Reptile & Amphibian Forums

First, I'm happy to report that damage due to hurricane Isabel was minimal and the family is well. About the worst for us was the complete evaporation of help with the move to our Carolina home but considering what others were up against, I wish I'd had time to help them!

Second I would like to apologies for my part in what became a pretty ugly thread on the crossing of gioni. Generally I only wade in on these issues when I feel that someone's name is unjustly being dragged down. In this particular instance, timing did not allow for me to follow through with the discussion and my participation came across as one sided. I still however take exception to the notion that anyone who does any crossing must necessarily accept suspicion about any "pure" lines they might also work with. That is like saying Terry D isn't being honest about his appreciation of the natural history of his animals because he works with albino and hypos. As human being we are pretty complex creatures and what we do and say isn't always going to jive other complex entities! What matters most is that we "try" to be as honest as our frame of reference allows.

Finally the whole thread illustrated the need for us to attempt to arrive at a terminology that, even if it isn't universally agreed upon, is used consistently. As has been pointed out "strict" reliance on Webster's just doesn't cut it. Earlier this year we started to do this on a couple of the forums and by and large this is what I recall we came up with.

Hybrid - prodigy from captive breedings that cross species or generic lines. Example: Jungle corns.

Natural Hybrid - rare but naturally accruing prodigy from breedings that cross species or generic lines. Examples: red X yellow rats in GA.

Crosses - Prodigy from captive breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: Apalachicola king X eastern king.

Integrade - Prodigy from natural breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: classic oval goini.

Locality specific - Any animal captive-bred or wc that has a credible claim to the local of original collection.

Purity - Big question mark here as the term is thrown around wily nily. An animal can be locality pure but not taxonomically pure as is the case with intergrades. The most defendable usage of the term that I've come across (in the context of captive breeding) is the "ability to pass a similar suite of characteristics along to the next generation." I think that most would agree that this is something that integrades, crosses and hybrids do not do.

A further note on locality specific is that "locality" has not been given a definition that is widely accepted either. The current, and in my opinion, arbitrary usage of political borders undermines the concept and habitat or geographical features that contribute to population distinctiveness might be better delineators. As an example, instead of Ocean and Burlingtom County NJ coastal plains milk snakes being two distinct localities they would fall under a single (NJ pine barrens) locality which would more accurately reflect natural distribution.

Well that's it for my feeble brain at this point. I'm sure that I've messed some of it up and left even more out. Crish and Aaron and others please chime in.

That is like saying Terry D isn't being honest about his appreciation of the natural history of his animals because he works with albino and hypos. As human being we are pretty complex creatures and what we do and say isn't always going to jive other complex entities! What matters most is that we "try" to be as honest as our frame of reference allows.

Good point. Especially since the Hondurans are actually L. t. abnorma to L.t. stuarti to polyzona to hondurensis.

The amel easterns that Terry has are nigerXeastern kings.

Lloyd Lemke had amel L. g. nigers on his list, how come we don't see any today? Maybe the babies were too hard to get feeding.

My question is not meant to imply anything about the amel. Easterns. I just thought I would mention since Rainer brought up nigra that Lloyd Lemke did at one time have amel. nigra on his price list.
Regarding the amel. Hondurans the first one appeared in Captive Breeding Magazine volume 2 number 4 as polyzona owned by Brian Barczyk. It does have the black (or white in this case of an amel.) line from the prefrontal scales to the rostal as described for polyzona. My thoughts are who knows? It could still be a Honduran. I've found zonata with triad counts that don't match the official descriptions and I've caught an alterna with an orange iris which is supposed to mean mexicana. You never know for sure, stuff bought from importers could have been collected in a country where export is illegal and brought to a country where export is legal. Plus taxonomy is constantly changing.

>>That is like saying Terry D isn't being honest about his appreciation of the natural history of his animals because he works with albino and hypos. As human being we are pretty complex creatures and what we do and say isn't always going to jive other complex entities! What matters most is that we "try" to be as honest as our frame of reference allows.
>>
>>Good point. Especially since the Hondurans are actually L. t. abnorma to L.t. stuarti to polyzona to hondurensis.
==================
Actually, Blue, the first albino honduran hatched on a grassy knoll in...no, wait--it hatched in the studio where NASA filmed the fake moon landing. Yeah! No wait, it was three German herpetoculturists in the Trilateral Commission who got together and decided to cross...

Anyway, good line, Blue. I too thought a few of the earlier comments about Hondurans being hybrids were funny. You did a good job of parodying that by taking it to an extreme.

