Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Is it possible to mate a Durango Mtn. King with a corn snake?
Kyle

the barrage of flames sure to come your way!! LOL
-----

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

I have seen pictures of some of the hybrid corn/kings and the colors are amazing. If i sell them i will correctly identify them so that they arent accidentally bred into corn snake stock and the offspring be advertised as pure corns.

Kyle

..........still no sale , by the end it was like 30$ for all em'
lol

that sell for the big bucks.

The photo by Steve Osborn is what happens when one thoughtfully migrates an albino gene from one form (ruthveni) in to another (thayeri). Everyone knows this is a hybrid but ask yourself this question, is it any less pure than a "variable" king that has been so line bred that it is no longer variable? There are many ways in which to manipulate these animals away from the wild creatures they once were.

Right on! great post!-Smokey

that snake is one sssssmokin animal!! WOW! Cant get over the colors!! Now you guys have really corrupted me!!
Man, what a nice snake!! (wiping drool off of keyboard)
-----

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

What show i want to go,all the hybrids (and im not against hybrids) ive seen are rediculously priced like the balls and new corn morphs,and why???for a mix bred mutt...the lowest ive seen are jurasics that looked like crap for 60 beans.....it all ads up to new snake morph- makes dollar signs in greedy feeble minds

looked awhful , but the one's these guy's and girls are showing
i'd buy the puttuties out of ------ lord, those are pretty

>>If i sell them i will correctly identify them so that they arent accidentally bred into corn snake stock and the offspring be advertised as pure corns

Kyle, you might be conscientiouis about the identification but i can guarantee you not everyone you sell to will be. Heck, i talked to a guy today who forgot whether he bought a male or a female from a friend. And I have people calling me wanting to reaffirm the genotype (of pure honduran) they bought, or to have me further explain exactly how i produced that, or what it will produce. Will everyone who buys yours understand all that? When they breed them to each other, or to corns, or to durangos (and some of them will) will they understand what they then have? Will THEY accurately and conscientiously represent them when they sell them? And how will their customers do? When you try to sell your best or most unusual PURE corns or durangos, will people ask if they're pure? Will they be skeptical of your answers, because they know you produce some like them that are not pure?

Trust me, you'll be contributing to the erosion of two species you say you particularly admire. All i can ask is that you take your time, observe what others are doing with hybrids, how accurate their info is, whether you ever see animals represented at shows as percentages that can't be correct, or as simply "mixed" of several species, etc., and then, when you've had time to think about it, make your decision. Just don't rush into it in response to that initial--and understandable--impulse.

peace
terry dunham
albino tricolors

...............

I'm beginning to think that its just me but my personal perspective is that the expectation that the animals we work with be "pure" is unreasonable and I'll once again site a couple of reasons why I feel this way:

First, most captive stock predates this purity issue. For instance, there are a lot of goini out there that either aren't or can't prove they are "pure" despite the fact that they look like classic examples of goini. If you want "pure" you're going to need to go to a guy who is working with recently acquired founder stock or can provide clear pedigree back to founder stock. In either case the validity you place on the "purity" of these stocks rests with the integrity of the individual and the amount of trust you place in him or her. Ultimately unless you or close associate caught it "data" supporting purity is subjective at best.

Second, define purity. Are we talking "pure" subspecies or locality pure…... Can you define a pure subspecies? What is locality, is it a five-mile radius, is it a political subdivision is it a hillside or even one particular piece of cover? Opinions on purity vary and claims of such will be always be met with skepticism by those who hold more fundamental views.

Lastly captive animals are subjected to an extreme form of selection that has nothing to do with the natural settings from which they came. In a very few generations, captivity becomes the locality as phenotypes become a reflection of a breeder's sense of esthetics. Morph production is only the most obvious manifestation of this principle but other more subtle effects abound. This artificial selection in my view undermines the base conservation principal breeding for purity or locality espouses.

In the context of animals that are being captive-produced for the pet trade it is my opinion that purity can only be judged by the stability of the phenotype and that any other criteria is either too subjective or would require the elimination of the vast majority of captive stocks that predate such measures. As I am unwilling to eliminate or remove my stocks from production I naturally think it best to stick with what I know or can prove. IN other words, make or except no claim of purity or locality (unless dealing with founding stock that I or a close associate captured). Accept that if a given animal looks like a goini, acts like a goini and when bred to other goini makes baby goini that it is a goini. Naturally someone who has invested the time and effort to personally collected their breeding stock or is a member of a collector / breeder alliance, would feel differently.

Al this being said I do not think that there is no place for those who want to breed pure or who want to breed locality. There is but these individuals need to accept the burden of keeping their stocks "pure." If these breeders stick to what they can know or prove and never employ subjective information in the acquisition of breeding stock, hybrids, impure or even "generic non-locality animals would NEVER get into their collections. Building and maintaining a collection that meets a personal sense of purity does not require that everyone else fall in line.

As for the hybrid issue, this approach to reptile breeding shows, in my opinion, great potential. That however is not to say that it is or need to be an easy path. Through creative out crossing AND succeeding line breeding and culling distinctive new "purebred" strains of domestic herps with stable identifiable phenotypes might be developed. To my view, the current heap of indistinguishable mexicana X alterna X ruthveni X Pyro X triangulum X guttata X whatever hybrids, though interesting from the perspective that it can be done, doesn't even hint of this potential? My advise to the originator of this thread would be to think hard about what he wants to do. Without a vision and plan of how to get there, such hybrid efforts usually only lead to the production of unmarketable offspring.

This is America and one can pretty much do as one wants. However, that said, when hybrids such as a durango X corn are created, they could be ultimately accidentaly sold to someone who is trying to breed for a specific species "pure" animal. I for one would not want a normal looking corn with durango genes in it if I were trying to breed for a specific morph of corn or something of that nature.

I have heard that more than once!!

-----

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

If a breeder eliminates all subjective criteria from the selection process no unpure animals will get into their collection regardless of how prevasive they get among captive population.

