Reptile & Amphibian Forums

pure this pure that and the funny thing is how exactly pure is a ssp.? especially one like getula that ranges across the whole country? its my theory that all the ssp. groups of getula are genetically the same.
it is also widely accepted that ssp. that range into each other do naturally intergrade, therefore at least to me it shows "relation" to be able to that(otherwise we would find in the wild things like cornXking & gopherXrat,etc,etc,which does happen just not often,,because imho no "relation"so,,,
so i ask the "purist"
Q:is the only reason lg cali doesnt naturally intergrade w/lgg,,, range???
A: yes
Q:well i beleive them to be of the same and just phenotypically changed through their evolutionary journey westward,but still getula??
A: no they are different ssp.and crossing them is WRONG!
Q:how???
A:well?its not natural
Q:well?and what is natural about captive breeding snakes??

it would be nice if it actually went like that but unfortunately some folks just get in a tithey 'bout such thangs

the one question i ask the "purist people" is:
how did the amel gene get into all the ssp. now that currently have it?
sure amels happen in the wild but is it really beleived that l.g.cali,splendida,holbrooki,nigra,fla,getula all came from pure w/c amels?within those ssp. range's?
just seems to me that that amel gene was passed on thru to all the ssp.and that was done thru captive breeding.

i can never get an answer,,,,,,,
maybee this time,,, anyone?????

are babies from this pairing mutts?

thomas davis

Well, I must say that more than one albino cali has been found in the wild, I dont know about other species but Im sure they have been found. I dont agree with crossing cali to Lgg, but I dont see whats wrong with natural intergrades.

Yeah I know of about 4 amel cali kings found in the wild, along w/ a holbrooki or two.
Michael's Place

-----
Michael's Place has updated better caresheets
Helmz777@aol.com
www.freewebs.com/mikesnake

>>just seems to me that that amel gene was passed on thru to all the ssp.and that was done thru captive breeding.

i can never get an answer,,,,,,,
maybee this time,,, anyone?????

Hi Thomas,

It's me again and the one thing that bothers me about this post is that you repeat the same unfounded contention and act like you've never gotten a response to it.

I thought we'd had a thread just a couple weeks ago and people (including me) provided some arguments supporting the idea that SOME of the amel ssp, at least, were not the results of ssp crosses but rather of wild-caught origins, and i thought (again) you conceded as much, as in (i'm paraphrasing) "ok, maybe not all, but some..."

I just think it's irresponsible to post & repost a contention without any support ("just seems to me", you say) AND that seems to me at least to ignore the past responses you HAVE got.

So offer your contention. But don't act like nobody's responded to it before. Better yet, if you've moved to a more centrist position in those earlier threads (as in, ok, maybe not all, but some) isn't it more responsible to make THAT your belief construct and posit THAT contention (i.e., "seems to me like some of the amel ssp might be the result of morph crosses, though not all seem to be" is the more up-front way to present your point of view.

Unless you're more interested in stirring up conflict than you are in considering evidence & other arguments and coming to a logical if temporary conclusion (read: "Hypothesis"

Terry

ps: note that not once in this post have i referred to Gouldian Finches.
oooops!
damn.

It's me again and the one thing that bothers me about this post is that you repeat the same unfounded contention and act like you've never gotten a response to it.

>>well terry im sorry you feel that my post bother you.and are the same unfounded contentions, sure ive had some responses but i dont feel that i acted otherwise??

I thought we'd had a thread just a couple weeks ago and people (including me) provided some arguments supporting the idea that SOME of the amel ssp, at least, were not the results of ssp crosses but rather of wild-caught origins, and i thought (again) you conceded as much, as in (i'm paraphrasing) "ok, maybe not all, but some..."

>>and some may be ,,,but,,, thats about as big of a "may" as "if" they all could be ssp. intergrades created thru captive propogation originating from one lone amel
nobody can say for sure.