I assume your albino chain king comments were maybe a little more serious, since the niger/getula discussion is a legitimate one. I'd urge people to go back to the archives and read the lengthy exploration of facts on this forum, and then decide for themselves on that issue.

Anyway, keep up the humor. It's important we not take ourselves too seriously here.

And BTW, Tony, your comments are extremely helpful, an excellent example of the constructive contributions that can take place on the forum, to advance not only the content of discussions but the framework in which they occur. Thanks for that.

peace
terry

Actually it would be Nigra not Niger and can you prove that these are the crosses you claim them to be ? Terry and I beat the hell out of the Albino Eastern and came to the conclusion it is in fact a Albino Eastern . We actually researched the history, locality data etc... You seem to regurgitate what others claim. Do you have some problem with Terry ? You seem to attack him frequently is it possible you are jealous ? Also you seem to get PO'd when people attack your credibility because you are a Hybrid apologist but aren't you attacking Terry's credibility ? Practice what you preach bro.

Keith

Tony I like your definitions, I think we think alike. As for locality I also agree, I tend to go by region and habitat combined with personal experience. The name county, town, etc. is just a marker within the habiat and means nothing. I don't have experience with temporalis but with alterna many people say Hwy. 277. It is an approx. 80 mile road the main hunting area being about 20-30 miles with alterna throughout. I tend to divide this road between the lower grassy hills and the higher more vegetated hills. There is much overlap in appearance and no break in the geneflow but the lower grassy area seems to have more Blair's with washed out orange than the higher vegetated hills which seem to have more darker phases.

Change the word 'Prodigy' to 'Progeny' and then save it so that we can post it again when this discussion inevitably pops up.
-----
Peter: It's OK, I'll handle it. I read a book about something like this.
Brian: Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't NOTHING?

Very good points..I would have to agree with both of your breakdowns of locality , pure, intergrades ect and especially the borders where we (man) cannot just fling around names like they exist for our towns, roads and borders.
I made a distinction in a earlier thread of 5 divisions but did not consider the 6th one of pures.

ChrisH?

Here are a few thoughts on this subject, (I have been trying to keep up with what I have been seeing here regarding the whole hybrid thing. Sorry that I chose this thread to address some other subjects but I am pressed for time and most of the people involved are also reading this thread)

**Mr. Dunham's amel getula....well, just because you know where the first one came from does that really matter? And then again do you really know? (Look at the animal, classification is in effect HUMAN INTERPRETATION of an animal's appearance and morphology) Sure they look like Easterns sort of. They are actually quite different from a wild caught amel getula that was found in the North Atlanta area many years ago and resided at Zoo Atlanta until it's death. I saw the animal firsthand a few days after it's capture in a local PET STORE!!
But as I have said before when people tried to claim "Snow" animals could be produced from "melanistic" animals, take away the black! Most nigra especially from Western GA, Eastern AL, and West/Central Tenn. are heavily patterned as juvies and undergo an ontogenetic melanism (just like obsoleta obsoleta, H. platyrhinos, etc.) Amelanism impairs this. Therefore leaving the juvenile pattern quite distinct. I would guess they are intergrades (naturally occurring) getula x nigra as are others from Middle Western TN. Does this really matter, they are beautiful in their own right, and I guess a naturally occurring intergrade is worth less? Or less desirable? Hogwash they are what they are...and they look great to me.

**As to the Honduran fiasco, originally touted as polyzona (cover or Captive Breeding Magazine) then "re-assigned" to honduriensis after Mr. Porras found that his animals from the Hagenbecks (sp?) were in fact related to the "polyzona" Mr. Barczyk had! Does anyone know what the parents of these animals looked like? Or their locality data? And who really cares anyway, last I checked NONE of the Hondurans Mr. Dunham is so well known for look anything like wild types! Except maybe the hets and they in themselves are usually so enhanced from selective breeding, you would be hard pressed to find an import as clean & nice looking.

**One other thought before I tackle the below definitions. I wonder what would happen if I were to post pictures of CB Big Bend NP alterna? Or perhaps Texas locality Louisiana Pines? Why is it that no one seems to question whether the GA locality Easterns so frequently posted have legal origin? I am NOT trying to insinuate that Keith, Mr. Enge, or anyone else for that matter has done or is doing anything wrong, It just seems unusual to me that no one seems to mention it when you KNOW that if the above animals I mentioned were posted in the alterna forum or the Pituophis forum all manner of "poacher" accusations would ensue. Why is this?