From this stand point I'm beginning to see the side of the locality breeders. Without good locality data, which in my opinion is only that you caught the founding stock yourself, you can't know with a certainty that ANY animal is pure. If you want to breed pure animals you MUST assume that anything without the best locality information is not pure. It isn't pretty to say this. It used to really spin me up but I now get the point.

my view is that as long as the animal came from a natural line of that species, it is what it is. A corn snake coming from florida is just as much a corn snake coming from kentucky. But now if you are a locale person, and want only corns from a certain state or even certain area, then that is in my opinion, a locale animal.

Ok, Im ready for the sure to come barrage, but these are only my opinions, and maybe someone can change them.

-----

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

Hey Brian I personally don't find anything wrong with what you said though the idea that somehow a wild population isn't pure makes me think our usage of the subspecies concept is a bit flawed.

I still insist however that unless one can show pedegree back to founding populations purity will always be subjective for captive-bred aniamls. Lots of us THINK we have pure animals and may indeed but can not prove it. If one wishes to focus on purity they are going to have to discount the vast majority of captive stocks. In my expereince even the most ardent locality and purity proponents often make "judgment calls" based on subjective info and call animals pure even though they lack pedegree. Not saying this is right or wrong but for my part I think it safer to base what a given animal isonly on what it looks like and what you KNOW of its background.

and honestly dont think that we can show pedigree back to founding populations. There are, in my opinion, alot of influences in the wild snake populations! I dont think that we can 100% for certain say any given snake population is "pure", but as you said in another thread, "Hybrids aside, I don't really mind that there might be a little eastern king in my goini as long as its been bred out on the phenotypic level. What I appreciate most is well bred animals. I like to see good sized healthy neonate that exude the promise of another healthy generation in two or three years!".

And that is the goal of alot of breeders.

If we find a corn snake here in KY, then we can safely say, it is a "pure KY locale" corn. But what other influences are in these snakes?? I doubt we will ever know, but they are beautiful animals nevertheless, and people who are interested in locale snakes would, no doubt, like to have a pair.

I have to agree that not all snakes we find in the wild are "pure", but it is mother nature after all that has created these animals, and not man.

>>Hey Brian I personally don't find anything wrong with what you said though the idea that somehow a wild population isn't pure makes me think our usage of the subspecies concept is a bit flawed.
>>
>>I still insist however that unless one can show pedegree back to founding populations purity will always be subjective for captive-bred aniamls. Lots of us THINK we have pure animals and may indeed but can not prove it. If one wishes to focus on purity they are going to have to discount the vast majority of captive stocks. In my expereince even the most ardent locality and purity proponents often make "judgment calls" based on subjective info and call animals pure even though they lack pedegree. Not saying this is right or wrong but for my part I think it safer to base what a given animal isonly on what it looks like and what you KNOW of its background.
-----

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

Brian I don't think it impossible to keep pedigree back to founding stock but have learned that the further away you get from it the more sketchy the information one might have becomes. Given my view that we are really manipulating these animals to a high degree in the first place I've just never really seen the value beyond some personal need to know the animals are pure. I for one don't overlook this criteria but it hasn't been paramount in my decision making process.

As for the purity of wild populations, I like to think that if a population is surviving and reproducing in the wild it is pure. What isn't pure or perhaps perfect is our way of looking at things. Though I fully understand the need to divide these animals into the small taxonomic groups, I find them much more interesting when viewed as a dynamic whole that is continually reacting to ever changing environmental influences. In this light, king snakes aren't X number of subspecies they are a spectrum of phenotypes with Brooks kings at one end and Cal kings at the other. From the standpoint of our limited time on this planet we can barely appreciate gene flow between adjacent populations but from the reference point of evolutionary time, the migration of genes ebb and flow on a grand scale.

And I agree with you. About the animals surviving and reproducing in the wild, that is what I meant about the "locale" snakes.

But what about the natural intergrades? I dont look at them as being "pure" animals. Sure they may have pure parents on either side of the spectrum, but the offspring are intergrades.

Greenish rat snakes, Red X Eastern milks, etc. are intergrades and cant be considered "pure". Atleast not in my opinion.

One cant take a greenish rat and cross it with a black rat and proclaim the offspring as black rat, can we?

Sure some of the offspring will probably show the black rat traits while some will show greenish traits. But the offspring showing black rat traits bred with another "pure" black rat, has the possibility of throwing some greenish rat offspring. Im sure we can selectively breed these until there are no more greenish traits, but the gene will always be there, albeit weak.

>>Brian I don't think it impossible to keep pedigree back to founding stock but have learned that the further away you get from it the more sketchy the information one might have becomes. Given my view that we are really manipulating these animals to a high degree in the first place I've just never really seen the value beyond some personal need to know the animals are pure. I for one don't overlook this criteria but it hasn't been paramount in my decision making process.
>>
>>As for the purity of wild populations, I like to think that if a population is surviving and reproducing in the wild it is pure. What isn't pure or perhaps perfect is our way of looking at things. Though I fully understand the need to divide these animals into the small taxonomic groups, I find them much more interesting when viewed as a dynamic whole that is continually reacting to ever changing environmental influences. In this light, king snakes aren't X number of subspecies they are a spectrum of phenotypes with Brooks kings at one end and Cal kings at the other. From the standpoint of our limited time on this planet we can barely appreciate gene flow between adjacent populations but from the reference point of evolutionary time, the migration of genes ebb and flow on a grand scale.
-----

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

Take it or leave it but here goes,

If you find a snake in the wild and it isn't an escapee or released animal then it **IS** a pure animal no matter how it looks?

This is were locale animals come in.I breed lots and lots of locale animals(most I have caught myself).
Now you may say yeah,but whats a locale to you?Well,It depends on how close you can get them?
Sometimes you will see them listed as countys?Thats because thats as close as we could get a pair from?(i.e. hyw 277?)If for example, you have one alterna from red bluff(seven miles south of loma alta)and one from buffalo creek(seven miles north of loma)these would be listed as hyw 277 babies.Now if you see a pair for sale listed as red bluffs this would be because both parents are from the red bluff cuts (1/2 mile long).

