitt-Happens nuptials. The Schitt-Happens children were Dawg, Byrd, and Horse.

Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world. He recently
returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.

Now when someone says, 'You don't know Jack Schitt,' you can correct them.

Sincerely,
Crock O. Schitt
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Not the first time I've read that but it is SOOOO funny every time.....Good one!
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Thanks John. I do have a since of humor. And really my opinions I base on study of nature. I think really none of us are all right. You guys could just chalk it up to my opinion and as a get to know me and who I am kind of thing. Because in the end it really will not matter what any of us think. We will breed and keep the way we do.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

>>Thanks John. I do have a since of humor. And really my opinions I base on study of nature. I think really none of us are all right. You guys could just chalk it up to my opinion and as a get to know me and who I am kind of thing. Because in the end it really will not matter what any of us think. We will breed and keep the way we do.

Eric....No worries man.....
It is nearly impossible to type well enough to convey emotion...
Or know that the reader will read it with such emotion....
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Doug, I agree with you on this. There has been insignifcant climatic or geographic change in our world as we know it for quite some time. Definitely 10,000 years or so since the last ice age for sure.

I think what we are experiencing with wild populations is a MASS of field data and specimens being collected over the last 50 or so years and the dissemination of this data via modern communication methods never before witnessed. Naturally,old range maps are being outdated, and the key features used to classify species are being outdated as well. I dont think enough data was collected back in the day to verify facts like range, range overlap, and potential zones of integration to the extent it is being done today. I think this is also another reason taxonomists are having difficulty agreeing on classification of some genus and species today. The neat little boxes that once existed for the species have been broken to hell and back LOL!!

Then as stated previously in posts, man has stuck his hand in the "natural" selection process of these species, so now we have snakes which naturally feed on lizards and toads in the wild consuming laboratory mice. We call this improvement. Imagine what real natural selection would do to these preferential mouse eating alternas and hognoses if released back into the wild and now surrounded by..., you guessed it... LIZARDS and TOADS!! What ever features were bred into these animals in captivity would probably go byebye rather quickly. Same concept with pattern and color anomalies for sure.

Most of the changes that happened about 20 or 30 thousand years ago are more or less still in place for the most part.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

>>Most of the changes that happened about 20 or 30 thousand years ago are more or less still in place for the most part.

That must be a guess and an opinion as you could not possibly know.....
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

John this is based on fossil records. So no it is not just my opinion. I studies this for years. Why would you just say I do not know. Saying this was opinion.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

>>John this is based on fossil records. So no it is not just my opinion. I studies this for years. Why would you just say I do not know. Saying this was opinion.

You're right I stated an opinion as well....I said you couldn't possible know......Not that you didn't......
From fossil records could anyone determine the scale counts, hemipenal structure?.....Were the snakes that fossilized Hypomelanistic, Anery, Amelanistic, Hypermelanistic, Tricolors or Pink with purple poka-dots, Striped, Banded?......Was DNA samples taken and matched with a known phenotype of our era?

Actually now I am curious....LOL
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! I lost track of how many questions that was! But I will try to answer them as best as possible. No to most on as to what the phenotype was. They are trying in many cases to DNA on fossils including reptiles but I do not know what if anything has been found out or what species they have tested or tried to test. I don't think much has been done to date with DNA.
A lot of things with fossil records have to extrapolated and or sometimes they may use an over all look at what species of plants and animals were living in the area to get the picture painted. Is there room for an error to occur? Yes, but for the most part it is pretty accurate.
The best fossil records are of turtles as far as reptiles are concerned. At the time all of the present species and subspecies came into the range they are still in is a pretty accurate idea of everything else because all of the other fossil records show about all of the same things as being in place then too.
The fact is if you look at the ranges of a lot of species of reptiles and plants and make an overlapping map you would see there are ranges that change always about in the same places. These spots are holding in place because they have just that certain elevation and rain fall and so on to maintain the right habitat and fauna.
I do not know it all and never said I do. But yes I have a good picture as to when the changes happened and when they slowed down to what we see today. It never really stops though.
I will say that snakes change faster than the turtles though. They have more generations in the time it takes the turtles to produce only a few. None of this is 100% accurate but we do have ways of figuring things out.
I could go into detail about box turtle fossil records and what they say. The shells show what scalation would show for snakes. And in many cases the whole skeletons were well intact so there is little doubt even without DNA what they were. Some have a nose ridge bone and some do not and so on. Anyway the snake fossil records are not as good but still say a lot. You could be surprised at how well these things can be read.
Also I was meaning that the range of the species or subspecies have been the same for about that long or close to it. Not the DNA. I do not know about the DNA yet but will bet it was close or the same for the most part in most places. If you want to get more close to the right time in smaller time slices it may put it more like 15 to 10 thousand years for things being the same as now. But really give or take 5 or 10 thousand. Sorry that is as close as good as it gets for now.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I also have to add that estimates of these things in the fossil records can be give or take as much as 10 thousand years. It really depends on how long the increments of time slices they used in there estimates were.

Also funny people on here get attacked for hybridizing and for keeping locality. Crap Nobody is going to win this one ever it looks like. John I have no idea what I said that really touched you off. But I did not mean to.
Makes me think maybe snake keeping isn't worth anything if no matter what you do you get bashed.
This is why I used to keep snakes and not really talk to or get to know people.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

>>I also have to add that estimates of these things in the fossil records can be give or take as much as 10 thousand years. It really depends on how long the increments of time slices they used in there estimates were.
>>
>>Also funny people on here get attacked for hybridizing and for keeping locality. Crap Nobody is going to win this one ever it looks like. John I have no idea what I said that really touched you off. But I did not mean to.
>>Makes me think maybe snake keeping isn't worth anything if no matter what you do you get bashed.
>>This is why I used to keep snakes and not really talk to or get to know people.

See...A perfect example of not being able to convey emotion....
I am genuinely curious.......I am not bashing or ticked off...Sorry if you took it that way man....
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

OK, thanks
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

So no it is not just my opinion. I studies this for years. Why would you just say I do not know. Saying this was opinion.

What you know is what you have been taught and you are just regurging it. There are many books on a young earth and there is more evidence suggesting this than what they teach in schools.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

I actually do think for myself and do not really only on the books. I am really only talking about fossil records that only go back really a little way in time. 10 to 30 thousand years is not that much really in geology.
Yes, I know it is debatable how old the earth is. I will not argue that one either.
As for what species the fossils are and therefor show is pretty well right in front of use to see though. Also pollen core samples can help fugue habitats and so on out as well.
I am not just regurging what a book tells me. I am looking at a wide picture of a lot of things from many sources.
I actually am one that thinks Caucasian people made it to this continent from the East before Asian people did. This is a hot topic and was and still is very unpopular with the book knowledge believers. Now there is not only evidence in the form of spear points found in the North East but DNA testing on fossil skeletons in Florida came back as Caucasian. I think well outside of the lines when I see evidence pointing that way.
And yes the books tend to try to tunnel vision it all.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Sorry I ment Thomas not David. Not sure were that came from.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Yeah Kevin, this big blue "marble" we are all on is one fascinating weird place buddy. I have ALWAYS thought that the things that "ACTUALLY" happen with animals, and the strange things they seem to do, and the very planet we are on, are FAR stranger than any fiction any book author could EVER possibly imagine to write...LOL!

take care, ~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

Well Doug, I may have been a bit hasty in stating insignifcant changes have occurred. Truth is, natural disasters like drought, flooding, etc. can change an animals environment pretty quickly. Who knows what genetic mayhem Katrina may have caused to the critters in the New Orleans area that could be phenotypically visible today or the near future!! Also, what is a river seperating two similar species/subspecies may dry up within a few years due to drought and migration/integration can occur. As our captive breeding efforts have shown, this integration/melding does not take a lot of time. Plus seasonal changes may allow migration/integration to occur sporadically which may be why a very broad grey area phenotypically occurs with some animals.

My head hurts!!

Just since a range map was made for a reptile book some time ago to present we have lost due to development and coastal erosion a somewhat distinct gene pool of gulf coast box turtles that did live out at the tip of the boot shaped (was boot shaped) strip of land that used to extend into the gulf coast below New Orleans. This was lost before Katrina hit.
Maybe some genes lived on due to genetic drift in the areas above there or at least did until Katrina hit. Now I am not sure what made it as the area that was left of the boot shaped land was pretty well finished off. I know lots of people down in that region and they keep me posted on turtles and plants and so on. So far it doesn't look too good.

This is one reason I thin captive breeding is important if you keep locality groups. Yes, even with all of the pitfalls of captive breeding groups not being natural and all of that. If someone was breeding any of the box turtles from the tip of the boot shaped peninsula at least we could say we saved a few genes. No telling what we could have learned from those genes either.
There is a deal going between private collectors and the Zoos that have the Aruba rattlesnakes. They have made a plan to keep them out bred over the next 200 years. Grand you natural selection is out, but they should be able to do a pretty good job of keeping them normal looking. And since no new genes are added if any were released in the wild nature would use the same selection it always does to reset them back to what they were by remolding those genes back to the mix/ratio they were.
Not nature at its best maybe but then is extinction?
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

There is a deal going between private collectors and the Zoos that have the Aruba rattlesnakes. They have made a plan to keep them out bred over the next 200 years. Grand you natural selection is out, but they should be able to do a pretty good job of keeping them normal looking. And since no new genes are added if any were released in the wild nature would use the same selection it always does to reset them back to what they were by remolding those genes back to the mix/ratio they were.
Not nature at its best maybe but then is extinction?