Hybrid - prodigy from captive breedings that cross species or generic lines. Example: Jungle corns.

Natural Hybrid - rare but naturally accruing prodigy from breedings that cross species or generic lines. Examples: red X yellow rats in GA.

I know of quadrivittata X guttata hybrids found in FL but not GA? Also this is a good place to mention that in the minds of many here releasing an entire clutch of for example let's say Eastern King X Cornsnakes into the wild would result in a genetic holocaust. Explain for me then, how is it that in the millions of years that nature has been doing this itself (Canebrake X Diamondback, Cornsnake X Ratsnake, Copperhead X Cottonmouth) why haven't these "hybrid demons" polluted the gene pools of wild species ALREADY? The wild caught atricaudatus X adamanteus was found in the 60's....where were the others in that litter (most likely 10-12)? The other animals were not found. Are all the Easterns and Canebrakes in that area now mutts? Who is to say that at least one male did not make it to adulthood? We are talking about hybrid vigor here right? And if so, would that snake choose not to reproduce with a female of EITHER of the parent species? I can tell you from experience that backcrossing F1 hybrids will produce animals visually identical to a "pure" animal. If this is such a danger, why hasn't the other shoe dropped???

Crosses - Prodigy from captive breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: Apalachicola king X eastern king.

Not sure I understand this? This certainly occurs in the wild and the intergrades are the below mentioned "blotched" kings but this is my opinion on this subspecies, would not a better example be getula x splendida?

Integrade - Prodigy from natural breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: classic oval goini.

Also would not a better example (with less controversial sub specific implications) be Peninsula Kings (floridana x getula)

Locality specific - Any animal captive-bred or wc that has a credible claim to the local of original collection.

Purity - Big question mark here as the term is thrown around wily nily. An animal can be locality pure but not taxonomically pure as is the case with intergrades. The most defendable usage of the term that I've come across (in the context of captive breeding) is the "ability to pass a similar suite of characteristics along to the next generation." I think that most would agree that this is something that integrades, crosses and hybrids do not do.

The big key here being credible, People lie, deceive, and misrepresent sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of malice. Here's an interesting story. I will not mention any names but these are all events to which I was outwardly involved in (I owned some of the below animals) and personally witnessed. A breeder here in the Southeast bred a red phase Northern Pinesnake to a patternless Southern. The babies were then bred back to each other and produced a number of incredible hatchlings. Some were solid brick red others were solid pink and a few were solid white with black eyes. These animals were sold and eventually ended up in the hands of a "dealer" many times quoted to say "Lie, even when the truth is easier to tell" The animals were sold/traded to a large reptile dealer in Southern Florida and re-sold by them as Luecistic Southern Pinesnakes for $700 each, About 25X what the original breeder sold them for (he also honestly represented the animals). I am positive that these animals made their way into the projects of some of the leucistic pines you see today. And they were ALL intergrades (or crosses for that matter because patternless Southerns and Red Phase Barrens Northerns would never meet and breed in the wild. So even if you do everything you can....your animals can only be represented as honestly as they were to you (if you purchased them) or if you collected them yourself and mother nature didn't throw a wildcard in the mix a hundred years ago (she's not talking by the way)

Sorry to ramble on but people REMEMBER why you like reptiles, throw the egos and the price protection mentality out the window and start enjoying these snakes for what they are....at least as best as you can tell! This was in no way an attack on anyone or meant to demean anyone's projects. I have great respect for the people I have met and the people whose reputation precedes them. Mr. Dunham, Mr. Enge, Rainer, Keith, and so on. I welcome your thoughts on my opinions.

Horridus
Bart

Bart, very good. There were several areas I wanted to address myself. That is until I read your post. Your coverage of honesty and such is a very important issue these days. With certain herps I can be considered very nit picky in my requirements of past info. before I make a purchase.

Typically, if someone (a breeder) comes up silent with info. I pass them up immediately as I believe in the adage "where there is smoke there is fire". Many these days do come up silent with herps they are working with. With sales on certain herps going so well, many breeders feel why make waves instead of sales. Over time, anything can become what you want it to be if you sell enough of them. Who would want to take the chance of questioning anything. Its much easier to accept the lie then the truth, especially when personal thousands could have already been spent on the herps in question. Why kill your investment?

Terminology changes typically with each and every post I see in these forums when it address's a herp that is out of the normal price range for its type. I have seen many herpers take both sides of the fence with their stance from one forum to the next. Using other views they appeared to originally disagree with in one forum to regurgitate the arguement in another forum using as their stance what they originally disagreed with.

