Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Locality issues were pretty well discussed last year in the milksnake forum but its continued relavence here makes me interject. From my experience as a locality NA milk breeder I think the importance is that of simply respecting not only the animals but also the work of breeders who started these lines to begin with. Twenty years ago those of us in this hobby(there were very few "business types" that long ago)would have to read off lists what others had to offer/sell. It was of major importance to those of us that were successful breeders that we could reproduce consistently thephenotypesthat prospective customers had seen in books. The rarer the animal, the more likely that people interested in getting into them to breed wanted EXACTLY the type of animal that was on pg 109 of KINGSNAKES AND.....whatever.
NOWthereis more variation within a single line(phenotypically)in captivity than there is in most ANY locale. By morph production are we not simply downplaying the "natural"phenotypic representation and emphasizing(over-emphasizing)GENOTYPIC equivalent??
Now personally, I dont really see what benefit I would get by knowing that one mexican milk morph was 100%"pure",or even by crossing one of these morphs with another in an effort to produce a third....I think this a very natural progression. But then again if someone were to do the same thing with NA milks(something I have lots of time and effort invested)I may feel differently. I think the most will agree that captive breeding is still in its relative infancy and that 10 years from now there will be more people laughing at our efforts than those saying"I told you so".
And to just add my 2 cents about that hybrid thing....boy there are some NICE ones being produced, and some should definately demand BIG $$...but I think that should come at the expense of the "ugly" or "less desirable"kin.I truely think there should be a "throw aways"column in the classifieds that would give these(and others that are either non-ID'd or dontated by generous breeders)to those kids(say under 15)that want a snake but are just too poor to buy a "nice" one. It would also eliminate some(not all,lol) of those people you get online or at shows that want a $5 snake for $2,lol. Ramble,Ramble and more Ramble,Thanks,Jeff

Hi Jeff, As one that has bred kingsnakes for 39 years. I may have a few thoughts.

In all that time, I have never seen any breeder, select for "ugly" offspring. This in effect, creates an artificial selection and artificial direction in which the bloodlines migrate. They(we) also select for artificial food selection. Again, not a natural migration. The same goes for behavior, we don't like those picky ones, do we?

In nature, the condition of any locality, selects for what offspring survive. This includes such traits as, color, pattern, food selection, behavior, immunities and more. These are what makes a "locality specific" individual, important. Its a result of, and an extension of, and an expression of selecting influences and genetics.

In captivity we do not select for anything important to a certain locality, only our own. We select for our our preferences.(captive importance)

These result in entirely different expressions of the same original bloodlines.

After line(locality specific) breeding for many many years, It was easy to realize, that the captives did not resemble their natural relatives in any way, not in form, color, pattern, behavior, etc.

With this in mind, I have to ask, what difference does it really make? You know, you can breed true, breed for color, breed for potential, all at the same time. There is no rules that say we cannot. In reality, mixed bloodlines, crosses, and hybrids will and have happened, whether accidentally or on purpose.

Some of those bloodlines done many years ago, were indeed products of crosses. The truth is, no one knew better. A cal king from San Diego was the same as a cal king from barstow. They were the same, at that time.

About the parts of clutches that are not attractive. This happens to all breedings. It does not matter what locality or bloodline or whether its a hybrid or not. People will always decide some are nice and some are not (ugly). So to be concerned "only" about hybrids or crosses is rather naive.

The great thing about all this is, its your choice, pick what you like and run with it. Thanks Frank

and well said. Makes me wish my reply hadn't been so tongue in cheek.

Frank, I was just stating the obvious that morph breeding in many circles has at least altered if not replaced alot of line-breeding/locality breeding efforts. I offered and accepted outcomes of others' breedings and made my small attempt to split the difference between that delicate hybrid topic. I do have a question for you though.....Having bred them for that length of time have you noticed any trends as far as SIZE is concerned?? We can all understand why there arent as many LARGE WC animals anymore, but does this reflect at all in the maximum size of the kings you have worked with? That many years with these animals I hope to hear some wacky stories,eh...Thanks,Jeff

This is simply an addend, not contesting the previous post but placement here seemed most appropriate for this tired poster.
For those anally inclined, understand the language used is general and only introduces a different perspective of value, even if a rare one at that.

I completely understand the appreciation of breeding for consistent traits of markings or what-have-you.