I just think it's irresponsible to post & repost a contention without any support ("just seems to me", you say) AND that seems to me at least to ignore the past responses you HAVE got.

>> well terry sorry you feel that way, i think its irresponsible to sell an animal as pure when you dont know if it is or isnt

So offer your contention. But don't act like nobody's responded to it before. Better yet, if you've moved to a more centrist position in those earlier threads (as in, ok, maybe not all, but some) isn't it more responsible to make THAT your belief construct and posit THAT contention (i.e., "seems to me like some of the amel ssp might be the result of morph crosses, though not all seem to be" is the more up-front way to present your point of view.

>>i wasnt aware i had acted like nobodys responded to it?
hows this terry?
maybe not all but some or maybe all nobody knows for sure

Unless you're more interested in stirring up conflict than you are in considering evidence & other arguments and coming to a logical if temporary conclusion (read: "Hypothesis"

>> thats just it i havnt read ANY evidence, your own morph hondos could be "mutt" triangulum, you cannot say that they are pure 100%hondurensis,just like i cant say they are not, unless there are genetic differances within all of the ssp. in the triangulum group nobody can say for sure and thats kinda my point logical or not

Terry

ps: note that not once in this post have i referred to Gouldian Finches.
oooops!

>>rite-on!!!

thomas

Oh Thomas the answers to all your questions are there you just either lack the will to find them or dont know they exist. Kyrsko did genetic research involving the subs of Getula. His genetic research showed there was differences between all the subs. In otherwords they were genetically different !!!! Your "Theory" is nullified by this research so consider the question asked and answered. Also how can you bang Terry for selling animals he doesnt know for sure are pure ??? Why do you have to get personal ??? You are the first guy to cry about someone else doing it . Are you sure all your animals are pure ? You couldnt tell me for sure what the locale of that Eastern you sent me was. How do you know for sure it was an Eastern ? Terry has a history to all his stock and if thats not good enough for you then by all means dont purchase anything from him but please lets stay on topic.

Keith
-----

True, genetic tests have proved getula ssp. to be different. The flip side that you omit however is that testing also proved them to be CLOSELY related! Keep in mind that the definition of a subspecies does not include reproductive isolation. An alternate way of looking at the info is that getula ssp. exist along a continuum of genetic variability that has allowed adaptation into multiple habitats. In this regard the originator of the thread is not incorrect. It’s a view held by many biologists. Frankly, I think the notion that we can deconstruct evolution using genetic testing is a bit of a leap.

I thought that the fact they are closely related was a given hence they are all sub species. Wouldnt you expect that ? The point made by Thomas is that they were genetically identical and thats not the case.

Keith
-----

He did say "genetically the same" didn't he? Still, and I could be wrong, but I don't think he meant identical. As an example you and I might have the "same" genotype but are not genetically "identical".

I guess my point was that the view that there is no such thing as a pure subspecies is a pretty well founded and widely held concept. It isn't mearly the failure of someone to see the big picture.

Tony the word "same" and "identical" are synonymous. Back on topic the one thing that I thought Krysko should have done is see if the Getula from VA and up are that much different than the L.g.g. from the southern states. Seems he went only as far north as N. Carolina. I sent him a shed skin of my Monmouth Co.,NJ animal so hopefully he can use that in future research. I did find it interesting that his research showed that the ancestral animals came from the west.

Keith

>>He did say "genetically the same" didn't he? Still, and I could be wrong, but I don't think he meant identical. As an example you and I might have the "same" genotype but are not genetically "identical".
>>
>>I guess my point was that the view that there is no such thing as a pure subspecies is a pretty well founded and widely held concept. It isn't mearly the failure of someone to see the big picture.
-----

"Tony the word "same" and "identical" are synonymous"

Not always so, you can't ALWAYS replace same with identical and not change your meaning. In this context I think you are wrong Keith and I’m not straying off topic. THE UNDER PINNING OF THESE DISCUSSIONS IS THAT PURITY IS A RELATIVE CONCEPT THEREFORE SEMANTICS MATTER.