In my opinion, the key is for all of us to be "honest" in what we have. Spread the info. openly. Let everyone do exactly what they want, breed true, go morph crazy, dare I even say create all the hybrids you want. With honestly represented herps we could all probably deal with these issues and keep things straight. Then again, the only problem with this scenario is many are greedy and the prefect world will never happen. I believe we will have to always question everything and everyone if we ever want to be able to police ourselves. Let all the information revealed stand as it is.

I personally do not believe we have done a service at all for this hobby aside from making many wealthy. There is no problem with earning a buck until it is done solely to earn that buck thru deceiving a buyer. In itself the bottom line should not dictate the terminology. The definitions we use should be what they mean. They seem to only take up other meanings when used in the context of describing a herp that typically brings in more bucks than the norm. Aside from those instances everything seems to be common sense. It is what it is.

Excuse the rambling above as I should reread it to see if anything comes across as personal to anyone (thats not my intention unless you are an unscrupulous one) but I have to run.

Rich Hebron

got kinda quite in here all of a sudden. hmmmmmmmm?

Great post Bart. Im not so sure about the black ontogenetic change being impaired by amelanism though. Look at Albino Hondurans for instance. Ive seen bright babies but where Hondurans normally get black tipping and alot of the time complete blackout of the yellow/orange triad white developed there instead. I dont think the process of ontogenetic change is affected by the amelanism gene itself just the color that comes in is changed. So I would think a snake that Albino Nigra that started off with some yellow pattern would lose all of that and become a pink snake just like it would become a black snake without that mutation. Look at it this way, Nigra dont gain more black color but I think the yellow simply fades away. I may be wrong but its what Ive always thought.

Keith

That's an interesting way to look at it. Ontogenetic axanthism isn't unheard of either. Some Morelia (Chondropython) viridis exhibit this by turning blue (losing the yellow pigment, leaving only blue) And I agree with you about some of the amel Hondurans "whiting out" but in Black Ratsnakes there is still juvenile pattern quite obvious on even the largest animals. Only true melanistic snakes such as Eastern Garters and thayeri would be soild pink as amels. Like the "original" snow California Kings, a "nitida" animal was used to refine less pattern, not more black, you can still see the faded stripe. I will not claim to know with certainty, because how would one? But it is my contention that only a true melanistic snake (born/hatched black or almost completely so) would not show the underlying pattern when amelanism is factored in. I would like to see a L. t. gaigei amel That would be interesting.

Horridus

And I agree with you about some of the amel Hondurans "whiting out" but in Black Ratsnakes there is still juvenile pattern quite obvious on even the largest animals.

True but there are also many adult Black Rats with plenty of pattern. They dont all get solid jet black.

But it is my contention that only a true melanistic snake (born/hatched black or almost completely so) would not show the underlying pattern when amelanism is factored in.

Of course not because the snake has no pattern if its normally a solid black snake as a juvenile.

Bart I used the goini examples for cross and integrade because of relevance to the past thread but your examples are fine. The major difference that I see between the two is that one, the integrade, is a naturally occurring animal and the other, the cross, is a captive creation.

You also hit a point I often fail to make; there are many out there that don't buy into the subspecies concept at all! Even the pros aren't together on the subject. My personal opinion is that the animals are more interesting when viewed as a whole that express characteristics according to the environment they inhabit. In this regard I guess I'm a locality guy but where I fall off the wagon is when we start line breeding animals for traits that satisfy our sense of esthetics but have nothing to do with the original locality. As I do a fair bit of selective breeding myself some might see this as a conflict however I simply see little connection between the animals I keep and breed and those I find in the field. Comparing the two would be like comparing wolves and dogs.

Hybrid - prodigy from captive breedings that cross species or generic lines. Example: Jungle corns.
>>
>>Natural Hybrid - rare but naturally accruing prodigy from breedings that cross species or generic lines. Examples: red X yellow rats in GA.
>>
>>Crosses - Prodigy from captive breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: Apalachicola king X eastern king.
>>
>>Integrade - Prodigy from natural breedings that cross sub specific lines. Example: classic oval goini.
>>
>>Locality specific - Any animal captive-bred or wc that has a credible claim to the local of original collection.

This seems like a valid and useful set of definitions.
Unfortunately, it probably won't change the misuse of the terms in captivity as most people are happy with their current terminology, right or wrong.