So there are locales and then there are locales that are kinda like micro-locales or tight locales.

It doesn't change the snakes but when you are the one collecting them it makes a huge difference.

Enough about the locales,I caught a rat snake in (97) 12 miles east of sanderson Texas on hyw 90.I had never seen one like it before and never have to this day,I showed it to many well educated herpers(troy hibbitts,ric balir etc,)and they all came to the same conclusion as I did that it was a interegrade(hybrid to some) bairds x emoryi?
Anyways,What I am trying to say is that it didn't make this snake non pure?No way was this a non-pure snake.

One more thing.I have always wanted to bring this up,Isn't it weird that we have never split hairs on the cal kings????????They range across five or six states and they are still just cal kings????????????
Why are all the florida kings classified as four or five subs?
You try to explain to me the difference between a brooksi and floridina and a goini and a sticticeps and a eastern and etc..........These look differnt cause of there surroundings?

Anyways,Just my opinion
Shannon Brown

>>If you find a snake in the wild and it isn't an escapee or released animal then it **IS** a pure animal no matter how it looks?

but since we CAN'T know an animal is not an escapee or released animal, it is impossible to reach this conclusion. In fact, the opposite is true--we know it IS always a possibility that an animal is an escapee or released animal. That's why I oppose releases of captive animals and moves of captured animals. Considerable harm is done.

So while I understand the sentiment of your conclusion about the rat snake you found and described in your post, i can't see how you could conclude "No way was this a non-pure snake" any more than i or anyone else can conclude 100% that the "pure" animals they're working with really are--that a honduran line didn't include one mating to a costa rican milk ten generations ago, for example. We can only deal with degrees of likelihood.

And that's a shame.

So I wish people wouldn't release animals into the wild, and I wish people wouldn't create hybrids. A great deal is lost to us because of both activities.

The more animals are released or hybridized, the problem of "pedigrees" or accurate identification of wild caught/captive bred animals can only get worse. Isn't that enough to warrant wishing people wouldn't engage in either activity? I know they CAN. It's not a question of legality, nor of ability. It's a different question: nature, and subsequent captive breeding, give us animals with "nearly all" (for want of a better term) of their roots in nature; do we sustain those roots, or cut them? We can never get back to the days of Ditmars, for example, in terms of what could be observed about animals in the wild OR in captive collections. But is it wrong to recognize that as a loss, and to wish to minimize future losses?

YOU ALSO OBSERVED:
>>One more thing. I have always wanted to bring this up, Isn't it weird that we have never split hairs on the cal kings????????They range across five or six states and they are still just cal kings???????????...Why are all the florida kings classified as four or five subs? ...You try to explain to me the difference between a brooksi and floridina and a goini and a sticticeps and a eastern and etc..........These look differnt cause of there surroundings?"

Shannon, I think that's a great observation, one that falls into the "fo shizzle" category djw used in this thread. I wonder the same thing, and you really throw down the gloves with that one. I know I can't give you an answer. But I'd sure like to see somebody more familiar than I am with Lampropeltis getula taxonomy address your question directly.

peace
terry

Neat post Shannon. Your example along with the intergraded issue is why I often question the usage of "purity" as it relates to a subspecies. I like to view subspecies as archetypes or standards of what you might expect from a given range. It’s the subtle differences one might find interesting throughout the range that brings “locality” into play. I’m beginning to accept that purity might play a bigger role in locality breeding than from the subspecies perspective because its so hard to define exactly what a pure subspecies is. Locality on the other hand is simple geography. Some people however are taking these two ideas and after adding 2 and 2 together are coming up with 6! Just because an animal is locality pure or hails from a specific geographic area does not mean that it’s a pure subspecies. Baird’s rats from Sanderson TX just might have a little Emory rat in the wood pile. That likelihood doesn’t upset me. In the context of captive bred animals it also doesn’t upset me if these crosses have occurred as a result or human shenanigans.

Tony,
Heres another good example.
Lets say a person over seas gets a box of snakes in and there are a few milks in the box labeled (kansas milks?).
One would probably assume they are syspila?????maybe?They could be gentilis?or a intergrade of gentilis x reds?????
So if that breeder breeds them and sells the babies as red milks is this wrong?

This is my point,
Getting back to the honduran thing.If you have ever looked at a range map for triangulum in mexico and south america etc........you will see that they overlap all over the place.
Second.When a whole country is open to export how to we really know were they are comeing from????
Just because a importer got a shipment in from honduras it doesn't mean they are hondurans?

I know I am rambling but I think there is so much work to do down there that maybe one day we will look back and laugh at all the split hairs and wonder why others weren't?

later
shannon brown

Good points, one of the better treatments of this subject that I have read. Jeff Robbe

Tony, I agree with just about everything you say.

But i also think it's a matter of degree, sort of like the distinction between rolling through an occasional stop sign (the equivalent of the possibility that some of the animals we consider "pure" by general standards may have some other species somewhere in their background) on the one hand, and speeding through red lights with no regard for the possible consequences (intentional, sometimes almost random crossing of species) on the other. In other words, the fact that a) might be true in an undetermined but small percentage of cases isn't necessarily the equivalent of b) intentionally producing and distributing hybrids, especially without considerable thought to the intent and consequences.

In fact, with the spread of herpetoculture it's very possible an animal captured in the wild might be a) a specimen collected elsewhere and released in a new location by its captor or subsequent owner or b) a hybrid produced in captivity and released in the wild. I know people have released amelanistic red rats into the wild, figuring it would be fun to have a "wild" population of amels to collect later. There can't be any question any and all of these things have happened multiple times across the country, and they probably happened occasionally long ago. So the same obstacles to confidence in the purity of any captive-bred line of animals also stand in the way of believing any locale-specific or personally collected animal is what it seems to be. And if they may not be, then what's the justification for the special esteem you hold for them? I think in fact it's that the chances are slim, as they are for many captive bred lines, and as they are not for any animals that result from hybridization. Trusting in the locale-specific specimen is safer than running redlights or rolling through stop signs (to mix and beat a metaphor to death but it's all a matter of degree--the fact that they may not be pure is intellectually undeniable and in practical terms quite possible.