If we could define purity then we'd be getting somewhere.

Are you the "same" Tony who once argued that Temporalis should be a sub ? Or was that a different Tony ? I get the feeling you like playing devil's advocate. Do you think all the subs of getula are so close that breeding a Cal to a Eastern King isnt changing the snake itself (the offspring are what then?) Because thats what Thomas is arguing. I mean both are Getula so it doesnt really matter. The only difference is they are on opposite sides of the country and have been seperated for thousands of years. Are you buying into this Tony ? If so help Thomas argue his points and tell me how Florida Kings and Mexican Black Kings are the "same".

Keith
-----

I made the case for subspecific status based on the following definition, “a population or series of populations occupying a discrete range and differing genetically from other geographical races of the same species”. AT THE TIME the piece was written, DNA testing was not in vogue, nor was it considered in my research material. “Genetically different” did not infer a test result but an analysis of phenotype, habitat preference, behavior……. Nowhere did I imply that coastals aren’t related to eastern milks or scarlet kings or what constitutes a pure subspecies.

Also, the piece disproves the devils advocate comment because in it I further wrote, “From this broader perspective, the many races of Triangulum are seen as a continuum, a species bent by physical and biotic elements of diverse ecosystems, and woven like a thread through the tapestry of life.” This seems in keeping with my current thoughts though even if it weren’t, am I not allowed to alter my opinion in the 10 plus years since I wrote the piece? Frankly, I find it more alarming that my ideas haven’t changed much in the intervening years!

Anyway, I perceive evolution as an ongoing process and tend to look at any given species as a whole and examine the relationship of populations to diverse environments. Just because I don’t see things as pure and or static below the species level doesn’t mean I fail to recognize subs.

I'm not saying its right or wrong to breed a Cal king to an eastern. I'm simply saying that from a very real perspective crossing doesn't make the offspring unpure when there is no such thing as a pure subspeices in the first place.

I never said they would be "unpure" plus it depends on your definition of unpure. Im not even talking about purity what Im saying is that a Cal King has enough genetic differences from a Florida King to be considered different subs. Thomas thinks (at least this is my impression of his posts)they are genetically the same thing and maybe God paints em different as peoples taste vary from state to state. The fact is is they are genetically similar and of course that would be the case as they are all Getula but as evolution takes its course they become more and more dissimilar and thats what Krysko showed in his genetic research. I wonder if Thomas thinks that Green Tree Pythons and Green Tree Boas are the same because they look so similar.

Keith
-----

Keith I could be wrong but I think he's just trying to make a point. I viewed it in the context of discussions about Terry's amel easterns from TN. Like who really cares there might be a little nigrita in the wood pile kind of thing.

Tony

Thomas believes you can breed a Florida King to a Cal King and over 5 generations of back breeding to either a Cal or a Florida you can make that line genetically the same as it once was before the two subs were crossed. Thomas' point is that Easterns are genetically the same as Mexican Black Kings and thats my bone of contention. You seemed to agree with him . Do you ?

Keith
-----

I don't know about five generations but yes I believe you can back cross such that in the end the snakes would be indistinguishable from the parent species selected for. Isn't this the very reason Purity guys hate hybridizers so much? Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying the resultant animals would be pure, natural or whatever. I'm just saying that the average Joe wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Given one back crossed to the female of the cross's phynotype even a complete mtdna analysis wouldn't reveil any difference.

Um so the answer is NO. I didnt ask if they could be distinguished thats irrelevant. You kill me you cant even give a straight yes or no you have to add meaningless dialogue.

Keith

>>I don't know about five generations but yes I believe you can back cross such that in the end the snakes would be indistinguishable from the parent species selected for. Isn't this the very reason Purity guys hate hybridizers so much? Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying the resultant animals would be pure, natural or whatever. I'm just saying that the average Joe wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Given one back crossed to the female of the cross's phynotype even a complete mtdna analysis wouldn't reveil any difference.

