Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Bringing this back to the top as I need to correct something. In regards to my statement, concerning LA pines, that KJL is uncomfortable about calling crossed animals hybrids, I went back and reread his email and have to admit that I "might" have taken that a "little" out of context. My apologies to KJ and other who possibly took away the wrong impression. What stands, however is that he too is somewhat conflicted on this purity issue. His notion is simple, if he can't trace it back to founding stock it's "as good as" a hybrid to him. This is rationalized because crosses are phenotypically indistinguishable from "pure" examples and you can't get any clues from the genotype either. Does this mean that I think its okay to knowingly cross bulls and pines and market the offspring as LA pines? No. Does this mean that I think its okay to release bulls or pines into the home range of LA pines? No. But neither do I see any proof the existence of crosses in the hobby undermines wild populations or that the evolutionary potential of LA pines would be destroyed by the introduction of such a cross into their ecosystem. Hypothetically, I would entertain the argument that the CONTROLLED introduction of bulls or pines from the most ADJACENT populations into ruthveni's home range would RESTORE evolutionary potential lost when uncontrolled development and poor land management practices on the part of our species cut gene flow off!

If you go back to the beginning of this thing I think you will see that in spirit I'm in agreement with you and only took a broader stance in that I see a problem with ANY animals from AD HOC breeding programs being released. The difference between us is our reasoning. I sighted introduction of pathogens into native ecosystems as a PROVEN threat. Your assumption however that line-bred morphs and hybrids will genetically weaken and or contaminate local populations in my humble opinion has holes in it not the least of which is an example. What you have is an idea that a pine snake, that looks like a pine snake, survives in pine snake habitat and breeds with other pine snakes producing neonates with a similar suite of characteristics also capable of surviving and breeding in pine snake habitat somehow isn't a pine snake because it might have some stray genetic component to it that doesn't fit the crude artificial classifications system we've devised as a framework for our understanding.

Am I on a crusade too? Yes, of sorts, I guess I am. I get tired of people getting on these forums and presenting ideas as if they are facts when in reality they are nothing more than opinion. IMHO doing this is proving divisive and is worth pointing out. Another troll on the hybrid forum isn't needed. Though I too generally care much more for wild types than hybrids I do recognize several interesting aspects of what is going on here the least of which is not that most generic X generic hybrids are fertile! This in of its self tells me that our current method of classification is off base. Perhaps however the most important aspect of what those who produce hybids and morph do is make great strides towards the domestication of herps. I believe these efforts will ultimately prove crucial in the preservation of our right to keep and maintain pet reptiles.

Typing now I'm beginning to realize that the big irony here is that you started out dividing herping activities into two aspects, herpetoculture and field herping but have somehow insisted on tying the two together. Seems to me you would have jumped on my point that NO commercially produced reptiles are suited for release into the wild. In the end this is the ethic that needs to be understood and followed. If we could successfully communicate, using proven and valid concerns that no commercially produced reptile meant for the pet trade should EVER get released into the wild then concerns over the existence of hybrids and morphs would indeed become a non-issue. In anticipation of the escaped snake argument, the number of these would be so few and chances of survival much less assimilation into local populations so slight as to present negligible risk. In the end if your notions on purity are such that you can't accept even this level of risk then I think you need to make your stand with those who would deny us all the right to maintain any pet reptile because the real, valid and proven concerns apply equally to the most "pure" locality specific animal as they do to hybrids and morphs.

Tony D,
If you feel that you took KJL's words out of context, I commend you for your honesty as well as your initiative to correct it. KJL is absolutely correct. If you can't trace the animals to the point or origin then Absolutely, I would have a hard time entertaining the notion of a "Pure" species of any sort. No argument from this angle. My issue was with your prior statement that genetic testing offers no further clues to separate a hybrid from a pure animal. This is the same as saying that there is no genetic difference between a La Pine and a Bull snake. That is simply not so. If you introduce a hybrid La Pine into their habitat and it breeds, and the offspring are viable, (which I'm pretty sure that all Pit X Pit hybrids are), that species is forever changed. There is no disputing that. Call it a fact or call it an opinion. Bottom line is that you have effected the species as a whole.
My original post on this forum Did state that hybrids and morphs will eventually poison our wild populations (in my opinion). Furthermore, I think that these genetically challenged animals pose a biological compromise due to depressed immune systems created by inbreeding. I think that I should have been clearer with this point. I will make the statement that these morphs are ending up in the wild. That in itself is a threat.
I will retort by saying that a hybrid that looks like a pine snake, survives in pine snake habitat and breeds with other pine snakes, producing neonates with a similar suite of characteristics also capable of surviving and breeding in pine snake habitat isn't a pine snake. It is a hybrid. There is nothing that you can say that will make me change my mind. In that situation you have a locality of hybrid specimens that is not the Pure form of that origional species. I don't know how you can argue with that statement.
If you are tired of people "getting on these forums and presenting ideas" I have a suggestion, leave. I agree that when people present ideas as facts, that person should be open to be criticized. I will once again provide a statement made by you.--- "First you can't distinguish the two by phenotype, second genetic testing doesn't offer any further clues." That is an opinion that is not backed by fact. Therefore you are verging on hypocrisy by pointing the finger.
I have noticed that an unpopular opinion is very closely related to the dropping of a term like "TROLL" I do not consider myself a troll. It is obvious that there are many people that share the same concerns both in public and private. I have not stated anywhere, in ANY post, that I thought that hybrids are not fertile. I honestly wish this WAS the case. I would have to agree that since they are, that our current classification is merely a line in the sand. You have repeatedly made the point that hybridizing and morph making are paving the way for domesticating snakes. I counter that statement. by saying Any snake that is brought into captivity from the wild is a domesticated specimen.
I find it unfortunate that you are just now seeing that even though herpiticulture and field herping are two separate components of this hobby, that One is verging negatively on the other. In turn they are critically interwoven. Why would have I jumped on your statement that No commercially produced animals are suited for the wild? I agree full-hearted with that statement. I have also said that Education is the key.