But that shouldn't diminish your appreciation of and support for the sorts of standards you describe. Trust in long-term breeding programs' purity is a little lower on the scale, i'd agree. Is there an analogy here somewhere, about the difference between a person who's been healthy all his/her life and who's had relations with only a few people people, having unprotected sex, and another person who's been diagnosed with a sexually communicable disease having frequent and ujnprotected sex? Yeah, he/she may tell each partner of his/her diagnosis--but will all of THEM tell all of THEIR partners? Again, it's a matter of degree, and of consequences beyond the control of the first person.

Does that make any sense? I'd like to point out (in response to another person's post here) that I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that i "bring it on" on the issue of hybridization. I really just tried to urge the original poster to consider some aspects of his actions before committing them. I suspected he'd hear from advocates, too. But opposing hybrids is hardly my mission. My enthusiasm is for supporting captive breeding of snakes, and yes, each of us may have a different opinion of what's GOOD for that activity, and what's not so good. I just try to share my opinions and/or experiences on the subjects raised on the forums. Sometimes the topic is hyrbirdization, sometimes it's brumation temperatures or incubation media or whatever. I try always -- on all those subjects -- to make clear that i'm merely expressing my opinion, that others may think differently, and -- on the management issues, at least, that there are often more ways than one to achieve the same success. I think advancing the discussion is good for us all.

peace
terry

I love the way you think Terry! That's likely the reason I read all your posts and have learned much from them.

I agree with the degree concept and think it appropriate to most issues in life. Right and wrong don't generally exist side by side but at oposite ends of a grey area. I think its how we navigate this grey area that defines our charactor but that's probubly off topic.

You hit on one thing though that I'd like to address. When talking about locality or pure specimens you asked, "then what's the justification for the special esteem (we) hold for them?" I can't speak for anyone else but I can answer the question for myself. I don't. Hybrids aside, I don't really mind that there might be a little eastern king in my goini as long as its been bred out on the phenotypic level. What I appreciate most is well bred animals. I like to see good sized healthy neonate that exude the promise of another healthy generation in two or three years! That being said I do gravitate towards animals the LOOK like classic examples of the animals I saw in my childhood field guides. I don't think its possible, at least for me, to look at and treasure specific phenotypes over the years and then simply forget about them when "prettier" morphs or hybrids come along.

in my vile attempt at americanized cheeseburger street slang,
i meant by "brings it" as always poinant, meaningful and direct
truth telling , the time an effort you put into your responses
i'm sure we all appreciate, i mean , in other words
"fo shizzle"-lol

>>in my vile attempt at americanized cheeseburger street slang,
>>i meant by "brings it" as always poinant, meaningful and direct
>>truth telling , the time an effort you put into your responses
>>i'm sure we all appreciate, i mean , in other words
>> "fo shizzle"-lol
======================
"fo shizzle," eh? And I'm still trying to get used to being "chuffed" by good things...if my Brit friends aren't just toying with me and TELLING me that's what the word means, and not some reference to too-tight jockey shorts. Anyway, thanks for bringing me up to date.

Word.

Terry

..........

I breed and sell hybrids and a lot of pure high end colubrids and locality rosy boas as well. I have never had anyone refuse to buy a pure animal from me because I also sell hybrids. Matter of fact some of the most prolific and successful breeders in this country breed hybrids and sell pure animals. People like Mark and Kim Bell, Professional breeders (aka Steve Osborne), Kathy Love ect ect the list goes on.

Also a lot of the well known breeders who openly protest hybrids also secretly buy them from me!! WHY? Probably to hide them in their closets or other dark corner of there house in knowing that they are the prettiests snakes for the least amount of money. I could point out names but I would not do that. Rest assured many here would be shocked.

My experience of selling hybrid offspring in tha last 4 years has been this and its nothing short of phenominal. The first three years I had Jurassic Milks (Honduran X Florida king)at the Daytona expo I practically sold out. The following three years at the Daytona Expo I also practically sold out. I did not expect this as I was under the same assumption as several posters here but thought I would try with one type of hybrid anyway.. When i first acqired the neonate F1 Jurasssics I NEVER thought they would sell as well as they did. Every year since I always sold the hybrids first. My financial experience has caused me to enlarge my hybrids and I now have Corndurans (CornXHonduran) and somne 8 way crosses that i sold out of and I am getting into the larger boid hybrids. I did not sell many Jurassics at this years expo because I did not have many nice ones left as I sold them the first two weeks after advertising them on Kingsnake classifieds. I had approx 15 clutches of Jurassic Milks alone. That is well over 200 neonate Jurassics that I sold and I did not sell ONE to a BROKER or WHOLESALER. I also have a few new morphs such as the Peanut Butter Brooks and many higher end colubrids that are pure and sold out on those as well but not with the speed and interest as the hybrids.
The hybrid interest is growing in leaps and bounds .The market proves that without a doubt. Anyone who wants to pretend that they are worthless and thinks they are going away is not being realistic or could be a case ofthe lady protesteth to much. Rather than brow beating and threatening potential hybridizers died in the wool purits should think of another solution to the potential problems or rethink their ideal all together...Any breeder can scam someone by falsly representing an animal.This has been done over and over waaaay before any hybrids have come along and before the internet existed. There will always be unscrupulous people selling anything period. Kind of reminds me of the gun control lobiests who think taking guns away from people will cause less crime. ..and we all know that will never happen.Bad guys will get guns no matter what the laws against them are.
If you buy any snake from a pet shop you cannot depend on its source and validity as a species or subspecies. The rosy boas come to mind as Pet shops across the country sell crossed locales as something pure. My advise is if someone wants pure go to a reputable breeder. Especially for higher dollar snakes.
A hybrid snake usually has more vigor (aka Hybrid vigor) and eats better and is a stronger tougher captive "in general". This makes it easier for novices and (IMO) you get a prettier snake for a lot less $$. My advise is try to cross the snakes you want. Its a lot harder than people think and most attempt and then give up. Trying to convince a male to breed to another female subspecies or species is NOT EASY. Most people just try and fail anyway and the rest who hav'nt tried think it is easy.If you want hybrids the easiest way is to buy F-1 generation hybrids that someone else produced and then breed the siblings to produce F2'S which are going to "always" be better looking than tyhe original crossed F1's. ..(a little secret that I just gave away..)