-----

you don't have to worry about meaningless diologue with me any more.

But you would need something "pure" to backbreed to to get back the look of the "pure" subspecies. Over time it will matter with many species and subspecies because as is already the case many varieties are illegal to collect. So it is best breeders keep track and buyers beware.

Hey Aaron how's it going. You the same Aaron I used to talk with on the milk forum? If so I still can't believe you've gotme saying the only thing that can be pure is locality! Anyway this thread has gotten way out of control. I'm simply supporting the position that because reproductive isolation is not part of what defines a subspecies the notion that they can be pure is a bit of a misnomer. That subspecies as a taxonomic classification is imperfect is not a new idea. Many biologist discount the concept entirely!

Perhaps what I should ask for is the definition of a subspecies. Has it been rewritten to include reproductive isolation? Has someone taken the time the completely describe the pheno and genotypes of each and every discrete population of getula and incorporated this into a new definition? And lastly has it been so well done that we can refer to it every time his Majesty Mr. Hillson vioces his opinion that some posted picture isn't of a "pure" eastern?

I dunno but what's a Jurrasic Milk? There weren't even any albinos in the movie. LOL.

Bad form Tony. I can't believe anyone in this day and age would use that term so flippantly. Ya know, I don't give a plug nickle for some of the "blue blood" stuff I see out there, but give me a naturally occuring intergrade any day and I'm happy! It just blows my mind as to what you find when you least expect it. This splendida/holbrooki found as far south as it was makes me think that 1) range isn't always what is classic textbook and 2) even though these two subs are almost identicle, there habitat choices or "preferences" are worlds apart. Tamaulipan vs. swamp. Geneticly different or same? It's all in the eye of the beholder. Science will forge on and change its mind a few times and we'll all likely be "proven" wrong! LOL!
Todd Hughes

Tony,are you saying there is no such thing as a pure L.g.getula, floridana,holbrooki,nigra ,splendida,nigrita,or californiae?

Tony's quote,"I'm not saying its right or wrong to breed a Cal king to an eastern.I'm simply saying from a very real perspective crossing doesn't make the offspring unpure when there is no such thing as
a pure subspecies in the first place."So Tony,I ask again are you saying that there are no pure L.g.getula,nigra holbrooki,floridana,splendida,nigrita,or californiae.

Since you all seem to want simple answers I'll give you one. Yes I believe there is no such thing as a pure subspecies.

Rashional: Reproductive isolation is not inherent at the subspecific level.

Tony,thank you for your time,I now understand your belief of the impurity of the getula subspecies.I promise not to share your beliefs with anyone.

Hi Tony,

Is it your belief that better (and eventually accepted) nomenclature for getula would be to just call them all "common kings"?

(I'm asking this with no sarcasm or bone to pick, i really wonder if that's where we're headed--not "we" on the forum but "we" meaning snake taxonomy generally).

Help me sort out the possibilities:

if you do believe that, do you think the same about triangulum--will they all someday just be "common milks" despite the sometimes dramatic variations?

Or if you don't think that's the way we're headed, what IS the right way to distinguish within the species--will the common names of today's getula subspecies become simple phenotype labels, describing the "look" of a getula independent of what's known about its geography? Perhaps phenotype and locale will be two different distinguishing characteristics some day?

terry

great to have someone at least understand what im trying to say ,,,,,,, thomas

Q:how can you bang Terry for selling animals he doesnt know for sure are pure ???
A:i wasnt aware i had
Q: Why do you have to get personal ???
A:i dont beleive i did???
>>You are the first guy to cry about someone else doing it .
>wasnt crying,,,and doing what exactly?
Q:Are you sure all your animals are pure ?
A:i am as sure mine are pure as terry is sure his are,ya totally missed the point i was trying to make
Q: You couldnt tell me for sure what the locale of that Eastern you sent me was. How do you know for sure it was an Eastern ?
A:just thru a thourough examination,, can i say 100%,no i cant say its 100%pure, so i ask you,,is it???
>> Terry has a history to all his stock and if thats not good enough for you then by all means dont purchase anything from him but please lets stay on topic.
>i have stayed on topic keith?
,,,,,,,,thomas

Hi Thomas,

We'll have to disagree on what constitutes "evidence" (not proof, just evidence.)