> i would call that extinction. a plan to keep them out bred over the next 200 yrs.?!?! and WHO gets to make that decision??? WHO gets to play GOD in those pairings?!? no doubt some fool with a degree! yeah, unfortunately id call them EXTINCT.
very sad...

,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Thomas I thought you told me we could just leave it alone yesterday? I said OK yet here you are at it again.
Sounds like you hate people with degrees. Your opinion is only your own. Too much good can come from captive breeding if done right.
Captive breeding can and has saved some species from extinction.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I think in the case of the Gulf Coast Box turtles or Aruba rattlers its not a matter of playing God. I think its just sympathy for an animal that may be UNNATURALLY driven into extinction due to mans intervention in their environments. At least this unique "race" of turtles or snakes may have a chance to live or die on an even (natural?) playing field. Only then can nature/God decide if their genetic capabilities are worthwhile and strong enough to survive.

Yes, but I still think basically that many of the subspecies as a general "whole" haven't changed all that much, even if certain individuals themselves may look drastically different from many of the rest of a population from time to time. Any differences have had countless thousands or more years to have found their equlibrium as a whole, and to think many of them that have been this way for so long in the wild have suddenly changed drastically in a few short decades is probably very unrealistic in my opinion.

The ones that have become very different for whatever reason(s) get absorbed right back into the much larger gene pool constantly. That is the very reason that we can make all the strange looking snakes in our plastic tubs, because they cannot escape and be diluted by all the many others of their kind.

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

Doug, this is so true. It is like dropping a drop of black ink in the ocean. Would it stain the ocean black? No it would get absorbed and we would never know it was there at all.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

.
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

the puritan hounds will get you...

.
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Not much separates you from the Mexican donkey, otherwise known as an ass. You've got all the characteristics.
-----
Jerry Kruse

And God said, "Let there be zonata subspecies for all to ponder..."

its lil jerry kruse awwww he made a funny aaaawwww....

.
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

.

-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

ya shaved since the last time i saw you
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

You do know Jerry is quite tall dont you? I mean, he is taller than me(I got him on the width though!) and this is at least the 2nd time you played this song....

yeah he's said that, i could really care less.
when i say lil man its a metophor and is reffering to his intellect not stature.
i really thought everyone would get that??? esp.with the short people song!
ahh well......
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Old Thomas here targets MY intellect.......LMAO.......nicely done Thomas who can't even spell. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.......ohhh MANNNN you are just one big friggin mess my little sasquatch friend. I almost started a new thread just on this, but why give you the attention you clearly crave so desperately.

The fact is, is that YOU project onto ME all the shortcomings YOU have. Just look in the mirror, it's a one-size-fits-all trailer park man's half a wet dream. You HAVE no intellect...you breed snakes in a box AND because of your intellect (or lack thereof...) you say all getula are the same....makes it MUCH easier for you and your half-witted homeys (you know who you are) to comprehend at the end of the day.

Once again you make a remark about the "puritans", whatever that is, out of nowhere. You think you're funny. But you're just lonely and in need of a good wake up call. And it's comin'.
-----
Jerry Kruse

And God said, "Let there be zonata subspecies for all to ponder..."

"but why give you the attention you clearly crave so desperately"

You just summed up his whole reason for being on the forum..LOL!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

THE CLOACAL TROLL STRIKES AGAIN...
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

DO YOU REALLY THINK YOUR LIL THREATS ARE GONNA INTIMIDATE ME JERRY?
THANKS FOR THE LAUGH I NEED IT...
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Hey hybrid hero, they say the pain hurts more when you laugh. Keep on with the "purist" comments...you start the fires and Imma keep puttin' 'em out jackass.
-----
Jerry Kruse

And God said, "Let there be zonata subspecies for all to ponder..."

Are you two deliberately trying to get this thread deleted?
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

....and I'm even a bit perturbed that you're asking ME this question Tony.....I admire some folks' tolerance levels, but when reading the threads in their entirety it's pretty clear who is the root of the problem. Semantics and personalities aside all the way around. If you're pro-hybrid, not a damn thing can be done about it. But come on a forum and boast that wretched practice? That's where I draw the line as I'm so tired of others asking the masses "is my snake a pure (insert as needed)...?" and then be told "something just doesnt look right". All this bullsh*t about what happened a millenia ago and "because snakes are removed from a process of natural selection they are dead" is neauseating. A Cal king and eastern king ARE NOT THE SAME SNAKE, so why muck up their integrities and cross them? And then argue and rationalize why it can be done with no insight as to the damage being done for future generations of hobbyists. In the end it will cause folks to just want to go out and capture their own.....nice means to an end.
-----
Jerry Kruse

And God said, "Let there be zonata subspecies for all to ponder..."

I asked where I did because it was the end of the thread and you were both taking it to the personal level that gets threads deleted.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

I need to start coming over to this forum more often, even though I have never kept kings. Not only has this thread been very educational via one individual in particular, it has also been incredibly entertaining; like a HYBRID between Comedy Central and Pro Wresting. My gut hurts from laughing so hard.
Thanks guys
-----
Jeff Benfer
gartersnakemorph.com

The snakes only agenda is survival. Even when placed with a snake of another kind, their survival instinct is to attempt to breed. Man didn’t invent that. Man can exploit that and “bastardize” the notion of purity. That doesn’t make the neonates bastards. The snakes are always pure. Only the thoughts of man are not. The breeds are not a deck of cards but more like rays of light. They can be separated out into colors, but all have their origin in the white light that includes them all.

>>The snakes only agenda is survival. Even when placed with a snake of another kind, their survival instinct is to attempt to breed. Man didn’t invent that. Man can exploit that and “bastardize” the notion of purity. That doesn’t make the neonates bastards. The snakes are always pure. Only the thoughts of man are not. The breeds are not a deck of cards but more like rays of light. They can be separated out into colors, but all have their origin in the white light that includes them all.

What?

Clarification, please.

The purists are idiots.

>>>The purists are idiots.

>dont hold back, tell us how ya really feel

,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Where is locality LOST? Tony you seem to infer that unknown locality is the same thing as intentionally mixed locality. Purity is a joke, its only honest representation that counts..we all know that. Referring to coastals, breeding a known locality to a unknown EXACT locality(lets say somewhere in Jersey) is honest representation...but the more generations you throw on top the less "like" they are to WC. The less "valuable" they should be as breeders...New blood should be prized, not enough kingsnake guys intentionally outcross anymore. There really should be 2 lines of thought....1)Locality, where new blood is constantly(every 2 generations)changed. 2)Morphs, these can be inbred, crossbred, and everything else. The major problem occurs with guys trying to have BOTH I think we can all agree. Regardless if its true, eventually that locality is meaningless.

I don't believe outcrossing is actually necessary.....
I believe that in isolated snake localities the snakes are all related in some way anyway....line breeding in the wild on a larger scale than in our snake rooms....
I have bred a couple type of snakes for 4 generations and still haven't had any ill effects....
Locality is not lost but natural selection IS as soon as the keeper makes the snakes' decisions.......
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

I don't believe outcrossing is actually necessary.....
I believe that in isolated snake localities the snakes are all related in some way anyway....line breeding in the wild on a larger scale than in our snake rooms....
I have bred a couple type of snakes for 4 generations and still haven't had any ill effects....
Locality is not lost but natural selection IS as soon as the keeper makes the snakes' decisions.......

I agree.

That says it all really. End of discussion.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Not so fast. A "locality" snake to most should be the CB representation of a wc snake correct? F1, no arguement. But I think most can look at a wc/f1 snake and comparing it to a f10 obviously see the effects of selective breeding. Mixing in NEW(wc) blood every 2-3 generations should eliminate such nuances. Now I am not saying there are always going to be health problems in such animals or anything like it. I am saying that the representation WHEN COMPARED TO A WC is lost, and I think that is the most important thing to locality enthusiasts.
Lets try another example. Again I will go with milks, as there seem to be more locality milkheads than in kings(sorry if I am wrong here,lol). Lets say I produce a f1 abbarrant patterned NJ coastal and a f10 abbarrant patterned St Marys coastal....and they look "exactly" alike....If you cant look at it to know the locality, what difference does it make? Line breeding for either trait would LOSE LOCALITY immediately dont you agree? And if you do, do you now understand why locality should be lost in genereal past generation X?? Thats my point.

>> Lets try another example. Again I will go with milks, as there seem to be more locality milkheads than in kings(sorry if I am wrong here,lol). Lets say I produce a f1 abbarrant patterned NJ coastal and a f10 abbarrant patterned St Marys coastal....and they look "exactly" alike....If you cant look at it to know the locality, what difference does it make? Line breeding for either trait would LOSE LOCALITY immediately dont you agree? And if you do, do you now understand why locality should be lost in genereal past generation X?? Thats my point.