Here are some pics of some Jurassics (Honduran X brooksi x amel. calif)I produced this year:


Anery Cornduran (CornXHonduran)

Cornduran

Rainer,

Don't forget you promised to give me the pick of the hybrid litters next summer before you let anyone else see them. Well...................you didn't really, but I'm hoping to get the thought in your mind anyway !!!!

I for one (as a hobbyist non breeder) love the fact that there are guys and gals out there creating these hybrids. I understand the purity issue, but nothing replaces a good reputation for being honest. Like any "business", you have to be carefull who you do business with, and when you find someone who has what you are looking for (honesty etc.) then you go with that person whenever you can.

Just 2 cents...........

Good Point Zoso! This business of breeding and selling reptiles is like any other you will get those honest and some dishonstly representing the animals. It was that way before hybrids and people got ripped off and cheated with sick or misidentified animals.
What it really boils down to is doing ones homework and research BEFORE buying anything from anyone. There is another site (which I cannot name here) where people can check who is dishonest and who the honest reptile breeders and wholesalers, importers and brokers are. Personally I would only purchase from another breeder. But thats me.

That looked exactly like a good tangerine albino honduran?
Did you sell it?I hope it doesn't end up in the wrong hands or somebody doesn't get bored with it?
The problem with your jarrasic milks is that if somebody breeds one to a pure honduran they will get babies that look like hondurans?Its a shame that people that are trying so hard to keep there lines clean have to question every cool looking honduran out there cause of the jarrasic mistake?

I used to breed a couple hybrids as well back in the days but I sold them all cause people questioned my pure stuff?I just didn't need the trouble and I was far more turned on by the real thing.I admitt they are very pretty but thats as far as it goes.
Good example,I had anerythristic alterna x mex-mex.They were awesome looking but at the same time I had a pure juno road alterna that was anerythristic and I was getting some anery black gaps from dan johnston.
Do you think people would have bought my juno anerys as pure??????????I doubt it?

Anyways,I have no problem with you or osborne(both good friends of mine)or anybody that acually does the breedings.Its the next and the next guy I worry about?

Shannon Brown

Well Shannon you are soon to be one of the largest producers of Honduran morphs. Are you not? If so I can understand the financial investment and your concerns of someone selling Jurassics coming out as nice pink snows or nice hypos If that is not the concern then what about the original german hondurans that were crossed with polyzona,abnorma and a few other things the original stock came from? Granted they have been outcrossed with possible pure hondurans but how pure do they really have to be since no one really cares about that. Do they? At least I know its true and there does not seem to be this big black cloud above the hondurans because of that. Also look at the creamsicle (emoryi) that did not seem to hurt the corn market but only made it better.
As you know I will be producing honduran morphs soon and I will let you know if I don't sell them for market value because of my hybrids sitting next to them on the table.
Rainer
BTW thats a screamer super hypo hondo you have. Keep me in mind when you produce those!

Rainer,
I figured you would bring up the whole german polyzona thing?
I don't have the answers for that?I don't know that anybody will ever really know?
I do know this,The whole central american milk complex is far from being right,
Without locale data(and sometimes thats not even good enough)there is no way to tell the difference between the polys,oligs,abnormas,hondos,etc..............They are all the same snake they are just a little different looking cause of there soroundings?????A lot of them overlap and even if there is polyzona or stuarti or whatever in the hondos it doesn't show cause they are the same snake??????????siniloan vs nelsoni biggest joke ever?

Anyways,I can't change the hondos background but we could change the future spoilings?????????

Anyways,Thanks for the kind words and I will keep you in mind when I produce awesome hondos.

Thanks shannon

Rainer, you wrote...

"what about the original german hondurans that were crossed with polyzona, abnorma and a few other things the original stock came from?"

Please give everybody here your proof for that declaration of fact. I've read too many of your posts to think you'd state something like that without having unquestionable proof immediately at hand. But some people WOULD do that, just to support their own position or to tear down others'.

I've seen one or two others make that claim--though never the people with the most knowledge about the origins of those animals--and usually the claim comes hand in hand with some remark about the value of the honduran morphs--oh wait, someone took that shot at shannon in this thread, too! But money has nothing to do with it--look at the interests of the getula getula enthusiasts, animals without high dollar values but a great group of people caring greatly about them, and about their being accurately identified. Are those people supposed to cheer people who cross every different type of g. getula? Or should they wish it wouldn't happen, and try to share their reasons to perhaps influence others not to do it?

I ask the following question not to challenge you, but to see if there's some point of view i'm overlooking that would make sense to me:

What do you think about the fact that the release into the wild of captive bred animals, and the move of wild-caught animals from one area to another, can do great harm to locale-specific enthusiasts, since NO captured animal can be presumed "pure" any more than any line of a subspecies--like my Hondurans--can be proven "pure" of any subspecies influence on as little as one occasion ten generations ago. Isn't it a matter of degree? Should we not care whether the degree gets larger or smaller? Do we just say, "well, the cat's out of the bag, might as well turn anything loose anywhere, breed anything to anything, because it's happened once (or a hundred times). Or do we say, "gee, the consequences of those past acts have been unfortunate for herpetology, i think i'd prefer to use my voice to minimize them in the future rather than encouraging more of it?