But let me ask you a question, to better understand your position: Do you own ANY snake or do you sell any snakes that you know are 100% pure, that you tell buyers are pure? And if so, could you just pick an example and tell HOW and WHY you believe that, what the evidence is?

I realize you may have a snake or two that you collected personally. I"d argue even that "evidence" could be challenged (i.e., it was a release or escape, etc) but i am interested in whether the real difference between us is that you don't believe ANYTHING is or can be called pure, or whether it is just a disagreement on specific animals.

thanks
terry
=============
>>
>>>> thats just it i havnt read ANY evidence, your own morph hondos could be "mutt" triangulum, you cannot say that they are pure 100%hondurensis,just like i cant say they are not, unless there are genetic differances within all of the ssp. in the triangulum group nobody can say for sure and thats kinda my point logical or not
>>
>>Terry
>>
>>ps: note that not once in this post have i referred to Gouldian Finches.
>>oooops!
>>
>>>>rite-on!!!
>>
>>thomas
>>
>>

We'll have to disagree on what constitutes "evidence" (not proof, just evidence.)

But let me ask you a question, to better understand your position: Do you own ANY snake or do you sell any snakes that you know are 100% pure, that you tell buyers are pure? And if so, could you just pick an example and tell HOW and WHY you believe that, what the evidence is?

>>yes,example would be my prariekings my evidence is that i collected all of mine myself in the heart of l.c.calligaster range,now i recently aquired an amel stripe l.c.c but i do not know the history of this snake any offspring from him will be sold as pure l.c.c just of mixed unknown locales, do i know for a fact he is pure l.c.c?,,no,, but in my experience with l.c.c its my opinion he is pure ,but, i could be wrong.
i beleive it comes down to honesty&experience

I realize you may have a snake or two that you collected personally. I"d argue even that "evidence" could be challenged (i.e., it was a release or escape, etc) but i am interested in whether the real difference between us is that you don't believe ANYTHING is or can be called pure, or whether it is just a disagreement on specific animals.

>>its a disagreement on specific animals, again imho the amel gene was passed thru all the ssp. of getula and this was done in captivity by private breeders for money, imho this is not hybridizing and after 4or5 generations of line breeding you will have a pure ssp.phenotype again well as pure as any ssp. is anyway, i just beleive that when this is done it should be disclosed! allways!!!,but it hasnt been and now we are seeing mystery getula popup in captive colonies of certain ssp.and sometimes these are dismissed as mere abberancies of that particular ssp. abberancies do happen but when this is accepted(breeding of unknown ssp.) we might as well call them all common kingsnakes and dismiss all the subs of getula anyway it comes down to honesty,experience and opinion.
also ftr terry this sure is NOT been meant as anykind of attack on you or your animals it was implied earlier that i was slamming you and yr.animals and i wont it known that that is/was not my intention,,,,,,,,peacethomas

This isn't directed towards anyone in particular but all sides here, including myself, are guilty of beating dead horses.

There is one easy way disprove the assertion however and that is to outcross a few of the amel ssp. In many cases its already been done. The pure albino emory was tested against amel corns and found not to be compatable. I believe the same is true with CA and Speckled kings though the info is a bit more removed so don't quote me

The only problem I see with this is not in the crossing itself but of the potential for producing animals that are at once het for two strains of albino. Given this situation it's possible to breed "double" hets and produce amels without any specific assurance of which genotype they're expressing.

