>>If you breed a kingsnake to a corn and then take the f1 animals and breed them back to either parent enough times you will get a pure species that even DNA testing cannot determine as hybridized at one point. Now if one spp has a recessive trait and you add that to one that does not carry such that particular trait you can create a pure species with a new recessive trait from the f1 breeding by continaully breeding back to one of the pure spp.
============
After all the bantering about "protecting investments" and so forth, THIS (above) is still the crux of the matter.
I questioned this in the long thread below but i think it's good that you've started over up here, blue. You state the above as fact; to me it's opinion. Can you or anyone enlighten me? I noticed someone below said backcrossing "nine" times would result in a pure animal; above you say "enough times", which could be a considerable difference.
But I still fail to see how the statement can be true given any reasonable actual number of backcrosses--wanna say 40, for example? -- that would take a human lifetime, right, and i don't think we're trying to defend things that we couldn't execute in more than our remaining lifetimes? I could breed het/albinism through pure hondurans for 40 generations, always crossing to normals, and after 40 generations i believe the fact is that some of those babies could still be carrying the gene. If that one gene can persist that long, wouldn't ten, or a hundred, or more genes unique to one species still persist in the "F40" young?
Pick your number (and i don't mean YOU, blue, i mean anyone who can help me see the light on this issue) and explain to me how a person can hybridize and then produce pure animals of either species again from those hybrids, in a human lifetime. Because until the facts on that issue come out, we're bound to be at opposite ends of the issue. I just hope someone doesn't come on board and explain how after x generations an animal would be "95% pure" or something, cause that's not pertinent and not a reassertion of the point you declare above.
Again: I just marvel at what occurs in nature. I find the Macaws that exist in the wild far more interesting, far more impressive, than the ones that have been created by crossing in captive aviculture. I marvel more at the naturalness, the real-ness, of an animal that came from the wild, or is showing traits from the wild, than I marvel at the appearance of the animal. After all, a beautiful tricolor hondo is arguably "prettier" than a snow or a ghost. But all three of those types are pure. And when there are thousands of one, and maybe only a handful of the other, or when a breeder's worked for several generations to put together the naturally occurring genes, in pure animals, to get one of those results, yeah, I'm amazed and intrigued by that. Not everyone has to be. But I think most grayband breeders would rather know that someday a pure amel grayband might show up, and anticipate that, maybe wish for it or maybe not, and wonder about it, and--if one shows up--want very much to see it or pictures of it or to eventually be able to breed that trait into their own pure graybands. It's just a different thing than breeding an amel queretero or nelsoni into the grayband to get an amel "grayband"--which isn't, of course.
If each of us could pursue our separate interests in isolation, that would be great. Unfortunately, the hybrids throw "pure" animals into doubt--that's been demonstrated in recent years, again and again--and that's harmful to our ability to ever appreciate and know an animal is the "real thing". To me, if it's true that once the animal is hybridized its offspring are forever removed from the natural species pool, then those who create hybrids are showing less respect for the natural animal than those who don't. So show me some evidence to show that's NOT the case. Explain to me how after 3 or 4 generations, for example, a carefully managed project can produce "pure" animals again, and I'll change my tune. Agree to destroy all the animals created in the process of getting there, and I'll sing an even sweeter tune. Implement some kind of control so that that same sort of responsible management would be applied universally, and heck, I'll lead the band.
OF COURSE people have the right to hybridize. But others have the right to try to share information that might cause some people to skip that activity. We're not talking about midnight raids to free animals from laboratories here, we're talking about the right to express opinions and even--as I'm trying to do here--to invite factual information that might change my own opinions.
It seems to me that releasing captive bred animals into the wild is a related subject warranting exploration. I'll posit that it shouldn't be done. That doing so shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of respect for the natural, wild animals. Sure, it'd be fun to have some scarlet kings in the backyard, or in that patch of woods down the street, but is releasing them there a good thing to do? After a certain number of generations, if they happen to itnerract with the wild stock, would that introduction of genes also disappear, be inconsequential, would the resulting offspring eventually be pure, show no DNA evidence of the itnroduction? And in this example we're talking about SAME species breedings.
I think these are all important issues, and warrant discussion. Please, let's just try to keep it respectful, objective, factual, or at least purposeful--the purpose being not to defend one's own sentiments, but rather to pursue the truth or, at least, the answer closest to the truth! LOL
peace
terry