thanks
terry

Yes, Terry degrees of purity do have something to do with it. Being a rosy boa enthusiast from the beginning I am more purist minded than most labled as "purists",LOL!
As anyone knows the rosy complex is more a locale isssue than a pure sub-species issue. The truth is every time you take a snake out of nature and place it in unatural conditions you are messing with nature. You have natural selection vs selection for color and vigor ect. Also what is natural anyway? Is taking a snake and keeping it in an deli cup and then a ribbermaid tub with a water dish natural? How many times have you culled a snow honduran because it may have been smaller or did not eat as well as the others?
As far as the Hondurans being crossed you know that fact has been around for a long time. Its was on the front page of reptile magazines (the issue and volume # escapes me at the moment) and others here like Steve Osborne and more recently Bart (Horridus) posted that the Hondurans are crossed.So I am not the only person who has posted this. Why didn't you refute the proof when they posted the facts? You were involved with those threads at the time, but you never gave an arguement(?).This has happened twice this year alone.
Terry I am not as poignant about defending the purity of hondurans and therefore researched the facts at one point and that was enough to satisfy me and in my mind. I don't really care if they are totally pure any more than a floridana or calif king. It really makes no difference to me. They are a beuatiful snake and thats what people like about them. They are probably the prettiest colubrids that are frequently avaliable. The purity issue should not be that important except to defend that they have more value than any another snake. To me and others it does not matter but it seems to be an issue for you. You know the posts in the past from others that I am reffering to that had the facts handy and the statements of Mr Porras and others. You must even have that exact article on the Central American Milksnakes I was referring to in your possession? If you know something that herpetoculture has accepted as false, then bring the proof. The burden sits with you. But please do not ask me to scientifically prove to you that these germans did not cross breed and did keep track of the "Central American Milksnakes" they acquired and had in there possesion. To do that I would have to have you go back in time and actually recreate the breeding before your eyes.. To recreate that scenerio would be impossible so therefore I can not scientifically prove it here. What we have is documented proof. How do you know that president George Washington lived? He was a historical figure and we have learned this over and over in grade school through college. Same goes for Jesus Christ. The people that wrote about him witnessed things and yet we do not even have the original manuscripts of his birth and resurrection. But we do celebrate Christmas! But there are some people (like you Terry) that still beleive in Santa Claus LOL!
Seriously what kind of proof would be good enough for you?

Rainer

Rainer

Once again you make claims and then ask others to prove it. Why dont you for once come to the table with some facts ? Your arguements for hybrids are tired and old just like you claim ours to be . How about this prove all your Brooksi are all Floridana ? If you cant can you please mark them as "Lampropeltis getula Floridana X ? " I know its a silly thing but its the same thing you just threw out there with the Hondurans. Also you also claim Hybrids are BIG business then why are you still banging them on the classifieds so late in the season ? Have a few left over ??? I go to the Chicago shows and some other local ones and I will tell you Hybrids are maybe 1%-3% of the represented animals. Now I would think with a GREAT demand that you claim they would be at every single table. They arent though I wonder why ? Do you know what would be real ironic if you popped out a Hypo Eastern King from wild animals and tried selling them at X amount of dollars and people would think back wasnt he selling Eastern X Brooksi (hets for Hypo) crosses a few years back. Guess what ?.... nobody would believe that animals is legit no matter how real it was. Thats the dumper on Hybrids and why they suck for lack of a better term.
-----
Keith Hillson

Man, what are you doing with a gun in space? - Charles "Chick" Chapple

Also you also claim Hybrids are BIG business then why are you still banging them on the classifieds so late in the season ? Have a few left over ???

Keith I had over 200 babies. I also triple clutched some of my females and that means I had a steady influx of babies to sell.
The last time I advertised Jurassics was three weeks ago and Sasheena (a poster here) bought the last few I had. The only others I have I am holding onto and will not sell.

I go to the Chicago shows and some other local ones and I will tell you Hybrids are maybe 1%-3% of the represented animals. Now I would think with a GREAT demand that you claim they would be at every single table. They arent though I wonder why ?

I have no idea why they are not on the tables at the Chicago shows. Maybe the breeders sold out? Maybe Chicago does not have the same pull as the Florida and San Diego shows do?
I do know that Mark and Kim Bell were sold out of hybrids because I looked at their table at the Nov. 1st Tampa show and they only had a couple left. They had tons a few months previously at the Daytona show. Where Mark and Kim Bell at any of the Chicago shows?

Do you know what would be real ironic if you popped out a Hypo Eastern King from wild animals and tried selling them at X amount of dollars and people would think back wasnt he selling Eastern X Brooksi (hets for Hypo) crosses a few years back. Guess what ?.... nobody would believe that animals is legit no matter how real it was. Thats the dumper on Hybrids and why they suck for lack of a better term

HA! I should be so lucky to pop out a hypo eastern! Actually I don't think there would be a problem since I would not sell my offspring eastern hypos that I just hatched out. Why would I sell them? What I would do is keep them and raise them up to breed them. While I was breeding them I would throw a male hypo eastern in with a hypo brooksi and if their babies come out normals I would have proven them to be a new hypo allele.

What you are saying Keith is what it all really boils down to is money $.
If I breed easternXhypo brooksi and make money out of them I am cheating the person who MIGHT produce one SOMEDAY.. and they will not get the amount of money they DESERVE because some bad hybridizer (like me) decided to cheat nature and sell fake captive produced hypo easternsXbrooksi that may (or may not) look like this fictional conveluted hypo eastern of yours that MIGHT make you or somebody else a rich man.LOL!!!!Pahleeese !

:What you are saying Keith is what it all really boils down to is money $.
If I breed easternXhypo brooksi and make money out of them I am cheating the person who MIGHT produce one SOMEDAY. and they will not get the amount of money they DESERVE because some bad hybridizer (like me) decided to cheat nature and sell fake captive produced hypo

I've got to say Rainer that I've always wanted to say the same thing but was never able to put the thought together in a tactful manner. IMHO this is where the esteem for purity (at least from the perspective of morph production) that Terry eluded to earlier has its roots. I personally don't have any problem separating the production of "pure" classic or even locality-based phenotypes from the production of morphs. One is about an appreciation for what nature has done and the other is about creating eye candy. Though I have immense respect for those on the other side of this issue I just don't get the concept of locality or pure morphs. If you want a "pure" eastern king get a classic black and white one.