Tony, Please in the future, do not associate me with the people that want to take this away from us. I do not nor will I ever take that stance. I just think that there are aspects of this trade that are unethical and potentially devastating to the natural sources of the animals we love so much.
Paul Bollinger......NOT paull H

First sorry about the Paull H thing blame it on fat fingers.

Another thing I'm tired of is people taking things out of context. To quote your last, " If you are tired of people "getting on these forums and presenting ideas" I have a suggestion, leave." What I actually said was, " I get tired of people getting on these forums and presenting ideas AS IF THEY ARE FACTS WHEN IN REALITY THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN OPINION." Big difference Paul! Further, I'm somewhat stressed (according to the definition on my coffee cup) over not taking issue with the level of arrogance that it took for you to make this particular suggestion but since I can't do so without disparaging your character I'll just let it lay.

Addressing your accusation of my hypocrocy here is an except from KJL's comments on this subject that prompted my original post, "Heck, DNA won't even help completely if you look between the lines in the Robles paper. Face it, these guys (ruthveni) are listed as a species because of their relative isolation and political pressure." Did I quote him verbatim in the original post, no but I think in the context of that post I got the gist of what he said. As I have a level of respect for KJ's involvement of this subject matter I thought that his analysis of the data rose somewhat above the level of opinion. That you took away something else is just as much a reflection on your bias as mine. And don't be too flattered by my apology, it was directed to KJ and those who might have been mislead by me. I take no credit or blame for where you are at.

As for you retort saying, "that a HYBRID that looks like a pine snake, survives in pine snake habitat and breeds with other pine snakes, producing neonates with a similar suite of characteristics also capable of surviving and breeding in pine snake habitat isn't a pine snake. It is a hybrid."?

Let me tell you how I can disagree.

I DIDN'T SAY A HYBRID I SIGHTED A VERY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. You are taking things out of context yet again!!!! I would simply be open to the idea that the animals in this example could/should be considered integrades even if their specific presents was the result of "controlled" human shenanigans. Also, I've arrive at the conclusion long ago that this notion of purity on the sub-specific level is overblown as gene flow between adjacent subs is widely recognized. If it looks like a pine, acts like a pine and when bred to other pines makes pine, then by golly it’s a pine. It might not be "locality pure" but its still a pine. By widely held definitions of the term it could even be concidered a purebred pine!

I can't however disagree that the population would be forever changed. I would just be open to the concept that, in the specific example sited, change might be a good thing. I've always understood evolutionary potential to be a function of the genetic diversity of a given population. If I'm wrong please tell me why. The example addressed a potential remedial step towards restoring some of the diversity that was present prior to our poor stewardship of the species in question.

I can't agree with your statement that, "any snake that is brought into captivity from the wild is a domesticated specimen." That's like saying a gorilla in a zoo is a domestic animal. They might be captives but they are still wild specimens. In the context of comercial herpetoculture, I will give some ground and agree that the simple act of captive breeding is a form of domestication but one that holed little distinction where its important. This view is based on evidence not personal opinion. Virginia requires a license to breed and sell native snakes unless they are albino. In New Jersey you can't own a wild "type" corn but you can own an albino. It is a simple fact that morphs and yes hybrids are far more easily recognized as not having been collected from the wild. Conservation and regulatory authorities too notice this simple fact and make concessions for their production and distribution. It is my opinion and I think I stated it as such that as more of our natural resources are depleted, measures to protect wild pops will increasingly infringe on our current freedoms until morphs and hybrids are all we have left.

I understand that you feel some facets of this hobby are "unethical and potentially devastating" to wild population. I'm just saying that you have used some strong language but have failed to make a case. You admit that our classification system is a line in the sand but stand firm with this system where it suits and call animals, that for all intensive purposes should be considered integrades or crosses, hybrids. I wish I could give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know what you are saying or that you use terminology loosely but I know better. You, with others, have done some fine work on the glossary of terms.