Purity - Big question mark here as the term is thrown around wily nily. An animal can be locality pure but not taxonomically pure as is the case with intergrades. The most defendable usage of the term that I've come across (in the context of captive breeding) is the "ability to pass a similar suite of characteristics along to the next generation." I think that most would agree that this is something that integrades, crosses and hybrids do not do.
A further note on locality specific is that "locality" has not been given a definition that is widely accepted either. The current, and in my opinion, arbitrary usage of political borders undermines the concept and habitat or geographical features that contribute to population distinctiveness might be better delineators.

This is where I think it is wasted effort. I don't you can define "purity" in terms of captive populations. There are no "pure" captive lines.

If, by locality, you mean a particular phenotype/morph, then just call it a morph. Okeetee corns are a good example of this. Okeetee used to represent a locality, now it is simply a phase. That term works for me.
-----
Chris Harrison

...he was beginning to realize he was the creature of a god that appreciated the discomfort of his worshippers - W. Somerset Maugham

>If, by locality, you mean a particular phenotype/morph, then just call it a morph. >Okeetee corns are a good example of this. Okeetee used to represent a locality, >now it is simply a phase. That term works for me.

that's a good observation, chris. (the others were too, of course! LOL) but this seemed to express a truth i hadn't heard before. And yet, of course, someone COULD use Okeetee to MEAN a locale...is that still possible? Or has the creation of it as a morph preclude that usage forever?

td

That the general misuse of terminology will always be with us makes it all the more important that we work towards more consistent usage. Without energy input all systems fall into chaos.

As I remember from our last on this issue "locality" and "purity" were both elusive but I find your comment that, "there are no "pure" captive lines" interesting. I've always felt that claiming "pure" sub specific status a little dubious. Since gene flow is known to occur between subs in the wild I always thought it was a moot point for captive stock. Is this also the root of your comment is are there other reasons?

Though I think the term "phase" has its place I'm not sure it can replace locality, as you seem to have suggested (?). To me at least "phase" communicates a distinctive expression of natural variation. An example would be milksnake, melanistic, and leonis phase thayeri. Also I've never viewed "phases" to breed true. This certainly is the case with thayeri.

The definition here was a collaboration and while I would have tried to further refine it I'm actually okay with "locality" being a flexible term. What I think is key here is that it's understood the importance of this information is largely personal. To me I could give a rats ruddy patuddy that a corn, king or milk came from X locality (unless it’s a range extension). Now start telling me why you think X locality produces distinctive corns, kings or milks based on personal observations of climate, vegetation, prey availability, competition, hydrology, geology……..or how these factors effect phenotype you've got my rapt attention!

As I remember from our last on this issue "locality" and "purity" were both elusive but I find your comment that, "there are no "pure" captive lines" interesting. I've always felt that claiming "pure" sub specific status a little dubious. Since gene flow is known to occur between subs in the wild I always thought it was a moot point for captive stock. Is this also the root of your comment is are there other reasons?

The idea of a pure example of a subspecies is somewhat hard for me to grasp as well. It reeks of the old typological species concept (that there could be a perfect example of a species).

Captive populations of most species that have been bred for more than a few generations have been selected for particular patterns or colors.

Though I think the term "phase" has its place I'm not sure it can replace locality, as you seem to have suggested (?). To me at least "phase" communicates a distinctive expression of natural variation. An example would be milksnake, melanistic, and leonis phase thayeri. Also I've never viewed "phases" to breed true. This certainly is the case with thayeri.

My point was that if you are breeding a locality for its appearance (even if it is locality specific), then why not simply name it for its appearance (like an Okeetee Corn).

If you aren't going to release them, what does the locality matter. It is really the phenotype you are interested in.

The definition here was a collaboration and while I would have tried to further refine it I'm actually okay with "locality" being a flexible term. What I think is key here is that it's understood the importance of this information is largely personal. To me I could give a rats ruddy patuddy that a corn, king or milk came from X locality (unless it’s a range extension). Now start telling me why you think X locality produces distinctive corns, kings or milks

Notice how quickly we revert to defining a locality by its phenotype?

based on personal observations of climate, vegetation, prey availability, competition, hydrology, geology……..or how these factors effect phenotype you've got my rapt attention!

While there are probably some ecomorphotypes in some localities of snakes, I doubt most of the popular captive species show this pattern. Local patterns are more likely the result of isolation and genetic drift than selection favoring a particular morph.
-----
Chris Harrison

...he was beginning to realize he was the creature of a god that appreciated the discomfort of his worshippers - W. Somerset Maugham