Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Has anyone ever crossed an Eastern Milk to a Scarlet kingsnake in captivity??

There still seems to be some debate as to what a Coastal is...

I would love to see some pictures of the hybrids that result from captive breeding L. t. triangulum X L. t. elapsoides. If anyone has pictures??

I would love to see pictures of the parents too.

Much thanks.
Tom

I believe one was mistakenly sold to StretchX.

He hasn't bred it to anything purposefully, but it LOOKS like an intergrade...

Doesn't take an expert to pick that one out.

Perhaps he'll post a pic...

Chris

A few years back Stretch had a Hyde County scarlet, now considered a coastal, and I had received a NJ coastal that I then considered an eastern. We bred them producing a very coastal looking neonate. This one snake did not survive do to ingestion of bedding but like similar experiments the results produced coastal look-a-likes. This however should not be construed to mean that this is how coastals came to be.

I think the cross animal you might be thinking of was the one JH got from me. It was a coastal X eastern cross given to me by another breeder. Due to phenotype I considered it a coastal and JH HAD to have it only to loose interest in it after he caught locality fever! I believe this animal eventually went to stretch who may still have it but I am uncertain.

For all you locality and or purity fans out there feeling the hair raise on the back of your necks, please keep in mind that all this happened many years ago before locality was an issue and when we were still trying to learn exactly what a coastal was. Out crossing was a legitimate line of inquiry because no text, even William's book, gave a single clue that wasn't conflicted.

...the one I was referring to was sold to him as a pure Virginia Beach animal.

I dunno...looked like an eastern x scarlet to me.
Chris

My mistake, and yes Stretch got that one directly from me. It came from Gerry Samons (BIG locality guy)and was billed as a WC Virginia Beach animal. As locality is Gerry's big thing and he knew it wasn't a big deal to me, I assume he had no reason to tell a tail. As I have learned, speculation on locality based on phenotype is a waste of time and bound to get you in hot water. The only way to be 100% sure of locality is to catch it yourself. Otherwise it ALWAYS comes down to trusting someone. In this case I did and still do trust Gerry. If Stretch is unhappy with the animal I wish he would let me know because I'd buy it back in a microsecond!

Let me be clear on this.

My opinion is MY OWN and does NOT reflect anything Stretchx has said to me.

I looked at the animal and made my assessment on phenotype alone as is my perrogative.

I didn't even MENTION that he got that animal from you.

...and it LOOKS like half eastern milk and half coastal/scarlet. That's all I said or will say on it (having seen three animals from the same city that all look like scarlet kingsnakes).

Chris

:I looked at the animal and made my assessment on phenotype alone as is my perrogative

Yes it is your "prerogative" to make your own "assessments" however; your initial posted stated "he hasn't bred it to anything purposefully." This would indicate that at even if you came to the conclusion on your own there was at least agreement between you guys. As such I have emailed Stretch and extended the offer to buy the animal back. This is something I would be happy even eager to do as she was hail, hardy and produced large robust neonates.

Contrary to your initial statement that it "doesn't take an expert" I think you are wrong and here is why. Those who were fortunate enough to be around during the hay day when coastals were collected in numbers from southern MD counties (St. Mary's and Calvert) report a full range of phenotypic expressions. Animals that looked like Tyrell NC specimens to the eastern/coastal intergrades typically found north of the Jersey Pine Barrens were all collected from these counties. Given the potential for variability, assessments based on three other specimens carry little weight and it may indeed actually take genetic testing to discern the difference. Even then I'm not sure that localized relationships can be established by this method but since I am no geneticist or self proclaimed expert I'll admit to gaps in my understanding of the process.

BTW have you bred those ball pythons yet!

...One more and then I'm not entertaining this anymore.

Some folks fancy themselves educated...I, however, am jus' a good 'ol boy who says that snake in question is a CROSS between an Eastern Milk and sumpin' else.

C-ya...

Chris

P.S. I KNEW I Pi$$ed you off with that...you shouldn't have bit my head off about it at the table that night...you should've been cooler and understood it was just a joke. Everyone who heard you agrees you were a jerk about it.

I overspoke and should've done this offline.

I spoke without thinking and I apologize for using the forum like that.

It is my fault and I am sorry.

Chris

Don't fret an apology wasn't needed. I knew what I was getting into when I replied to you initial post.

BTW I've heard back from Stretch. He is happy with the animal but would like some more first hand info before breeding it as a locality animal. To facilitate that I will be giving his contact info to Gerry the next time we speak.

As for the BPs I wasn't p155ed. If anything I was being self deprecating because my little "competition" to breed them first wasn't going my way. I knew at the time you didn't take it right but you gave such a classic CJ response that I just left it alone. Jerky; perhaps, but some there appreciated it as much as I did.