That analogy there should give anyone a hint that there was and still is line breeding happening on a larger scale in the wild..........
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Why is locality important to you? What is your definition? To me, and here I wont speak for others, its an attempted representation of a "typical phenotype" available at that locale. The minute that something looks awry it is, and the locality is lost. Now I understand that example still holds the genetic POTENTIAL to recreate said animals, but it is no longer an attempted representation of the "typical phenotype".
Next question, why is locality important? To me it reverts back to the first question, they are related.
Example, all apologies for my bad explanation last time(TT), but I saw alot of wc St Marys coastals....well over 100. I would say more than 75% had no head pattern so if I bred this locality I would breed for this trait. Skip forward 15 years and I see several St Marys coastal pics and they all have head patterns, what does this mean? Of course it could mean about 10 different things and I could say something which was 100% absolute truth 15 years ago and get bashed and called a liar for the exact same thing 15 years later. What changed? Only our individual INTERPRETATION of what locality means at any given time. This is how fleeting the term "locality" really is, to carry it past a certain point is or will be useless.

Agreed....It all boils down to interpretation of the term "locality"......

There should be denotations on known locality animals IE: F1, F2, F3, etc.....and they should be wild-type locality animals....but what if an amel pops out?

Any other locality animal that the data has been lost as to what generation it is can still be called a locality animal just without using the "F" generation prefix.......
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Oh no, you cant do that. Non locale is non locale, it loses all "value" when breeding to locale. This is why its important to know not only where the animals come from but the PERSON you get them from. Sadly, there are likely better looking animals produced by "non-locale" specimens, oh well. If you produce nice looking snakes, mutts or not, there will always be someone else that can appreciate them. I think of red milks, 2 non locales were bred to prodce the HYPO line! These are amazing animals, and people should look no further when doubting outcrossing. Take a look at this ugly mutt,lol.

>>....If you cant look at it to know the locality, what difference does it make? Line breeding for either trait would LOSE LOCALITY immediately dont you agree?

i don't agree, but maybe i don't understand what you're saying. do you mean line breeding the two like-looking ( but from different locale) snakes together? or do you mean using each of those aberrant looking snakes in line breeding in their respective locality groups? if the former, I agree; if the latter, nope.

I said if you bred locality A x locality B even if they look exactly alike....they are no longer locality.
If you breed a abbarrant locality A X abbarrant locality A they should no longer be locality either.
MY IDEA of locality is to attempt to reproduce the original wc phenotype WITH the same genes. If you change either genes OR phenotype then regardless of outcome they are no longer locality. You cant simply judge locality animals on phenotype or genotype, its the combination. Make more sense?

>>I said if you bred locality A x locality B even if they look exactly alike....they are no longer locality.
>>If you breed a abbarrant locality A X abbarrant locality A they should no longer be locality either.
>>MY IDEA of locality is to attempt to reproduce the original wc phenotype WITH the same genes. If you change either genes OR phenotype then regardless of outcome they are no longer locality. You cant simply judge locality animals on phenotype or genotype, its the combination. Make more sense?

Genes cause normal wild type and aberrants...Genes are genes are genes.....LOL
They are still FROM that locality....they just don't look like the normal phenotype from that locality due to certain genes aligning.......A normal looking snake has genes too........
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

>>I said if you bred locality A x locality B even if they look exactly alike....they are no longer locality.
>>If you breed a abbarrant locality A X abbarrant locality A they should no longer be locality either.
>>MY IDEA of locality is to attempt to reproduce the original wc phenotype WITH the same genes. If you change either genes OR phenotype then regardless of outcome they are no longer locality. You cant simply judge locality animals on phenotype or genotype, its the combination. Make more sense?

And you state it so assertive like it's a law you have made or something.........
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

John, I say it like this because I have said it before on other forums. I capitalized MY IDEA because its my opinion, everyone has one. I know abbarrant snakes have genes too, but as I suggested you breed for either locality or anomalies. Breeding for either is fine but passing a striped albino or whatever off as "locality" would be against the "ideal" wouldnt it?

>>John, I say it like this because I have said it before on other forums. I capitalized MY IDEA because its my opinion, everyone has one. I know abbarrant snakes have genes too, but as I suggested you breed for either locality or anomalies. Breeding for either is fine but passing a striped albino or whatever off as "locality" would be against the "ideal" wouldnt it?

Yes it would be against your ideal......
I think some use the term "locality" different.....
You use it for a phenotypical look....
And others use it for the location itself regardless of the way it looks.....

What if there are anomalies in a certain locale that haven't been found? What if just a normal phenotypical pair is found and bred together producing F1s and an anomaly hatches out....Are they now not locality animals?

I think they still are, but they do not represent the norm that has ONLY been found there.......

Again we are not creating natural selection in our snake rooms only selective propagation whether it be two wild-types paired, two anomalies paired or a combination...Locality is never lost but natural selection is.

You, Jeff are the kind of breeder that likes to produce normal, wild-type reproductions through selective propagation.....If so, I don't think one should even go forward with a second generation because that's when the wc recessive genes emerge.
For your reproduction of wild-types outcrossing must be done every year or one must just keep breeding the wild collected pair together and NEVER breed the offpspring together or back to their parents......
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

What good does it do anyone to know what locality a snake is if not to breed it with another from the same locality?? I mean besides that or the small "nostalgia" quotient, isnt "locality" pretty useless to us? I mean us in herpoculture because we are not releasing offspring or parents. Preserving specimens for science is of little use for captive animals. And its only a factor here because there is a difference in demand between locality and non locality specimens.

Jeff, if you ever produce some genuine locality micropholis or dixoni in the distant future and some weird anomalies happen to pop out of the clutch and you are totally disgusted with them, I will gladly take the "worthless" offspring from your hands..LOL!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

Doug, you havent heard? I drive down to NC and let em loose in Tony's backyard! Want the address?? LMAO!

.
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

John, I posted years ago on the milk forum that I believe locality should be effectively lost at f3(beyond f2). Adding new locality blood every 2-3 generations insures your existing lines. What use is "locality" beyond this? What are you saying to other breeders if you dont insist on new blood yourself? Line breeding, inbreeding is effectively a morph hunt. This is why there should be standards. This is also why locality morph breeding is pretty useless. Example:

A new gene, lets say Anery Eastern milks. Locality is more prized so I breed wc x wc so f1 is hets. F2 produces locality morphs is possible here, but its now 6 years later and 2 selectively bred generations. Outcrossing to wc insures the line, morph breeding is ok but its no longer locality. Outcrossing a Anery to say a albino....creates another "desired" line. Inbreeding the same locality 10 generations to get a albino to pop up....how is that "locality"?? What does that snake have in common with anything wc? Understand?

>>John, I posted years ago on the milk forum that I believe locality should be effectively lost at f3(beyond f2). Adding new locality blood every 2-3 generations insures your existing lines. What use is "locality" beyond this? What are you saying to other breeders if you dont insist on new blood yourself? Line breeding, inbreeding is effectively a morph hunt. This is why there should be standards. This is also why locality morph breeding is pretty useless. Example:
>>
>>A new gene, lets say Anery Eastern milks. Locality is more prized so I breed wc x wc so f1 is hets. F2 produces locality morphs is possible here, but its now 6 years later and 2 selectively bred generations. Outcrossing to wc insures the line, morph breeding is ok but its no longer locality. Outcrossing a Anery to say a albino....creates another "desired" line. Inbreeding the same locality 10 generations to get a albino to pop up....how is that "locality"?? What does that snake have in common with anything wc? Understand?

Jeff....I understand EXACTLY where you are coming from with your opinion...I never misunderstood.......I was just stating what I believe.....An Actually I agree with most of what you stated except.....

Locality is still locality......Natural selection is lost and selective propagation takes over EVEN IN THE FIRST F1 to F1 pairing in yours/our snake room....not after F2 why put a limit on it?.....This is true with snakes found within the same minute a foot away from each other.....

Are those Hypo, Anery and Ghost Black Gap alterna being represented incorrectly as Black Gap Alterna....NO.....They are still from Black Gap locale....Those snakes will always be from that locale.....When we pair them up in our Sterlite/Rubbermaid tubs they have stopped making choices concerning breeding mates....So...Locality is never lost but natural selection IS..
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

John, I guess that I am saying there is locality and there is "effective locality". Sure you can have f100 inbred locality freaks, but what do MOST people think of when they think of locality? They think of that pic taken in the field of a wc snake from locality X. Breeding locality X, it should be your ideal to recreate the same snake, correct? Outcrossing to wc every few generations would help counteract the effects of selective breeding right? If you look at most Pyros you will see how each generation is reducing black pigment, and those effects may well be husbandry related as much or more than selective breeding. So a f1 locality snake could have little resemblance to a f10 locality snake. Of course through abbarancies it could happen at any point, but those who breed locality do it for a reason....and its usally not because its a locality intergrade or hybrid but because its a representation of what can be compared to a WC. Breeding locality is for "that look", and again this is what I think is really wrong about locality morph breeding. I think most of us who know what a locality is supposed to look like could ID f1's when compared to f10 hets. So somewhere between f1 and f10 locality is lost.....

