Reptile & Amphibian Forums

These seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a hybrid, intergrade etc...among some on this board so as promised below, here is an attempt to clear up some of the rules of classification. First let me state that I am not an academic, I am just a guy that finds these things interesting.

Binomial classification is the standard way to desribe species. This system was formulated by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1700's as an attempt to put species into some meaningful order so that biological relationships could be more easily understood. With this system the genus is capitalized and is the first name (Lampropeltis for example). The second name is in lower case and is the species name (getula for example). In the case of the Lampropeltis species complex where there are a number of subspecies a trinomial is used to descibe these subspecies (nigra for example) which is also lower case. The original type that is first descibed by science is known as the nominate form. For example, with king snakes the eastern was described first and is known as Lampropeltis getula getula.It should be remembered that the subspecies concept is one that is weakly defined by some criteria. For instance, there is a push by some to eliminate subspecies all together since there is little that separates members of a species flock from one another genetically. Personally I think all this DNA analysis is only a piece of a much larger puzzle and I am still inclined to follow the biological species concept to a large degree. In the classical sense a hybrid would be the resulting cross of two full species. Lets say L.getula x L.calligaster for example. Where two subspecies ranges naturally merge together there is an intergradient population. The animals in these intergrade zones represent very unique populations that could be viewed as naturally occuring groups of animals that have characteristics of both subspecies involved. An example would be L.g.holbrooki x L.g.splendida where these two forms overlap. So the question is how would us as hobbyist descibe the unnatural cross of two subspecies of kings? Technically I would not use the term hybrid since in scientific terms this is not correct. As a hobbyist though I can understand this usage as long as we know it is simply used to descibe an animal that is not of natural origin. I think the term intergrade should be reserved for those populations that are actually intergradient in nature as the name implies. Anything other than using this term to decribe a contiguous population of naturally occuring subspecies is not quite accurate since once again this is why this terminology was used in the first place. My preference for desribing unnatural crosses such as L.g.nigra x L.g.floridana would be to refer to them as "muttly's". Okay, just kidding I would describe such snakes as Black King x Florida King crosses. Not intergrades or hybrids. If everyone would apply this simple description it would avoid much confusion. This would at least give an accurate portrayal of what the snakes are and not muddying the water further by calling them either intergrades or hybrids. - Phil

You have put it better than anyone so far has on these forums! Thanks for taking the time and posting something that makes absolute sense!

Referring to a ssp mix as a "cross" would take alot of confusion out of the "hybrid vs. intergrade" discussion.

I just couldnt stomach the thought of someone calling a snake a "man-mad intergrade"!!

Thanks and see you at the meeting tonight
Brian

-----

RATS
1.0 Corn snake "Warpath" (KY locale)
1.0 Black rat snake "Havok" (KY locale)
1.1 Black rat snakes "Reaper and Mystique" (MO locale)
1.0 Albino Black rat snake "Malakai" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Everglades rat snake "Deadpool" (Dwight Good stock)
0.1 Greenish rat snake "Rogue" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Yellow rat snake "Wolverine" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Grey rat snake "Punisher" (White oak phase)(Dwight Good stock)

MILKS
0.0.1 Eastern Milk snake "Cable" (KY locale)
0.0.1 Eastern/Red milk intergrade "Omega Red" (KY locale)
Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

thanks for the Intro to Taxonomy. "MUTTLY" is just the name of my fav. cross-king(L.g.getula-X-L.g.floridana)and now certain people have stolen his name and use to describe other mixed-types sorry for the confusion,LOL!!!

Thanks Phil
So anything crossed below Getula is a technical intergrade Exp Lgg.xLgc even though there is no intergrade zone possible for these two subs. Anything above Getula is a Hybrid. Got it thanks very easy. I also like your idea on nameing manmade "intergrades" as what two subs are involved and calling them crosses, now you just need to make everyone do it so there is no confusion. I elect you to be incharge.LOL Just kidding but it would be nice to have there be some way to control the way people represent there animals other than not buying from them. I would lie to think that everybody on here only buys from god vendors but sometimes you don't know who you are dealing with until to late.
Thanks Again Phil
Jason