That little yellow male theyeri is AWESOME.

He's still all pale yellow w/ clean orange saddles and eating two-at-a-time.

Thanks again!

Chris

But I do think that locality was important long before the mid-late 1990s. Locality animals built the foundation for all NA milksnakes bred in captivity today one way or another.Most successful breeders that shared their data or published books on the subject kept locality records as a general-husbandry-type practice.Some "locality people"attempted some crosses due to a simple lack of available specimens more than anything. While its safe to say that MOST of these attempts contributed nothing to the present gene pool, it would be a fool to think that NONE did. Again, the only problem with such genes is the mis-representation of these particular specimens to other "locality people".That notion of breeding for future release is,I hope,left to qualified scientists.Thanks,Jeff

I do stand corrected. Yes I agree that some have been locality breeding for some time but from the coastal perspective, this would include some breeders from your neck of the woods which has influenced your take on this subject. let me say however that in my experience, it has only been in the past five or so years that locality "data" (choke, cough) I mean info has taken on the meaning it currently does. I my circle it was used as general appriciation, perhaps I can go find some myself type of information that I and others also used to aviod inbreeding depression. Keep in mind Jeff this was pre internet day and not all of us were lucky enough to know Chuck or see "buckets" of coastal.

With all the confusion that has seemingly always surrounded the taxanomic nitemare that is triangulum in Central America, records HAD to be kept to establish any of these captive populations that we take for granted today. I think the main reason that locale isnt important to many now is that noone in the hobby has collected in these areas. For those who pride themselves at all in the field(not the "show"people,lol),collecting your own living gems is by far more meaningful than buying the fruits of someone else's labors.I agree for most that cb is the way to go, but it is at least important to incorperate new blood and more importantly KEEP THE CHANNELS open as far as collectors go. Once we lose the right to do it we will never be able to get it back,Jeff

Disagree. Locality data has only been important in isolated instances to a few people or groups. The alterna crew is one, the New England coastal crowd and Bart B with his pines being another. In each of these instances we are talking about animals with spotty distributions and it would be my guess that locality "data" originated as collecting data. By and large any other "locality" animal was only important because the area was synominous with "classic" phenotypes. Examples are the black and white NJ pines, boldly patterned Okeetee corns and Pinder County "red" moles. It wasn't until people started catching locality fever that those producing indistinctive dare I say ugly phenotypes became critical. Suddenly collectors could pick up some ugly corns from the sand hills and get prime dollar for them as locality animals.
As for the idea that collecting your own is somehow superior to being a show person I'm not sure how I feel about that. I started as a field person but with the demands of career, family and a moderate collection, time to get into the field more scarce than I would like. Does this make me a "show" person? Just because most of the animals in my collection are cb and not personally collected doesn't diminish the collection's value (not monetary) to me in the least. Nor does it mean that I don't stay in touch with those who get in the field more often or that I don't share my limited experiences. Fact is, I treasure my time in the field but choose to see to my responsibilities at home, which include the animals that rely on me for their care, first.
As for the collectors being the torchbearers of our liberties I don't buy that either. Given the availability of cb animals, too many wc are being taken. The numbers of those in the field looking to collect their own "jems" are rising, causing, or at very least, aggravating the alarm among regulatory agencies. Even Carl K. worried what the implications would be if snake collecting ever became popular!
This is one of my real points of contention with locality breeding. Whether its deliberate or not the trend is undermining the perceived value of existing stocks and creating fresh incentives to collect. To what end should we allow the past gains of our community to erode? So far neither you nor any other locality proponent has offered a single reason that herpetoculture should cut its losses and change direction other than personal preference. It is only the persistent drumming of narrow notions on "purity" on these forums by a few zealots that is fueling the trend. "Pure" snakes, to my way of thinking, are not individuals but a spectrum of interbreeding populations. Their phenotypes are diverse and dynamic forever seeking further survival advantages. Gene flow is well documented across sub specific lines and it would be illogical to assume that it doesn't occur to an even greater extent at the "local" level. Even in cases where they currently exist as isolated populations this isolation in many cases, is so recent as to be irrelevant. If nature doesn't erect barriers to gene flow I see no reason why we should erect one for captive-bred animals unless we are attempting to affect the outcome.