I guess it is just a term issue....and the happy medium is this....Why can't we have locality snakes and wild-type locality snakes?
They are still all from the same locality....It's just a term interpreted different by a many.....
I would really like it if locality specific breeders would actually use the "f" prefix more often....when they don't we can assume what we want, but my opinion is this....when the "f" prefix is not used then the information was/is lost and it should just be a "locality" snake........Not an F2 Locality Snake or F5 Locality Snake.....
What happens when you breed an F3 to an F1? What are its offspring?
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

I guess it is just a term issue....and the happy medium is this....Why can't we have locality snakes and wild-type locality snakes?
They are still all from the same locality....It's just a term interpreted different by a many.....
I would really like it if locality specific breeders would actually use the "f" prefix more often....when they don't we can assume what we want, but my opinion is this....when the "f" prefix is not used then the information was/is lost and it should just be a "locality" snake........Not an F2 Locality Snake or F5 Locality Snake.....
What happens when you breed an F3 to an F1? What are its offspring?
-----
I think we need FEWER terms not more. The "F" is a term used on ANY captives not just locality so you cant confuse people. Remember, "losing locality" has both good and bad effects. For those doing it the "right" way(IE outcrossing)they never would have to put a "f10" down on a cup, all their offspring are accounted for carte blanche. The "value" would only be in the f1s, as it should be, and kinda how it is when a new morph is "discovered". Subsequent generations are "worth less" or "worthless"(LOL,play on words there!). As far as "locality-type", this wording would too easily be strapped on simalar LOOKING offspring without locale...which would be really wrong. With so many of our offspring going through some form of pattern/color change and their variability I suggest the "locality" title be a limiting term not an expanding one.

>>... but what do MOST people think of when they think of locality? They think of that pic taken in the field of a wc snake from locality X. Breeding locality X, it should be your ideal to recreate the same snake, correct? ... Breeding locality is for "that look", and again this is what I think is really wrong about locality morph breeding. I think most of us who know what a locality is supposed to look like ...

Jeff, I think after a what, 100-post thread here, you've narrowed the subject to one definable issue. And I see its roots in grayband fans. It's certainly one reasonable solution to the "locality" question. But it raises some questions, too.

What is a grayband that looks exactly like a locality black gap, but has no locality data? If appearance is all that matters (as you postulate above) then it's a locality black gap. IF on the other hand, we acknowledge that a locale group (black gap or otherwise) will have innumerable genes for characteristics including but not limited to phenotype, AND that at that location there will be specimens that differ in appearance, then we've accomplished nothing.

As others have observed, this whole debate is about how we define things. Some people have had a particular point of view for a long time and it's hard to open their eyes to other pov's (someone in this thread wrote something like, "locality is locality. it is what it is. end of story." Well, yeah, for them. For others, who'd had a different pov, that meant nothing.

I like the term "from xxxx" or "descended from animals from xxxx". The buyer/observer can then question how many generations have passed, but there's no uncertainty about the first part, that we're talking about animals collected at a certain location, or descended from same.

Dell, add to that the need to accept that the LOCALE itself is constantly changing and selecting for different things. To me, this is the #1 reason to add new blood constantly. What was locality when a line was started 15 years ago could be COMPLETELY different than what is there NOW. I like comparing to graybands because there are alot of FIELD guys there, not so much on these other forums. I have a problem when guys that dont have a single WC animal in their whole collection are selling/marketing "locality". I think those doing the WORK outcrossing et al should be rewarded with the term LOCALE BREEDER. The market will always determine if such breeders are supported but I think there are more closet hypocrites than will ever admit. As long as you can get more $$ by putting a NAME ON A CUP there will be fear and loathing.

You're right TD this segment has become a debate of word definition. Personally I've always considered a locality animal to simply have all it's founder ancestors (the original wildcaught on that branch of the family tree) to be from that particular locality. i.e both parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. Obviously the nominal locality could be large or small (mile marker XX vs a whole county or ecoregion).
The typical phenotype or "look" from a particular area is often called the "classic" look - but that term doesn't include the elements of specific genotype origin, or dynamic qualities that Jeff wants. If your objective is longterm scientific study of the population, yet you want it to be in cages not the field,
you might need to come up with a new or better term when communicating with herpetoculturists. Most of us will use that word "locality" in the traditional alternaphile sense.

I mean, is there really more than 1 use for the locality term?? Dont we all use it as a tool in determining phenotypic outcome of a breeder? Yes, even you alternaheads! Even if you dont breed the only reason to keep this data is for the additional value it has to other breeders in the future. Its simply a tool valued by a breeder, and again abbarrant forms have little locality value.

>>I mean, is there really more than 1 use for the locality term?? Dont we all use it as a tool in determining phenotypic outcome of a breeder? Yes, even you alternaheads! Even if you dont breed the only reason to keep this data is for the additional value it has to other breeders in the future. Its simply a tool valued by a breeder, and again abbarrant forms have little locality value.

Man...The more I re read these posts the more I see that Jeff's opinion of the term locality is different than all of the rest of us.....

Remember these are just opinions and my opinion stands that locality is never lost but locality phenotyphic expressions are due to selective propagation, but they are still locality animals....The genes are from that locality and could possibly happen in the wild.....

I like the word "classic" (as Lindsay stated). I use it for my Mex Mex that have that classic Valle De Los Fantasmas look as do most of the Mex Mex in these United States.....I can't call them locale specific as new blood is not available and there is lots of information lost over time....Us Mexicana heads can only trace our snakes back to a reputable breeder/lineage that did not cross the Mexicana ssp as many did back in the day.....
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

John, while I dont mean to be so different my ideas were cut on NA milks with a seemingly unending supply. New blood is like GOLD to you I am sure. You prize locality as a way to stave off integradation, I hope we arent all so unfortunate. Continuing to call a line locality into X generations, I am sure you can see the genetic distance between cb X and wc.

When we pair them up in our Sterlite/Rubbermaid tubs they have stopped making choices concerning breeding mates....So...Locality is never lost but natural selection IS..

I agree with all that you said I just want to add more fuel to the fire..Some snakes are worth to me more than others by being "more" natural. Like some locales that have less natural selection. Or radical life zones. Those areas that are connected or are on a larger life zone area (like florida) are less pure than others spp in the hobby.

I was thinking of very small isolated populations like the Todos Santos mtn kingsnakes (not pretty).

Or like this Long Beach calif king (also not pretty) which is found on a small dirt lot in the middle of the Los Angeles concrete jungle.

It boils down to it is in the eyes of the value of the keeper. Some are middle road. Some are the "purists' and that is what we are trying to define. I think we should just throw all are snakes in a bag and shake them up. Whatever comes out of the egg is "more" natural.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8".

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Basically we are not defining the snakes at all but only attempting to define ourselves. We KNOW we cant all agree on something as simple as the sky being blue(right Tom?)so we know there cant be uniform standards. We are catagorizing ourselves.

Where is locality LOST?

The degradation is immediate, the moment a specimen is collected. Moving an insignificant portion of a population into a captive program is by definition, passing it through a genetic bottleneck. This is not to say that linage info is not useful in predicting breeding outcomes just that from the start the genetic potential of captive populations is significantly altered.

Tony you seem to infer that unknown locality is the same thing as intentionally mixed locality.

In fact I do not think that. I use the mixed lineage info of my animals to determine potential outcomes. Crossing a screaming Tyrrell NC coastal with a MD hypo and breeding back to get the pattern of one and the color of the other is no different than crossing any other two traits.

Purity is a joke.

I wouldn't say its a joke just a very bad choice of words and one that has continually spawned unreasonable expectations.

Its only honest representation that counts. we all know that.

Agreed.

Referring to coastals, breeding a known locality to a unknown EXACT locality(lets say somewhere in Jersey) is honest representation...but the more generations you throw on top the less "like" they are to WC.

That makes zero sense

The less "valuable" they should be as breeders...

You ASSUME that the goal is to make it look like a wc animal, I do not.

New blood should be prized, not enough kingsnake guys intentionally outcross anymore. There really should be 2 lines of thought....1)Locality, where new blood is constantly(every 2 generations)changed. 2)Morphs, these can be inbred, crossbred, and everything else.

Disagree, completely. The goal should be to produce captive bred animals sustainably. Keeping wild types should not require an injection of new wild blood every 2 generations and just because its a morph or a cross is not reason to practice bad husbandry. I think this statement reflects a personal bias on your part.

The major problem occurs with guys trying to have BOTH I think we can all agree.

Again I disagree. Don't you have locality, morph and crosses in your collection? I see no conflict.

Regardless if it's true, eventually that locality is meaningless.

That is not true either. To some it is very important. If such projects are widely preceived as having merit then they persist in the market if not they don't. Personally I think milksnakes that lack red don't have the aesthetic appeal to stick around very long whether they are locality or not. Generic light phase blairi will always be around because they are widely seen as awesome. Okeettee corns will always be around because they have the best of both worlds. Generic hypo coastals will be around at least for as long as I work with them and that's all that matters to me

-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

Where is locality LOST?

The degradation is immediate, the moment a specimen is collected. Moving an insignificant portion of a population into a captive program is by definition, passing it through a genetic bottleneck. This is not to say that linage info is not useful in predicting breeding outcomes just that from the start the genetic potential of captive populations is significantly altered.

Tony, obviously I meant to US not to the snakes.

In fact I do not think that. I use the mixed lineage info of my animals to determine potential outcomes. Crossing a screaming Tyrrell NC coastal with a MD hypo and breeding back to get the pattern of one and the color of the other is no different than crossing any other two traits.

I understand that. But if both traits occured within the same population...at what point is locality lost?

I wouldn't say its a joke just a very bad choice of words and one that has continually spawned unreasonable expectations.

I was a bit curt, bad choice of words I agree.

Its only honest representation that counts. we all know that.

Agreed.

Referring to coastals, breeding a known locality to a unknown EXACT locality(lets say somewhere in Jersey) is honest representation...but the more generations you throw on top the less "like" they are to WC.