>>These seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a hybrid, intergrade etc...among some on this board so as promised below, here is an attempt to clear up some of the rules of classification. First let me state that I am not an academic, I am just a guy that finds these things interesting.
>>
>>Binomial classification is the standard way to desribe species. This system was formulated by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1700's as an attempt to put species into some meaningful order so that biological relationships could be more easily understood. With this system the genus is capitalized and is the first name (Lampropeltis for example). The second name is in lower case and is the species name (getula for example). In the case of the Lampropeltis species complex where there are a number of subspecies a trinomial is used to descibe these subspecies (nigra for example) which is also lower case. The original type that is first descibed by science is known as the nominate form. For example, with king snakes the eastern was described first and is known as Lampropeltis getula getula.It should be remembered that the subspecies concept is one that is weakly defined by some criteria. For instance, there is a push by some to eliminate subspecies all together since there is little that separates members of a species flock from one another genetically. Personally I think all this DNA analysis is only a piece of a much larger puzzle and I am still inclined to follow the biological species concept to a large degree. In the classical sense a hybrid would be the resulting cross of two full species. Lets say L.getula x L.calligaster for example. Where two subspecies ranges naturally merge together there is an intergradient population. The animals in these intergrade zones represent very unique populations that could be viewed as naturally occuring groups of animals that have characteristics of both subspecies involved. An example would be L.g.holbrooki x L.g.splendida where these two forms overlap. So the question is how would us as hobbyist descibe the unnatural cross of two subspecies of kings? Technically I would not use the term hybrid since in scientific terms this is not correct. As a hobbyist though I can understand this usage as long as we know it is simply used to descibe an animal that is not of natural origin. I think the term intergrade should be reserved for those populations that are actually intergradient in nature as the name implies. Anything other than using this term to decribe a contiguous population of naturally occuring subspecies is not quite accurate since once again this is why this terminology was used in the first place. My preference for desribing unnatural crosses such as L.g.nigra x L.g.floridana would be to refer to them as "muttly's". Okay, just kidding I would describe such snakes as Black King x Florida King crosses. Not intergrades or hybrids. If everyone would apply this simple description it would avoid much confusion. This would at least give an accurate portrayal of what the snakes are and not muddying the water further by calling them either intergrades or hybrids. - Phil
-----
Chris Harrison

Nicely said, Phil. It works for me too.

I have a parallel example to your getula ssps. example. Mine is about corn and Great Plains ratsnakes, very long debated as to whether separate species or all ssps. in the corn snake group. Current literature still calls all forms in this group subspecies of the nominate sp. The taxonomic names are in the process of change which complicates things, but I will use the current scientific names (as per my choice). Formly called Elaphe guttata, the corn is now in the genus, Pantherophis, changing the sp. to guttatus for agreeability. So, the nominate ssps. is P. g. guttatus, and the Great Plains rat is broken up into P. g. emoryi, the northern Plains ssps., and P. g. meahllmorum, the southern ssps.

The difference bt. corn and kingsnakes, I think, is that the market has long recognized "crosses" with corns, but I'm not so sure with kings. Some people call a guttatus x emoryi cross a hybrid, and rightfully so, if they follow groups that argue for separate species status. I call guttatus x emoryi a "cross", not recognizing the separate sp. status, because I use the literature to a large degree (preference), and because I believe there are natural intergrades bt. the two ssps. This is one of the reasons I have locality specimans. Some of my localities might be intergrades. Working with the guttatus group also has to do with the exchange of genes bt. Great Plains rats and corns, for me.

So, anyway, here's how I do it, same as you, I believe. If the snake comes from an area where two subspecies meet, and has characteristics of both forms, it is an intergrade. If I put two randomly chosen snakes from two different ssps together artificially, I call it a "cross". If I put two random snakes of different species together, I call it a hybrid. So, a jungle corn (I think that's corn x king) is a hybrid in my book, whereas, a creamsicle corn (g. guttatus x g. emoryi) is a "cross". I know creamsicles have long been called hybrids and I don't mean to stir up that controversy, it's just my example. I believe g. emoryi and g. guttatus are the same species.

I'm not as well versed with L. getula, but I think the "cross" idea will work here too. The kings I find in Santa Cruz Valley, AZ, that have a large amt. of black in them, are natural intergrades bt. splendida and nigrita, and I would present them as such. Splendida also intergrades with the California king, so natural intergrades exit here too. However, if I cross a desert king (splendida) with a Cal king (californiae) from two very different regions, I'd have a californiae x splendida cross, not an intergrade or hybrid.