Tony, I have agreed with your ideas about outcrossing and the ideas about producing the BEST available animal,but I think on this arguement you are a bit off,lol. While there are a good amount of experienced,educated people working with milks in the northeast(not so much anymore I may add),locality will continue to be important to some because of(not despite)their experience.By finding "new" and "rare" specimens and establishing new cb lines locality breeders/collectors definately add to the overall product. Their "value" is in their rarity even if they are "ugly".Everyone wants to have something different,and what better way than to find something somewhere that noone else is working with? As a whole, the community will eventually either embrace it or discard it but why should THAT be a determining factor as far as the individual goes? It is basically the same arguement for hybrids but in reverse!
I dont think wild caught animals are for everyone, and I have always tried to explain this to newbies...if you do catch something neat or rare it is always better to let someone with more experience acclimate it. I also dont think we have much to worry about as far as "outcollecting" the supply of most species. Most of the rare species are rare because they are hard to find so the learning curve in finding them is so steep that alot of newbies simply give up(and a few old-timers as well,lol). It definately costs more per snake(most of the time)than it does to buy CB,but as far as the neat or rare stuff goes....That "one of a kind" in a litter that the breeder NEVER SELLS...it may be the ONLY way for you to get real different,real special animals.We always use coastals as the tool for arguement(it fits perfectly!)and very few breeders are actually using wc stock.Knowing what I know about these, the only Maryland milks that REALLY interest me anymore are the wierd ones from St Marys county--either the real dark ones that look almost like chain kings(noone has these by the way)or the more "typical"all red head(differing from the Calvert co and most St.Marys specimens(they actually look like Va beach animals but those are so rare that I dont even know if they are being bred!).Now I do look at all St.Marys(all coastals for that matter)produced in hoping I can find that abberation I am looking for that I know exists in numbers in the wild....I also try and educate other breeders as far as what are "typical"markings for each locality(so they dont buy mis-represented or cross-bred animals).This is not to say these are the only snakes that interest me!This is not to say I could not appreciate a NICE hybrid.This is to say that there are other phenotypic expressions out there that arent being expressed anywhere in captive breeding circles.If you dont have it,you likely cant cross one animal to another to get it! My solution is to find it, establish it(breed for "purity",then once established----its a free for all! Do you think the hobby would have been helped or hurt if say the albino nelsoni was immediately bred to every other mexican ssp indiscrminantly from the start? Sorry for the length here, a good discussion,Jeff

First, isn't the hybrid forum an odd place to be having this discussion? That out of the way, I think that we are pretty much in agreement and are saying the same thing though a little differently. There of course remains some aspects of your slant that I find puzzling. For example you wrote, "I also try and educate other breeders as far as what are "typical" markings for each locality (so they don't buy mis-represented or cross-bred animals)." Wouldn't this interfere with people working with the entire range of phenotypes especially those more rare types that you are looking for? Imagine you are successful in establishing a standard and then locate your redheaded or king snake like St. Mary's animals. Wouldn't people by and large then think you are misrepresenting your stock? It is because of the very diversity of phenotype that YOU so often point out that I believe (brace for opinion) using phenotype to classify locality is a fool's game.

As for the collection of additional stock contributing to the entire "produce", I can't disagree with this possibility however I do not think that this is generally the case. The female VA Beach animal I placed with a locality collector has remained unbred since its placement. That is entirely within his prerogative and I respect his adherence to a self-imposed standard however it illustrates the point that few if any locality advocates are willing to admit new genes into established captive populations unless they hail from the same general region. Further, another breeder (from your neck of the woods) with an animal from SE VA released it after being unable to locate a locality mate. These two examples represent, which I believe are not isolated, represent lost opportunities to improve the "product" as you say. I find your suggestion to "find it, establish it(breed for "purity" then once established----its a free for all" agreeable but current trends indicate, to me at least, that this idea would gain little acceptance until inbreeding depression in a given line mandated such out crossing.
The route of this argument from my perspective still comes back to a few issues
1. There aren't really accepted phenotypic descriptions of "pure" subspecies and similar descriptions of locality specifics are likely to be even more problematic. In other words you can't define locality by phenotype. Again that's just my opinion but one also shared by many locality breeders even though they don't hesitate to utilize phenotype to discount the validity of other's stock.
2. Locality data (cough choke) information is subjectively based on individual trust. What is good data to me and you might not be to another. Not only does this create sticky situations, given the monetary incentive, ALL locality data should be taken with liberal amounts of salt. It is precisely the "lack" of this monetary incentive that led JG to accept what would ordinarily be very dubious "data" in the labeling of his Stillwater line of hypo bull snakes! Largely ignoring that locality information is subjected to the monetary incentive and then using the lack of this to justify poor data is kind of like having your cake and eating it too.
3. Given the lack of ability to equate locality with phenotype and the subjective nature of how locality information is determined, breeding along local lines is reduced to a mere personal preference. Though I know some locality breed with higher ideals in mind, the exploitation of current market trends favoring locality animals by communicating this to be THE right or ethical way to breed reptiles or to cast disparagements on those who only work lines lacking such information is elitist, divisive, misleading and in the end the last thing this community needs.
All that being said I think we're taking ourselves entirely to seriously!