That makes zero sense

Tony, the more generations captively bred the further you digress from the idea of "locality". Agree?

The less "valuable" they should be as breeders...

You ASSUME that the goal is to make it look like a wc animal, I do not.

Tony, what is YOUR definition of locality? Did you see mine? Based on your definition, what purpose does "locality" serve you?

New blood should be prized, not enough kingsnake guys intentionally outcross anymore. There really should be 2 lines of thought....1)Locality, where new blood is constantly(every 2 generations)changed. 2)Morphs, these can be inbred, crossbred, and everything else.

Disagree, completely. The goal should be to produce captive bred animals sustainably. Keeping wild types should not require an injection of new wild blood every 2 generations and just because its a morph or a cross is not reason to practice bad husbandry. I think this statement reflects a personal bias on your part.

Tony, we are talking about LOCALITY here. Your whole idea of "wild type" changes in captivity as does locality correct? I am not arguing about the long term viability of snakes as we know them, but as it relates to the term, the definition of locality.

The major problem occurs with guys trying to have BOTH I think we can all agree.

Again I disagree. Don't you have locality, morph and crosses in your collection? I see no conflict.

Tony, I think is has to do with INTENTION you breed your "locality" for. For example, I intend to breed for both locality AND morphs with my monster islands....but the lines will be totally seperate. I dont think this as a conflict at all, 2 generations down the line to cross the 2 types back....THAT, regardless of either what they look like or whatever...would be wrong.

Regardless if it's true, eventually that locality is meaningless.

That is not true either. To some it is very important. If such projects are widely preceived as having merit then they persist in the market if not they don't. Personally I think milksnakes that lack red don't have the aesthetic appeal to stick around very long whether they are locality or not. Generic light phase blairi will always be around because they are widely seen as awesome. Okeettee corns will always be around because they have the best of both worlds. Generic hypo coastals will be around at least for as long as I work with them and that's all that matters to me

Tony, what I meant is generation after generation....eventually the locality tag is meaningless. The rest of your post is simply personal opinion. To breed one RED milk to another RED milk simply because its RED(and you LIKE RED)is your own opinion, and I assure you its not the MAJORITY. LOL.

Based on your definition, what purpose does "locality" serve you?

Locality helps me determine expected phenotype. Ex: Bairds rats from the non-mountain western portion of their rage more frequently have the light bluish grey ground color I like. The eastern and Bandera county animals are nice too, I just prefer the western look.

It help me determine seperate lineage when I'm looking to prevent inbreeding. Ex: Coastal plains milks. Back in the day these were quite hard to come by and there were very few cb lineages most of which traced back to a very few founders. Crossing lines that traced to St. Mary's county to one from Calvert seems a good assuance that the animals were not too closely related. You have to remember that this was back in a time when locality breeding wasn't the fad it is now. We were just trying to establish vigorous breeders. I say we becasue I was not the only one doing this, but I am one of the few who has not changed that original tactic to produce animals that are hardy and will thrive and breed for those I sell them to.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

The term is largely for phenotypic expression and how it relates to breeding potential. Odd or abbarrant pattern "locality" snakes are all but useless in terms of locality, agree?
On the other note, I started captive breeding with Coastals. There were so many WC(!) lines and few CB ones and all the guys who were captive breeding had set up the county system(circa 1990). There were alot more coastals around then, wc and cb. I dont discount what you do as a breeder, you were "ahead of your time" sort to speak...but I dont think the "strength of the genetic lines" to be a legitimate contributing factor. I think it was more the limited husbandry knowledge of some breeders like myself at the time.

Jeff, I feel locality is lost when animals OUTSIDE the PRESCRIBED boundaries that DEFINE the locality are introduced into the gene pool. So, based on my line of thought, F100s could still be considered locality animals regardless of what their phenotypical expression is(yes, even amelanism IMO)as long as the gene pool they derived from originated within that prescribed locality boundary. I think the confusion comes into play when trying to verify or define locality with phenotypical expression. What if the animals with a certain phenotype in a locality are just more prone to be captured than animals with a different phenotype in the same locality? I know it sounds odd, but what if blairs phased greybands in the Hwy 277 area were just slower or more stupid and thereby captured more often than alterna phased animals from the same location? What if the phenotype that becomes the standard to define the look of the locality was just skewed because the person who was capturing the animals in that area didnt like the way the other phenotypes looked, so never captured them to incorporate into their locality breeding programs due to personal preference?? I say throw the phenotypical expression away and concentrate on the origination of the gene pool. My mother and father were both New Orleans locality. Me and my siblings are therefore New Orleans locality offspring. We do not look alike or express the same phenotype. My offspring are outbred and are non-locality since my wife is from California. However, my children were born in Baton Rouge so now represent Baton Rouge locality. As long as they produce offspring from pairing with only mates born in Baton Rouge, and this cycle continues with their offspring etc., then all that line are considered Baton Rouge locality IMO regardless of what they look like.

" I feel locality is lost when animals OUTSIDE the PRESCRIBED boundaries that DEFINE the locality are introduced into the gene pool. So, based on my line of thought, F100s could still be considered locality animals regardless of what their phenotypical expression is(yes, even amelanism IMO)as long as the gene pool they derived from originated within that prescribed locality boundary. "

IMO, you really hit the nail on the head with that statement. I could not agree more.
-----
Genesis 1:1

Locale ITSELF is constantly changing and representative "locality" snakes should as well. If you take the genes today and captive breed them even a few generations and then compare them to the TRUE locality snakes(WC)you will see a difference. Every time. If you define locality like that you would have to DATE the origin of your line...example f3 locality calvert,MD 2003. With the infusion of NEW blood you would never need that nomicker. There is little doubt that f1 and f100 would look totally different from each other never mind wc... which brings us back to the definition.

Hmmm... I am taking the term locality to mean from a specific area. Now what you will not get is an influx of genes outside this area in captive animals. In addition, putting them in the captive "Vacuum" not only denies them ANY genetic drift which probably occurs in the wild at any locality (unless SEVERLY restricted by geographic features like an island population), but also removes them from natural environmental stressors that may be occuring naturally (hawks live in the area now and eat all the lighter colored ones). With that in mind, I absolutely agree with your statement that you can catch a purple animal and a pink animal (using your red milk example loosely)within the prescribed boundaries of the XYZ locality and truthfully coin both of them "XYZ locality" without any reservation. Even if purple is the accepted standard expression. Anomalies need to originate from somewhere too!!

The market will accept anything to begin with, what is continued on is what WE select for. If you have 2 different locality LINES again they have to be refreshed with "new blood" and each type will homogenize. This is why line breeding(or trait breeding)within locality doesnt work(to ME). If this were true we would have ALOT more locality names out there than there is, losing that nomenclature after a few generations is appropriate as they drift away from their wild cousins. Locality should be the genetic expression of the available genes at ANY given point in time. It shouldnt be a single trait(gene)or date(inbreeding).
Was it you who brought up your kids in an analogy?? LMAO, I know women, and I dare say everyone's OPINION of the lineage isnt exactly as "pure" as they'd like it to be. Nothing personal.

To myself and many others, this isn't that hard to understand.

In saying locality changes, that makes no sense. Locality, as a bloodline, which is what it essentially is, coupled with the locality location that it was founded on, remains the same, no matter if it may appear to someone such as yourself to change, if your definition of locality differs, in terms of what snakes may look like with repeated breedings over and over for years, but like the guy said, if they are still the same bloodline, and nothing else has been brought in, the locality ITSELF is still the same. Who cares if you see a difference in physical looks vs. what perhaps the founding locality stock appeared to look like. That doesn't change anything about locality, unto itself, hence the locality HAS NOT changed. Very strange terminology my friend.

You seem to be confusing " physical looks ", and the changes that they can portray with breedings year after year, with the term of locality. Maybe that is your issue here. Locality is the bloodline, and while I do agree that perhaps with breedings, year after year, you may get some different physical characteristics compared to founding stock, the fact remains that the locality would be the same, if nothing else has been brought into the line, and then, there is no point to be made here. LOL!

-----
Genesis 1:1

To myself and many others, this isn't that hard to understand.

In saying locality changes, that makes no sense. Locality, as a bloodline, which is what it essentially is, coupled with the locality location that it was founded on, remains the same, no matter if it may appear to someone such as yourself to change, if your definition of locality differs, in terms of what snakes may look like with repeated breedings over and over for years, but like the guy said, if they are still the same bloodline, and nothing else has been brought in, the locality ITSELF is still the same. Who cares if you see a difference in physical looks vs. what perhaps the founding locality stock appeared to look like. That doesn't change anything about locality, unto itself, hence the locality HAS NOT changed. Very strange terminology my friend.

You seem to be confusing " physical looks ", and the changes that they can portray with breedings year after year, with the term of locality. Maybe that is your issue here. Locality is the bloodline, and while I do agree that perhaps with breedings, year after year, you may get some different physical characteristics compared to founding stock, the fact remains that the locality would be the same, if nothing else has been brought into the line, and then, there is no point to be made here. LOL!