I know crosses are accepted in the corn snake market place, as long as they are presented as such (with diluted blood), but not by all. Corn snakes are so popular and so many are already out there it doesn't make that big of a difference. But when talking kingsnakes (getula), the market may not be as accepting. I think it will happen though, because common kings are almost as popular as corns. We can't keep crosses, etc, from hitting the market place, but we can help define what's out there and encourage sellers to understand and label their snakes properly and conveniently for the buyers. Eventually I plan to work on a generic kingsnake involving splendida, nigrita, and californiae. I think there's a place for both the specific locale snake and the generic and inbetween. I hope there is.

Didn't mean to ramble this long, but like the topic a lot. Unfortunately, I have to leave for work now. I look forward to more discussion later on...

TC

Terry, I find these types of discussions interesting also. Like you so ably pointed out, the corn snake complex is another group of snakes in which the boundaries are often defined in different ways by hobbyists. I like your interpretation of how these snakes should be defined. I think that in the end classification is a tool that enables us to have a better understanding of the relationships between organisms. By having a standard of how this is applied we all benefit.

I come from the land or tall corn, where hybrids are the result of crossing inbred lines of corn. And I worked in a genetics lab where a monohybrid cross is the cross of two organisms that differ at only one gene locus. So to me, hybrid does not mean just babies from individuals of two species or higher in the taxonomy. I know that puts me a bit out of step with the rest of the herping community.

If "cross" is not qualified, it is the mating of two individuals and the babies from that mating. It usually does not mean just the mating of two subspecies. Adding the qualifier "subspecies" to make "subspecies cross" does mean the mating of individuals of two subspecies. As "cross" has implications of being man-made, I think "subspecies cross" is a good term for crosses between Lampropeltis g. getula and L. g. californiae (for example). And "intergrade" can remain the naturally occuring populations.

IMHO, "hybrid" needs qualification, too. Generic hybrids are produced by crossing individuals from two different genera in the same taxonomic family. Species hybrids are produced by crossing individuals from two species in the same genus. "Subspecies cross" and "subspecies hybrid" are synonyms according to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. But I don't have any problem with using only "subspecies cross" for such snakes.

Paul Hollander

Paul, thanks for logging on to this thread. You make some good points. I think we should qualify our "crosses" and "hybrids" too.

I try to give all the information I can about a form I'm presenting. For instance, I crossed a hypo corn to a Great Plains ratsnake to make a hypo/het guttatus x meahllmorum cross, which I would explain to a buyer (if I sold any). I also would give any locality data, if I had any. When the hets are bred to each other, or to a hypo corn, they can produce hypomelanistic corn x meahllmorum crosses. These types of crosses are usually called "cinnamon corns" in the hobby, which can be a misleading title, if the "cross" information isn't explained. This is a good reason to try to find terms that can be standardized in the hobby which people will use, even those who aren't sure what they have. How many times do you think we have explained to someone what a creamsicle corn is, or how many times has someone bought one thinking it was a pure corn?

These things are bound to happen and I think it's up to the experienced hobbyists to influence the hobby in positive ways. I believe it's our responsibility to give as much information as possible on the animals were putting into the hobby. If I cross two subspecies of getula, I should tell potential buyers what type of cross it is. If I cross two species, I should explain it is a species cross, or hybrid cross, whichever is appropriate. It seems to boil down to, who's responsible? Unfortunately, there's a lot of catchy names out there that don't tell us much, and there's a lot of snakes who's makeups we're totally unaware of. Jungle corn, anyone?

TC

It's good to be aware that hybrid and cross have different definitions depending upon which field they are being used in ie. genetics, farming, etc.
Here is the definition for "intergrade" taken from Stebbins Field Guide to Western Reptiles & Amphibians Third Edition.

INTERGRADE: With reference to subspecies, to gradually merge one subspecies with another through a series of forms that are intermediate in color and/or structure.

So I don't think anything manmade could be considered and intergrade because it's not gradual. Of course animals that are already intergrades in the wild could be reproduced in captivity and still be called intergrades. Maybe there is another field outside of taxonomy with a different definition of "intergrade"?
Herpetoculture is a relatively new field so we are drawing from other fields to make our own terms.

Thanks, Phil.

I think that in the end classification is a tool that enables us to have a better understanding of the relationships between organisms. By having a standard of how this is applied we all benefit.

Exactly! Well put, Phil

Terry

There you go talking like a natural history buff Good post and I agree with you, for what that is worth.
-----
Tim

Exactly!!!
Todd Hughes