Interestingly this need not be a problem of crossed animals alone. The situation existed with two competing strains of black rats and the potential is also very real for amel boas. Imagine plunking down several thousand for a pair of amel boas only to produce normal phenotypes! Ouch!

Bob Bull

Thomas,you stated that"it's my theory that all the ssp.groups of getula are genetically the same".Your theory is totally false.With in the seven sub-species of getula,there is a difference in color and pattern which is genetically controlled.This is proven fact.I agree there are areas of intergradation with in these groups.You state that cornXking and gopherXrat,etc,etc does happen in the wild,just not often.FALSE,FALSE until you have some serious documentation to prove that.I believe any recent reports of that is only findings of captive hybrids that were released in the wild.If cornXking and gopherXrat naturally hybridize in the wild,I wonder why didn,t S.F.Baird,E.D.Cope,J.E.Holbrook,Leonard Stejneger,A.G.Ruthven,F.N.Blanchard,G.K.Noble and L.M.Kluber describe any of these hybridized morphs in their time.

Maybe they were hiding all this time.

lol

I wouldn't believe for a second that in the wild a kingsnake would intergrade w/ a corn snake, as I've seen how kingsnakes react to other snakes in their enclosures(as prey, not mates), so to me it's 100% unlikely that these 2 species intergraded naturally.

I can believe that at one point or another, an albino eastern kingsnake or two, was found and not documented. Alot of albinos that are found, usually by herpers that don't know what they have, or just people who keep snakes but aren't knowledgeable with them, do not get reported to anyone, and are often kept secret(or maybe it's just that no one finds out). Sshhh

Michael
Michael's Place

-----
Michael's Place has updated better caresheets
Helmz777@aol.com
www.freewebs.com/mikesnake

I think the guys with the white tigers are thinking they were crossed with the white alligators since one of the tigers attacked him.LOL,just a little humor.

You state that cornXking and gopherXrat,etc,etc does happen in the wild,just not often.FALSE,FALSE until you have some serious documentation to prove that.I believe any recent reports of that is only findings of captive hybrids that were released in the wild.If cornXking and gopherXrat naturally hybridize in the wild,I wonder why didn,t S.F.Baird,E.D.Cope,J.E.Holbrook,Leonard Stejneger,A.G.Ruthven,F.N.Blanchard,G.K.Noble and L.M.Kluber describe any of these hybridized morphs in their time.

>>well, thanks for your OPINION mr.ricks my OPINION differs, but back to the amel easterns until i have some serious documentation to prove the amel lgg are not intergrades, i will continue to beleive that they are intergrades.just like the ws holbrooki, obviously that trait came from a crossing w/floridana from which the ws morph has been well documented in.
and why is this done ? ,,,as all things are ,,, for money.
and most likely they(above herpetologist) chose not to describe any hybrids they encountered because they were simply trying to keep confusion down,it is widely accepted in the animal/science comunity that several wild animals often will intergrade outside their own ssp. but they are simply dismissed until certain retained traits in pattern,color etc, come into its own then its classified as its own ssp. or specie.
thomas davis

Mr. Thomas,I would like to say that my opinion is based on fact.The subject here is about wheather or not all getula ssp are all genetically the same,as you have stated that is your theory.Fact is they are definately genetically different.Simple example is obvious to see even for the newest of beginners with kingsnakes.Each species has its own identifying color and pattern which is genetically controlled and also is a contributing factor in classifying these species.This is not my opinion,THIS IS FACT.I post this to you and new-comers who may be searching the forums for educational purposes.I cannot dispute the amel chain king with you because I haven't worked with that project.However,I will say there is a very much greater chance of finding an amel chain in the wild as opposed to finding a kingXcorn or any other hybrid as you say.The early pioneers of herpetology never had a monetary gain to collect for their findings and identifying of reptiles.