HOLD ON! The locale itself doesnt exist in a vaccuum either. Every day there are countless things attempting to change some of the very landscape you call locale. That changes the animals. Time goes by and certain predators are added or deleted, that changes the animals. The survivability changes, food animals can change, pretty much everything is constantly on a slippery slope and you capture ......2.....animals breed them and call them "locality" 10 generations later? Based on? So I ask YOU how you use locality, your definition, and how it relates to the rest of us and our definitions.
I know with milks locality was a MUST since way back. Before the internet, before decent books, we had each others phone numbers and price lists and we tried to describe in words,WORDS what these animals look like. With the variability within each ssp. we would all get as many books as we could and said "its kinda like pg 47 of Markel's book". If you knew a locality and you had a pic of an animal FROM that locality thats what you expected to get. So THAT is what locality still means to me. Given the choice between 100 snakes from that given locality I would breed what was the most representative sample...not the 1 albino, but if 75% had patternless heads THAT is what I chose...because it was probably a more representative sample of what that locality represented. Did I or would I also breed the albino, of course, but the lines would be seperate so there would never be any question of "purity" (meaning the most common form)of that locality.
So I ask you how you define locality now? Now that you understand the origins of the term as its used in herptoculture. What is expressed genetically TODAY may be completely different tomorrow, going forward how do you suggest to deal with it? Do you understand why I try to insist in new blood every few generations? Make sense? It re-levels the bias from both sides. And you do want to represent the locality itself not the locality circa 1998 right? If you dont care what the snake LOOKS like why on earth would locality, ssp or even species itself mean anything to you? Too many questions,lol....

Jeff, I agree based on your definition of locality that the influences need to be there. The speck I catch in a park in Baton Rouge will probably look like the speck I catch there again 10 years later. Odds of it evolving into a solid yellow snake with one black stripe down its back are slim to none, while quite possible in say an Fnth generation produced in captivity without gene flow. Your definition is dynamic while mine is pretty static. The location of the park for me doesnt change and that is all that matters to me. Your definition incorporates changes that happen in the park. I do see your point. However, that would not stop me from selling the solid yellow speck with the black stripe as Baton Rouge Park locality LOL!!

Nothing personal taken on the kids/wife comment LOL!! I still ask my wife from time to time if she is sure they are mine. Unfortunately they exhibit too much of the KevinM phenotype to deny them LOL!!

Kevin, the "success" of each "locale" is based sadly on the market not its importance to science. My locale is imporant to me, yours is to you but who else? Why? If too many people have locale it makes the term less important to everybody. I am dealing with an insular population of milksnakes on the verge of being lost to development. There is that cal king population in the middle of LA....where gene flow is completely absent. Realistically these populations either adapt or become extinct, and I think populations in flux like this are important to study.
Even something as HUGE as Katrina is but a blip on the radar in an evolutionary sense. Population shift, repatriation, hybridization are all traumatic experiences with or with a natural disaster. Unseen shifts like the fire ant migration and chemical exposure simply cant be overlooked when defining a locale. I think you get my drift..

Jeff, if I understand you correctly, your view of locality is based on a population from a specific area that is being exposed and adapts to dynamic influences in their environment that cannot be duplicated in captivity. The locality animal is not a static entity, because the locality is not a static environment. Did I hit the mark on your definition of locality?

And thats only half of it. Not only is the environment not static but we as keepers do our best to get and keep the animal in tip top shape. All the attention, exposure to exotic parasites and pathogens, no need to hunt, no need to search out a mate, all these things affect the size, wieght, breeding, health and therefore the genes of the captive animals as well. Captive genes going one way, locality genes going another, the chances of them both travelling the same length,space and time is for all intents and purposes impossible. So the longer captive genes go without re-exposure to the original the more different they are going to be. The obvious thing is to breed new blood in every few generations, this will lessen genetic distance. Its pretty simple, you gotta wonder why more people dont agree. I'll call em "morph miners",LOL.

There are genes that are expressed (homozygous) and genes that are not expressed (heterozygous).
The snakes in the wild have a set amount of expressed genes that make this population look like it does. And yes these genes are expressed due to stress and other variables.
Anytime a group of these snakes is removed from the wild you change the stress and variables. This switches some of the genes places from heterozygous to homozygous. But also changes some of the homozygous genes to heterozygous.
The genes are still there. In fact only recently they have found contained in part of the genome DNA material they did not know was even stored there before. This material is left over from ancestors and is not being used by the animal at this time or maybe for a very long time. But it is still there.
They have proven that chickens carry genes for having teeth. They have produced chickens with teeth and this is due to chickens being the descendants of some dinosaurs. Yeah, I know who would have thought it, dinosaur chickens with teeth.
The point is the genes do not just disappear. You are only switching there places. If you released the line bred morph or mutation back to the area the stock was from nature would redirect the genes to switch back after a few generations.
A good example is the feral pig. Spotted ones got loose and now we see mostly wild boar looking ones in the wild.
It is like putting the genes in a sifter. The holes in the screen are the stress and variables. What doesn't go through the screen is heterozygous and what does is homozygous. Change the screen and you get a different mix in and below the screen but the total sum of all is still there and the same. Just a different part being expressed.

As for the term locality. I get what you are saying. But here is the think. Even if you have a more limited view of it that doesn't mean a morph can't be locality. What about morphs found in the wild?
I think so long as people make sure the history and is kept and they us F1 or F2 and so on and let people know it is an unusual morph not the norm for that location it should be understood. So if you do not agree then don't get it. The information that a morph was bred down from a locality stock group is genetically important and not making a record of this is just as much misrepresenting it as if you passed off a wild type looking snake that was bred from two locations as locality.
If you do not think an F5 or morph is what you define locality as then don't get an F5 or morph. Pretty simple I think.
By all means do it your way, I have nothing against that. I just do not see not being able to be more accurate by defining them all as they are and not just illuminating most of the definitions and therefor information because you have your idea of it. Just use the terms to your advantage and make sure you do not get what you don't believe in.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Ah, I gotta correct you here. Genes DONT CHANGE. Unless you are working in the OJ Simpson lab, once you get a set of genes thats it. They NEVER switch from het to homozygous, and I am scared where you got that info. What is true is that different genes become more important when parameters change, but everything is changing all the time and that goes right to the point that the environment itself changes when an individual is removed. Biology can reshuffle the deck but the cards NEVER change.
Now as far as how my idea of locality compares to yours.....understand how people breed their snakes. Most either inbreed(brother/sister/mother/father/etc)or they outbreed(my ideal)making sure to not breed siblings etc. Your example of a wc morph--inbreeding would produce morphs, outbreeding would produce mostly hets until the gene pool is thinned out. Which way is "more true to its locality"?? I think its obvious right? Selective inbreeding is directly opposite to the very idea of locality. I know alot of people dont want to hear it because it makes their "prize locality" speciments less "valuable"....so be it. Again, my use of it rewards the breeders who would devote time and cage space to fresh genes, genes we all can use. I know I will never want a f37 animal that is sprouting vestigal legs or 6 eyes or whatever, locality or not.

Jeff, maybe the terms heterozygous and homozygous may have been a bit stretched here. But unless you inbreed for many generations and I never said I would, the genes for the most part are not lost in the animals.
If I am wrong how the heck does a wild boar come back out of a spotted long time domesticated line of pigs?
I am not saying the genes are exactly like they would be found in nature after several generations, especially if inbred. The genes that take presidence to show themselves over what gets pushed down and only carried recessively changes. It is still the same animal. Just because the wild type is not showing doesn't mean those genes are all gone as if by magic. They are in there. Also even if I have an albino strain kept locality, I know it is not to be bred to the wild type locality group and never would be. I understand it is not the same thing in the since it doesn't represent the normal wild type found at that location.

Also if captive breeding has no value at all to nature then why bother keeping locality?
Man has fragmented habitat, polluted it and developed it. All populations have been effected by man. So these so called natural habitats are now just bigger shoe boxes. Even if man was to die off even this would be another variable.
Beavers make dams that flood lower areas and change habitat and the animals there too. But, they were made by nature so it is natural right.
On the other hand who made man? All religious stories aside man is a natural thing as well. Who can say nature did not make man to do this?
Only man came up with the idea he is unnatural. Nature never said so.
Everything in nature effects everything else including man rather if he stays or goes.

If a plant sprouts in a crack in a side walk is it not a part of nature or is it that nature runs it's course and life finds a way.

What about the condor didn't captive breeding save them from extinction? Grant you it was not the best thing it happened that way. But , I feel better they did not go extinct. I know some will disagree. But if man makes an extinction I feel that is way worse than captive breeding to stop one.
I think maybe you have to be a little twisted not to see that.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Jeff, maybe the terms heterozygous and homozygous may have been a bit stretched here. But unless you inbreed for many generations and I never said I would, the genes for the most part are not lost in the animals.
If I am wrong how the heck does a wild boar come back out of a spotted long time domesticated line of pigs?

NO MAYBE ABOUT IT. You cant go making stuff up to make you look smart. IF you are wrong?? Pigs?? If you put a drop of blood in the ocean does it turn red?? Geez, come on kid.

I am not saying the genes are exactly like they would be found in nature after several generations, especially if inbred. The genes that take presidence to show themselves over what gets pushed down and only carried recessively changes. It is still the same animal.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is NOT the same animal.Pushed down?? LMAO, jesus did I just read that?

Just because the wild type is not showing doesn't mean those genes are all gone as if by magic. They are in there. Also even if I have an albino strain kept locality, I know it is not to be bred to the wild type locality group and never would be. I understand it is not the same thing in the since it doesn't represent the normal wild type found at that location.