Another hole in your case is that morphs are inferior. This need not be the case. I originated a line of hypo Okettee corns that I've been working on for the better part eight years. In that time I have outcrossed this line at each generation. My current project compliment consists of 1.1 hets from a cross to a wild-collected Jasper Co corn, 1.1 hets from a cross to Howie Sherman's Okettee stock and a single F2 hypo female. The continued future diversity of this project is also supported by this year's purchase of 2.2 Okees from breeders with lines unrelated to those I've already bred out to. That, as the originator of the strain I've taken these measures speaks that attention to good husbandry is more important to me than simply ramping up production. In this regard I don't think I'm any different than any breeder interested in producing strong quality stock. I am however different from the average back yard breeder who might just as easily be line breeding "pure" stock as working with hybrids and morphs. Ironically, in my view, strict adhearance to the locality breed "ethic" would lead to multiple inferior inbred lines! Throw in this healthy dose of the line breeding going on with some of the rare "locality" alterna, pit, or triangulum projects and your remarks characterizing morphs as genetically inferior to other stock types starts losing its distinction. Further, hybrids by definition are out bred not inbred. That they are more vigorous not less is widely understood.

Once again the gist of your supposed concern here comes down to the need to keep ALL cb animals contained and away from wild populations yet you keep pinging on morphs and hybrids. This leaves the question of what your beef actually is. I'm not going to stoop to the level of making assumptions about your motivations but a reasonable person might easily conclude from these threads that your issue is really with hybrids and morphs!

As for associating you with the people that want to take this, meaning all of herpetoculture away from us, I'm sorry but my opinion is that the analogy stands. If you are all for going after hybrids and morphs, don't be surprised when nobody defends you when "pure" stocks come under scrutiny. In my opinion you are at least complicit. Your involvement might not be direct but it is clear to those you seem to have in your sites.

Tony,
What you did was offer up your opinion as fact, when in fact, it was only opinion. Period. Do not dilute it. Since you are checking definitions, please refer to NOT that of your coffee cup but to that of the word HYBRID : Definition: An offspring of parents from different species or sub-species.
You were challenged on your post because you posted it as fact. It is not fact, it is a persons assessment. I am not flattered by your apology, but you were attempting to deceive me as well, so I still appreciate it.
"I DIDN'T SAY A HYBRID I SIGHTED A VERY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. You are taking things out of context yet again!!!!"
In the future please tell the rest of us how you would like us to take your posts. Maybe you can mail out a secret decoder ring that we can hold up to the screen so we know exactly what you are talking about, since so much of what you've posted has been taken out of context. Remember, I'm reading your writing.
Bottom Line, do the math........Southern Pine X Northern Pine X Black Pine X La Pine = a Pine, you are correct, although it is a HYBRID. Period! this, and I quote you (Without the decoder ring) "It might not be "locality pure" but its still a pine." it has nothing to do with locality. IT IS A HYBRID. Remember * HYBRID : Definition: An offspring of parents from different species or sub-species. I would like to get a copy of your "Widely held definitions" book. This way we might be able to see where you're coming from.
I'll ask you so that I do not compromise your context, Are you saying that you think that by introducing hybrids into a natural population that it would be a good thing? Well if so, I whole-heartedly disagree. Remember La Pines are a specific species. I do not care to hear how you think this was a political reason or not, but once again it is an open forum, so please everyone else with your opinion.
DOMESTICATION: Definition: the process by which people try to control the reproductive rates of animals and plants by ordering the environment in such a way as to favor certain species.
Now I don't know if this is the same definition that is widely held, but it is none-the-less the definition. By this definition alone you are wrong. "any snake that is brought into captivity from the wild is a domesticated specimen." Also I'd like to know where you can reference at what point a snake becomes domesticated. When it loses it's teeth and you can hand feed them carrots? I think not. What you're saying holds no water at all my friend.
For the record, My Pure stock will not come under scrutiny. From the Cradle to the Grave my animals are documented. If they are wild caught, either I or a friend caught it. and locality is known. There is no question. I, will always question stock. My stock will however defend itself. I will fight to the end, for everyone's right to own the animals they love most. I will not however, stand by silently as they are desecrated.
This will be the last that I post on this topic. I have stated my position as have many others. I feel that the only way that this thread can go is further down hill. I hope that there has been some insight offered here and that if you have feelings or concerns chances are that there are others out there share them with you. Remember, You are not a troll if you are offering up an idea that is not popular with the forum, no matter how much they try to label you. If there are any questions of personal intentions, fears, or concerns. Please re-read this thread. An open mind is one that can't be contained.
Thanks and Happy herping!
Paul Bollinger
Bayou.Surreal.Reptiles

Yes I have presented ideas and opinions here but I like to think that I've been fairly consistent in my effort to back these up with experience and or reasoning. If my reasoning is unsound then others are free and indeed invited to point out the holes. I'm not beyond learning from a well-reasoned retort and indeed I look forward to a good give and take.

In contrast, you have presented ideas and opinion here but have failed to make any attempt to back them up. Even after repeated queries into your thoughts you have failed to do so indicating that perhaps you weren't here for a give and take in the first place.