Each species has its own identifying color and pattern which is genetically controlled and also is a contributing factor in classifying these species.This is not my opinion,THIS IS FACT.I post this to you and new-comers who may be searching the forums for educational purposes.

>>ok mr tim since we are talking facts then the species lampropeltis getula of which all the SUBspecies have identifying colors and patterns which are contributing factors in classifying these SUBspecies, my opinion is that within the ssp of the getula group there is no REAL differance genetically like in homosapiens the genetic differances in asian people and european people sure there are genetic differances but???, ya seem to miss my point which is the amel gene being passed thru the ssp of the getula group and that being done for $$$ and now those animals are being represented as "pure" when they might not be pure at all
,,,,,,,thomas davis

Thomas,your point in your first post was your theory that all getula ssp are genetically the same.To answer your point there,they are definately not genetically the same and that is fact.Your point kingsXcorn naturally hybridizing in the wild,THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.Your point about the validity of amel chain kings,I cannot agree or disagree with you in that matter due to my lack of knowledge in that project.It is very possible that the amel chain king is valid,I personally do not know.

Thomas,your point in your first post was your theory that all getula ssp are genetically the same.To answer your point there,they are definately not genetically the same and that is fact.Your point kingsXcorn naturally hybridizing in the wild,THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.Your point about the validity of amel chain kings,I cannot agree or disagree with you in that matter due to my lack of knowledge in that project.It is very possible that the amel chain king is valid,I personally do not know.

>>wellwell ok i'll type r-e-a-l s-l-o-w and maybe you'll get what im sayin ,,maybe not, my point tim is that BASICALLY all getula subspecies are genetically the same NOT identically the same but the SAME specie occording to science tim and thats a fact,its my opinion that crossing the subspecies of the getula group is not tainting or ruining the genetic makeup of getula at all,(like w/elaphe,piuophis,etc) i also beleive that this is how the amel gene was spread to all of the getula ssp.and that this was done for $$$ by private breeders, and now those animals are being represented as "pure" ssp. when in fact they may not be pure ssp.at all.
as far as cornXking hybridizing in the wild, i find it funny how you pick one part of my post but seem to disregard the rest,i posted that in response to the pic that rainer(bluerosy) posted of the w/c gopherXking ,,, now do i beleive intergradation happens with elaphe and getula or pituophis and getula in the wild?i beleive it CAN happen, i beleive its been prooven time&time again in captive situations, but no tim i dont beleive it happens often as you seem to think i do, but i do beleive it is possible
,,,,,,,,thomas davis

Thomas why do you even post this question because no matter how many facts or research anybody shows you or Terry's very solid arguements you simply dont open yourself up for the fact your "Theory" is not quite solid. I used to believe Brooksi should be its own sub and I even had theories on it but guess what ? I changed my mind with new research coming out and others opinions etc... Read something seek out the research and then come back with a theory.

Keith
-----

Thomas why do you even post this question because no matter how many facts or research anybody shows you or Terry's very solid arguements you simply dont open yourself up for the fact your "Theory" is not quite solid. I used to believe Brooksi should be its own sub and I even had theories on it but guess what ? I changed my mind with new research coming out and others opinions etc... Read something seek out the research and then come back with a theory.

>>>dude! i have thought about it for years and im sorry but i beleive my theory is pretty solid as are terrys arguments,???isnt that what this forum is for???
where do you get off tryin to tell me go read something?i have and do read everything its kinda my obsession so what? ive posted my theory by all means argue its validity but dont talk down to me keith
,,,,,,,
.......................thomas

So you have read Kyrsko's research papers and Blaney's paper ? and after reading that you know more than those guys because they actually did the research looked at specimens etc... but they are wrong because why ??? Your hunch ??? I give up on this its like arguing with a fence post.