Some genes are EXPRESSED and some genes are RECESSED. No magic necessary. And IF you do have a "locality morph"such as a albino why wouldnt you outcross it to other locality animals?? Why would you call it locality if you dont TREAT it like locality??

Also if captive breeding has no value at all to nature then why bother keeping locality?
Man has fragmented habitat, polluted it and developed it. All populations have been effected by man. So these so called natural habitats are now just bigger shoe boxes. Even if man was to die off even this would be another variable.
Beavers make dams that flood lower areas and change habitat and the animals there too. But, they were made by nature so it is natural right.

You CAN NOT marginalize a whole population and equate it to your shoe box at home. That isnt how biology works. You have no doubt never,never ever seen ANY kind of Beaver,LMAO..You are in the bottom of a sinking ship plugging holes with jelly beans.

On the other hand who made man? All religious stories aside man is a natural thing as well. Who can say nature did not make man to do this?
Only man came up with the idea he is unnatural. Nature never said so.
Everything in nature effects everything else including man rather if he stays or goes.

You better get to church early this morning so you can teach the flatlanders that your space ship will save everything.

If a plant sprouts in a crack in a side walk is it not a part of nature or is it that nature runs it's course and life finds a way.

Scary, plain scary.

What about the condor didn't captive breeding save them from extinction? Grant you it was not the best thing it happened that way. But , I feel better they did not go extinct. I know some will disagree. But if man makes an extinction I feel that is way worse than captive breeding to stop one.
I think maybe you have to be a little twisted not to see that.

HUH?? English?? Plant? Sidewalk? Go back to watching Jurassic park's version of biology if you want. Practical WORK is being done everyday without a thought to jibberish. I really hope you were drunk or 12 when writing this, or apologize to everyone who read this far...I know I am sorry.

Jeff, now you just want to talk smack. That's all. You see what you want to see. Replication of nature in a captive way is not totally possible.
But many captive groups have proven to help save animals from extinction.
And yes I have seen beaver.
Why don't we just leave it up to DNA testing if anything does ever need to get placed back into the wild because that is what they would do.
I think anytime people go into making fun of another like you do it doesn't prove you are smarter.
Why don't you go ask a geneticist about keeping locality groups and see what they say. I know all of the points about how you picked what to breed and so on so no need to go over it again. Just talk to the experts and leave it at that.
Just so you know you are not the expert either so really man get some schoolin of your own. Your set idea is not the only and final say.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I think if I had to boil the points down for you. One is if anything man touches is no good to nature anymore then what has not been touched by man? Nature doesn't really nurture life if you look over the past thousand years even. But, as it is now where is nature not effected by man.

Another is that yes I know captive breeding groups are not perfect natural groups. But they have drawn upon them to help save wildlife in the past. Academics can and has worked with the private sector like this with great success I may ad.

As for your last post here I have to say I am not just making things up. There are genes that may not be represented on the surface when you have another phenotype but that doesn't mean that gene got lost and is no longer there. Again ask a geneticist. By all means don't take my work for it. but lets not take yours for it either.

As for your age, I am 41 years old. I would like to know how old you are because your post was pretty immature. Saying you bet I never saw a beaver or whatever it was to that effect you said. Now there is some little school boy crap to say for sure. So if you are going to try to imply I am not smart maybe you should at least try to keep your post mature while you do that.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Jeff, the thing is all I am saying is some genes are shown (unmasked), and some not shown masked).
My use of heterozygous and homozygous here was not totally wrong. Just not the only way it happens either. Genes can switch places between homozygous and heterozygous. If not then how can an amelanistic trait get carried through a het? Also sometimes albino genes and other none dominant genes can be co-dominant too (half unmasked). If you breed two snakes that are locality wild caught together that are also the exact same phenotype, you can get some like them but also can still get other phenotypes. This is because those phenotypes were carried heterozygous even if they are normal dominant traits.
The genes were still in there.

Many wild populations are more inbred than maybe you would care to admit. Grant you someone inbreeding in a shoe box for many generations having started with only one pair and only keeping one pair of offspring for many generations will loose some genes over time. But keeping out bred locality doesn't make any new genes and doesn't loose many if any either if done right.

As for biology, well they are often working with captive breeding and using it as a tool to save wildlife. There are many examples of this. Ornate box turtles in the North, condors and others. Bison were only saved due to the private sector having kept some aside. Academics works with the crocodilian people too.They let Texas cougars go in south Florida to out breed the fragmented inbred Florida cougars. The cougars there were becoming so inbred they had kinks in the tails one testicle and less fertility. It was a last resort and not ideal biologically speaking, but had to be done or they would go extinct. It is man that caused the inbreeding due to fragmenting the population of panthers. We have already compromised the gene pools in the wild period. There is no going back. The best one can do not is use whatever tools we can to fix it including captive breeding. With DNA testing being what it is today they can tell what would belong and what would not.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Eric, look at the time I posted. I will apologize for having a little fun at your expense--drinking and posting:dont do it. LOL. Back to YOU.
You read my version of what locality means to me and should mean to us in the hobby. You responded with incorrect gibberish that you pass off as knowledge and I corrected your biological vernacular. But you simply cant lose the arguement so soundly and still rant on as if you are making a winning arguement, I wont LET YOU,lol.
You should try and poke holes in my theory, which I must come back with LOGICAL well thought solutions. Instead of conceding you present your bucket full of holes and have all these analogies from pigs to condors to Bison to beavers and the rest....NONE have a foundation in solid science. Go ask a biologist anywhere in south Florida if they agree with that outbreeding of panthers! I KNOW, I was there working a while ago. I was a biologist for 15 years and I am your age, I shouldnt be correcting you on all of this. You should have been paying better attention in biology class because you rail on bringing up CHURCH and dont understand why I hurt your feelings??
Genes are replaced both in captivity and in the wild over time. NO arguement possible. The longer you keep captive blood seperate from wild blood the more different they are PERIOD. No arguement possible. If you desire to keep a certain "locality" I will ask you WHY? I have suggsested most hobbyists use the term locality for breeding purposes in order to try and replicate known phenotype(s) from that location. Your genes degrade over time, think of a rechargable battery vs a normal one. Outcrossing extends the life of your battery, inbreeding you have to change batteries.
Go read the grayband forum. Each different locality represents something different to them. They treat them almost like distinct subspecies. They dissapprove of mixing locales for several reasons, but not at the bottom is their FIELD work. Their wc animals are more "valuable" than any of their perfect cb offspring due to the stories, comraderie and experience finding such a prize! Non locality animals arent as "valued", and bottom line cost less $$. It might be the same looking snake, maybe the same genes, different price. Too many people breed now who have never caught any of these wonderful animals in the field. They simply take the cb locality info on a cup from a show in one end and spit it out the other on their offspring...nothing more. They keep the locality name(or sometimes make it up)so its easier to move the babies. Those are not "locality breeders" in my eyes. They dont bring anything to the table yet they want the higher price. My $$ will always go to the guy in the field doing the HARD work, I'll spend that extra $20 that I wont expect to get back on the back end....that $20 is a gratuity, A TIP to that breeder for doing it the right way! Locality breeders who dont at least attempt to infuse new blood are basically stealing tips from those of us that do!

pretty rough jeff, and seems like you condone captive breeding over continually raping the wild populations for specimans.
habitat destruction and collectors continally depleting wild pops. especially from certain locales will lead to those pops being gone forever and is exactly why certain locales/types should and do command a higher price, the infusion of new blood is certainly not needed with responsible breeding.
this is also why "big brother" is/has stepped in with protection on certain sp.
continally taking specimans from A particular locale for yourself or this hobby is wrong and certainly should not be encouraged with tips! come'on leave the wild pops alone unless your saving them from construction sites and then, give them to the hobby breeders so that there is plenty of "new blood" in the hobby snakes but leave wild in the wild, dont look to profit or encourage others to profit from it.
,,,,,,,,,thomas
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Their underground lifestyle will assure that they cant be hunted out of an area without an effort bordering commercial. There are plenty of places you can find 20 milks in a day, but not everyone can do that and it depends on the day. Where they occur they are usually common to abundant in the proper conditions.
Thomas, if not from the wild populations where is this "new blood" coming from?? I can only assume you mean hybrids. Hunting and incorporating a single new breeder every few years will never hurt a wild population and if its going to a breeder that person will certainly lessen that demand with cb babies. Its called sustainable yield. Besides, getting out in the field not only infuses herpers but its a great way to see first hand if your collection affects the population. State laws are not passed to protect wildlife, they are there to REGULATE it. They want their cut($$), welcome to America. Thats why they ask for tax forms when you get tables at shows now too. There is simply no excuse for not incorporating new blood when possible. Of course there are plenty of ssp. south of the border that is more difficult....but certainly not impossible. So some enterprising herper will get a permit or get a zoo loan and you know what.....he/she SHOULD get more $$ for that new blood. They put out time and $$ to get new specimens. Anyways, enough, I'm not comin back to this thread....