...just about any morph can be bred into any of the commonly kept American colubrids at this point. Most snake-keepers I know would rather have a "pure-bred" morph than one that was created through hybridizing and backcrossing. If the market was filled with a bunch of hybrid morphs, let's take albino goinis for example, and someone caught a gravid female in the Appalachicola National Forest that laid an egg that hatched out a real albino, would that pure version of that morph ever catch on? Would you ever be able to buy a supposedly pure albino goini and not have to think twice about it? I would say maybe... People have been breeding the ugly creamsicle "corn" for years, and the new line of real albino emoryi seems to be readily accepted.

If you asked me whether I thought a hypo brooksi/eastern would prevent a real hypo eastern from finding a place the market, I'd say "probably not". It's a hybrid anyone can do, and it looks a lot more like a brooksi than a getula. I could see someone thinking it was a brooksi and crossing it into an otherwise pure line of brooksi though... Maybe it just needs catchy food name... Banana, Lemon, Tangerine, Butter, Peanut Butter are all taken though... Maybe you could call it the Grapefruit King... Then again, people might get the idea that you're running a fruitstand.

Regardless of its origin, I personally I think a hypo eastern would be unattractive. Purity aside I've never understood the high value placed on new morphs that aren't even pretty! I guess in the end beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

a hypo eastern would be ugly.

>>As far as the Hondurans being crossed you know that fact has been around for a long time.
NO, I don't. Perhaps the rumor has been.

>>Its was on the front page of reptile magazines (the issue and volume # escapes me at the moment)
I'VE cited specific pubs and issues below and have done so here before. How about you searching out that magazine cover you're remembering? If you can't find it, maybe it didn't exist; if you can't find it, maybe you shouldn't cite it; if you CAN find it, maybe it'll contain factual information that could move the discussion forward in a responsible way, even change my mind. If you want your point of view accepted, find that documentation and share it with us.

>> and others here like Steve Osborne and more recently Bart (Horridus) posted that the Hondurans are crossed.
I'm not sure they'd both be happy with the way you've characterized their statements. I had some private exchanges with Horridus after he posted, because i wanted to know more about his opinions. My interpretation is that he knows of hybrids that were sold as pure animals at shows, and he believes for such reasons that almost certainly non-pure animals have been accidentally crossed into Honduran projects over the years. That's not inconsistent with the uncertainty i've referred to elsewhere in this present thread...yeah, it's possible; yeah, it's probably a small issue right now; yeah, it's a deleterious effect and that's one reason why we should not want to see more hybrids of innumerable types pumped into the market. (Bart, if i've mis-stated your views, i apologize, and ask you to correct them here, the preceding is my interpretation of some emails we exchanged).

>>So I am not the only person who has posted this...
If you reported here that alien survivors from a crashed spaceship were examined at Wright Pat Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, you wouldn't be the only person to have said that, either. But that wouldn't make it so.

>>. Why didn't you refute the proof when they posted the facts? You were involved with those threads at the time, but you never gave an argument(?).
ACTUALLY, I've challenged such assertions publicly and privately. My private correspondence with one of those parties leads me to quite a different conclusion about his opinions than the way you've summarized them here.
========================
The only two articles i know about that reported at length on the histories of the various Honduran morphs' origins were Louis Porras' article on albinos, in the Vivarium, Vol 7, No. 5, (it WAS the cover story) and my article in the sept 2002 issue of Reptiles Magazine (the title was teased on the cover). I didn't express my own opinion. Having been a newspaper reporter, editor, and publisher all my life, in my article i reported on statements from sources like Louis Porras and Brian Barczyk who were involved with bringing the two importations of albino "Hondurans" into the U.S. , Bill and Kathy Love on the hypos, David Doherty and Ernie Wagner on the first anerythristics. Louis and Brian disagreed on the albinos' identity originally -- brian thought he was buying polyzona -- but they eventually both concluded brian's were misidentified by a middle man seeking a higher price and that both groups actually came from the same original group of Hondurans. I can't prove they're right. But i'd sure have more confidence in that than in a casual post on a forum. Louis published his findings in a respected reptile magazine. Anyone who thinks there's a diff story might contact Louis and try to reconcile the facts they have (not stories they've heard) with him, or publish their information. I'm content to live with whatever facts can best be backed up.

peace
terry

Terry

Give me some time to track down this article.I don't recall it being the albino article.

In the mean time how can one explain the common knowledge among herpetoculturists that they were crossed? Are you saying this is total rumor started from Brian Barzyc and none others? I am not the only person (though you make it seem) that thinks these were crossed. A lot of folks I talk to think they are and as far as I am aware it has been accepted to be common knowledge.. but nobody makes a big deal about it. Maybe its because the honduran gene covers such a vast area of dry , wet,low / high altitude and valleys leading up to the North coast. They are still nice animals, in no way am I saying they should be devaluated. But their lineage is more varied than any triangulum.

Few points :
Before 1978 all hondurensis where reffered to as polyzona. There was no hondurensis until Williams changed that.

The first albinos have a broken nose ring which is not on normal specimens. However this may be because of the amelanistic gene.

Peter Hawk is the middle man in germany you are reffering to and he acquired albino hondurans from hagenbach (spl?) and other germans that Kelmut and Porras imported.

In the mean time I will see what I can find out and why so many herpetoculturists think they are not pure. Maybe I was confusing Porras albino article with another on hondurans. If there are any doubts you have you should post them here. This type of info NOW has me interested and want to get to the bottom of it.

There isn't much inside but is this the one.Its volume 2 #4 of captive breeding from july 1994.

shannon

article by louis porras vivarium vol 7 issue 5.
I acually have one of the snakes here in my collection thats in that article.The super dark female on the bottom of page 36.
Shes w/c from Nicaragua.

shannon

>>There isn't much inside but is this the one.Its volume 2 #4 of captive breeding from july 1994.
>>
>>shannon
>>

Shannon, is there good evidence in that article that the hondos are hybrids?
terry

Shannon, is there good evidence in that article that the hondos are hybrids?
terry

Terry I never said that the Honduran artricle were hybrids but crosses and purity (check my posts again). A hybrid is a result of two different species like like Lampropeltis X Elaphe. I am working with things like Corndurans (Corn X Honduran) and Jurassics (Honduran X Florida king X Calif King)but I have also done crosses with subspecies that intergrade naturally and I think that is what has Keith up in arms about the getula.
What my original post was to Shannon had to do with purity and what is natural.