Keith
-----

Q:So you have read Kyrsko's research papers and Blaney's paper ?
A:yes i have
Q:and after reading that you know more than those guys because they actually did the research looked at specimens etc... but they are wrong because why ??? Your hunch ???
A:i dont beleive i ever stated they were wrong?or that i know more than them?
I give up on this its like arguing with a fence post.
i will take that last comment as a compliment,thank you keith,now will you please add something constructive or simply not post you obviously have your views and obviously they are that mine dont mean anything and thats ok w/me your opinion doesnt really mean anything to me either,,,,,,,,,,,,thomas

Your point kingsXcorn naturally hybridizing in the wild,THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

There are some pretty well documented cases. One will soon make a pretty big slash. In any case there is no sufficient evidence if you simple dismiss such findings as CB hybrids that have escaped or been released.

I don't believe there is solid proof of cornsXkings or any other such hybrid NATURALLY occurring in nature.Those type of breedings defy nature.It is pure ignorance that causes people to believe in these supposedly natural occuring hybridazations but will not believe in a wild caught amel eastern.

Tony,If there are well documented cases of natural occurring kingsXcorns or the like, as you say, THEN POST THEM,don't just say you know of them POST THEM,or at least tell us where to find this info.If Thomas proves the amel easterns to be hybrids[which I doubt he will}then there will also be proof that hybrids are released to the wild and someone else finds them.

Most cases have been done to death and you don't believe them so I don't see the point. BTW I'm not speaking specifically of kingXcorn crosses but of hybrids in general.

The one case that I would like to bring out I am not at liberty to do but when it does come out, soon I hope, it will predate your all hybrids are released captive-bred animals theory.

I believe it can happen but my point before is its probably etremely RARE with the chances of in this day and age of man made hybrids its more likely that a found in the wild hybrid has as much if not more chance of being an escapee rather than a natural case of hybridization.

Probable fact one, there are more Hybrids in captivity than in the wild. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Probable fact 2, Snakes escape from peoples homes by the droves every year. Do you agree or dissagree ?

So is the criterea for a Hybrid being a natural occurence how far from civilization its captured from?
-----

"my point which is the amel gene being passed thru the ssp of the getula group and that being done for $$$ and now those animals are being represented as "pure" when they might not be pure at all"

Keith FINALLY said something that prompted me to follow this other sub thread. From your last, your point seems to be antagonistic. If what you've been saying is true (and I believe to a large degree it is even if your choice of words hasn't been the best)what would be the big deal if Terry's easterns are natural integrades or man made crosses?

LOL I knew it you dont read the freakin thread. What the hell are you talking about sub threads ??? the whole thing is a thread off Thomas' original post. Do you just read the middle and the ends of books as well ?

Keith
-----

I was following the sub thread after Terry's post. There are a few people I read here you Terry Rainer but not all.

Keith FINALLY said something that prompted me to follow this other sub thread. From your last, your point seems to be antagonistic.
>>sorry it wasnt meant to be antagonistic
If what you've been saying is true (and I believe to a large degree it is even if your choice of words hasn't been the best)what would be the big deal if Terry's easterns are natural integrades or man made crosses
>>there is no "big deal" other than someone working w/locality easterns, and even then it wouldnt much matter at least to me i beleive if they were manmade crosses as long as it was w/getula no matter the ssp. its still getula and that after 4or5 generations the cali or whatever ssp of getula used in original cross, could/would be bred out resulting in a 'pure' lgg as pure as any ssp phenotype is anyway, my problem is people doing this(i stress i am not accussing terry or anyone else)for $$$ and not revealing the fact that differant ssp were used to acheive the end result
i do beleive the natural ssp.phenotypes of getula should be kept pure but also i dont beleive crossing them is tainting the getula genetics as some folks do,,,,,,,and as far as choice of words,,oilwell,,,,,,,,,,,thomas

Thomas,your accusations about the white-sided projects tells me that you didn't do any research before you commented on them.Have you done any research on the amel chain king.