sense your not comin back theres really no point... i was reffering of over collection to some of the small to begin with pops that have been hit with the double whammy, mankind habitat loss and continual collection, certain coastal pops for instance like alterna pops are highly sought after differance is the alterna pops have plenty of habitat and can easily sustain a large take coastal pops not so much, and your are correct sustainable yield ABSOLUTELY just certain pops/types should be respected enough to be left alone and there shouldnt be incentive like cash for collectors to continually take year after year. one point thats so great about captive breeding is to relieve the pressure on wild pops, but certainly taking a few specimans every few years if continually needed is fine if they are going into responsible breeding programs.
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Thomas, I agree with all you said there. That line of thinking to me is on point. Collecting a few for breeding groups is fine but collecting them to be just a pet is not. At least thats what I think. We need new blood sometimes but if someone wants a pet there are plenty of CB's out there.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Thomas, that is actually a very good point. I do think harvest from the wild is possible so long as it is done in moderation.
Large scale commercial collecting from the wild is too high of an impact for instance. Those numbers collected for this reason could go into the hundreds or even thousands per year. Most of it has stopped or slowed down now due to so many people breeding so many good looking snakes. It has helped to supply the demand.
I do like to keep some locality stuff and do like to collect some from the wild, but I never just over collect one place. I don't take more than I need either. I have left a lot of good snakes and turtles over the years just were I found them.
I think the key here is moderation. Most people want to be extreme about any and everything.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

I call bull$hit on that Thomas. I have a hunting license that legally allows me to take what I want from the wild on private property with limits. I will continue to exercise this right until this too is taken away, at least that way, I'll have enough locality stuff to work with. And I doubt that even you, with all your knowledge of local getula could collect enough animals to damage your locale population....unless you have x-ray vision and can lift many times your weight in boulders! C'mon, not many people want to breed a locality snake to any random getula, and locality breeders deserve all that a person is willing to pay for any animal, just like any morph or cross or hybrid. Thing is, eventually, I believe we will only have a few homogenous looks if we did it your way. y'know, like a spotted cow. Black and white, or brown and white, and a brindle. Locality is locality, and worth every $ charged. I know I'm gonna lose customers because of my prices, but I'm not raising Heinz 57's over here.
I don't fully agree with jeff's statement about losing or gaining any genes either. All these localitiy snakes have the genes, hell, they all do, so adding new blood doesn't add anything new, it just reshuffles the deck again, I liked that analogy. What lines up lines up, not random, but with so many possibilities, not easily predicted. I think these locality snakes ARE inbred, and that, along with the locality itself,(climate, foliage, predators or lack thereof,etc.) produces the type. Adding another true locality animal is like adding another sibling, lol, still the same cards. Now if you were to cross the river (read as boundary) and add what would essentially be another locality to the mix, you have to rename your locality, 'cause a county ain't a locality! Or it is a generic. Period.
I understand about adding new animals (I do it to increase egg count, DOH!) but then it becomes either you added a different locality or you added another family member. Can't be both. Either these animals are communal or they aren't, clannish or not. Gots' ta' choose, can't have it both ways. Just because one place is near another doesn't make it locality, depending on what locality means to you. same rock cut, same road, same hill, same field, same town, same city, same county, or like Thomas says, same country!

-----
Todd Hughes

Jeff, I can actually agree with most of your post there. Yes, I know what a double helix is too.
I know most biologist did not agree with the Texas X Florida cougar project. I also understand why they didn't like it. The examples of the bison and condors and so on were examples of how captive stock can be used to help wild populations. I understand it is not ideal and I said that. It was maybe more like the lesser of two evils. But, it still was done.
You said if you separated the animals (in this case snakes) they become different. I agree but if you out breed them by adding new blood from said locality then they are being connected genetically back to the location. None of those snakes in one location are that genetically different from the start. I am not sure of exact numbers here but it would probably be less than 1% difference. It only takes a 2% difference or maybe less to make a new species. All I am saying here is just that when you add the new blood you are really not adding that many new genes. It just doesn't take much to out breed. Not making a point to argue really just stating a fact.
Don't you think the DNA of a very out bred locality group of snakes would show to be the same as that location would have in the wild? Especially since you are collecting new wild snakes from that location that are 100% genetically natural. Remember there is not much DNA margin of difference between any of them in the first place. How much difference did you get in a shoe box by F2 and then crossed back to a wild caught?
I know a couple of those gray band guys and that is were I learned out keeping locality from. I actually do try to keep my locality stuff more or less just as you said it should be kept. I do not argue your way is the best way to keep locality. I just argue even F8 is still locality. Now I understand and agree F8 is getting away from the genetics of that location but I am calling it that for record keeping of were this stock is from. I am in no way saying it is the highest standard of locality keeping. If a morph pops out of this stock (and at this rate, F8 I mean it most likely will) it would be good to know it came from a blood line bred from nothing but this location.
I am not arguing that this F8 stock is the out bred locality stuff you speak of. As I said I try to keep my locality stock as you yourself have mentioned.
If it is not kept like this it could be for many reasons but I would keep an honest record of it.
Frankly I think the extra 20.00 you spoke of is actually way to little and should be more. I have collected a few gray bands and know what it takes to do it. I like field collecting and have done a lot of it over time.
Anyway you are the Biologist so there will be no telling you that captive breeding could help nature in spite of the fact that captive breeding and captive bred stock has been used to help some wild populations.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

DUDES, are we completely forgetting that kings and milks are subterrans? We have absolutely NO idea that gene flow is interrupted in any ways concerning the LA kings and most others, events like Katrina most assuredly allow for gene flow, there will be some flow back to the typical areas look, I'd suspect.
Hell, the best place to find Mex milks is road cruising, but the ABSOLUTE best place to find them is under an abandoned houses slab, lol! or probably any slab, they will be where their prey is abundant and where they can find the moisture/temps/security they need to survive.
ALL we can do is get our animals from people we trust, that share a like mind, or catch our own, and produce what WE like or what makes US money. The reasons are as varied as we all are.
I know both snake mill breeders, people that only breed for certain looks, people that breed just to see how many morphs they can make, and people that breed for locality, both whatever pops up in that locale and only for the original type locale specimen. Oh, yeah, and hybrids.
Bottom line is we all are in it because we love working with the snakes. Who gives a rats' @$$ if one likes locality (and I mean locality and whatever that line produces with or without outcrossing to the same locality)or one likes morphs or hybrids. The bottom line is factual representation of the animals you work with when selling or giving them to the public. I know my hands are only big enough to cover my own @$$, so that's all I can do, and it is a big enough challenge 'cause over the years said @$$ has expanded its' previously known locale, range extention, if you will, lol! Geez, go away for 24 hours to clean the mice colony and see what you miss, fascinating, as some posters that had been arm chairing far too long came back on, great to see that!

Locality F1 Calhoun county, Texas L.g.holbrooki for some, kangsnake for others!

-----
Todd Hughes

This is easy as far as understanding where you are coming from...but...
I hate to think about my history here with the Albino Goini. When a MORPH pops out of wild caughts now, people want to write it off as some miraculous event where a captive born snake was released or escaped that eventually bred a wild snake. This is more likely than 2 wild snakes producing babies? In my opinion NOTHING is certain anymore, but I am not the type to care a whole lot about it anyway. Honest representation is mandatory for me, but if someone doesn't like me...that person can say I am full of it and I will be wating my breath arguing over it.
The passing of info, well that's all I can do... I pass on what I believe and that's that. Unfortunately not everyone will believe what I believe... that's just the way it goes
So yeah, my first post in months and I contribute NOTHING haha! Hi everyone!
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com
twitter.com/TomsSnakes

not so, Tom, I think you've hit one nail on the head. I say this because those speck pics are just what you say, something produced from 2 locality wc specimens, bred for the first time by me, and I get the one dark one almost speckleless, one VERY dark but patterned as I would suspect, 6 normals, and 1 very light. What do I think? The light and the dark speckleless would probably not have made it in nature. The 1 DARK but normal pattern and some of the 6 normals would have made it. When the dark one mates any of the other snakes around it, be it one of the parents or sibs or any other king in that population, all the possibilities are still carried forth. Not to mention the parents next batch. i don't have the resources to travel that extensively, but from this one population, that possible "speckleless" king happens.
I gotta say this, the male was a 1 year captive snake, I had one other female to breed him to and added her in fall/winter to the group, so these snakes were not long term captives, the females could have retained sperm, God, lots of variables, but I did witness breeding so I am secure in my thinking this male produced these offspring. Next year will be the same pairing and I hope something will show.
-----
Todd Hughes

If the climate changed and if all of the variables made the area were the parents were caught like that were MBK's are found maybe this population would turn more to looking like the MBK's. The thing is they are related and the genes are in there. Just not on the surface.
Just some fun food for thought. But, this is why populations throw an odd ball out there from time to time. In fact this is why the genes are there in the first place, so the population can change as needed if needed. If not needed well it gets eaten by a predictor or whatever. The gene gets suppressed and stays recessive for the most part.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~

Todd....
The female DEFINITELY is carrying the trait/gene....

What is the sex of the black holbrooki?
If it is a male it can be tested easily by breeding it back to its mother and to some sibling sisters........
If it is a female the best chance of reproducing a black holbrooki is breeding it to a sibling brother.....

Cool project BTW.....
We are going to have to do some dealing next Summer.....LOL
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

IIIIT'S A BOY!!!!
-----
Todd Hughes

>>IIIIT'S A BOY!!!!

I thought so....That's great...All you gotta do is grow him and his sisters up....and keep his mom healthy and ready to breed......LOL
I'm sure some more will emerge.....Then you can let me have a couple.....Hehehe
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Todd, that's good news. Good luck on your project and keep us posted.
-----
Noah was the first snake collector. ~Eric~