When I seek a locality specific animal, I am seeking a captive bred specimen to be only representative of the population of animals found in a certain area whatever traits that may include visible or non. So purity to me is more accurately deemed representation. Line-breeding relatives or to other locales destroys this representation of the locality on a highly aesthetic level.

What I am looking for is the ability to obtain a captive bred specimen from an area so that I can buy an animal and think, Gee, If I were were in Hell's Ass California, this is what I could catch.

When I seek locality animals my only selection factors are that the animal is not inbred or crossed with other localities. I seek an animal that has the last chapter of selective pressures unique to a locality preserved in its gene pool. Unique, Yes. Prosyletizing, no. One articulate fellow on one of these forums, I wish I could credit, described his locality appreciation similar to being at the Antique show on PBS where they look at old stuff. They really explain why one old record player isn't the same as another that looked upon at the surface looks identical. But then that thing is worth $50K. But then again, after hearing the history of the players I begin to appreciate it more, just not $50K more. But in general, I could care less about record players, but with snakes and reptiles, their natural history and endurance I appreciate until the last chapter in their natural history.

Everybody else could give a rat's ass, but I thought I had to present a minority opinion. Forgive the wording and lack of clarity or sufficient explanation, short on time and sleep.

Matt

Matt I'm confused by your statement, "So purity to me is more accurately deemed representation. Line-breeding relatives or to other locales destroys this representation of the locality on a highly aesthetic level." Not to poke fun because I know that it often takes several posts to clarify an idea but your definition or description of purity is initially coming across as pretty complicated.

At the heart of it however, I don't think your view is all that rare. I too greatly appreciate wild phenotypes but, unlike you, have a hard time linking this appreciation with captive-bred animals. Even those animals in my collection that I collected myself are not truly an accurate representation of the localities they came from. As a for instance, of the eastern kings I collect in my home county, only 1 in 10 are what I would call keepers. The specific qualities I collect for represents noteworthy genetic drift from the wild population and further, selective breeding (not line breeding) only serve to enhances this difference. The net result is that after a very few captive generations, my easterns bear little resemblance to the average wild type one might find here. In effect captivity has become the locality. To me such animals, though locality specimens, are not pure. Aesthetically, they are merely representations of what "I" think an ideal eastern king should look like. Pure eastern kings, 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. If I thought for an instant that locality breeding preserved this for captive populations I would be one of the methods greatest advocates but I just can't make the connection.

Tony, my take on your last post is that captive breeding can never be equivalent to locale(which I also believe).It is the next best thing....If there were say an extinct locale and you had 1 animal from there, how hard would you look for a mate? Would it at this(or any?)point become more or less important? Not to put you on the spot there buddy!LOL,Jeff

Only if that specific local met the criteria for a bonafide subspecies and indeed represented its entire range.

I see where I was not clear.

Yes, I have preferences for phenotypes, but, that is not the only place where I am going in saying I appreciate a certain locale. I also appreciate a locale for its unique pressures paced upon the population identified by the locale independent of looks. For example, certain snakes can nominally be the same species, and look identical, coming from two different locales. In certain regions in my part of the country that places these animals, nominally the same critter, under sharply contrasting natural pressures, e.g. altitude, humidity, frequency and type of availability of prey, etc.

I know the limits of the definition of completely natural selection, etc. however, to the best that can be done I appreciate an animal that is representative of the genetics of the area without exaggeration of rare alleles through inbreeding.
Although I won't go into this further, allow my presumption that in a stable population(not growing or declining severely or outside normal predator-prey relationships) that inbreeding is rare though it can of course happen with our socially graceful animals.)
However, to the degree inbreeding or intergrades happen, I don't mind as long as the original stock came from a defined area where these phenomenae may or may not occur. Yes, measures are necessary and not common for a lot of breeders to keep the stock pure from inbreeding, but that is another discussion.
So again, I iterate that phenotype is not the main driver for this appreciation. The main driver is tied more closely to factors that I am sure 99% of people could care less about, and that is genotype.
So, lets say I have a Sonoran Boa that looks identical from a boa from the jungles of Guatemala, I may appreciate the Sonoran boa for what pressures its relatives have been under for thousands of years of habitat differentiation. The Sonorans have been adapting to the desert for thousands of years, their Guatemalan relatives have the relative easy life of living in a hot, humid environment with a relative high density of life.