Ya! the Captive Breeding magazine may have been it. It was definetly not the Porras article in Vivarium.
I distinctly remember it had the Central American milksnake listed as a cross between differnt triangulum. So since it says Central American Milksnake on the cover maybe that is it.

>Give me some time to track down this article

ok. that'll be useful. also, rainer, if you'd like, email me your mailing address and i'll send you a photocopy of the whole vivarium article. But I'm gonna quote a pertinent excerpt at the top of the MILKSNAKE forum, start a new thread, where this issue really belongs, and perhaps the excerpt will suffice.
=============
>>In the mean time how can one explain the common knowledge among herpetoculturists that they were crossed?
a) it's not common knowledge, and b) even if it were, explaining it is not as important as reviewing the facts of the matter.
>>...A lot of folks I talk to think they are (crossed) and as far as I am aware it has been accepted to be common knowledge..

Well, a few others and i are here trying to broaden your awareness to realize maybe it's not accepted as common knowledge. There's a diff -- an important diff -- between what the majority of the last half dozen people you -- or I -- spoke to thought about an issue, and common knowledge. Either one of us could be interacting with a non-representative group.

You and I face an interesting paradox--in your circle of contacts it's common knowledge they're crossed, and in mine it's common knowledge they're not. In fact, the opinons of "a lot of folks" either one of us talk to is irrelevant. It's an issue of the strength of the evidence to support either opinion, that matters. It's not an issue for a vote, so how many of either of our friends thinks one way or the other doesn't matter much. That's why i'm trying to refer to published reports...they ARE more important than what one person's heard from another person who's heard from another that most people think that it's generally accepted that...
===============
>>They are still nice animals, in no way am I saying they should be devaluated. But their lineage is more varied than any triangulum.

I do know that, Rainer. And I apologize (but just a little) for my aggressiveness on this issue. Perhaps it's just my background as a reporter. That's my bias, ok? But i've talked to a lot of the principals in this "story" here and abroad, and I've asked a lot of questions. I can be obnoxious to some people in that regard probably, asking "how do you know?" or "who else was there and saw that" or--and htis is maybe the most important--ALWAYS harboring a reporter's skepticism, looking for the flaw in a story, the element of self-interest that makes it important to press harder with follow-up questions, and listening carefully for the remarks that don't ring true or expose a contrdiction that must be probed.

So read the excerpt i've posted at the top of the forum, and let me know what you think. I think from that point we can challenge the facts & assumptions more appropriately. I just have a strong distaste for the he said/she said stuff!!

>>
>>Few points :
>>Before 1978 all hondurensis where reffered to as polyzona. There was no hondurensis until Williams changed that.
>>
>>The first albinos have a broken nose ring which is not on normal specimens. However this may be because of the amelanistic gene.
>>
>>Peter Hawk is the middle man in germany you are reffering to
I dont know that and i'm not sure how you can know who i'm referring to, since i don't know, but i'm willing to be educated!
>>and he acquired albino hondurans from hagenbach (spl?) and other germans that Kelmut and Porras imported.
>>
>>In the mean time I will see what I can find out and why so many herpetoculturists think they are not pure. Maybe I was confusing Porras albino article with another on hondurans. If there are any doubts you have you should post them here. This type of info NOW has me interested and want to get to the bottom of it.
The detective work IS fun, isn't it--because it's a quest for the truth, which is not determined by various opinions.

peace
terry

Bluerosy:Peter Hawk is the middle man in germany you are reffering to
Terry D: I dont know that and i'm not sure how you can know who i'm referring to, since i don't know, but i'm willing to be educated!

Bluerosy:Loius Porras told me Peter Hawk was the middle man.

Terry D.: I'm gonna quote a pertinent excerpt at the top of the MILKSNAKE forum, start a new thread, where this issue really belongs, and perhaps the excerpt will suffice.

Bluerosy: But I would still like Shannon to respond about what the Captive Breeding magazine has to say about the "Central American Milksnake".

Bluerosy: I agree this issue needs to be moved to the Milksnake forum and I will be happy to announce any findings and have already replied to your post over there.

Rainer

All it says is that:
this is the first captive bred albino atlantic central american milk snake(lampropeltis triangulum polyzona).Also referred to as the veracruz milk snake.It hatched from what was thought tobe normal parents in 1993.Hatchlings consisted of two albino males and one normal appearing male.The two albino males,owned by Brian H Bareczyk (B.H.B.Enterprises).are part of a captive breeding project that should make this spectacular albino tri-color commercially availible.

Thats all it said.
Now in porrases article he tells that when there was a little investigating it was discovered that the people that first produced the polyzona had bought normal looking(hets)animals from a dealer that had bought them from the hortenbachs when they cut back on there possible hets?
They were sold as polyzona because the dealer thought they looked more like polyzona cause they had a broken snout ring??????????I have seen this in all the neotropical milks myself.

Anyways,Thats what I know?

shannon
p.s. I do remember reading another article about when Brian first got his shipment in?I just can't remember what mag it was in?

shannon

for breeding a double het Licorice stick / Albino Black rat to a leucistic Tx rat........... LOL

Nice lookin snakes Rainer.... hope you have some at your table @ the next Daytona

Dean

While some truly spectacular hybrids have been produced, it is important to remember that the majority of them are ugly, especially from a first-time unrefined breeding. In most cases they are unmarketable. One reason why people like "pure" snakes is because they can easily be distinguished as to what they are. Fans of "pure" snakes seek to perpetuate and refine the snakes' characteristics - not muddy them with cross breeding. Although there are fans of hybrids, there are far more people who prefer "pure" snakes.

Tim

Third Eye

hmmm i've never come across an ugly snake yet , either pure or hybrid...