Genotype goes beneath just markings. Purity may be represented to some by identical and "true-breeding looks", but when one realizes the locale, that the underlyiung genotype has been placed under can give me an entire different appreciation for the population of animals. This is even though they look the same, underneath they have worked on by environment to be different. Here, in California with the massive amount of urban sprawl and human movement to the area, many microhabitats are just vanishing or are already gone. Not sure where to stop on this, but that should at least make clear the appreciation for a naturally occurring genotype versus one that has been compressed to much by manipulation by people.

Again, I know this is a rare sentiment to hold.

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN AN ATTEMPTS AT HUMOR. IF YOU HAVE NONE, PLEASE CLICK THE BACK BUTTON ON YOUR BROWSER!

I think where we left off, is that "locality" and "purity" don't really have good definitions and that they mean different things to different folks.

You did however hit on a couple aspects of the issue that I've been remiss to bring up. One of these being "loyalty" or as you put it respect for the "breeders who started these lines." From a purely psychological standpoint people are generally motivated from three centers. These are: power, achievement, and affiliation. When it comes to breeding snakes I think we might be able to rule out power as a motivation but achievement and affiliation can both play powerful roles. As an example the reason one might decide to work with small mountain kings to "achieve" on a routine basis what few other breeders have. That was pretty clean but the next example might get me into hot water. Perhaps locality fever is partly an attempt to affiliate! I'm sure you remember JH's post on the milk forum about StretchX and Carl Barrtlet. Now I have respect for both these guys but JH's affections for them and their locality ethos was nothing short of nauseating. Similarly, go to the pit forum and see how many people rally around whatever their locality guru has to say on the issue. It’s a good thing it’s a virtual meeting because if it were real, OSHA would require him to install handrails around a certain portion of his anatomy for all the people in line to kiss it.

Another issue you hit on is investment. After putting considerable time and effort into a collection one might not look favorably on a trend that threatens to devalue their efforts. I'll admit to this being the case with myself. I've been building a nice coastal collection for over ten years and during most of that time locality was not the "issue" it is today. Though I have locality info on most of my animals it is not such that I would market them as locality. Additionally, I have been working to produce a nice domestic line that will do well for those who wish to keep one of the best looking snakes available. Is it unreasonable that I wouldn't be receptive to a concept that says my animals are mutts because they aren't pure by some subjective locality standard? By the same token, if you've paid prime prices for locality animals you might not take well to the notion that enough founding stock hadn't been located so that you could keep locality breeding your animals without incurring inbreeding depression.

Now lets talk about purity. As subspecies widely integrate, calling captive animals "pure" at the sub specific level is idealistic at best but taking this view further down to a locality level is a mugguffin. In the wild, gene flow helps populations adapt as environments change. As such, species exist as a SPECTRUM of phenotypes not as distinct "pure" subspecies. Since no complete barrier to gene flow exists in the wild, erecting an artificial one for captive populations along locality lines doesn't make sense to me nor does it make them any more or less pure than other non-locality lines.

About the only thing that locality does do, or communicate, is, as you've pointed out, an exact phenotype. Even here however "purity" is questionable. Few populations breed completely true such that ALL specimens look like classic examples. Line breeding to " reproduce consistently the phenotypes that prospective customers had seen in books" dilutes the natural diversity of the founding population. These animals might be pure-bred in the sense that they convey a "similar suite of characteristics" to their offspring but they are a mere shadow of the original founding stock and can do nothing that so called "generic" lines can not also do.

All that being said, there isn't anything wrong with locality breeding. It is simply however a persoanl preferance, not the end all and be all of herpetoculture.

Tony, I could tell you were walking on egg shells there,buddy! LOL! More and more strict locality breeders have gotten out or at least downplayed their efforts. I think because the advent of PICS online, this resolves most(not all)discrepancies. To tell you the truth I would buy a healthy milk from anyone now if I could see a pic of the animal,its parents,and OF COURSE check out the breeders ethics. That is not to say I would take for granted any "locality"claim, as I have started migrating away from it myself(on most things anyway). But Tony,especially with Temporalis,dont you think SOMEONE has the responsibility of at least attempting to keep some "pure" lines?? You know how difficult that kind of animal is to find and what a long-term project that can be. Additionally, with their shrinking habitat and STILL uncertain scientific status I would like to think all that we have contributed to could help in these efforts. Good post below!! Jeff

:But Tony,especially with Temporalis,dont you think SOMEONE has the responsibility of at least attempting to keep some "pure" lines??

If someone wants too attempt such a thing as maintaining a "pure phenotype" sure but I don't see it as anyone's responsibility.